United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA530-F-97-002
July 1997
Geosynthetic Clay
Used in Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills
his fact sheet describes new and innovative technologies and products
that meet the performance standards of the Criteria for Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 258).
Geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) represent a relatively new technology (devel-
oped in 1986) currently gaining acceptance as a barrier system in municipal solid
waste landfill applications. Federal and some state regulations specify design stan-
dards for bottom liners and final covers. Alternative technologies are allowed,
however, if they meet federal performance standards. GCL technology is an alter-
native that performs at or above standard federal performance levels.
GCL technology offers some unique advantages over conventional bottom
liners and covers. GCLs, for example, are fast and easy to install, have low
hydraulic conductivity (i.e., low permeability), and have the ability to self-repair
any rips or holes caused by the swelling properties of the bentonite from
which they are made. GCLs are cost-effective in regions where clay is not read-
ily available. A GCL liner system is not as thick as a liner system involving the
use of compacted clay, enabling engineers to construct landfills that maximize
capacity while protecting area ground water.
Before using a GCL in a landfill barrier system, remember there currently are
no standard methods for comparing GCL products or installation systems. In
addition, GCL performance properties, including the ability of GCL liner systems
to effectively prevent landfill leaching, have not yet been firmly established.
This emerging technology is currently in use at a number of sites across the
nation. This fact sheet provides information on this technology and presents
case studies of successful applications.
GCL Technology
Materials
A GCL is a relatively thin layer of processed
clay (typically bentonite) either bonded to a
geomembrane or fixed between two sheets of
geotextile. A geomembrane is a polymeric sheet
material that is impervious to liquid as long as
it maintains its integrity. A geotextile is a woven
or nonwoven sheet material less impervious to
liquid man a geomembrane, but more resistant
to penetration damage. Both types of GCLs are
illustrated in Figure 1. Although the overall
configuration of the GCL affects its perfor-
mance characteristics, the primary performance
factors are clay quality, amount of clay used per
unit area, and uniformity.
Bentonite is an extremely absorbent, granu-
lar clay formed from volcanic ash. Bentonite
attracts positively charged water particles;
thus, it rapidly hydrates when exposed to liq-
uid, such as water or leachate. As the clay
hydrates it swells, giving it the ability to "self-
heal" holes in the GCL. In laboratory tests on
bentonite, researchers demonstrated that a
hole up to 75 millimeters in diameter will seal
itself, allowing the GCL to retain the proper-
ties that make it an effective barrier system.
) Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber.
-------
Figure 1. General Configurations of GCLs
Bentonite Sandwiched Between Two Geotextiles
Geotextile-
Bentonite-
Geotextile-
Bentonite Glued to Geomembrane
Bentonite
Geornembrane
Bentonite is affixed to synthetic
materials in a number of ways to form
the GCL system. In configurations
using a geomembrane, the clay is
affixed using an adhesive. In geotextile
configurations, however, adhesives,
schchbonding, needlepunching, or a
combination of the three, are used.
Although stitchbonding and
needlepunching create small holes in
the geotextile, these holes are sealed
when die installed GCL's clay layer
hydrates. Figure 2 shows cross-section
views of the three separate approaches
to affixing bentonite to a geotextile.
Properties and
Characteristics
An important criterion for selecting an
effective landfill barrier system is
hydraulic conductivity. Before choosing
a barrier system, the landfill operator
should test the technology under con-
sideration to ensure that its hydraulic
conductivity, as well as other character-
istics, are appropriate for the particular
landfill site.
Hydraulic Conductivity
GCL technology can provide barrier
systems with low hydraulic conductivi-
ty (i.e., low permeability), which is the
rate at which a liquid passes through a.
material. Laboratory tests demonstrate
that the hydraulic conductivity of dry,
unconfined bentonite is approximately
1 x 10"6 cm/sec. When saturated, how-
ever, die hydraulic conductivity of ben-
tonite typically drops to less than
1 x 10-' cm/sec.
The quality of the clay used affects a
GCL's hydraulic characteristics. Sodium
bentonite, a naturally occurring com-
pound in a silicate clay formed from
volcanic ash, gives bentonite its distinct
properties. Additives are used to
enhance the hydraulic properties of
clay containing low amounts of sodium
bentonite.
Hydraulic performance also relates
to the amount of bentonite per unit
area and its uniformity. The more ben-
tonite used per unit area, the lower the
system's hydraulic conductivity.
Although the amount of bentonite per
.!;!!?,,, particular ,
GCL, manufacturers .typically use 1
pound per square foot. As a result, the
hydraulic conductivity of most GCL
products ranges from about 1 x 10'!
cm/sec to less than 1 x 10'12 cm/sec.
That is, the permeability of finished
GCL products depends on a combina-
tion of factors, including the type and
amount of bentonite, the amount of
additives, the type of geosynthetic
material, and the product configuration
(i.e., the method of affixing the
geosynthetic to the cky).
Shear Strength and Other
Characteristics
Depending on the particular configura-
tion of the barrier system, GCL tech-
nology can provide considerable shear
strength (i.e., the maximum stress a
material can withstand without losing
structural integrity). In particular, a
geotextile-backed GCL, with bentonite
affixed via stitchbonding, provides
additional internal resistance to shear
in the clay layer. Needlepunching
yields an even stronger, more rigid bar-
rier. In addition, needlepunching
requires the use of a nonwoven geotex-
tile on at least one side. These GCL
configurations provide enhanced inter-
face friction resistance to the adjoining
layer, an important consideration for
landfill slopes.
Both needlepunching and stitch-
bonding, however, tend to increase the
cost of the GCL product. Needle-
punching, in particular, adds to a
GCL's cost, because nonwoven geotex-
tiles are generally more expensive than
woven geotextiles.
Before selecting a final barrier sys-
tem, landfill operators should consider
other important performance charac-
teristics, such as free and confined
swelling (i.e., whether the clay will pro-
vide a uniform barrier) and rate of
creep, which measures the resistance to
barrier deformation.
-------
Testing
GCL configurations for barrier systems
are based on the design specifications
of each specific project. The American
Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) developed standardized labora-
tory tests for assessing mass per unit
area (ASTM D-3776), hydraulic con-
ductivity (ASTM D-5084), arid direct
shear (ASTM D-5321).
Researchers at the Geosynthetic
Research Institute at Drexel University
(in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and the
Geotechnical Engineering Department
at the University of Texas (in Austin)
developed tests to measure shear
strength, as well as confined swelling,
rate of creep, and seam overlap perme-
ability. These test methods have been
adopted by ASTM. Additionally, the
bentonite industry developed a test to
measure free swell (USP-NF-XVII).
Test values for hydraulic conductivity
depend on die degree of effective over-
burden stress around the GCL during
testing. The higher the effective overbur-
den stress, the lower the hydraulic con-
ductivity. "When comparing two different
bentonite products, both must be sub-
jected to the same degree of effective
overburden stress.
Available GCL
Products
Product Types
The following types of GCL products
are currendy available:
Geotextile type:
Bentofixฎ (activated sodium
bentonite as primary ingredient
and affixed by needlepunching
to a woven or nonwoven upper
geotextile and a nonwoven lower
geotextile).
Bentomatฎ (sodium bentonite
as primary ingredient and affix-
ed by needlepunching to a
Clay Bound With Adhesive to
Upper arid Lower Geotextiles
fffffff'J-ffff'J-ffffmfmf.J-mf.f.fmf.fff.f.fmf.f.ff
iVVVW CLAY AND ADHESIVE
Upper Geotextile
Lower Geotextile
Clay Stitchbonded Between
Upper and Lower Geotextiles
Upper Geotextile
Stitchbonded in
Rows
Lower Geotextile
Clay Needlepunched Through
Upper and Lower Geotextiles
Upper Geotextile
Needlepunched
Fibers
Throughout
Lower Geotextile
woven or nonwoven upper geo-
textile and a nonwoven lower
geotextile). ' '
Claymaxฎ (sodium bentonite as
primary ingredient mixed with
water-soluble adhesive and bond-
ed or Stitchbonded to a woven
upper and lower geotextile).
Geomembrane type:
Gundsealฎ (sodium bentonite as
the primary ingredient mixed widi
an adhesive and bonded to a blend
of high density polyernylene and
very low density polyethylene).
Table I lists information on varia-
tions of these product types by manu-
facturer, and Figure 3 presents
cross-section views of these product
configurations.
In general, manufacturers ship GCL
products in rolled sheets ranging from
13 to 18 feet wide and from 100 to 200
feet long. GCLs range in thickness from
0.2 to 0.3 inches.
-------
&;*งฃฃi!i;Lii)งtงgi^.i
Table 1. Principal GCL Products Available in the United States
Manufacturer &c
Product Name
11
Bentofix NS
BentofixWP
Bentofix NW
Upper
Geosynthetica
Lower
Geosynthetica
Bonding Method
Standard Roll
Width x Length
(feet)
Fluid Systems, Inc. (FSI) (Germany)
woven
woven
b
nonwoven
nonwoven
nonwoven
nonwoven
needlepunched
needlepunched
needlepunched
(15.2x100)
(15.2x100)
(15.2x100)
! Colloid Environmental Technologies Company (CETCO) (United States)
Claymax 200R
Claymax 500SP
Claymax 506SP
Bcntomat "ST"
Bentomat "N"
woven
woven
woven
woven
nonwoven
woven
woven
woven
nonwoven
nonwoven
adhered
adhered and stitchbonded
adhered and stitchbonded
needlepunched
needlepunched
(13.83x150)
(13.83 x 150)
(13.83 x 150)
(15.3 x 125)
(15.3 x 125)
j; GS5 Environmental (United States)0
Gundseal HD 20
Gundseal HD 30
Gundseal HD 30
Gundseal HD 60
Gundseal HD 80
Gundseal HD 40
Gundseal HD 60
Gundseal HD 80
d
none
d
none
d
none
d
none
d
none
d
none
d
none
d
none
HDPE=
HOPE
HDPE/VLDPEf
HDPE/VLDPE
HDPE/VLDPE
textured HOPE
textured HOPE
textured HOPE
adhered
adhered
adhered
adhered
adhered
adhered
adhered
adhered
(17.5 x 200)
(17.5 x 200)
(17.5 x 200)
(17.5 x 170)
(17.5 x 150)
(17.5 x 200)
(17.5 x 200)
(17.5 x 200)
smfff
fffi
'St
a These properties vary by product and application.
" Nonwoven layer is scrim (a woven, open-mesh reinforcing fabric made from continuous-filament yarn) reinforced.
c All Gundseal products can be manufactured in 8-foot widths and with leachate-resistant bentonite. Products with
backings that are 40 mils or greater can be manufactured with VLDPE as the lower geosynthetic material.
Can be manufactured with a nonwoven, 0.75-ounce-per-square-yard geotextile as the upper geosynthetic material.
c High density polyethylene.
* Very low density polyethylene.
-------
Installation
Landfill operators can install all available
GCL products much faster and more easily;
than compacted clay liners. Unlike com-
pacted clay liners, however, GCLs are
more susceptible to damage during
transport and installation. Care should
be taken during and after installation to
avoid hydration. Hydration results in
unconfined swelling of the bentonite
and causes the geotextile layers to pull
apart, undermining the integrity of the
GCL configuration.
Manufacturers usually specify indi-
vidual GCL installation procedures.
Basic procedures, however, call for
rolling out the large GCL sheets onto
the site subgrade, which should be
smooth (e.g., free of stones and grade
stakes), well compacted, and dry. Once
installers cover the GCL with soil, the
GCL hydrates by drawing moisture
from the soil. As a result, when laying
out the GCL, installers must allow
enough seam overlap at adjoining
sheets to guard against the potential
opening of the barrier system.
Currently, the recommended amount
of seam overlap and other seaming con-
siderations vary with the particular
GCL product. Thus, installers should
follow the manufacturers instructions
for the particular product.
GCL manufacturers, and some pri-
vate engineering firms, provide training
for GCL installers. Among other con-
siderations, instructions typically
emphasize techniques for minimizing
potential damage to the GCL during
installation. The National Institute for
Certification of Engineering
Technologists in Alexandria, Virginia,
offers a certification program in quality
assurance and quality control inspec-
tion of GCL installations.
Bentofix and Bentomat
^ff.\.\.^..^.^.\.\.\.'
tttttt\v.tt-.tt\*.\*.-ititititฃ&'*f&&*ff'f!-f-
SODIUM BENTONITE
****** V %ซV" *** ****** V ****
V, V. V, V, V.
Claymax 200R
SODIUM BENTONITE
MIXED WITH AN ADHESIVE
'J^J *? ^ " /_ ^ ซ m*ป /i"VIf rf!1ปVj /[/iff -V "V ซV "V W ปV ซV "V "V
**-Mป"-ป"rปป1.ป __!-ป.ปป_ ".M"-------"--_M"-ซ'
Claymax 500SP
-------
i-B!l!llilillii!^ !B!!!l!!!!llll!H
d'5>' - l*J 151
S' l'l";"::-; '' T"
.Research
"<""" -" ..... ' ซ ........... ' ....... i ..... ..... """" ........... ' ."">! ............... "i' ...... ' '' ........ ' ....... " ......... rw ""'
i is ongoing on the slope stabili-
ty of GCLs used in landfill sidewall
i= ..:..::.:.: :. ..jjnji , .:: .. .... ... .;......";;;; =jjiji| .'i; : ; ; .;!.;7ij;..; ;, .';..!
This ejvierging technology requires addi-
tional field and laboratory testing to
further, assess its effectiveness as a
landfill barrier system in terms of the
key performance factors discussed
below. Improved product design and
installation standards must also be
established.
Performance Factors
Further research is needed into the
following key performance factors of
GCLs:
Hydraulic Conductivity
Available data on the hydraulic con-
ductivity of various GCL configura-
tions are gathered exclusively under
laboratory conditions. Data from
field tests should be collected to
establish product design values.
Bearing Capacity
A study by the Geosynthetic
Research Institute provides the basis
for allaying some concerns about the
bearing capacity of hydrated GCLs,
but more research is needed. The
study demonstrated that an adequate
layer of cover soil (according to the
product manufacturers' recommen-
dations)) placed on GCLs during
installation, prevents a decrease in
liner thickness with the application
of a load. Without a sufficient soil
layer, GCLs become compressed,
raising their hydraulic conductivity
(i.e., making them more permeable)
and reducing their effectiveness as a
barrier.
-"applications'to "determine wh'eth'er this
use of GCLs provides sufficient resis-
tance to internal shear and physical dis-
placement. Additional data are needed
to support the preliminary results of a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
field study indicating good stability of
GCL technology following capping
operations. This study mimicked the
construction stresses all four GCL prod-
ucts (see Figure 3) are subjected to dur-
ing capping. Constructed in November
1994, die study site used five plots of
GCL placed at a 3 to 1 slope and eight
plots placed at a 2 to 1 slope. All plots
had a 3-foot-diick soil cap. Researchers
collected information on die soil and
clay moisture of die GCL using internal
probes, and diey measured die GCL for
physical displacement. Results to date
indicate good slope stability for all plots.
Long-Term Reliability
The geotextile or geomembraiie in
GCL products remains durable for
long periods of time.
Freeze and. Thaw Cycles
Freeze and thaw cycles do not affect
GCLs used in landfill bottom liner
applications because these systems are
installed below die frost line. Limited
laboratory data indicate that die
hydraulic conductivity of GCLs is not
affected by freeze and thaw cycles.
Laboratory tests performed on a
bentonitic blanket indicate that
hydraulic conductivity before freezing
of 2 x 10'" cm/sec was unaltered after
five freeze and thaw cycles. Full-scale
field tests still must be conducted, how-
ever, to corroborate the laboratory data,
especially for GCL technology used as
an infiltration barrier in landfill caps.
n,nfcj.^. :, :^.,,:.ป v,.*,,*.*...^^-^*^-:!1;:1':;?;'"^1^ f^fs^sss,
Design and Installation
""Standards
JThe,following issues must be _.
addressed to encourage the further
development of GCL technology as a
landfill barrier system:
Material Properties and Additional
Testing Methods
To allow design engineers to develop
more precise site specifications, a list
of important performance properties
for materials used in GCL products,
as well as minimum performance val-
ues, must be established. Additional
testing procedures must be developed,
and all methods should be standard-
ized to facilitate the realistic compari-
son of different GCL products.
Construction and Installation
Procedures
Standardized practices must be devel-
oped to address GCLs' vulnerability to
the following:
System stress from inclement weather
after installation.
Potential for lack of hydration of
bentonite clay in arid regions.
Punctures in the barrier system
(reducing the barrier potential of
both the clay and the geosynthetics).
System decay caused by biological
intruders, such as burrowing animals
and tree roots (potentially affecting
both the clay and the geosynthetics).
Additionally, a standardized quality
assurance and quality control program
must be developed.
-------
Case Studies
The following case studies illustrate some of the
uses of GCL technology as a barrier system in
landfills. Currently available information from
these sites relates to installation only; long-term
performance is still being assessed. Only one of
the studies concerns the use of GCL technology
in bottom, liner applications, because this use is
relatively new. The other two studies focus on cap
system applications, which represent a slightly
more established use of the technology. The case
studies represent sites in three different geograph-
ic regions and involve three different GCL
products.
GCL Landfill Liner:
Broad Acre Landfill
Pueblo, Colorado
Broad Acre Landfill installed a liner system in 1991
that included:
A 60-mil Gundseal GCL
1 foot of compacted clay
According to landfill operators, the Gundseal
was easy to work with. They installed 200,000
square feet in 1 week. Workers installed the liner
with the bentonite side down (i.e., the geomem-
brane side up). As of February 1996, landfill
officials reported that the liner was functioning
effectively. No releases of leachate have been
detected by the ground-water monitoring
system.
GCL Landfill Cap:
Whyeo Chromium Landfill
Thomaston, Connecticut
During July 1989, Whyco Chromium Landfill
installed a Claymax 200R GCL in a cap system that
included the following (from top to bottom):
6 inches of topsoil
24 inches of earthen material
Geogrid (for tensile strength)
Geotextile
Polyvinyl chloride geomembrane (30-mil thickness)
Claymax
Geotextile
The landfill site occupies 41,000 square feet, and
workers installed the Claymax product in 1 day.
Thus far, the cap is functioning well.
GCL Landfill Cap:
Enoree Landfill
Greenville, South Carolina
In August 1994, the first phase of closure at the
Enoree Landfill involved installing the following
cap system:
6 to 12 inches of new and native soil
18 inches of compacted clay
Bentofix GCL
Enoree staff capped approximately 26 acres of the
landfill in 6 weeks. Landfill officials report that the
cap is functioning effectively.
-------
References
Daniel, D.E, and R.B. Gilbert. 1994. Gcosynthetic Clay Liners for Waste
Containment and Pollution Prevention. Austin, Texas: University of Texas at
Austin. February.
Kocrncr, R.M., and D. Narcjo. 1995. Bearing capacity of hydrated
gcosymhctic day liners. J. Gcotcch. Eng., January:82-85.
Shan, H.Y., and D.E Daniel. 1991. Results of Laboratory Tests on a
Gcoiexiife/Bcmonite Liner Material. Proceedings, Geosynthetics 1991,
Industrial Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, MN, vol. 2,
pp. 517-535.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Effect of FrcczefiThaw on die Hydraulic Conductivity of
Barrier Materials: Laboratory and Held Evaluation. EPA600-R-95-118.
Prepared by Kraus, J.F., and C.H. Benson for the Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory* Cincinnati, OH.
Sources of Additional
Information
ASTM. 1994. ASTM Standards and Other Specifications and Test Methods
on the Quality Assurance of Landfill Dner Systems. ASTM, 1916 Race Street,
Phihdelphia, PA. April.
Daniel. D.E. 1992. Compacted Clay and Geosynthetic Clay Liners. American
Society of Civil Engineers National Chapter Section: Geotechnical Aspects of
Landfill Design. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. January.
Daniel, D.E, and R.M. Kocrner. 1993. Geotechnical Aspects of Waste
Disposal (ch. 18). In: Daniel, D.E, cd., Geotechnical Practice for Waste
Disposal. Chapman and Hall, London.
Eldl, A.W., J. Boschuk, and R.M. Kocrner. Prefabricated Bentonite Clay
Layers. Gcosynthctic Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA.
Estornell, P. 1991. Bench-Scale Hydraulic Conductivity Tests of Bentonitic
Blanket Materials for Liner and Cover Systems. University of Texas at Austin.
August.
Fang, H.Y. 1995. Bacteria and Tree Root Attack on Landfill Liners: Waste
Disposal by Landfill. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 419-426.
Fang, H.Y., S. Pamukcu, and R.C. Chancy. 1992. Soil-Pollution Effects on
Geotextile Composite Walls. American Society for Testing and Materials.
Special Technical Publication 1129:103-116.
Grube, WE., and D.E. Daniel. 1991. Alternative Barrier Technology for
Landfill Liner and Cover Systems. Air and Waste Management Association,
84th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Vancouver, British Columbia,
June 16-21.
Koerner, R.M. 1994. Designing with Geosynthetics. Third ed. Prentice Hall.
McGrath, L.T., and P.D. Creamer. 1995. Geosynthetic clay liner application.
Waste Age Magazine, May:99-104.
Schubert, W.R. 1987. Bentonite Matting in Composite Lining Systems.
Geotechnical Practice for Waste Disposal. American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 784-796.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Compilation of Information on Alternative Barriers for Liner
and Cover Systems. EPA600-R-91-002. Prepared by Daniel, D.E., and P.M.
Estornell for Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. October.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Construction Quality Management for Remedial Action and
Remedial Design Waste Containment Systems. Technical Guidance
Document. EPA540-R-92-073. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Report of Workshop on Geosynthetic Clay Liners. EPA600-
R-93-171. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. August.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Waste
Containment Facilities. Technical Guidance Document. EPA600-R-93-182.
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. September.
U.S. EPA. 1996. Report of 1995 Workshop on Geosynthetic Clay Liners.
EPA600-R-96-149. Washington, DC. June
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(5306W)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE
2-1 MOST COMMON CONTAMINANTS DETECTED AT
CERCLA SITES
2-2 COMMON CONTAMINANTS IN CERCLA SITE
WASTEWATER
4-1 POTW COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
6-1 APPLICABILITY OF PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
7-1 SUMMARY OF CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS OF THE
DISCHARGE TO POTW ALTERNATIVE
10-1 BIOLOGICAL INHIBITION THRESHOLD - INORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
10-2 BIOLOGICAL INHIBITION THRESHOLD - ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
10-3 BIODEGRADABILITY OF COMPOUNDS
10-4 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND SUBCLASSES
11-1 CASE STUDY #1 - CONCENTRATIONS OF
POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN CERCLA SITE
WASTESTREAM
11 -2 CASE STUDY #1 - EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL
FEASIBILITY OF CERCLA WASTESTREAM
DISCHARGE TO IDENTIFIED POTWs
11-3 CASE STUDY #1 - TREATMENT PROCESS AT POTW 4
11 -4 CASE STUDY #1 - MASS BALANCE FOR CERCLA
WASTESTREAM CONTAMINANTS AT POTW 4
11 -5 CASE STUDY #1 - TREATABILITY OF CERCLA
WASTESTREAM AT POTW 4
11 -6 CASE STUDY #1 - PRETREATMENT OPTIONS FOR
CERCLA WASTESTREAM
PAGE NUMBER
2-2
2-3
4-6
6-2
7-3
10-4
10-8
10-17
10-25
11-3
11-5
11-7
11-8
11-11
11-15
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES
11-7
11-8
11-9
11-10
11-11
11-12
11-13
11-14
CASE STUDY #2 - CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTANTS
DETECTED IN CERCLA WASTESTREAM
CASE STUDY #2 - EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL
FEASIBILITY OF CERCLA WASTESTREAM
DISCHARGE TO IDENTIFIED POTWS
CASE STUDY #2 - POTW 2 UNIT OPERATIONS
CASE STUDY #2 - TREATABILITY OF CERCLA
WASTESTREAM AT POTW 2
CASE STUDY #2 - PRETREATMENT OPTIONS FOR
CERCLA WASTESTREAM
CASE STUDY #3 - METALS AND CONVENTIONAL
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
CASE STUDY #3 - ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER
CASE STUDY #3 - SCREENING POTENTIAL POTWS -
CERCLA WASTESTREAM DISCHARGE AND
TREATMENT - EVALUATING TECHNICAL
FEASIBILITY
11-17
11-20
11-21
' 11-22
11-27
11-29
; 11-30
;. 11-32
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
ES-1 PROCESS FOR EVALUATING CERCLA DISCHARGES
TOPOTWs
1-1 PHASED RI/FS PROCESS
1-2 PROCESS FOR EVALUATING CERCLA DISCHARGES
TO POTWs
2-1 CHARACTERIZING THE CERCLA WASTEWATER
DISCHARGE
3-1 EVALUATING POTWs
5-1 OBTAINING POTW LOCAL LIMITS
6-1 PRETREATMENT PROCESS TRAIN FLOW
EQUALIZATION AND PHASE SEPARATION
6-2 PRETREATMENT PROCESS TRAIN METALS
TREATMENT
6-3 PRETREATMENT PROCESS TRAIN ORGANICS
TREATMENT
6-4 PRETREATMENT PROCESS TRAIN POLISHING AND
DISCHARGE
9-1 DETERMINATION OF RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE
STATUS
9-2 DETERMINATION OF GROUND WATER AS RCRA
HAZARDOUS WASTE
10-1 ESTIMATING POTW LOCAL LIMITS
PAGE NUMBER
ES-3
1-2
1-7
2-4
3-2
5-2
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
9-2
9-3
10-2
XI
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this guidance manual is to provide
Feasibility Study (FS) writers, USEPA Remedial
Project Managers (RPMs), state officials, and
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
personnel with the current regulatory framework
and technical and administrative guidance that is
necessary to evaluate the remedial alternative of
discharging wastes from Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) sites to POTWs. This
remedial alternative is to be evaluated and
compared to other alternatives developed in the
FS.
The POTW discharge alternative consists of
discharging untreated or pretreated wastes to a
POTW for treatment and disposal. Aqueous
wastes from CERCLA sites can constitute a
majority of waste treated during remedial
clean-up efforts. These wastes can include
groundwater, leachate, surface runoff, and other
aqueous wastes.
Currently, there are few CERCLA sites with
existing discharges to POTWs. However, at the
sites that have negotiated and implemented a
discharge to a POTW, the success is largely due to
the parties involved possessing a good
understanding of the regulatory requirements and
performing a thorough technical and
administrative evaluation of the remedial
alternative.
USEPA's most comprehensive statement of
policy concerning discharge of CERCLA wastes
to a POTW was presented in a policy
memorandum, "Discharge of Wastewater from
CERCLA Sites into POTWs," dated April 15,
1986. The criteria outlined in the policy that must
be considered for evaluating the feasibility of
discharging CERCLA wastewater to a POTW are
as follows:
The pollutants in the discharged
CERCLA wastewater must not pass
through, interfere, contaminate
sludge, or become hazardous to
employees at the POTW.
The POTW must have legal
authority and enforcement
mechanisms to ensure compliance
with applicable pretreatment
standards and requirements.
The POTW should have a good
record of compliance with its
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permit and pretreatment program
requirements.
The potential for volatilization of
the wastewater contaminants and
the potential for groundwater
contamination from transport of
CERCLA wastewater or
impoundment at the POTW must be
considered.
The CERCLA wastewater
discharge must not violate water
quality standards in the POTW's
receiving waters, including the
narrative standards of "no toxics in
toxic amounts."
The POTW must be knowledgeable
of and in compliance with any
applicable Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) or other
environmental statute
requirements.
ES-1
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The various costs of managing
CERCLA wastewater, including all
risks, liabilities, and permit fees,
should be considered.
The "CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs
Guidance Manual" presents a stepwise approach
to guide the manual user through a comprehensive
evaluation of the discharge to a POTW remedial
alternative, conforming to the USEPA April 15,
1986, Policy Memorandum. The manual is
organized so that the user can systematically
identify and review the various technical,
administrative, and regulatory issues in order to
screen the POTW discharge alternative. If after
the initial screening of the alternative it appears
plausible, sufficient information to perform a
detailed evaluation of the POTW discharge
alternative is included and/or referenced in the
guidance manual.
The remainder of the Executive Summary is a
general overview of the contents of each section of
the guidance manual.
Section 1.0 - Introduction. The introduction
states the purpose of the document and describes
how the material in the guidance manual is
organized to lead the user through a thorough and
expedient evaluation of CERCLA site discharges
to POTWs. Section 1.0 also provides an
overview of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process
and discusses the important issues and criteria that
must be considered during the remedial
alternative evaluation, as well as issues related to
compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs).
In addition to the regulatory framework (NPDES
and Pretreatment) established under the Clean
Water Act (CWA), two USEPA policy
statements require a POTW to comply with
applicable regulations before accepting CERCLA
wastewater. These policy statements (i.e.,
USEPA's Off-site Policy and USEPA's April 15,
1986, policy memorandum entitled, "Discharge
of Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into
POTWs") are also summarized in Section 1.0.
Sections 2.0 through 7.0 discuss the six steps of
the process for analyzing the POTW discharge
alternative. Figure ES-1 also shows major points
discussed in each section.
Sections 8.0 through 10.0 provide additional
information that will assist the RI/FS team during
development and evaluation of the POTW
discharge alternative.
Section 2.0 - Identify and Characterize
CERCLA Wastewater Discharge. To identify
and characterize a CERCLA discharge, the
quantity and quality of the discharge must be
estimated. Section 2.0 describes how to evaluate
the site-specific CERCLA wastewater. Data
collection and evaluation requirements, definition
of the wastestream quality and quantity, and
determination of whether the CERCLA
wastestream is a RCRA hazardous waste are
discussed in this section. If the waste is
considered hazardous, it is subject to RCRA
Subtitle C regulations, and additional constraints
must be considered when determining whether the
waste can be discharged to a POTW. These
constraints may make it more difficult or
impractical to discharge the CERCLA
wastestream to a POTW. Therefore, it is
important to determine early in the RI/FS process,
with confirmation of the lead agency, whether the
wastestream is a RCRA hazardous waste.
Section 3.0 - Identify Potential POTWs. Local
POTWs that may be potential receptors for
CERCLA wastewater need to be identified early
in the FS process. Section 3.0 identifies some of
the important technical and administrative criteria
that should be used to identify potential POTWs.
The economics of transporting the waste (i?e., by
dedicated pipe, truck, rail, or sewer connection) to
a POTW and the compliance history of a POTW
will often serve as a first cut to identify acceptable
treatment facilities.
ES-2
-------
W
in
i
OJ
SECTION 2:
Identify and Characterize
CERCLA
Wastewater Discharge
Identify the site-specific CERCLA
wastewater discharges
Determine data requirements and
collect data to fulfill these
requirements
Evaluate all available data to
. characterize wastewater
Determine if the CERCLA
wastewater is a RCRA hazardous
waste
SECTION 3:
Identify Local POTWs
Determine geographic area to be
considered
If CERCLA wastestream is a
hazardous waste, determine if
Domestic Sewage Exclusion is
appliable. If not, determine Permit -
by - Rule requirements
Consider methods of transporting the
wastestream to the POTW
Identify potential POTWs and gather
information about each facility
SECTION 4:
Involve POTW In the
Evaluation Process and
Screen POTWs
Contact the POTW to determine if
they are willing to accept a CERCLA
wastestream
Investigate the compliance status of
thePOTW
Evaluate the POTWs ability to
handle and properly treat the
CERCLA wastestream '
Evaluate the current permits of the
POTW and determine changes
required and other permits needed
Address and discuss the POTWs
potential liability associated with
accepting a CERCLA wastestream
SECTION 5:
Evaluate Pretreatmenf
Requirements
Pretreatment requirements (local
limits) should prevent pass through,
inhibition, and sludge contamination
at the POTW
Obtain or estimate the local limits
enforced by the POTW to prevent
pass through, inhibition and sludge
contamination
Compare CERCLA discharge
characteristics to local limits to
determine which contaminants
require pretreatment
SECTION 6:
Identify and Screen
Pretreatment Alternatives
Identify possible pretreatment
technologies
Develope a pretreatmenl process
train to properly pretreat the
CERCLA wastestream
SECTION 7:
Detailed Analysis of the
POTW Discharge
Alternative
Evaluate the POTW discharge
alternative using the following nine
criteria:
1. Overall protection of human health
and the environment
2. Compliance:with ARARs
3. Long-term effectiveness and
permanence
4. Reduction of mobility, toxicity, or
volume through treatment
5. Short-term effectiveness
6. Implementability
7. Cost
8. State acceptance
9. Community acceptance
FIGURE ES-1
PROCESS FOR EVALUATING CERCLA DISCHARGES TO POTWs
6098-01
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Domestic Sewage Exclusion (DSE) and the
RCRA permit-by-rule requirements impact the
feasibility of discharging to a POTW. If the
CERCLA waste water is a RCRA hazardous waste
and it must be transported by truck, rail, or
dedicated pipe to a POTW, the POTW is required
to be a RCR A-permitted or RCRA permit-by-rule
facility. However, if the wastewater is discharged
into the sewer system, the DSE may exclude the
POTW from the RCRA requirements. Instead,
these wastes would be regulated under the CWA
pretreatment program.
Section 4.0 - Involve POTWs in the Evaluation
Process and Screen POTWs. This section
emphasizes the importance of establishing contact
with personnel associated with prospective
POTWs early in the FS process. Once a line of
communication has been established, prospective
POTWs can be screened efficiently by asking if
they are willing to accept the CERCLA
wastewater, determining the compliance status of
the POTW, and considering the technical and
administrative feasibility of discharging the
CERCLA wastewater to the POTW.
Section 5.0 - Evaluate Pretreatment
Requirements. Another important step in
evaluating the CERCLA discharge to a POTW is
to determine whether the POTW can adequately
treat the site wastewater or whether pretreatment
is required. This step ensures that the site
discharge will not violate the goals of the National
Pretreatment Program by causing pass through,
inhibition, or sludge contamination at the POTW.
During this step, the POTW's pretreatment limits
must be obtained for each pollutant contained in
the CERCLA waste. If the POTW does not have
limits for each pollutant in the CERCLA waste,
the FS writer and the POTW can derive a
conservative estimate of pretreatment limits.
Section 5.0 also compares pretreatment limits to
the CERCLA site discharge to evaluate whether
pretreatment will be necessary.
Section 6.0 - Identify and Screen Pretreatment
Alternatives. If it is determined that the
CERCLA wastestream requires pretreatment
before discharging to a POTW, Section 6.0
describes how to evaluate and select an
appropriate pretreatment technology. Table 6-1
presents the application of various pretreatment
technologies for the major classes of compounds.
Pretreatment process trains are included for flow
equalization and phase separation, metals
treatment, organics treatment, and polishing and
discharge. Section 6.0 also describes how the
appropriate pretreatment technologies required to
treat the CERCLA waste can be assembled into a
pretreatment train.
Section 7.0 - Detailed Analysis of the POTW
Discharge Alternative. The final phase of an FS
is to perform a detailed analysis of the most
promising remedial options that were identified
during the development/screening of alternatives.
If discharge to a POTW is being considered, the
viability of treating a wastestream at the POTW
needs to be evaluated.
As required in Section 300.430(e)(iii) of the
National Contingency Plan, each remedial
alternative must be evaluated against the
following criteria: 1) overall protection of human
health and the environment; 2) compliance with
ARARs; 3) long-term effectiveness and
permanence; 4) reduction of mobility, toxicity, or
volume through treatment; 5) short-term
effectiveness; 6). implementability; 7) cost; 8)
state acceptance; 9) community acceptance.
Factors that should be considered specifically for
a POTW discharge with respect to each criterion
are listed in Table 7-1.
Section 8.0 - Clean Water Act and the National
Pretreatment Program. This section is a
synopsis of the regulatory framework under
which a POTW must operate. To date, specific
regulations (i.e., categorical pretreatment
standards) governing the discharge of CERCLA
wastes to a POTW have not been promulgated.
However, CERCLA wastes are treated as
nondomestic wastestreams and, therefore, are
subjected to the general pretreatment regulations
ES-4
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
promulgated under the CWA. Similar to other
nondomestic wastestreams, a CERCLA
wastewater discharge to a POTW may not be
accepted if it will cause pass through, interference,
or exceedance of the general pretreatment
regulations, specific prohibitions, or local
pretreatment limits or ordinances.
Section 8.0 presents a brief overview of the
National Pretreatment Program, NPDES
discharge permits, and other applicable
requirements under the CWA. References for
detailed discussion of these regulations are
included in Section 8.0.
Section 9.0 - RCRA Requirements. RCRA
hazardous waste is defined in this section. Two
flow charts were developed to assist the manual
user in determining whether the site-specific
hazardous waste and/or contaminated
groundwater requiring treatment is a RCRA
waste. Exempted wastes are also described in
Section 9.0.
Section 10.0 - Estimate Pretreatment Limits.
In the event that pretreatment limits will have to be
obtained to complete the initial screening and
detailed analysis of the POTW discharge
alternative, a conservative approach to estimate
the limits is presented in Section 10.0. The
procedure requires the FS writer, RPM, state
official, and/or POTW authority to accumulate the
applicable regulatory requirements to evaluate the
acceptable concentrations that can volatilize,
partition to the sludge, and/or pass through the
POTW in the effluent.
A conservative mass balance approach that
focuses on the three principal removal
mechanisms (i.e., volatilization, partitioning to
sludge, and biodegradation) is described to help
the user evaluate the fate and estimate the limits
for each contaminant in the CERCLA waste.
Once the probable fate of each compound in the
POTW has been determined, the impact to each
removal mechanism must be evaluated to
determine whether quality standards will be
exceeded. If it is determined that water, sludge,
and/or air quality standards will be exceeded by
discharging CERCLA wastewater to the POTW,
pretreatment of the CERCLA wastewater will be
required. This mass balance process must be
performed for each regulated pollutant detected in
the CERCLA wastewater.
Section 11.0 - Hypothetical Case Studies.
Three hypothetical case studies provide examples
of how to evaluate the POTW discharge
alternative using the approach presented in the
guidance manual. The case studies were
developed by assigning a wastestream from an
actual CERCLA site, a hypothetical flow rate, and
a USEPA region to three different FS writers with
varying amounts of FS experience. With this
information, each case study writer was free to
choose a specific location of the site within the
assigned USEPA region and begin to make
contacts with the appropriate USEPA, state, and
local POTW authorities.
Appendices - Appendices A and B present two
USEPA policies that may be useful in evaluating
a CERCLA site discharge to a POTW. The two
policies are the USEPA off-site policy (USEPA,
1987f) and the USEPA policy on discharges from
CERCLA sites to POTWs (USEPA, 1986a)
(Appendices A and B, respectively).
Appendix C presents data generated from a
number of published studies on the total percent
removal of specific pollutants in biological
treatment systems. The data, to be used primarily
with Section 10, can be used to obtain an
estimated overall percent removal of specific
compounds.
ES-5
-------
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
-------
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The POTW discharge alternative consists of
discharging untreated or pretreated CERCLA
aqueous wastes to a POTW for treatment and
disposal. To more effectively develop and
evaluate this alternative, the administrative and
technical issues associated with discharging
CERCLA wastewater to a POTW must be clearly
identified.
1.1. THE REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY
(RI/FS) STUDY PROCESS
During an RI/FS, data defining site and waste
characterisitcs are collected and evaluated, and
specific site problems are identified (figure 1-1).
Based on the site characteristics and the potential
risks posed by the site, remedial alternatives are
developed and screened as necessary to focus on
the most promising options, and evaluated in
detail during the FS.
The criteria used to evaluate alternatives are:
Overall protection of human health
and the environment
Compliance with Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs)
Long-term effectiveness and
permanence
Reduction of mobility, toxicity, or
volume through treatment
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State acceptance
Community acceptance
Once the RI/FS is complete, a proposed plan is
prepared identifying EPA's preferred alternative
and made available for public comment. Once
comments have been received and considered,
EPA documents the final selection in a Record of
Decision (ROD). EPA is required under
CERCLA to select remedies that are 1) protective
of human health and the environment; 2) comply
with state and federal requirements that are
ARARs unless a waiver is justified; 3) is
cost-effective; and 4) utilizes permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable.
The development and evaluation of alternatives
involving the discharge to a POTW may require
additional coordination with agencies and POTW
authorities, as well as the technical analyses to
determine whether a POTW can accept the
discharge.
1.2. POLICIES THAT APPLY TO THE
POTW DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVE
Aqueous wastes from CERCLA sites can
comprise a majority of waste treated during
remedial clean-up efforts. This waste can include
groundwater, leachate, surface runoff, and other
aqueous wastes. In addition, the selected remedy
may produce liquid wastestreams that require
remediation. For example, incineration of soil or
solid wastes produces scrubber effluent that must
be treated or disposed.
Currently, aqueous wastes at many CERCLA
sites are either treated on- or off-site at a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facility.
1-1
-------
f
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
FROM:
-PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT
-SITE INSPECTION
-NPL LISTING
' SCOPING
OFTHERI/FS
SITE PLANNING
-COLLECT AND ANALYZE
EXISTING DATA
- DEVELOP SITE
MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY
PROJECT PLANNING
IDENTIFY INITIAL
PROJECT/OPERABLE
UNIT, LIKELY RESPONSE
SCENARIOS &
REMEDIAL ACTION
OBJECTIVES
- INITIATE FEDERAL/
STATE ARAR
IDENTIFICATION
- IDENTIFY INITIAL DATA
QUALITY OBJECTIVES
(DQOs)
- PREPARE PROJECT
PLANS
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
- CONDUCT FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
- DEFINE NATURE AND EXTENT OF
CONTAMINATION (WASTE TYPES,
CONCENTRATIONS, DISTRIBUTIONS)
- IDENTIFY FEDERAL/STATE
CONTAMINANT & LOCATION
SPECIFIC ARARs
-CONDUCT BASELINE RISK
ASSESSMENT
- DEFINE REMEDIAL ACTION GOALS
TREATABILITY
INVESTIGATIONS
- PERFORM BENCH OR PILOT
TREATABILITY TESTS AS
NECESSARY
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
- IDENTIFY POTENTIAL
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES.
CONTAINMENT/DISPOSAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR
RESIDUALS OR UNTREATED
WASTE
-SCREEN TECHNOLOGIES
- ASSEMBLE TECHNOLOGIES
INTO ALTERNATIVES
- IDENTIFY ACTION-SPECIFIC
ARARs
- SCREEN ALTERNATIVES
AS NECESSARY
TO REDUCE NUMBER
SUBJECT TO DETAILED
ANALYSIS
- PREPARE AN
APPROPRIATE RANGE OF
OPTIONS
DETAILED ANALYSIS
OF ALTERNATIVES
- FURTHER REFINE
ALTERNATIVES AS
NECESSARY
- ANALYZE ALTERNATIVES
AGAINST THE NINE CRITERIA
-COMPARE ALTERNATIVES
AGAINST EACH OTHER
TO:
-REMEDY SELECTION
- RECORD OF DECISION
-REMEDIAL DESIGN
-REMEDIAL ACTION
SOURCE USEPA RI/FS GUIDANCE (USEPA, 1988c)
FIGURE 1-1
PHASED Ri/FS PROCESS
5307-830
-------
INTRODUCTION
However, another alternative for effective
treatment of CERGLA wastewaters may be to
discharge them to one of the 15,000 POTWs in the
U.S. Because many POTWs have excess capacity
and may be capable of treating some CERCLA
wastewater discharges, such an alternative may be
the most cost-effective method of disposal.
Before a CERCLA wastestream can be
discharged to a POTW, many legal, technical, and
administrative issues must be considered and
evaluated. In addition to the requirements under
federal environmental statutes, particularly the
Clean Water Act (CWA), two USEPA policies
affect the POTW discharge alternative:
(1) USEPA's Procedures for Planning and
Implementing Off-site Response Actions (40
CFR ง300.440 upon promulgation), and
(2) USEPA's policy memorandum entitled,
"Discharge of Wastewater from CERCLA Sites
into POTWs."
USEPA's Procedures for Planning and
Implementing Off-site Response Actions (40
CFR ง300.440 upon promulgation). USEPA
has developed procedures that must be observed
when a response action under CERCLA involves
off-site management of CERCLA wastes. A
discharge to a POTW is generally considered an
off-site activity, even if CERCLA waste is
discharged to a sewer located on-site (USEPA,
1988a). Therefore, USEPA's Procedures for
Off-site Management of CERCLA Wastes (40
CFR ง300.440 upon promulgation) would
generally apply to a discharge of CERCLA waste
to a POTW.
Prior to proposing 40 CFR ง300.440, USEPA
issued "Guidance on the Requirements for
Selecting an Off-site Option in a Superfund
Response Action" in January 1983. This first
guidance required a facility inspection and that all
major violations at the facility be corrected in
order for the facility to receive CERCLA wastes
from remedial or removal actions. In May 1985,
USEPA issued "Procedures for Planning and
Implementing Off-site Response Actions" (50 FR
45933), which detailed the criteria for evaluating
the acceptability of facilities to receive CERCLA
wastes.
In 1986, SARA affirmed USEPA's 1985 policy
for off-site transfer of CERCLA waste. SARA
Section 121(d)(3) provides that CERCLA
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
may only be transported to a facility operating in
compliance with Section's 3004 and 3005 of
RCRA and other applicable laws or regulations;
Section 121(d)(3) also provided that releases must
be eliminated or controlled at land disposal
facilities in order for those facilities to receive
CERCLA wastes. To implement this SARA
requirement, USEPA issued revised procedures
for implementing off-site response actions on
November 13, 1987, and provided detailed
procedures for issuing and reviewing
unacceptability determinations.
On November 9, 1988, "Procedures for Planning
and Implementing Off-site Response Actions"
were issued as a proposed rule. The general
requirements of the rule are similar to those of
USEPA's previous off-site policy, and will
supersede the policy when finalized. The final
rule, expected to be issued in 1990, will amend the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (40 CFR ง300) by adding a
new Section 300.440.
Generally, this policy requires that an off-site
facility accepting the waste have no relevant
violations, uncontrolled releases, or other
environmental conditions that pose a significant
threat to human health, welfare, or the
environment, or otherwise affect the satisfactory
operation of the facility. The purpose of the rule is
to direct these wastes only to facilities determined
to be environmentally sound and avoid having
CERCLA wastes contribute to present or future
environmental problems.
1-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
Specific criteria are used to determine whether a
facility is acceptable to receive off-site transfers of
CERCLA waste, and to ensure that the waste will
be appropriately managed. The criteria generally
apply to RCRA Subtitle C TSD facilities, and to
other non-RCRA facilities. To the extent that
POTWs have a RCRA permit-by-rule, they may
be considered RCRA treatment facilities;
non-RCRA POTWs are considered "other
facilities." (See 40 CFR ง300.440 upon
promulgation.)
