9330.2-11
EPA/540/2-90/007
AUGUST 1990
CERCLA SITE DISCHARGES TO POTWS
TREATABILITY MANUAL
Prepared by
THE INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
OFFICE OF WATER
Prepared for
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Preparation of this document was directed by Ruth A. Lopez, Project Officer, of the
Industrial Technology Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Additional
EPA Support was provided by select EPA Headquarters and Regional personnel who
supplied valuable comments and recommendations. Support was provided under EPA
Contract No. 68-03-3412.
Additional copies of this document may be obtained from:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
— U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
: Springfield, Virginia 22161
(703) 487-4600
NTIS Document Order Number: PB91-921206
NTIS Diskette Order Number: PB91-507236
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SECTION
SECTION
SECTION
SECTION
SECTION
SECTION 6 -
SECTION 7 -
SECTION 8 -
SECTION 9 -
SECTION 10
SECTION 11
SECTION 12
SECTION 13
tSECTION 14
SUBSTANCES FOUND AT PROPOSED AND FINAL NPL SITES
SUBSTANCES FOUND IN CERCLA SITE WASTEWATERS
CERCLA SITE SAMPLING DATA
SUMMARY SITE VISIT REPORT
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
PERCENT REMOVAL OF COMPOUNDS IN POTWS
COMPUTER SOFTWARE PACKAGES
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL CONSTANTS OF COMPOUNDS
USEPA CONTAMINANT LISTS
-DESCRIPTION OF AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
- INFORMATION FOR EVALUATING PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
- ORD TREATABILITY PROJECTS
- WERL TREATABILITY DATA BASE
- FATE MODEL
9.89.107C
0002.0.0
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The "CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs Treatability Manual" was prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3412. The manual
is a compilation of mostly technical information and treatability data obtained
in a study conducted by the Office of Water Regulations and Standards Industrial
Technology Division (OWRS-ITD) on Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) wastewater discharges to POTWs. The
information is provided to aid in the evaluation of the feasibility of
discharging wastes from CERCLA sites to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
This executive summary provides a brief overview of the contents of each section
'of the manual.
SECTION 1 - SUBSTANCES FOUND AT PROPOSED AND FINAL NPL SITES. This section
lists the October 1986 analytical data from proposed and final National
Priorities List (NPL) sites, providing an overview of the types of contaminants
that may be present in the CERCLA wastestream.
SECTION 2 - SUBSTANCES FOUND IN CERCLA SITE WASTEWATERS. As part of the ITD
CERCLA site discharges to POTWs study, samples from seventeen sites with
contaminated groundwater and from three sites with leachate were collected and
analyzed for the full ITD list of 443 compounds. Tables were generated to give
the user an indication of the contaminants, the frequency of occurrence, and the
concentrations at which they occurred at the groundwater and leachate CERCLA
sites sampled.
SECTION 3 - GERCLA SITE SAMPLING DATA REPORT. Section 3 presents an evaluation
of the sampling data from 20 sampling visits regarding the following:
1. Frequency of occurrence of compounds,
2. Variations (daily and annually) in the treatability of CERCLA site
wastewater,
3. Contaminant treatability,
4. Comparison of CERCLA site treatability data to data in the USEPA Office of
Research and Development (ORD) Treatability Data Base, and
5. Comparison of indicator parameter treatability to organic
contaminant treatability.
SECTION 4 - SUMMARY SITE VISIT REPORT. Site visits were conducted with
personnel associated with 27 CERCLA sites which had existing, potential, or
denied discharges to a POTW. The site visits consisted of meetings with members
of USEPA, state, POTW, or potentially responsible parties (PRPs) in order to
discuss experiences with implementing the discharge of wastewater from a
specific CERCLA site.
891003B-mll
1.
E-l
-------
Section 4 presents a summary of individual site visits conducted with
representatives from EPA, state, POTW, or responsible parties to discuss the
discharge of a specific CERCLA site wastewater to a POTW. The information
presents the major political, technical, and economic issues concerning the
discharge of CERCLA site wastewaters to POTWs that were found to arise in the
negotiations and approval process, and is provided to aid the user in foreseeing
potential issues that may require consideration.
SECTION 5 - STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS. Section 5 presents the status of State
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs. The table
indicates whether the state is authorized to administer the NPDES permit
program, regulate federal facilities, and whether the state has an approved
state pretreatment program. The NPDES authority can assist in the
identification of POTWs that may accept a CERCLA site discharge and provide
specific information about the POTW that will be helpful for screening the POTWs
during the RI/FS process. Section 5 identifies the appropriate agency to
contact (either the USEPA regional office or a state agency) for NPDES issues.
SECTION 6 - PERCENT REMOVAL OF COMPOUNDS IN POTWS. To evaluate the feasibility
of discharging wastes from CERCLA sites to POTWs, the user of the treatability
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. Section 6 presents summary tables
of published treatability data for individual compounds that can be used to
estimate a mass balance for each compound detected in a CERCLA wastestream if
site specific treatability data is unavailable.
SECTION 7 - COMPUTER SOFTWARE PACKAGES. Section 7 presents a list of computer
software packages that can assist the POTW authorities and regulatory agencies
in developing local limits. Local limits can be used to determine the level of
pretreatment required at a CERCLA site.
SECTION 8 - PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL CONSTANTS OF COMPOUNDS. Section 8 presents.the
compound name, the molecular weight, Henry's Law Constant, Log octanol/water
coefficient (Kow), and solubility of compounds where information was available
for compounds on the ITD list of analytes (Section 9). The physical and chemical
constants of compounds detected in CERCLA wastestreams can be used to evaluate a
compound's fate in a POTW where no other data are available. The compound's
fate can be estimated by using its physical and chemical constants (as well as
its compound class) to locate similar compounds for which fate (percent removal)
data are available.
SECTION 9 - USEPA CONTAMINANT LISTS. Section 9 presents several commonly
referenced lists of compounds: a) the ITD List of Analytes, taken from "The
1987 Industrial Technology Division List of Analytes";,USEPA Industrial
Technology Division; Office of Water Regulations and Standards; Washington,
D.C.; March 1987, b) the Target Compound List (TCL), a list developed by the
Superfund program, which contains compounds commonly found at CERCLA sites, c)
the Priority Pollutant List, developed by the USEPA Office of Water and lists
organic toxic pollutants, d) the "Appendix VIII List", a list of the RCRA
891003B-mll
2.
E-2
-------
hazardous constituents as defined in the Federal Register. Volume 51. Number 151
Appendix VIII. and e) the "Section 110 SARA List", a list of 100 hazardous
substances as defined by Section 110 of SARA in the Federal Register. Volume 52.
Number 74.
SECTION 10 - DESCRIPTION OF AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. Various studies have
documented the fate of contaminants in the most common conventional biological
treatment processes. Those processes include aerated lagoons, activated sludge,
trickling filters, rotating biological contactors (RBCs), and powdered activated
carbon treatment (PACT) facilities. Section 10 presents a description of each
of the above listed treatment processes.
SECTION 11 - INFORMATION FOR EVALUATING PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES.
Prior to discharge of a CERCLA wastestream to a POTW, the stream may require
pretreatment. Pretreatment systems are commonly composed of a number of unit
operations, depending on the types of contaminants and concentrations in a
wastestream. Section 11 provides information on 12 separate unit operations
that may be used to construct a pretreatment system. A description of each unit
operation (how the process works, equipment types available, advantages and
limitations, design criteria, etc.) and a detailed evaluation of the process
(effectiveness, implementability, costs, etc.) are included. The section is
structured to contain information in the same format as a CERCLA Feasibility
Study.
The user of the technology manual may use Section 11 in two ways:
o To help make screening decisions while assembling the
pretreatment train.
o To provide information that can be used in the detailed
evaluation of the "discharge to POTW" alternative.
SECTION 12 - ORD TREATABILITY PROJECTS. The USEPA Office of Research and
Development Water Engineering Research Laboratory (ORD-WERL) conducted research
to support the evaluation for the potential to use POTWs to treat CERCLA and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) wastes. ORD, in conjunction with
the Engineering Department at the University of Cincinnati, performed pilot-
scale treatability studies at the EPA Testing and Evaluation Facility to
generate treatability data for toxic organic compounds. Eight technical papers
were produced as a result of the studies. Section 12 presents a list of the
papers with a brief description of each study.
SECTION 13 - WERL TREATABILITY DATA BASE. The USEPA Office of Research and
Development Water Engineering Research Laboratory (ORD-WERL) developed and is
continuing to expand a data base containing information on the treatability of
compounds in various types of waters and wastewaters. The data base consists of
selected published data taken from government reports and data bases, peer
reviewed journals, and various other publications. Each source has been
reviewed by a quality review committee before inclusion in the data base. In
addition to treatability data, the data base contains chemical and physical
891003B-mll
3.
E-3
-------
properties, environmental data, and adsorption data for specific compounds,
where available. Section 13 includes installation instructions.
SECTION 14 - FATE MODEL. As part of the CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs study,
a user friendly, computerized model has been developed to evaluate the fate of
inorganic and organic pollutants discharged to POTWs. POTW managers and
feasibility study writers can use the model to evaluate the fate and
treatability of toxic pollutants discharged to POTWs by predicting the overall
percent removal of the compounds and percent removals of organic compounds due
to volatilization, sorption, and biodegradation.
The FATE User's Manual, provided in Section
14, Introduces the user of the model to the concepts and assumptions used in its
development and presents simple instructions for the model's operation.
891003B-mll
4.
E-4
-------
SECTION 1
SUBSTANCES FOUND AT PROPOSED AND FINAL NPL SITES
OCTOBER 1986
-------
SECTION 1 - SUBSTANCES FOUND AT PROPOSED AND FINAL NPL SITES. This section
lists the October 1986 analytical data obtained from 888 proposed and final
National Priorities List (NPL) sites, providing an overview of the types of
contaminants that may be present in the CERCIA wastestream.
891003B-mll
5.