USEPA's Policy Memorandum - Discharges
from CERCLA Sites to POTWs. In this
USEPA memorandum, criteria are outlined that
should be considered in the RI/FS process for
evaluating the feasibility of discharging CERCLA
wastewater to a POTW (USEPA, 1986a). These
criteria were considered when developing the
stepwise evaluation process discussed in
Subsection 1.4. The criteria that must be
considered and the sections of the manual that
address them are as follows:
The quantity and quality of the
CERCLA wastewater (the
constituents in the wastewater must
not cause pass through or
interference, including
unacceptable sludge contamination
or a hazard to employees at the
POTW) (Sections 2.0 and 5.0)
The ability (e.g., legal authority and
enforcement mechanisms) of the
POTW to ensure compliance with
applicable pretreatment standards
and requirements, including
monitoring and reporting
requirements (Subsections 4.2 and
8.1.4) '
The POTW's record of compliance
with its National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit and pretreatment
program requirements to determine
whether the POTW is a suitable
discharge option for CERCLA
wastewater (Subsection 4.2)
The potential for volatilization of
the wastewater contaminants at the:
CERCLA site and POTW and its
impact on air quality (Section 7.0)
The potential for groundwater
contamination from transport of
CERCLA wastewater or
impoundment at the POTW, and the
need for groundwater monitoring
(Section 7.0)
The potential effect of the CERCLA
wastewater on the POTW's
discharge, as evaluated by
continued compliance with the
NPDES permit and by maintenance
of water quality standards in the
POTW's receiving waters,
including the narrative standard of
"no toxics in toxic amounts"
(Section 5.0)
The POTW's knowledge of and
compliance with any applicable
RCRA or other environmental
statute requirements (RCRA
permit-by-rule requirements may
be triggered if the POTW receives
CERCLA wastewaters classified as
"hazardous wastes" without prior
mixing with domestic sewage [e.g.,
direct delivery to the POTW by
truck, rail, or dedicated pipe].
CERCLA wastewaters are not
necessarily considered hazardous
wastes; case-by-case determination
has to be made.) (Subsection 4.2)
1-4
-------
INTRODUCTION
The various costs of managing
CERCLA wastewater, including all
risks, liabilities, and permit fees
(Section 7.0)
To date, few CERCLA sites have discharged
wastestreams to POTWs for treatment. For some
sites, USEPA selected a remedial alternative that
included a CERCLA wastewater discharge to a
POTW; however, it was not implemented because
it was not sufficiently evaluated in the FS. The
reason that these alternatives were not
implemented is that prospective POTWs are
frequently not involved in the FS evaluation
process.
If a discharge is properly evaluated prior to
remedy selection and necessary negotiations are
conducted, the feasibility of discharging to a
POTW can be accurately determined prior to final
selection of the site remedial action (i.e., signing
the ROD). The purpose of this manual is to guide
FS writers, USEPA Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs), state officials, and POTW officials in
evaluating potential discharges to POTWs during
anFS.
1.3. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE
OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR
ง300.430[e]) and SARA Section 121(d)(2)(A)
require that CERCLA remedial actions at least
attain levels or standards of control that are legally
applicable to the contaminant concerned, or are
relevant and appropriate under the circumstances
of the release. Therefore, the POTW discharge
alternative must comply with ARARs, as defined
in the following subsections.
1.3.1. Applicable Requirements
Applicable requirements are those clean-up
standards, standards of control, and other
substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria, or limits promulgated
under federal or state law that specifically address
a hazardous substance/pollutant, contaminant,
remedial action, location, or other circumstance at
a CERCLA site.
1.3.2. Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
Relevant and appropriate requirements (RARs)
are those environmental clean-up standards,
standards of control, and other substantive
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated
under federal or state law. While not
independently applicable to a hazardous
substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial
action, location, or other circumstance at a
CERCLA site, they do address problems or
situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at the CERCLA site, and their use is
well-suited to the particular site, and may be
required under CERCLA. A requirement must be
both relevant and appropriate to be a RAR.
Only substantive requirements of other laws are
considered potential ARARs; permitting and
other administrative requirements are not required
for on-site CERCLA actions (see SARA
121[e][l]). Off-site actions must comply with all
legally applicable requirements, both substantive
and administrative, as well as USEPA's
"Procedures for Planning and Implementing
Off-site Response Actions" (40 CFR ง300.440
upon promulgation). The concept of "relevant
and appropriate" is not pertinent to off-site
actions.
In general, a discharge to a POTW is considered
an off-site activity. Therefore, CERCLA sites are
required to comply with substantive and
procedural requirements of applicable
regulations. If a remedial alternative involves
discharging CERCLA wastewater to a POTW,
1-5
-------
INTRODUCTION
applicable regulations that regulate such a
discharge must be identified and evaluated. The
major applicable regulations that apply to
discharges to POTWs involve regulations
promulgated under the CWA and RCRA.
The CWA, as implemented through the NPDES
permit program, regulates discharges of
pollutants or a combination of pollutants to U.S.
waters from any point source. It requires the
establishment of a permit containing applicable
standards and requirements to control the
discharge of pollutants to U.S. waters. A
discharge to a POTW is considered an indirect
discharge. The General Pretreatment Regulations
(40 CFR ง403) and categorical pretreatment
standards were developed by USEPA to control
the discharge of pollutants into POTWs by
categorical industrial users (e.g., leather tanning
and metal finishing) and other nondomestic
sources. The purpose of the pretreatment
regulations and standards is to prevent the
discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere
with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
POTW. Local pretreatment programs developed
by POTWs under the CWA are responsible for
developing "local limits" on industrial user
discharges to prevent pollutant pass through or
interference, and for enforcing both local and
national pretreatment standards andrequirements.
RCRA deals with specific waste management
activities. The Subtitle C requirements apply to
hazardous waste management and regulate
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous
waste. RCRA requirements may be considered
applicable when discharging RCRA hazardous
waste to a POTW, and may determine how the
waste must be handled (see Subsection 2.2.4 for
discussion of whether CERCLA wastewater is a
RCRA hazardous waste). The specific
requirements of RCRA and CWA regulations and
other ARARs are discussed in Sections 8.0 and
9.0, and throughout this guidance manual.
1.4. GUIDANCE MANUAL
ORGANIZATION
Issues concerning the discharge of CERCLA
wastestreams to POTWs must be carefully
evaluated during the RI/FS. To facilitate this
evaluation, a six-step process was developed to
lead the FS writer through a thorough and
expedient evaluation of CERCLA site discharges
to POTWs. This process was developed
considering the USEPA "Discharge of
Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into POTWs"
memorandum. The evaluation process and the
respective sections that present each step are
shown in Figure 1-2.
Sections 2.0 through 7.0 discuss the six steps of
the process for analyzing the POTW discharge
alternative. The remaining sections of the
guidance manual provide additional information
that will assist the RI/FS team during
development and evaluation of the POTW
discharge alternative.
1-6
-------
SECTION 2:
Identify and Characterize
CERCLA
Wastewater Discharge
Identify (he site-specific CERCLA
wastewater discharges
Determine data requirements and
collect data to fulfill these
requirements
Evaluate all available data to
characterize wastewater
Determine if the CERCLA
wastewater is a RCRA hazardous
waste
SECTION 3:
Identify Local POTWs
Determine geographic area to be
considered
If CERCLA wastesiream is a
hazardous waste, determine if
Domestic Sewage Exclusion is
appliable. If not, determine Permit -
by - Rule requirements
Consider methods of transporting the
wastestteam to the POTW
Identify potential POTWs and gather
information about each facility
SECTION 4:
Involve POTW In the
Evaluation Process and
.. Screen POTWs
Contact the POTW to determine if
they are willing to accept a CERCLA
wastestream
Investigate the compliance status of
IhePOTW
Evaluate the POTWs ability to
handle and properly treat the
CERCLA wastesiream
Evaluate the current permits of the
POTW and determine changes
required and other permits needed
Address and discuss the POTW's
potential liability associated with
accepting a CERCLA wastestream
SECTION 5;
Evaluate Pretreatment
Requirements
Pretreatment requirements (local
limits) should prevent pass through.
inhibition, and sludge contamination
at the POTW
Obtain or estimate the local limits
enforced by the POTW to prevent
pass through, inhibition and sludge
contamination
Compare CERCLA discharge
characteristics to local limits to
determine which contaminants
require pretreatment
SECTION 6:
Identify and Screen
Pretreatment Alternatives
Identify possible pretreatment
technologies
Develope a pretreatment process
train to properly pretrcat the
CERCLA wastestream
SECTION 7:
Detailed Analysis of the
POTW Discharge
Alternative
Evaluate the POTW discharge
alternative using the following nine
criteria:
1. Overall protection of human health
and the environment
2. Compliance with ARARs
3. Long-term effectiveness and
permanence
4. Reduction of mobility, toxicity, or
volume through treatment
5. Short-term effectiveness
6. Implementability
7. Cost
8. State acceptance
9. Community acceptance
6098-01
PROCESS FOR EVALUATING CERCLA DISCHARGES TO POTwI
-------
-------
SECTION 2
IDENTIFY AND CHARACTERIZE
CERCLA WASTEWATER
Section 2:
I Identify and
pharacterizeCERCtA
1 :VVaslewater.
1 Discharae
\.
\
\
Section 3:
Identify
Local POTWs
\
Section 4:
Involve POTW in the
Evaluation Process
and Screen POTWs
Section 5:
Preoeatxnent
Requirements
ป
Section 6:
Pretteatmenl
Alternatives
ป
Section 7:
Detailed Analysis of
the POTW Discharge
Alternative
Identify and Characterize CERCIA
Wastewater Discharge
Identify the site-specific CERCLA
wastewater discharges
Determine data requirements and
collect data to fulfill these requirements
Evaluate all available data to characterize
the wastewater
Determine if the CERCLA wastewater is
a RCRA hazardous waste
-------
-------
2. IDENTIFY AND CHARACTERIZE CERCLA
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
Identification and characterization of a CERCLA
wastewater discharge are the first steps of the
evaluation process shown in Figure 1-1. In these
steps, the FS writer will define the quantity and
quality of the CERCLA discharge, as required by
the US EPA memorandum concerning discharge
toPOTWs. After the wastestream is
characterized, the FS writer should determine
whether it is a RCRA hazardous waste. A RCRA
hazardous waste is defined in Section 9.0.
2.1. IDENTIFY THE CERCLA
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
When scoping the RI/FS, the RI/FS team should
identify wastewater streams that could be
discharged from the CERCLA site to a POTW.
Potential wastewater streams may include
groundwater, leachate, surface runoff, or other
aqueous wastes that exist on-site, or process
streams generated by remedial activities.
Examples of process wastestreams include
scrubber effluent resulting from incineration of
soil or solid waste; wastewater from soil-washing
activities; and water used to decontaminate
equipment after remedial activities.
CERCLA wastewaters originate from a wide
variety of sources, and range from groundwater
with low levels of contamination to heavily
contaminated leachate and storage tank contents.
The types of contaminants vary greatly among
sites and wastestreams. Table 2-1 lists the 18
contaminants most commonly found at CERCLA
sites, including chlorinated and aromatic
organics, as well as metals. Table 2-2 lists the
contaminants commonly found in 15 CERCLA
site wastewaters during 1987-1988 sampling for
the full Industrial Technology Division (ITD) list
of 443 analytes.
2.2. CHARACTERIZE THE CERCLA
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
After the potential wastestream(s) is identified,
the RI/FS team should characterize it in terms, of
quality and quantity. Characterization consists of
the following steps:
Identification of data requirements,
considering data quality and
analytical parameters
Collection of necessary data
Evaluation of data, including
Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) analysis and risk
assessment
Characterization of wastestream
quality and quantity using results of
the data evaluation
These steps are discussed in the following
subsections and shown in Figure 2-1.
2.2.1. Data Requirements
Selecting the level of data quality to be achieved
and the analytical parameters to be investigated
are critical first steps to characterizing a
wastestream. In general, five levels of data
quality are employed in the RI/FS process. The
first level, field-screening data, uses portable
monitoring equipment and provides the most
rapid results; however, it is usually qualitative
rather than quantitative. Field analysis data (the
second level) are generated using mobile
analytical instruments. Depending on the
instruments and environmental conditions, field
analysis data may be either qualitative or
2-1
-------
IDENTIFY AND CHARACTERIZE CERCLA WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
TABLE 2-1
MOST COMMON CONTAMINANTS DETECTED AT CERCLA SITES
Trichloroethylene
Lead
Toluene
Chromium and Compounds
Benzene
Chloroform
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
1,1,1 -Trichloroe thane
Tetrachloroethene
Zinc and Compounds
Cadmium
Arsenic
Phenol
Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Copper and Compounds
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
NOTES:
These contaminants were detected in soil, water, and other media at more than 10 percent of the 888 CERCLA sites for which
chemical data are available.
A more comprehensive table of contaminants detected at CERCLA sites, compiled in October 1986, is in "CERCLA Site
Discharges to POTWs Treatability Manual" (USEPA, 1990).
quantitative. The third, fourth, and fifth levels
involve laboratory analysis, but differ in the
analytical methods, quality control, and validation
procedures used. The third level is laboratory
analysis with less than Contract Laboratory
Program (CLP) quality. The fourth level,
CLP-Routine Analytical Services, is usually used
for CERCLA sites and has more stringent quality
control and validation procedures. The fifth level
is CLP-Special Analytical Services for
nonstandard analytical methods. Because the
quality of the data determines its usefulness, the
category of data quality required for an RI/FS
should be carefully selected. "Data Quality
Objectives for Remedial Response Activities"
contains more guidance on data quality objectives
(USEPA, 1987a).
Analytical parameters should also be carefully
selected when determining data requirements.
Under usual circumstances, CERCLA samples
undergo analyses for those compounds on the
Target Compound List (TCL). The TCL is a list
of 152 volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds (VOCs and SVOCs), pesticides,
polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs), and inorganics
2-2
-------
IDENTIFY AND CHARACTERIZE CERCLA WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
TABLE 2-2
COMMON CONTAMINANTS IN CERCLA SITE WASTEWATER
OKUtacxxmra^. ~ -' - -
Trichloroethylene
Phenol
Acetone
Trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Benzoic Acid
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Benzene
Hexanoic Acid
Chlorobenzene
iMOROANICOO^AltoAisFF ป '" " "
- - ""-
Zinc
Sodium
Manganese
Boron
Iron
Calcium
Barium
Aluminum
Magnesium
Titanium
'FREQUENCY ^ , ^ "1^-
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
FREQUENCY" -
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
12
NOTES: . . -
These contaminants were commonly detected in the wastewaters (groundwater and/or leachate) of 14 CERCLA sites sampled
for the USEPA Industrial Technology Division List of Analytes during a 1987-88 sampling program.
The complete list of compounds detected in the wastewaters of 14 CERCLA sites, the frequency of occurrence, and the
concentration ranges detected is presented in "CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs Treatability Manual" (USEPA, 1990).
2-3
-------
Data Requirements
' - .. :
Determine level ot >
data quality ,
"" % ,- *"" *
Determine analytical
' parameters
"
ment requirements
and NPDES permit
conditions
Data Collection
:- and Evaluation
.Sample and analyize
; wastestream' ^
t - -
Determine if public :
health or environmental
risk is present '
Define Wastestream
Determine quantity
^ of wastestream as a *
- function of time, ;
Determine quality of
-wastestream
Determine if CECL A
wastestream is a RCRA
Hazardous Waste
(See Section 9).
FIGURE 2-1
CHARACTERIZING THE CERCLA WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
6098-01
-------
IDENTIFY AND CHARACTERIZE CERCLA WASTEW ATER DISCHARGE
used in the CLP under CERCLA. In addition,
POTWs usually require information about
conventional and nonconventional pollutants in
the wastestream (e.g., five-day biological oxygen
demand [BOD], chemical oxygen demand
[COD], total suspended solids [TSS],
nitrite-nitrate, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total
phosphorus, oil and grease, total dissolved solids,
color, total sulfides, and pH). Applicable
pretreatment requirements and NPDES permit
conditions should be reviewed while designing
the analytical program.
2.2.2. Data Collection and Evaluation
After the data requirements are determined,
samples of the wastestream should be collected
and analyzed. The data should be validated and
evaluated for precision, accuracy,
representativeness, consistency, and
completeness. In addition, for many CERCLA
wastestreams (e.g., groundwater or surface
water), the RI/FS team must determine whether
the contaminants in the wastestream present a
human health or environmental risk at the site. If
the risk due to exposure to the wastestream is not
considered significant, no remediation of the
wastestream would be required. Risk evaluations
would include study of the ex tent of
contamination, determination of exposure
pathways, assessment of risk, and determination
of the need to remediate the wastestream.
2.2.3. Definition of Wastestream Quality
and Quantity
After the data evaluation is completed, the waste
should be described in terms of quantity and
quality. Quantity should be considered as a
function of time (most POTWs will be interested
in daily average and daily maximum flows and in
batch discharges). Will the wastestream be
generated as a result of a one-time removal action,
or will it continue over time? If it will continue,
for how long, and will the quantity and quality
remain constant? To estimate quality, the RI/FS
team should carefully consider all available data,
and then use that which will be most
representative of the future discharge.
When determining both quality and quantity, the
RI/FS team should carefully evaluate the accuracy
of the data. Accurate identification of specific
compounds and concentrations of compounds
detected is important when trying to determine
whether the POTW is technically capable of
handling and treating the waste. For example, if a
POTW has only 0.1 million gallons per day (mgd)
of available hydraulic capacity and a CERCLA
site wants to discharge 0.075 mgd, the POTW
would be hydraulically capable of accepting the
discharge. However, if the CERCLA site
discharge quantity is only estimated at 50 percent,
that quantity could be as high as 0.12 mgd, which
is greater than the POTW's available capacity.
Similarly, a poor estimate of the CERCLA
discharge water quality could cause biological
interference in the POTW and cause the POTW to
exceed its NPDES discharge limits.
2.2.4. Determine whether CERCLA
Wastestream is a RCRA Hazardous
Waste
After the quality and quantity of the CERCLA
discharge have been adequately characterized, the
RI/FS team (in conjunction with the lead agency)
should determine whether the waste is a RCRA
hazardous waste. If the waste is hazardous, it is
subject to RCRA Subtitle C regulations, and
additional constraints must be considered when
determining whether the waste can be discharged
to a POTW. These constraints may make it more
difficult or impractical to discharge the CERCLA
wastestream to a POTW. Therefore, it is
important to determine early in the RI/FS process,
with the lead agency's agreement, whether the
wastestream is a RCRA hazardous waste. Section
9.0 provides guidance on determining whether a
CERCLA site discharge is a RCRA hazardous
waste.
2-5
-------
-------
SECTION 3
IDENTIFY LOCAL POTWs
Idenity Local POTWs
Determine geographic area to be considered
If CERCLA wastestream is a hazardous wane
determine if Domestic Sewage Exclusion is
applicable, if not, determine Permit-by-Rule
requirements
Consider methods of transporting the
wastestream to the POTW
Identify potential POTWs and gather
information about each facility
-------
-------
3. IDENTIFY LOCAL POTWs
During the RI/FS scoping and site
characterization, local POTWs should be
identified. The first step in identifying candidate
POTWs is to determine the area that should be
considered. After the area is determined, POTWs
within it can be identified.
3.1. IDENTIFY THE AREA OF
CONSIDERATION
There is no rule for determining an area within
which POTWs will be considered; it must be
determined on a site-by-site basis, Many factors
can affect such a determination. For example, if
few alternatives (other than disposal to the
POTW) for remediating the wastestream are
available, a greater area of consideration may be
selected. Because selection of an area of
consideration is site-specific, USEPA or another
authorized agency should be involved with the
selection.
Several factors should be considered when
evaluating POTWs at most sites, including the
following:
If the CERCLA wastestream is
considered a RCRA hazardous
waste, does the Domestic Sewage
Exclusion (DSE) apply to the
discharge of that waste to a POTW?
If the CERCLA wastestream is
considered a RCRA hazardous
waste and the DSE does not apply,
does the POTW meet the RCRA
permit-by-rule requirements?
Is it technically and
administratively feasible to pipe or
truck the CERCLA wastestream to
a local POTW?
These factors are discussed in the following
subsections and a flowchart is presented in Figure
3-1 to show the evaluation process.
3.1.1. Applicability of the Domestic Sewage
Exclusion
To determine the most feasible way to transport
CERCLA waste to a POTW, the FS writer should
consider whether the waste is regulated as a
RCRA hazardous waste and, if so, whether the
DSE would apply to the discharge of that waste to
a POTW.
Under 40 CFR ง261.4, the Domestic Sewage
Exclusion, domestic sewage and any mixture of
domestic sewage and other wastes that flow
through a sewer system to a POTW for treatment
are excluded from the definition of solid waste
and, therefore, would not be considered a
hazardous waste under RCRA. If a known RCRA
hazardous waste is mixed with domestic sewage
and this mixture flows through a sewer system to
a POTW for treatment, the mixture is excluded
from most RCRA requirements. This exclusion is
known as the Domestic Sewage Exclusion.
While the DSE extends to most wastes that reach
POTWs, it does not exempt wastes received
within the POTW's property boundary by truck,
rail, or dedicated pipeline. In addition, hazardous
waste cannot simply be introduced to sewers
outside the POTW property boundary; this would
violate RCRA manifesting regulations. These
regulations require that all hazardous waste must
be transported to designated RCRA facilities (i.e.,
those with RCRA permits). Although DSE
wastes are exempt from most RCRA
requirements, they are subject to applicable
pretreatment standards and requirements under
the Clean Water Act (CWA) (see Section 8.0).
3-1
-------
Is the
'wastestreanf
a RCRA
hazardous
waste?
NO
No RCRA requirements apply.
Wastestream can be trucked or piped
without a RCRA permit
YES
Does the
)omestic Sewage^1
Exclusion apply ?
(I.*, wastestream
Is not transported
vvla truck or dedicated y
pip* to POTW)
YES
Wastestream sent to POTW via sewer
system. No RCRA requirements for
the POTW.
NO
Wastestream is a hazardous waste.
POTW becomes a RCRA Permit - by - Rule
Facility
Does
the POTW
meet RCRA
Permit - by -Rule
Requirements?
NO
POTW must change procedures and/or
operations to meet RCRA Permit - by - Rule
requirements to accept the wastestream.
YES
POTW can accept the wastestream.
FIGURE 3-1
EVALUATING POTWs
6098-01
3-2
-------
IDENTIFY LOCAL POTWs
3.1.2. RCRA Permit-by-RuIe Requirements
for POTWs
If a POTW receives CERCLA wastewater that is
classified as a RCRA hazardous waste and that
waste is not covered by the DSE (i.e., direct
delivery to the POTW by truck, rail, or dedicated
pipe), the RCRA permit-by-rule requirements
will be triggered. These requirements are
summarized as follows:
If a POTW is operating under an
NPDES permit issued before
November 8, 1984 (i.e., the date of
enactment of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments to
RCRA), the following
permit-by-rule requirements under
. 40 CFR ง270.60(c) apply: (1) the
POTW must currently have an
NPDES permit; (2) the POTW must
be in compliance with its NPDES
permit; (3) the POTW must comply
with RCRA regulations regarding
an identification number, use of a
manifest system, identification of
manifest discrepancies, and
reporting requirements; and (4) the
waste received must meet all
federal, state, andlocal
pretreatment requirements that
would apply to the waste if it were
discharged through a sewer, pipe, or
similar conveyance (i.e., the same
pretreatment standards as if the
DSE applied).
If a POTW is operating under an
NPDES permit issued or renewed
after November 8, 1984, it must
comply with the permit-by-rule
requirements discussed in the
preceding paragraph and corrective
action requirements under 40 CFR
ง264.101.
Some POTWs identified as potential receivers of
RCRA hazardous waste may be located so that the
waste must be shipped to the POTW by truck, rail,
or dedicated pipe and discharged. These POTWs
may need to be ruled out as potential discharge
options if they do not comply with the
permit-by-rule requirements; or if they are not
already a RCRA permit-by-rule facility and are
not willing to comply with the additional
requirements for such facilities.
Most POTWs are not RCRA permit-by-rule
facilities because they receive no hazardous
wastes by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe.
Therefore, if the CERCLA wastestream is
considered a RCRA hazardous waste, discharge to
the POTW by such means would create new
obligations for that POTW. The RI/FS team
should consider this issue when determining
whether transport by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe
is feasible and in selecting a reasonable area of
consideration.
3.1.3. Selection of an Appropriate
Transport Technology
There is no rule for determining whether piping,
trucking, or rail transport is the more appropriate
way to transport a CERCLA wastestream to a
POTW. However, several factors can greatly
affect the cost of the transport technology,
including the following:
Area geology and topography
Need to obtain rights-of-way for
road or pipeline construction
Wastestream quality characteristics
(i.e., Is the stream a RCRA
hazardous waste and will the DSE
apply to the discharge of the waste
to a sewer system?)
Distance to the POTW or its
existing sewer lines
3-3
-------
IDENTIFY LOCAL POTWs
Volumes of the CERCLA
wastewater
Viscosity or percent solids of the
CERCLA wastewater
Area geology should be considered; if bedrock is
shallow, it may require removal prior to pipe
placement. Also, topography would determine
whether the liquid could flow by gravity or a
pump would be necessary to force wastewater
through the sewer line. If the piping needs to
extend beyond property boundaries, or roads or
rail lines must be built prior to waste transport,
rights-of-way may be needed beforehand.
3.2. IDENTIFY POTENTIAL POTWs
After transport options have been considered,
POTWs within the area should be identified. In
addition, the authorities that administer the
NPDES program in the appropriate states should
be identified and contacted. This authority will
either be the USEPA regional office or a state
agency. States authorized to administer the
NPDES and pretreatment programs within their
jurisdiction are listed in "CERCLA Site
Discharges to POTWs Treatability Manual"
(USEPA, 1990).
The NPDES authority (state or federal) can help
identify potential POTWs, and can provide
additional information (e.g., the level of
treatment, capacity, operating history, and
collection system) that will be helpful for
screening the POTWs (see Section 5.0). In
addition, USEPA Headquarters generates a
Quarterly Noncompliance Report, which includes
a listing of the POTW facilities that are in
significant noncompliance each quarter. This
document does not list all the facilities that have
violated daily maximum limits; therefore, it
should not be relied upon as a complete
compliance screening tool.
At this stage in the evaluation, the RI/FS team
should compile a list of potential POTWs and the
information available concerning each one.
3-4
-------
SECTION 4
INVOLVE PQTW IN THE EVALUATION
PROCESS AND SCREEN POTWs
Section 2:
Identify and
Characterize CERCLA
Wastewater
Discharge
Section 3:
Identify
Local POTWs
Involve POTW in the Evaluation
Process and Screen POTWs
Contact the POTW to determine if they are
willing to accept a CERCLA wastestream
Investigate the compliance status of the POTW
Evaluate the POTWs ability to handle and
properly treat the CERCLA wastestream
Evaluate the current permits of the POTW and
determine changes required and other permits
needed
Address and discuss the POTW's potential
liability associated with accepting a CERCLA
wastestream
-------
-------
4. INVOLVE POTW IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS AND
SCREEN POTWs
Once potential POTWs have been identified, the
RI/FS team should contact the municipal
authority responsible for technical and
administrative oversight of each POTW to gather
specific information. This information will be
used to screen the list of potential POTWs. The
POTW screening process should consider the
following information:
Whether the POTW is willing to
accept CERCLA discharges
Compliance status of the POTW
The technical feasibility of
discharging the CERCLA
wastewater to the POTW
The administrative feasibility of
discharging the CERCLA
wastewater to the POTW
If possible, screening of POTWs should be
conducted during the site characterization phase
of the RI/FS process. POTW screening and
involvement are discussed in the following
subsections.
4.1. COMPLIANCE STATUS OF POTWs
One factor that should be considered in the initial
screening of a POTW is its compliance status.
USEPA regulations prohibit sending CERCLA
wastewater to POTWs not in compliance with the
Clean Water Act (CWA) and other applicable
laws. Based on review of the POTW's
compliance history, the POTW may be
determined an unacceptable receptor of CERCLA
wastewater. Two USEPA policies previously
described discuss procedures for determining
whether a POTW may accept CERCLA
wastewater: (1) USEPA's Procedures for
Planning and Implementing Off-site Response
Actions (40 CFR ง300.440 upon promulgation),
and (2) USEPA's policy memorandum entitled,
"Discharge of Wastewater from CERCLA Sites
into POTWs."
40 CFR ง300.440 (upon promulgation) describes
procedures that must be observed when a
CERCLA response action involves off-site
management of CERCLA waste. The regulation
prohibits the transfer of CERCLA wastewater to a
POTW if USEPA has information indicating that
there are releases from the POTW that pose a
significant risk to health. Regional off-site
coordinators have been established in each region
to collect available information on the
acceptability status of potential receiving
facilities. In addition, criteria for evaluating
whether to send CERCLA waste specifically to a
POTW are discussed in a USEPA-issued
memorandum entitled, "Discharge of Wastewater
from CERCLA Sites into POTWs." This
memorandum states that full compliance with all
applicable requirements of CWA and RCRA is
necessary (e.g., including monitoring and
reporting requirements).
According to USEPA's policy memorandum, if
the discharge of CERCLA wastes to a POTW is
being considered, the following points pertaining
to compliance status should be evaluated:
The ability (e.g., legal authority and
enforceable mechanisms) of the
POTW to ensure compliance with
applicable pretreatment standards
and requirements, including
monitoring and reporting
requirements
4-1
-------
INVOLVE POTW IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS AND SCREEN POTWs
The POTW's record of compliance
with its NPDES permit and
pretreatment program requirements
The POTW's knowledge of and
compliance with any applicable
RCRA requirements or other
environmental statutes
The potential for groundwater
contamination from transport of
CERCLA wastewater to an
impoundment at the POTW
As stated in the memorandum, POTWs under
consideration as potential receptors of CERCLA
wastewaters may include those POTWs either
with or without an approved pretreatment
program. POTWs with an approved pretreatment
program are required to have mechanisms
necessary to ensure compliance by industrial
users with applicable pretreatment standards and
requirements. POTWs without an approved
pretreatment program must be evaluated to
determine whether sufficient mechanisms exist to
enable the POTW to ensure compliance with
national general pretreatment requirements,
which prohibit discharges that would cause pass
through or interference (i.e., develop, monitor
compliance, and enforce local limits). (The
pretreatment program requirements are discussed
in more detail in Section 8.0.) Therefore, the
POTW must clearly demonstrate that its
operations are in compliance and that it will
continue to operate in an environmentally sound
manner.
If a POTW receives RCRA-defined hazardous
waste in a case when the DSE would not apply, it
is subject to RCRA permit-by-rule facility
requirements. In accordance with the RCRA
requirements, these facilities will be inspected as
appropriate.
To determine the ability of a non-RCRA
permit-by-rule POTW to accept CERCLA waste
when the DSE does not apply, a compliance check
may be performed during the FS by identifying
the POTW's operations and responsibilities (e.g.,
direct discharges, sludge management and
disposal, pretreatment enforcement, and
hazardous waste treatment), and the regulations
applicable to those activities. The checklist in
Table 4-1, which should be used to determine a
POTW's compliance status, includes a synopsis
of potentially applicable requirements. Because
USEPA routinely updates and modifies
regulatory requirements for POTWs, the checklist
should be considered only a preliminary tool for
assessing POTW compliance, to be supplemented
by a review of recent regulatory amendments.
Answers to the compliance checklist questions
may be ascertained through (1) interviews with
the POTW personnel; (2) documents such as the
facility's permit applications and permits; and
(3) file reviews to determine compliance history
at appropriate USEPA and state offices.
The PJ/FS team should use the compliance
checklist as a preliminary guide to determining
whether a POTW is in compliance with applicable
environmental laws. The lead agency should be
involved in this determination, especially because
many of the compliance issues are not clear cut
and require interpretation.
4.2. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
In the first step, the POTW should be screened to
determine whether it can technically accept the
waste. This determination should be made using
information gathered during contacts with the
POTW, as well as information on the quantity and
quality of the CERCLA wastestream. This step
will serve as a screening step prior to further
contact with the POTW. During this
determination, the following questions should be
considered:
Is the POTW willing to accept the
CERCLA discharge?
4-2
-------
INVOLVE POTW IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS AND SCREEN POTWs
Does the POTW have the hydraulic
and organic load capacity to accept
the CERCLA waste?
Are the POTW's unit operations
suitable for treatment of contaminants
in the CERCLA wastestream?
If the CERCLA wastestream will be
discharged to a sewage collection
system, is that system separate from
or combined with the storm drain
system, and will that system provide
proper containment of the
wastestream?
Are there combined sewer overflows
between the site and the POTW?
Are the capacity and age of the sewer
piping system adequate for the
CERCLA discharge flow rate?
Which sludge disposal processes are
currently employed by the POTW?
Is it likely that the POTW could treat
the CERCLA wastestream for the
duration required?
Are there any other technical reasons
why the POTW could not accept the
CERCLA wastestream?
If the RI/FS team, USEPA Remedial Project
Manager (RPM), and POTW authority believe the
POTW is technically capable of accepting the
CERCLA wastestream, the POTW should be
retained for further consideration.
4.3. ADMINISTRATIVE FEASIBILITY
After a POTW is determined to be in compliance
with its NPDES permit, capable of ensuring
compliance with applicable pretreatment standards
and requirements, and technically capable of
accepting the waste, it should be screened to
determine whether acceptance of the CERCLA
waste is administratively feasible. Early in this
preliminary evaluation process, the RI/FS team will
have to determine whether the POTW is willing and
able to accept the CERCLA wastestream. These
negotiations should include the POTW authority
and USEPA and/or state agency representatives,
and the following information should be discussed
with the POTW:
A description of the CERCLA site
history and wastestream
characteristics
A summary of the information about
the POTW and POTW screening
results to date
Based on this information, the POTW authority
must determine whether it is willing to accept the
CERCLA waste and, if so, whether there are any
additional issues the POTW should resolve before
further discussions. If a POTW is willing to accept
CERCLA wastes, the FS writer may wish to include
a member of its staff on the FS technical review
committee.
During the screening of POTWs, several
administrative issues must be considered, such as
obtaining or changing permits, delays associated
with the permitting process, restrictions imposed by
local ordinances, and a POTW's unwillingness to
accept CERCLA wastewater due to potential
liabilities associated with it. These issues are
discussed in the following subsections.
4.3.1. Permitting Process
POTWs are required to notify the regulatory agency
issuing NPDES permits in its state of any new
introduction of pollutants to the POTW by an
indirect discharger (40 CFR ง122.42[b]). If a
CERCLA indirect discharge (to a POTW) contains
a pollutant not previously limited in the POTW's
NPDES permit, the NPDES permit may require
4-3
-------
INVOLVE POTW IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS AND SCREEN POTWs
modifications. Also, the POTWs pretreatment
program may need to be revised to regulate the new
pollutant or increased discharges of previously
limited pollutants. If permitting changes are
substantial, discharging to the POTW may be
deemed inappropriate either because the POTW is
unwilling to have the changes made to its permit or
pretreatment program, or because the changes
cannot be made in a timely manner.
4.3.2. Local Ordinances
Local ordinances should also be reviewed in
evaluating the possibility for discharging CERCLA
wastewaters to POTWs. An ordinance may permit
only domestic discharges to the POTW. The town
where the POTW is located may have contracts to
accept waste only from specific neighboring towns.
The municipality may restrict groundwater or
surface water runoff. Restrictions should be
identified and local officials contacted to determine
whether the restrictions apply to the CERCLA
discharge or whether a variance to the ordinance
may be obtained.
4.3.3. Potential Liability Associated with
Accepting CERCLA Wastes
Another major administrative issue is the liability
associated with accepting CERCLA waste.
Potential liabilities should be identified and
discussed with the POTW during negotiations, and
steps that may be taken to minimize potential
liability.
Under CERCLA, Section 107, whenever there is a
release or threatened release of a hazardous
substance(s), the responsible parties can be held
liable for the costs of cleanup of that release.
Responsible parties may include current owners and
operators of a facility, owners and operators of the
facility at the time of the release, persons who
transported the hazardous substances and selected
the disposal facility, waste generators, and persons
who arranged for disposal or treatment of the
hazardous substances. However, "federally
permitted releases" are not subject to such liabilities
(CERCLA 107[j]).
In the proposed rule for "Reporting Exemptions for
Federally Permitted Releases of Hazardous
Substances" (Federal Register. July 1988), USEPA
clarified this exemption for CERCLA release
liability provisions. Under these proposed
regulations, "federally permitted releases" would
include the following:
Discharges covered by an NPDES
permit, permit application, or permit
administrative record
The introduction of any pollutant into
a POTW when such pollutant is
specified in and in compliance with
pretreatment standards and a
pretreatment program has been
submitted to USEPA for approval
If a categorical pretreatment standard or a local limit
were absent for a specific pollutant, discharge of that
pollutant to a POTW would not be considered a
"federally permitted release" and, therefore, would
not be exempted from CERCLA liability or
reporting provisions according to this proposed
rule. Therefore, the POTW should identify all
possible hazardous substances likely to be received
and establish local limits for these substances. This
will avoid the possibility of non-federally permitted
releases and the associated liabilities.
In addition, to qualify for this exemption, the POTW
must have a local pretreatment program approved
by the approval authority or a state-implemented
pretreatment program approved for the specific
POTW. In addition to liability under CWA, a
POTW would be subject to CERCLA reporting and
liability provisions if its discharge of a hazardous
substance violates its NPDES permit, as defined in
CERCLA Section 102.
It should be made clear to the POTW accepting the
waste that compliance with the requirements of the
proposed rule (and final rule when issued) for
reporting exemptions and compliance with the
4-4
-------
INVOLVE POTW IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS AND SCREEN POTWs
NPDES permit terms and conditions may protect
against liability. Additionally, the POTW may
arrange with a potentially responsible party to cover
any financial liability that may be incurred due to the
POTW accepting a CERCLA wastestream.
4.3.4, Indemnification
Another administrative issue, which is related to
liability and should be discussed with the POTW, is
indemnification. SARA Section 119 authorizes
indemnification from liability to response action
contractors. However, under SARA Section
119(c)(5)(D), indemnification cannot be provided
to facilities regulated under RCRA, including
RCRA permit-by-rule POTWs.
POTWs not subject to RCRA regulations (i.e.,
POTWs without a RCRA permit or permit-by-rule)
are not explicitly prohibited from USEPA
indemnification authority under Section 119.
However, according to the "USEPA Interim
Guidance on Indemnification of Superfund
Response Action Contractors under Section 119 of
SARA" (USEPA, 1987e), USEPA has determined
that an extension of indemnification to any POTW
would not be consistent with Congressional intent in
Section 119. Therefore, USEPA will not provide
indemnification to POTWs under Section 119
authority.
After all potential POTWs have been screened and
the appropriate ones contacted, the RI/FS team
should compile a list of those able and willing to
accept the waste, and issues that would require
resolution.
4-5
-------
O\
TABLE 4-1
POTW COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
(Consult Appropriate Regulations for Amendments and Additions to These Rules)
Direct Discharges
1. Is the POTW in compliance with its
NPDES permit, or has the POTW
been reported in a recent Quarterly
Noncompliance Report (QNCR)?
2. Is the POTW in compliance with
state discharge requirements?
Sludge Management/Hazardous Waste'
Management
3. If the POTW disposes of the sludge
on land, does it violate standards
for PCBs, cadmium, and
pathogens in the sludge?
CWA - NPDES If the POTW discharges wastewater into U.S. waters, an NPDES
Regulations (40 CFR permit is required. Specific requirements include compliance with
ง 122,125) effluent limitations based on secondary treatment requirements and
any water quality standards, establishment of a discharge monitoring
system, and routine reporting of the discharge monitoring results.*
State Discharge
Permit Programs
Some states have permit programs that are part of the NPDES system.
RCRA - Criteria for
Classification of
Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and
Practices (40 CFR
ง257)
These criteria provide guidelines for sludge utilization and disposal
under Section 405(d) of the CWA. To comply with Section 405(e),
the owner/operator of a POTW must not violate these criteria when
disposing of sludge on land. Standards have been promulgated for
pathogens applied to the land surface or incorporated into the soil, and
for cadmium and PCBs when applied to land used for production of
food-chain crops.
* If a POTW is operating under an expired permit, the conditions of the permit normally continue in force until the effective date of a new permit. Most NPDES per-
mits provide for such extensions, unless this would violate state law (in those states authorized to administer the NPDES program). Therefore, a CERCLA site could
-------
TABLE 4-1
(continued)
POTW COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
CONSIDERATION BEFORE^ t :^; KvAPPDICABLE-*,- ' \ป, l r ^ " '
0ISCHARGI?|GTOPOfW' *J^ - .REQUIREMENT V^ '
Sludge Mngmt/Hazardous Waste Mngmt
(continued)
3. (continued)
4. If the pollutants regulated by
NESHAPS are present in the
POTW's sludge, and the sludge is
stored in piles, dried, and/or
incinerated, do the air emissions
violate the standards?
5. If pollutants regulated by National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) are present in the
POTW's sludge, and the sludge is
stored in waste piles and/or
incinerated, do the air emissions
violate the standards?
CAA - National
Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
(NESHAPS) (40 CFR
ง61)
CAA-National
Ambient Air Quality
Standards (40 CFR
ง50)
If the POTW operates its own solid waste disposal facility for sewage
sludge disposal, the solid waste disposal facility must also meet the
general environmental performance standards set forth in 40 CFR
ง257. These criteria currently include sewage sludges from POTWs.
However, USEPA is currently developing specific standards for
managing POTW sewage sludge (40 CFR ง503) (see No. 20), and
may amend Section 257 to exclude POTW sewage sludge from its
requirements.
Windblown particulates, mercury and beryllium, from sludge piles and
stack emissions from sludge incinerators may be regulated by
NESHAPS, depending on the pollutants present and processes
involved.
EPA has promulgated NAAQS for six pollutants: paniculate matter
equal to or less than 10 microns particle size, sulfur dioxide, carbon
monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. These standards are
national limitations on ambient concentration. Different requirements
will be triggered depending on whether the source is located in an
attainment or non-attainment area. The standards only apply to "major
sources" (i.e., emits 250 or more tons of any regulated pollutant per
year).
-------
00
TABLE 4-1
(continued)
POTW COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
Sludge Mngmt/Hazardous Waste Mngmt
(continued)
6. If the sludges contain PCBs greater TSCA - Storage and
than 50 ppm, are they properly Disposal (40 CFR
disposed of? ง761.60 - 761.79)
7. If the POTW incinerates its sludge CAA - Standards of
and is subject to the provisions of
40 CFR ง60, Subpart 0, do the air
emissions violate standards for
paniculate matter and/or opacity?
Performance for
Sewage Treatment
Plants, Standards for
Paniculate Matter (40
CFR ง60.152)
8.
If the POTW incinerates its sludge
and is subject to No. 7, does it
conduct the appropriate air
monitoring?
CAS - Monitoring of
Operations (40 CFR
ง60.153)
Incinerators burning sludges that contain PCBs in amounts greater
than 50 parts per million (ppm) must be in compliance with specific
design and operational requirements of TSCA.
These requirements .apply to sewage sludge incinerators that combust
wastes containing more than 10-percent sewage sludge (dry basis) or
incinerators that charge more than 1,000 kg/day municipal sewage
sludge (dry basis). Facilities under this description must have
commenced construction or modification after June 11,1973, to be
subject to the requirements. A sewage sludge incinerator shall not
discharge into the atmosphere paniculate matter at a rate in excess of
0.65 grams/kg dry sludge input nor any gases which exhibit 20-percent
opacity or greater.
The owner or operator of a sludge incinerator subject to these
provisions must conduct the appropriate monitoring.
-------
VO
TABLE 4-1
(continued)
POTW COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
CONSIDERATIONBEFORE "} APPLICABLE * *! ' *,*
DISCHARGING TO P0TW < -REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT SฅNOPSm
Sludge Mngmt/Hazardous Waste Mngmt
(continued)
9. If the POTW dumps its sludge into
ocean waters, does it violate any
prohibitions, limits, or conditions
set by its permit, or does it contain
any of the constituents at certain
concentrations prohibited from
dumping?
MPRSA - Criteria for
the Evaluation of
Permit Applications
for Ocean Dumping
of Materials (40 CFR
,ง227)
US Code - Title 33,
Navigation and
Navigable Waters
(1989 Cumulative
Annual Pocket Part,
Section 1414b.)
This regulation constitutes the criteria for the issuance of ocean
disposal permits after consideration of the environmental effect of the
proposed dumping operation. Specifically, materials containing the
following constituents, other than trace contaminants, are prohibited
from ocean dumping: organohalogen compounds, mercury and
mercury compounds, cadmium and cadmium compounds, oil, and
known or suspected carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens. In addition,
wastes may only be ocean dumped so as not to exceed the limiting
permissible concentration (LPC).
Section 1414b, ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste
prohibits the issuance of permits to dump sewage sludge at sea, except
to persons who were authorized by a permit or court order. It also
renders it unlawful to dump sewage sludge at sea by any person after
December 31,1991.
-------
TABLE 4-1
(continued)
POTW COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
Sludge Mngmt/Hazardous Waste Mngmt
(continued)
10. Is the POTW sludge and/or
wastewater considered a
hazardous waste?
11. If the POTW generates hazardous
wastes, does it have a USEPA
identification number?
12. Does the POTW properly manifest
its hazardous waste?
RCRA - Standards
Applicable to
Generators and
Hazardous Wastes,
Hazardous Waste
Determination (40
CFRง262.11)
RCRA - USEPA
Identification (40
CFR ง262.12)
RCRA - Manifest
Requirements (40
CFR ง262.20-
262.23)
POTW sludge and/or wastewater may be RCRA hazardous waste if it
exhibits a hazardous characteristic or is derived from the treatment of a
mixture (see 40 CFR ง261.3[a]2) of listed hazardous waste received
by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe and other sewage or waste.
If the POTW produces hazardous wastes, including sludges that are
hazardous, the POTW must notify USEPA of its activities and obtain a
USEPA identification number.
If hazardous waste is shipped off-site, the shipments must be
accompanied by a uniform hazardous waste manifest. The manifest
provides the mechanism for tracking hazardous wastes. A POTW
must also complete manifests as the recipient of hazardous waste sent
to it by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe. The procedures to follow in
using the manifest are outlined in 40 CFR ง262.22 and 262.23.
-------
TABLE 4-1
(continued)
POTW COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
CONSIDERATIONBEFORE
DISCHARGING TO POtW <
Sludge Mngmt/Hazardous Waste Mngmt
(continued)
13. Are hazardous wastes packaged in
the manner prescribed for the
specific material in accordance
with Department of Transportation
(DOT) and RCRA regulations?
14. Are containers holding hazardous
wastes labeled with the labels
prescribed for the material as
specified in DOT and RCRA
regulations?
15. Does the POTW accumulate
hazardous wastes for 90 days or
less before the waste is picked up
by a licensed transporter? If not,
does the POTW generate less than
1,000 kg/month of waste, transport
it more than 200 miles, or have a
RCRA storage permit?
APPLICABLE
BIQWREMENT SYNOPSIS -/,''
RCRA - Pre-transport The POTW must assure that hazardous wastes; are shipped in proper
Requirements (40 containers, are accurately marked and labeled, and the transporter is
CFR ง262.30 - provided with the proper placards.
262.34); DOT
Regulations (49 CFR
ง171-179)
RCRA - Pre-transport
Requirements (40
CFR ง262.30-
262.34); DOT
Regulations (49 CFR
ง171-179)
RCRA - Pre-transport
Requirements (40
CFR ง262.30 -
262.34)
The POTW must assure that hazardous wastes are shipped in proper
containers, are accurately marked and labeled, and the transporter is
provided with the proper placards.
If the POTW accumulates 1,000 kg/month of hazardous wastes on-site
for more than 90 days, the POTW is classified as a hazardous waste
storage facility, and must comply with Sections 264,265, and 270, and
obtain a RCRA storage permit. (This could include a permit-by-rule
under 40 CFR ง270.60[c].) POTWs generating between 100 and
1,000 kg/month of waste can accumulate wastes for 180 or 270 days if
waste must be transported more than 200 miles for treatment and
disposal.
-------
N>
TABLE 4-1
(continued)
POTW COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
DISCHAR0MGTOPQTW *'-' REQtJIREMENT
Sludge Mngmt/Hazardous Waste Mngmt
(continued)
16. Does the POTW properly dispose
of the sludge classified as
hazardous waste?
17. Does the POTW comply with
permit requirements for sludge use
and disposal?
18. Does the POTW comply with ,
permit requirements for sludge use
and disposal?
RCRA - Land
Disposal Restrictions
40 CFR ง268
CWA - Establishing
limitations, standards,
and other permit
conditions (40 CFR
ง122.44)
CWA-
USEPA-administered
Permit Programs:
NPDES (40 CFR
ง122)
M
-------
UJ
TABLE 4-1
(continued)
POTW COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
20. (Compliance question to be
determined upon finalization of
the proposed CWA sludge
regulations.)
CWA - Sewage
Sludge Technical
Standards (40 CFR
ง503)
21. (Compliance question to be RCRA - Solid Waste
determined upon finalization of Disposal Facility
the proposed RCRA - Solid Waste Criteria (40 CFR
Disposal Criteria.) ง258)
V '/; ^ JRBQB^WHMH^^'
Sludge Mngmt/Hazardous Waste Mngmt
(continued)
19. (Compliance question to be CWA - Conditions
determined upon finalization of applicable to all
sewage sludge technical standards.) permits (40 CFR
ง122.41)
Regulations require the POTW to comply with standards for sludge
use or disposal even if the permit has not yet been modified to
incorporate the regulatory requirement. The POTW must take all
reasonable steps to minimize or prevent sludge use or disposal in
violation of the permit. Test procedures may be specified under 40
CFR ง503.
Proposed regulations set sludge technical standards for the use and
disposal of nonhazardous sewage sludge. The proposed standards
address the agricultural and nonagricultural land application,
distribution, marketing, surface disposal, landfilling, and incineration
of sewage sludge. They specify numerical limits or equations for
calculating these limits for 28 pollutants based on public health and
environmental criteria. In addition, these proposed regulations include
management practices and other general requirements pertaining to use
and disposal of sewage sludge.
Under proposed regulations, sewage sludge co-disposed with solid
waste in municipal landfills would be regulated under a new 40 CFR
ง258. These regulations establish various management and operation
requirements including numerical limitations in the form of
groundwater protection standards.
-------
TABLE 4-1
(continued)
POTW COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
Pretreatment
22. Is the POTW violating its NPDES CWA-National
permit and/or sludge use or
disposal requirements as a result
of an indirect discharge?
Pretreatment
Standards -
Prohibited
Discharges (40 CFR
ง403.5(c))
23. Do any industrial discharges violate CWA - Pretreatment
categorical standards for Standards Categorical
discharges to the POTW? Standards (40 CFR
ง403.6)
POTWs are required to develop "local limits" for indirect dischargers
introducing pollutants into thek receptor systems to prevent discharges
of pollutants in amounts sufficient to interfere with or pass through the
POTW. Discharges must not violate:
- the POTW's NPDES permit
- relevant sludge use or disposal requirements, thereby
restricting the POTW's sludge use or disposal practices
- the specific prohibition listed in 40 CFR ง403.5(b)
Enforcement of these prohibitions is a requirement of pretreatment
program approval. Waste must be pretreated to a level that will not
violate these prohibitions.
Categorical Standards specify quantities or concentrations of
pollutants or pollutant properties that may be discharged to a POTW
by existing or new industrial users in specific industrial subcategories,
which have been established as separate regulations under the
appropriate subpart of 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N. Violation of
pretreatment standards may indicate POTW violation of requirements
described in No. 25.
-------
Pretreatment (continued)
24. If required to develop a
Pretreatment Program, has the
POTW developed the program by
the appropriate deadline?
25. Has the POTW enforced the
Pretreatment Program and
properly implemented procedures
to ensure compliance?
TABLE 4-1
(continued)
POTW COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
APPLICABLE
CWA - POTW
Pretreatment
Programs:
Development by
POTW (40 CFR
ง403.8)
CWA - National
Pretreatment
Standards: Prohibited
Discharges (40 CFR
ง403.5)
Any POTW with a total design flow greater than 5 mgd that receives
pollutants from industrial users which pass through or interfere with
operations, or which are otherwise subject to national categorical
pretreatment standards, must establish a Pretreatment Program, unless
the NPDES state exercises its option to assume local responsibility.
Other POTWs may also be required to establish Pretreatment
Programs, upon an appropriate finding of need by USEPA or an
authorized state agency. The deadline for program approval is July 1
1983.
A POTW is required to develop a local pretreatment program and
implement procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements of
the Pretreatment Program, including identifying all nondomestic users
of its system, identifying the character and volume of their discharges,
notifying them of applicable standards, sampling industrial effluents,
conducting inspections, and annually publishing the names of
nondomestic users in significant violation of the Pretreatment Program.
-------
TABLE 4-1
(continued)
POTW COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
Hazardous Waster Treatment
26. If the POTW treats hazardous
wastes, is it permitted under
RCRA, and does it comply with
the permit?
RCRA-
Permit-by-Rule (40
CFR ง270.60)
The owner or operator of a POTW that accepts hazardous waste for
treatment is deemed to have and be in compliance with a RCRA
permit-by-rule if it has an NPDES permit, is in compliance with the
NPDES permit, meets RCRA reporting, manifest, and (for certain
facilities) corrective action requirements. The hazardous waste
received by the POTW meets all federal, state, and local requirements
and, if applicable, the POTW complies with RCRA corrective action
requirements.
-------
SECTION 5
EVALUATE PRETREATMENT
REQUIREMENTS
l Sections:
1 Evaluate
| jPretreatment
1 Requirements
\.
\
Section 6:
Identify and Screen
Pretreatment
Alternatives
Section 7:
Detailed Analysis of
the POTW Discharge
Alternative
Evaluate Pretreatment Requirements
Pretreatment requirements (local limits) should
prevent pass through, inhibition, and sludge
contamination at the POTW
Obtain or estimate the local limits enforced by
the POTW to prevent pass through, inhibition,
and sludge contamination
Compare CERCLA discharge characteristics to
local limits to determine which contaminants
require pretreatment
-------
-------
5. EVALUATE PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
The next step in evaluating the CERCLA
discharge to a POTW is to determine whether
pretreatment is required prior to discharging to a
POTW. This step should be conducted during the
development of alternatives phase of the RI/FS
process. An accurate evaluation of the
pretreatment requirements for the CERCLA
discharge will help ensure that the National
Pretreatment Program objectives are attained (i.e.,
that pass through, interference, and sludge
contamination be prevented at the POTW). In
addition, this evaluation is consistent with the
USEPA policy memorandum concerning
CERCLA discharges to POTWs. The
memorandum requires that the quantity and
quality of the CERCLA wastewater, including the
possibility of pass through, interference, and
sludge contamination, be evaluated. Also, it
requires that the potential effect of the CERCLA
wastewater on the POTW's discharge be
evaluated.
The process for evaluating pretreatment
requirements consists of two activities:
(1) obtaining or estimating local limitations for
the contaminants in the CERCLA discharge; and
(2) comparing the CERCLA wastewater
characteristics against the local limitations and
prohibited discharge standards.
In order to avoid problems that could arise in
treating highly concentrated wastestreams, it may
be more practical to pretreat before discharging to
a POTW.
5.1. OBTAIN OR ESTIMATE POTW'S
LOCAL LIMITS
Local limits will serve as a basis for evaluating
pretreatment requirements. Local limits are
specific requirements developed and enforced by
individual POTWs to prevent pass through and
interference. Such limits may be required for the
CERCLA wastestream contaminants because
uniform federal standards establishing the
required level of pretreatment for CERCLA
wastes being discharged to a POTW are not
currently available (i.e., categorical standards for
CERCLA sites). Rather, these standards must be
determined on a site-specific basis depending on
the compounds present in the wastestream and
their concentrations, the POTW characteristics,
the body of water that will receive the discharge,
POTW sludge disposal practices and
requirements, and/or POTW NPDES permit
requirements.
The POTW may have local limits for all the
contaminants in the CERCLA discharge.
However, it is more likely that the POTW will not
have such limits for all contaminants or that
existing limits may need to be changed based on
the acceptance of the new discharge. If some local
limits do not exist, they must be developed by the
POTW, or estimated by the FS team so that
pretreatment alternatives can be evaluated.
However, if these limits are estimated and the
POTW later agrees to accept the discharge, the
POTW must develop the estimated limits into
enforceable ones (see Section 8.0).
To determine whether local limits can be obtained
from the POTW or must be estimated, the FS team
must contact the POTW. Working with the
POTW authority and/or the agency responsible
for developing local limits, the team should
evaluate the local limits that already exist for
compounds detected in the CERCLA waste and
determine whether others must be developed or
estimated. The flow chart in Figure 5-1 identifies
important points that should be addressed to
evaluate local limits.
As shown in the flow chart, the simplest but most
unlikely scenario would be that the POTW
already has local limits developed for all
compounds detected in the CERCLA waste and
5-1
-------
WILL
THE
PRETREATMENT
AUTHORITY
BE ABLE TO DEVELOP
LOCAL LIMITS
QUICKLY?
DOES
THE POTW
HAVE LOCAL
LIMITS FOR CERCLA
SITE DISCHARGE
CONTAMINANTS
FS WRITER SHOULD
ESTIMATE LOCAL
LIMITS USING THE
APPROACH PRESENTED
IN SECTION 10.1
WILL
THE DISCHARGE
OF CERCLA WASTE
EXCEED LOCAL
LIMITS?
SHOULD
THE LOCAL
MITS BE REVISED
TO ACCOMMODATE
DDITIONAL LOADI
FROM CERCLA
WASTES
WILL
THE POTW
BE ABLE TO
REVISE THE LOCAL
LIMITS QUICKLY
FS WRITER SHOULD
ESTIMATE LOCAL
LIMITS USING THE
APPROACH PRESENTED
IN SECTION 10.1
GO TO FIGURE 10-1
TO ESTIMATE LOCAL LIMITS
DETERMINE LEVEL OF
PRETREATMENT,
IF NECESSARY
FIGURE 5-1
OBTAINING POTW LOCAL LIMITS
eott-oi
5-2
-------
EVALUATE PRETRE ATMENT REQUIREMENTS
that the addition of the CERCLA waste would not
exceed the existing local limits. If this situation
did occur, the FS writer could evaluate the
pretreatment requirements quickly. However, if
the CERCLA waste would be a significant portion
of the POTW influent, it would be appropriate to
reevaluate the current local limits.
In most instances, however, enforceable local
limits will not exist for all compounds detected in
the CERCLA wastes, and will have to be
developed by the POTW or estimated by the FS
team. If this is the case, it is important to get an
estimate of the time required by the POTW to
develop new local limits. Depending on staffing,
laboratory capabilities, and treatment plant
performance experience, some POTW authorities
may be capable of'developing acceptable local
limits for a wide range of compounds in a
reasonably short period.
If new or revised local limits are needed, the
POTW should notify the NPDES regulatory
agency. The earlier that this agency is notified,
the greater the chance that revised NPDES limits
and local limits will be developed by the time a
decision must be made concerning remedial
action. Several iterations to develop and agree on
the acceptable limits should be expected.
However, high priority may not necessarily be
given to a CERCLA site clean-up effort, and
several months could be required to develop local
limits.
The time required by the POTW to. develop local
limits for compounds in the CERCLA waste will
determine whether FS writers have to estimate
local limits to evaluate pretreatment requirements.
To estimate local limits, the FS team must conduct
several activities:
Collect and evaluate the pertinent
regulatory criteria
Calculate a mass balance for each
compound detected in the
CERCLA waste using treatability
data
Evaluate the.impact each
contaminant has on air emissions,
treatment plant operations, sludge
disposal, and effluent water quality
Estimate local limits and the
expected level of pretreatment
necessary, at a minimum, to ensure
continued compliance with NPDES
permit limits and applicable air
emission standards, avoid any
exceedance of state water quality
standards, and maintain acceptable
levels of sludge quality
These activities and a method for estimating local
limitations are discussed in Section 10.0.
5.2. COMPARE CERCLA DISCHARGE
CHARACTERISTICS TO LOCAL
LIMITS
After local limits have been obtained or estimated,
they should be compared to CERCLA wastewater
characteristics (i.e., contaminant concentrations
and flow rate), as determined in Section 2.0. In
addition, these characteristics should be evaluated
considering General Pretreatment Regulations
(see Subsection 8.1.2), which forbid the discharge
of pollutants that cause fire or explosion hazard,
corrosive structural damage, obstruction of flow,
interference, or inhibition of biological activity
due to excessive heat.
Based on these comparisons, the FS team should
determine which contaminants, if any, require
pretreatment, and the percent removal required for
each contaminant. In addition, if local limits were
estimated, the FS team, POTW, and appropriate
authorities should develop and obtain approval of
5-3
-------
EVALUATE PRETRE ATMENT REQUIREMENTS
enforceable local limits and issue a mechanism of
control for the contaminants in the CERCLA
discharge (see Section 8.0).
5-4
-------
SECTION 6
IDENTIFY AND SCREEN
PRETREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Identify and Screen Pretreatment
Alternatives
Identify possible pretrcatment
technologies
Develops a pretrcatment process train to
properly pretteat the CERCLA wutestream
-------
-------
6. IDENTIFY AND SCREEN PRETREATMENT
ALTERNATIVES
At this point in the development of the discharge
to a POTW alternative, the FS team has
determined that a POTW is available to accept the
wastewater, and has determined if pretreatment is
required. This section describes the process for
selecting and evaluating an appropriate
pretreatment alternative. Various technologies
are presented for pretreating the CERCLA site
discharge, and a strategy is given on how to
assemble the appropriate technologies into a
treatment train. Detailed information for several
technologies is available in the "CERCLA Site
Discharges to POTWs Treatability Manual"
(USEPA, 1990) and other sources. This
information can be used by the FS team to
evaluate the pretreatment/discharge to POTW
alternative.
Approaching this section, the FS writer should
have certain information, including a complete
description of the stream to be discharged (i.e.,
flow rates and chemical composition), and
necessary treatment levels for key contaminants
prior to acceptance at the POTW. This section is
not intended to be an exhaustive review of
available technologies or possible pretreatment
trains; rather, it provides a simple approach to
establishing a basic pretreatment train.
Refinements of the train will be necessary based
on a more detailed review of available
technologies.
6.1. IDENTIFY PRETREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES
The technologies presented in this section were
identified based on review of available
demonstrated wastewater treatment technologies
and a review of technologies that have been used
for pretreatment of CERCLA discharges to
POTWs. New technologies for treating
wastewater are continually being developed, and
the FS team is referred to technical journals and
outside references for additional information on
recent developments.
The technologies discussed in this section are a
basic set of unit operations capable of pretreating
a wide variety of wastestreams and contaminants,
including most identified contaminants of
concern. The technologies can be combined to
form a complete train for many mixed
wastestreams that might be expected from a
CERCLA site.
The technologies covered briefly in this section
can be grouped into the following three general
categories:
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Aerobic Biological Treatment
Air- and Steam-stripping
Anaerobic Biological Treatment
Separation
Neutralization
Oxidation
Precipitation
Reduction
SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES
Clarification
Filtration
Oil and Grease
POLISHING TECHNOLOGIES
Carbon Adsorption
Ion Exchange
These technologies are presented in Table 6-1
with information on how the technologies are
used, which combinations of technologies are
6-1
-------
TABLE 6-1
APPLICABILITY OF PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
**'('''; j.
/; V, ' ,5
> '.' *.-: :'\
_,
P&ETEEAT*
MENTTECB*-
Oil and Grease
Separation
Oxidation
Reduction
Precipitation
Clarification
Filtration
'' ' % ' * ' ' / /, -
'' ,} Av
' ' ',<-'
" - , ,,
'
1 , - x f'" " '
Organic Phase Removal
Large Particle Sedimentation
Oxidizing Metals
Oxidizing Organics
Reducing Metals
Dissolved Metals Removals
Settles Suspended Solids
Concentrates Organic Sludges
Removes Suspended Solids
'' j ' { '''' I '' t ",
', ' ' - A' ' ', '
s --', r : ;- ' / -1 f
t lAjx* A.JL lu^l \Sv \. jEvฃ>A-X p'xC/^J 1. *^
First step in train, combined with set-
tling, flow equalization
Prior to Precipitation
Prior to Biological Treatment
Following Oxidation/Reduction
Prior to Clarification/Filtration
Following Precipitation
Following Aerobic Biological Treat-
ment
As an early step in train
Following Precipitation/Clarification
Following Biological/Precipitation
Prior to Air-stripping
Prior to Polishing w/Carbon or Ion Ex-
change
^
1;
V
ป
-
, '
k
-
"
8
s
ป
s
s
r
s
s
s
!
p
p
CzJ
31-.
Hf
&
o
p
"
"
"
^
CO
3 '
o ,
Oi
p
-
P
p
*
K*
jX(
w
^
I:
V
V
"
s
**
vt '
3 ''
\
V
"
V
" '
|;
V
"
V
f
f
/,',
S
1
p
""
p
s
"
'
13
V
"
V
s
-
-'S
j
ซ
**
--
s
ft
1
8
p
V
p
s
-------
TABLE 6-1
(continued)
APPLICABILITY OF PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
.
'
/
jPREIKEAT* :
MENTTBCB.
stripping
Anaerobic
Biological
Aerobic Biologi-
cal
lion
"- " 's '
.
* % I 1% ' '
*' ฐ- f f
' \ ,<''<'
' '':
>...-!..!: J...>5..^....H "
Remove VOCs
Degrades High-strength Organics
Degrades Organics
Removes Some Metals
-- ซ,,
' 4*% - ' ''
> - ^, - \ V
; ^ ' ' ''/t ' \ ^-. * 'J^
-^ % ; ' ..'' y, I'* - /A
' tRAM x ^1
Prior to Biological Treatment
Prior to Aerobic Biological
Following Anaerobic Biological
Following Oxidation
Prior to Carbon Adsorption
Following other organic treat-
ments/Filtration
Prior to ion exchange
Following carbon adsorption
Prior to precipitation
Final step prior to discharge
'
-,
*ฃ'y
tf
>5,
p
'
f
',
'/"
p.
B>
P
" '
;
* f
I"
P
P
g
' :
^
P
p
f
'
; s
'',
s.
gj
li
mm
j.
*Q.
S
^P"
|l
.ป
B>
S
o ;
K)
Q ,
^
ง :
1J
..
B-
:g
m
^
:W
^w
;M
1
B-
p
^
3
^
&
ง
BB
f " '
on
3 s.
S n
g
p
p
V
v
- 3
5?
r>
11
v
V
s
13
^|J
ฃ^
II
V
V
3
9
"ft
-i<
CQw
v
v
1
5-
^
$
0
V
V
%%
I
F
^'
^
Id
V
V
s
Q'f
1,
ง ..
ง
9
ll
V
V
"
' ' t
IS '
H/''^
sa f. '
Ife
V
V
P = Primary method of treatment for the class
S = Support technology, for treatment of chemicals in this class
V = Treatment effectiveness varies for compounds within class
-- = Not Applicable or insufficient data available for compounds in this class
-------
IDENTIFY AND SCREEN PRETREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
most frequently used, and the applicability of each
technology to the classes of contaminants.
Table 6-1 should be considered when combining
technologies into process trains capable of
pretreating discharges from CERCLA sites.
6.2. ASSEMBLE ALTERNATIVE
PROCESS TRAIN PRETREATMENT
This subsection discusses an approach to
assembling a process train for pretreatment of a
CERCLA discharge. The approach presented in
the following paragraphs, one of many possible
approaches to development of a process train, is
designed to aid in selection of the basic unit
operations necessary to treat a wastestream.
The remainder of this subsection consists offour
decision flow charts that will enable the FS team
to assemble a treatment train. The flow charts are
arranged in the following order: (1) Flow
Equalization and Phase Separation, (2) Metals
Removal, (3) Organics Removal, and
(4) Polishing and Discharge.
Each flow chart deals with a specific segment of
an overall pretreatment train. After each step in
the flow chart, the concentrations in the stream
must be recalculated. Data for this recalculation
can be obtained through treatability tests, or from
data available in the literature. For this
subsection, it is assumed that the FS team has such
data available. If the data are not available, the
information in Table 6-1 provides a rough
indication of the effectiveness of each technology.
This information can be expanded upon during
detailed evaluation of the alternative.
6.2.1. Flow Equalization and Phase
Separation
The first segment of the pretreatment process
involves screening and equalization of solids
followed by the removal of any nonaqueous
liquid. As described in Figure 6-1, one or more
operations may be required to accomplish these
steps. Coarse screens may be used to remove
large solids; sedimentation and grit removal will
remove smaller solids. Flow equalization is
necessary when the concentration or flow rate of a
stream varies over time, as might occur with
intermittent pumping of groundwater or leachate.
Organic nonaqueous phase liquids may be
removed using a settling step for heavy fractions,
or an oil and grease separator for lighter fractions.
These preliminary steps may be accomplished in a
single settling chamber or in a series of chambers.
If solids removal, oil and grease removal, or flow
equalization achieves the necessary pretreatment
levels, the stream may be discharged. If dissolved
organic or inorganic constituents are of concern,
the stream requires further pretreatment.
6.2.2. Metals Removal
The next segment in the pretreatment process
addresses dissolved metals. Dissolved metals can
be removed by forming insoluble precipitates that
can be flocculated and settled or filtered from the
solution (Figure 6-2). The types of chemicals
used for precipitation are highly specific to the
individual wastestream. In some cases, metal
species need to be oxidized or reduced before
precipitation.
The pretreatment process train consists of
reduction or oxidation, precipitation/flocculation,
and filtration and/or clarification. Removal rates
for each metal species can be calculated from
bench-test results. In some cases, a second
precipitation operation, using different pH and
chemical dosages, is necessary to achieve
acceptable removal of all metallic species present.
After precipitation, residual metals can be
removed during the polishing phase, if necessary.
6.2.3. Organics Removal
The third segment of the pretreatment process
involves removal or treatment of organic s (Figure
6-3). Air- or steam-stripping is used to remove the
6-4
-------
IDENTIFY AND SCREEN PRETREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
volatile organic compounds (VOCs);
semi-volatile organic compounds (S VOCs) are
treated using a combination of oxidation and/or
biological treatments. The effectiveness of
biological treatment is highly compound-specific.
6.2.4. Polishing and Discharge
Following the treatment segments for metals and
organics, additional treatment may be necessary
to meet the pretreatment levels established by the
POTW or otherwise deemed necessary by the FS
writer. This manual discusses two polishing
processes: carbon adsorption for organics and ion
exchange for metals. Following these polishing
steps, final pH adjustment may be necessary
before discharge. These processes are presented
in Figure 6-4. Both carbon adsorption and ion
exchange are somewhat compound-specific.
With proper design considerations, both
technologies have been applied successfully to
reduce trace contaminant levels.
After identifying the appropriate technologies
from each of the four flow charts, the FS writer can
assemble a complete pretreatment alternative. As
a first approximation, the train can be assembled
in the order the technologies were identified in the
flow charts.
The order of unitprocesses in the treatment train is
highly site-specific. Factors such as type of
contamination, size of the site, and availability of
materials will affect the final design. The process
can be made more efficient by optimizing the
design and order of technologies used for
pretreatment.
Once the treatment train has been developed, the
entire alternative can be evaluated using
information gathered during discussions with the
POTW authority and more detailed information
on treatment technologies contained in other
references.
6-5
-------
CERCLA RAW DISCHARGE
Solids (>1/2 Inch)
DISCHARGE TO POTW
DOES
FLOW
CONTAIN SOLIDS
> 1/2 INCH*
COARSE
SCREENS
IS
THE FLOW
VARIABLE OR
NONUNIFORM
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
CHAMBER
HIGH
SOLIDS OR
SUSPENDED
MATERIAL
SETTLING
CHAMBER
DOES
TREATED
WASTE
STREAM EXCEED
POTW
LIMITS
GO TO FIGURE 6-2
* INDICATES LIMITS ARE BASED
ON BEST PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT
FIGURE 6-1
PRETREATMENT PROCESS TRAIN
FLOW EQUALIZATION AND PHASE SEPARATION
6098-01
6-6
-------
DISCHARGE PROM FIGURE 6-1
DO
METALS
NO / REQUIRE
GO TO FIGURE 6-3 +- PRETREATMENT
DISCHARGE TO POTW
DO
METALS REQUIRE
OXIDATION OR
REDUCTION
OXIDIZE OR
REDUCE AS
APPROPRIATE
DO
METALS
REQUIRE
PRECIPITATION
PRECIPITATION/
FLOCCULATION
CLARIFICATION
FILTRATION
DOES
TREATED
WASTE
STILL EXCEED
POTW
LIMITS
f
GO TO FIGURE 6-3
FIGURE 6-2
PRETREATMENT PROCESS TRAIN
METALS TREATMENT
6098-01
6-7
-------
DISCHARGE FROM FIGURE 6-2
GOTO
FIGURE 6-4*
DO
ORGANICS
REQUIRE
PRETREATMENT
DO
ORGANICS
REQUIRE
FURTHER
TREATMENT
ARE
ORGANICS
STRIPPABLE
AIR OR STREAM
STRIPPING
GOTO
FIGURE 6-44
COD
> 100 mg/l *
DO
ORGANICS
REQUIRE
FURTHER
TREATMENT
ORGANICS
BIO-
DEGRADABLE ?
OXIDIZE
ORGANICS
ARE
OXIDIZED
ORGANICS
BIODEGRADABLE
AND COD
100 mg/
YES COD
> 200 mg/l*
ANAEROBIC
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
AEROBIC
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
GO TO
FIGURE
6-4
GOTO
FIGURE
6-4
GOTO
FIGURE
6-4
* INDICATES LIMITS ARE BASED
ON BEST PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT
GO TO FIGURE 6-4
FIGURE 6-3
PRETREATMENT PROCESS TRAIN
ORGANIGS TREATMENT
6098-01
6-8
-------
DISCHARGE FROM FIGURE 6-3
DISCHARGE
TO POTW
DOES
STREAM
EXCEED
POTW
LIMITS
DO
ORGANICS
REQUIRE
FURTHER
TREATMENT
CARBON
ADSORPTION
DO
METALS
REQUIRE
FURTHER
TREATMENT
ION
EXCHANGE
IS pH
ACCEPTABLE
NEUTRALIZATION
DISCHARGE TO POTW
6098-01
FIGURE 6-4
PRETREATMENT PROCESS TRAIN
POLISHING AND DISCHARGE
6-9
-------
-------
SECTION 7
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE POTW
DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVE
Section 2:
Identify and
Characterize CERCLA
Wastewater
Discharge
Section 7;
Detailed Analysis ซf
the POTW Discharge,
Alternative
Detailed Analysis of the POTW
Discharge Alternative
EvaluatปthซPOTWdiปchargปaltปmcrttvปuซinglhป
following nlnป crHoria:
1. Overall protection of human health and
the environment
2. Compliance with ARARs
3. Long-torn effectiveness *nd perfomunce
4. Reduction of mobility, toxicity, or volume
through treatment
5. Shoit-tenn effectiveness
6. Lnplementability
7. Cost
8. State acceptance.
9. Community acceptance
-------
-------
7. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE POTW DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE
The identification of the preferred alternative and
the remedy selection decision are based on an
evaluation of the major tradeoffs among the
alternatives in terms of the following nine
evaluation criteria:
Overall protection of human health
and the environment
Compliance with Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
Long-term effectiveness and
permanence
Reduction of mobility, toxicity, or
volume through treatment
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State acceptance
Community acceptance
Remedial alternatives must be protective of
human health and the environment and comply
with ARARs (or justify a waiver) in order to be
eligible for selection. These are the two threshold
criteria.
The tradeoffs, identified in the detailed analysis,
are balanced among alternatives with respect to
long-term effectiveness and permanence,
reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through
treatment, short-term effectiveness,
implementability, and cost. This initial balancing
determines preliminary conclusions as to the
maximum extent to which permanent solutions
and treatment can be practicably utilized in a
cost-effective manner.
The preferred alternative in the proposed plan is
the alternative that is protective of human health
and the environment, is ARAR-compliant, and
affords the best combination of attributes. State
and community acceptance are factored into a
final balancing in which the remedy and the extent
of permanent solutions and treatment practicable
for the site are determined.
The detailed analysis of an alternative involving
discharge to a POTW will usually focus on three
of the nine criteria:
9 Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment - under
this factor the on-site pretreatment
of the material ultimately to be
discharged should be described
Short-term effectiveness - the
potential adverse impacts of
transporting the wastewater to the
POTW and the timing of the
remedial action
Cost - costs of discharging to the
POTW should be compared to those
of other alternatives
Generally, because the POTW discharge is to an
off-site facility, the remaining six criteria would
be addressed in the development and screening of
remedial alternatives (i.e., in evaluating the
compliance status and ability of the POTW to
receive the CERCLA waste, etc.).
7-1
-------
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE POTW DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVE
The following factors, as required by the USEPA
memorandum concerning CERCLA discharges to
POTWs, are considered initially during the
development and screening of remedial
alternatives and are carried forward into the
detailed analysis as necessary:
The quantity and quality of the
CERCLA wastewater and its
compatibility with the POTW
The ability of the POTW to ensure
compliance with applicable
pretreatment standards and
requirements, including monitoring
and reporting requirements
The POTW's record of compliance
with its NPDES permit and
pretreatment program requirements
to determine whether the POTW is
a suitable disposal site for the
wastewater
The potential for volatilization of
the wastewater at the CERCLA site
and POTW and its impact on air
quality
The potential for groundwater
contamination from transport of
CERCLA wastewater or
impoundment at the POTW, and the
need for groundwater monitoring
The potential effectof the CERCLA
wastewaters on the POTW's
discharge as evaluated by
maintenance of water quality
standards in the POTW's receiving
waters, including the narrative
standard of "no toxics in toxic
amounts"
The POTW's knowledge of and
compliance with any applicable
RCRA requirements or
requirements of other
environmental statutes
The various costs of managing
CERCLA wastewater, including all
risks, liabilities, and permit fees
Elaboration on the nine criteria and how they
relate to the anlysis of the POTW discharge, both
in the development and screening of remedial
alternatives and in the detailed analysis, are
summarized in Table 7-1.
7.1. OVERALL PROTECTION OF
HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
This criterion assesses whether each alternative
meets the requirement for protection of human
health and the environment. Basic guidance for
this criteria is provided in a two manual set
entitled "Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund" (USEPA, 1989c). Volume I, "Human
Health Evaluation Manual," provides guidance
for health risk assessment. Volume II,
"Environmenal Evaluation Manual," provides
guidance for ecological assessment at Superfund
sites. Attainment of chemical-and
location-specific ARARs is addressed, when
appropriate. Adverse effects associated with
construction and operation of each remedial
alternative are described in terms of direct effects
(e.g., loss of habitat) or indirect effects (e.g.,
increased erosion and sedimentation). Inevitable
effects are distinguished from reversible effects,
where appropriate. Measures to mitigate adverse
effects are also discussed herein.
Additionally, USEPA developed a risk-based
methodology for evaluating the feasibility and
risk associated with discharging a CERCLA
waste to a POTW. This methodology is described
in "Feasibility and Risks Associated with
Discharge of Superfund Wastes to POTWs"
(USEPA, 1988b).
7-2
-------
TABLE 7-1
SUMMARY OF CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS OF THE DISCHARGE TO POTW ALTERNATIVE
OveraU Protection of Human Health and the Environment -
Compliance with ARARs
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
What is the potential for short- or long-term health effects to the public and the environment if the
alternative is implemented?
- Will the alternative meet pretreatment and NPDES requirements? See Subsections 4.3.1 and 8.2.
- Will the pretreatment identified meet pretreatment standards and local limits? See Section 5.0.
- Can the POTW ensure compliance with applicable pretreatment requirements? See Section 5.0.
- If the POTW accepts the discharge, will the POTW meet its NPDES discharge requirements? See
Subsections 4.3.1 and 8.2.
- If the POTW accepts the discharge, will the POTW discharge be in compliance with state water quality
standards? See Subsection 4.3.
- If the POTW accepts the discharge, will the POTW meet its sewage sludge disposal requirements? See
Subsections 4.1 and 4.2.
- Is the POTW in compliance with RCRA permit-by-rule requirements? See Subsection 3.1.2.
- Will the alternative meet the requirements of RCRA? In particular, is the wastestream considered a
RCRA hazardous waste? If so, will the DSE apply? See Subsections 2.2.4 and 3.1.1 and Section 9.0.
- Will the alternative meet other action- and location-specific requirements? See Subsections 1.3 and 12.
- After the alternative is implemented, how much risk will still be posed if receptors are exposed to the
wastestream? See Subsection 7.3.
- What types of long-term management will be required for the pretreatment and storage systems? See
Subsection 7.3.
- How reliable are the system components?
- Is it likely that the POTW could treat the CERCLA wastestream for the time duration required? See
Section 4.0. ~ป
- Will contaminants pass through the POTW? See Section 5.0.
-------
TABLE 7-1
(continued)
SUMMARY OF CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS OF THE DISCHARGE TO POTW ALTERNATIVE
Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity, or Volume
Through Treatment
Short-term Effectiveness
Implementability
Technical Feasibility
Demonstrated Performance
Support Requirements
- Are the pretreatment technologies or the POTW unit operations innovative technologies, which reduce
mobility, toxicily, or volume?
- How much will the alternative reduce the mobility, toxicity, or volume of pollutants? See Subsection
7.4.
- What residuals will result from the process? How will they be treated and/or disposed?
- What risks will be posed to workers, the community, or the environment as a result of constructing the
systems involved in the alternative? See Subsection 7.5.
- How long will it take to implement the alternative?
- What is the potential that human or environmental receptors will be exposed to the wastestream during
on-site storage or off-site transport and disposal? See Subsections 3.1.3 and 7.5.
- What is the potential that the pretreatment system will not be adequately effective? See Section 5.0.
- How long must the system operate?
- Will operation of collection or extraction systems and the pretreatment systems cause adverse
environmental impacts? What is the cost of mitigating these impacts?
Is the transport technology (i.e., piping or trucking) feasible? See Subsection 3.1.3.
Are the POTWs' unit operations suitable for contaminant treatment? See Subsection 4.2.
If the waslestream will be discharged to a sewage collection system, is that system separate from or
combined with the storm drain system? Are there combined sewer overflows between the site and the
POTW? See Subsection 4.2.
Has the pretreatment system been proven on the contaminants at the site? See Subsection 4.2.
Is the POTW effective on site contaminants? See Subsection 4.2.
What sludge disposal processes are currently employed by the POTW? Are they adequate? What other
support requirements would be necessary? See Subsections 4.1 and 4.2.
-------
TABLE 7-1
(continued)
SUMMARY OF CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS OF THE DISCHARGE TO POTW ALTERNATIVE
Implementability (continued)
Availability
Installation
Permitting and Legal Constraints
Cost
- Does the POTW have the hydraulic capacity to accept the wastestream? See Subsection 4.2.
- Are pretreatment systems available? See Subsection 4.2.
- Are the collection, storage, or pretreatment systems difficult to construct? See Subsection 6.0.
- How long will construction of these systems take?
- Will the POTW agree to accept the waste? See Section 4.0.
- Would the POTW need additional permits or changes in current permits? See Subsection 4.3.
- Is the POTW in compliance with its NPDES permits and pretreatment program requirements? See
Subsections 3.2 and 4.1.
- Can the POTW ensure compliance of the CERCLA site with applicable pretreatment standards and
requirements? See Section 4.0 and Subsection 4.1.
- Is the POTW regulated by any local ordinances that limit the waste types they may accept? If so, does
the ordinance affect the CERCLA discharge? See Subsection 4.2.
- Is the POTW's discharge in compliance with state water quality standards and applicable sludge use
and disposal requirements? See Subsections 4.1 and 4.2.
What are the capital costs of this alternative?
- What are the long-term O&M costs of this alternative (including O&M of the pretreatment system and
site sewers, fees or user charges for the POTW, and monitoring and reporting costs?)
- What is the net present-worth cost of this alternative?
- How do these costs compare to the costs of other alternatives?
State and Community Acceptance
- Is the state or community expected to support or oppose the alternative? See Subsections 7.8 and 7.9.
-------
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE POTW DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVE
The USEPA document uses a risk-based
evaluation to evaluate the impact of a CERCLA
site discharge to a POTW in the absence of
environmental guidelines for the POTW effluent,
air emissions, and sludge disposal. The wastes are
assessed on the basis of three exposure pathways:
volatilization, pass through, and sludge quality.
The risks associated with each exposure pathway
are evaluated using a two-tiered approach. In
Tier I, a simple screening model consisting of
'worst-case assumptions is applied to evaluate
maximum probable risk impacts associated with
each pathway. If the risks associated with Tier I
analyses are inconsequential, then no further
analyses are performed. If the Tier I model
reveals the potential for significant exposures,
then Tier 2 assumptions are applied. In Tier 2,
more realistic assumptions are made,
plant-specific data are used, and more complex
models are employed. The risk assessor actually
evaluating a POTW as a remedial alternative
could consult the USEPA document for a more
detailed discussion.
7.2. COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
This evaluation criterion is used to determine how
each alternative complies with applicable or
relevant and appropriate federal and state
requirements, as defined in SARA Section 121.
The detailed analysis summarizes which
requirements are applicable or relevant and
appropriate to an alternative, and describes how
the alternative meets those requirements. The
three general categories of ARARs (i.e.,
chemical-, location-, and action-specific) are
discussed for each alternative along with the
alternative's compliance with appropriate criteria,
advisories, and guidance. RARs are not pertinent
to evaluations of off-site response actions.
7.3. LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND
PERMANENCE
The primary focus of this evaluation is the extent
and effectiveness of the controls that may be
required to manage the risk posed by treatment
residuals and/or untreated wastes. The following
components of the criterion should be addressed
for each alternative:
Magnitude of remaining risk. This
factor assesses the residual risk
remaining from untreated waste or
treatment residuals at the
conclusion of remedial activities.
The potential for this risk may be
measured by numerical standards
such as cancer risk levels or the
volume or concentration of
contaminants in waste, media, or
treatment residuals remaining
on-site. Characteristics of the
residuals are considered to the
degree that they remain hazardous,
taking into account their toxicity,
mobility, and propensity to
bioaccumulate.
Adequacy of controls. This factor
assesses the adequacy and
suitability of controls (if any) that
are used to manage treatment
residuals or untreated wastes
remaining at the site. It may
include an assessment of
institutional controls to determine
whether they are sufficient to
ensure that any exposure to human
and environmental receptors is
within protective levels.
Reliability of controls. This factor
addresses the long-term reliability
of management controls for
providing continued protection
from residuals. It includes (1) the
assessment of the potential need to
replace technical components of the
alternative; (2) the potential
exposure pathway; and (3) the risks
posed if the remedial action needs
replacement. USEPA has
7-6
-------
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE POTW DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVE
developed a risk-based
methodology for evaluating the
feasibility and risk associated with
discharging CERCLA site
wastewater to a POTW. This
methodology is presented in the
USEPA document, "Feasibility and
Risks Associated with Discharge of
Superfund Wastes to POTWs"
(USEPA, 1988b).
7.4. REDUCTION OF MOBILITY,
TOXICITY, OR VOLUME THROUGH
TREATMENT
This evaluation criterion addresses the statutory
preference for selecting remedial actions that
employ treatment technologies that permanently
and significantly reduce mobility, toxicity, or
volume of hazardous substances as their principal
element. This preference is satisfied when
treatment is used to reduce the principal threats at
a site through destruction of toxic contaminants,
reduction of the total mass of toxic contaminants,
irreversible reduction in contaminant mobility, or
reduction of total volume of contaminated media.
This evaluation focuses on the following specific
factors for a particular remedial alternative:
The treatment processes, the
remedies they will employ, and the
materials they will treat
The amount of hazardous materials
that will be destroyed or treated,
including how principal threats will
be addressed
The degree of expected reduction in
mobility, toxicity, or volume
measured as a percentage of
reduction (or order of magnitude)
The degree to which the treatment
will be irreversible
The type and quantity of treatment
residuals that will remain following
treatment
7.5. SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
This evaluation criterion addresses effects of the
alternative during the construction and
implementation phase until remedial action
objectives are achieved. Under this criterion,
alternatives are evaluated with respect to their
effects on human health and the environment
during implementation of the remedial action.
The following components of this criterion are
addressed for each alternative:
Protection of the community during
remedial actions. This aspect of
short-term effectiveness addresses
any risk that results from
implementation of the proposed
remedial action.
Protection of workers during
remedial actions. This factor
assesses threats that may be posed
to workers and the effectiveness
and reliability of protective
measures that could be taken.
Environmental impacts. This
factor addresses the potential
adverse environmental impacts that
may result from implementation of
an alternative and evaluates how
effective available mitigation
measures would be in preventing or
reducing the impacts.
Time until remedial action
objectives are achieved. This factor
includes an estimate of the time
required to achieve protection for
either the entire site or individual
elements associated with specific
site areas or threats.
7-7
-------
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE POTW DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVE
7.6. IMPLEMENT ABILITY
The implementability criterion addresses the
technical and administrative feasibility of
implementing an alternative and the availability
of various services and materials required during
its implementation. This criterion involves
analysis of the following factors.
Technical Feasibility
Construction and operation. This
relates to the technical difficulties
and unknowns associated with a
technology.
Reliability of technology. This
focuses on the ability of a
technology to meet specified
process efficiencies or performance
goals. The likelihood that technical
problems will lead to schedule
delays is considered as well.
Ease of undertaking additional
remedial action. This includes a
discussion of which (if any) future
remedial actions may need to be
undertaken and how difficult it
would be to implement such
additional actions.
Monitoring considerations. This
addresses the ability to monitor the
effectiveness of the remedy and
includes an evaluation of the risks
of exposure if monitoring is
insufficient to detect a system
failure.
Administrative Feasibility
* Activities needed to coordinate
with other offices and agencies
(e.g., obtaining permits for off-site
activities or rights-of-way for
construction)
Availability of Services and Materials
Availability of adequate off-site
treatment, storage capacity, and
disposal services
Availability of necessary
equipment, specialists, and
provisions to ensure any necessary
additional resources
Timing of the availability of
technologies under consideration
Availability of services and
materials, plus the potential for
obtaining competitive bids, which
may be particularly important for
innovative technologies
7.7. COST
In the analysis of each remedial alternative, the
"Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA" (USEPA, 1988c) requires that cost
estimates include the following five principal
elements:
Capital costs
Operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs
Five-year review costs
Present-worth analysis
Potential future remedial action
costs
7-8
-------
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE POTW DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVE
Capital costs consist of direct (construction) and
indirect (nonconstruction and overhead) costs.
Typically, capital costs include those
expenditures initially incurred to develop,
construct, and implement a remedial action.
Direct costs include expenditures for the
equipment, labor, and materials necessary to
install remedial actions. Direct capital costs
include construction, equipment, land and site
development, buildings and utilities (including
sewer construction), and disposal.
Indirect costs include expenditures for
engineering, financial, and other services that are
not part of actual installation activities but are
required to complete remedial alternatives.
Indirect capital costs may include engineering
expenses, start-up costs, legal fees and
license/permit costs, health and safety costs, and
contingency allowances.
Controls and costs associated with protecting
workers on-site during remedial action are
difficult to quantify and vary with site-specific
conditions. Some important health and safety
cost components likely to impact total remedial
costs are decontamination, emergency
preparedness, hazard assessment, insurance,
manpower inefficiencies, medical
services/surveillance, personal protection,
personnel training, recordkeeping, and site
security.
O&M costs refer to expenditures associated with
long-term power and equipmentrequirements and
long-term post-construction costs (e.g.,
equipment replacement costs, sewer use charges,
and permit fees) required to effectively operate
and maintain the remedial action throughout its
useful life. .
CERCLA as amended, Section 121(c), states that
a five-year review of a remedial action is required
if that remedial action results in hazardous
contaminants remaining on-site. Additional costs
associated with the five-year review should be
considered.
A present-worth analysis evaluates the
expenditures that occur over different time
periods by discounting all future costs to a
common base year. Present-worth analysis
allows remedial alternatives to be compared on
the basis of a single cost representing an amount
that, if invested in the base year and disbursed as
needed, would be sufficient to cover all costs
associated with the remedial action over its
planned life.
7.8. STATE ACCEPTANCE
This assessment evaluates technical and
administrative issues and concerns the state may
have regarding each alternative. Comments
provided by the state during the FS should be
evaluated and discussed in the Record of Decision
(ROD) and the responsiveness summary.
Additional information is provided in the
"Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA" (USEPA, 1988c).
7.9. COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
x
This assessment incorporates public input into the
analysis of alternatives. Formal public comments
are provided during the 21-day public comment
period on the RI/FS report and proposed plan.
Specific public concerns or comments should be
addressed in the ROD and responsiveness
summary. Additional information is provided in
the "Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA" (USEPA, 1988c).
7.10. SUMMARY EVALUATION
Following detailed analysis, the results should be
summarized and compared considering the
following factors used by USEPA during remedy
selection in the ROD process:
7-9
-------
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE POTW DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVE
Protection of human health and the
environment
Attainment of federal and state
human health and environmental
requirements identified for the site
Cost-effectiveness
Use of permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies
or resource recovery technologies,
to the maximum extent practicable
Additional information is provided in the
"Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA" (USEPA, 1988c).
7-10
-------
SECTION 8
CLEAN WATER ACT AND
THE NATIONAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
-------
-------
8. CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE NATIONAL
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
To date, specific national categorical pretreatment
standards governing the discharge of CERCLA
wastes to a POTW have not been promulgated.
As a result, CERCLA wastes are treated as
nondomestic wastestreams, and are subject to the
general pretreatment regulations promulgated
under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and to any
more stringent local or state requirements.
Similar to other nondomestic wastestreams, a
CERCLA wastewater discharge to a POTW will
not be accepted if it will cause contaminant pass
through, interference with the POTW operation,
violations of the general pretreatment regulations,
or violations of local pretreatment limits or
ordinances.
It is not the intent of this section to present an
exhaustive listing of all the regulations that may
pertain to CERCLA waste discharge to a POTW,
but rather to familiarize the FS writer with the
major components of the National Pretreatment
and NPDES programs. References for a detailed
discussion of the National Pretreatment Program
include the "Guidance Manual on the
Development and Implementation of Local
Discharge Limits under the Pretreatment
Program" (USEPA, 1987i) and "CERCLA
Compliance with Other Laws Manual (Draft)"
(USEPA, 1988a). The NPDES requirements are
discussed in the "Training Manual for NPDES
Permit Writers" (USEPA, 1987c). Other useful
documents include "Guidance for Implementing
RCRA Permit-by-Rule Requirements at POTWs"
(USEPA, 1987g), "Guidance Manual for the
Identification of Hazardous Wastes Delivered to
POTWs by Truck, Rail or Dedicated Pipe"
(USEPA, 1987J), "RCRA Information on
Hazardous Wastes for Publicly Owned Treatment
Works" (USEPA, 1985), and "Overview of
Selected USEPA Regulations and Guidance
Affecting POTW Management" (USEPA,
1989b). These references were used to develop
the information presented in the following
subsections.