-------
SUBSTANCES FOUND AT PROPOSED AND FINAL NFL SITES
OCTOBER 1986
CHEMICAL NAME
FREQUENCY
TRICHLORDETHYIENE (TCE)
LEAD (PB)
1DIDEME
CHROMIUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (CR)
BENZENE
CHLOROFORM
POraCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS, NOS
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHENE
ZINC AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (ZN)
CADMIUM (CD)
ARSENIC
PHENOL
XYLENE
ETHYLBENZENE
COPPER AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (OJ)
1,2-TRANS-DICHDDROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DIOILOROETHENE
MERCURY
CYANIDES (SOLUBLE SALTS), NOS
VINYLCHLORIDE
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (NI)
1,2-DICHLOROEIHANE
CHIOROBENZENE
CARBON TETRACHIDRIDE
HEAVY METALS, NOS
PENTACHIDROPHENOL (PCP)
NAPHTHALENE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
TRICHLDROEIHANE, NOS
IRON AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (FE)
BARIUM
VOIATILE QRGANICS, NOS
MANGANESE AND COMPOUNDS, NOS ,(MN)
ACETONE
PHENANTHRENE
BENZO A PYRENE
CHROMIUM, HEXAVALENT
1,1,2-TRICHIDROETHANE
ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (AS)
DICHLOROETHYLENE, NOS
DDT
STYRENE
311
286
243
220
208
179
159
151
149
142
141
141
121
113
111
106
104
91
85
79
78
73
70
65
64
64
61
56
53
48
42
38
33
32
31
31
30
28
27
27
25
25
24
22
22
1-1
-------
SUBSTANCES FOUND AT PROPOSED AND FINAL NFL SCTES
OCTOBER 1986
CHEMICAL NAME
FREQUENCY
ANTHRACENE
LINDANE
BIS (2-ETEKIHEXYL) PHEHAIATE
TETRACHLDKOETHANE, NOS
SELENIUM
1,1,2,2-TETRACHIQROEIHANE
CREOSOTE
PYRENE
WASTE OILS/SLUDGES
SULFURIC ACID
AIIMINUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (AL)
ACID, NOS
BENZO (J,K) FLUORENE
FBJORENE, NOS
RADIUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (RA)
TRICHEOROFUJORCMETHANE
ASBESTOS
DICHIOROETHANE, NOS
ACENAPTHENE
dS-1, 2HDIOEOROETHYLENE
ETHYL CHLORIDE
CHLORDANE
TRDJITRDTOLUENE (TNT)
URANIUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (U)
ANTIMDNY AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (SB)
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
DI^-BUTYLHEHIHAIATE
RADON AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (RN)
AMKDNIA
DICHIOROBENZENE, NOS
TETRAHYDROFURAN (I)
OffOROMETHANE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
CHRYSENE
TETRACHLOBDETHENE, NOS
DIOXIN
DDE
PESnCXDES, NOS
WASTE SOLVENTS
HEXACHDDROCTCIOPENTADIENE (C56)
2,4-DINITROTOIUENE
1, 4-DICHIOROBENZENE
DIELDRIN
NITRATES, NOS
22
21
21
21
20
19
19
19
18
18
18
17
17
17
16
15
15
15
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
1-2
-------
SUBSTANCES FOUND AT PROPOSED AND FINAL NPL SITES
OCTOBER 1986
CHEMICAL NAME
FREQUENCY
THORIUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (TH)
HYDROCARBONS, NOS
TRIBROMOMETHANE
ETHYL E1HER
2 , 6-DINITROTOIIJENE
DIETHYL PHTHAIATE
1, 2-DICHLOROBENZENE
CRESOLS
BROMOMETHANE
RDX
FLUORIDE, NOS
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS, NOS
1, 1, 2-TRICHLORO-l, 2 , 2-^naFIDOROETHANE
BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (BE)
WASTE lACQUER/PAINT
GREASE AND OIL
HEXACHU3ROBUTADIENE (C46)
1 , 2-DICHIOROPROPANE
HEPTACHIOR
ENDRIN
ALDRIN
BORON AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (B)
ODD
SILVER
TRICHLOROPHENOIS, NOS
CHROMIUM, TRTVAIENT
PHTHIATES, NOS
DIBENZOFURAN
CHLORIDE (ION)
COAL TARS
1,2, 3-TRICHLDROPROPANE
METHANOL
2 , 4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
1 , 3-DICHLOROBENZENE
CYCLOHEXANE
BIS (2-CHIOROETHYL) ETHER
BENZ A ANTHRACENE
ACROLEIN
M-XYLENE
TKEMETHYL BENZENE
PHOSPHORIC AdD
ACENAPTHYLENE
HAIDGENATED SOLVENTS, NOS
CHROMIC ACID
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1-3
-------
SUBSTANCES FOUND AT PROPOSED AND FINAL NEL SITES
OCTOBER 1986
CHEMICAL NAME
FREQUENCY
METHANE
SULEATE (ION)
COBALT AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (CO)
1,2, 4-^IRICHLORDBENZENE
1,3, S-TEtENTTEOBENZENE
NITROBENZENE
HYDROGEN SULFIDE
1, 2-DIEKOMO-3-CHLOEOEROPANE
COMENE
2-CHLOROFHENOL ^
CALCIUM CHROM&TE
TOXAFHENE
SODIUM CYANIDE
METHYINAFHTHAIENE
TKECHLOSOBENZENE
HALOGENATED ORGANICS, NOS
HEXACH1XKOCTCLOHEXANE, NOS
NITRIC ACID
SODIUM HYDROXIDE
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
N-PENTANE
HEXANE
N-HEPTANE
BRC1XDDICHIOROMETHANE
K)LYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
2,4,5-TP (SILVEX)
2,4, 5-T
RESORdNOL
4-NITROFHENOL
F05MALDEHYDE
1, 2-DHHENYIHYDRAZINE
DI-N-OCTYL FHTHAIATE
2 , 4-DICHIOROFHENOL
PH3ILORO-M-CRESOL
BENZIDINE
ANILINE
FLUORINE (F)
ENDOSULEAN
BERYLLIUM DUST, NOS
ARSENIC TRIOXIDE
1, 2-DICHLOROETHENE
DINTTROTOIIJENE, NOS
SULEATES, NOS
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS, NOS
5
5
5
5
4
,4
1 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1-4
-------
SUBSTANCES POUND AT PROPOSED AND FINAL NFL SITES
OCTOBER 1986
CHEMICAL NAME
FREQUENCY
MIREX
OCTANE
VANADIUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (V)
TIN AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (SN)
MAGNESIUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (MG)
TITANIUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (TI)
NTTROPHENOL, NOS
ISOPROPANOL
ISOPHQRONE
ETHYLENE GLYCOL
ETHANOL
BUTADIENE
ADIPIC ACID
SELENIUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (SE)
PHTHALIC ESTERS, NOS
HALCMETHANE, NOS
BENZO (B) FIDORANTHENE
BARIUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (BA)
MINERAL SPIRITS
PLATING SLUDGES
NON-VOLATILE ORGANICS, NOS
ALCOHOL, NOS
METHOXYCHLOR
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
TOLUENE DIISOCYANATE
PEWTACHIOROBENZENE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
4,4' -METHYLENE-BIS-(2-CHLORQANILINE)
HYDROFLUORIC ACID
HEXACHLOROETHANE
ETHYL ACETATE
1,4-DIOXANE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
CYCLOHEXANONE
1-BUTANOL
BIS (2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
ACKYLONITRILE
PHOSGENE
PARATHION
2,4-DINTTROPHENOL
BENZYL CHLORIDE, NOS
CARBON DISULFIDE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC AGED
DITHIANE, NOS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1-5
-------
SUBSTANCES POUND AT PROPOSED AND FINAL NPL SITES
OCTOBER 1986
CHEMICAL NAME
FREQUENCY
2 1 4 , 6-TRINZEROTOIDENE
DIETHYIHEXXL PHTHAIATE
THIOCXftNATES, NOS
1, 3 , 5-TRIMETHYIBENZENE
N-BOTYLBENZENE
TRIS, NOS
PHENOL, DICHLORO, NOS
3 1 4-BENZOFIJJORANTHENE •
METfKLENE CHLOROFORM
NICKEL CHLORIDE
EaJEONIUM 239
TRITIUM
1, 2 , 4-TR3METfKLBENZENE
DIACETONE-ALOOHOL
ATRAZINE
EROEENYIBENZENE
KETONES, NOS
OIEFINIC HYDROCARBONS, NOS
DIMETHYIANTTiTNE
KNTACHIOROBUTADIENE
POLYBROMINATED BUHENYL (PBB) , NOS
(P) ETHYL TOLUENE
(P) METHYL STRYRENE
HYPOCHLORIC AdD
METHYL£XCLOHEXANE
DIMETHYL POSMftMIDE (DMF)
ZIRCONIUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (ZR)
SULFUR (ELEMENTAL - S)
STRONTIUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (SR)
SODIUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (NA)
PHOSPHOROUS AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (P)
PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS, NOS
MOLYBDENUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (MO)
BIPHENYL
SULFUR DIOXIDE
NITROCELLULOSE
NAPHTHA
ISOPROPYL ETHER
DICYCLOPENTADIENE
OEORODIFHWRCMETHANE
4-CHIOROPHENOL
THALLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, NOS
(TL)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1-6
-------
SUBSTANCES POUND AT PROPOSED AND FINAL NPL SITES
OCTOBER 1986
CHEMICAL NAME
FREQUENCY
MUSTARD GAS
ARAMTTE
CAUSTICS, NOS
BRAKE FLUID (OFF. SPEC.)
GLYCOLS, MIXED
FUNGICIDES
PYRETHRDM
BEARING PACKING
PIASTICIZERS
#2 FUEL OIL
PETROLEUM AND PETROLEUM DISTILLATES
GASOLINE
TRIS (2,3-DIBROMDPROPYL) PHOSPHATE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLORDBENZENE
PYRIDINE
2-METHYLPYRIDINE
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
PENTACHLOROETHANE
N-NITROSO-N-MEmYLURETHANE
KEPONE
HYDRAZINE
FURFURAL .
3,3'-D3METHOXYBENZIDINE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
. DIBENZ (A,H) ANTHRACENE
4H3ID3RO-2-MEnHYLBENZENAMINE
2-(CHLOROMETHYL) OXIRANE
CHLOROBENZHATE
CHLORAL
(TRICHIOROMETHYL) BENZENE
ACETOPHENONE
ACETONTTRILE
ACETALDEHYDE
ZINC CYANIDE
SODIUM AZIDE OR SMITE
POTASSIUM CYANIDE
PHORATE
N-NITRC1SODIMETHYIAMINE
NITROGLYCERINE
2-METHYLAZIRIDINE
HYDROCYANIC AdD
AZIRIDINE
DISULFOTON
CYANOGEN
COPPER CYANIDE
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-7
-------
SUBSTANCES FOUND AT PROPOSED AND FINAL NFL SITES
OCTOBER 1986
CHEMICAL NAME
FREQUENCY
DIMETHXLHENOL, NOS
TETRACHIO3ROEHENOL, NOS
STODDARD SOLVENT
BENZYL BUTYL PHfflLATE
PHENOL SULFONATE
TEIKACHLOSOBUTADIENE
O-66
TETRAMEEEHIEENTANONE ,
TRBIETHXLCTCLOHEXANOL
METHYLPHENANTHRENE, NOS
EROMXHLOROEENZENE, NOS
1H3TJHKL-2-METHYL BENZENE
TRIMETHm>XABICTCXOCCI!RNE
2-METHYL 1,3,-DINTTJROBENZENE
A1MOTHM, NOS
BENZOEYRENE, NOS
BENZOHENANIHRENE, NOS
EERYLENE
TERPENES, NOS
BEOOBENZENE
4 , 4-DIAMINO-3 , 3-DIODJ3I?ODIEENYIMETHAN
2,4-DIMETHYL-lf3 DIOXANE
IBDRONE
EDUTONIUM 238
TETRAMETfOL BENZENE, NOS
CHROMIUM AILMEN
PALLADIUM, NOS
KELTHANE
POTASSIUM CHROMATE
BORAX
CARBON
MAIATHION
ETHION
ORATREN
CAPTAN
TRICfiRBOXYLIC ACID, BETA-ACETOXYTRBOT
LORSBMJ
PHDSPHORDDriHIOIC AGED, 0-EIHYL S,S-D
PHENOL, 4,4-ISOPROPYLIDENEDI-(BISPHEN)
INDENE
BENZOTHIOPHENE, NOS
ESTERS, NOS
lEAD^DLYBDENUM CHROMATE
LEAD CHROMATE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-8
-------
SUBSTANCES POUND AT PROPOSED AND FINAL NPL SPIES
OCTOBER 1986
CHEMICAL NAME
FREQUENCY
HEXAMETHYLENEDIAMINE
ETHYIAMINE
CAMPHOR
BUTANE
BENZOIC ACID
AMYL ALCOHOL
HEXACHDDRCKXCa^SffiXANE, BETA ISOMER
HEXACmORCCYCLOHEXANE, ALPHA ISOMER
1,3-DINTEROBENZENE
DIOIEDROFnJOROMEIHANE
TRICHLOROPROPANE, NOS
SILVER AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (AG)
N-NITROSONORNICOTINE
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE (ALPHA, BETA, GAMMA)
CHLORINATED ETHANE, NOS
BUTYIJRENZYL PHIHAIATE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Recorded Substances - 466
Number of Sites with Chemical Data - 888
1-9
-------
-------
SECTION 2
SUBSTANCES FOUND IN CERCLA SITE WASTEWATERS
9.89.107C
0004.0.0
-------
SECTION 2 - SUBSTANCES FOUND IN CERCLA SITE WASTEWATERS. As part of the ITD
CERCLA Site Discharge to POTWs study, samples from 17 sites with contaminated
groundwater and from 3 sites with leachate were collected and analyzed for the
full ITD list of compounds (See Section 9). The resulting data was used to
generate Tables 2-1 through 2-6. The tables present the frequency at which the
compounds occurred above the detection limits at the sites and the minimum and
maximum concentrations at which they occurred. Tables 2-1, 2-3, and 2-5 present
the data for organic, inorganic, and conventional and non-convent!onal
pollutants at the groundwater sites, respectively, and 2-2, 2-4, and 2-6 present
the data from the leachate sites.
The tables were generated to give the user an indication of the contaminants,
the frequency of occurrence, and the concentrations at which they occurred at
the groundwater and leachate CERCLA sites sampled. The tables, as in Section 1,
show the wide variety of contaminants among sites and the wide range of
concentrations detected.
891003B-mll
6.
-------
Page No.
05/18/90
TABLE 2-1
COMMON ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN CERCLA SITE WASTEWATER
GROUNDUATER SAMPLED AT 17 SITES
CONTAMINANT
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1.2-DICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
ACETONE
TOLUENE
BENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
PHENOL
BENZOIC ACID
CHLOROBENZENE
P-DIOXANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-BUTANONE (MEK)
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
BISC2-ETHYLHEXYDPHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
ISOPHORONE
OCDD
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
2,3,7,8-TCDF
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXANOIC ACID
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
0-+P-XYLENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2,3.4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
ANILINE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHENYL
M-XYLENE
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
DETECTED DETECTED
13
11
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
19.9
11.4
34.6
14.2
56.0
19.2
12.2
18.6
10.9
55.3
34.8
13.2
13.4
396.2
68.3
59.4
406.3
13.2
0.0
15.0
15.2
123.0
0.0
28.4
33.5
35.0
68.0
24.7
12.0
363.6
31.2
0.0
70.6
20.1
19.5
11.7
18.0
8369.7
1516.5
58017.0
4742.0
19420.0
9178.3
314.5
3571.0
1441.8
1825.0
3646.0
955.0
1451.2
2817.1
2767.0
2261.7
1000.0
1910.0
0.5
269.3
38.8
403.0
10.8
131.2
287.0
347.0
422.0
326.5
55.6
935.5
3481 .0
0.1
167.0
1223.0
89.6
5541.5
50.5
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
2-1
-------
Page No. 2
05/18/90
TABLE 2-1
COMMON ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN CERCLA SITE WASTEUATER
GROUNDWATER SAMPLED AT 17 SITES
CONTAMINANT
N-OOOECANE (N-C12)
0-CRESOL
P-CRESOL
TOTAL HpCDD
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
2,4.5-T
2,4-D
2-NITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
N-DECANE (N-C10)
0-TOLUIDINE
STYRENE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROSENZENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
•1.3-DICHLORO-2-PROPANOL
2,4,5-TP (SILVEX) '
2,4-DIAMINQTOLUENE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIHITROPHENOL
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-HEXANONE
2-METHYL-4.6-DINITROPHENOL
2-HETHYLNAPHTHALENE
3-CHLOROPROPENE
ACETOPHENONE
ACROLEIN
ALPHA-PICOLINE
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
BISC2-CHLOROETHYDETHER
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CHRYSENE
DIBENZOFURAH
DIETHYL ETHER
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
MINIMUM
FREQUENCY CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10.5
11.3
29.2
0.0
22.4
17.0
43.7
136.0
150.0
159.8
230.7
14.5
15.0
12.0
70.3
20.4
5667.9
23.0
1550.0
112.0
66.7
435.7
87.6
151.4
174.3
15.0
~ 13.8
87.1
63.0
52.8
11.5
19.0
1708.1
24.0
30.0
64.0
105.9
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
969.7
165.8
70.7
0.1
230.0
244.3
49.7
1100.0
430000.0
174.3
446.9
278.1
37.0
240.0
70.3
20.4
5667.9
23.0
1550.0
112.0
66.7
435.7
87.6
151.4
174.3
15.0
13.8
87.1
63.0
52.8
11.5
19.0
1708.1
24.0
30.0
64.0
105.9
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
2-2
-------
Page No.
osm/90
TABLE 2-1
COMMON ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN CERCLA SITE WASTEWATER
GROUNDWATER SAMPLED AT 17 SITES
CONTAMINANT
FLUORENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
N-OCTACOSANE (N-C28)
NITROBENZENE
OCDF
P-CYMENE
PCS-1232
PHENANTHRENE
PHOSPHAMIDON
TEPP
TOTAL HpCDF
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
FREQUENCY C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MINIMUM
IONCENTRATION C
DETECTED
246.5
10.6
11.4
10.8
18378.0
0.1
20.8
10445.0
130.0
8500.0
79000.0
0.0
200.8
50.0
MAXIMUM
:ONCENTRATION
DETECTED
246.5
10.6
11.4
10.8
18378.0
0.1
20.8
10445.0
130.0
8500.0
79000.0
0.0
200.8
50.0
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
PPT
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
2-3
-------
Page Ho. 1
04/17/90
COMMON
CONTAMINANT
PHENOL
BENZOIC ACID
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
AZINPHOS METHYL
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1.2-DICHLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
P-CRESOL
2,3,7,8-TCDO
ACETONE
BENZENE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
HEXANOIC ACID
CHLOROBENZENE
ACETOPHENONE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
BISC2-CHLOROETHYDETHER
2,4-DlMETHYLPHENOL
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
ISOPHORONE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
N-DOCOSANE (N-C22)
N-EICOSANE (N-C20)
N-HEXADECANE (N-C16)
N-OCTADECANE (H-C18)
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-D I CHLOROBENZENE
TABLE 2-2
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN CERCLA SITE WASTEWATER
LEACHATE SAMPLED AT 3 SITES
FREQUENCY
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MINIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
35.0
53.5
1305.0
518.0
50.0
601.0
170.0
13483.0
1299.0
72.5
5.9
• 3245.5
1740.0
709.0
24.5
2670.5
20.5
596.0
141.0
52.0
101.0
4662.0
2639.0
833.0
58.5
3544.5
10.5
15.0
23.0
24.5
1167.0
964.0
548.0
0.4
1835.5
719.0
2-4
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
1548330.0
2316700.0
2942.0
8958.0
51.7
3525.5
1359.5
18166.0
3615.5
161.0
31.6
52518.0
2934.5
13308.0
131.0
3773.0
20.5
596.0
141.0
52.0
101.0
4662.0
2639.0
833.0
58.5
3544.5
10.5
15.0
23.0
24.5
1167.0
964.0
548.0
0.4
1835.5
719.0
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
-------
Page No. 2
04/17/90
CONTAMINANT
CHLOROMETHANE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
AZINPHOS ETHYL
N-TETRADECANE (N-C14)
FENSULFOTHION
CHLORFEVINPHOS
FENTHION
CROTOXYPHOS
LEPTOPHOS
DIAZINON
MALATHION
DICROTOPHOS
MEVINPHOS
DIOXATHION
PARATHION
CHLORPYRIFOS
DICHLORVOS
DIMETHOATE
DISULFOTON
DELTA-BHC
PCB-1254
PHORATE
SULFOTEPP
TERBUFOS
TETRACHLORVINPHOS
TABLE 2-2
COMMON ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN CERCLA SITE UASTEWATER
LEACHATE SAMPLED AT 3 SITES
FREQUENCY (
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MINIMUM
:ONCENTRATION C
DETECTED
10566.0
26.5
1.2
17.5
1.9
7.2
4.2
14.4
13.1
10.1
7.7
29.1
1.6
27.0
4.5
5.0
27.6
28.4
0.5
1.6
6.0
21.0
1.0
5.0
0.8
MAXIMUM
IONCENTRATION
DETECTED
10566.0
26.5
1.2
17.5
1.9
7.2
4.2
14.4
13.1
10.1
7.7
29.1
1.6
27.0
4.5
5.0
27.6
28.4
0.5
1.6
6.0
21.0
1.0
5.0
0.8
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
2-5
-------
Page Ho. 1
05/18/90
CONTAMINANT
SODIUM
CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM
BARIUM
SILICON
MANGANESE
SULFUR
IRON
BORON
ZINC
STRONTIUM
TITANIUM
ALUMINUM
POTASSIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
NICKEL
COBALT
YTTRIUM
CADMIUM
ARSENIC
MOLYBDENUM
VANADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
BERYLLIUM
LITHIUM
SILVER
TIN
LANTHANUM
GADOLINIUM
CERIUM
LEAD
NEOOYMIUM
SELENIUM
IODINE
IRIDIUH
GOLD
TABLE 2-3
COMMON INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN CERCLA SITE WASTEUATER
GROUNDWATER SAMPLED AT 17 SITES
FREQUENCY
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
16
16
14
13
12
11
10
10
10
9
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
MINIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
5560.0
21620.0
2960.0
5.6
3.0
25.4
2.4
16.0
20.8
6.7
0.7
3.0
110.0
2.0
10.2
8.0
25.0
9.6
2.0
5.2
2.4
12.0
3.0
1500.0
1.8
0.1
7.5
30.0
100.0
540.0
6300.0
69.0
400.0
3.5
533.0
240.0
2900.0
2-6
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
1075000.0
487600.0
1242857.1
870.5
34500.0
341000.0
6337143.0
387400.0
168000.0
56042.9
12420.0
722.0
1994285.7
30700.0
121428.6
9370.0
19520.0
3380.0
4594.0
2826.0
6000.0
541.0
1620.0
12000.0
120.0
2200.0
44.0
50.2
2100.0
857.0
19000.0
1550.0
3300.0
21.0
6000.0
3229.0
3371.0
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L ,
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L .