8.1. NATIONAL PRETREATMENT
PROGRAM
The National Pretreatment Program, authorized
under CWA Section 307(b), was established to
regulate the introduction of pollutants from
nondomestic sources into POTWs. The goal of
the program is to protect POTWs and the
environment from damage that may occur when
hazardous, toxic, or other nondomestic wastes are
discharged into a sewer system. The discharges
targeted for regulation include those that (1) will
interfere with the operation of a POTW, including
interference with its sludge use or disposal;
(2) will pass through the POTW; or (3) are
otherwise incompatible with the POTW. The
pretreatment program is implemented primarily
through approved local programs administered by
POTWs. The National Pretreatment Program
consists of two elements that interact to
accomplish the objectives of the program:
National Categorical Standards
General Pretreatment Regulations
The controls imposed by national categorical
standards and general pretreatment regulations
are described in the following subsections.
Greater emphasis is placed on the discussion of
local limits because of the flexibility in
developing specifically tailored local limits by
POTWs on a case-by-case basis.
8.1.1. National Categorical Standards
The national categorical standards are
technology-based effluent limits developed by
8-1
-------
CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE NATIONAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
USEPA to provide standard limits on the
introduction into POTWs of wastes generated by
particular categories of industry (e.g., leather
tanning and metal finishing). Categorical
standards have not been developed for CERCLA
sites.
8.1.2. General Pretreatment Regulations
The general pretreatment regulations are intended
to address site-specific problems at POTWs, and
to apply a broader baseline level of control to all
industrial users discharging to any POTW. These
regulations apply whether or not the water has
been generated by a particular industrial category.
The general treatment regulations consist of
general prohibitions, specific prohibitions, and
local limits.
General Prohibitions. The general prohibitions
of the pretreatment regulations (40 CFR
ง403.5[a]) are national prohibitions applicable to
nondomestic uses that control the introduction of
contaminants into POTWs to accomplish the
following:
Prevent interference with the
operation (including sludge
management) of a POTW
Prevent pass through of
contaminants through the POTW
The term "interference" means a discharge that,
alone or in conjunction with discharges from other
sources, inhibits or disrupts aPOTW, its treatment
processes or operations, or its sludge processes,
use, or disposal, causing a violation of its NPDES
permit or other requirements. "Pass through" is
any discharge to a POTW in quantities or
concentrations that, alone or in conjunction with
discharges from other sources, causes a violation
of any requirementof thePOTW's NPDES permit
(e.g., a pollutant "passes through" the POTW to
surface waters without sufficient treatment to
comply with discharge limits).
Specific Prohibitions. The specific prohibitions
(40 CFR ง403.5[b]) are national prohibitions that
apply to all nondomestic users and protect against
pollutant discharges causing the following:
A fire or explosion hazard in the
sewers or POTWs
Corrosive structural damage to the
POTW (pollutants with a pH lower
than 5.0) 'i
Obstruction, of flow in the sewer
system , .
Interference due to the pollutant's
high concentration or flow rate
An increase in temperature of
wastewater entering the POTW
which inhibits biological activity
resulting in interference
Local Limits. The third segment of the
prohibited discharge standards are local limits.
"Local limits" are specific requirements
(including, for example, specific prohibitions or
limits on pollutants or pollutant parameters)
developed and enforced by individual POTWs to
implement the national general and specific
prohibitions. They are federally enforceable
under Section 403.5(d). The development of
these limits will ensure that pretreatment
standards protect both the local POTW and the
environment.
States and localities may also impose more
stringent requirements on dischargers. These
additional requirements may be based on state
pretreatment regulations or local ordinances.
8-2
-------
CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE NATIONAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
8.1.3. Development of Local Limits or
Other State or Local Discharge
Requirements
POTWs that are required under 40 CFR ง403 to
have pretreatment programs or those that
experience pass through and interference
problems must develop and enforce local limits.
In a few cases, states are responsible for
administering pretreatment programs and
developing local limits for particular POTWs.
Development of local limits requires site-specific
data to identify pollutants of concern that may be
discharged in quantities sufficient to cause POTW
or environmental problems. Briefly, the process
used to develop local limits requires a review of
plant operations and environmental criteria.
During this process, the sources, character, and
volume of contaminants in the POTW influent,
effluent, and sludge are evaluated, and a technical
approach for developing the limits is selected and
implemented. Detailed descriptions of methods
to develop local limits are in the "Guidance
Manual on the Development and Implementation
of Local Discharge Limits under the Pretreatment
Program" (USEPA, 1987i). An abbreviated
discussion of developing local limits is presented
in Section 10.0.
Local limits are dynamic and POTWs should
review and revise the limits periodically to
respond to changes in federal or state regulations,
environmental protection criteria, plant design
and operational criteria, or the nature of the
industrial or other nondomestic contributions to
the POTW influent.
Specific examples of potential changes that may
require the POTW authority or other responsible
regulatory agency to derive new local limits
include the following:
Changes in NPDES permit limits
Changes in water quality standards,
including toxicity requirements
Changes in sludge disposal
standards or POTW sludge disposal
methods
Modifications to the treatment
plant, causing changes in the
process removal efficiencies and
tolerance to inhibition from
pollutants
Availability of additional
site-specific data pertaining to
pollutant removal efficiencies
and/or process inhibition
Introduction of new or additional
industrial wastes (or CERCLA
wastewaters) into the POTW
A POTW's local limits must, at a minimum, be
based on meeting the statutory and regulatory
requirements expressed in the CWA and General
Pretreatment Regulations and any applicable state
and local requirements. Because individual
NPDES permit conditions, sludge disposal
practices, and state and local requirements vary
among POTWs, various concerns must
potentially be addressed through local limits. The
types of concerns that a POTW will likely be
required to address as a result of federal, state, or
local requirements include water quality
protection, sludge quality protection, operational
problems, worker health and safety, and air
emissions.
8.1.4. Discharge Control Mechanism
Under the proposed Domestic Sewage Study
(DSS) rule (40 CFR ง112 and 403), POTWs that
have pretreatment programs would be required to
issue permits or equivalent individual control
mechanisms for each significant industrial user.
The mechanisms must contain the following
components:
8-3
-------
CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE NATIONAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
Statement of duration-five years or
less
Statement of nontransferability of
the permit without prior notification
to the POTW
Applicable effluent limits based on
general pretreatment in 40 CFR
ง403, national categorical
pretreatment standards, local limits,
and applicable state law
Applicable self-monitoring,
sampling, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements,
including sampling location,
sampling frequency, and sample
type
Notification requirements for slug
discharges as defined in 40 CFR
ง403.5(b)
Statement of applicable civil and
criminal penalties for violation of
pretreatment standards and
requirements and, where required,
any applicable compliance
schedules
Compliance Schedules/Reporting
Requirements. Under 40 CFR ง403.8(f)(l)(iv),
the POTW with an approved pretreatment
program must also have the authority to require
(1) the development of a compliance schedule by
each industrial user for the installation of
technology required to meet applicable
pretreatment standards and requirements; and
(2) the submission of all notices and
self-monitoring reports from dischargers as are
necessary to assess and assure compliance by
industries with pretreatment standards and
requirements. The POTW is likely to require
some type of self-monitoring program for the
CERCLA site discharge, with submission of
results to the POTW.
8.2. NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM
Control of point sources of water pollution is
implemented through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which
was established under the CWA. The NPDES
program requires dischargers to obtain permits
specifying the permissible concentration or level
of contaminants in the effluent. USEPA and the
states use the NPDES permitting system to control
point sources and thereby help attain and maintain
ambient water quality standards for their surface
water bodies. Every POTW must apply for and
obtain an NPDES permit which includes limits
that control the pollutants that may be discharged
in its effluent.
8.2.1. Ambient Water Quality Standards
States are responsible for setting water quality
standards for the waters within their borders. Two
types of standards are used: narrative standards
such as "no toxics in toxic amounts," and
numerical standards. These standards designate
the uses of specific water bodies and the
associated numeric or narrative criteria applicable
to these waters which are to be maintained via
effluent limits set in permits. USEPA reviews and
approves the state standards, in accordance with
regulations specified in 40 CFR ง131.
When setting standards, states must consider toxic
pollutants listed pursuant to Section 307 of the
CWA to determine whether:
The discharge or presence of any
pollutant on the list could interfere
with the designated uses of the
water body.
8-4
-------
CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE NATIONAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
USEPA has published numeric
criteria for those pollutants under
Section 304(a) of the CWA.
If both of these conditions are met, the state must
adopt specific numeric criteria for those
pollutants; otherwise, adopt a procedure to derive
a numeric limit from a narrative criterion to
protect the designated uses of the water body.
Depending on the state's evaluation of local
conditions, its numeric pollutant criteria may be
more or less stringent than USEPA criteria. In
cases where the state determines that a specific
toxic pollutant could interfere with a water body's
designated uses but USEPA has not yet published
numeric criteria, the state must adopt pollutant
criteria based on biological monitoring or
assessment methods.
8.2.2. Controlling Effluent Toxicity
Reducing effluent toxicity may be considerably
more difficult than treating conventional
pollutants. Not only are there hundreds of toxic
chemicals that may be discharged to receiving
waters, but analysis of these chemicals is
sometimes difficult. In addition, it is difficult to
predict the toxicity of chemical mixtures.
In response to these difficulties, USEPA has
placed considerable emphasis on a water
quality-based approach to NPDES permitting,
while also requiring that all applicable
technology-based requirements be met. In its
1984 "Policy for the Development of
Water-quality-basedPermitLimitationsforToxic
Pollutants" (49 FR 9016), USEPA recommended
the use of biological testing of effluents in
conjunction with other data to establish NPDES
permit conditions.
In addition to meeting the technology-based
requirements of secondary treatment, POTWs
must meet any more stringent water-quality-based
limits imposed by the permitting authority. In
some cases, local limits for industrial users of the
POTWs may need to be developed to ensure
attainment and maintenance of
water-quality-based limits established in POTW
permits.
Effluent toxicity can be managed in some cases by
chemical-specific effluent analysis and control
(e.g., removing residual chlorine in the effluent).
Frequently, however, biological monitoring is
needed to identify the interactive effects of toxic
pollutants in the discharge. This is known as
Whole Effluent Toxicity Monitoring. USEPA
and the states will develop NPDES permit limits
based on whole effluent toxicity where it is an
appropriate control parameter.
8-5
-------
-------
SECTION 9
RCRA REQUIREMENTS
-------
-------
9. RCRA REQUIREMENTS
Whether a CERCLA site wastewater is a RCRA
hazardous waste and whether the Domestic
Sewage Exclusion (DSE) applies will affect the
feasibility of discharge to aPOTW and the method
of wastewater transport.
Under RCRA regulations, a material must be a
solid waste to be a hazardous waste. According to
40 CFR ง261, "Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste," the term "solid waste"
includes virtually all physical forms of discarded
material (i.e., solids, liquids, semisolids, or
contained gaseous substances) that are
abandoned, recycled, or "inherently waste-like."
A material is abandoned if it is disposed of,
burned, or incinerated. Materials that are stored,
treated, or accumulated before or instead of being
disposed of, burned, or incinerated are considered
abandoned. A material is also a solid waste if it is
recycled in a manner constituting disposal by
burning for energy recovery, reclamation, or
speculative accumulation. Finally, material is
inherently wastelike if USEPA so defines it by
regulation (40 CFR ง261.2[d]). Any material
meeting this description that is not excluded under
40 CFR ง261.4(c) is a solid waste. The most
. significant exemption from the definition of solid
waste for purposes of assessing the CERCLA site
discharge to a POTW is the DSE. The DSE
exempts domestic sewage or any mixture of
domestic sewage, and other wastes, that pass
through a sewer system to a POTW for treatment
from consideration as solid waste (40 CFR
ง261.4[a][l]). This exclusion does not apply to
wastes received within the POTW's property
boundary by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe (see
Subsection 3.1.1).
Additionally, residual products from the
treatment of hazardous waste are themselves
hazardous wastes (40 CFR ง261.3(c)(2)).
However, if the waste prior to treatment was
hazardous solely by characteristic and the
treatment rendered a residual that did not exhibit
any of the characteristics of hazardous, then that
residual is not a hazardous waste (40 CFR ง261.3
If a waste is considered a solid waste under
RCRA, it may also be a RCRA hazardous waste.
To determine whether a solid waste is a RCRA
hazardous waste, the RI/FS team can conduct
several steps. These steps are shown in Figures
9-1 and 9-2, and discussed in the following
subsections.
9.1. DETERMINE WHETHER THE
WASTE IS SPECIFICALLY LISTED
If a solid waste has not been exempted, the second
step is to determine whether the waste is listed as
a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR ง261.
If a waste appears on any of the lists, it is a
regulated hazardous waste, regardless of its
concentration or whether it displays hazardous
waste characteristics. The,listed wastes are
subcategorized into the following four separate
categories.
Hazardous Wastes from Nonspecific Sources.
These wastes are generated by activities that are
not specific to a particular industry or process.
For example, spent degreasing solvents are listed
as hazardous wastes. Wastes listed in this manner
appear on the "F" list.
Hazardous Wastes from Specific Sources.
These include wastes generated by a specific
product process in a particular industry, such as
emission control dust or sludge from secondary
lead smelting. These wastes appear on the "K"
list.
Acutely Hazardous Commercial Chemical
Products, Off-specification Species, Container
Residues, and Spill Residues. These wastes are
acutely hazardous and include discarded chemical
9-1
-------
IDENTIFY CERCLA
WASTE AND CONSTITUENTS
OFTHEWASTESTREAM
IS WASTE
EXCLUDED AS
SOLID W
ISM excapgon for qrauidwaler) YES
IS ORIGIN OF
WASTE
UNKNOWN ?
REVIEW LISTED
HAZARDOUS WASTE
40 CFR 261. SUBPART D
PLIST
ACUTE HAZARDOUS
WASTE FROM
PRODUCTION OF OFF-SPEC
OR DISCARDED
COMMERCIAL
CHEMICALS?
HAZARDOUS WASTE
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DETERMINE IF WASTE
EXHIBITS HAZARDOUS
CHARACTERISTICS
EXHIBITS
CHARACTERISTICS
DOES CERCLA WASTE RESEMBLE
A LISTED WASTE, POSE A SUBSTANTIAL
PRESENT OR POTENTIAL HAZARD TO
PUBLIC HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT
WHEN IMPROPERLY MANAGED, OR CONTRIBUTE
TO AN INCREASE IN MORTALITY
OR SERIOUS ILLNESS?
MAKE A CASE-BY-CASE
DETERMINATION
WASTE IS NOT A
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE
HAZARDOUS WASTE
FIGURE 9-1
DETERMINATION OF RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE STATUS
tOM-01
9-2
-------
DOES
GROUNDWATER
CONTAIN RCRA
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
CONDUCT
PRETREATMENT
DOES
TREATED
GROUNDWATER
STILL CONTAIN
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
SUBJECT TO
RCRA SUBTITLE C
REGULATIONS
NOT SUBJECT TO
RCRA SUBTITLE C
REGULATIONS
FIGURE 9-2
DETERMINATION OF GROUNDWATER AS RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE
6098-01
9-3
-------
RCR A REQUIREMENTS
products manufactured or formulated for
commercial or manufacturing use, which consist
of the commercially pure grade of the chemical,
any technical grades of the chemical produced or
marketed, and all formulations in which the
chemical is the sole active ingredient. These
wastes were listed to account for all acutely toxic
chemical products that are sometimes discarded in
pure or diluted form. Wastes listed in this manner
appear on the "P" list.
Toxic Commercial Chemical Products,
Off-specification Species, Container Residues,
and Spill Residues. Substances may be listed as
hazardous because they are chronically toxic or
they exhibit one or more characteristics of
hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or Extraction Procedure [EP]
toxicity/Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP)). These wastes include chemical
products manufactured or formulated for
commercial or manufacturing use, and which
consist of the commercially pure grade of the
chemical, any technical grades of the chemical
produced or marketed, and all formulations in
which the chemical is the sole active ingredient.
Wastes listed in this manner appear on the "U" list.
9.2. DETERMINE WHETHER THE
WASTE EXHIBITS HAZARDOUS
CHARACTERISTICS
As shown in the preceding definitions,
determining whether a waste is listed often
requires knowing its source. However, at a
CERCLA site, the source of the waste is often
unknown, especially when there may have been
many contributors to the contamination. If the
source of the waste is unknown, it cannot be
determined if the waste is listed; therefore, it
would be considered "nonlisted." Nonlisted
wastes are still covered by RCRA if they possess
one of the four hazardous waste characteristics.
Therefore, the third step is to determine whether
the waste exhibits ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or EP toxicity. The properties of waste
exhibiting any or all of these characteristics are
defined in 40 CFR ง261.20-261.24. . ,
9.3. DETERMINE WHETHER THE
WASTE IS A MIXTURE
Finally, if the waste is composed of a mixture of a
listed hazardous waste and other waste, it is also
treated as a hazardous waste, unless (1) the listed
hazardous waste in the mixture was listed solely
because it exhibits a hazardous characteristic and
the mixture does not exhibit that characteristic; or
(2) the mixture consists of certain specified
hazardous wastes and wastewater (the discharge
of which is subject to regulation under the CWA).
To qualify under the second exemption, the
concentrations must not exceed the
concentrations specified in 40 CFR
ง261.3(a)(2)(iv).
A mixture including a nonlisted hazardous waste
and a solid waste will be deemed hazardous only
if the entire mixture exhibits one of the four
hazardous waste characteristics.
9.4. DERIVED-FROM RULE
The derived-from rule (40 CFR ง261.3(c)(2))
states that any solid waste derived from the
treatment, storage, or disposal of a listed RCRA
hazardous waste is itself a listed hazardous waste
(regardless of the concentration of hazardous
constituents). For example, ash and scrubber
water from the incineration of a listed waste are
hazardous wastes on the basis of the derived-from
rule. Solid wastes derived from a characteristic
hazardous waste are hazardous wastes only if they
exhibit a characteristic.
9.5. GROUNDWATER AND UNKNOWN
ORIGIN EXCEPTIONS TO RCRA
There are two exceptions to the rules set forth in
40 CFR ง261. These exceptions pertain to the
RCRA regulatory status of (1) groundv/ater
9-4
-------
RCRA REQUIREMENTS
contaminated with hazardous waste leachate, and
(2) CERCLA waste of unknown origin.
Groundwater. Under 40 CFR ง261,
groundwater contained in the aquifer is not
considered a solid waste, because it is not
"discarded" in the sense of being abandoned,
recycled, or inherently wastelike, as those terms
are defined in the regulations. Therefore,
contaminated groundwater cannot be considered a
hazardous waste under the mixture rule, because a
hazardous waste must be mixed with a solid waste
to form a hazardous waste mixture. However,
according to a USEPA memorandum,
groundwater contaminated with hazardous waste
leachate is subject to RCRA Subtitle C regulations
because the groundwater contains hazardous
waste (USEPA, 1986c). The memorandum also
states that if, as a result of treatment, the
groundwater no longer contains hazardous waste,
the groundwater would not be subject to the
hazardous waste rules. The determination of the
treatment level for groundwater so as to "no
longer contain" hazardous waste must be made on
a case-by-case basis, depending on factors such as
health-based levels and analytical detection
levels. A contained-in waste does not have to be
delisted; it only has to "no longer contain" the
hazardous waste.
Unknown Origin. A waste is hazardous under
RCRA if it is a listed waste or if it exhibits
hazardous waste characteristics. If the waste does
not exhibit any of the characteristics and is located
at a CERCLA site where the origin of the waste is
unknown, a positive determination of its
regulatory status cannot be made. It is not
necessary to presume that a CERCLA hazardous
substance is a RCRA hazardous waste unless there
is affirmative evidence to support such a finding.
It is appropriate to use "reasonable efforts" to
determine whether a substance is a RCRA listed or
characteristic waste. (Current data collection
efforts during CERCLA removal and remedial
site investigations should be sufficient for this
purpose.) For lifted hazardous wastes, if
manifests or labels are not available, this
evaluation likely will require fairly specific
information about the waste (e.g., source, prior
use, and process type) that is "reasonably
ascertainable" within the scope of a CERCLA
investigation. Such information may be obtained
from facility business records or from an
examination of the processes used at the facility.
For characteristic wastes, site managers may rely
on the results of the tests described in 40 CFR
ง261.21 - 261.24 for each characteristic or on
knowledge of the properties of the substance.
9-5
-------
-------
SECTION 10
ESTIMATE PRETREATMENT LIMITS
-------
-------
10. ESTIMATE PRETREATMENT LIMITS
A stepwise approach can be used to estimate
appropriate pretreatment limits. These limits can
then be used to calculate the level of pretreatment
required at the CERCLA site. Detailed guidance
on setting POTW local limits is provided in the
"Guidance Manual on the Development and
Implementation of Local Discharge Limits Under
the Pretreatment Program" (USEPA, 1987i).
10.1. ESTIMATE LIMITS
Figure 10-1 outlines the procedures the FS writer
should follow to predict the fate and potential
impacts of the CERCLA waste in a POTW. First,
the FS writer needs to compile the regulatory
requirements discussed in Subsection 4.2. This
includes all Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for the
sludge, air emissions, worker health and safety,
treatment system protection, and effluent water
quality for the specific POTW. The POTW
authority or regulatory agency should be asked to
supply the FS writer with a comprehensive list of
the specific ARARs for the POTW. These should
include effluent, sludge disposal, air emission
requirements, and any existing limitations on
non-domestic discharges.
While estimating local limits, the FS writer should
conservatively estimate the treatability of
compounds in the CERCLA waste, and their
potential to impact the various removal processes
in the treatment system. To obtain this estimate,
the anticipated average flow rate and pollutant
concentrations discharged from the CERCLA site
should be added to the POTW's existing low flow
and high pollutant concentrations. The new
resulting combined influent can then be used to
estimate the various potential impacts to the
treatment system operations, sludge disposal, air
emissions, and effluent water quality.
Considerable dilution of the CERCLA waste will
often result when it is discharged to the POTW.
However, because dilution alone will not be
considered an acceptable treatment mechanism,
analysis of the fate of the contaminants in the
wastestream will be required.
10.1.1. Evaluate Biological Inhibition
The low flow to the POTW usually represents a
worst-case scenario for evaluating the impact of
discharging CERCLA wastes to a POTW. At low
flow there is less dilution of pollutants in the
POTW. During the evaluations, the first concern
is to address the potential for biological inhibition
in the treatment system. POTW interference can
be caused by a wide variety of chemical,
biological, and physical factors. Studies reported
in the literature discussing chemical interference
(i.e., inhibition) range from research done in the
laboratory to studies of actual treatment plant
operations. A substantial amount of work has
been done to determine the concentrations of
different compounds that will cause inhibition in
various biological treatment systems (USEPA,
1979; USEPA, 1981a; Russell et al., 1983; Wetzel
and Murphy, 1986; and USEPA, 1987d). The
following biological inhibition summary is from
the "Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference
atPOTWs" (USEPA, 1987h).
The most important conditions that affect
biological inhibition are as follows:
The nature and strength of the
inhibiting agent
Biomass characteristics
pH
Temperature
Synergism/antagonism
10-1
-------
ACCUMULATE ALL APPLICABLE
CRITERIA/PERMIT LIMITS FROM
THE PHETREATMENT AUTHORITY,
STATE, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PRIORITIZE CRITERIA/PERMIT LIMIT INFORMATION
USING THE POTW LOW FLOW
AND CONCENTRATION, ADD THE CERCLA FLOW
AND CONCENTRATION TO THE EXISTING POTW INFLUENT
WILL
"THE INFLUENT'
CONCENTRATION
INHIBIT THE
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
PROCESSES/
LYES
NO
CERCLA DISCHARGE MUST BE
PRETREATED TO AVOID
INHIBITION OF POTW
TREATMENT PROCESSES
ESTIMATE % REMOVAL DUE TO VOLATILIZATION
PARTITIONING TO SLUDGE, AND % PASS THROUGH
FOR THE SPECIFIC POTW PROCESS. ESTIMATES
CAN BE BASED ON DATA REPORTED IN THE
LITERATURE OR SPECIFIC POTW TREATMENT
DATA GENERATED BY THE FACILITY
CALCULATE CONCENTRATION EXPECTED TO PASS
THROUGH IN THE EFFLUENT, VOLATILIZE
AND/OR PARTITION TO SLUDGE USING A CONSERVATIVE
ESTIMATE OF % REMOVAL
WILL THE
CONCENTRATION
OF ANY
COMPOUND
EXCEED THE
CRITERIA OR
PERMIT
LIMITS
ASSUME NO
ADDITIONAL
PRETREATMENT
REQUIRED
ESTIMATING
FIGURE 10-1
POTW LOCAL LIMITS
eoM-oi
10-2
-------
ESTIMATE PRETREATMENT LIMITS
Acclimation
Diverse biomass population characteristics in
various biological treatment plants will result in
significant variations in the inhibitory
concentration levels of pollutants. The pH plays a
particularly important role in metal-caused
inhibition because the solubility of metal ions is
directly related to pH. When metals are in the
soluble state, they are the most toxic to
microorganisms. Synergism (i.e., the increase in
the inhibitory effect of one substance by the
presence of another) is most important when
considering combinations of metals. Toxic
organics do not exhibit this effect as often as
metals. On the other hand, some compounds are
antagonistic toward each other, decreasing the
inhibitory effect of either compound alone.
Substances that cause interference/inhibition
problems can be divided into three groups:
(1) conventional pollutants, (2) metals and other
inorganics, and (3) organic compounds.
Conventional Pollutants. Conventional
pollutants consist of commonly measured
parameters, such as BOD, TSS, pH, and oil and
grease. Interference/inhibition problems result
from exceeding the peak mass loadings specified
by the plant design. Such "shock loadings" (i.e.,
slug loadings) of conventional pollutants are a
common cause of permit violations resulting from
oxygen transfer limits, insufficient
biodegradation, and solids carryover. Oil and
grease are normal constituents of domestic
wastewater which, if present in elevated
concentrations, can interfere with normal waste
treatment by preventing biological floe from
settling properly, limiting oxygen transfer, and
disrupting mechanical equipment operation. The
pH and temperature of wastewater can also cause
interference if either too high, too low, or widely
fluctuating.
When discharging CERCLA wastes to aPOTW, it
is important to consider how the waste will
contribute to the concentrations of various
conventional pollutants. For example,
compounds that are highly biodegradable increase
BOD loadings to the POTW, thereby placing an
increased demand on the treatment system. This
may or may not be the case when considering
compounds in which the major removal
mechanism is volatilization or partitioning to
sludge.
Metals and Other Inorganics. Research efforts
studying the impact of heavy metals on biological
treatment exceed those for all other classes of
compounds. Many of the insoluble metals and
metal salts that enter a POTW settle out during
primary or secondary clarification, impacting
sludge disposal alternatives. The soluble
fractions of metals can upset the secondary
treatment processes. Table 10-1 presents the
ranges of metal and other inorganic pollutant
concentrations inhibiting biological processes.
The value ranges reflect differences in the pH,
solubility, and definition of inhibition used by
researchers reporting the results. In general, the
lower end of the range refers to concentrations
inhibiting unacclimated systems, while the upper
end of the range corresponds to acclimated
biological processes.
Organic Compounds. The amount of
information available on the impacts of organic
contaminants is small compared to metals, due in
large part to the number of compounds of interest,
as well as the sophisticated analytical equipment
required to measure these organics. Table 10-2
presents the ranges of concentrations for toxic
organic compounds that inhibit biological
systems. However, data for specific compounds
are limited.
If the addition of the CERCLA contaminants to
the POTW influent is suspected of causing
biological interference, then the CERCLA waste
must be pretreated. Individual compounds in the
CERCLA waste should be evaluated to determine
the concentration at which biological inhibition
may occur. Treatability studies can also be
10-3
-------
TABLE 10-1
BIOLOGICAL INHIBITION THRESHOLD
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
COMPOUND
CONCENTRA-
TION RAN0E
(pprnj
SCALE2,
TI0NRAN6E
,
SCALE*'
REF?
CONCENfttA-
SCALE*
AMMONIA
480
U
1500-8000(1)
U
>480
U
1500-3000
U
ARSENIC
0.1
U
1,2,5
1.6 (S)
U
0.04-0.4
U
1.5
U
1.6 (T)
U
0.1-1
U
BORON
0.05-10
U
U
CADMIUM
1-10
U
5.2
U
0.02 (S)
U
1,2
1
U
5.2
B
<20(T)
U
0.5-10
U
5-9
U
0.02-1
U
CALCIUM
2500
U
CHLORIDE
180
U
20000
U
CHROMIUM (TOT)
1-100
0.25-1.9
U
1.5-50
U
0.1-20
U
0.25-1
U
CHROMIUM (III)
15-50
U
U
50-500(8)
130 (T)
lo
U
U
"IT
-------
TABLE 10-1
(continued)
BIOLOGICAL INHIBITION THRESHOLD
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
%^;>V,
i.5..ii^ ri:
COMPOUND
CHROMIUM (VI)
COPPER
CYANIDE
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
' T"l ^''V^^^^'^X3
f %S' *$$&& *%#$$
*>1'^Jฃ i\"'"'j;ij ';?".' ' ll'
CONCENTRA*
JION RANGE
(ppro)1
1-10
1
1
1
0.1-1
0.1-5
0.1
5
0.05-20
5-500
1-5
0.1
10-100
0.1-10
SCALE2
U
u
U
p
u
u
u
F
U
U
U
u
B
U
?k'$&'* >',
spit*/
**?,ป -5 %<-,
$*Zc>*
REF*
1
2
1,2
5
4
1
2
5
4
4
1
2
5
4
i'--' '^^ c^^^P^I^'^lfl^fe^lflP
v--% *is %^ % '\ !% V" %'' V '"',% % jfif'S' "" ', ' \ ' '<. 'f
CONCENTRA-
TION RANGE
(ppm)1 -
0.25
1-10
0.05
0.48
0.05-0,5
0.34-0.5
0.34
0.3-20
0.5
0.5-1.7
50
SCALE2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
REF3
1,2
5
1
2
4
1
2
4
1,2
4
4
CONCENTRA-
TI0NRANGE
f
-------
TABLE 10-1
(continued)
BIOLOGICAL INHIBITION THRESHOLD
INOUCJANIC COMPOUNDS
>, ~ &ฃ$$(& tt s
j f >.fv t fVt /5s? / /
' ฃ' ? *%/ " "!"' *Vv &
s''*^?j$3s?t -v'5-^
COMPOUND
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MERCURY (II)
NICKEL
SILVER
SODIUM
SULFATE
SULFIDE
TIN
VANADIUM
CONCENTRA*
TIONRAN0E i
(ppro)1
10
0.1-1
0.1
0.1-5
2.5
1-2.5
1
5
1-5
0.25-5
5
0.03-5
25-30
>50
20
SCALE2
U
U
U
U
B
U
U
P
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
REF3 ;
4
1
2
4
5
1
2
5
4
1
2
4
5
4
4
5 ? ; ?0? W"-;,; c ; ฃT 't ^ll-lll^.? J^st^i
^
'CONCENWA.-'
TIONS^NOE
;(ppm)1
2-12.5
0.25-0.5
0.25
5
0.25-5
0.25
$CALE^
U
U
U
P
U
U
X
REE*
4
1
2
5
4
4
CONCENTftA-
H0NHANOE
;' (piira)1 :
13-65(8)
1365
1400
10 (T)
10
136 (T)
2-200
3500
500-1000 (T)
50-100
50-100(T)
9
SCALE2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
REF3
1
2
4
1
2
5
4
4
5
4
5
4
-------
TABLE 10-1
(continued)
BIOLOGICAL INHIBITION THRESHOLD
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
COMPOUND
CONCENTRA-
TION RANGE
SCALE'
,2
REF*
CONCENTRA-
TION RANOE
SCALE2
CGMCBNTKAr
SCALE2
REF3- !
ZINC
0.3-5
U
0.08-0.5
U
5-20 (S)
U
0.03
U
0.03
U
400 (T)
U
5-10
P
0.01-1
U
1.5
U
0.30-20
U
1-10
U
NOTES:
Reference did not distinguish between total or soluble pollutant inhibition levels unless otherwise indicated: (T)-Total,
(S)-Soluble
2(U)-Unknown, (B)-Bench top, (P)-Pilot plant, (F)-Full scale
References:
1. Anthony and Breimhurst, 1981
2. Russell, Cain, and Jenkins, 1983
3. Tabak, Quave, Mashni, and Earth, 1981
4. USEPA, 1987h
5. USEPA, 1987i
-------
TABLE 10-2
BIOLOGICAL INHIBITION THRESHOLD
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
COMPOUND ,
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1 ,2,2-TETR ACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLORETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIPHENYLHYDR AZINE
1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
1,3-CYCLOPENTADIENE,1,2,3,4,5
5-HEXACHLORO
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
'" f< **4$
CONC
RA^GE
-------
TABLE 10-2
(continued)
BIOLOGICAL INHIBITION THRESHOLD
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
COMPOUND
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL
ETHER
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-NITROPHENOL
2-PROPENAL
f'll/^-^4
CONC
.RANGE ,
-------
TABLE 10-2
(continued)
BIOLOGICAL INHIBITION THRESHOLD
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
COMPOUND
2-PROPENENITRILE
4-NITROPHENOL
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZENE
BENZIDINE
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)
ETHER
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CONC
RANGE
NI AT 152
NI AT 10
72*
NI AT 10
NI AT 10
500
500
100-500
125
125-500
500
5
NI AT 10
NIAT10
NI AT 10
NI AT 10
NI AT 10
iHI
SCALE2
U
B
B
B
B
U
B
U
U
B
U
U.
B
B
B
B
B
^'fฃ$
^ ssff "fa
2
3
6
3
3
2
5
1
2
5
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
CONC
RANGE
(ppror ,
JUtl
SCALE2
m.
REF3
CONC RANGE
(ppmr
5(S)
5
5(S)
5
m&
SCALE*
U
U
u
u
REF3':
1
2
1
2
-------
TABLE 10-2
(continued)
BIOLOGICAL INHIBITION THRESHOLD
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
COMPOUND
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
CHRYSENE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
ETHYLBENZENE
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
ISOPHORONE
l^> ~$f*V f&s
CONC
RANGE;
(ppm)*
140*
NI AT 10
500*
MAT 180
MAT 5
NI AT 16.3
MAT 10
NI AT 10
200
NI AT 10
MAT 5
NI AT 10
5
NI AT 10
NI AT 10
NI AT 15.4
f 'kf^S^s^'^zJ&f
SCALE2
ซ
B
B
B
U
B
U
B
B
U
B
B
B
B
B
B
U
REF3
6
3
6
2
3
2
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3 '
3
2
CONC
RANGE
'(ppm)1
10
,SCAL.E3
U
REF3
2
CQNC RANGE
(Ppflt)1
0.96++
0.96-3 (T)
10-16 (S)
1
5-16 (T)
3.3
3.3-536.4 (T)
SCALE*
U
B
U
U
B
U
P
REP3
2
5
1
2
5
2
5
-------
TABLE 10-2
(continued)
BIOLOGICAL INHIBITION THRESHOLD
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
COMPOUND
CONC
RANGE
SCALE
CONC
RANGE
SCALE2
KEF3
CONCJRANG1
SCALE
ETH YLENE CHLORIDE
100
-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
NIAT10
B
APHTHALENE
500
U
1,2
500
B
ITROBENZENE
30-500
U
500
U
2,5
PCB -1016
NIAT1
U
PCB - 1221
NI AT 1
U
PCB -1232
NIAT10
B
PCB - 1242
NIAT1
U
PCB - 1254
NIAT1
U
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
50
U
0.4 (S)
U
0.95
U
0.2
U
75-150
B
0.2-1.8 (T)
B
2.6
B
PHENANTHRENE
500
U
500
B
PHENOL
50-200
loo
U
U
4-10
2,5
U
U
-------
TABLE 10-2
(continued)
BIOLOGICAL INHIBITION THRESHOLD
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
.COMPOS
PHENOL
PYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
TOLUENE
TRIBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHAMi
f, ^ST s'^jj^x^ V*
CONC
RAMJE
2.6*
MATS
MAT 10
MAT 10
200
MAT 35
M AT 10
MAT 10
NI AT 10
il|l^iK>^i
KKU>
B
B
B
B
U
U
B
B
B
OT?12^
f\K"rfr
6
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
CONC
RANGER
'SCAUG?
ซ>
CONC RANGE
20
10-20 (S)
2.9
2.9-159.4 (T)
20 (S)
20
1-20 (T)
0.7
SCAU5*
U
U
U
B
U
U
B
U
TJ"U CVr
JUJJ^Jp ;
2
1
2
5
1
2
5
2
NOTES: Reference did not distinguish total or soluble pollutant inhibition levels unless otherwise indicated; (T)-Total, (S)-Soluble
^(ID-Unknown, (B)-Bench top, (P)-Pilot plant, (F)-Full Scale
References:
1. Anthony and Breimhurst, 1981
2. Russell, Cain, and Jenkins, 1983
3. Tabak, Quave, Mashni, and Barth, 1981
4.USEPA,1987i
5.USEPA,1987h
6. Volskay and Grady, 1988
* Concentration reducing oxygen consumption by 50% of control
+ Nl-no inhibition at tested concentration
-------
ESTIMATE PRETREATMENT LIMITS
performed to test for the actual biological
inhibition concentrations.
10.1.2. Calculate Mass Balance
Once the biological inhibition concentrations of
contaminants in the CERCLA waste have been
estimated, the next step is to calculate a mass
balance for each compound in the CERCLA
waste. The purpose of the mass balance is to
calculate the general treatment efficiency of the
POTW and identify which POTW removal
mechanisms will be impacted by the removal of
each constituent from the CERCLA wastestream.
The level of treatment that can be anticipated in a
POTW for each contaminant varies widely. This
level is a function of the type of treatment process
and treatment efficiency at the POTW, the
physical and chemical properties of the pollutant,
and the mixtures and concentrations of the
contaminants in the POTW influent. The three
principal toxic removal mechanisms in a
conventional wastewater treatment facility are
stripping, partitioning (sorption) to the solids and
biomass, and biodegradation. The great majority
of "fate in a POTW" research has focused on the
priority pollutants. Much of the reported data
shows inconsistencies in removal efficiencies,
which is a result of the various treatment unit
processes used at POTWs; the scale of the
treatment process; the combinations of
compounds in the wastestreams and the
antagonistic/synergistic reactions occurring
within the POTW; the degree of acclimation at the
plant receiving the waste; the ranges of
concentrations detected in the influents; and the
inconsistencies in sampling, handling, and
analytical techniques. Despite the anomalies in
the treatability data for some compounds, certain
compounds have predictable fates in conventional
biological treatment processes; conservative
estimates of their fates can be made.
Several options are available to estimate a mass
balance in a POTW, including the following:
Use of specific POTW treatability
d at a an d/or d at a fro m
POTW-specific bench-scale
treatability studies ;
Use of published treatability data to
calculate a mass balance for each
compound detected in the
wastestream :
Use of computer models
Where actual or published
treatability data are no|t available,
comparison of removals of
compounds to similar
physical/chemical data for which
published removal data are
available \
Use of the most conservative
approach, assuming that 100
percent of each compound ends up
in the air, effluent, and sludge
POTW Treatability Data. iThere is no
substitute for actual POTW-specific treatability
data. This is the most desirable method for
developing a mass balance, and it should be used
when the information is available. However, any
local limits developed solely by POTW
treatability experience should still be discussed
with the NPDES regulatory1 agency to confirm
acceptance. Situations will| arise in which the
loading deemed acceptable b^ the POTW will not
be permitted by the regulatory agency. In most
cases, actual POTW treatabiHty data will not be
available for all the compounds and ranges of
concentrations detected in CERCLA wastes.
If the POTW has not conducted treatability
studies in the past, treatability studies could be
performed by the POTW authority, or the FS
writer in conjunction with the POTW authority, to
test specific biological response to compounds in
the CERCLA waste. These tests would also
10-14
-------
indicate the removal mechanism for the
contaminants present in the wastewater and
expose problems that may be encountered when
treating the waste during full-scale system
operation.
Published Treatability Data. The second
alternative is to estimate a mass balance based on
published treatability data. In recent years, major
monitoring efforts have been performed to
measure the fate of contaminants in conventional
biological treatment systems. Research
conducted at the bench-, pilot-, and field-scale
levels has attempted to quantify the removal
efficiency of many priority pollutants in various
conventional biological treatment systems.
Attempts have also been made to measure the
percentages volatilized, partitioned to sludge, and
biodegraded; these attempts have been met with
varying degrees of success. Appendix C
summarizes treatability data for many
compounds.
Computer Models. Computer software
packages are available to help POTW authorities
and regulatory agencies develop local limits.
USEPA has released a computer program called
"PRELIM," which is intended to facilitate the
development of pretreatment programs and
numeric limits by simulating the methodology
and calculations normally used in this
limit-setting process (USEPA, 1987i). The
program is designed to accept POTW-specific
data, and USEPA strongly encourages POTWs to
develop and use data specific to its plant and
receiving environment. However, PRELIM also
contains several data bases to which the user can
default if the POTW-specific data are not readily
available. PRELIM is written for local limitation
development for industrial wastes, but can be
modified for various wastestreams. A list of other
computer software packages is included in the
"CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs
Treatability Manual" (USEPA, 1990).
Comparison of Compounds. Where removal
information is not available for a specific
compound, it is possible to estimate a mass
balance by comparing it to another similar
compound. This can be accomplished by looking
at the physical/chemical constants and the
compound classes (see Subsections 10.2 and 10.3,
respectively), and locating similar compounds for
which mass balance information is available.
The Conservative Approach. If all else fails
and there is no accurate way to estimate the mass
balance, then a conservative approach should be
used. It is assumed that 100 percent of the
compound volatilizes, 100 percent partitions to
the sludge, and 100 percent passes through the
POTW and into the effluent. This approach
ensures that, regardless of the fate of a compound,
the worst possible case has been used for
comparison to standards and that the POTW and
the environment will be protected.
10.1.2.1. Calculate Concentration in POTW
Effluent
The first step in calculating a mass balance is to
sum the pollutant loading from the CERCLA site
with the existing loading in the POTW influent.
With this information, the user can calculate the
mass loading of each contaminant to the POTW
per day (mass/day). Appendix C presents the
mean percent removal of compounds in
conventional biological wastewater treatment
systems for chlorinated and nonchlorinated
systems. Because a greater percent removal of
organic compounds is expected as influent
concentration increases, the total percent removal
data for each data set are broken down into ranges
of influent concentrations.
Data exist for approximately 160 compounds.
Care should be taken when using treatability data
from Appendix C to observe the number of
samples (N) collected and used to calculate the
mean percent removal.
Compounds with No Treatability Data. Total
percent removal may have to be estimated for
compounds for which there are no treatability
10-15
-------
ESTIMATE PRETRE ATMENT LIMITS
data. This can be done by comparing the
physical/chemical properties of these compounds
to others with similar properties and for which
treatability data are available. The mean total
percent removal calculated for certain compounds
based on just one or two data points should also be
compared to compounds with similar properties
that have more extensive treatability information
available. Physical/chemical properties and
compound classification are discussed in
Subsections 10.2 and 10.3, respectively.
10.1.2.2. Calculate Concentration in Air
Emissions and Sludge
The next step in the mass balance calculation is to
estimate the amount of each compound that will
be air-stripped and partitioned to sludge in the
POTW. Appendix C presents tables showing the
mean percent volatilization and partitioning to
sludge that will occur for a limited number of
compounds. In each instance, when calculating
total percent removal in the POTW and
percentages volatilized and partitioned to sludge,
the value present in Appendix C should be used in
the mass balance calculation.
10.1.2.3. Calculate Amount Biodegraded
The purpose of estimating a mass balance is not to
account for 100 percent of each compound in the
CERCLA waste, but rather to develop an
understanding of which compounds will have the
greatest impact on the removal mechanisms, and
to identify these limiting compounds so that
pretreatment alternatives can be assessed. The
residual in the mass balance could be used to
estimate the percent biodegradation; however,
this has proven to be an inaccurate evaluation in
many cases. Therefore, the relative
biodegradability of many of the compounds
(i.e., rapid, moderate, slow, and resistant) is
presented in Table 10-3.
10.1.3. Evaluate Permit Limit/Criteria
Compliance !
Once the relative concentrations of each
CERCLA compound predicted to volatilize,
partition to the sludge, or pass through the POTW
untreated have been determined, the pertinent
permit limits and other criteria must be assessed to
determine whether the POTW will be in
compliance. j
Comprehensive guidelines regulating air
emissions, sludge loading, and effluent
concentrations are not likely to be available for all
compounds. Therefore, it will be necessary to
request guidelines from the appropriate regulatory
agency or to develop environmental guidelines.
The NPDES regulatory agency will have the
ultimate responsibility for approving the level of
pretreatment required before discharging the
CERCLA waste to the POTW.
Compounds not treated by the POTW, as
measured by total percent removal, can be
assumed to pass through the POTW. The
concentration of each compound in the POTW
effluent (estimated in Subsection 10.1.2) should
be compared to the NPDES permit limits. If
NPDES permit limits do not exist for each
compound, federal or state ambient water quality
standards and criteria should be checked.
To date, only limited guidance for acceptable air
emissions from POTWs is available. In the
absence of criteria, the user can identify and
estimate the area of all closed spaces within the
POTW treatment facility if volatilization is
expected to be a problem. JThe greatest volatile
organic compound (VO(b) losses within the
POTW will occur in an area where there is
turbulence (e.g., weirs and aeration tanks). The
concentration of VOCs in each closed space
should be estimated given tjie mass loading to air
(i.e., percent removal due lio volatilization times
influent flow times concentration) and the
ventilation rate in the closed space. If the POTW
10-16
-------
TABLE 10-3
BIODEGRADABILITY OF COMPOUNDS
MISCELLANEOUS
Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes) NOS
PCB
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
PESTICIDES (HERBICIDES)
DNBP \ Dinoseb \ 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
PESTICIDES (ORGANOHALIDES)
Endrin
Aldrin
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDD/Benzene
l,r-(2,2-dichlorethylidene)bis
[4-chloro-4,4'-DDE/Benzene]
1,1 '-(dichlorethylidine)bis[4-chloro-4,4'-DDT/Benzene]
1 ,r-(2,2,2-trichloroethylidene)bis
[4-chloro-Chlordane]
Captan
Vlethoxychlor
Chlorobenzilate\Ethyl-4,4'-dichlorobenzilate
">,9-Methano-2,3,4-benzodioxathiepin,
6,7-Camphechlor
'ESTICIDES (ORGANOPHOSPHORUS)
Naled \Dibrom
'horate \Thimet
Disulfoton
Parathion \ Parathion, ethyl
Methyl parathion \ Parathion-methyl \ Metaphos
M
S
M
M
S
O
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
S
S
o
M
M
R
M
M
M
S
R
R
R
R
NOTES: R = rapid
SOURCE: USEPA, 1987i
M = moderate
S = slow
O = resistant
10-17
-------
TABLE 10-3
(continued)
BIODEGRADABILITY OF COMPOUNDS
/SVX ^vA^vฐ% ^\Nv.^^ ^.^ ss\^ %V %s ~ N
REGULATORY^MiE'"' -.v- " " "\"-%'v -'
,*"> -.-- -", {" , - ,s'~ - ~,
SEMIVOLATILES (ACIDS)
1 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
1 2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2-Chlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Resorcinol
SEMIVOLATILES (BASES)
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzenamine
Benzidine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
Nitrobenzene
Pyridine
SEMIVOLATILES (NEUTRAL)
1 ^,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Acenaphthylene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dielhyl phthalate
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
' AEROBIC SXSm*> % ^AN*ซป0ปIC SYSTEM
% / %
1
M M
M | M
R ! R
R !
R R
M : s .
R ; R
R i R
1
1
1
S
S
R . ;
0 !