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
-------
Page No. 2
05/18/90
TABLE 2-3
COMMON INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN CERCLA SITE WASTEWATER
GROUNDWATER SAMPLED AT 17 SITES
CONTAMINANT
YTTERBIUM
OSMIUM
GALLIUM
ANTIMONY
DYSPROSIUM
SCANDIUM
URANIUM
SAMARIUM
TANTALUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RUTHENIUM
LUTETIUM
NIOBIUM
GERMANIUM
ERBIUM
TUNGSTEN
INDIUM
MERCURY
ZIRCONIUM
FREQUENCY
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
DETECTED DETECTED
100.0
0.2
600.0
4.0
400.0
250.0
640.0
620.0
700.0
1600.0
4300.0
200.0
1543.0
320.0
410.0
1000.0
1100.0
6.0
100.0
400.0
1100.0
700.0
34.0
960.0
300.0
1300.0
780.0
2740.0
1600.0
4300.0
200.0
1543.0
320.0
410.0
1000.0
1100.0
6.0
100.0
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
2-7
-------
Page Ho. 1
04/17/90
TABLE 2-4
COMMON INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN CERCLA SITE WASTEWATER
LEACHATE SAMPLED AT 3 SITES
CONTAMINANT
NICKEL
SODIUM
ALUMINUM
SULFUR
IRON
SILICON
POTASSIUM
ZINC
CALCIUM
TITAHIUH
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
BORON
COPPER
MOLYBDENUM
BARIUM
LITHIUM
STRONTIUM
OSMIUM
PHOSPHORUS
VANADIUM
LEAD
IODINE
CADMIUM
COBALT
CHROMIUM
TIM
ARSENIC
TANTALUM
URAHIUM
FREQUENCY I
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MINIMUM
:ONCENTRATION
DETECTED
18.5
51750.0
140.0
7050.0
6700.0
2040.0
1010.0
70.0
4145.0
8.0
2885.0
708.0
247.0
26.0
31.0
15.0
600.0
1500.0
100.0
1285.0
32.5
108.0
2000.0
23.5
16.0
53.5
33.0
28.5
500.0
1000.0
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
1567.0
3495000.0
3515.0
471500.0
763000.0
6400.0
621000.0
555.0
821500.0
36.5
254000.0
12800.0
14950.0
28.9
293.0
77.0
9400.0
3150.0
100.0
118000.6
32.5
108.0
2000.0
23.5
16.0
53.5
33.0
28.5
500.0
1000.0
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L ,
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
2-8
-------
Page No. 1
05/18/90
TABLE 2-5
COMMON CONVENTIONAL AND NON-CONVENTIONAL CONTAMINANTS IN
CERCLA SITE UASTEWATER
GROUNDWATER SAMPLED AT 17 SITES
CONTAMINANT
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
CHLORIDE
SULFATE
TOC
NITRATE + NITRITE, AS N
FLASH POINT
AMMONIA, AS N
COD
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL AS P
NITROGEN, TOTAL (CJELDAHL
BOD
TSS
TDS
FLUORIDE
OIL & GREASE, TOTAL
RECOVERABLE
RESIDUE, FILTERABLE
CORROSIVITY
SULFIDE, TOTAL (IODOMETRIC)
NITROGEN, TOTAL KJELDEHL
CYANIDE, TOTAL
RESIDUE, NON-FILTERABLE
FLOURIDE
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
FREQUENCY
17
17
16
16
15
14
13
13
12
11
11
10
10
9
8
6
6
6
5
4
4
3
1
MINIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
264.0
10833.0
14500.0
2180.0
51.0
0.0
158.0
30800.0
103.0
104.0
6850.0
15857.0
231429.0
207.0
5000.0
180000.0
1.7
1000.0
156.0
24.3
12117.0
308.0
2467.0
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
17571.4
2900000.0
19428571.0
1300000.0
250042.0
57000.0
21667.0
4340000.0
12000.0
24857.0
1446000.0
2500000.0
33000000.0
250000.0
54000.0
30000000.0
92.0
28000.0
24667.0
100.0
266667.0
16500.0
2467.0
UNITS
UMH/C
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
25 DE
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MPY
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
2-9
-------
Page No. 1
04/17/90
CONTAMINANT
TABLE 2-6
COMMON CONVENTIONAL AND NON-CONVENTIONAL CONTAMINANTS IN
CERCLA SITE WASTEWATER
LEACHATE SAMPLED AT 3 SITES
TDS
OIL & GREASE, TOTAL
RECOVERABLE
TSS
TOC
COD
SULFIDE, TOTAL (ICOOMETRIC)
BOD
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL AS P
NITROGEN, TOTAL KJELDAHL
AMMONIA, AS N
FLUORIDE
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SUCFATE
NITRATE + NITRITE, AS N
FLASH POINT
CHLORIDE
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
DETECTED DETECTED
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
128.5
21.0
16.5
89.0
260.0
2.0
52.0
0.4
2.1
1.6
0.7
275.0
52.0
5.5
44.0
58.0
1300.0
545.0
18500.0
3350.0
10400.0
76.0
6500.0
310.0
44.0
7.9
12.0
275.0
52.0
5.5
44.0
58.0
UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UMH/C
MG/L
MG/L
DEC C
MG/L
2-10
-------
SECTION'S
CERCLA SITE SAMPLING DATA
9.89.107C
0005.0.0
-------
SECTION 3 - CERGLA SITE SAMPLING DATA REPORT. The CERCLA site sampling data
described previously (Section 2) was evaluated and presented in the CERCLA. Site
Sampling Data Summary Report in Section 3. Specific tasks presented in the
report include:
1. Evaluation of the frequency of occurrence of compounds.
2. Evaluation of the daily variation in treatability of CERCLA site
wastewater.
3. Evaluation of the variability between sampling events at the
Stringfellow Site.
4. Evaluation of contaminant treatability.
5. Comparison of CERCLA site treatability data to data in the
USEPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) Treatability
Data Base.
6. Evaluation of air sampling data from the Chemdyne site.
7. Comparison of indicator parameter treatability to organic contaminant
treatability.
Section 3 was generated to provide the user with a summary of the variety of ITD
as well as non-ITD compounds and concentration ranges present at CERCLA sites,
the treatability of CERCLA compounds, and the efficiency of on-site treatment
systems.
891003B
7.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE
3-1.0 INTRODUCTION
3-1.0 Background
3-1.2 Site Summaries
3-2.0 REDUCTION OF CERCLA SITE SAMPLING DATA BASE
3-3.0 EVALUATION OF CERCLA SITE SAMPLING DATA BASE
3-3.1 Task 1: Frequency of Occurrence of Contaminants
3-3.1.1 Contaminants Detected and Frequency of
Occurrence
3-3.1.2 Frequency of Occurrence of Contaminants
on Regulatory Lists
3-3.2 Task 2: Daily Variation in Treatability of CERCLA
Site Wastewater
3-3.3 Task 3: Variability at the Stringfellow Site
3-3.4 Task 4: Evaluation of Contaminant Treatability
3-3.4.1 Treatability of Inorganic Contaminants
3-3.4.2 Treatability of Organic Contaminants
3-3.5 Task 5: Comparison of CERCLA Site Treatability Data
to Data in the ORD Treatability Data Base
3-3.6 Task 6: Evaluation of Chemdyne Air Sampling Data....
3-3.6.1 Sample Point Description
3-3.6.2 Data Reduction
3-3.6.3 Treatment Efficiency and Mass Balance
3-3.7 Task 7: Comparison of Indicator Parameter
Treatability to Organic Contaminant Treatability
3-4.0 CONCLUSIONS . .
PAGE NO.
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-4
3-5
3-5
3-5
3-17
3-22
3-22
3-23
3-26
3-26
3-27
3-30
3-30
3-30
3-32
3-32
3-35
ATTACHMENT A SITE DESCRIPTIONS
ATTACHMENT B SITE SUMMARY TABLES
ATTACHMENT C UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY TABLES
891003-mil
1.
-------
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
TITLE
PAGE NO.
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
CERCLA SITES CHARACTERIZATION.
RCRA-APP. VIII, TCL, SARA 110, AND PRIORITY POLLUTANT
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN CERCLA GROUNDWATER AT 17 SITES
RCRA-APP. VIII, TCL, SARA 110, AND PRIORITY POLLUTANT
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN CERCLA LEACHATE AT 3 SITES
RCRA-APP. VIII, TCL, SARA 110, AND PRIORITY P.OLLUTANT
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN CERCLA GROUNDWATER AT 17 SITES..
RCRA-APP. VII, TCL, SARA 110, AND PRIORITY POLLUTANT
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN CERCLA LEACHATE AT 3 SITES
RCRA-APP. VIII, TCL, SARA 110, AND PRIORITY POLLUTANT
CONVENTIONALS/NOil-CONVENTIONALS IN GROUNDWATER AT 17 SITES,
RCRA-APP. VII, TCL, SARA 110, AND PRIORITY POLLUTANT
CONVENTIONALS/NON-CONVENTIONALS IN LEACHATE AT 3 SITES
NUMBER OF CONTAMINANTS DETECTED AT CERCLA SITES.
NON-TCL ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS DETECTED AT 17 CERCLA
GROUNDWATER SITES
NON-TCL ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS DETECTED AT 3 CERCLA
LEACHATE SITES
NUMBER OF ITD, TCL, AND PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED.
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS DETECTED AT ALL THREE STRINGFELLOW
SAMPLING EVENTS
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS NOT DETECTED DURING SAMPLING EPISODE
1221
COMPARISON OF CERCLA SITE TREATABILITY DATA TO DATA IN ORD
TREATABILITY DATA BASE ,
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND LIST FOR AIR SAMPLE ANALYSIS
USING GC-MS METHOD OF TO-14
VAPOR PHASE ACTIVATED CARBON TREATMENT EFFICIENCY.
AIR STRIPPER MASS BALANCE
3-3
3-6
3-9
3-11
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
3-18
3-20
3-21
3-24
3-25
3-28
3-31
3-33
3-34
891003-mll
2.
-------
TABLE
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
TITLE
PAGE NO.
3-18 PERCENTAGE OF CONTAMINANTS DETECTED FROM VARIOUS REGULATORY
LISTS 3.37
891003-mil
3.
-------
3-1.0 INTRODUCTION
As part of the CERGIA Site Discharge to POTWs study, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Industrial Technology Division (ITD) directed various
sampling visits in order to collect samples from several CERCLA sites. This
report evaluates and summarizes the results of the CERCLA site sampling data.
Specific tasks presented in this report include:
1. Evaluation of the frequency of .occurrence of contaminants,
2. Evaluation of the daily variation in treatability of CERCLA site
wastewater,
3. Evaluation of the variability between sampling events at the
Stringfellow site,
4. Evaluation of contaminant treatability,
5. Comparison of CERCLA Site Treatability Data to data in the USEPA
Office of Research and Development (ORD) Treatability Data Base,
6. Evaluation of the air sampling data from the Chemdyne site, andj
7. Comparison of indicator parameter treatability to organic contaminant
treatability.
3-1.1 Background
The objectives of sampling the CERCLA sites were to:
o Identify the variety of compounds and concentration ranges present at
the CERCLA s.ites;
o Collect data on the treatability of compounds achieved by various on-
site pretreatment systems; and
o Evaluate the impact of CERCLA discharges to a receiving Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW).
Based on these objectives, the original criteria for site selection was sites
with current discharges to POTWs. An extensive research of Records of Decision
(RODs) led to the identification of approximately 100 sites that listed the
discharge to a POTW as part of.the selected remedial action. However, only
twelve sites were verified to have actually implemented the discharge to a POTW.
Of these twelve sites, only seven were sampled. Access was restricted at the
remaining sites which were currently involved in sensitive negotiations. In
order to achieve the first two sampling objectives with a larger representative
data base, the scope of sampling was expanded to include sites using remedial
alternatives other than discharging to a POTW. In all, eighteen different sites
were sampled. Of the sites sampled:
o seven sites discharge to a POTW,
o five sites discharge directly to surface water,
o one site reinjects to groundwater, and
891003-mll
3-1
-------
o six sites' monitoring wells were sampled.
3-1.2 Site Summaries
Attachment A presents detailed descriptions for each site sampled and Table 3-1
presents a summary of each of the CERCLA sites sampled. The summary table
provides information with regard to the average flow, wastewater type,
treatment, where the treated water is discharged, and the total mass loading to
the site. „
The CERCLA sites sampled spanned most of the USEPA Regions across the United
States. Exceptions to this included Region VII and Region VIII. In general few
CERCLA sites are located in either region. One site was contacted in Region VII
but not chosen for sampling due to the low contaminant concentrations in its'
wastestream. Region VIII has the fewest sites of any region. In addition, many
of those located in Region VIII are mining sites with wastestreams consisting
primarily of only one or two contaminants.
The majority of the sites sampled were operating 24 hours per day, 7 days per
week at the time of sampling. Exceptions to this included Stringfellow and
United Chrome, both of which operated 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, and Love
Canal, which only operated 8 hours per day, 2 days per week.
A wide range of wastewater flow rates was observed at the CERCLA sites sampled.
The average flow rates ranged from 0.006 MGD at Hyde Park to 5.0 MGD at Well
12A. Sites discharging to POTWs typically had flow rates lower than those
discharging to surface water. Flow rates ranged from 0.006 MGD (Hyde Park) to
1.4 MGD (Reilly Tar) for sites discharging to POTWs and from 0.1 MGD (Tyson's
Dump) to 5.0 MGD (Well 12A) at sites discharging to surface water. The average
flow rate of all sites discharging to a POTW was 0.25 MGD compared to 1.9 MGD
for sites discharging to surface water.
The average capacity of the POTWs which received the CERCLA sites discharges
ranged from 8.8 MGD to 220 MGD. The flow from the sites was therefore diluted
by factors ranging from approximately 100 (Tyson's Dump) to 8,000 (Hyde Park).
In addition, the sites provided high levels of pretreatment prior to discharging
to the POTW. As a result, once the CERCLA wastestream is discharged to the
POTW, wastes are typically not detectable in the POTW influent. This was
evident in the fact that an original objective of the program was to sample
POTWs currently accepting CERCLA discharges. No POTWs could be identified where
a GERCLA waste would be detectable.
In order to reduce sampling errors and account for system anomalies, sites that
were currently operating a treatment system, with the exception of Bridgeport
Rental, were sampled each day over a 4 to 5 day period. In addition, the
Stringfellow site was sampled at three different times during the program
(November 1987, March 1988, and August 1989) in order to assess the variability
of contaminants and the treatment process over an extended period of time.
891003-mil
3-2
-------
Site
Bridgeport
Rental
Charles
George
Chemdyne
Geneva
Gold Coast Oil
Hyde Park
Love Canal
Nyanza
ReillyTar
Stringfellow
Sylvester
Time Oil
Tyson's Dump
Episode
: 1222
1309
1807
1224
1242
1220
:1219
1310
1239
1221
1240
1805
1325
1804
1568
United Chrome 1738
Verona
Well 12A
Western Proc.
Wh'rtehouse
Oil
1223
1808
1739
1241
Region
II
I
V
VI
IV.
II
II
.
V
IX
II
X
III
X
V
X
X
IV
City, State
Logan Township, NJ
TyngsborougH, MA •
Hamilton. OH
Houston, TX
Miami. FL
Niagra Falls. NY
Niagra Falls, NY
Ashlahd, MA
St, Louis Park, MN
Glen Avon Heights, CA
Nashua, NH
Tacoma, WA
King of Prussia, PA
Corvallis.OR
Battle Creek, Ml
" TacomarWA
Kant, WA
Whltehousa, FL
Dote of Visit
Dec. 17,1987
Apr. 28, 1988
Oct. 9-1 3, 1989
Feb. 16, 1988
Mar. 24, 1988
Sep. 30, 1987
Sep. 29, 1987
Apr. 27, 1988
Feb, 22-26, 1988
Nov. 3, 1987
Mar. 7-1 1,1 988
Aug. 21-25, 1989
May 16-21, 1988
Aug. 14-19, 1989
Jun. 25-29, 1988
Apr. 24-27,1988
Jan. 25-30-1988
Aug. 14-18, 1989
May 1-6, 1989
Mar. 22,1988
Avg, Flow
300 GPM
-
750 GPM
-
-
< 6,000 GPD
40,000 GPD:
-
I.OOO:GPM
0.04 MGD
t
300 GPM
150 GPM
100,000 GPD
60,000 GPD
2,000 GPM -
2,100 GPM
3.500 GPM
100 GPM
-
Operating
Hours
24 Hours/7Days
-
24 Hours/7 Days
-
-
-
2 Days/Wk
24 Hours/7 Days
8 Hours/ 5 Days
24 Hours/7 Days
24 Hours/ 7 Days
24 Hours/2 Days/Wk
8 Hours/5 Days
24 Hours/7 Days
24 Hours/7 Days
24 Hours/7 Days
.
Wostewater
Type
Leachate
Groundwater
Groutldwater
Groundwatsr
Groundwater
Leaehals
taachale
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwatar
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwaier
Groundwater
Groundwatar
Groundwater
Groundwater •
Treatment1
Future Treatment
AS
Future Treatment
Future Treatment
Lagoon
GAC
Future Treatment
CP-SF-GAC
CP-SF-AS-BT
GAC
AS
CP-HT
GAC-AS
AS
AS-CP-GAC
Future Treatment
Discharge2
. 60% Surface Water
40%Relniection
•"•
48 MGD
POTW
POTW
Water Supply
$20 MGD POTW
Relnjectioti
«
Surface Water
8-10 MGD POTW
8.8 MGD POTW
Surface Water
Surface Water
42MGO
POTW
~
influent 3
MOSS,
Loading
(LB5/yr)
675,720
-
-
1286,620
48,020
630,650
542.740
1^29,030
968,190
247.300
46,850
229/420
1,742,570
1247,300
416.660
—
U)
CO
Notes:
1. AS = Air Stripping
BT = Biological Treatment
CP = Chemical Precipitation
DAF = Dissolved Air Flotation
GAC = Granular Activated Carbon
HT = Holding Tank
MF= Multi-Media Filter
OS = Oil/Water Separator
SF - Sand Filter
2. POTW flows are yearly averages
3. Includes organic and inorganic Industrial Technology Division Analytes
TABLE 3-1
CERCLA SITES CHARACTERIZATION
6098-01
-------
At each CERCIA site sampled, samples were collected across each unit process,
where possible, and analyzed for the full ITD List of Analytes. The ITD list is
composed of 443 pollutants including organic and inorganic compounds and
miscellaneous conventional and non-conventional parameters (e.g., total organic
carbon, chemical oxygen demand, reactivity, etc.). The list, along with the CAS
number for each contaminant, is presented in Section 9 of this Treatability
Manual.
The sampling data collected from the eighteen CERCLA sites have been
incorporated into a site sampling data base. The data base is a dBASE file
consisting of the following:
1. Compound name
2. Class of the compound (organic, inorganic, semi-quantitative screen
metal, conventional, non-conventional, pesticide/PCB)
3. Amount detected
4. Detection limit if amount detected was a non-detect
5. Laboratory qualifier, where applicable
6. Concentration units
7. Episode number
8. Sample number
3-2.0 REDUCTION OF CERCLA SITE SAMPLING DATA BASE - •
Prior to evaluating the CERCLA site data, it was necessary to reduce the data.