R ; R
S
S
R R
M
S
S
S
S
M M
S
S
S
S
R R
S
M M
S
R R
S
s s
NOTES: R = rapid
SOURCE: USEPA, 1987i
M = moderate
S = slow
O = resistant
10-18
-------
TABLE 10-3
(continued)
BIODEGRAD ABILITY OF COMPOUNDS
' - "' -, " ,
ปBGllJLATORyNAlV!E
SEMIVOLATILES (NEUTRALS) (continued)
Hexachloroethane
Naphthalene
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
VOLATILES
1 ,1 , 1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2,3-TrichIoropropane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
2-Picoline
2-Propenenitrile
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromomethane
Ethylbenzene
Isobutyl alcohol ;
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
Tribromomethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl chloride
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
NOTES: R = rapid M = moderate
SOURCE: USEPA, 1987i
5
' ^AEKOBIC SJPSfr ElVf
S
M
R
R
R
M
S
R
S
S
M
S
M
S
S
R
M
M
M
M
S
M
M
O
S
R -,/y
R
R
M
M
R
S
M
M
M
M
S = slow O
V. -.V.-. , <
- &NABKOBIC SYSTEM"
S
M
R
M
M
R
M
M
M
S
S
M
S
R
M
M
M
R
S
M
M
= resistant
10-19
-------
ESTIMATE PRETRE ATMENT LIMITS
is in a National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) nonattainment area for ozone,
additional restrictions may be imposed for VOC
discharges to the POTW.
Sludge disposal criteria are often available in state
guidelines and may vary among states. Criteria
regulating sludge disposal options for several
compounds are outlined in the checklist described
in Subsection 4.2. Many of the criteria are based
on federal standards and apply to a wide range of
compounds and concentrations. The proposed
rule for "Standards for the Disposal of Sewage
Sludge" (40 CFR ง503) includes specific
numerical limits or equations for calculating these
limits for 28 pollutants in one or more use or
disposal methods. In addition, the proposed rule
for Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
(40 CFR ง258) establishes numerical limits (in
the form of Groundwater Protection Standards)
for sewage sludge codisposed with municipal
solid waste. It should be noted that 40 CFR ง503
is currently a proposal, and limits will be
developed on a case-by-case basis using existing
regulatory framework and guidance. Additional
information can be found in, "Guidance for
Writing Case-by-Case Permit Requirements for
Municipal Sewage Sludge" (USEPA, 1988d).
10.1.4. Calculate CERCLA Site Discharge
Limits
Afterthemass balance and criteria comparison are
complete, the remaining task is to calculate
acceptable CERCLA site discharge limits. The
steps necessary to develop the CERCLA site
discharge limits are as follows.
Calculate acceptable POTW influent loading.
This is done by back calculating the influent
concentration/mass using the percent removals
and the criteria exceeded (e.g., if the criterion for
the POTW effluent is 12 parts per billion [ppb]
and the total percent removal is 40 percent, the
acceptable influent concentration is 20 ppb; or, if
the acceptable mass loading to air is 1 kilogram
per day [kg/day] and the percent volatilized is
20 percent, then the acceptable iinfluent loading is
5 kg/day). Mass-based (kg/day or Ibs/day)
acceptable influent loadings should be calculated.
If a compound exceeds criteria for more than one
medium, the acceptable POTW influent loading
should be calculated for each medium and the
lowest value should be used. |
Subtract the existing loading to the POTW
from the acceptable loading. [ This will give the
remainder available for allocation. A portion of
the available allocation should be reserved for
future industrial growth; the Remainder can be
allocated to the CERCLA site. An accurate
characteristic of existing loadings to the POTW
from industrial and domestic sources is essential.
The existing loadings plus the anticipated
loadings from the CERCLA discharges and any
safety factors, must not exceed the maximum
allowable loading.
Calculate the POTW discharge limits
concentrations. This is done by dividing the
mass loading allocated to the CERCLA site by the
CERCLA site flow.
The new estimated pretreatment local limits can
now be used to select pretreatjnent technologies
for the site.
10.1.5. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
The FS writer may also considejr the toxicity of the
CERCLA wastewater especially if the POTW has
Whole Effluent Toxicity testing requirements in
its NPDES permit. If the GER(bLA site discharge
is likely to cause the POTW to fail its effluent
toxicity testing criteria, a toxicity reduction study
can be performed. The USEPA document,
"Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Protocol for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants" outlines
a method to reduce toxicity tp meet applicable
NPDES permit limits (USEPA, 1989a). The
evaluation first looks at possible in-plant sources
of toxicity. If plant performance is not the
principal cause of toxicity, the toxicity reduction
10-20
-------
ESTIMATE PRETRE ATMENT LIMITS
evaluation (TRE) proceeds to toxicity
identification evaluation (TIE). TIE protocol is
performed in three phases: toxicity
characterization, toxicity identification, and
toxicity confirmation. During the evaluation,
batch-testing is performed on the site waste mixed
with the POTW wastewater to evaluate the
toxicity of the CERCLA site wastewater. The
causes of the toxicity are then identified using
specific test methods and confirmed through
additional toxicity tests. The FS writer is referred
to the TRE protocol manual for a more thorough
description of the procedures.
10.2. PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
The physical and chemical properties most often
used to predict the fate of contaminants in
wastewater treatment include the Henry's Law
constant, the octanol/water partition coefficient,
and the water solubility. The potential for a
compound to biodegrade is another property
crucial in predicting fate. Although a
considerable amount of work has been done to
substantiate a compound's affinity for
biodegradation, it is impossible to predict the
exact amount of biodegradation that will occur
during biological treatment. In most mass
balance equations, biodegradation is estimated as
the residual, or the percent of the compound not
accounted for after considering percentages
volatilized, partitioned to the sludge, and
untreated and passing through in the effluent.
Henry's Law constants, octanol/water partition
coefficients, solubilities in water, and molecular
weights for the ITD list of analytes are included in
the "CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs
Treatability Manual" (USEPA, 1990).
The physical and chemical properties of a specific
compound can be used as an important reference
when treatability data are not available. The fate
of compounds sharing similar physical and
chemical properties can be compared so that the
treatability and the potential impact to the POTW
effluent, sludge, and air emissions can be
estimated for compounds for which there is no
treatability information. Comparison of
compounds based solely on physical and chemical
properties can be misleading, and should be used
only in the preliminary assessment to determine
which removal mechanisms may be most heavily
impacted. Drawing conclusions from a
compound's physical and chemical properties
should not be used as a replacement for actual data
or treatability studies.
A general discussion of the important physical
and chemical properties used to characterize the
fate of contaminants in a POTW follows. This
information was summarized from the "Report to
Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes
to Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (USEPA,
1986b).
10.2.1. Henry's Law Constant
The Henry's Law constant, which is the ratio of a
substance's vapor pressure to its water solubility,
is used to relate the air and aqueous concentrations
of a volatile substance at equilibrium. It is an
appropriate means for estimating releases to air or
the ability of a chemical to be stripped or removed
from contaminated water. The higher the Henry' s
Law constant of a substance, the more likely it is to
migrate from water to air. Compounds with
Henry's Law constants greater than 10" atm
m /mole have been shown in the literature to be
easily stripped. The most common formula given
for Henry's Law constant is as follows:
H = Pv/Cs
where:
H = Henry's Law constant (atm m /mole)
Pv = compound's vapor pressure in air (atm)
Cs = compound's soluble concentration in water
(mole/m )
10-21
-------
ESTIMATE PRETREATMENT LIMITS
A pollutant's affinity to adsorb onto biomass or to
biodegrade will have an effect on the amount of
material stripped during conventional treatment.
These two variables may greatly control the total
amount of volatilization, particularly at low
concentrations, and should be considered when
estimating the ability to be stripped of compounds
inaPOTW.
10.2.2. Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient
The octanol/water partition coefficient (Kow) is a
measure of a compound's tendency to concentrate
either in the organic phases or in water at
equilibrium. The octanol/water partition
coefficient is a widely used tool for evaluating
water solubility and the subsequent potential for
sorption of organic compounds onto particulates
and biomass. KOW is often expressed as a
logarithm to the base 10, or Log K0w. In general,
compounds that have Log KOW values greater than
3.5 are significantly hydrophobic and adsorptive
on solid organic matter, such as mixed liquor
volatile suspended solids (MLVSS) or sludge.
Compounds that have Log KOW values less than
3.5 are more likely to be removed through
biodegradation or, in the case of a more volatile
pollutant, through air-stripping. Due to their
adsorptive nature, compounds with a high Log
KOW also may be expected to concentrate in
sludge. In addition, the presence of other
compounds, electrolytes, oils and greases, and
sorbents may also greatly affect the rate and total
amount of adsorption that will occur in sludge.
10.2.3. Water Solubility
Water solubility is the maximum concentration of
a chemical that dissolves in pure water at a
specific temperature and pH. Solubility of an
inorganic species can vary widely, depending on
temperature, pH, Eh (i.e., oxidation/reduction
potential), and the types and concentrations of
complex species present. Soluble chemicals tend
to be more readily biodegradable than those with
low solubility (Lyman et al., 1982). Solubility,
along with several other factors, can also affect
volatilization from water; In general, high
solubility is associated with lower volatilization
rates (Menzer and Nelson, 1980). Highly soluble
compounds are usually less s|trongly adsorbed to
organic material and, therefore, may be more
susceptible to pass through the treatment system if
not biodegradable. ]
i
10.2.4. Biodegradation |
Biodegradation plays a substantial and sometimes
controlling role in the ultimate fate of the VOCs in
conventional wastewater treatment, especially
VOCs of moderate volatility. The extent of
biological oxidation depends on the ease of
biodegradation of the compound, availability of
co-metabolites serving as food for the biota, and
the concentration of biologically active
solids (e.g., MLVSS and oxygen), as well as the
degree of acclimation of the MLVSS.
The rate of biodegradation c&n be influenced by
the availability of oxygen, a compound's extent of
halogenation, and biochemical oxidation. In a
well-aerated system, air-stripping may be the
dominant removal mechanism for compounds
such as benzene and toluene, which biodegrade to
some degree under normal aeration conditions.
The degree of halogenation influences the relative
biodegradability of the compound, in that the
more halogens in a chemical compound by
weight, the less biodegradation will occur.
Biochemical oxidation is highest for organic
priority pollutants with low L|og KOW values (less
than 3.5). In addition, air-stripping has been
shown to compete with bibdegradation as a
removal mechanism in activated sludge treatment
for some compounds that have relatively high
Henry's Law constants (e.gi, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and chlorobenzene).
Among the three mechanisms (i.e.,
biodegradation, sorption, and volatilization), the
dominant removal route at; any one time will
depend on the relative rates of aeration. The
removal mechanisms are affected critically by the
plant design and flow, air-to-jliquid rates, and the
10-22
-------
ESTIMATE PRETREATMENT LIMITS
concentration and activity of MLVSS. These
factors are critically dependent on how well the
facility is run, and the distribution, characteristics,
and concentrations of the pollutants in
wastewater. If the treatment system is acclimated
to the pollutants in the plant influent,
biodegradation may be a more effective removal
mechanism for biodegradable compounds. In
unacclimated treatment systems, removal of
many organics by volatilization and sorption to
solids and biomass may be more significant than
in acclimated systems. Dissolved salts also affect
all three removal mechanisms associated with
biological treatment systems. Factors such as
surface tension, interstitial tension, viscosity, and
diffusion also must be considered in ultimate
environmental fate analysis.
10.3. COMPOUND CLASSIFICATION
The compounds described in this section are the
443 compounds included in the USEPA Office of
Water Industrial Technology Division (ITD) list
of analytes (USEPA, 1987b). For the purposes of
this guidance manual, the compounds were
categorized into one of the following seven
classes:
Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)
Semi volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs)
Pesticides and herbicides
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Dioxins and dibenzofurans
Elements
Miscellaneous
The compounds were categorized based on
various physical properties (e.g., solubility and
volatility), as well as similarities in chemical
structure. Another major factor considered in the
compound classification is the USEPA analytical
method used to quantify the chemical. The
"CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs
Treatability Manual" (USEPA, 1990) classifies
each compound by Regulatory Name (except for
pesticides, which are listed by Common Name).
The Regulatory Name is not always the familiar
compound name reported; therefore, the
compounds are also sorted by Chemical Abstract
System (CAS) Number and Common Name to
help locate the specific compounds of interest.
The comprehensive listing of compounds in
SARA Title III, Section 313, is also
recommended for identifying compound
synonyms and CAS numbers.
The general discussion presented in this section
concerning the compound classification relates to
pure compounds. The synergistic and
antagonistic effects of mixtures of compounds is
likely to significantly alter their inherent
physical/chemical properties, but the magnitude
of these alterations is difficult to predict. For
example, the presence of organic solvents in a
wastewater stream will greatly enhance the
solubility of compounds such as PCBs. For
treatability purposes, bench- or pilot-scale
evaluation is helpful.
10.3.1. Volatile Organic Compounds
VOCs consist of organic liquids and gases, which
are generally amenable to analysis by purging
from the sample with an inert gas and analyzing
the purged compounds via gas chromatography
(GC). A total of 63 VOCs is included in this class.
Most compounds classified as volatile have a
molecular weight less than 250. a Henry's Law
constant greater than 4x10" atm m /mole,
solubility in water ranging from completely
miscible to less than 1 mg/L, and log Kow
partition coefficients ranging from less than zero
to occasionally greater than 3.
10-23
-------
ESTIMATE PRETRE ATMENT LIMITS
Groups of compounds within this class include
aromatics, halogenated aliphatics, halogenated
aromatics, alcohols, ketones, aldehydes, and a
group of miscellaneous compounds (Table 10-4).
The groups can be further categorized by their
purge efficiency. The range in volatility as
expressed by Henry's Law constants and
solubilities indicates that the purge efficiency for
these compounds ranges from near zero to 100
percent. In general, halogenated compounds are
very purgeable, while oxygenated ones are poorly
purged. Therefore, the alcohols, ketones, and
aldehydes are considered poorly purged, while the
aromatics, halogenated aromatics, and
halogenated aliphatics purge well. Conversely,
the poorly purged compounds are an excellent
food source for biodegradation.
10.3.2. Semivolatile Organic Compounds
The class of 175 SVOCs consists primarily of
those organic compounds not elsewhere
categorized and not amenable to analysis by
purging from the sample. Instead, various
extractions are performed, and the extracts are
concentrated and then analyzed via GC. This
class is further subdivided into groups based on
whether the compounds are extracted from the
sample under acid, base, or neutral conditions.
There are 24 acid-extractable, 40
base-extractable, and 111 neutral-extractable
organic compounds. The neutral-extractable
SVOCs are commonly analyzed in conjunction
with the base-extractables.
The acid-extractable organics are primarily
phenolics and, while biodegradable, are more
likely to adsorb to organic sludges.
Biodegradability decreases with increasing
halogenation. The water solubility ranges from
less than 1 to approximately 93,000 mg/L.
Molecular weights generally range between 90
and 270. Henry's Law constants are mostly less
than 10 atm m3/mole. Log KOW ranges from
less than 1 to 5.
The base-extractable organics characteristically
contain nitrogen. Most are more biodegradable
than other extractable organics. Molecular
weights range from approximately 70 to over 270.
Solubility in water may be less than 1 to over
2,000 mg/L. Henry's Law constants are typically
less than 10 atm m/mole and decrease to 10"
o '
atm m /mole; however, a few compounds,
notably dichlorobenzene, are reported at 10 atm
m/mole. The dichlorobenzenes may also be
determined analytically with the volatile fraction,
if desired. !
Data for log KOW are scarce and apparently range
from near zero to 8 (but more typically 2 to 8),
indicating a propensity to Adsorb on organic
solids.
The neutral-extractable organics, the largest
group of extractable organics^ contain aromatics,
polynuclear aromatics, heterocyclics, and
long-chain aliphatics; all may be halogenated or
otherwise substituted. Of the extractable fraction,
the neutral extractables are the most refractory in
regard to biodegradation. Molecular weights
range from 75 to 400. Solubility in water is
generally low, typically less than 100 mg/L, but
ranges up to approximately 900 mg/L. Henry's
Law constants are typicallyiless than 10" atm
m/mole, with a range of 10" to 1 0" atm
m /mole.
10.3.3. Pesticides and Herbicides
There are 88 compounds in the pesticides and
herbicides classification, including
35 organo-halide, 41 organo-phosphorus,
10 carbamate, and 2 nitrophenolic compounds.
Analytically, the pesticides jand herbicides are
determined in a fashion similar to SVOCs
(i.e., extract, concentrate, and (analyze using GC).
The nitrophenolics and phenfrxyacetic acids are
considered exclusively herbicides; the others may
function as pesticides orjherbicides. The
carbamate (i.e., containing nitrogen) and
organo-phosphorus (i.e., containing phosphorus)
compounds both hydrolyze rapidly in water to
10-24
-------
ESTIMATE PRETRE ATMENT LIMITS
TABLE 10-4
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND SUBCLASSES
ALCOHOLS
2-Propen-l-ol
Isobutyl alcohol
ALDEHYDES
2-Butenal
2-Propenal
AROMATICS
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Toluene
o + p xylene
HALOGEN ATED ALIPHATICS
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1 -Dichloroethane
1,1 -Dichloroethene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane
3-Chloro-1 -propane
l,4-Dichloro-2-butene (mixture of cis and trans)
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Dibrpmome thane
Dichloroiodomethane
lodomethane
HALOGENATED ALIPHATICS (continued)
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Total xylenes
Tribromomethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl chloride
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
HALOGENATED AROMATICS
1-Bromo-2-chlorobenzene
1 -Bromo-3-chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
KETONES
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
2-Propanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
MISCELLANEOUS
1,4-Dioxane
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
Carbon disulfide
Diethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Methyl methacrylate
Vinyl acetate
NITROGEN COMPOUNDS
2-Picoline
2-Propenenitrile
2-Propenenitrile-2-methyl-chloroacetonitrile
Ethyl cyanide
10-25
-------
ESTIMATE PRETRE ATMENT LIMITS
alcohols. They function as pesticides through
cholinesterase inhibition. These compounds are
typically high in molecular weight (i.e., 200 to
500). The pesticides are low in water solubility
(generally less than 100 mg/L), while the
herbicides are soluble in water up to 1,000 mg/L.
10.3.4. Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Seven PCB mixtures (also known as Aroclors) are
'included in the PCB classification. The mixtures
are differentiated by the amount of chlorine in the
Aroclor. The last two digits of the Aroclor
number denote the percentage of chlorine (except
PCB-1016, which is 41 percent chlorine). PCBs
were widely used for various applications due to
their extremely good thermal and chemical
stability; production was banned in 1976.
Analytically, PCBs are determined via extraction
andGC.
Except for PCB-1232, the solubility of these
mixtures in water is less than 0.6 mg/L. PCBs are
very hydrophobic and are most likely to be found
adsorbed to organic solids. Log Kow ranges
between 4 and 7, and published Henry^s Law
constants are 10" to
biodegradability is very low.
1 O"4 a t m mVmole;
10.3.5. Dioxins and Dibenzofurans
These compounds are characterized by two
benzene rings linked by either one (furans) or two
(dioxins) oxygen molecules. The rings may
undergo chlorine substitution at up to eight
locations, creating families of compounds
(e.g., there are 22 possible
tetrachlorodibenzodioxins). Klolecular weights
exceed 300. Dioxins and furans are very
hydrophobic, with solubilities in many cases less
than 1 mg/L and log K0w greater than 6.
Therefore, these compounds are expected to be
found adsorbed to the organic solids.
10.3.6. Elements
Seventy elements, primarily metals, are identified
on the ITD list of analytes. Tljie elements may be
divided into two separate jsubcategories in
reference to their natural state Jin solution: cations
and anions. Cations are positively charged, while
anions are negatively charged!.
These identified elements form predominantly
inorganic compounds, but ar0 included in some
organic compounds as well.; Metals generally
combine to form insoluble salts and concentrate in
the sludges. :
i
I
10.3.7. Miscellaneous '
The miscellaneous class includes the remaining
29 analytes on the ITD list of analytes. Most are
useful in controlling treatment processes or as
indicators, and are commonly referred to as the
conventional contaminants in biological
treatment systems (i.e., BOD, COD, and TSS).
Several others classified as [miscellaneous are
used to characterize a solid waste for disposal.
10-26
-------
SECTION n
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
-------
-------
11. HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
Three hypothetical case studies were developed to
guide FS writers, regulatory agencies, andPOTW
authorities through the process of evaluating the
potential for discharging CERCLA wastes to a
POTW. In most cases, evaluation of the POTW
discharge alternative will be complicated by many
technical and administrative requirements and
concerns. Therefore, it is essential to perform a
preliminary screening of the POTW alternative.
The purpose of the initial screening is to identify
the site-specific technical and administrative
issues that will influence the outcome of the
evaluation. It is important to identify and
understand these issues early in the evaluation of
the remedial alternatives to determine whether a
full-scale detailed evaluation of the POTW
alternative is warranted. There will be cases
where the POTW discharge alternative can be
ruled out early in the FS process; an example of
this is included in the case studies.
The case studies describe the preliminary
screenings of the POTW discharge alternative for
three unique wastestreams. Each assessment
closely follows the stepwise approach for
evaluating the discharge of CERCLA waste to a
POTW, as presented in this guidance manual.
Each case study highlights the important technical
and administrative issues raised during the course
of the evaluation. With the examples and
information presented in the case studies, FS
writers, regulatory officials, and POTW
authorities will become more familiar with many
of the important technical and administrative
issues involved and will be able to apply this
information to perform a preliminary screening of
the POTW alternative.
The case studies were designed using actual
analytical data obtained from four CERCLA sites.
Initially, each case study writer was given a data
set and a hypothetical flow volume and rate, and
was told what state the CERCLA site was in.
Three USEPA regions were selected for the case
studies to take into account any regional
differences in administrative requirements.
Given the background information, the case study
writers identified and contacted the appropriate
location of the hypothetical CERCLA site. State
and USEPA officials were instrumental in helping
the case study writer to gather information
concerning actual POTW authorities that were
operating in the designated area.
The case studies were organized to follow the
procedures for evaluating the discharge of
CERCLA wastes to a POTW, as presented in this
guidance manual. To assist the guidance manual
user, each case study is prefaced with a summary
of the contents of the case study (i.e., wastestream
characteristics, specific technical/administrative
issues, and results of the evaluation). Therefore,
the guidance manual user can screen the case
studies and determine which case study presents
the most relevant information useful to his/her
own evaluation.
11.1. CASE STUDY #1
Case Study #1 evaluates the remedial alternative
of discharging a finite quantity of liquid waste
from a lagoon to a POTW. The lagoon is 0.5 acre
in area; the depth of liquid waste averages
approximately 4 feet. Field investigations during
the RI determined that the lagoon was lined;
therefore, the only on-site waste requiring
treatment was the approximately 650,000 gallons
of liquid in the lagoon. Samples from the lagoon
that were collected for analysis revealed elevated
concentrations of many organics (i.e., benzoic
acid, acetone, chloroform, phenol, and toluene)
and inorganics (i.e., aluminum, cadmium,
magnesium, and manganese).
Five POTWs within a 10-mile radius of the site
were identified for the feasibility screening
evaluation. A sewer line was not present at the
11-1
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
site. Therefore,'Case Study #1 emphasizes
administrative issues and concerns associated
with obtaining permits to truck or pipe liquid
waste to a POTW. A complete evaluation of
treatability of the liquid waste in a POTW that
employs activated sludge is also included in Case
Study #1.
11.1.1. Identify and Characterize CERCLA
Wastewater Discharge
The CERCLA wastestream is liquid waste
contained in a half-acre lagoon. Approximate
volume of wastewater requiring treatment is
650,000 gallons. Analytical work from the RI
phase identified concentrations of contaminants
in the lagoon (Table 11-1). The waste fails TCLP
tests for cadmium, and contains several
compounds in excess of the Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs). The RI risk
assessment indicated the lagoon waste is a hazard
to human health and the environment.
Lagoon contents are classified as solid waste
because they have been discarded and abandoned
(40 CFR 261.2). Under RCRA regulations, the
lagoon waste is classified as hazardous because it
fails TCLP testing and cannot be excluded from
regulation under 40 CFR ง261.4(b). Hazardous
Waste No. D006 is assigned to the lagoon,
corresponding to cadmium (i.e., the contaminant
causing it to be hazardous [40 CFR ง261.24]).
11.1.2. Identify Potential Local POTWs
The site is not located near any POTW sewer
lines; therefore, liquid waste will have to be taken
to a local POTW using trucks or dedicated pipe.
For the purpose of this evaluation, a pumping rate
of 5,000 gallons per day (gpd) will be used to
assess pumping and/or hauling costs associated
with transporting the wastestream to the POTW.
POTWs located within a 10-mile radius of the
lagoon were identified, and will be evaluated as
potential receptors of the piped or trucked liquid
waste.
The USEPA regional Water Management
Division was contacted for assistance in locating
POTWs and making contact with POTW
authorities (i.e., within the 10-mile radius chosen
for initial screening of the POTW discharge
alternative). The USEPA Pretreatment
Coordinator recommended two POTW
Authorities (i.e., POTW Authorities A and B),
which operate a total of five plants in the area.
i
11.1.3. Involve POTW in Evaluation Process
and Screen POTWs '
USEPA personnel emphasized the importance of
involving all concerned parties early in the
evaluation process to arrive at a suitable treatment
scheme. Both POTW authorities were contacted
to determine if the POTWs were willing to accept
a CERCLA discharge, to obtain information
about technical capabilities (je.g., capacity and
unit operations), and to determine compliance
status of the POTWs. The statฃ was then notified
about POTWs being considered. Useful
information for screening POTWs was obtained
from these initial contacts.
11.1.3.1. Determine Compliance Status
i
The compliance status of fche five POTWs
identified within the 10-mile radius was checked
using the compliance checklist (see Subsection
4.2) and by telephoning the Regional Off-site
Coordinator. POTW Authority A administers
three treatment plants (i.e., POTWs 1, 2, and 3);
each is currently in compliance with applicable
permits and regulations. PQTW Authority B
administers two treatment plants (i.e., POTWs 4
and 5). POTW 5 is currently! in violation of its
NPDES permit; therefore, it w^s eliminated from
consideration as a potential waste receiver.
POTW 4 is in compliance with| applicable permits
and regulations. POTWs 3,4, jand 5 participate in
the National Pretreatment Program. None of the
POTWs is currently a RCRJA permit-by-rule
facility (see Subsection 3.1.J2). There was no
information on any of the facilities indicating a
significant potential for cjontamination of
11-2
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
TABLE 11-1
CASE STUDY #1
CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN CERCLA SITE WASTESTREAM
Organics
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Acetone
Benzene
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Phenol
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Herbicides/Pesticides
Dieldrin
Lindane
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cyanide
Cadmium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
3,040
1,450
10,000
10,000
68,580
3,740
4,050,000
10,000
3,100
12,600
16,100
2,690
5,340
2,090,000
3,470
14,200
1,720
4,150
42
75
5,530
200
40
28
2,820
1,080,000
52
1,230,000
11-3
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
TABLE 11-1
(continued)
CASE STUDY #1
CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN CERCLA SITE WASTESTREAM
Metals (continued)
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Sodium
Thallium
Zinc
Lead
Phosphorus
Potassium
306,000
14,400
2,270
20
4,020,000
20
830
1,550
169,000
840,000
jig/L = micrograms per liter
groundwater from impoundment of the CERCLA
wastewater.
To be eligible to receive the hazardous lagoon
waste by either truck, rail, or dedicated pipe, a
POTW must comply with its NPDES and other
permits, and RCRA reporting and manifest
requirements (40 CFR ง270.60). Remedial
activities at the lagoon site would need to comply
with the substantive requirements of the RCRA
standards for hazardous waste generators (40 CFR
ง262) and transporters (40 CFR ง263).
11.1.3.2. Consider Technical Feasibility
A screening table was prepared to evaluate
technical feasibility of the fivePOTWs (Table'
11-2). Of the three POTWs in the Authority A
district, only POTW 3 treats industrial waste.
POTW 3 uses activated sludge secondary
treatment and incinerates its sludge. POTWs 1
and 2 are low-flow primary treatment plants, and
were excluded from consideration because their
unit operations were unsuitablb for treatment.
The POTW closest to the
site is POTW 4,
administered by POTW Authority B. This plant
uses activated sludge secondary treatment and
landspreads sludge. POTW 4 has sufficient
excess capacity to treat lagoon Iwaste over the five
to six months it is expected jto be discharged.
Therefore, based on technical feasibility, POTWs
1 and 2 were excluded as potential receptors.
11-4
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
TABLE 11-2
CASE STUDY #1
EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF
CERCLA WASTESTREAM DISCHARGE TO IDENTIFIED POTWs
CRITERIA
Does the POTW have
hydraulic capacity to
handle additional
CERCLA wastestream
flow?
Are unit operations
suitable for treatment of
contaminants in the
CERCLA wastestream?
Is there a domestic
sanitary sewer piping
system running from the
CERCLA site to the
POTW?
Distance from CERCLA
site to POTW? (miles)
POTW's sludge disposal
process?
Could the POTW treat
the CERCLA
wastestream for the time
duration required?
POTWS
^ j ' S ,$ * ' -4
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
6.0
3.0
5.0
0.5
7.0
Landfill Landfill Incinerate Landspread Incinerate
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
11.1.3.3. Consider Administrative
Feasibility
The reaction of POTW Authority A to potentially
accepting the lagoon waste varied. Acceptance of
the waste was not summarily refused; however,
the waste originates in the Authority B district;
therefore, Authority A believes the waste is the
primary responsibility of Authority B. Authority
A expressed a strong disinterest in meeting RCRA
permit-by-rule requirements if the lagoon waste
were trucked or piped from the site to be treated by
11-5
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
Authority A. POTW 3 was excluded from further
consideration because administrative obstacles
were encountered during negotiations with
Authority A.
As a result of accepting several industrial
wastestreams, local limits for industrial
discharges to POTW 4 were recently developed
for metals, cyanide, oil and grease, and several
organics. The POTW 4 operator stressed that
these limits apply to all dischargers to the plant.
The NPDES authority developed NPDES limits
for all the CERCLA site contaminants not
currently limited in the POTW's NPDES permit.
Additionally, the POTW officially developed
local limits for all compounds in the CERCLA
waste before the CERCLA site discharge was
implemented. In addition to creating limits,
developing NPDES and local limits helped reduce
the POTW's long-term liability.
Developing discharge limits for the lagoon waste
would be an iterative process based on several
technical and administrative factors. The
following factors would have significant impact
on the decision to truck or pipe the lagoon waste to
a POTW: (1) water quality standards for the
receiving body of water, and other regulations;
(2) NPDES permit limits; (3) treatability
characteristics of the POTW; (4) potential for
pretreatment of the lagoon waste; (5) associated
costs of pretreatment and trucking or piping to the
POTW; (6) liability for accepting the waste; and
(7) political pressure.
The POTW 4 operator expressed a willingness to
accept the waste if he were relieved of liability
issues. Under SARA Section 119(c)(5)(D),
indemnification from liability to response action
contractors cannot be provided to facilities
regulated under RCRA (including RCRA
permit-by-rule POTWs). The POTW 4 operator
subsequently decided to meet the RCRA
permit-by-rule requirements during the CERCLA
site discharge.
Many issues that will ultimately determine the
outcome of a POTW discharge alternative are
administrative and political, and cannot be
predicted in the initial screening of the POTW
alternative. However, fof the purpose of
completing Case Study #1, the FS writer assumed
that POTW 4 will comply jwith the RCRA
permit-by-rule regulations and, therefore, is
capable of accepting the waste via truck or
dedicated pipe. |
i
11.1.4. Obtain/Estimate POTW Local Limits
I
11.1.4.1. Obtain Local Limits
The FS team requested a copy of POTW 4 local
limits on discharges, NPDES permit limits, and
sludge disposal permit limits. The operator
indicated that local limits on organics were
derived from the USEPA Toxieity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure proposed regulatory levels
(Federal Register, 1986). Becauseofthe
relatively small volume and short duration of the
wastestream discharge, the operator indicated that
no influent limits would be placed on
conventional and nonconventional pollutants,
except for oil and grease. Local limits for metals
would be imposed as for other discharges to the
plant. The operator stated jthat sludge from
POTW 4 is not considered a jhazardous waste;
therefore, it does not need tojbe disposed of as
such. Sludge samples are routinely analyzed for
metals and TCLP. The operator explained that
discharge limits for metals are imposed on
industrial users to ensure metal loading does not
impact sludge quality. Table 11-3 shows the
treatment process currently employed at POTW 4.
11.1.4.2. Estimate Local Limits
i
After state and USEPA officials conditionally
approved the operator's initial assessment of the
CERCLA wastestream discharge requirements,
the FS team prepared summary tables to identify
and assess the fate and treatabijlity of compounds
in the wastestream at POTW, 4 requiring
pretreatment. !
11-6
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
TABLE 11-3
CASE STUDY#l
TREATMENT PROCESS AT POTW 4
Screening
Grit Removal
Pretreatment
Primary Settling
Intermediate Treatment
Activated Sludge
Filters
Disinfection
Sludge Digestion
Sludge Disposal
Bar Rack
Grit Chamber
None
Clarified
None
Conventional
None
Chlorine Gas
Anaerobic
Land Spreading
After studying information from this document
and POTW-specific inhibition data, the FS writers
determined that pollutant concentrations in the
wastestream were not sufficiently high to cause
biological inhibition of POTW treatment
processes.
Table 11-4 presents mass balance information for
compounds in the CERCLA wastestream. The
purpose of mass balance is to calculate general
POTW treatment efficiency and to identify
POTW removal mechanisms (i.e., partitioning to
sludge and volatilization) impacted by constituent
removal from the CERCLA wastestream.
POTW-specific treatability data were not
available for all contaminants in the lagoon;
therefore, liquid waste, total removal,
volatilization, and partitioning percentages were
compiled from treatability data in Subsection 10.2
and other POTW treatability data.
Table 11-5 summarizes the treatability of the
CERCLA wastestream at POTW 4 and identifies
compounds that require pretreatment. For
compounds with local limits, pretreatment
decisions were straightforward. For compounds
without specifically regulated discharge
concentrations, the pretreat-or-discharge decision
was made by calculating effects of CERCLA
discharge on the quality of POTW influent and
effluent. Predicted POTW effluent
concentrations were compared to effluent limits,
including existing permit limits, Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC), and drinking water
standards to determine whether compounds in the
CERCLA wastestream will be effectively treated
at the POTW or whether pretreatment will be
required.
TheFS team's mass balance and treatability tables
were examined by USEPA, state, and POTW
officials. After negotiations, the groups
tentatively agreed on the list of compounds
requiring pretreatment (see Table 11-5).
11-7
-------
TABLE 11-4
CASE STUDY #1
MASS BALANCE FOR CERCLA WASTESTREAM CONTAMINANTS AT POTW 4
Orgatiks
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
3.04
NC
1,2-Dichloroethane
1.45
27.4
60M
45
12.3
1.1
16.5
2,4-Dichlorophenol
10.00
189
96 M
15.1
7.6
2,6-Dichlorophenol
10.00
189
96 M
o2
15.1
7.6
00
Acetone (2-Propanone)
68.58
1298
95 M
13.0
10
129.8
64.9
Benzene
3.74
NC
Benzole Acid
4050.00
76,650
ND
ND
ND
Benzyl Alcohol
10.00
189
ND
ND
ND
Chlorobenzene
3.10
NC
Chloroform
12.60
NC
Chloromethane
16.13
304.9
82 M
86
262.2
54.9
Ethylbenzene
2.69
50.9
42 M
24
12.2
0
29.5
Methylen&Chloride
_^34-
__NC
Phenol
2090.00
NC
Tetrachloroethene
3.47
NC
Toluene
14.20
NC
Trans- 1 ,2-dichloroethene
1.72
32.5
42 M
63
20.5
49
15.9
18.8
-------
TABLE 11-4
(continued)
CASE STUDY #1
MASS BALANCE FOR CERCLA WASTESTREAM CONTAMINANTS AT POTW 4
tfn&ow*.
con*
Trichloroethene
4.15
NC
Herbicides/Pesticides
Dieldrin
0.04
0.8
32 M
o5
0.07
0.5
Lindane
0.08
NC
Metals/Elements
Aluminum
5.53
104.7
90 M6
90
94.2
10.5
Antimony
0.20
3.8
17 M
90
3.4
3.2
Arsenic
0.04
NC
Cyanide
0.03
NC
Cadmium
2.82
NC
Calcium
1080.00
20440.0
4M
90
18396.0
19622.4
Copper
0.05
NC
Iron
1230.00
23280.0
81 M
90
20952.0
4423.2
Magnesium
306.00
5791.0
OM6
90
5211.9
5791.0
14.40
272.5
38 M8
90
245.2
169
2.27
NC
Selenium
0.02
0.4
OM
90
0.4
0.4
See notes, p.l 1-10
-------
TABLE 11-4
(continued)
CASE STUDY #1
MASS BALANCE FOR CERCLA WASTESTREAM CONTAMINANTS AT POTW 4
Sodium
4020.00
76090.0
68481.0
76090.0
Thallium
0.02
0.4
0.4
0.1
Zinc
0.83
NC
Lead
1.55
NC
Phosphorus
169.00
3202.0
80 G
90
2881.8
640.4
Potassium
840.00
15890.0
OG
90
14301
15890.0
9,-,
NOTES:
Calculated Contaminant Load (g/day) = [Calc. infl. cone. (mg/L)] [plant flow (L/day)] (1 g/103mg)
Used data from 2,4-dichlorophenol based on similar physical and chemical properties.
3Used data from 101-500-parts per billion (ppb) concentration range.
4Used data from vinyl chloride based on similar physical and chemical properties.
Used data from lindane and other pesticides based on similar physical and chemical properties.
^sed data from >5,000-ppb concentration range.
oUsed data from 1,001-5,000-ppb concentration range.
'Used data from 501-1,000-ppb concentration range.
'UsM data fronTaluminuTtrtesed'oTt similarphysicaTaTidchemical-properties: "
G = Source: Treatability data from another activated sludge POTW (Grand Rapids, Michigan)
M = Source: "CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs Treatability Manual" (USEPA1990).
NC = Mass balance not calculated. Influent concentration regulated by local limit.
ND = NoData
Due to the use of several sources and conservative addumptions, % to air plus % to sludge may not equal % removal.
-------
TABLE 11-5
CASE STUDY #1
TREATABILITY OF CERCLA WASTESTREAM AT POTW 4
f' ' ~ '
' "' SX ' , 'S'5
Organics
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
3.04
1.3
Pretreat
1,2-Dichloroethane
1.45
3.38X10"4
60 M
1.35X10"4
5xlO'3C
Discharge
2,4-Dichlorophenol
10.00
l.llxlO'3
96 M
4.44x10"-
0.7 S
Discharge
2,6-Dichlorophenol
10.00
l.llxlO';
96 MJ
4.44x10'-
0.73S
Discharge
Acetone (2-Propanone)
68.58
7.62x10'-
95 M4
3.81X10"4
0.05 E
Discharge
Benzene
3.74
0.07
Pretreat
Benzoic Acid
4050.00
0.450
no limit P
Discharge
Benzyl Alcohol
10.00
l.llxlO'3
no limit P
Discharge
Chlorobenzene
3.10
1.4
Pretreat
Chloroform
12.60
0.07
Pretreat
Chloromethane
16.10
1.79x10
,-3
82 M
3.22xlO'4
Pretreat
Ethylbenzene
2.69
2.99x10
42 M
1.73x10
,-4
0.68 R
Pretreat
Methylene Chloride
5.34
8.6
Pretreat
Phenol
2090.00
14.4
Pretreat
Tetrachloroethene
3.47
0.1
Pretreat
Toluene
14.20
14.4
Discharge
See notes, p. 11-14
-------
TABLE 11-5
(continued)
CASE STUDY #1
TREATABILITY OF CERCLA WASTESTREAM AT POTW 4
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1.72
1.91x10
42 M
1.11x10
0.07 R
Pretreat
Trichloroethene
4.15
0.07
Pretreat
Herbicides/Pesticides
Dieldrin
0.04
4.67X10"1
31.91 M6
3.18x10"
7.1xlO'8A
Pretreat
-indane
0.08
0.06
Pretreat
Aluminum
5.53
6.14x10
90 M'
6.14xlO'5
0.5 P
Discharge
Antimony
0.20
2.22x10'
,-5
17 M
1.84x10
,-5
0.146 A
Discharge
Arsenic
0,04
1.0 P
Discharge
Cyanide
0.03
2.0 P
Discharge
Cadmium
2.82
0.002
3.0 P
Discharge
Calcium
1080.00
0.1200
4M'
0.11
no limit P
Discharge
Copper~~~
~-0.05-
---Orl09-
Discharge-
Iron
1230.00
0.1367
81 Mฐ
0.02
0.3 E
Discharge
Magnesium
306.00
0.034
OM'
0.034
0.3 E
Discharge
Manganese
14.40
1.600x10
,-3
38 My
9.85x10
0.3 E
Discharge
See notes, p. 11-14
-------
Nickel
TABLE 11-5
(continued)
CASE STUDY #1
TREATABILITY OF CERCLA WASTESTREAM AT POTW 4
2.27
0.006
6.0 P
Discharge
Selenium
0.02
2.22x10''
OM
2.22X10"6
0.045 R
Discharge
Sodium
4020.00
0.4467
OM4
0.4467
no limit P
Discharge
Thallium
0.02
2.222X10"1
90 M
r7,10
2.22x10
,-7
0.013 A
Discharge
Zinc
0.83
0.157
5.0 P
Discharge
OJ
Lead
1.55
0.010
3.0 P
Discharge
Phosphorus
169.00
0.0188
80 G
3.76x10
,-3
1.0 P
Discharge
Potassium
840.00
0.0933
OG
0.0933
no limit P
Discharge
See notes, p. 11-14
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
H
O
CM
H
Ed
w ง e *
^ i s? s
j
ca
s
o
ASE
RC
C
EATABILITY OF CE
il
'
.
jali
^ > 53 >
co
lllill
11-14
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
11.1.5. Identify and Screen Pretreatment
Alternatives
11.1.5.1. Identify Pretreatment
Technologies
FS writers used information from this document
to identify and screen pretreatment technologies
(Table 11-6).
11.1.5.2. Assemble Alternative Process
Train Pretreatment
The FS team planned a pretreatment train for the
CERCLA wastestream. The proposed
pretreatment included oil and grease separation,
followed by activated carbon adsorption. The
scheme was designed to effectively pretreat the
wastestream while minimizing the number of
required processes.
11.1.6. Detailed Analysis of Discharge
Alternative
The FS team's evaluation determined that the
POTW discharge alternative is feasible for the
CERCLA wastestream; the final analysis will be
based primarily on the administrative and political
feasibility of the POTW to accept hazardous waste
by truck or dedicated pipe. Lagoon waste will be
collected, pretreated in a two-step process, and
transported to the POTW by either truck or
dedicated pipe. POTW, state, and USEPA
officials are confident that the wastestream will be
effectively treated at the POTW, based on past
experience and FS team calculations.
The POTW discharge alternative is expected to be
effective in the short- and long-term,
implementable, and cost-effective. It should
reduce toxicity of contaminants, protect human
health and the environment, and comply with
TABLE 11-6
CASE STUDY #1
PRETREATMENT OPTIONS FOR CERCLA WASTESTREAM
POLLUTANT
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Phenol
Tetrachloroethene
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Dieldrin
Lindane
Oil & Grease
CLASS APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES
" ? f "r
V Steam stripping, activated carbon
V Steam stripping, activated carbon
V Steam stripping, activated carbon
V Steam stripping, activated carbon
V Steam stripping, activated carbon
V Steam stripping, activated carbon
V Steam stripping, activated carbon
SV(A) Steam stripping, activated carbon
V Steam stripping, activated carbon
V Steam stripping, activated carbon
V Steam stripping, activated carbon
P(OH) Activated carbon
P(OH) Activated carbon
Oil & Grease Separation
V = Volatile
SV(A) = Semi-Volatile(Acid)
P(OH) = Pesticide(Organohalides)
11-15
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
ARARs. Because POTW, state, and USEPA
officials were involved in the planning of the
alternative, the community and state are expected
to accept the CERCLA wastestream discharge to
POTW alternative.
11.2. CASE STUDY #2
In Case Study #2, a POTW was identified that
already had local limits for several compounds
detected in the CERCLA wastestream during the
RI. The CERCLA site examined in Case Study #2
is a landfill that received municipal and industrial
wastes. The wastestream of concern is the landfill
leachate, which is contaminated by organics,
metals, pesticides, and conventional and
nonconventional pollutants.
To achieve remedial action objectives, treatment
of leachate discharged at a maximum rate of
80,000 gpd for five years is required. POTW
operators contacted during the screening process
were generally receptive to accepting the
CERCLA wastestream because of their
experience with industrial discharges and
knowledge of specific process capabilities.
Regional USEPA and state regulatory personnel
approved the discharge of pretreated CERCLA
waste to a POTW. Based on treatability
calculations generated during the screening of the
POTW alternative, pretreatment would probably
be required for several organics and metals
detected in the leachate.
11.2.1. Identify and Characterize CERCLA
Wastewater Discharge
The CERCLA wastestream is a leachate that
drains into a collection system installed beneath
the landfill. Samples collected during the RI
identified leachate contaminant concentrations
(Table 11-7). The leachate contains many
compounds in excess of AWQC. The risk
assessment undertaken during the RI indicated
thatleachate quality is a potential hazard to human
health and the environment, and cannot be
discharged without treatment.
I
Proposed remedial actions specify that leachate
will be generated at a rate of BO.OOO gpd over a
five-year period. Wastestream 'quality is expected
to improve with time; however, to be most
protective of human health, the environment, and
the treatment plant unit operations, the initial
POTW discharge evaluation isj based on the worst
case (i.e., all compounds are present in the
wastestream at the maximi
detected).
m concentration
The CERCLA wastestream ^s classified under
RCRA regulations as hazardous waste; the
landfill contents, which include drums of spent
solvents and chemical waste, are classified under
RCRA as solid wastes because they have been
discarded and abandoned (i40 CFR ง261.2).
Spent solvents and chemical yaste in the landfill
are considered hazardous, and fall under F-, U1,
and P-listed wastes (RCRA Subpart D). In
addition, a mixture of solid w aste and hazardous
waste is defined as hazardous
hazardous character!
waste if it exhibits
sties (40 CFR
ง261.3[a][2][iv]). Therefore, the leachate is
defined as a hazardous waste, because it is a "solid
waste generated from the ...disposal of a
hazardous waste."
The leachate could be excluded as a hazardous
waste if and when the DSB were applicable.
According to the DSE, "any mixture of domestic
sewage and other wastes that pass through a sewer
system to a POTW for treatment" is excluded as a
solid and, therefore, hazardous waste (40 CFR
ง261.4[a][l][ii]). For the DSE to apply, leachate
would need to be discharged ijnto a sewer on-site;
trucking to an off-site manhole is unacceptable.
11-16
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
TABLE 11-7
CASE STUDY #2
CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN CERCLA WASTESTREAM
Organics
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroe thane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Acetone
Benzene
Benzole Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
p-Cresol
Pentachlorobenzene
Phenol
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Herbicides/Pesticides
Heptachlpr
Toxaphene
Metals
'alcium
Cobalt
Iron
Magnesium
Vlanganese
Nickel
Selenium
Sodium
1,300 fig/L
4,660
720
960 p.g/L
830 |ig/L
500 jig/L
1,740
96,300
710 |ig/L
140 |ig/L
3,770 ng/L
520 |ig/L
160 ng/L
550 \ig/L
200 |ig/L
1,300 (ig/L
18,200 ^ig/L
170 jig/L
600
35 jig/L
50 jig/L
225,000 jig/L
10 |ig/L
6,700 |ig/L
55,300 ng/L
850 |ig/L
140 |J.g/L
2 ng/L
89,200 ug/L
11-17
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
TABLE 11-7
(continued)
CASE STUDY #2
Metals (continued)
Zinc
Chromium
Potassium
Conventionals
BOD
O&G
TSS
Nonconventionals
Ammonia, as N
COD
Fluoride
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl
Sulfide, Total Colorimetric
TDS
TOC
70
103,000 \ig/L
10,000 |ig/L
120mg/L
20 mg/L
1,300 mg/L
1.6 mg/L
260 mg/L
0.70 mg/L
2.0 mg/L
2.0 mg/L
7300 mg/L
90 mg/L
11.2.2. Identify Potential Local POTWs
Because the CERCLA site is located in an urban
area with several large POTWs to handle city
wastewater, the FS writers chose a 5-mile radius
from the landfill within which to identify and
characterize POTWs.
The USEPA Regional Water Management
Division, Water Permits and Compliance Branch,
was contacted to assist in locating individual
POTWs and/or POTW authorities within a 5-mile
radius of the site. Contact was made with
representatives from three POTWs (i.e., POTWs
1, 2, and 3). Each POTW is administered by a
separate authority. j
i.
11.2.3. Involve POTW in Evaluation Process
and Screen POTWs
i
USEPA personnel emphasized the importance of
involving all concerned parties (i.e., state officials
and POTW managers) early in the evaluation
process to discuss the potential for discharging to
a POTW, and to arrive at a suitable treatment
scheme. The three POTJW managers were
contacted and asked to provide information about
available capacity, treatment unit processes,
treatment capabilities, and local ordinances
11-18
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
regulating their operations (i.e., pretreatment
program, sludge disposal practices,
influent/effluent monitoring, air emissions, and
local limits for industrial users). Information
obtained from initial discussions with POTW
managers was relayed to state officials to initiate
an open communication path between all parties.
11.2.3.1. Determine Compliance Status
Because the state agency administered the
NPDES program for the local POTWs, the state
water permits division was asked to provide
copies of the NPDES permit for each POTW
under consideration, and the AWQC for POTW
receiving waters. Air emissions permits were
requested from the state air permits section. The
Regional Off-site Coordinator was contacted to
provide any applicable information. State
regional offices were asked to provide summary
data for each POTW influent, effluent, sludge, and
air emissions monitoring programs, where
applicable.
All POTW managers contacted indicated that
their facilities have a good history of compliance
with applicable regulations; there was no
information indicating significant potential for
groundwater contamination from impoundment
of the CERCLA wastewater. Using the POTW
compliance checklist (see Table 4-1), the
facilities' individual permits (i.e., NPDES,
sludge, and air) were examined. The regional
USEPA Water Permits and Compliance Section
was contacted to confirm that the POTWs were
operating up to standards. Each POTW has an
approved pretreatment program.
11.2.3.2. Consider Technical Feasibility
A screening table was prepared to evaluate
technical feasibility of CERCLA wastestream
discharge to the three plants (Table 11-8).
Information from the POTWs indicated that all
three use primary settling in combination with
activated sludge treatment processes. In addition,
POTW 3 uses a tertiary sand-filter system.
POTWs 1 and 2 incinerate sludge and landfill the
ash; POTW 3 composts and landspreads sludge.
Of the three, POTW 2 has the largest capacity
(56.2 mgd), followed by POTW 1 (34 mgd) and
POTW 3(11.4 mgd). POTWs 2 and 3 are
expected to have sufficient available capacity to
handle discharge from the CERCLA site for the
five-year duration; however, allowing for average
loading increases from surrounding communities,
POTW 1 is currently operating at capacity and is
experiencing overloading problems during
storms. Therefore, it would not be technically
feasible to discharge to POTW 1. POTW 3 has
available capacity to handle the CERCLA
discharge. However, the operator was concerned
about the effects of accepting the wastewater on
his ability to continue to compost and landspread
the sludge; therefore, the operator was hesitant to
agree to accept the wastewater.
11.2.3.3. Consider Administrative
Feasibility
The sewer system on-site is connected to POTW
2. Discharging to this sewer would be covered by
the Domestic Sewage Exclusion (DSE). Treating
the CERCLA wastestream at POTW 3 would
require trucking or piping to the facility, and the
facility would be required to obtain a RCRA
permit-by-rule. Therefore, to discharge to POTW
3 would be more costly, and to obtain required
permits would be more difficult than for POTW 2.
In addition, public pressure to not accept the
CERCLA wastestream (because of concerns
about land application of the sludge) may rule out
POTW 3. Due to administrative circumstances,
discharge to POTW 2 is the preferable alternative.
Once POTW 2 was identified as the most suitable
alternative, discharge negotiations between the
POTW authority, USEPA Remedial Project
Manager (RPM), state authorities, and the FS
team were initiated to discuss specific details of
discharging CERCLA waste to the POTW. Table
11-9 shows the treatment process and methods
employed at POTW 2.
11-19
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
TABLE 11-8
CASE STUDY #2
EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF CERCLA WASTESTREAM DIS-
CHARGE TO IDENTIFIED POTWs |
CRITERIA
POTWS
Does the POTW have
hydraulic capacity to
handle additional
CERCLA wastestream
flow?
Are unit operations
suitable for treatment of
contaminants in the
CERCLA wastestream?
Is there a domestic
sanitary sewer piping
system running from the
CERCLA site to the
POTW?
Distance from CERCLA
site to POTW? (miles)
POTW's sludge disposal
process?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
5.2
1.6
3.5
Incinerate/Landfill Incinerate/Landfill Conipost/Landspread
The NPDES authority developed NPDES limits
for all the CERCLA site contaminants not
currently limited in the POTW's NPDES permit.
Additionally, the POTW officially developed
local limits for all compounds in the CERCLA
waste before the CERCLA site discharge was
implemented. In addition to creating limits,
developing NPDES and local limits helped reduce
the POTW's long-term liability.
11.2.4. Obtain/Estimate POTW Local Limits
i
11.2.4.1. Obtain Local Liijnits
i
The FS team requested a copy of POTW 2 local
limits for industrial userjs and NPDES, air
emissions, and sludge disposal permit limits. The
operator indicated that local limits were contained
in the municipality sewer use brdinance for metals
and cyanide only. Because of the relatively small
volume of the leachate (compared to the current
11-20
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
TABLE 11-9
CASE STUDY #2
POTW 2 UNIT OPERATIONS
Screening
Grit Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Aeration
Final Sedimentation
Disinfection
Sludge Thickening
Bar Rack
Grit Chamber
Settling Tank
Activated Sludge
Clarifier
Chlorine Gas
Gravity Thickening
influent to the POTW), the operator indicated that
influent limits would not initially be placed on
conventional and nonconventional pollutants.
Metals and cyanide local limits would be the same
as for other discharges to the plant.
11.2.4.2. Estimate Local Limits
The FS writers evaluated the effect of CERCLA
site discharge on the POTW, and estimated local
limits that might be appropriate. The leachate
contained concentrations of several compounds
that created the potential for inhibition of
activated sludge treatment processes at POTW 2.
Among the compounds for which biological
inhibition threshold concentrations are available
(see Tables 10-1 and 10-2), only chlorobenzene
and chromium were present in the leachate at
possible inhibitory concentrations. However,
when diluted by plant flow, concentrations will be
well below inhibitory levels.
At the time of the evaluation, biological inhibition
data were not available to the FS writers for the
following compounds present in the leachate:
2-propanone, benzoic acid, benzyl alcohol,
p-cresol,pentachlorobenzene,
trans-1,2-dichloroethene (trans-1,2-DCE),
heptachlor, toxaphene, cobalt, magnesium,
selenium, sodium, and potassium. However, the
FS writers inferred the behavior of the substances
based on physical and chemical properties.
Oxygenated species (e.g., 2-propanone, benzoic
acid, benzyl alcohol, and p-cresol) at leachate
concentrations are assumed sufficiently
biodegradable to not impair the biological system.
Chlorinated organics pentachlorobenzene and
trans-1,2-DCE should behave similarly to
compounds 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene and
tetrachlorbethene and, therefore, should not
biologically inhibit at leachate concentrations.
Highly soluble metals (i.e., magnesium, sodium,
and potassium) are expected to behave similarly
to calcium and, therefore, should not inhibit
11-21
-------
TABLE 11-10
CASESTUDY#2
TREATABILITY OF CERCLA WASTESTREAM AT POTW 2
Organks
,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1.300
<0.005
4.35x10"-
85
M
6.53x10
1.7x10
Pretreat
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
4.660
6.63x10
3
83
M
1.13x10"-
0.01
)ischarge
,2-Dichlorobenzene
0.719
0.003
4.02x10"'
40
M
2.41x10"-
0.62
D
Mscharge
to
10
,4-Dichlorobenzene
0.964
-------
TABLE 11-10
(continued)
CASE STUDY #2
TREATABILITY OF CERCLA WASTESTREAM AT POTW 2
Toluene
18.200
0.015
4.08x10"
93
2.86x10
,-3
2.0
D
Discharge
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
0.170
0.002
2.24xlO"3
49
M
1.14x10
,-3
0.07
D
Discharge
rrichloroethylene
0.601
0.017
1.78xl(T
76
4.28x10
,-3
2.7xlO"3
*Pretreat
Herbicides/Pesticide
to
UJ
3eptachlor
0.035
0.0004
4.49x10'
.-4
80
M
8.98x10
,-5
2.8x10"
;Pretreat
Toxaphene
0.050
7.11x10"
94
M
4.26x10"
7.1x10"
Pretreat
Metals/Elements
Calcium
225
74
74.2
72.0
No Limit
Discharge
:obalt
0.010
0.011
1.10x10"
1.00x10"
0.01
Discharge
ron
6.70
1.32
1.33
26
0.984
No Limit
Discharge
Magnesium
55.30
20
20.1
19.1
No Limit
discharge
Manganese
0.850
0.062
6.32x10"^
2.05xlO"4
6.13x10
,-2
0.3
)ischarge
Nickel
0.144
35
M
1.33x10"*
1.5
discharge
selenium
0.002
1.50x10
,-3
M
1.50x10
,-3
0.01
discharge
5odium
89.2
131
131
130
No Limit
)ischarge
iinc
0.070
9.95X10"5
69
M
3.08x10"
2.6
L Discharge
See notes, p. 11-25
-------
Chromium
TABLE 11-10
(continued)
CASE STUDY #2
TREATABILITY OF CERCLA WASTESTREAM AT POTW 2
103.0
Discharge
Potassium
10.0
1.149x10'
,-2
1.149x10
,-2
No Limit
Discharge
BOD
120
103
103
84.0
17
18
P5 Discharge
TSS
1,300
135
135
87
17.6
30
Discharge
Nonconventlonals:
Ammonia, As N
1.6
11.3
11.3
11.3
13.5
P5 Discharge
COD
260
328
328
70
98.4
Monitor Only
Discharge
Fluoride
0.72
1.07x10
,-3
1.07x10''
4.00
D
Discharge
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl
2.1
17.16
17.1
15
14.5
Monitor Only
Discharge
Sulfide, Total (lodometric)
2.0
2.98x10'-
2.98xlO':
0.05
Discharge
TDS
7300
718
727
0
727
vlonitor Only
Discharge
TOC
65
65.0
63
-T-
24,1-
MonitorOnly - -
-P
Discharge
Total Phosphorus, As P
0.38
3.68
3.68
80
0.736
1.0
Discharge
-------
TABLE 11-10
(continued)
CASE STUDY #2
TREATABILITY OF CERCLA WASTESTREAM AT POTW 2
to
- = No Data Available
A = Source: POTW Annual Report
D = Source: Maximum Contaminant Limit or Recommended Maximum Contaminant Limit
E = Source: Decision by USEPA Regional Water Permits Section
M = Source: "CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs Treatability Manual" (USEPA 1990)
P = SPDES Permit Limit
S = Ambient Water Quality Standard
T = POTW #2 Treatability Studies
L = Local Limit on Site Influent; Not an Effluent Limit
B = No Treatability Data Available - Assuming Zero % Removal
'Calculated Influent Cone. (mg/L) =
(Site Effluent Cone.) ( Avg. Daily Site Flow Volume^ + fPOTW Avg. Infl. Cone.) ( Avg. Daily POTW Flow Volnmel
(Avg. Daily Site How Volume + Avg. Daily POTW Flow Volume)
CERCLA waste flow - 80,000 gpd
POTW #2 low seasonal average flow- 56.2 mgd
Combined influent - 56,280,000 gpd
POTW influent concentration was assumed to be zero if no data was available.
Calculated Effluent Cone. (mg/L) = (Calculated Influent Cone.) (1 - % Removal)
Compound present at concentrations below the detection limit. Assumed concentration is half the reported detection limit.
Data obtained from 101-500-ppb influent concentration range
Low seasonal limit
* Pretreatment decisions based on Ambient Water Quality Standards. NPDES permit limits need to be developed for each original compound that exceeds stand-
ards. Based on NPDES limits, pretreatment may not be required for each compound.
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
biological systems at leachate concentrations.
The pesticides heptachlor and toxaphene, as well
as the metals cobalt and selenium, are a concern;
however, leachate concentrations are low, and
with dilution by other wastewaters at the treatment
plant, inhibitory effect is expected to be
insignificant.
Table 11-10 summarizes treatability of the
CERCLA wastestream at POTW 2. No local
limits were in place for organic pollutants;
however, reasonable conservative effluent
concentration limits were compiled from MCLs
for drinking water and input from the regional
USEPA Water Permits Section. Fortunately,
POTW 2 compiled extensive treatability data
through a USEPA grant; therefore, the fate of
many CERCLA wastestream contaminants in
POTW 2 processes was estimated. Treatability
data also provided a comprehensive background
study of pollutants regularly present in POTW 2
influent.
To determine treatability of the CERCLA
wastestream at POTW 2, an influent
concentration was calculated for each component
(see Table 11-10). The calculated influent is the
product of the daily CERCLA wastestream flow
and concentration, and POTW average low
seasonal flow and concentration, divided by the
total flow. Effluent concentration for each
contaminant was determined as the difference
between influent concentration and total
percentage removed. Principal removal
mechanisms in a POTW are volatilization,
biodegradation, and partitioning to the biomass.
Removal percentages for various wastestream
components were compiled from POTW 2
treatability studies, the POTW 2 annual report,
and the treatability of compounds information
presented in previous sections of this manual.
Pretreatment was elected when wastestream
contaminant concentration exceeded the local
limit.
For compounds without specifically regulated
discharge concentrations, the
pretreat-or-discharge decision is made by
calculating effects of the CERJCLA discharge on
the quality of POTW influent and effluent.
Calculated POTW effluenjt is compared to
existing NPDES permit limits, AWQC, and
drinking water standards to decide whether
particular compounds ip the CERCLA
wastestream will be effectively treated at the
POTW or whether pretreatment will be required.
j
The treatability table, generated during the POTW
alternate screening process,iwas examined by
USEPA, state, and POTW: officials. After
negotiations, the groups tentatively agreed on the
list of compounds requiring j pretreatment (see
Table 11-10).
11.2.5. Identify and Screen Pretreatment
Alternatives
11.2.5.1. Identify Pretreatment
Technologies j
The FS writers identified and screened
pretreatment technologies, and examined
pretreatment options for compounds requiring
concentration reduction be|fore discharge to
POTW 2. Table 11-11 lists compounds requiring
pretreatment, their chemical classes, and the
effective pretreatment technijques. Appropriate
unit processes for the compounds requiring
pretreatment are reduction/precipitation,
steam-stripping, and activated carbon treatments.
11.2.5.2. Assemble Alternative Process
Train Pretreatme'nt
i
The FS team proposed a pretreatment train for the
CERCLA wastestream, including reduction,
precipitation, and activated carbon adsorption, to
effectively pretreat the w|astestream while
minimizing the number of processes required.
Using the checklist in Subsection 6.2, FS writers
determined that their pretreatment and discharge
plan would meet ARARs. The treatability
calculations and pretreatment plan were presented
11-26
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
TABLE 11-11
CASE STUDY #2
PRETREATMENT OPTIONS FOR CERCLA WASTESTREAM
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Benzene
Chloroform
Phenol
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Heptachlor
Toxaphene
Chromium
V
V
V
SV(A)
V
V
P(OH)
P(OH)
M+E(C)
^^
Steam-stripping, activated carbon
Steam-stripping, activated carbon
Steam-stripping, activated carbon
Steam-stripping, activated carbon
Steam-stripping, activated carbon
Steam-stripping, activated carbon
Activated carbon
Activated carbon
Reduction, precipitation
to POTW 2 for comment and approval and were
accepted after verification through bench-tests.
11.2.6. Detailed Analysis of the POTW
Discharge Alternative
The initial screening indicated that the POTW
discharge alternative will be feasible for the
CERCLA wastestream. Landfill leachate will.be
collected, pretreated on-site in a two-step process,
and transported to the POTW through the on-site
domestic sewer, thereby invoking the DSE and
eliminating the need for RCRA permit-by-rule
procedures and other hazardous waste
transporting and recordkeeping requirements.
POTW, state, and USEPA officials are confident
that the wastestream will be effectively treated at
the POTW, based on past experience and the FS
team calculations.
The POTW discharge alternative is expected to be
effective in the short- and long-term,
implementable, and cost-effective. It should
reduce the toxicity of contaminants, protect
human health and the environment, and comply
with ARARs. Because POTW, state, and USEPA
officials were involved in the planning, the
community and state are expected to accept the
alternative.
11.3. CASE STUDY #3
Case Study #3 focuses on the feasibility of treating
contaminated groundwater at a CERCLA site that
resulted from improper disposal practices at
several dye-manufacturing companies. Remedial
action objectives established in the site FS dictate
that groundwater remediation must achieve
applicable drinking water standards and
acceptable risk levels. Based on site conditions,
groundwater extraction using a series of pumping
wells appears technically feasible. The FS,
therefore, evaluates both on- and off-site
treatability alternatives for the extracted
groundwater. Included in the list of remedial
alternatives was the option to discharge
contaminated groundwater to a POTW. Case
Study #3 includes procedures, assumptions to
evaluate discharging groundwater to a POTW,
and conclusions of the evaluation. This case
study emphasizes the need to examine
administrative feasibility of using a POTW to treat
11-27
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
CERCLA wastes early in the POTW screening
process.
A range of contaminants was detected in
groundwater samples collected during the site RL
Metal concentrations ranged from 0.0012 mg/L
(mercury) to 850 mg/L (sodium), and organic
compound concentrations ranged from 125 mg/L
(chlorodibromomethane) to 14,000 mg/L
(nitrobenzene). Two groundwater pumping
scenarios were developed in the FS. The first
scenario assumed a pumping rate of 1 mgd to be
implemented over a three-year period. The
second assumed a pumping rate of 0.1 mgd, over
a 10-year period. Both pumping schemes were
considered during the evaluation process.
Three POTWs located near the site (i.e., POTWs
1,2, and 3) were evaluated, based on compliance
status of the POTW, hydraulic capacity, ability of
the POTW to treat waste, options available to
transport waste to the POTW, distance from the
site, POTW limits, ability of the POTW to treat the
wastestream for the required duration, and
administrative feasibility.
It was concluded, based on administrative
obstacles, that discharge of CERCLA site waste to
the three POTWs was not a feasible alternative.
POTW 1 was eliminated because its by-laws
specifically prohibit discharge of treated or
untreated groundwaters to the sewer system. Its
by-laws also prohibit discharge of hazardous
waste generated from treatment of hazardous or
toxic waste. In addition, POTW 1 is currently
operating over capacity and is not in compliance
with its NPDES permit. POTWs 2 and 3 were
eliminated for two reasons: (1) the CERCLA site
was located outside the POTW districts, and the
sewer commissioner indicated that discharge
originating from outside the sewerage district is
prohibited; and (2) the waste would need to be
sent to these POTWs via truck or dedicated pipe;
therefore, the DSE would not apply. Neither
POTW was willing to obtain RCRA
permit-by-rule status.
11.3.1. Identify CERCLA Wastewater
Discharge !
\
The CERCLA wastewater stream to be potentially
discharged and treated by a POTW consists of
contaminate dgroundv^ater. Several
dye-manufacturing companies contributed to the
contamination through improper disposal
practices. Tables 11-12 and 11-13 list
contaminants and the concentrations at which
they were detected. Several metals and organic
compounds were detected ill a wide range of
concentrations.
11.3.2. Characterize CERCLA Wastewater
Discharge
I
MCLs, the maximum permissible level of a
contaminant in water delivered to any user of a
public water system, are not javailable for most
compounds detected in the groundwater.
However, chromium and lead levels exceed the
MCL, andtrichlorethylene concentrations exceed
the MCL by a factor ofjalmost 1,000.
Concentrations of other organic constituents
exceed 1 mg/L; COD of the w,ater is 290 mg/L.
I
The need to pump and treat[groundwater was
established through the risk assessment process
during the RI. Two groundwater pumping
scenarios were developed in the FS. The first
scenario, designed to rapidly remediate the
aquifer, assumed a pumping rate of 1 mgd (i.e.,
approximately 700 gpm) to be implemented over
a three-year period through a series of extraction
wells. The second scenario assumed a pumping
rate of 0.1 mgd (i.e., approximately 70 gpm) over
a 10-year period. Flow rates; represent average
daily flows generated from aqjuifer pumping, and
are estimated to 15 percent, j Decision-makers
must consider both pumpinig schemes before
selecting an extraction sys|tem in the ROD;
therefore, the FS must evaluate technical and
institutional issues associated with both flow
rates.
11-28
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
TABLE 11-12
CASE STUDY #3
METALS AND CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
iv v %-- <.
'' ^ ff :'f. wXv, ^.v. "^ '>v' >
^.v, , 'A- ,,f % v. -^ ,_ ^^ f&-,?tf
^ " %% "%*\ซ% ' ^ ",T
;*\ %%- ^ \!jTx ""-,, % ^^% ''"^
v% ^ s ^ s
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Conventionals
Ammonia
Organic Carbon
COD
Total Phosphorus
Suspended Solids
- ; .,,.,,, % %x ,TO ซ ^__ %,',^ ^^' v% < v"-v
ff'f'-J'f s ,. "" ^^ ^ s \ S ""SMS " ''S''' rf^ \ ซ,% * % s v. % s % si. %Xss%
\s^\;\ ,\V"- " JBSflHwM^fiED \"v,^ '^'^ T 'MA1!CIM^JM^" /ซ*
" ^ ' %r^--" % * w^ J)JS^3SJSS^B''k "" "" "" " " ^OTAMlNAiNlf'^
%% % ^ssss^ "" % V^ ^ ^ ^ ^^v*f|^*M^ffiiflV ง.JJtMk A JJjJrj^i "" sss ^% ""Jr/Jv r *!^JM- ^ v %
^ f *. %%%%% %%% % f
24
0.02 0.05
0.18
210
0.06 0.05
0.18
0.3 1.3
89 -
0.08 0.05
48 --
16 -
0.001 0.002
0.21
26 --
850
0.78
6.0 -
73 -
290
0.18
1610
NOTE:
mg/L = milligrams per liter
11-29
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
TABLE 11-13
CASE STUDY #3
ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
ESTIMATED
DISCHARGE
POLLUTANT
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Aniline
(rag/L)'
3,400
125
250
4,900
2,100
14,000
1,900
(rag/L)
NOTE:
mg/L = milligrams per liter
Determine whether CERCLA Wastestream is
a RCRA-listed Hazardous Waste. RCRA
regulatory status of contaminated groundwater at
the site was evaluated in conjunction with the lead
agency. It was clearly established that discarded
material from former dye-manufacturing
operations was the source of contaminants in
groundwater at the site. The FS team made a
case-specific assessment to determine
applicability of RCRA Subtitle C regulations.
The RI from the site indicated contaminants in
groundwater leached from sludge disposed of on
the property and from several soil areas where
aqueous residues were dumped from barrels.
According to interviews with former employees,
discarded waste included distillation bottoms
from aniline production, process residuals from
aniline extraction, and combined wastewater
streams generated from nitrobenzene/aniline
production. These wastes are listed hazardous
under 40 CFR ง261.32 (i.e, K083, K103, and
K104). Interviews also revealed that aniline
residuals, listed a U102, and spent solvents (i.e.,
F001) were dumped on the property. Because the
groundwater contained these wastes and their
constituents, the groundwater must be managed as
a hazardous waste until it no longer contains the
waste, in accordance with the "contained-in"
policy. |
11.3.3. Identify Potential Lokl POTWs
I
The FS team contacted the \\fater Management
Division, Municipal Facilities Branch, and
Municipal Permits Section at USEPA regional
offices to obtain locations, contact names, and
telephone numbers for POTWs near the site. The
state water pollution control agency was
contacted to provide NPDES permits for POTWs
near the site and state ambient water quality
standards. I
11-30
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
A major consideration for identifying POTWs
that may accept the CERCLA discharge is
determining whether the CERCLA waste would
be regulated as a RCRA hazardous waste and, if
so, whether the DSE applies to the discharge of the
waste to the POTW.
Under 40 CFR ง261.4, domestic sewage, and any
mixture of domestic sewage and other wastes that
flow through a sewer system to a POTW, is
excluded as solid waste, and therefore would not
be considered hazardous waste under RCRA
Subtitle C. Even if domestic sewage mixes with a
known RCRA hazardous waste and flows through
a sewer system to a POTW, the mixture is
excluded from RCRA control.
The DSE extends to most wastes that reach
POTWs; however, it does not exempt waste
received within POTW property boundaries by
truck, rail, or dedicated pipeline. The DSE is only
applicable to any solid wastes that mix with
sanitary wastes in a sewer system leading to a
POTW. USEPA ruled that waste falls within the
DSE when it first enters a sewer system in which
mixing with sanitary wastes will occur before
receipt by a POTW (Federal Register. 1980).
In this instance, a sewer main passes along the
road to the site; abandoned buildings on the site
property were connected to the sewer line to
discharge sanitary wastewater and some process
wastewaters. The sewer line transports
wastewater to a large metropolitan wastewater
treatment facility (i.e., POTW 1) 20 miles east of
the site. Discharge of the groundwater into this
sewer would be covered by the DSE.
State officials identified two other POTWs within
a 15-mile radius of the site (i.e., POTWs 2 and 3).
Because no existing sewer line connects these
plants to the site, pumped groundwater would
need to be sent to these POTWs via truck or
dedicated pipe. Therefore, DSE would not apply
and the waste would have to be disposed of as a
RCRA waste. These two POTWs are not
currently RCRA Permit-by-Rule facilities. The
following descriptions summarize POTWs 1, 2,
and 3.
POTW 1 is 20 miles east of the site;
a domestic sanitary sewer line runs
from the site to the treatment
facility. Discharge of the
groundwater into the sewer line
would be covered by the DSE.
POTW 2 is 15 miles from the site.
No existing sewer line connects the
site to the facility. If the
groundwater is transported by
truck, rail, or dedicated pipe, the
POTW must become a RCRA
permit-by-rule facility.
POTW 3 is 15 miles from the site.
No existing sewer line connects the
site to the facility. If the
groundwater is transported by
truck, rail, or dedicated pipe, the
POTW must become a RCRA
permit-by-rule facility.
11.3.4. Involve POTW in the Evaluation
Process and Screen POTWs
11.3.4.1. Determine Compliance Status
The first step in initially screening the three
POTWs is to determine compliance status of each
treatment plant. A compliance evaluation was
done for each POTW by using the compliance
checklist in Table 4-1, and consulting with an
official from each POTW. Results of the
evaluation indicated that POTW 1 exceeded its
hydraulic capacity and periodically exceeds its
NPDES permit limits for suspended solids, fecal
coliform, and BOD. POTW 2 is currently in
compliance with its NPDES permit, pretreatment
program requirements, and all other applicable
RCRA requirements or other laws. Although
POTW 3 was generally in compliance, the facility
is composting its sludge on-site and has received
negative publicity due to significant odor
11-31
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
TABLE 11-14
CASE STUDY #3
SCREENING POTENTIAL POTWs
CERCLA WASTESTREAM DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT
i
EVALUATING TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY j
I
CRITERIA
POTWJ
"5^,' ' ;. s ,^ซ
Does the POTW have hydraulic capacity to handle No Yes
additional CERCLA flow?
Are unit operations suitable for treatment of contaminants Yes Yes
in the CERCLA wastestream?
Is there a domestic sanitary sewer piping system running Yes No
from the site to the POTW and will the DSE apply?
.
Is the POTW a RCRA Permit-by-Rule facility? No No
Distance from the site to POTW? (miles) 20.0 15.0
POTW sludge disposal process?
Composting Landfill
Could the POTW treat the CERCLA wastestream for the No No
time duration required?
i
Yes
Yes
No
No
15.0
Composting
No
problems. There was no information at any of the
candidate facilities indicating a significant
potential for groundwater contamination from
impoundment of the CERCLA wastewater.
11.3.4.2. Consider Technical Feasibility
The second step of the initial screening is
determining whether each POTW can technically
accept the waste. Table 11-14 summarizes
technical information obtained from each POTW.
Officials at the water resource authority for
POTW 1 indicated that the treatment facility flow
is over capacity and therefore could not accept the
waste. j /
POTWs 2 and 3 serve the northern and southern
portions (respectively) of a small city, and both
receive domestic and industrial wastewater. No
existing sewer line connects!these plants to the
site; the FS team considered installing a dedicated
pipe from the site to the POTW sewer systems.
Both POTWs are operating |near capacity, but
were not excluded as potential receivers of the
waste.
11-32
-------
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES
The FS team determined it would not be feasible
to truck or pipe wastewater to POTWs located
outside the 15-mile radius of the site, based on the
anticipated flow rates of wastewater from the site
and the projected costs for trucking or building a
dedicated pipe from the site to the sewer
connection. Therefore, additional local POTWs
were not contacted.
11.3.4.3. Consider Administrative
Feasibility
The third step of the initial screening is to consider
administrative feasibility of discharging the waste
to the POTWs. When the sewer commission
responsible for overseeing operations atPOTWs 2
and 3 was contacted, the commissioner indicated
that the two POTWs are not willing to comply
with the additional requirements to become
RCRA permit-by-rule facilities. In addition, both
POTWs prohibit discharges originating from
outside the sewerage district. Both plants
currently operate close to capacity; therefore, the
sewer commission would not consider
exemptions to this by-law. Discharge to POTWs
2 and 3 was deemed administratively infeasible.
The FS team considered discharge to other
POTWs beyond the initial 15-mile radius. On the
basis of a preliminary screening, this option was
considered significantly less cost-effective than
on-site groundwater treatment by more
conventional systems (e.g., air-stripping or
granular activated carbon).
11.3.5. Conclusion
Because administrative obstacles were
encountered at each POTW, use of a POTW to
treat the contaminated groundwater at the site is
not a viable alternative; further discussions with
local POTWs were discontinued. POTW 1 was
eliminated because it had difficulties meeting
compliance standards and is currently operating
over capacity. POTWs 2 and 3 were eliminated
because neither POTW was willing to become a
RCRA permit-by-rule facility and each prohibits
discharges originating from outside the sewer
district. In addition, POTWs 2 and 3 are operating
near capacity; therefore, the sewer commission
would not consider exemption to this by-law.
11-33
-------
-------
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ARARs
AWQC
BAT
BCT
BOD
BPJ
BPT
CAS
CERCLA
CLP
COD
CWA
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
biological oxygen demand
Best Professional Judgment
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
Chemical Abstract System
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Contract Laboratory Program
chemical oxygen demand
Clean Water Act
DCE
DSE
DSS
ELGs
EP
FS
FWPCA
dichloroethene
Domestic Sewage Exclusion
Domestic Sewage Study
effluent limits guidelines
Extraction Procedure (toxicity)
Feasibility Study
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
GC
gpm
riD
kg/day
KQW
MCL
mgd
gas chromatography
gallons per day
gallons per minute
Industrial Technology Division
kilogram per day
Octanol/water partition coefficient
Maximum Contaminant Level
million gallons per day
Glossary -1
-------
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
mg/L
MLVSS
NAAQS
NCP
NPDES
NPL
O&M
OSWER
PCB
PHE
POTW
ppb
PRP
RAR
RCRA
RI
ROD
RPM
SARA
SVOC
TCL
TCLP
TIE
TRE
TSD
TSS
milligrams per liter
mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Contingency Plan
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priority List
operation and maintenance
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
polychlorinated biphenyl
Public Health Evaluation
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
parts per billion
potentially responsible party
relevant and appropriate requirement
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Investigation
Record of Decision
Remedial Project Manager
Superfimd Amendments and Reauthorization Act
semivolatile organic compound
Target Compound List
Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure
toxicity identification evaluation
toxicity reduction evaluation
treatment, storage, and disposal
total suspended solids
USEPA
VOC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
volatile organic compound
Glossary - 2
-------
REFERENCES
Anthony, R.M., and L.H. Breimburst, 1981. "Determining Maximum Influenced Concentrations of Priority
Pollutants for Treatment Plants"; Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation: Vol. 53, No.
10; pp. 1457-1468.
Federal Register. Vol. 45, No. 98; p. 33097; May 19,1980.
Federal Register. Vol. 51, No. 216; pp. 40573-40654; November 7,1986.
Federal Register. Vol. 53, No. 138; p. 27268-27281; July 19,1988.
Lyman, W.J., et al., 1982. "Solubility in Water"; in Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods:
McGraw-Hill Book Co.; New York, New York.
Menzer, R.E., and J.O. Nelson, 1980. "Water and Soil Pollutants" in Toxicology, edited by J. Doull,
C.D. Klaassen, and M.D. Amdur; MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc.; New York, New York.
Russell, L.L., C.B. Cain, and D.I. Jenkins, 1983. "Impact of Priority Pollutants on Publicly Owned
Treatment Works Processes: A Literature Review"; in Proceedings of the 27th Industrial Waste
Conference; Ann Arbor Publishing; Ann Arbor, Michigan; pp. 871-883.
Tabak, H.H., S.A. Quave, C.I. Mashni, and E.F. Earth, 1981. "Biodegradability Studies with Organic
Pollutant Compounds"; Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation: Vol. 53, No. 10; pp.
1503-1518.
USEPA, 1979. "Biodegradation and Treatability of Special Pollutants"; E.F. Earth and R.L. Burch;
Cincinnati, Ohio; USEPA-600/9-79-034; p. 60.
USEPA, 1980. "Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual"; USEPA 430/9-78-009;
February 1980.
USEPA, 198 la. "Literature Study of the Biodegradability of Chemicals in Water"; J. Gearing (Editor);
Cincinnati, Ohio; Vols. 1 and 2; p. 241.
USEPA, 1981b. "304(g) Guidance Document: Revised Pretreatment Guidelines"; USEPA; Cincinnati,
Ohio; Vols. land 2.
USEPA, 1985. "RCRA Information on Hazardous Wastes for Publicly Owned Treatment Works"; Office
of Water Enforcement Permits; USEPA Contract No. 68-01-7043; September 1985r
USEPA Memorandum, 1986a. "Discharge of Wastewater .from CERCLA Sites into POTWs"; H.L.
Longest U, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; R. Hanmer, Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits; G. A. Lucero, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement to Waste Management and Water
Management Division Directors, Regions I-X; April 15,1986.
References-1
-------
REFERENCES
USEPA, 1986b. "Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works"; Office of Water Regulation and Standards; USEPA /530/SW-86/004; Washington, DC.
USEPA, 1986c. "Mobile Treatment for Superfund Wastes"; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response;
USEPA/540/2-86/003(F); September 1986.
USEPA, 1987a. "Technology Briefs - Data Requirements for Selecting Remedial Action Technology";
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory; USEPA/600/2-87/001; January 1987.
USEPA, 1987b. "The 1987 Industrial Technology Division List of Analytes"; USEP^, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Industrial Technology Division; March 1987.
USEPA, 1987c. "Training Manual for NPDES Permit Writers"; Office of Water Enforcement and Permits;
May 1987. !
i
USEPA, 1987d. "Nitrate Removal from Contaminated Water Supplies: Vol. IT; Water Engineering
Research Laboratory; Washington, DC; USEPA 600/82-87/034; August 1987. ;.
i
USEPA Memorandum, 1987e. "USEPA Interim Guidance on Indemnification of Superfund Response
Action Contractors Under Section 119 of SARA"; J.W. Porter, Office of Solidj Waste and Emer-
gency Response; C.M. Kinghorn, Office of Administration and Resources Management; OS WER
Directive No. 9835.5, October 6,1987. j
USEPA Memorandum, 1987f. "Revised Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-site Response
Actions"; J.W. Porter, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response to Regional Administrators
Regions I-X, Directive No. 9834.11; November 13,1987. !
USEPA, 1987g. "Guidance for Implementing RCRA Permit-by-Rule Requirements at POTWs"; OSWER
Directive No. 9834.11; Interim Final; November 1987. j
i
USEPA, 1987h. "Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at POTWs"; Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits; USEPA Contract No. 68-03-1821; September 1987.
USEPA, 1987L "Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge Limits
Under the Pretreatment Program"; Office of Water Enforcement and Permits; USEPA Contract No.
68-01-7043; Vols. I and E; Washington, DC; 1987. j
USEPA, 1987J. "Guidance Manual for the Identification of Hazardous Wastes Delivered to POTWs by
Truck, Rail, or Dedicated Pipe"; USEPA Contract No. 68-01-7043; June 1987. j
j
USEPA, 1988a. "Draft CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual"; Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response; OSWER Directive No. 9234.1-01 and 02; May 1988. j
USEPA, 1988b. "Feasibility and Risks Associated with Discharge of Superfund Wastes ^o POTWs"; Draft;
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation; August 1988. j
References-2
-------
REFERENCES
USEPA, 1988c. "Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA"; OSWER Directive 9355.3-01; Interim Final; October 1988.
USEPA, 1988d. "Guidance for Writing Case-by-Case Permit Requirements for Municipal Sewage
Sludge"; Draft; Office of Water Enforcement and Permits; September 1988.
USEPA, 1989a. "Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Protocol for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants";
Office of Research and Development; Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory; USEPA/600/2-
88/062; April 1989.
USEPA, 1989b. "Overview of Selected EPA Regulations and Guidance Affecting POTW Management";
Office of Water, Office of Municipal Pollution Control; September 1989.
USEPA, 1989c. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I and II"; Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response; USEPA/540/1-89/001 and 002; 1989.
USEPA, 1990. "CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs Treatability Manual"; Office of Water Regulations
and Standards; USEPA/542/90/007;1990.
Walsh, J.J., J.M. Lippitt, and M. Scott, 1983. "Cost of Remedial Actions at Hazardous Waste Sites -
Impacts of Worker Health and Safety Considerations"; in Proceedings of the 4th National Con-
ference -r Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites; Hazardous Waste Control Research
Institute.
Wetzel, E.D., and S.B. Murphy, 1986. "Interference at Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)";
Office of Research and Development; Water Engineering Research Laboratory; Cincinnati, Ohio.
Zorc, J.M., J.C. Hall, and C.L. Rissetto, 1988. "Minimizing Liabilities Facing POTWs"; Journal WPCF:
Vol. 60, No. 1; pp. 29-35; January 1988.
References-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
USEPA OFF-SITE POLICY
A-l
-------
-------
UniMd States
Envtrorimontal Protection
Agvncy
OHiee of
Solid Waste end
Emergency Response
&EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9814.11
TITLE: Revised Procedures for Implementing Off-Site
Response Actions
APPROVAL DATE: November 13, 1987
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13 , 1987
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office of Waste Programs
_ _ Enforcement
Q FINAL (Interim)
C DRAFT
LEVEL OF DRAFT
Cl A Signed by AA or DAA
D B Signed by Office Director
LJ C Review & Comment
REFERENCE (other documents):
5WER OSWER OSWEFt
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
A-3.
-------
_ - _ United States Environmental Protection Agency i Directive Number
_O_CDA Washington. DC 20460
<*cnH OSWER Directive Initiation Request 9834-n
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person Mail Code
NANCY BROWNE WH-527
!
Office Telephone Cade
RM 7?nn 475-9326
3. Title . .
Revised Procedures for Implementing Off-Site Response Actions
4. Summary of Directive (include bnef statement ol purpose)
This Directive describes procedures that should be observed when a resp
under CKRCTA or Section .7003 of ROSA involves the off-site treatment,
disposal of CERCLA waste.
i. Keywords
Off-Site Policy, Off-Site Waste, CERCLA
6ซ. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directives)?
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directtve(s)?
7. Draft Level
"A - Signed by AA/DAA 8 - Signed by Office Oil
1
qnse action
storage or
Waste, Off-Site Manaoement of Waste
No XX Yes , . What directive (number, tit
li Pr r < ^ฅTTIT*ป=ป<; frvr P
off -site Respons
2) Providina Notice
No Yes
3) Eligibility of F
Assessment Monit
ector C - For Review & Comment
lanninc & Tjnol.
e Actions. "
' to Facilities
1. .(?330.2T5)
acilities m
brina^9330.2-6)
D - In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters? Yซ
x Nซ
Til* Request Meeta OSWER Directive* System Format Standards, ,
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
10. Name and Trrie of Approving Official _
\LM^t/ &
Date
// /
/7 Date
-M- ~" 7
^CZ^ //
I/ A.-
iX>3/?7
EPA Form >3TS-17 (Rev. 5-ซ7) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
A-4
-------
9-8.3 4.1 1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
November 13, 1987
OFFICE OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revised Procedures for Planning and Implementing
Res>nse Actions
FROM:
TO:
( . inston7 Porter ,
..Assistant Administrator
Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
With this memo I am transmitting the revised procedures
for planning and implementing off-site response actions (the
"off-site policy"). These procedures should be observe'd when
a response action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response/
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or -Section 7003 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) involves off-site
treatment/ storage or disposal of CERCLA waste.
This policy incorporates all of the mandates of CERCLA as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) and expands several of the more stringent requirements
when applying them to wastes resulting from CERCLA decision
documents signed, and RCRA section 7003 actions initiated,
after the enactment of SARA. This revised policy also
reinterprets the original off-site policy, issued in May 1985,
as it applies to CERCLA wastes resulting from decision
documents signed, and RCRA section 7003 actions initiated,
before the enactment of SARA.
This revised policy is effective immediately upon issuance.
It is considered to be an interim final policy as key elements
of the policy will be incorporated in a proposed rule to be
published in the Federal Register. As part of that rulemaking,
the policy will be subject to public comment. Comments received
during that period may cause additional revisions to the policy.
A-5
-------
Nl
-2- ;
i
If you have comments regarding this revised policy,;
please contact Gene Lucero/ Director, Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement. j
cc: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
l\-6
-------
9834.1 \
REVISED PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING OFF-SITE RESPONSE ACTIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
The off-site policy describes procedures that should be
observed when a response action under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and.Liability Act (CERCLA)
or Section 7003 of RCRA involves off-site storage, treatment or
disposal of CERCLA waste. The procedures also apply to actions
taken jointly under CERCLA and another statute.
The purpose of the off-site policy is to avoid having
CERCLA wastes contribute to present or future environmental
problems by directing these wastes to facilities determined to
be environmentally sound. It is EPA's responsibility to ensure
that the criteria for governing off-site transfer of CERCLA
waste result in decisions that are environmentally sensible and
that reflect sound public policy. Therefore, in developing
acceptability criteria, the Agency has applied environmental
standards and other sound management practices to ensure that
CERCLA waste will be appropriately managed.
EPA issued the original off-site policy in May 1985. See
"Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response
Actions", memorandum from Jack W. McGraw to the Regional
Administrators. That policy was published in the Federal
Register on November 5, 1985. The 1986 amendments to CERCLA,
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),
adopted EPA's policy for off-site transfer of CERCLA wastes
with some modifications. CERCLA ง121(d) (3) requires that
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants transferred
off-site for treatment, storage or disposal during a CERCLA
response action be transferred to a facility operating in
compliance with งง3004 and 3.005 of RCRA and other applicable
laws or regulations. The statute also requires that receiving
units at land disposal facilities have no releases of hazardous
wastes or hazardous constituents. Any releases from other
units at a land disposal facility must also be controlled by a
RCRA or equivalent corrective action program. While the
original policy required compliance with RCRA and other
applicable laws, SARA goes beyond the original policy,
primarily by prohibiting disposal at units at a land disposal
facility with releases, rather than allowing the Agency to
judge whether the releases constituted environmental conditions
that affected the satisfactory operation of a facility.
The off-site policy has been revised in light of the
mandates of SARA. This revised policy also extends the SARA
concepts to certain situations not specifically covered by the
statute. These requirements apply to CERCLA decision documents
signed, and RCRA ง7003 actions taken, after enactment of SARA.
Specifically, this policy covers:
A-7
-------
9834.1 1
-2-
- . ' *
o Extending SARA'S "no release" requirement to 'all RCRA
units receiving CERCLA waste, not just units (at RCRA
land disposal facilities; j
i
o Expanding SARA'S release prohibition to include
releases of CERCL:. hazardous substances, in addition
to releases of RCRA hazardous waste and hazardous
constituents; !
o Addressing releases from other units at RCRA | treatment
and storage facilities ; and , |
o Addressing off-site transfer to non-RCRA facilities.
The revised policy also reinterprets the May 1985 policy as it
now applies to CERCLA decision documents signed, and RCRA ง7003
actions taken, prior to the enactment of SARA. i
i
The revised off-site policy is effective immediately upon
issuance. It is considered to be an. interim policy as key
elements of the policy will be incorporated in a proposed rule
to be published in the Federal Register. As part of that
rulemaking, the policy will be subject to public comment.
Comments received during that period may cause additional
revisions to the policy. The final rule will reflect the final
policy under CERCLA ง121 (d) (3) and EPA will issue a revised
implementation policy memorandum if necessary.
II .
APPLICABILITY
There are a number of variables which will determine
whether and how the off -site policy applies: waste tfype,
authority, funding source, and whether the decision document or
order supporting the clean-up was signed before or after the
enactment of SARA (i.e., before or after October 17,; 1986). In
order to determine which elements of the policy apply to a
specific CERCLA cleanup each factor must be considered.
The first factor to consider is the type of waste to be
transferred. The revised policy applies to the off-site
treatment, storage or disposal of all CERCLA waste. CERCLA
wastes include RCRA hazardous wastes and other CERCLA hazardous
substances, pollutants and contaminants. RCRA hazardous wastes
are either listed or defined by characteristic in 40; CFR Part
261. CERCLA hazardous substances are defined in 40 ฃFR 300.6.
i
Because RCRA permits and interim status apply to specific
wastes and specific storage, treatment or disposal processes,
the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) or On-Scene Coordinator
(OSC) must determine that the facility's permit or interim
A-8
-------
9834.11
-3-
status authorizes receipt of the wastes that would be
transported to the facility and the type of process
contemplated for the wastes. Therefore, it is important that
facility selection be coordinated with RCRA personnel.
A CERCLA hazardous substance that is not a RCRA hazardous
waste or hazardous constituent (i.e., non-RCRA waste) may be
taken to a R^RA facility if it is not otherwise incompatible
with the RCRA waste, even though receipt of that waste is not
expressly authorized under interim status or in the permit
Non-RCRA wastes can also be managed at non-RCRA facilities"
Criteria applicable to CERCLA wastes that can be disposed of at
non-Subtitle C facilities are discussed later in this revised
policy.