The data base originally consisted of samples taken at various points in the
treatment process and the corresponding contaminant concentration that was
detected for each day that samples were collected. In order to compare
treatability of contaminants across different sites and to determine the
frequency with which contaminants occurred at the eighteen sites, an average
concentration of each sample point^was calculated for sites where sampling
occurred for more than one day. Duplicate samples taken during each sampling
event were also averaged with its respective sample location. In addition, raw
wastewater samples collected at two different sample locations were averaged for
Hyde Park (These samples were averaged since the leachate collected at the
sample locations is pumped from the wells and combined in a holding lagoon where
separation of the aqueous and non-aqueous phase occurs). For samples reported
as non-detect, the detection limit was used in calculating the average.
To determine the frequency of occurrence of contaminants at the sites, the
averaged data were used as described above; however, if non-detect data were
observed for a contaminant in more than fifty percent of the samples across the
unit processes that composed the treatment system, the contaminant concentration
was considered to be non-detectable and thus, not detected in all samples
collected at the site. This criterion was followed to account for system or
analytical anomalies that may have occurred. The criterion was not followed if
the influent concentration was above the detection limit and all other samples
collected over the system were non-detect. The criterion was also not followed ,
for some of the organics data collected at Tyson's Dump. Many of the concen-
891003-mll
3-4
-------
trations detected for duplicate samples collected at the site were higher than
concentrations detected for other samples at the site. Therefore, if other
samples collected at the site for a contaminant were non-detect, except for the
concentration of the duplicate, the contaminant was considered non-detect in the
wastestream when calculating the frequency of occurrence.
A more detailed description of the reduction of the CERCLA site data and the
actual data and the percent removals across each unit process at each site are
presented in the "CERCLA. SITE DISCHARGES TO POTWs CERCLA SITE SAMPLING PROGRAM:
DETAILED DATA REPORT" (EPA/542/90/008).
3-3.0 EVALUATION OF CERCLA SITE SAMPLING DATA BASE
The seven data evaluation tasks are discussed below.
3-3.1 Task 1: Frequency of Occurrence of Contaminants
The frequency of occurrence of contaminants detected at the sites was evaluated
for sites treating groundwater and for sites treating leachate. Site wastewater
defined as groundwater was subsurface water that was either extracted and
treated or extracted, placed in a holding lagoon for- storage, and subsequently
treated. Wastewater defined as leachate was wastewa.ter collected at a landfill
site that was collected in a leachate collection system for treatment. The
lagooned waste at Bridgeport Rental was evaluated as a leachate since it
consisted of an oily waste not representative of groundwater.
In 1987, a list was compiled from analytical data collected from proposed and
final National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The frequency of occurrence was
compiled for contaminants detected in soil, water, and other media and is
presented in Section 1 of this Treatability Manual.
3-3.1.1 Contaminants Detected and Frequency of Occurrence.
Tables 3-2 through 3-7 present the frequency of occurrence of contaminants at
the sites sampled, the maximum concentrations, and the regulatory lists
(Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]-Appendix VIII, Target Compound
List (TCL), Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act [SARA]-110, and/or
Priority Pollutant) for each contaminant. The TCL, formerly the Hazardous
Substance List (HSL), was established under CERCLA and SARA and the Priority
Pollutant List was developed by the USEPA Office of Water under the Clean Water
Act. The TCL, Priority Pollutant, RCRA-Appendix VIII, and SARA-110 lists are
presented in Section 9, Tables 9-5 through 9-8 respectively. Tables 3-2, 3-4,
and 3-6 present organic, inorganic, and conventional and non-conventional
contaminants, respectively, for sites treating groundwater. Tables 3-3, 3-5,
and 3-7 present the data for the leachate streams. Table 3-8 presents a summary
of the total number of contaminants detected above the detection limit at each
of the specific sites sampled for each class of compound.
The organic contaminants most frequently detected at the sites varied somewhat
between the groundwater and leachate sites (Table 3-2 and 3-3). Phenol was
891003-mll
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-2
RCRA-APP. VIII, TCL, SARA 110, AJfl) PRIORITY POLLUTAHT
ORGANIC CONTAMINATES IH CERCLA GSOOHOWATER AT 17 SITES
I
ON
CONTAMINANT
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLQROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
ACETONE
TOLUENE
BENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
PHENOL
BENZOIC ACID
CHLOROBENZENE
P-DIOXANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-BUTANONE (HEK)
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
BISC2-ETHYLHEXYDPHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
ISOPHORONE
OCDD
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
2,3,7,8-TCDF
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXANOIC ACID .
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
0-+P-XYLENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
ANILINE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHENYL
M-XYLENE
N-DODECANE (N-C12)
0-CRESOL
P-CRESOL
TOTAL HpCDD
K1HIKUH MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
DETECTED DETECTED
13
11
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
19.9
11.4
34.6
14.2
56.0
19.2
12.2
18.6
10.9
55.3
34.8
13.2
13.4
396.2
68.3
59.4
406.3
13.2
0.0
15.0
15.2
123.0
0.0
28.4
33.5
35.0
68.0
24.7
12.0
363.6
31.2
0.0
70.6
20.1
19.5
11.7
18.0
10.5
11.3
29.2
0.0
8369.7
1516.5
58017.0
4742.0
19420.0
9178.3
314.5
3571.0
1441.8
1825.0
3646.0
955.0
1451.2
2817.1
2767.0
2261.7
1000.0
1910.0
0.5
269.3
38.8
403.0
10.8
131.2
287.0
347.0
422.0
326.5
55.6
935.5
3481.0
0.1
167.0
1223.0
89.6
5541.5
50.5
969.7
165.8
70.7
0.1
UMITS RCRA
CONTAMINANT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.X
TCL
CONTAMINANT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SARA 110
CONTAMINANT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PRIORITY
POLLUTANT
CONTAMINANT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
U)
I
CONTAMINANT
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
2-NITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
N-DECANE (N-C10)
0-TQLUIDINE
STYRENE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1.3-DICHLORO-2-PROPANOL
2,4,5-TP (SILVEX)
2,4-DIAMINOTOLUENE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DlNITROPHENOL
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-HEXANONE
2-METHYL-4.6-DINITROPHENOL
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
3-CHLOROPROPENE
ACETOPHENONE
ACROLEIN
ALPHA-PICOLINE
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CHRYSENE
DIBENZOFURAN •
DIETHYL ETHER
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
N-OCTACOSANE (N-C28)
NITROBENZENE
OCDF
P-CYMENE
PCS-1232
FREQUENCY
TABLE 3-2 (CONTINUED)
RCRA-APP. VIII, TCL, SARA 110, AND PRIORITY POLLUTANT
ORGANIC CONTAMINATES IN CERCLA GROUNDWATER AT 17 SITES
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
DETECTED DETECTED
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
22.4
17.0
43.7
136.0
150.0
159.8
230.7
14.5
15.0
12.0
70.3
20.4
5667.9 •
23.0
1550.0
112.0
66.7
435.7
87.6
151.4
174.3
15.0
13.8
87.1
63.0
52.8
11.5
19.0
1708.1
24.0
30.0
64.0
105.9
246.5
10.6
11.4
10.8
18378.0
0.1
20.8
10445.0
230.0
244.3
49.7
1100.0
430000.0
174.3
446.9
278.1
37.0
240.0
70.3
20.4
5667.9
23.0
1550.0
112.0
66.7
435.7
87.6
151.4
174.3
15.0
13.8
87.1
63.0
52.8
11.5
19.0
1708.1
24.0
30.0
64.0
• 105.9
246.5
, 10.6
.11.4
10.8
18378.0
0.1
20.8
10445.0
PRIORITY
UNITS RCRA TCL SARA 110 POLLUTANT
CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
XX X
X X X
•
X X
X X
X
X
XXX
X ' X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X XX
X X
X X X
X
X
XXX
X X
XXX
X X X
XX X
-------
TABLE 3-2 (CONTINUED)
RCRA-APP. VIII, TCL, SARA 110, AM) PRIORITY POLLUTANT
ORGANIC CONTAMINATES IN CERCLA GROWUATER AT 17 SITES
CONTAMINANT
PHENANTHRENE
PHOSPHAMIDON
TEPP
TOTAL HpCOF
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
MINIMUM MAXIKUM
FREQUENCY CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
DETECTED DETECTED
1
1
1
1
1
1
130.0
8500.0
79000.0
0.0
200.8
50.0
130.0
8500.0
79000.0
0.0
200.8
50.0
PRIORITY
UNITS RCRA TCL SARA 110 POLLUTANT
CONTAMINANT COHTAHINANT CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT
UG/L
PPT
PPT
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
U)
I
oo
-------
U)
I
CONTAMINANT
PHENOL
BENZOIC ACID
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
AZINPHOS METHYL
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-01CHLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE .
P-CRESOL
2,3,7,8-TCDD
ACETONE
BENZENE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
HEXANOIC ACID
CHLOROBENZENE
ACETOPHENONE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
ISOPHORONE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
N-DOCOSANE (N-C22)
N-EICOSANE (N-C20)
N-HEXADECANE (N-C16)
N-OCTADECANE (N-C18)
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROMETHANE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
AZINPHOS ETHYL
N-TETRADECANE (N-C14)
FENSULFOTHION
FREQUENCY
TABLE 3-3
RCRA-APP. VIII, TCL, SARA 110, AND PRIORITY POLLUTANT
ORGANIC CONTAMINATES IN CERCLA LEACHATE AT 3 SITES
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
DETECTED DETECTED
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
35.0
53.5
1305.0
518.0
50.0
601.0
170.0
: 13483.0
1299.0
72.5
5.9
3245.5
1740.0
709.0
24.5
2670.5
20.5
596.0
141.0
52.0
101.0
4662.0
2639.0
833.0
58.5
3544.5
10.5
15.0
23.0
24.5
1167.0
964.0
548.0
0.4
1835.5
719.0
10566.0
26.5
1.2
17.5
1.9
1548330.0
2316700.0
2942.0
8958.0
51.7
3525.5
1359.5
18166.0
3615.5
161.0
31.6
52518.0
2934.5
13308.0
131.0
3773.0
20.5
596.0
141.0
52.0
101.0
4662.0
2639.0
833.0
58.5
3544.5
10.5
15.0
23.0
24.5
1167.0
964.0
548.0
0.4
1835.5
719.0
10566.0
26.5
1.2
17.5
1.9
PRIORITY
UNITS RCRA TCL SARA 110 POLLUNTANT
CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE 3-3 (CONTIHWEO)
RCRA-APP. VIII, TCL, SARA 110, AW PRIORITY POLLUTANT
ORGANIC CONTAMINATES IN CERCLA LEACHATE AT 3 SITES
LO
I
CONTAMINANT
CHLORFEVINPHOS
FENTHION
CROTOXYPHOS
LEPTOPHOS
DIAZINON
MALATHION
DICROTOPHOS
MEVINPHOS
DIOXATHION
PARATHION
CHLORPYRIFOS
DICHLORVOS
DIHETHOATE
DISULFOTON
DELTA-BHC
PCB-1254
PHORATE
SULFOTEPP
TERBUFOS
TETRACHLORVINPHOS
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
DETECTED DETECTED
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7.2
4.2
14.4
13.1
10.1
7.7
29.1
1.6
27.0
4.5
5.0
27.6
28.4
0.5
1.6
6.0
21.0
1.0
5.0
0.8
7.2
4.2
14.4
13.1
10.1
7.7
29.1
1.6
27.0
4.5
5.0
27.6
28.4
0.5
1.6
6.0
21.0
1.0
5.0
0.8
UNITS RCRA TCL
CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT
PRIORITY
SARA 110 POLLUNTANT
CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
-------
CO
I
CONTAMINANT
SODIUM
CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM
BARIUM
SILICON
MANGANESE
SULFUR
IRON
BORON
ZINC
STRONTIUM
TITANIUM
ALUMINUM
POTASSIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
NICKEL
COBALT
YTTRIUM
CADMIUM
ARSENIC
MOLYBDENUM
VANADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
BERYLLIUM
LITHIUM
SILVER
TIN
LANTHANUM
GADOLINIUM
CERIUM
LEAD
NEODYMIUM
SELENIUM
IODINE
IRIDIUH
GOLD
YTTERBIUM
OSMIUM
GALLIUM
ANTIMONY
FREQUENCY
TABLE 3-4
RCRA-APP. VIII, TCL, SARA 110, AND PRIORITY POLLUTANT
INORGANIC CONTAMINATES IN CERCLA GROUNDWATER AT 17 SITES
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
DETECTED DETECTED
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
16
16
14
13
12
11
10
10
1
9
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
5560.0
21620.0
2960.0
5.6
3.0
25.4
2.4
16.0
20.8
6.7
0.7
3.0
110.0
2.0
10.2
8.0
25.0
9.6
2.0
5.2
2.4
12.0
3.0
1500.0
1.8
0.1
7.5
30.0
100.0
540.0
6300.0
69.0
400.0
3.5
533.0
240.0
2900.0
100.0
0.2
600.0
4.0
1075000.0
487600.0
1242857.1
870.5
34500.0
341000.0
6337143.0
387400.0
168000.0
56042.9
12420.0
722.0
1994285.7
30700.0
121428.6
9370.0
19520.0
3380.0
4594.0
2826.0
6000.0
541.0
1620.0
12000.0
120.0
2200.0
44.0
50.2
2100.0
857.0
19000.0
1550.0
3300.0
21.0
6000.0
3229.0
3371.0
400.0
1100.0
700.0
34.0
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
RCRA
CONTAMINANT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
TCL SARA 110
CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
PRIORITY
POLLUTANT
CONTAMINANT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
i—•
to
CONTAMINANT
DYSPROSIUM
SCANDIUM
URANIUM
SAMARIUM
TANTALUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RUTHENIUM
LUTETIUM
NIOBIUM
GERMANIUM
ERBIUM
TUNGSTEN
INDIUM
MERCURY
ZIRCONIUM
TABLE 3-4 (COHTIKUED)
RCRA-APP. VIII, TCL, SARA 110, AND PRIORITY POLLUTANT
INORGANIC CONTAMINATES IN CERCLA GROUWDWATER AT 17 SITES
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
DETECTED DETECTED
- 2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
400.0
250.0
640.0
620.0
700.0
1600.0
4300.0
200.0
1543.0
320.0
410.0
1000.0
1100.0
6.0
100.0
960.0
300.0
1300.0
780.0
2740.0
1600.0
4300.0
200.0
1543.0
320.0
410.0
1000.0
1100.0
6.0
100.0
UNITS
RCRA
CONTAMINANT
TCL
CONTAMINANT
SARA 110
CONTAMINANT
PRIORITY
POLLUTANT
CONTAMINANT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
-------
TABLE 3-5
RCRA-APP. VIII, TCL, SARA 110, AND PRIORITY POLLUTANT
INORGANIC CONTAMINATES IN CERCLA LEACHATE AT 3 SITES
U>
I
t—•
U)
CONTAMINANT
NICKEL
SODIUM
ALUMINUM
SULFUR
IRON
SILICON
POTASSIUM
ZINC
CALCIUM
TITANIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
BORON
COPPER
MOLYBDENUM
BARIUM
LITHIUM
STRONTIUM
OSMIUM
PHOSPHORUS
VANADIUM
LEAD
IODINE
CADMIUM
COBALT
CHROMIUM
TIN
ARSENIC
TANTALUM
URANIUM
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
DETECTED DETECTED
- 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
18.5
51750.0
140.0
7050.0
6700.0
2040.0
1010.0
70.0
4145.0
8.0
2885.0
708.0
247.0
26.0
31.0
15.0
600.0
1500.0
100.0
1285.0
32.5
108.0
2000.0
23.5
" 16.0
53.5
33.0
28.5
500.0
1000.0
1567.0
3495000.0
3515.0
471500.0
763000?. 0
6400.0
621000.0
555.0
821500.0
36.5
254000.0
12800.0
14950.0
28.9
293.0
77.0
9400.0
3150.0
100.0
118000.0
32.5
108.0
2000.0
23.5
16.0
53.5
33.0
28.5
500.0
1000.0
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
RCRA TCL
CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT
X X
X
X
'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
PRIORITY
SARA 110 POLLUNTANT
CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT
X ( X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
-------
TABLE 3-6
RCRA-APP. VIII, TCL, SARA 110, AMD PRIORITY POLLUTANT
COHVEHTIONALS/NON-CONVEHTIOHALS IN GROUMDWATER AT 17 SITES
OJ
I
CONTAMINANT
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
CHLORIDE
SULFATE
TOC
NITRATE + NITRITE, AS N
FLASH POINT
AMMONIA, AS N
COO
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL AS P
NITROGEN, TOTAL KJELDAHL
BOD
TSS
TDS
FLUORIDE
OIL & GREASE, TOTAL
RECOVERABLE
RESIDUE, FILTERABLE
CORROSIVITY
SULFIDE, TOTAL (IODOMETRIC)
NITROGEN, TOTAL KJELDEHL
CYANIDE, TOTAL
RESIDUE, NON-FILTERABLE
FLOURIDE
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
MINIMUM MAXIHUH
FREQUENCY CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
DETECTED DETECTED
17
17
16
16
15
14
13
13
12
11
11
10
10
9
8
6
6
6
5
4
4
3
1
264.0
10833.0
14500.0
2180.0
51.0
0.0
158.0
30800.0
103.0
104.0
6850.0
15857.0 ..
231429.0
207.0
5000.0
180000.0
1.7
1000.0
156.0
24.3
12117.0
308.0
2467.0
17571.4
2900000.0
19428571.0
1300000.0
250042.0
57000.0
21667.0
4340000.0
12000.0
24857.0
1446000.0
2500000.0
33000000.0
250000.0
54000.0
30000000.0
92.0
28000.0
24667.0
100.0
266667.0
16500.0
2462.0
PRIORITY
UNITS RCRA TCL SARA 110 POLLUTANT
CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT
UMH/C
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
25 DE
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MPY
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
-------
(jj
I
TABLE 3-7 .
RCRA-APP. VIII, TCL, SARA 110, AND PRIORITY POLLUTANT
CONVENTIONALS/NON-CONVENT10NALS IN LEACHATE AT 3 SITES
CONTAMINANT
TDS
OIL & GREASE, TOTAL
RECOVERABLE
TSS
TOC
COD
SULFIDE, TOTAL (IODOMETRIC)
BOD ,
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL AS P
NITROGEN, TOTAL KJELDAHL
AMMONIA, AS N
FLUORIDE
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SULFATE
NITRATE + NITRITE, AS N
FLASH POINT
CHLORIDE
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
DETECTED DETECTED
PRIORITY
UNITS RCRA TCL SARA 110 POLLUNTANT
CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANT
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
128.5
21.0
16.5
89.0
260.0
2.0
52.0
0.4
2.1
1.6
0.7
275.0
52.0
5.5
44.0
58.0
1300.0
545.0
18500.0
3350.0
10400.0
76.0
6500.0
310.0
44.0
7.9
12.0
275.0
52".0
5.5
44.0
58.0
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L x
MG/L
UMH/C
MG/L
MG/L
DEG C
MG/L
-------
TABLE 3-8
NUMBER OF CONTAMINANTS DETECTED AT CERCLA SITES
Pesticides
Semi
Site
Bridgeport
Hyde Park
Love Canal
Chemdyne
Charles George
Geneva
Gold Coast Oil
Nyanza
Reilly Tar
Stringfellow (1221)
Stringfellow (1240)
Scringfellow (1805)
Sylvester
Time Oil
Tyson's Dump
United Chrome
Verona
Well 12A
Western Processing
Whitehouse Oil
891003T
001.0.0
Discharge
Leachate
Leachate „
Leachate
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Oreanics
14
16
21
16
10
14
6
10
4
12
32
24
28
8
12
5
16
4
28
11
Dioxins
0
2
1
5
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
3
1
0
PCBs
2
22
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
Inorganics
15
15
13
12
14
19
12
19
9
22
22
20
14
9
12
20
15
7
20
21
X^ctll* UViJ-CGll
Metals
4
9
6
4
5
4
3
11
4
21
20
10
4
3
3
13
3
3
5
8
3-16
-------
detected at seven and benzoic acid at six of the seventeen groundwater sites but
were detected at all three of the leachate sites. :In addition, pesticides
and/or PCBs were detected at two of the three leachate sites (Hyde Park and
Bridgeport) whereas few pesticides and only one PCB was detected (PCB-1232,
detected at Geneva) at the groundwater sites.
. Detectable concentrations for organic contaminants (including PCBs, pesticides,
and dioxins) at groundwater sites ranged from 0.001 parts per trillion (ppt) and
58,017 pg/S. (2, 3, 7, 8-TCDF, detected at Reilly Tar and tetrachloroethene,
detected at Gold Coast Oil). Concentrations for the organic contaminants
detected at the leachate sites ranged from 3.85xlO"4 pg/& (2,3,7,8-TCDF,
detected at Hyde Park) and 2,316,700 vg/t (benzoic acid, also detected at Hyde
Park). The total number of organic pollutants detected ranged from 5 to 32 at
the groundwater sites and from 16 to 40 at the leachate sites.