The second factor to consider in determining whether this
revised policy applies is the statutory authority for the
action. This revised off-site policy applies to any remedial
or removal action involving the off-site transfer of any
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant under any <~ERCLA
authority or under RCRA ง7003. 'This policy also applies to
response, actions taken under ง311 of the Clean Water Act,
except for cleanups of petroleum products. The policy also
covers cleanups at Federal facilities under ง120 of SARA.
The third factor to assess is the source of funding. The
revised policy applies to all Fund-financed response actions
whether EPA or the State is the lead agency. The policy does
not apply to State-lead enforcement actions (even at NPL sites)
if no CERCLA funds are involved. It does apply to State-lead
enforcement actions where EPA provides any site-specific
funding through a Cooperative Agreement or Multi-site
Cooperative Agreement, even though the State may be using its
own enforcement authorities to compel the cleanup. Similarly
non-NPL sites are covered by this policy only where there is an
expenditure of Fund money or where the cleanup is undertaken
under CERCLA authority.
Thซ final factor that affects how this revised policy
applies is the date of the decision document. As noted
earlier, there are two classes of actions subject to slightly
different procedures governing off-site transfer: first, those
actions resulting from pre-SARA decision documents or RCRA
ง7003 orders issued prior to October 17, 1986, are subject to
the May 1985 policy as updated by this revised policy; and
second, those actions resulting from post-SARA decision
documents or RCRA ง7003 orders issued after October 17, 1986,
are subject to the requirements of SARA as interpreted and
expanded by this revised policy. Although the procedures in
this policy are similar for these two classes of actions, there
are important differences (e.g., the requirements pertaining to
A-9
-------
9834.11
-4-
releases from other units at a facility) that will be ; '
highlighted throughout this document. >
Compliance with the revised procedures is mandatory for
removal and remedial actions. However, there is an emergency
exemption for removals if the OSC determines that the :
exigencies of the situation require off-site treatment, storage
or disposal without following the requirements. This exception
may be used when the OSC believes that the threat pose^ by the
substances makes it imperative to remove the substances
immediately and there is insufficient time to observe these
procedures without endangering public health/ welfare JDr the
environment. In such cases, the OSC should consider temporary
solutions (e.g., interim storage) to allow time to locate ah
acceptable facility. The OSC must provide a ^ written, j
explanation of his or her decision to use this emergency
exemption to the Regional Administrator within 60 days| of
taking the action. In Regions in which authority to make
removal decisions has not been fully delegated by the Regional
Administrator to the OSC, the decisions discussed above must be
made by the Regional official to whom removal authority has
been delegated. This emergency exemption is also available to
OSC's taking response actions under ง311 of the Clean[Water
Act. i
Ill. DEFINITIONS !
^ Tl ' I' ป^^fc*ซซ^~^BB ^ j
A. Release !
For the purposes of this policy, the term "release" is
defined here as it is defined by ง101(22) of CERCLA, which is
repeated in 40 CFR 300.6 of the NCP, and the RCRA ง3008(h)
guidance ("Interpretation of Section 3008(h) of the Splid Waste
Disposal Act", memorandum from J. Winston Porter and Courtney
M. Price to the Regional Administrators, sฃ al, December 16,
1985). To summarize, a release is any spilling, leaking,
pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injection,
escaping, leaching, dumping or disposing to the environment.
This .includes releases to surface water, ground water, land
surface, soil and air.
A release also includes a substantial threat of ia release.
In determining whether a substantial threat of release exists,
both the imminence of the threat and the potential magnitude of
the release should be considered. Examples of situations where
a substantial threat of a release may exist include a weakened
or inadequately engineered dike wall at a surface impoundment,
or a severely rusted treatment or storage tank. ;
!>ฃ minimis releases from receiving units are' exempt; that
is, they are not considered to be releases under the-off-site
A-10
-------
9834.1 1
-5-
releases are those that do not adversely
. versey
affect public health of the environment, such as releases to
the air from temporary opening and closing of bungs, releases
between landfill liners of l gallon/acre/day or llss, or stack
emissions from incinerators not otherwise subject to Clean Air
Act permits. Releases that need to be addressed by
implementing a contingency plan would not normally be
considered dfe minimis releases.
*,ซ, Federally-permitted releases, as defined by CERCLA
ง101(10) and 40 CFR 300.6, are also exempt. These include
discharges or releases in compliance with applicable permits
under RCRA, the Clean Water Act, clean Air Act, Safe Drinkinq
Water Act, Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, and
Atomic Energy Act or analogous state authorities.
For purposes of this policy, an interim status unit in
RCRA ground-water assessment monitoring (under 40 CFR 265 93)
or a permitted unit in compliance monitoring (under 40 CFR
264. 99K is not presumed to have a release. EPA will evaluate
available information, including the data which led to a
determination of the need for assessment or compliance
monitoring, data gathered during assessment monitoring, and any
other relevant data, including that gathered from applicable
compliance inspections. A determination of unacceptability
should be made when information will support the conclusion
that there is a probable release to ground water from the
receiving unit. Finding a release can happen at any time
before, during or after an assessment or compliance monitorinq
program. ^
On the other hand, it is not necessary to have actual
sampling data to determine that there is a release. An
inspector may find other evidence that a release has occurred
such as a broken dike or feed line at a surface impoundment. '
Less obvious indications of a release might also be adequate to
make the determination. For example, EPA could have sufficient
information on the contents of a land disposal unit, the design
and operating characteristics of the unit, or the hydrogeology
of the area in which the unit is located to conclude that there
is or has been a release to the environment.
B. Receiving
The receiving unit is any unit that receives off-site
CERCLA waste:
(1) for treatment using BDAT, including any pre-
treatment or storage units used prior to treatment;
(2)
for treatment to substantially reduce its mobility,
A-ll
-------
9834.1 1
-6-
toxicity or persistence in the absence of a (defined
BDAT or
(3) for storage or ultimate disposal of waste not treated
to the previous criteria.
Note that the acceptability criteria may vary from unit to
unit, and that the receiving unit may vary from transfer to
transfer.
I
C. Other Units j
Other units are all other regulated units and solid waste
management units (SWMU's) at a facility that are not receiving
units. |
D.
Controlled Release
In order to be considered a controlled release, the
release must be addressed by a RCRA corrective action program
(incorporated in a permit or order.) or a corrective action
program approved and enforceable under another applicable
Federal or delegated State authority. i
E. Relevant Violations ;
i
Relevant violations include Class I violations a;s defined
by the RCRA Enforcement Response Policy (December 21,' 1984, and
subsequent revisions) at or affecting a receiving unit. A
Class I violation is a significant deviation from regulations,
compliance order provisions or permit conditions designed to:
i
o Ensure that hazardous waste is destined for and
delivered to authorized facilities; |
o Prevent releases of hazardous waste or constituents
to the environment;
i
o Ensure early detection of such releases; or
o Compel corrective action for releases. j
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements (such as failure to
submit the biennial report or failure to maintain a copy of the
closure plan at the facility) are generally not considered to
be Class I violations. :
Violations affecting a receiving unit include ajll
ground-water monitoring violations unless the receiving unit is
outside the waste management area which the ground-water
monitoring system was designed to monitor. Facility-wide Class
I violations (such as failure to comply with financial
A-12 :
-------
9834.11
-7-
responsibility requirements, inadequate closure plan
inadequate waste analysis plan, inadequate inspection plan
etc.) that affect the receiving unit are also relevant
violations.
Violations of State or other Federal laws should also be
examined for relevance, conridering the significance of the
requirement that is being violated; the extent of deviation
from the requirement; and the potential or actual threat to
human health or the environment.
F. Relevant Release
A relevant release under this revised policy includes:
o Any release or significant threat of release of a
hazardous substance (defined in 40 CFR 300.6) not
previously excluded (i.e., de. minimis releases or
permitted releases) at all units of a RCRA Subtitle C
land disposal facility and at receiving units of a
RCRA Subtitle C treatment or storage facility; and
o Environmentally significant releases of any hazardous
substance not previously excluded at non-receiving
units at RCRA Subtitle C treatment and storage
facilities and at all units at other facilities.
&t Relevant Conditions
Relevant conditions include any environmental conditions
(besides a relevant violation) at a facility that pose a
significant threat to public health, welfare or the environment
or that otherwise affect the satisfactory operation of the
facility.
iL Responsible Agency
Determinations of acceptability to receive an off-site
transfer of CERCLA waste will be made by EPA or by states
authorized for corrective action under ง3004(u) of RCRA.
References in this document to the "responsible Agency" refer
only to EPA Regions or to States with this authority.
it Responsible Government Official
The responsible government official is that person
authorized in the responsible Agency to make acceptability
determinations under this revised policy.
A-13
-------
-8-
9834.11
IV. ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
A. Acceptability Criteria for Wastes Generated Under Pre-SARA
Decision Documents
CERCLA wastes from actions resulting from pre-SARA
decisior documents and pre-SARA RCRA ง7003 orders may go to a
facility meeting the following criteria: .,
o There are no relevant violations at or affecting the
receiving unit; and |
o There are no relevant conditions at the facility
(i.e., other environmental conditions that pose a
significant threat to public health, welfare or the
environment or otherwise affect the satisfactory
operation of the facility) . '
In order, to determine if there is a relevant violation,
an appropriate compliance inspection must be conducted no more
than six months before the expected date of receipt of CERCLA
waste. This inspection, at a minimum, must address all
regulated units. This inspection may be conducted by ; EPA, a
State or an authorized representative. When a State conducts
the inspection, it should determine the facility's compliance
status. Where a violation or potential violation comes to
EPA's attention (e.g., through a citizen complaint orja
facility visit by permit staff) , the Region or State is
expected to investigate ' whether a violation occurred as soon as
is reasonably possible. i
The May 1985 policy does not refer specifically
releases. Rather, a corrective action plan is required for
relevant conditions. Therefore, in some cases, a facility
receiving CERCLA wastes from an action subject to a pre-SARA
decision document may not need to institute a program. to
control releases. Releases will be evaluated by the
responsible Agency to determine whether such releases
constitute relevant conditions under this policy.
The activities related to determining acceptability,
providing notice to facilities, regaining acceptability and
implementation procedures are discussed in the "Implementation"
section of this document, and apply to off-site transfers of
waste generated under pre-SARA and post-SARA decision
documents.
-------
9834.11
-9-
Acceptability Criteria for Wastes Generated Under Post-SARA
Decision Documents
Under this revised policy, there are three basic criteria
that are used to determine the acceptability of a facility to
receive off-site transfers of CERCLA waste generated under a
post-SARA decision document or post-SARA RCRA ง7003 cleanup.
The criteria are:
o There must be no relevant violations at or affecting
the receiving unit;
o There must be no releases from receiving units and
contamination from prior releases at receiving units
must be addressed as appropriate; and
o Releases at other units must be addressed as
appropriate.
The last two criteria are applied somewhat differently,
depending on the type of facility. These differences are
described below.
Jt: Criteria Applicable to All RCRA Subtitle C Treatment.
Storage and Disposal Facilities. The first criterion that
applies to all Subtitle C facilities is that there can be no
relevant violations at or affecting the receiving unit. As
discussed earlier, this determination must be based on an
inspection conducted no more than six months prior to receipt
of CERCLA waste.
A second element that applies to all Subtitle C facilities
is that there must be no releases at receiving units. Releases
from receiving units, except for de minimis releases and State-
and Federally-permitted releases, must be eliminated and any
prior c.ontamination from the release must be controlled by a
corrective action permit or order under Subtitle C, as
described 'in the next section.
The final criterion that applies to all Subtitle C
facilities, is that the facility must have undergone a RCRA
Facility Assessment (RFA) or equivalent facility-wide
investigation. This investigation addresses EPA's affirmative
duty under CERCLA ง121(d)(3) to determine that there are no
releases at the facility.
Releases of RCRA hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents and CERCLA hazardous substances are all included
under the policy. While the RFA need not focus on identifying
releases of hazardous substances that are not RCRA hazardous
wastes or hazardous constituents, to the extent such releases
are discovered in an RFA or through other means, they will be
A-15
-------
9834.1 !
-10-
considered the same as a release of hazardous waste orl
hazardous constituents. I ' ' '
o Additional Criteria Applicable to RCRA SubtitlSe C Land
Disposal Facilities. Land disposal facilities must meet
additional requirements imposed by SARA and this policy. The
term "land disposal facility" means any RCRA facility at which
a land disposal unit is located, regardless of whether; the land
disposal unit is the receiving unit. Land disposal units
include surface impoundments, landfills, land treatment units
and waste piles. < j
. i
As stated earlier, there must be no releases at or from
receiving units. In addition, releases from other units at a
land disposal facility must be controlled under a corrective
action program. The RFA will help determine whether there is a
release. In addition, land disposal facilities must have
received a comprehensive ground-water monitoring evaluation
(CME) or an operation and maintenance (O&M) inspection within
the last year. ;
Units at RCRA Subtitle C land disposal facilities
receiving CERCLA waste that is also RCRA hazardous waste must
meet the RCRA minimum technology requirements of RCRA| ง3004(o).
Only where a facility has been granted a waiver can a I land
disposal unit not meeting the minimum technology requirements
be considered acceptable for off-site disposal of CERCLA waste
that is RCRA hazardous waste.
o Criteria Applicable to Subtitle C Treatment and Storage
Facilities. The criterion for controlling releases from other
units does not apply to all releases at treatment and storage
facilities, as it does at land disposal facilities. 'Releases
from other units at treatment and storage facilities must be
evaluated for environmental significance and their effect on
the satisfactory operation of the facility. If determined by
the responsible Agency to be environmentally significant,
releases must be controlled by a corrective action program
under an applicable authority. Releases from other units at
treatment and storage facilities determined not to be
environmentally significant do not affect the acceptability of
the facility for receipt of CERCLA waste.
2. Criteria Applicable to RCRA Permit-bv-Rule Facilities.
This revised policy is also applicable to facilities isubject to
the RCRA permit-by-rule provisions in 40 CFR 270.60. [These
include ocean disposal barges or vessels, injection wells and
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). Permit-by-rule
facilities receiving RCRA hazardous waste must have a RCRA
permit or RCRA interim status. RCRA permit-by-rule facilities
must also receive an inspection for compliance with applicable
RCRA permit or interim status requirements. In addition,
-------
9834J
-ii-
facilities (and other non-RCRA facilities) should be inspected
by the appropriate inspectors for other applicable laws.
In general, except for POTWs (discussed below), these
facilities will be subject to the same requirements as RCRA
treatment and storage facilities. That is, there can be no
reler.ses of hazardous waste, hazardous constituents or
hazardous substances from receiving units. There also can be
no relevant violations at or affecting the receiving unit, as
confirmed by an inspection conducted no more than six months
prior to the receipt of CERCLA waste. Releases from other
units determined by the responsible Agency to be
environmentally significant must be controlled by an
enforceable agreement under the applicable authority.
Criteria for discharge of wastewater from CERCLA sites to
POTWs can be found in a memorandum titled, "Discharge of
Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into POTWs, dated April 15, 1986.
That memorandum requires an evaluation during the RI/FS process
for the CERCLA site to consider such points as:
o the quantity and quality of the CERCLA wastewater and
its compatibility with the POTW;
o the ability of the POTW to ensure compliance with
applicable pretreatment standards;
o the POTWs record of compliance with its NPDES permit;
and
o the potential for ground-water contamination from
transport to or impoundment of CERCLA wastewater at
the POTW.
Based on a consideration of these and other points listed in
the memorandum, the POTW may be deemed appropriate or
inappropriate for receipt of CERCLA waste.
3. Criteria Applicable to Non-Subtitle C Facilities. in
some instances, it may be appropriate to use a non-Subtitle C
facility for off-site transfer: for example, PCS disposal is
regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA);
nonhazardous waste disposal is regulated under Subtitle D of
RCRA and applicable State laws; and disposal of radionuclides
is regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. At such facilities,
all releases are treated in the same manner as releases from
other units at Subtitle C treatment and storage facilities.
That is, the responsible Agency should make a determination as
to whether the release is environmentally significant and, if
so, the release should be controlled by a corrective action
program under the applicable Federal or State authority.
A-17
-------
9834.11
-12-
Requirements for the disposal of PCBs are established in
40 CFR 761.60. Generally, these regulations require that
whenever disposal of PCBs is undertaken, they must be
incinerated,' unless the concentrations are less than 5,0 ppm.
If the concentrations are between 50 and 500 ppm, the rule
provides for certain exceptions that provide alternatives to
the incineration requirements. The principal alternative is
disposal in a TSCA-permitted landfill for PCBs. If a TSCA
landfill is the receiving unit for PCBs, then that facility is
subject to the same criteria applicable if a RCRA land disposal
unit is the receiving unit; i.e., no relevant violations, no
releases at the receiving unit and controlled releases at other
units. PCBs at levels less than 50 ppm may be transported to
acceptable Subtitle D facilities as discussed previously.
V. IMPLEMENTATION
A. Determining Acceptability :
Acceptability determinations under the .off-site policy
will be made by EPA or by States authorized for corrective
action under ง3004(u) of RCRA. Where States have such_
authority, the State may make acceptability determinations for
facilities in the State in consultation with EPA. Regardless
of a State's authorization status, the Region and States should
establish, in the Superfund Memorandum of Agreement, mechanisms
to ensure timely exchange of information, notificatiop of
facilities and coordination of activities related to the
acceptability o'f facilities and potential selection of
facilities for off-site transfer. The Regions and States also
need to establish or enhance coordination mechanisms with their
respective RCRA program staffs in order to ensure timely
receipt of information on inspections, violations and releases.
These agreements can be embodied in State authorization
Memoranda of Agreement, State grant agreements, or State-EPA
enforcement agreements.
The responsible government official in the "Region or State
in which a hazardous waste facility is located will determine
whether the facility has relevant violations or releases which
may preclude its use for off-site transfer of CERCLA: wastes.
Each Region and State should have a designated off-site
coordinator responsible for ensuring effective communication
between CERCIA response program staff and RCRA enforcement
staff within the Regional Offices, with States, and with other
Regions and States. !
The off-site coordinator should maintain a file; of all
information on the compliance and release status of teach
commercial facility in the Region or State. This information
should be updated based on the results of State- or ;
A-18
-------
9834J
-13-
EPA-conducted compliance inspections or other information on
these facilities.
CERCLA response program staff should identify potential
off-site facilities early in the removal action or the remedial
design process and check with the appropriate Regional and/or
State off-site coord:nator(s) regarding the acceptability
status of the facilities. If one or more facilities is
identified that has not received an inspection within the last
six months, the Regional off-site coordinator(s) should arrange
to have such inspection(s) conducted within a timeframe
dictated by the project schedule. The CERCLA REM/FIT
contractor may conduct the inspection under the direction of
the Deputy Project Officer. If contractor personnel are used,
the Region should ensure* that such personnel are adequately
trained to conduct the inspections.
Responsible Agencies should base their acceptability
determinations on an evaluation of a facility's compliance
status and, as appropriate, whether the facility has releases
or other environmental conditions that affect the satisfactory...
operation of the facility. States not authorized for HSWA
corrective action may assist EPA in making the acceptability
determination by determining a facility's compliance status
(based on a State inspection) and providing this information to
EPA. Regions and States should use the following types of
information to make acceptability determinations:
o State- or EPA-conducted inspections. EPA will
continue to assign high priority to conducting
inspections at commercial land disposal, treatment
and storage facilities. Facilities designated to
receive CERCIA waste must be inspected within six
months of the planned receipt of the waste. In
addition, land disposal facilities must have received
a comprehensive ground-water monitoring inspection
(CMS) or an operation and maintenance (O&M)
inspection within the last year, in accordance with
the tiaeframes specified in the RCRA Implementation
Plan (RIP).
o RCRA Facility Assessments fRFAs^ . To be eligible
under this policy, a RCRA Subtitle C facility must
have had an RFA or equivalent facility-wide
investigation. The RFA or its equivalent must be
designed to identify existing and potential releases
of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents from
solid waste management units at the facility.
o Other data sources. Other documents such as the
facility's permit application, permit, Ground Water
Task Force report, ground-water monitoring data or
A-19
-------
9834.1 1
-14-
ground-water assessment report can contain
information on violations, releases or other
conditions. Relevant information from these
documents should also be used to determine a;
facility's acceptability to receive waste under the
off-site policy.
B. Notice Procedures '
EPA expects that Regions and States will take timely and
appropriate enforcement action on determining that a violation
has occurred. Where a responsible Agency performs an '
inspection that identifies a relevant violation at a commercial
facility likely to accept CERCLA wastes, within five working
days of the violation determination, the responsible Agency
must provide written notice to the facility of the violation
and the effects of applying this policy. States not authorized
for HSWA corrective action should inform EPA of the violation
so that EPA can notify the facility of the effect of the
violation under this policy. (See RCRA Enforcement Response
Policy for a discussion of appropriate enforcement responses
..and timeframes for Class I violations".) ;
When the responsible Agency determines that a relevant
release has occurred, or that relevant conditions exist, the
responsible Agency must notify the facility in writing within
five working days of that determination. The notice must also
state the effect of the determination under this policy. A
copy of any notice must also be provided to the non-issuing
Region or State in which the facility is located. States not
authorized for HSWA corrective action should provide EPA with
information on releases so that EPA can determine whether a
relevant release has occurred.
Private parties conducting a response action subject to
this policy will need to obtain information on the ;
acceptability of commercial facilities. The responsible Agency
must respond with respect to both pre-SARA and post-SARA
wastes. In addition, the responsible Agency should indicate
whether the facility is currently undergoing a review of
acceptability and the date the review is expected to be
completed. No enforcement sensitive or predecisional
information should be released. |
i
A facility may submit a bid for receipt of CERCLA waste
during a period of unacceptability. However, a facility must
be acceptable in order to be awarded a contract for receipt of
CERCLA waste.
Scope and Contents of the Notice. The responsible Agency
must send the notice to the facility owner/operator by
certified and first-class mail, return receipt reguested. The
A-20
-------
9834.1*.
-15-
certified notice, if not acknowledged by the- receipt return
card, will be considered to have been received by the addressee
if properly sent by first-class mail to the last address known
to the responsible Agency. The notice should contain the
following:
o A finding that the facility may nave conditions that
render it unacceptable for receipt of off-site waste,
based upon available information from an RFA, an
inspection, or other data sources;
o A description of the specific acts, omissions or
conditions that form the basis of the findings;
o Notice that the facility owner/operator has* the
opportunity to request an informal conference with
the responsible government official to discuss the
basis for the facility's unacceptability
determination under this revised policy, provided
that such a request is made within 10 calendar days
from the date of the notice. The owner/operator may
submit written comments within 30 calendar days from
the date of the notice in lieu of holding the
conference.
o Notice that failure to request an informal meeting or
submit written comments will result in no further
consideration of the determination by the responsible
Agency during the 60 calendar days after issuance of
the notice. The responsible Agency will cease any
transport of CERCLA waste to the facility on the 60th
calendar day after issuance of the notice.
o Notice that the owner/operator may request, within 10
calendar days of hearing from the responsible
government official after the informal conference or
the submittal of written comments, a reconsideration
of the determination by the Regional Administrator or
appropriate State official. The Regional
Administrator or State official may agree to review
the determination at his or her discretion; and
o Notice that such a review by the Regional
Administrator or appropriate State official, if
agreed to, will be conducted within 60 calendar days
of the initial notice, if possible, but that the
review will not stay the determination.
The facility may continue to receive CERCLA waste for 60
calendar days after issuance of the initial notice. As
indicated above, facility owners or operators may request an
informal conference with the responsible government official
A-21
-------
-16-
9834.1
within 10 calendar days from the date of issuance of the
notice, to discuss the basis for a violation or release
determination 'and its relevance to the facility's acceptability
to receive CERCIA wastes. Any such meeting should take place
within 30 calendar days of the date the initial notice; is
issued. If unacceptability is based on a State inspection or
enforcement action, L. representative of the State should attend
the meeting. If the State does not attend, EPA will notify the
State of the outcome of the meeting. The owner/opeator may
submit written comments within 30 calendar days from the date
of the notice in lieu of holding the conference. If the
responsible Agency does not find that the information submitted
at the informal conference or in comments is sufficient to
support a finding of acceptability to receive CERCLA wastes, it
should so inform the facility orally or in writing.
Within 10 calendar days of hearing from the responsible \
government official after the informal conference or the
submittal of written comments, the facility owner or operator
may request a reconsideration of the determination by the
Regional Administrator or appropriate State official. The
Regional Administrator or appropriate State official may use
his or her discretion in deciding whether to conduct a review
of the determination. Such a review, if granted, should be
conducted within the 60 day period (originating with the
notice) to the extent possible.. The review will not stay the
determination.
The RPM, OSC or equivalent site manager must stop transfer
of waste to a facility on the 60th calendar day after issuance
of a notice. The facility then remains unacceptable until such
time as the responsible Agency notifies the owner or operator
otherwise. The off-site coordinator and the OSC/RPM should
maintain close coordination throughout the 60-day period.
In limited cases, the responsible Agency may use its
discretion to extend the 60 day period if it requires; more time
to review a submission. The facility should be notified of any
extension, and it remains acceptable during any extension.
The responsible Agency may also use its discretion to
determine that a facility's unacceptability is immediately
effective upon receipt of a notice to that effect. This may
occur in situations such as, but not limited to, emergencies
(e.g., fire or explosion) or egregious violations (e.g.,
criminal violations or chronic recalcitrance) or other
situations that render'the facility incapable of safely
handling CERCLA waste.
Implementation of this notice provision does not relieve
the Regions or States from taking appropriate enforcement
action under RCRA or CERCLA.
A-22
-------
-17-
C. Procedures for Facilities with Outstanding Unacceotabil, i
Determinations
Under the original May 1985 off-site policy, facilities
determined to be unacceptable to receive CERCLA wastes were
provided with wrirten notice and were generally afforded
informal opportunities to comment on the determination (the
latter step was not required by the policy) .." Although the
Agency believes that these steps represented adequate
procedural safeguards for facilities seeking to receive CERCLA
wastes, EPA has decided to provide an additional opportunity
for review, in light of this revised policy, for facilities
with unacceptability determinations already in place on the
effective date of the revised policy.
Any such facility that wishes to meet with the responsible
Agency to discuss the basis for a violation or release
determination and its relevance to the facility's ability to
receive CERCLA wastes, may request an informal conference with
or submit written comments to the responsible Agency at any
point up to the 60th day after the publication of the proposed
rule on the off-site policy in the Federal Register. Such a
meeting should take place within 30 calendar days of the
request. If the responsible government Agency does not find
the information presented to be sufficient to support a finding
of acceptability to receive CERCLA wastes, then it should
inform the facility orally or in writing that the
unacceptability determination will continue to be in force.
The facility may, within 10 calendar days of hearing from the
responsible government official after the informal conference
or submittal of written comments , petition the EPA Regional
Administrator or appropriate State official for .
reconsideration. The Regional Administrator or State official
may use his or her discretion in deciding whether to grant
reconsideration.
Thes* procedures for review of unacceptability
determinations that were already in place on the effective date
of this revised policy will not act to stay the effect of the
underlying unacceptability determinations during the period of
review .
D. Re-evaluatina Unacceptability
An unacceptable facility can be reconsidered for
management of CERCLA wastes whenever the responsible Agency
finds that the facility meets the criteria described in the
"Acceptability Criteria" section of this policy.
For the purposes of this policy, releases will be
considered controlled upon 'issuance of an order or permit that
A-23
-------
-13-
initiates and requires completion of one or mere of the
following: a--facility-wide RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI);
a Corrective Measures Study (CMS} ; or Corrective Measures
Implementation (CMI). The facility must comply with the permit
or order to -remain acceptable to receive CERC1A waste. At the
acceptability under the off-site policy using
listed in this document, and as necessary and appropriate, make
new acceptability determinations, and issue additional orders
or modify .permit conditions to control identified releases.
Releases that require a determination of environmental
significance will be considered controlled upon issuance of an
order or permit to conduct an RFI, CMS or CMI, or upon
completion of an RFI which concludes that the release, is not
environmentally significant. Again, the facility oust comply
with the permit or order to remain acceptable to receive CERCLA
waste. :
If the facility is determined to be-unacceptable as a
result of relevant violations at or affecting the receiving
unit, the State (if it made "the initial determination) or EPA
must determine that the receiving unit is in full physical
compliance with all aonlicable requirements. Where a State not
authorized for HSWA corrective action makes this determination,
it should notify EPA immediately .of the facility's return to
compliance, so that the Agency can expeditiously inform the
facility that it is once again acceptable to receive jCERCLA
wastes. ;
The responsible Agency will notify the facility ;of its
return to acceptability by certified and first-class mail,
return receipt requested. '
S. Implementation Procedures
All remedial decision documents must discuss compliance
with this policy for alternatives involving off-site management
of CERCLA wastes. Decision documents for removal actions also
should include such a discussion.
Provisions requiring compliance with this policy should be
included in all contracts for response action, Cooperative
Agreements with States undertaking Superfund response actions,
and enforcement agreements. For ongoing projects, these
provisions will be implemented as follows, taking into
consideration the differences in applicable requirements for
pre- and post-SARA decision documents:
o RT/PSa The Regions shall immediately notify Agency .
contractors and States that alternatives for off-site
A-24
-------
-19-
9834.1 1
management of wastes must be evaluated against the
provisions of this policy.
0 Remedial Design: The Regions shall immediately
notify Agency contractors, the States, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers that all remedies that
include off-site disposal of CERCLA waste must comply
with the provisions of this policy.
ฐ Remedial Action: The Regions shall immediately
assess the status of compliance, releases and other
environmental conditions at facilities receiving
CERCLA waste from ongoing projects, if a facility is
found not to be acceptable, the responsible Agency
should notify the facility of its unacceptability.
o Enforcement: Cleanups by responsible parties under
enforcement actions currently under negotiation and
all future actions must comply with this policy.
Existing agreements need not be amended. However,
EPA reserves the right to apply these procedures to
existing agreements, to the extent it- is consistent
with the release and reopener clauses in the
settlement agreement.
If the response action is proceeding under a Federal lead,
the Regions should work with the Corps of Engineers or EPA
Contracts Officer to negotiate a contracts modification to an
existing contract, if necessary. If the response action is
proceeding under a State lead, the Regions should amend the
Cooperative Agreement.
A-25
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
USEPA POLICY MEMORANDUM - DISCHARGES FROM CERCLA
SITES TO POTWs
B-l
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
.APR ! 5 966
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Discharge of Wastewater from CERC
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedi
Rebecca Hanmer, Director
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
Gene A. Lucero, Director ^WtJL *\\ LM/-&TO
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I - X '
Water Management Division Directors
Regions I - X
A number of emergency removals and remedial cleanup actions
under CERCLA will involve consideration of publicly owned treat-
ment works (POTWs) for discharge of wastewater. The current
off-site policy (issued on May 6, 1985) does not address the set
of concerns and issues unique to POTWs that must be evaluated
during the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
for discharge of CERCLA wastewater to POTWs.
Recently, we have had meetings with representatives of the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Authorities (AMSA) to discuss
technical and policy concerns related to the POTW/CERCLA issue.
This memorandum is to highlight some of the major points under
consideration which were shared with AMSA at their:recent Winter
Technical Conference. The Agency intends to develop policy on
the use and selection of POTWs for CERCLA wastewater. Your
comments are sought on the proposed criteria set forth herein.
These criteria may be useful in evaluation of POTWs for response
actions (fund financed or responsible party financed) to be taken
in the interim.
Our position is that no CERCLA discharges to a POTW should
occur unless handled in a manner demonstrated to be protective
of human health and the environment. Full compliance with all
applicable requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and1any other
relevant or appropriate environmental statutes will be necessary .
B-2
-------
- 2 -
The national pretreatraent program, under the Clean Water Act/
requires an analysis to determine whether the discharge of an
industrial user of a POTW may pass through the POTW to cause
receiving water quality problems or may interfere with POTW
operations (including sludge disposal), if the analysis suggests
that limits on the industrial user's discharge are needed to pre-
vent pass through or interference, local limits or other safe-
guards, as necessary, must be established by the POTW and/or the
NPDES permitting authority. The national pretreatment program
requirements apply to the introduction of all non-domestic
wastewater into any POTW, and include, among other things, the
following elements:
o Prohibited discharge standards - prohibit the intro-
duction of pollutants to the POTW which are ignitable,
corrosive, excessively high in temperature, or which
may cause interference or pass through at the POTW.
o Categorical discharge standards - include specific pre-
treatment standards which are established by EPA for the
purpose of regulating industrial discharges in specific
industrial categories.
o - Local limits - where no categorical standards have been
promulgated or where more stringent controls are necessary.
POTWs under consideration as potential receptors of CERCLA
wastewaters may include those POTWs either with or without an
approved pretreatment program. POTWs with an approved pretreat-
ment program are required to have the mechanisms necessary to
ensure compliance by industrial users with applicable pretreatment
standards and requirements.* POTWs without an approved pretreat-
ment program must be evaluated to determine whether sufficient
mechanisms exist to allow the POTW to meet the requirements of
the national pretreatment program in accepting CERCLA wastewaters.
As noted above, pass through and interference are always prohibited,
regardless of whether a POTW has an approved pretreatment program.
POTWs without an approved pretreatment program must therefore
have mechanisms which are adequate to apply the requirements of
the national pretreatment program to specific situations.
*POTWs with approved pretreatment programs must, among other
things, establish procedures to notify industrial users (lUs) of
applicable pretreatment standards and requirements, receive and
analyze self-monitoring reports from lUs, sample and analyze
industrial effluents, investigate noncorapliance, and comply with
public participation requirements.
. B-3
-------
-3-
Determination of a POTW's ability to accept CERCLA wastewater
as an alternative to on-site treatment and direct discharge to
receiving waters must be made during the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process. During the remedial alternatives
analysis, the appropriateness of using a POTW must be carefully
evaluated. Water Division officials and their state counterparts
should participate in the evaluation of any remedial alternatives
recommending the use of a POTW, and should concur on the selection
of the POTW. ......
If an alternative considers the discharge of wastewater from
a CERCLA site into a POTW, the following points should be evaluated
in the RI/FS prior to the selection of the remedy for the site:
o The quantity and quality of the CERCLA wastewater and its
compatibility with the POTW (The constituents in the
CERCLA wastewater must not cause pass through or inter-
ference, including unacceptable sludge contamination or
a hazard to employees at the POTW; in some cases, control
equipment at the CERCLA site may be appropriate in order
to pretreat the CERCLA discharge prior to introduction to
the POTW).
o The ability (i.e., legal authority, enforceable mechanisms,
etc.) of the POTW to ensure compliance with applicable
pretreatment standards and requirements, including monitor-
ing and reporting requirements.
o The POTW's record of compliance with its NPDES permit
and pretreatment program requirements to determine if
the POTW is a suitable disposal site for the CERCLA waste-
water.
o The potential for volatilization of the wastewater at the
CERCLA site and POTW and its impact upon air ^quality.
o The potential for groundwater contamination from trans-
port of CERCLA wastewater or impoundment at the POTW, and
the need for groundwater monitoring.
o The potential effect of the CERCLA wastewaters upon the
POTW's discharge as evaluated by maintenance of water
quality standards in the POTW's receiving waters,
including the narrative standard of "rซ *ซvi^ซ in
amounts"
toxics in toxic
B-4
-------
- 4 -
O The POTW's knowledge of and compliance with any applicable
RCRA requirements or requirements of other environmental
statutes (RCRA permit-by-rule requirements may be trig-
gered if the POTW receives CERCLA wastewaters that are
classified as "hazardous wastes" without prior mixing
with domestic sewage, i.e., direct delivery to the POTW
by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe; CERCLA wastewaters are
not all necessarily considered hazardous wastes; case by
case determinations have to be made).
o The various costs of managing CERCLA wastewater, including
all risks, liabilities, permit fees, etc. (It may be
appropriate to reflect these costs in the POTW's connection
fees and user charg-e system) .
Based upon consideration of the above elements, the discharge
of CERCLA wastewater to a POTW should be deemed inappropriate if
the evaluation indicates that:
o The constituents in the CERCLA discharge are not com-
patible with the POTW and will cause pass through, inter-
ference, toxic pollutants in toxic amounts in the POTW's
receiving waters, unacceptable sludge contamination, or a
hazard to employees of the POTW.
o The impact of the transport mechanism and/or discharging of
CERCLA wastewater into a POTW would result in unacceptable
impacts upon any environmental media.
o The POTW is determined to be an unacceptable receptor
of CERCLA wastewaters based upon a review of the POTW's
compliance history.
o The use of the POTW is not cost-effective.
If consideration of the various elements indicates that the
discharge, of CERCLA wastewater to a POTW is deemed appropriate:
o There should be early public involvement, including
contact with POTW officials and users, in accordance
with the CERCLA community relations plan and public
participation requirements.,
o The NPDES permit and fact sheet may need to be modified
to reflect the conditions of acceptance of CERCLA waste-
waters; permit modification may be necessitated by the
need to incorporate specific pretreatment requirements,
local limits, monitoring requirements and/or limitations
on additional pollutants of concern in the POTW's dis-
charge or other factors.
B-5
-------
-5-
Policy to be developed in the future will apply to all
removal/ remedial, and enforcement actions taken pursuant to
CERCLA and Section 7003 of RCRA. We would appreciate your feed-
back on this memorandum and any experience in the use of POTWs
for CERCLA removal or remedial actions that you have to offer.
If you have any comments or questions on this issue, please
submit written comments to the workgroup co-chairs: Shirley Ross
(FTS-382-5755) from the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
or Victoria Price (FTS-382-5681) from the Office of Water.
cc: Ed Johnson
Russ Wyer
Tim Fields
Steve Lingle
B-6
-------
APPENDIX C
PERCENT REMOVAL OF COMPOUNDS IN POTWs
C-l
-------
APPENDIX C - PERCENT REMOVAL OF CCMPCX1NDS IN POIWS. To evaluate the
feasibility of discharging wastes from CERCLA sites to POTWs, the user
of the guidance manual may need to estimate the treatability of
compounds in the CERCLA waste and their potential to impact removal
processes in the treatment system. The removal mechanisms in a POTW
include air stripping, partitioning (sorption) to the solids and
biomass, and biodegradation. Appendix C presents summary tables of
published treatability data for individual ccsipounds that can be used to
estimate a mass balance for each compound detected in a CERdA
wastestream if site specific treatability data is unavailable.
One data presented in Appendix C was generated from a number of
different published studies on the total percent removal of specific
pollutants in biological treatment systems. Biological treatment
systems presented in the tables include aerated lagoon (AL), activated
sludge (AS), and trickling filter (TF). The data was separated into six
concentration ranges, and distinguished between effluent samples that
were chlorinated and those that were not. The number of observations
(OBSV) is the number of publications from which data was taken and
averaged to obtain a mean percent removal. The minimum and maximum
percent removal, standard error (SE), and 90% confidence interval are
also presented.
The following key is to be used with Appendix C:
AL - Aerated Lagoon
AS - Activated Sludge
TF - Trickling Filter
N - Number of Data Points
OBSV - Number of Publications Used
MEAN - Mean Percent Removal
MIN - Minimum Percent Removal
MAX - Maximum Percent Removal
SE - Standard Error
90% CE - 90% Confidence Interval
C-2
-------
- Percent Removal
PARAMETER: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TS-rtpr-90
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
~=============================================================================================---.-._=__..._=_
CHLORINATED
N
6
.
.
.
-
N
140
29
24
0
6
N
30
12
6
.
-
OBSV
1
.
_
-
OBSV
16
4
4
1
1
OBSV
5
1
1
_
-
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
88.76 88.76
.
_
-
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
50.51 0.00
83.47 58.94
87.82 68.66
98.28 98.28
87.04 87.04
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
55.08 0.00
97.00 97.00
92.94 92.94
-
r
MAX
88.76
.
_
-
MAX
95.35
98.65
99.56
98.28
87.04
MAX
98.00
97.00
92.94
_
-
========
SE
0.00
_
_
-
SE
10.45
8.68
6.76
0.00
0.00
SE
22.57
0.00
0.00
_
-
90% C.I.
(0,0)
_
-
90% C.I.
(32,69)
(63 99)
(72,99)
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(7,100)
(0,0)
(0|0)
_
NON- CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV
6 1
-
ti OBSV
103 18
6 2
24 4
7 2
6 2
N OBSV
6 1
6 1
- -
-
MEAN MIN
90.91 90.91
-
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
69.67 0.00
77.64 69.57
95.33 90.40
98.93 97.98
99.25 98.64
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
41.18 41.18
98.40 98.40
-
MAX
90.91
"
-
MAX
100.00
85.71
99.77
99.88
99.24
MAX
41.18
98.40
-
SE
0.00
-
.-
SE
7.06
8.07
1.93
0.95
0.60
SE
0.00
0.00
-
90% C.I.
(0,0)
"
~
~
90% C.I.
(57.82)
(19,100)
(91,100)
(93,100)
(95,100)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(0,0)
-
PARAMETER: 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
IMF)
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
53 4 22.22 0.00 88.89 22.22 (0,75)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
7 2 85.29 70.59 100.00 14.71 (0,100)
0 1 90.00 90.00 90.00 0.00 (0,0)
6 2 95.31 94.53 96.15 0.81 (90,100)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
-
C-3
-------
POTW Percent Removal
18-Apr-90
PARAMETER: 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
S5&3SSSS553S
INFL
CONG.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
3333S3===33=33=3=-3= 3==S 3===333= = 33~ ===3333_3_===3
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
81 5 47.67 0.00 95.65 19.83 (5,90)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
NON-CHLORINATED,
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
5 3 52.78 0.00 100.00 29.00 (0,100)
20 2 79.47 78.95 80.00 0.53 (76,83)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
.
PARAMETER: 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
SSSSSS3S5SSS"
INFL
COHC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
r3333===33S==3333::=:333==:333:s:s3333:==:3333:23_ 33=_3_3-=:=2=3 :
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 1 62.96 62.96 62.96 0.00 (0,0)
- - - -
------
------
- - - - - -
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
12 3 45.83 0.00 87.50 25.35 (0,100)
------
------
------
ฐ - - - -
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0,0)
------
------
------
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
.
14 1 68.75 68.75 68.75
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
47 11 49.97 0.00-100.00
14 2 92.22 90.00 94.44
- - -
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 75.00 75.00 75.00
14 1 34.72 34.72 34.72
i
-
3=33= 3===3333==333-==333
SE 90% C.I.
-
0.00 (0,0)
_
SE 90% C.I.
9.59 (33,55)
2.22 (78,100)
-
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
_
-
===33=3333=3333==
SS3333SS3SSS1
C-4
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
18-Apr-90
PARAMETER: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
100 8 50.92 0.00 98.61 15.43 (22,80)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 1 75.00 75.00 75.00 0.00 (0,0)
PARAMETER: 1 ,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE' 90% C.I.
35 2 57.35 50.00 64.71 7.35 (11,100)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
NON- CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
14 1 60.85 60.85 60.85
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
12 4 53.47 0.00 97.22
20 1 99.74 99.74 99.74
14 2 94.20 93.40 95.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 50.00 50.00 50.00
14 1 59.91 59.91 59.91
NON -CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
20.33 (6,100)
0.00 (0.0)
0.80 (89,160)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
= === = = = = = 2:= = = =
===============
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 83.33 83.33 83.33
16 4 89.51 83.33 100.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
3.75 (81,98)
SE 90% C.I.
-
C-5
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
18-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN HIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
.----"
_-----
.-----
------
------
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
76 11 53.22 0.00 95.65 12.27 (31,75)
6 1 98.00 98.00 98.00 0.00 (0,0)
6 1 94.29 94.29 94.29 0.00 (0,0)
------
-
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
12 2 25.00 0.00 50.00 25.00 (0,100)
------
------ -
------
------
NON -CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
-
_ i i
- - -
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
36 8 39.96 0.00 100.00 14.72
5 3 91.79 90.00 93.82 1.11
6 2 99.72 99.50 99.94 0.22
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
6 1 28.57 28.57 28.57 0.00
==
90% C.I.
' -
"
. "
90% C.I.
(12,68)
(89,95)
(98,100)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
_.
.
__________
PARAMETER: 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
SSSSSSSSSSSS
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
====S=S= EES == === === === ==
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
-----
-
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 4 21.72 0.00 86.91
6 1 99.75 99.75 99.75
6 2 60.94 32.85 89.03
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 50.00 50.00 50.00
_,-,--
.
_,
SE 90% C.I.
-
-
SE 90% C.I.
21.72 (0,73)
0.00 (0.0)
28.09 (0,100)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
-
-
_.
N
-
14
N
4
14
5
6
N
-
14
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN
- '
1 70.59 70.59
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN
4 60.30 0.00
2 87.81 85.62
1 98.28 98.28
2 98.41 98.25
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN
.
1 39.22 39.22
MAX
-
70.59
MAX
90.00
90.00
98.28
98.57
MAX
-
39.22
_
_
SE 90% C.I.
-
0.00 (0,0)
_
.
SE 90% C.I.
20.71 (12,100)
2.19 (74,100)
0.00 (0,0)
0.16 (97,99)
SE 90% C.I.
: ;
0.00 (0,0)
.
.
ss=3333333:13 333!
C-6
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
18-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE~"90%~c"l"
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
PARAMETER: 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
1 99.54 99.54 99.54 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
_ OBSV MEAN MIN MAX "~SE~~~90%~C~I~~
6 1 33.33 33.33 33~33"~oIoO~~"(CM))~
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
HEAN ~~MiN~
TREATMENT: AS
MIN
8 2 75.00 50.00 100.00 25.66"(0~ioO)"
25 3 94.33 90.00 98.06 2.35 (88,100)
6 2 99.33 99.01 99.65 0.32 (97,100)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE~"~90%~C~ir
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
35 2 45.70 33.33
-
" . - -
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN
- - - -
-
- - - -
-
- - - -
- - .
======================================== i
MAX SE 90% C.I.
58.07 12.37 (0,100)
- -
'.
MAX SE 90% C.I.
- -
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
- - - - -
. _
- - - - -
-----
-
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 87.10 87.10 87.10
0 1 90.00 90.00 90.00
6 3 99.80 99.48 99.99
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV . MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
-
-
-
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
0.16 (99,100)
SE 90% C.I.
- '. '.
C-7
-------
POTVI - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
18-Apr-90
IHFL
CONC.
CHLORINATED
TREATHENT: AL
OBSV HEAN HIN
HAX
SE 90% C.I.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
PARAMETER: 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
TREATHENT: AS
"N""~OBSV""MEAN HIN HAX
"35 ...... r"83~33"83"33"a3.33
0.00
(0.0)
TREATHENT: TF
"N OBSV""HEAN HIN HAX SE 90%c.i.
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATHENT: AL
N OBSV HEAN HIN HAX SE 90% C.I.
11 2 83.33 67.67 100.00 16.67 (0,100)
TREATMENT: AS
"N OBSV" "HEAN HIN HAX SE 90%_c.i._
"36 5"86"52"70~59 100.00 5.02 (76.97)
11 1 94.62 94.62 94.62 0.00 (6,0
0 1 90.00 90.00 90.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATHENT: TF
OBSV" HEAN HIN HAX SE 90% C.I.
11
1 37.63 37.63 37.63 0.00 (0,0)
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATHENT: AL
"N"""OBSV""HEAN"" HIN HAX SE 90%c.i.
TREATMENT: AS
"N""OBSV""MEAN HIN HAX _
"35 ...... l""sO.OO 50.00 50.00
0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
"fj 6BSV""MEAN HIN HAX SE 90% C.I.
,"33=33=33=333=33=3================
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV HEAN HIN HAX
SE 90% C.I.
11
1 32.02 32.02-32.02 0.00 (0,0)
TREATHENT: AS
"N"""OBSV"""MEAH""HIN MAX SE 90%c.i.
2
16
1 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 (0,0)
3 95.88 93.08 99.54 1.92 (90,100)
6 2 86.19 77.18 95.20 9.01 (29,100)
TREATMENT: TF
"N"""OBSV""MEAN""MIN HAX....?^...?9!ฐ.E:i:.
1V 1 12.28 12.28 12.28 0.00 (0,0)
C-8
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: 2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
18-Apr-90
INFL
CONG.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
===========:
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C I
- - - -
-
_
-
------
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
35 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0,0)
- '
------
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
------
- - -
- - - -
-----
-
-==========================_=________=________=__=__==__
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
~
-
-
*
"""--.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
3 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
8 1 99.06 99.06 99.06
5 2 96.57 95.00 98.15
ซ.
-
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
-
- .
-
-----
55 ====== ======S;==;
SE 90% C.I
_
m
-
: ;
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
o.oo (o!o)
1.57 (87,160)
"*
SE 90% C.I.
_
-
-
. -
"
PARAMETER: 2,4-DINITROPHENOL
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
- - - -
-----
- - - _
-
------
------
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
- - - - .
------
:::::: :
-
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
------
! - - _ _
------
-
- - - _
==========-== ==~======-=_-____=_ -_______.
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
*---.-
- _ - - - - .
------
*
-
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
----.-
0 1 90.00 90.00 90.00 0.00
5 1 91.23 91.23 91.23 0.00
6 1 99.31 99.31 99.31 0.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
- - - -
- - -
-
-
_
90% C.I.
-
-
-
-
.
90% C.I.
-
(0,0)
(0,0)
(0,0)
90% C.I.
"
-
' ~
-
-
C-9
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAHETER: 2-CHLOROMAPHTHALENE
18-Apr-90
=============
IHFL
COHC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
seess<""SSS
:3==S333=333=33==33=======================
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
I I
==S===333==33=33=33=3=====-33=_===3=====3=====
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 50.00 50.00 50.00
0 1 95.00 95.00 95.00
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
===============
PARAHETER: 2-CHLOROPHENOL
IHFL
COHC.
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
"il OBSV""MEAN" MIN MAX SE 90%c.i.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
SS33SSS33S3=3S=33=333=;=3==3
TREATMENT: AS
"(I OBSV"~~MEAN MIN MAX ff ...??*.5:I:.
"35 l""oI66""o"oO 0.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
"il OBSV"~MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
~N""OBSV""~MEAN~""MIN MAX SE 90% c.i.
TREATMENT: AS
"N OBSV~"MEAH~ HIN MAX SE 90% c.i.
2 1 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 (0,0)
5 1 33.96 33.96 33.96 0.00 (0,0)
0 1 95 00 95.00 95.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
T~"oBSv"~MEAN""MiN" MAX SE 90% C.I.
C-10
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: ACENAPHTHENE
18-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE""90%~c"l!
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90%C.I~
35 2 89.18 88.89 89.47 0.29 (87,91)
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX"
SE 90% C.I.
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
_ OBSV MEAM MINMAX"
1 1 100.00 100.00 100.00"
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)"
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAM HIM MAX ~"sE~~"90%~C~i~"
18 3 99.00 96.99 100.00
5 1 94.05 94.05 94.05
1.01 (96,100)
0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE
PARAMETER: ACENAPHTHYLENE
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
35 1 0.00 0.00
-
-
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
0.00 0.00 (0,0)
-
MAX SE 90% C.I.
i M j I N
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 (0,0)
" -
"----.
------
ซ .
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
0 1 50.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 (0 0)
5 1 92.31 92.31 92.31 0.00 (00)
0 1 95.00 95.00 95.00 0.00 10,0)
. . TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
*"
ซ
-
-
-----
C-ll
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: ANTHRACENE
18-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
PARAMETER: A
assasammasss
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
116 14 8.10 0.00 80.00 6.02 (0.19)
6 1 78.85 78.85 78.85 0.00 (6,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
42 6 6.76 0.00 40.54 6.76 (0,20)
333=33S33=S333=333=3===333====33=3====3===
NTIMONY
333333333=33 33==333=3333333===333=33==33==S3==3333==3333:
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N, OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
35 3 41.23 0.00 73.68 21.72 (0,100)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
62 11 17.95 0.00 100.00
0 1 95.00 95.00 95.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
12.04 (0,49)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
NON- CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 2 17.11 0.00 34.21
0 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
17.11 (0,100)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
I
C-12
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
==============================
18-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
149 19 39.40 0.00 90.63
0 1 50.00 50.00 50.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 25.00 25.00 25.00
_ _
================
SE 90% C.I.
1 \
SE 90% C.I.
7.53 (26.53)
0.00 (6,0)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
==s============================-
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MINMAX*
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
BSV MEAN ""MiN"
45 3 33.85 18.93 63.33 14.74 "(0^77)"
0 1 50.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
6 1 10.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 ""(0~0)"
PARAMETER: BARIUM
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
N
m
m
6
_
-
N
6
37
170
4
-
N
.
18
30
ป
-
OBSV
1
_
-
OBSV
1
18
1
-
OBSV
^
3
4
_
-
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
75.90 75.90
-
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
72.09 72.09
70.43 64.15
72.75 43.72
65.68 65.68
-
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
58.56 38.89
50.21 21.28
-
MAX
75.90
-
MAX
72.09
75.64
99.17
65.68
-
MAX
87.37
70.23
-
SE
-
0.00
"
-
SE
0.00
2.24
3.79
0.00
-
SE
14.72
11.91
-
90% C.I.
(0,0)
~
-
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(66,75)
(66.79)
(6,0)
-
90% C.I.
(16,100)
(22>8)
"
-
=======S===================================;
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
----- .??!Y...!?EAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 1 56.60 56.60 56.60 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
MIN
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN""~MlN""MAx""sE""90%~c!I!'
12
2 55.6 53.55 57.75 2.10 (42,69
=====================================3===S
C-13
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: BENZENE
18-Apr-90
=============
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001 "5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
PARAMETER: B
============
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
S33=33S==3==33=3=_==3======3======3========-
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 1 98.91 98.91 98.91 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
124 13 53.68 0.00 85.71 9.02 (38,70)
18 3 96.72 91.09 99.55 2.81 (89,100)
TREATMENT: TF
H OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
30 4 56.74 0.00 96.97 21.26 (7,100)
1S(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
35 1 66.67 66.67 66.67 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
- - - - ' '
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
2 2 100.00 100.00 100.00
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
56 12 74.04 48.53 98.25
20 1 99.73 99.73 99.73
13 4 98.41 95.00 99.83
5 1 98.97 98.97 98.97
15 3 99.95 99.87 100.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 91.67 91.67 91.67
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 66.67 66.67 66.67
0 1 10.00 10.00 10.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (100.100)
o.oo (6,0)
SE 90% C.I.
5.58 (64.84)
0.00 (6.0)
1.14 (96,160)
0.00 (0,0)
0.04 (99,100)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
===============
===============
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
_ - - - - * -.
===3====================S=r======== ' ' ~- ' ~*
3=S3S3S333=S3=33=33==
C-H
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
18-Apr-90
_3333S38__
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
=s==sssss==:
=======!==========3a===============33======-====::-=======:
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
-
- - -
-
- . -
-
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
0 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0,0)
...... .
ซ__> v
-.-...
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
- - ~ ~ _ _ _
-----_
--....
----..
'-.... . .
~============================r=======
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
11 1 28.67 28.67 28.67
"
-
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 3 66.67 0.00 100.00
11 2 84.51 79.02 90.00
-
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
11 1 7.69 7.69 7.69
-
sssaaasaasaaaasas
SE 90% C.I.
"
0.00 (0,0)
" ซ
-
SE 90% C.I.
33.33 (0,100)
5.49 (50,100)
*
-
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
-
PARAMETER: BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N
6
.
-
OBSV
1
.
-
MEAN
40,65
.
-
MIN
40.65
-
MAX
40.'65
_
-
SE
0.00
.
-
90% C.I.
(0,0)
_
-
TREATMENT: AS
N
157
36
18
.
-
OBSV
17
6
4
.
-
MEAN
39.80
61.57
76.24
.
-
MIN
0.00
0.00
55.63
.
-
MAX
87.50
89.54
98.76
_
-
SE
7.91
14.37
9.93
_
-
90X C.I.
(26,54)
(33 91)
(53,100)
_
-
TREATMENT: TF
N
36
6
.
s======
OBSV
5
.
MEAN
32.94
6.06
.
MIN
14.29
0.00
"
.
MAX
64.52
12.12
,
~
SE
8.50
6.06
_
~
90% C.I.
(15,51)
(0^44)
_
~
N
6
11
-
N
41
26
61
-
N
12
11
_
"
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
1 100.00 100.00 100.00
1 23.47 23.47 23.47
1 79.76 79.76 79.76
-
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
10 43.93 0.00 78.00
4 48.41 10.11 78.14
6 82.25 58.53 100.00
-
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
3 65.66 33.33 100.00
1 76.79 76.79 76.79
-
-
-ป__
SE
0.00
O.OC
0.00
-
SE
9.40
16.56
6.19
-
SE
19.27
0.00
-
==aaaa====
90% C.I.
(0.0)
(00)
(OlO)
-
90% C.I.
(27,61)
(9 87)
(70|95)
-
90% C.I.
(10,100)
(0,0)
-
C-15
-------
POTU - Par cent Removal
PARAMETER: BROKOOICHLOROHETHANE
SBWKXBXBXSSS!
IHFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN HIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
18 4 30.83 0.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
50.00 10.83 (5.56)
MAX SE 90% C.I.
- -
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
IB-ApP-V
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
5 2 87.50 75.00 100.00
20 1 99.78 99.78 99.78
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
12.50 (9,100)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
; ; \ ; ; I ;
PARAMETER: BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN
6 1 0.00 0.00
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
146 20 24.60 0.00
6 1 96.67 96.67
6 2 99.56 99.43
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN HIN
48 7 32.06 0.00
MAX SE
0.00 0.00
MAX SE
92.00 7.16
96.67 0.00
99.68 0.13
MAX SE
97.30 15.76
90% C.I.
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(12.37)
(6.0)
(99,100)
90% C.I.
(1,63)
NON-CHLORINATE
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN
6 2 96.43 92.86
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
74 15 47.90 0.00
5 1 93.02 93.02
0 1 95.00 95.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN
12 2 31.25 0.00
D
MAX SE 90% C.I.
100.00 3.57 (74,100)
MAX SE 90% C.I.
100.00 10.72 (29.67)
93.02 0.00 (0,0)
95.00 0.00 (0,0)
MAX SE 90% C.I.
62.50 31.25 (0,100)
C-16
-------
Removal
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
18-Apr-90
===========================
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
N OBSV
6 1
_
.
-
N OBSV
265 35
12 2
6 1
6 1
6 1
" "
N OBSV
48 7
-
.
" "
PARAMETER: CHLOROBENZENE
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
0.00 0.00
ป _
.
-
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
39.47 0.00
43.14 0.00
91.38 91.38
90.06 90.06
93.96 93.96
~
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
6.35 0.00
_
- *
MAX SE
0.00 0.00
-
MAX SE
99.47 6.24
86.28 43.14
91.38 0.00
90.06 0.00
93.96 0.00
MAX SE
33.33 4.76
- -
- .
"
90% C.i.
(0,0)
-
90% C.I.
(29.50)
(0,100)
(0,0)
(0^0)
90% C.I.
(0,16)
-
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 44.00 44.00 44.00
-
- - -
-
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN HIN MAX
119 15 30.60 0.00 97.06
6 1 97.02 97.02 97.02
0 1 27.00 27.00 27.00
-
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
20 2 14.00 0.00 28.00
6 1 76.12 76.12 76.12
"
...
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
-
.
~ . .
SE 90% C.I.
9.47 (14.47)
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0|0)
-
SE 90% C.I.
14.00 (0,100)
0.00 (0,0)
- "
"
-
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
- > 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
41 2 40.00 0.00 80.00
6 2 99.32 98.91 99.72
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 2 37.50 0.00 75.00
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
40.00 (0,100)
0.40 (97,100)
SE 90% C.I.
37.50 (0,100)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT:
AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT:
AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
17 3 62.22 20
20 4 97.10 90
TREATMENT:
.00 100.00 23.20 (0,100)
.00 99.89 2.37 (92,100)
TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
-
C-17
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: CHLOROETHANE
18-Apr-90
..^ttunra
INFL
CONG.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
Bsssamaasss
IE3S3S333z:B333B==3333S==SS===S3==S3===33=S===3==S:=== -
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
.
^SS S SSSSS=S3S3SS=S3S=S=SS3SS==S==SS=== S
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
5 1 58.33 58.33 58.33
0 1 95.00 95.00 95.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
'-
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
PARAMETER: CHLOROFORM
IHFL
CONG.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
XV3U1XBSSKXS
N OBSV
_
6 1
-
-
N OBSV
152 23
41 2
6 1
- -
-
"
N OBSV
42*' 6
6 1
~ ~
-
. -
m "
BXSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
.
97.79 97.79
-
"
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
40.27 0.00
60.44 52.06
50.00 50.00
~
"
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
37.64 0.00
85.92 85.92
"
~ "
~
MAX
-
97.79
~
MAX
96.49
68.83
50.00
MAX
87.50
85.92
-
SE
-
0.00
SE
6.78
8.39
0.00
SE
15.59
0.00
"
90% C.I.
-
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(29,52)
<7.100)
{0,0)
90% C.I.
(6.69)
(6,0)
=============-=
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV
6 1
14 1
3 1
N OBSV
166 28
39 4
0 1
N OBSV
12 3
14 1
m
MEAN MIN
0.00 0.00
60.74 60.74
100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
59.22 0.00
92.58 86.67
99.25 99.25
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
87.83 77.78
24.44 24.44
_ _
m
MAX
0.00
60.74
100.00
MAX
100.00
97.37
_
99.25
MAX
100.00
24.44
.
.
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
ป ^
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
.
SE 90% C.I.
5.56 (50,69)
2.55 (87,99)
.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
6.50 (69,100)
0.00 (0,0)
- -
.
*
_ - -=========s===========s==========
C-18
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: CHLOROHETHANE
18-ApP-90
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
N
6
N
47
18
N
6
PARAMETER: CHROMIUM
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
OBSV
1
OBSV
2
3
OBSV
1
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
58.33 58.33
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
0.00 0.00
81 .65 67.29
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
0.00 0.00
==============
MAX
58.33
MAX
0.00
97.98
MAX
0.00
SE
0.00
SE
0.00
8.92
SE
0.00
CHLORINATED
N
6
N
58
53
160
6
18
N
36
12
========:
OBSV
1
OBSV
8
9
19
3
OBSV
5
2
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
89.78 89.78
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
45.67 0.00
68.55 18.99
75.05 21.43
93.36 93.36
94.24 89.73
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
36.41 0.00
46.49 22.59
MAX
89.78
MAX
83.72
94.55
93.44
93.36
97.46
MAX
58.33
70.40
SE
0.00
SE
13.66
7.61
4.20
0.00
2.32
s?
10.12
23.90
90% C.I.
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(56,100)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(20,72)
(54J83)
(68.82)
(6.0)
(87,lfiO)
90% C.I.
(15,58)
(0,100)
=======================================================
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV
0 1
N OBSV
6 1
0 1
N OBSV
6 1
MEAN MIN
100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
0.00 0.00
95.00 95.00
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
60.32 60.32
MAX
10.00
MAX
0.00
95.00
MAX
60.32
SE
0.00
SE
0.00
0.00
SE
0.00
90% C.I.
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
NON-CHLORINATED
N OBSV
6 1
14 1
N OBSV
12 2
18 4
50 10
45 1
N OBSV
6 1
20 2
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
48.78 48.78
70.59 70.59
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
85.39 73.33
78.29 68.75
81.29 70.00
46.03 46.03
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
67.39 67.39
54.20 51.58
MAX
48.78
70.59
MAX
97.44
94.55
89.49
46.03
MAX
67.39
56.18
SE
0.00
0.00
SE
12.05
5.79
1.90
0.00
SE
0.00
2.62
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(9,100)
(6ง,92)
(78:85)
(6,0)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(38,71)
C-19
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: COPPER
18-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001*5000
> 5000
PARAMETER: C
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
ซ_
=SS3==
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
H
6
N
39
89
137
18
6
N
6
12
24
YANIDE
N
6
N
50
83
42
12
18
N
6
36
6
OBSV
1
OBSV
7
10
18
OBSV
1
4
=======
OBSV
i
OBSV
6
8
a
2
OBSV
1
i
MEAN MIN MAX
96.38 96.38 96.38
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN MAX
63.77 0.00 90.00
80.18 41.27 99.00
81.85 50.00 95.51
91.47 89.91 93.82
92.43 92.43 92.43
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN MAX
0.00 0.00 0.00
53.89 49.15 58.62
58.41 38.18 74.79
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN MAX
89.78 89.78 89.78
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN MAX
55.68 0.00 85.71
18.99 0.00 67.07
59.78 28.76 91.87
69.04 57.91 80.17
86.72 71.13 97.58
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN MAX
36.15 36.15 36.15
39.29 0.00 73.14
56.80 56.80 56.80
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
11.82 (41,87)
6.26 (69)92)
2.95 (77)87)
1.20 (88*95)
0.00 (6,0)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0.0)
4.73 (24,84)
9.56 (36,81)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 20.97 20.97 20.97
14 1 74.20 74.20 74.20
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 2 45.24 0.00 90.48
12 3 79.93 56.10 99.00
62 10 80.07 0.00 96.97
45 1 80.00 80.00 80.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
-
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
11.87 (32,80)
9.65 (1)37)
7.99 (45.75)
11.13 (0,100)
7.99 (63)100)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
16.19 (5.74)
0.00 (6,0)
s = assssssss
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 7.35 7.35 7.35
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
12 4 47.57 0.00 75.00
30 7 58.29 33,14 90.00
6 1 65.41 65.41 65.41
18 3 85.49 79.92 89.49
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
12 2 42.16 26.64 57.68
====================================
;===============
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
45.24 (0,100)
12.61 (43*100)
9.18 (63.97)
0.00 (6,0)
SE 90% C.I.
===========
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
17.45 (7,89)
7.97 (43.74)
0.00 (6.0)
2.87 (77,94)
SE 90% C.I.
15.52 (0,100)
=================
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
18-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
35 1 0.00 0.00
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
PARAMETER: OIBROMOCHLOROMETANE
MAX
0.00
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
13 2 82.56 82.14 82.98 0.42 (80~85)"
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
5 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0,0)
20 1 87.93 87.93 87.93 0.00 (OJO)
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
C-21
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: DIETHYL PHTHALATE
18-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
H OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
187 23 54.03 0.00 100.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
30 4 33.75 0.00 60.00
PARAMETER: ETHYLBENZENE
IHFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
SE 90% C.I.
8.05 (40,68)
SE 90% C.I.
13.44 (2,65)
N
6
N
85
5
N
12
0
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 61.54 61.54 61.54
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
199 24 41.53 0.00 97.73
12 3 98.73 97.45 98.73
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
48 7 33.03 0.00 90.00
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
8.98 (26,57)
0.64 (97,100)
SE 90% C.I.
13.06 (8,58)
N
9
14
N
95
26
19
24
0
N
12
14
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
2 50.00 0.00 100.00
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
14 28.68 0.00 100.00
2 91.64 90.00 93.28
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
2 30.77 0.00 61.54
1 100.00 100.00 100.00
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
2 91.67 83.33 100.00
1 75.68 75.68 75.68
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
17 62.10 0.00 99.22
3 96.66 90.72 99.76
4 96.91 94.60 99.80
1 100.00 100.00 100.00
1 99.95 99.95 99.95
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAM MIN MAX
6 25.00 0.00 50.00
1 72.07 72.07 72.07
sss==;=ssrs==s==s
SE 90% C.I.
50.00 (0,100)
SE 90% C.I.
11.57 (8,49)
1.64 (81,100)
SE 90% C.I.
30.77 (0,100)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
8.33 (39,100)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
9.57 (45.79)
2.97 (88,100)
1.26 (94,100)
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
25.00 (0,100)
0.00 (0,0)
C-22
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: FLUORANTHENE
18-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
0^50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
sssssssss
PARAMETER: F
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
35 2 41.67 0.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN
-
LUORENE
MAX SE 90S C.I.
83.33 41.67 (0,100)
MAX SE 90% C.I.
:=assaaaasssss==sasa:ss==s==:
:==================3===3=n==33Z==3=====
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
11 1 65.39 65.39 65.39
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
13 4 85.46 64.71 100.00
11 1 95.19 95.19 95.19
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
11 1 52.89 52.89 52.89
================
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
7.73 (67,100)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
TUP!
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
35 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
10 3 97.42 94.12 100.00 1.74 (92,100)
5 1 91.07 91.07 91.07 0.00 Jo.O)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
:======================================================
023
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: HEPTACHLOR
18-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
~OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90S C.I.
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN HIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
"~~3 V~66~.67~~66.6r ~66.67 "o~Qo""lo',0~>
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
"il" 2 79.71 6.67 92.74 13.04 (0,100)
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 907. C.I.
~3 i"53.85 53.85 53.85 0.00 (0,0)
POTU -'Percent Removal
PARAMETER: IRON
IHFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
10ฐJ1ซ
nnBVซ*vซ*i
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N
.
-
-
6
OBSV
.
-
-
1
MEAN
.
-
-
85.46
MIN
85.46
MAX
-
"
85.46
SE
-
~
"*
0.00
90% C.I.
-
"
(0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
H
.
-
6
120
85
OBSV
.
-
15
9
MEAN
.
-
81.18
80.66
88.41
MIN
.
-
81.18
42.58
66.78
MAX
-
81.18
98.00
99.20
SE
-
0.00
3.37
4.11
90% C.I.
-
(0.0)
(75,67)
(81 96)
TREATMENT: TF
H
-
24
18
6
xaxxxna
OBSV
_
3
1
E33*XXX
MEAN
.
-
74.52
32.65
50.61
xsxxssata
MIN
.
-
55.23
3.74
50.61
MAX
.
-
90.71
69.97
50.61
SE
-
10.36
19.58
0.00
90% C.I.
-
-
(44.100)
(6.90)
(6.0)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN
.
6 1 25.98
MIN
-
25.98
MAX SE 90% C.I.
- -
v
ป
25.98 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN
.
111 12 85.41
MIN
-
67.00
MAX SE 90% C.I.
.
_ _
96.65 3.27 (80,91)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN
-
12 6 72.30
333S==33==3=========S==3====333===
MIN
-
68.87
MAX SE 90% C.I.
.
_ -
75.72 3.42 (65,79)
C-24
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: ISOPHORONE
18-Apr-90
I NFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN
3===ss====3ss:================a::
MAX SE 90% C.I.
. .
NON-CHLORINATED
======
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
11 1 23.60 23.60 23.60
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
2 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
11 1 97.75 97.75 97.75
5 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
11 1 19.10 19.10 19.10
SE
0.00
0.00
SE
0.00
0.00
0.00
SE
0.00
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(0,0)
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
PARAMETER: LEAD
TfclFI
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N
.
-
.
6
.
OBSV
.'
.
_
1
-
MEAN
.
_
7.83
-
MIN
_
' .
_
7.83
-
MAX
w
_
7.83
-
SE
0.00
-
90% C.I.
(0,0)
-
TREATMENT: AS
N
148
56
65
6
6
OBSV
15
9
12
1
MEAN
45.95
77.21
73.91
79.93
97.22
MIN
0.00
1.96
51.22
79.93
97.22
MAX
97.96
98.68
98.18
79.93
97.22
SE
10.88
10.59
4.86
0.00
0.00
90% C.I.
(27,65)
(58 97)
(65'83)
(6,0)
(00)
TREATMENT: TF
N
42
6
.
ss=a====
OBSV
6
i
_
MEAN
9.03
19.62
.
~
MIN
0.00
19.62
_
MAX
54.17
19.62
_
~
SE
9.03
0.00
w
90% C.I.
(0,27)
(0,0)
, ' _
-
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N
6
14
OBSV
i
1
MEAN
0.00
57.58
MIN
0.00
57.58
MAX
0.00
57.58
SE
0.00
0.00
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
N
18
24
38
45
OBSV
0
7
MEAN
0.00
48.17
56.59
87.50
MIN
0.00
9.09
25.20
87.50
MAX
0.00
86.46
83.09
87.50
SE
0.00
13.20
8.56
0.00
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(20,76)
(40!73)
(6.0)
TREATMENT: TF
N
6
6
14
OBSV
1
1
MEAN
0.00
45.06
47.88
MIN
0.00
45.06
47.88
MAX
0.00
45.06
47.88
SE
0.00
0.00
0.00
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(00)
(00)
C-25
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: LINOANE
18-Apf90
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
PARAMETER: MANGANESE
3S3ESKBJM3333S3333S3S
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
"OBSV""MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
"ij ossv" MEAN MIN MAX sf.???.?:!:.
0 2"37"io""o"oo"75"oO 37.50 (6,100)
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
======================
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
"fj OBSV"~MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
27
91
3 33.33 0.00 50.00 16.67 (0.82)
1 Hill 33.33 33.33 0.00 (6,0)
9 32.69 11.77 86.67 7.96 (18,47)
TREATMENT: TF
'OBSV MEAN HIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
3 1 43.59 43.59 43.59 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
"ll 2 31.91 20.51 43.30 11.39 (0,100)
0 1 7.58 7.58 7.58 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (6,0)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
6BSV~"MEAN~ MIN MAX SE
45 1 38.46 38.46 38.46 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
"ii OBSV""MEAH MIN" MAX SE 90% c.i.
:33==3=S3=33S33S333=SS=33SSS3=3S=3S3S=3==
C-26
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: MERCURY
18-Apr-90
I NFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
PARAMETER: M
N
6
N
205
6
N
48
ETHYLENE
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
N
6
N
116
47
6
12
24
6
N
30
12
6
OBSV
1
OBSV
27
1
OBSV
7
========SSSSSS==SS3S3S=S===
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
66.67 66.67
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
42.06 0.00
40.01 40.01
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
42.82 0.00
MAX
66.67
MAX
93.75
40.01
MAX
75.00
CHLORIDE
=======
OBSV
1
OBSV
16
2
3
1
OBSV
4
2
1
SE
0.00
SE
7.08
0.00
SE
12.15
90% C.I.
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(30.54)
(6,0)
90% C.I.
(19,66)
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
81.62 81.62
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
29.71 0.00
40.98 27.69
27.31 0.00
36.33 0.00
66.66 3.04
11.36 11.36
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
74.65 66.67
76.31 75.95
54.84 54.84
MAX
81.62
MAX
60.00
60.67
54.61
78.21
99.19
11.36
MAX
83.33
76.67
54.84
SE
0.00
SE
5.78
10.05
27.31
22.75
31.82
0.00
SE
3.69
0.36
0.00
90% C.I.
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(20,40)
(12^70)
(0,100)
(0,100)
(0,100)
90% C.I.
(66,83)
(74!79)
(6,0)
:================:
NON-CHLORINAT
==3333==
ED
:================
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV
6 1
N OBSV
111 16
N OBSV
12 2
MEAN MIN
0.00 0.00
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN HIN
53.18 0.00
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
60.71 50.00
MAX
0.00
MAX
100.00
MAX
71.43
NON-CHLORINATED
N OBSV
6 1
3 1
N OBSV
75 14
18 3
45 7
0 1
6 2
N OBSV
0 1
6 1
6 1
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
96.15 96.15
100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
37.11 0.00
61.43 34.41
79.91 0.00
71.87 71.87
99.81 99.72
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
100.00 100.00
66.04 66.04
89.33 89.33
MAX
96.15
100.00
MAX
93.29
77.33
100.00
71.87
99.91
MAX
100.00
66.04
89.33
SE
0.00
SE
10.17
SE
10.71
SE
0.00
0.00
SE
8.50
13.58
13.93
0.00
0.10
SE
0.00
0.00
0.00
90% C.I.
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(35,71)
90% C.I.
(90,100)
==========
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(22.52)
(22,100)
(53 100)
(0,0)
(99,100)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(0,0)
(00)
C-27
-------
8Z-0
(00)
'I '3 %06
(OOl'O)
(8*,ZZ)
(Z8 0)
(9E'0)
T3 %06
(O'O)
(O'O)
'I '3 %06
OO'O
3S
k'zz
V9'9
Z9'1H
ฃฃ'8
3S
OO'O
OO'O
3S
:=======
6l'Sฃ
XVH
69 'W
oo;o9
XVH
9rsฃ
xvw
OS'0ฃ
NIH
OO'O
OB; s
OO'O
NIH
sv :IN;
WZl
NIH
IV SIN
Q3iVNiaO
==========
==========
(o;o)
(00)
(O'O)
T3 %06
(O'O)
(O'O}
(001 Z6)
(0Y0)
(ฃSYU)
'I '3 %06
(O'O)
(OOl'O)
'I '3 %06
OO'O
OO'O
OO'O
as
OO'O
OO'O
S9'0
OO'O
88' 1 1
as
OO'O
OO'OS
as
================
==============
8V lฃ 8V lฃ
OO'OOl OO'OOl
0ฃ'96 0ฃ'96
XVH
ฃ8'Z6
SZ'66
0ฃ' 96
60'66
OO'OOl
XVH
Z9'99
OO'OOL
XVH
NIH
Ji :JIN
ฃ8'Z6
SZ'66
00 '56
60'66
OO'O
NIH
ts;zฃ z oz
NV3H ASSO
H1V32IX
61 'Sฃ Z
Zฃ'6ฃ ฃ
ฃฃ'8 S
NV3H ASSO
iHivsai
WSฃ I
Wฃl I
NV3H ASSO
jHivauj.
1H3-NON
=K5CSSS=======
OO'OOl I
0ฃ'96 I
NV3H ASSO
ฃ8'Z6 I
SZ'66 I
59' S6 Z
60'66 L
*6'lฃ ฃ1
NV3H ASSO
SV :j.N3HiV3JU
Z9'99 Z9'99 I
OO'O OO'OS Z
NIH
IV UN
NV3H ASSO
swivaai
Q3iVNia01H3-NON
N
0
zz
81
0ฃ
N
n
9
N
====================
(O'O) OO'O
(OOl'O) 66'0ฃ
(8VO) 8Vฃl
T3 X06
(O'O}
(ooy'o)
li'-S
T3 %06
(O'O)
I'3 %06
as
OO'O
90'ฃZ
6V8
as
OO'O
as
==ฃ=.==
DO '95
XVH
ZZ'18
9S'9Z
LZ'66
66|9S
XVH
69' SZ
XVH
OO'O
NIH
Ji :iN
ZZ'18
OO'O
OO'Sl
OO'O
OO'O
NIH
SV :ซ
69' SZ
NIH
ฃV'?S Z 81
Z6'Sl 17 VZ
NV3H ASSO . N
aHivaai
ZZ'18 I 9
ZS'W ฃ 9
9Z'OS ฃL 08
srzz z 66
98'6ฃ 91 VOl
NV3H ASSO N
l3HiV3ai
69' SZ 9
NV3H ASSO N
IV :iN3HiV3ai
Q31VNia01H3
11
0
9
N
0
11
8
08
N
LL
8
N
(O'O)
(S9V0)
T3 %06
(O'O)
(001 'Z9)
(6SJฃZ)
I'3 %06
====:s==:
OO'O
Z9'9l
as
OO'O
ฃฃ'*
ฃฃ'01
as
00 '09
OO'OS
XVH
59' ป6
Zl'^6
ฃฃ'96
XVH
00 '09
OO'O
NIH
ai :i
S9'*6
9V 58
OO'O
NIH
OOOS <
OOOS- 100 I
OOOl-lOS
OOS-lOl
OOL-LS
OS-O
OOOS <
OOOS- 100 I
000 L- LOS
DOS- 10 I
OOl-lS
os-o
OOOS <
OOOS-LOOl
OOOL-IOS
OOS-lOl
OOl-lS
os-o
3K03
UNI
13>3I
00'09 I 9
Z9'9l ฃ 81
NV3H ASSO N
NaHiVaUJL
S9'% I 9
6Z'68 Z Zl
Zl'lf Zl ZSl
NV3H ASSO N
SV :iN3HlVattJL
'I '3 ซ06
as
sssssssss
XVH
aaivN
ssssss
NIH
NV3H ASSO N
IV :iN3HJLV3Hi
ia01H3
It U3 1 3UWW.J
n *QaA3nปOปO
OOOS <
OOOS-LOOl
OOOL-IOS
OOS-lOl
OOl-LS
OS-O
OOOS <
OOOS- 100 L
OOOL-IOS
OOS-lOl
OOl-lS
os-o
OOOS <
OOOS- 100 I
OOOL-IOS
OOS-LOL
OOL-LS
OS-O
3H03
UNI
3N31VHlHdVN :
1BAcxiปa juaojaj - mod
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: NITROBENZENE
18-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
* 0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
===.==============
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
------
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 2 93.89 90.00 97.79
5 1 96.97 96.97 96.97
6 2 65.83 33.87 97.80
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
- - - -
. ======
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
3.90 (69,100)
0.00 (0.0)
31.97 (0,160)
SE 90% C.I.
-
PARAMETER: PCB-1254
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
...
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
8 1 91.34 91.34 91.34
0 1 92.00 92.00 92.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
-
C-29
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: PENTACHLOROPKENOL
18-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
104 9 38.52 0.00 86.67 10.04 (20,57)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
36 5 30.87 0.00 68.89 13.50 (2,60)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
_
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 50.00 50.00 50.00
11 1 32.14 32.14 32.14
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
11 1 2.38 2.38 2.38
6 1 35.86 35.86 35.86
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
PARAMETER: PHENANTHRENE
ssucxxnussx
IHFL
CONC.
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN HIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
40 4 35. 16 0.00 90.63 21.93 (0.87)
6 1 78.85 78.85 78.85 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
:==============================="=====
NON-CHLORINATED
. TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
11 1 57.90 57.90 57.90
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
8 2 93.95 90.63 97.28
11 1 95.79 95.79 95.79
0 1 98.24 98.24 98.24
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
11 1 46.32 46.32 46.32
=========-===========i================
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
93.95 (73,100)
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
C-30
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: PHENOL
tUFI
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
-,.______
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN
6 1 0.00
...
...
...
MIN
0.00
-
.
-
MAX
0.00
-
.
-
SE
0.00
-
.
-
90% C.I.
(0,0)
-
.
-
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN
116 14 31.28
18 3 54.82
53 4 93.12
12 2 99.57
...
MIN
0.00
11.11
80.10
99.25
"
MAX
94.44
95.71
99.59
99.89
- .
"
SE
11.67
24.46
4.48
0.32
.
90% C.I.
(11.52)
(0,100)
(83,100)
(98I100)
"
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN
6 1 96.08
-
. .
.
...
MIN
96.08
3SS3333
MAX
96.08
_
.
.
-
--333-3
SE
0.00
_
.
.
-
333333=
90% C.I.
(0,0)
.
.
-
13=3=3333333=
NON-CHLORINATED
N
9
11
.
-
N
54
61
.
6
N
6
if
.
.
-
3-3-3-S-3S
OBSV
2
1
.
-
OBSV
9
7
.
1
OBSV
2
1
2
.
.
-
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
75.00 50.00
33.33 33.33
r
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
19.07 0.00
94.14 80.77
.
99.99 99.99
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
90.00 80.00
98.18 98.18
74.60 49.21
.
-
.sss...s, 3__
MAX
100.00
33.33
-
MAX
80.00
100.00
..
99.99
MAX
100.00
98.18
100.00
.
-
SE
25.00
0.00
-
SE
10.11
2.69
_
0.00
SE
10.00
0.00
25.40
.
-
=33333=
90% C.I.
(0,100)
(0,0)
-
90% C.I.
(0,37)
(89,99)
_
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(37,100)
fO.O)
(OjfiO)
. '
- -
S3333-ป3333
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER:PYRENE
TUFL
CONC.
.0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000-
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
S SSS SSSS33 S S
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
-
TREATMENT : AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
-
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
==3=n=an-; j i 'ii^asssassssaBSssasaaassaasaaassBBsaxassass;
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
11 1 65.39 65.39 65.39
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
18 3 86.04 64.71 100.00
11 1 95.19 95.19 95.19
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
11 1 53.85 53.85 53.85
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
10.84 (54,100)
0.00 (0,0)
*
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0
C-31
-------
POTM - Percent Removal
PARAHETER:SILVER
19-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN KIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
35 4 72.38 26.04 94.22 15.72 (35,100)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
------
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
45 4 58.80 26.04 94.22 16.15 (21,97)
0 1 90.00 90.00 90.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
I -----
PARAHETERzTETRACHLOROETHENE
"B3SSXS3S33:
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N
1
-
-
-
~
OBSV
6
-
-
-
-
MEAN
80.00
-
-
-
-
HIN
80.00
-
-
-
-
MAX
80.00
-
-
-
-
SE
0.00
"
-
"
90% C.I.
(0,0)
~
TREATMENT: AS
N
95
9
18
0
6
"
OBSV
17
6
1
"
MEAN
47.11
78.63
74.02
99.21
84.63
~
MIN
0.00
32.69
65.20
99.21
84.63
"
MAX
100.00
97.53
79.49
99.21
84.63
SE
9.07
9.93
4.46
0.00
0.00
90X C.I.
(31,63)
(59)99)
(61!87)
(6,0)
(0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N
30
12
6
-
OBSV
4
1
-
-
MEAN
48.50
90.59
97.80
-
-
MIN
0.00
87.27
97.80
-
-
MAX
81.82
93.90
97.80
-
"
SE
17.29
3.32
0.00
~
"*
90% C.I.
(8.89)
(70,100)
fO.O)
-
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN
6 2 95.65
- - -
.
MIN MAX
91.30 100.00
" .
SE 90% C.I.
4.53 (68,100)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN
120 21 62.69
47 4 93.50
6 2 98.24
MIN MAX
0.00 100.00
90.00 96.68
97.42 99.05
SE 90% C.I.
7.02 (51,75)
1.37 (90.97)
0.82 (93,100)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN
12 2 90.00
-
_
MIN MAX
86.67 93.33
_
SE 90% C.I.
3.33 (69,100)
_
.
_33 3 a
C-32
-------
POTH - Percent Removal
PARAHETER:TETRACHLOROHETHANE
19-Apr-90
INFL -
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
5 SSSJES ~
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
12 1 50.00 50.00 50.00
6 1 87.79 87.79 87.79
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
MM!
PARAMETER: TOLUENE
=================================================
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
==========
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
-
: :-==================================:
NON-CHLORINATED
=================
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
14 1 78.26 78.26 78.26
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
26 3 93.61 81.16 100.00
2 2 95.00 90.00 100.00
0 1 99.90 99.90 99.90
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
I
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 97.23 97.23 97.23
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
124 17 53.74 0.00 97.73
12 2 98.24 97.86 98.63
57 6 78.88 0.00 99.11
12 2 96.16 92.84 99.48
6 1 99.81 99.81 99.81
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
42 6 61.90 0.00 96.00
6 1 97.29 97.29 97.29
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
9.51 (37.70)
0.39 (96,100)
15.87 (47)100)
3.32 (75 100)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
14.50 (33,91)
0.00 (0,0)
NON- CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 88.89 88.89 88.89
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
112 19 85.21 0.00 100.00
19 4 98.01 96.67 99.00
58 6 98.85 95.00 100.00
6 1 95.39 95.39 95.39
5 1 99.84 99.84 99.84
0 1 99.94 99.94 99.94
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
6.23 (75,160)
5.00 (63^100)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
-
SE 90% C.I.
(0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
5.65 (75,95)
0.49 (97,99)
0.78 (97,100)
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (00)
0.00 (0)0)
SE 90% C.I.
-
C-33
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAHETERsTRAHS-1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
19-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
PARAHETER:TR
_ ___.
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
146 20 42.09 0.00 100.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
48 7 47.07 0.00 97.67
IBROMOHETHANE
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED .
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
8.88 (27,57)
SE 90% C.I.
17.99 (12,82)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 1 87.50 87.50 87.50 0.00 (0.0)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
59 11 49.22 0.00 93.75 12.45 (27,72)
0 1 90.00 90.00 90.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 1 50.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 (0,0)
a=--33==33===3==-3===33=S=3==33===S====33==33=====333==S3====-==3====3
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
.
SE 90% C.I.
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
14 1 83.33 83.33 83.33 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 (0,0)
14 1 67.78 67.78 67.78 0.00 (0,0)
0 1 65.00 65.00 65.00 0.00 (0,0)
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
14 1 54.44 54.44 54.44 0.00 (0,0)
-= ===3S===33===333==3===3==3==3==33=========!
SSS3S333333S33==3
C-34
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER:TRICHLOROETHENE
19-Apr-90
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
=3====3====;
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N
6
OBSV
1
_
.
.
-
MEAN
75.00
_
.
.
-
MIN
75.00
ป
_
.
-
MAX
75.00
_
_
_
-
SE
0.00
^
_
-
90% C.I.
(0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
N
157
36
12
6
-
OBSV
17
2
-
MEAN
48.24
78.46
89.71
86.80
-
MIN
0.00
51.72
86.86
86.80
-
MAX
97.73
98.21
92.56
86.80
-
SE
10.22
7.87
2.85
0.00
-
90% C.I.
(30,66)
(62J95)
(72,100)
{0,0)
-
TREATMENT: TF
N
24
18
6
.
OBSV
3
1
.
MEAN
94.19
94.19
99.19
_
MIN
88.84
88.84
99.19
_
~
MAX
98.04
98.04
99.19
'
SE
2.85
2.85
0.00
.
90% C.I.
(86,100)
(86,100)
(0,0)
_
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
_N OSSV MEAN *MIN MAX SE""90%"c"i~"
6 1 97.30 97.3o"97l30~"oloo""(0~0)"
N
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
106
6
26
18 53.77
1 97.65
3 97.74
0.00 100.00
97.65 97.65
95.00 99.61
8.26 (39.68)
0.00 (0.0)
1.40 (94,100)
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
6 2 91.67 83.33 100.00 8.33 (39,100)
6 1 88.24 88.24 88.24 0.00 (0,0)
PARAMETER:TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN
MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN
MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
41 2 48.65 0.00 97.30 48.65 (0,100)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN
6 1 0.00
MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
0.00 0.00 0.00 (0,0)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
0 1 95.00 95.00 95.00 0.00
5 1 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(OlO)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
C-35
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
19-Apr-90
PARAHETERsVINYL CHLORIDE
XKS23SBB3S3!
IHFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
sssagssssssarassassssgssgs
:S3====S3=S33==
CHLORINATED
3SSS3==SSSS333==S:ปS
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN
.
HIN MAX
-
SE 90% C.I.
-
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN
41 2 0.00
6 1 71.43
6 1 94.05
6 1 92.93
MIN MAX
0.00 0.00
71.43 71.43
94.05 94.05
92.93 92.93
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN
MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN
-
MIN MAX
.
SE 90% C.I.
-
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN
5 1 100.00
0 1 95.00
MIN MAX
100.00 100.00
95.00 95.00
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN
MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
...... -
PARAMETERIZING
1MSSS3BS333SS33333S33:
INFL
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
-================================
ssssssssssssss
CHLORINATED
N
.
.
6
N
7
183
24
69
12
N
6
42
-
-
OBSV
.
_
1
"
OBSV
1
21
13
OBSV
6
ป
-
"
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
.
_
89.98 89.98
"
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
97.50 97.50
68.59 29.73
82.13 74.15
83.32 49.05
71.27 63.64
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
17.20 17.20
47.20 30.77
"
"
MAX
-
.
89.98
MAX
97.50
68.59
88.74
99.25
78.90
MAX
17.20
75.17
"
m
SE
-
-
0.00
SE
0.00
3.41
4.27
4.66
7.63
SE
0.00
6.27
"
"
90% C.I.
-
-
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(63,74)
(70,95)
(il^OO)
90% C.I.
(0.0)
(34,60)
__ =__ _ ~
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN
-
6 1 51.10 51.10
-
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN.
-
48 9 79.90 60.00
18 3 77.24 82.55
45 3 74.10 62.90
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN
12 2 69.25 65.49
-
MAX SE 90% C.I.
- -
51.10 0.00 (0,0)
- -
MAX SE 90% C.I.
- -
90.27 3.42 (74,86)
80.45 1.63 (72,82)
90.63 8.26 (51,99)
MAX SE 90% C.I.
73.01 3.76 (46,93)
B ป
. -
===========r===========
C-36
-------
APPENDIX D
REFERENCES
Anthony, Richard M. and Breimhurst, Lawrence H., "Determining Maximum Influent
Concentrations of Priority Pollutants for Treatment Plants." Journal of
the Water Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 53, No. 10, (Oct 1981) oe
1457-1468. * ' PS*
Berglund, R.L. and Whipple, G.M., "Predictive Modeling of Organic Emissions ซ
Chemical Engineering Progress. (Nov. 1987) pg. 46-54.
Convery, J.J., Cohen, J.M. and Bishop, D.F., "Occurrence and Removal of Toxics
in Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities." Seventh Joint United
States/Japan Conference, May 1980.
Hannah, Sidney A., et al., "Comparative Removal of Toxic Pollutants by Six
Wastewater Treatment Processes." Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation. Vol. 58, No. 1, (Jan. 1986) pg. 27-34.
Button, D.G. and E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc., "Removal of Priority
Pollutants." Industrial Wastes. March/April, 1980, pg. 22-26.
Kincannon, Don F., et al., "Removal Mechanisms for Toxic Priority Pollutants."
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 55 No 2 CFeb
1983) pg. 157-163. ' U
Namkung, Eun and Rittman, Bruce E., "Estimating Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions From Publicly Owned Treatment Works." Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 59, No. 7 (July 1987) pg. 670-678.
Neiheisel, Timothy W., et al., "Toxicity Reduction: Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plants." Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation Vol
60, No. 57 (Jan. 1988) pg. 57-67. ' : "'
Patterson, John, Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology, 2nd Edition DE
340-360. ' F&'
Petrasek, A.C., Kugelman, I.J., "Metals Removals and Partitioning In
Conventional Wastewater Treatment Plants." Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation. Vol. 55, No. 9, (Sept. 1983) pg. 1183-1190.
Petrasek, Albert C., et al., "Fate of Toxic Organic Compounds In Wastewater
Treatment Plants." Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation Vol
55, No. 10 (Oct. 1983) pg. 1286-1296.''
Russell, Larry L., et al., "Impact of Priority Pollutants on Publicly Owned
Treatment Works Processes: A Literature Review. 1984 Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference.
D-l
-------
Weber, W.J. and Jones B.E., "Toxic Substance Removal In Activated Sludge and PAC
Treatment Systems." USEPA Office of Research and Development,.Water
Engineering Research Laboratory.
Yurteri Coskun, et al., "The Effect of Chemical Composition of Water on Henry's
Law Constant." Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 59,
No. 11. (Nov. 1987) pg. 950-956.
USEPA, "Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works - 30 Day
Study." (July 1982).
USEPA, "Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works - Final
Report." (Sept. 1982).
USEPA, "Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge
Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program." (Nov. 1987).
USEPA, "Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly
Owned Treatment Works." (Feb. 1986).
tf- U.a GOVERMENT PHNT1NQ OFBCE;189O748-15e/S0488
D-2
------- |