The inorganic contaminants most frequently detected at the sites treating
groundwater were similar tp the most frequently detected contaminants at the
sites treating leachate. Silicon, sodium, sulfur, manganese, magnesium, iron,
and calcium were detected at all of the sites (Tables 3-4 and 3-5). The maximum
concentrations detected of the above listed inorganic contaminants were
generally higher at the groundwater sites than at the leachate sites (except for
sodium, iron, and calcium). The concentrations _for inorganic-contaminants at
the groundwater sites ranged from 0.05 ng/SL (lithium, detected at Geneva) and
6,337,143 tig/Z (sulphur, detected at Stringfellow). The minimum inorganic
concentration detected at the leachate sites was 8.0 p.g/1 (titanium, detected at
Bridgeport) and the maximum concentration detected was 3,495,000 pg/S. (sodium,
detected at Hyde Park). The total number of inorganic contaminants detected at
the sites varied between sites. The total number of inorganics detected at
groundwater sites ranged from 10 to 43 inorganic contaminants and from 19 to 24
at the leachate sites (see Table 3-8).
3-3.1.2 Frequency of Occurrence of Contaminants on Regulatory Lists.
Of the 345 organic contaminants (volatiles, semi-volatiles, pesticides, PCBs,
and dioxins) on the ITD list of analytes, only 88 (approximately 26%) were
detected at one or more sites where groundwater is being treated (see
Table 3-2). Of those 88 contaminants, approximately 63% are on the TCL, 44% are
on the Priority Pollutant list, 59% are RCRA-listed, and 50% are SARA
110-listed. Many of the analytes on the ITD list and not on the TCL, RCRA,
Priority Pollutant, and/or SARA lists were detected at only one site. Organic
contaminants on the ITD list but not on the TCL that were detected at
groundwater sites are presented in Table 3-9. Only two of the most frequently
occurring organic contaminants (detected at five or more sites of the seventeen
sites sampled) are currently on the ITD list and not on the TCL list (OCDD and
p-dioxane). All of the non-TCL organic contaminants detected at any site were
detected at concentrations below 1000 pg/Jl, with the exception of three
contaminants; biphenyl (5,541 ng/£), aniline (1,223 pg/Z), and
1,2, 3-tr ichloropropane (5,668
891003-mll
3-17
-------
TABLE 3-9
NON-TCL ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
DETECTED AT 17 CERCLA GROUNDWATER SITES
CONTAMINANT
P-DIOXAHE
OCOD
0-+P-XYLENE
2,3,7,8-TCDF
N,N-D1METHYLFORMAMIDE
HEXANOIC ACID
TOTAL HpCDD
ANILINE
M-DCOECANE (N-C12)
H-XYLENE
BIPHENYL
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
2,4,5-T
0-TOLUIDINE
2,4-D
N-DECANE (N-C10)
ACROLE1N
ALPHA-PICOLINE
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
ACETOPHENONE
3-CHLOROPROPENE
2,4-DIAHINOTOLUENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-DICHLORO-2-PROPANOL
TOTAL HpCOF
2-HETHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
N-OCTACOSANE (N-C28)
OCDF
DIETHYL ETHER
P-CYHENE
1234678-HpCDD
TRICHLOROFLUCROHETHANE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
2,4,5-TP (SILVEX)
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
PHOSPHAHIDON
TEPP
FREQUENCY
6
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MINIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
13.200
0.030
12.000
0.000
68.000
35.000
0.030
20.140
10.500
18.000
11.670
0.030
136.000
15.000
150.000
14.500
63.000
52.830
11.500
87.140
13.800
112.000
20.430
23.000
0.040
174.290
5667.860
10.830
0.060
64.000
20.830
0.030
200.830
70.330
1550.000
11.400
8500.000
79000.000
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
955.000
0.520
55.570
10.850
422.000
347.000
0.120
1223.000
969.710
50.500
5541.500
0.080
1100.000
37.000
430000.000
278.140
63.000
52.830
11.500
87.140
13.800
112.000
20.430
23.000
0.040
174.290
5667.860
10.830
0.060
64.000
20.830
0.030
200.830
70.330
1550.000
11.400
8500.000
79000.000
UNITS
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
PPT
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
PPT
PPT
3-1.8
-------
Organic contaminants detected at the sites treating leachate (see Table 3-3)
were similar to those found at groundwater sites. Sixty-one (approximately 18%)
organic contaminants that are ITD listed were found at detectable
concentrations. Of the 61 organic contaminants, 48% are on the TCL, 39% are on
the Priority Pollutant list, 51% RCRA-listed, and 43% SARA 110-listed. Most of
the contaminants that are not listed on the RCRA, TCL, Priority Pollutant, or
SARA 110 lists were detected at only one, -of the three sites, many of which were
pesticides detected at Hyde Park. The organic contaminants on the ITD list but
not on the TCL that were detected at leachate sites are presented in Table 3-10.
Azinphos methyl, hexanoic acid, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD were the only compounds
detected at two or more of the three sites sampled that are ITD- listed but not
on the TCL. All of the organic contaminants detected at the leachate sites that
are not on the TCL were detected at concentrations below 500 ng/£ with the
exception of pentachlorobenzene (548 /*g/-O and 1, 2, 3- tr ichlorobenzene
Of the 69 inorganic analytes of the ITD list, 56 (approximately 81%) were
detected at one or more sites treating groundwater (see Table 3-4). Of the 56
contaminants detected, 39% are on the TCL, 21% are on the Priority Pollutant
list, 20% are RCRA-listed, and 18% are SARA 110-listed. Most of the inorganic
parameters that are on the ITD list and not on the other three regulatory lists
were detected at more than one site. Sulfur and silicon are not on the TCL but
were detected at all of the groundwater sites sampled.
Thirty of the 69 ITD-listed inorganic parameters (approximately 43%) were
detected at sites treating leachate (see Table 3-5). Fifty-seven percent of the
30 are on the TCL, 23% are on the Priority Pollutant list, and 20% are RCRA and •
SARA 110 listed. Again, many of the inorganic parameters detected that are on
the ITD list but not on one or more of the three other regulatory lists were
detected at two or more of the three sites. Sulfur, silicon, titanium, and
boron were detected at all three of the sites and are not on the TCL.
The only conventional and non- conventional contaminants detected in groundwater
that are on the RCRA, TCL, Priority Pollutant, and/or SARA 110 lists were
cyanide, which is listed on all four regulatory lists, and ammonia, which is
found on SARA 110 (see Table 3-6). Cyanide was detected at four of the
seventeen sites treating groundwater and ammonia was detected at thirteen of the
seventeen sites sampled.
Of the conventional and non- conventional contaminants detected at the sites
treating leachate (see Table 3-7), ammonia was the only contaminant detected
that is listed on one of the four regulatory list (SARA 110). The_ remaining
contaminants are not listed on RCRA, TCL, Priority Pollutant, or SARA 110.
Table 3-11 presents a summary of the total number of contaminants detected (by
class) at each specific CERCLA site sampled and the number of contaminants
detected that are on the ITD, TCL and Priority Pollutant lists. Many of the
organic and inorganic contaminants detected that are ITD-listed are also on the
TCL. On the average, 79% of the organics detected (not including pesticides and
PCBs) and 81% of the TCL metals are on both the TCL and ITD list. Twelve
percent of the semi -quantitative screened metals detected are on the TCL.
891003-mll
3-19
-------
TABLE 3-10
NON-TCL ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS --
DETECTED AT 3 CERCLA LEACHATE SITES
CONTAMINANT
2,3,7,8-TCDD
AZINPHOS METHYL
HEXAHOIC ACID
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
2,3,7,8-TCDF
ACETOPHENONE
AZINPHOS ETHYL
CHLORFEVINPHOS
CHLORPYRIFOS
CROTOXYPHOS
DIAZINON
DICHLORVOS
DICROTOPHOS
DIHETHOATE
DIOXATHION
DISULFOTON
FEHSULFOTHIOH
FENTHION
LEPTOPHOS
HALATMIOH
HEVINPHOS
H-DOCOSANE (N-C22)
N-EICOSANE (M-C20)
N-HEXADECANE (N-C16)
H-OCTADECANE (N-C18)
H-TETRADECANE (N-C14)
PARATHIOH
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
PHORATE
SULFOTEPP
TERBUFOS
TETRACHLORVINPHOS
FREQUENCY
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MINIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
5.950
50.000
24.500
596.000
0.390
20.500
1.200
7.250
5.000
14.400
10.100
27.600
29.100
28.450
27.000
0.500
1.950
4.250
13.050
7.650
1.600
10.500
15.000
23.000
24.500
17.500
4.450
548.000
21.000
1.000
4.950
0.850
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
31 .620
51.700
131.000
596.000
0.390
20.500
1.200
7.250
5.000
14.400
10.100
27.600
29.100
28.450
27.000
0.500
1.950
4.250
13.050
7.650
1.600
10.500
15.000
23.000
24.500
17.500
4.450
548.000
21.000
1.000
4.950
0.850
UNITS
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PPT
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
3-20
-------
TABLE 3-11
NUMBER OF ITD, TCL, AND PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED
Semi-Quan.
Oreanic
Site
Bridgeport
Hyde Park
Love Canal
Chemdyne
Charles George
Geneva
Gold Coast Oil
Nyanza
Re illy Tar
Stringfellow (1221)
Stringfellow (1240)
^ Stringfellow (1805)
,'o Sylvester
- Time Oil
Tyson's Dump
United Chrome
Verona
Well 12A
Western Processing
Whitehouse Oil
Discharge
Leachate
Leachate
Leachate
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
ITD
14
16
21
16
10
14
6
10
4
12
32
24
28
8
12
5
16
4
28
11
TCL
8
16
18
12
7
11
5
9
3
11
25
20
23
8
8
3
14
4
17
6
PP
4
13
14
12
3
9
4
9
2
9
20
15
17
8
7
1
10
4
19
2
Dioxins
ITD
0
2
1
5
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
3
1
0
TCL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PP
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pesticides/PCBs
ITD
2
22
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
TCL
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PP
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Inorganics
ITD
15
15
13
12
14
19
12
19
9
22
22
20
14
9
12
20
15
7
20
21
TCL
13
12
9
10
11
14
10
16
7
18
17
16
13
7
10
15
11
7
16
18
PP
5
5
2
4
4
5
3
7
1
9
8
7
6
1
3
6
3
1
8
9
Metals
ITD
4
9
6
4
5
4
3
11
4
21
20
10
4
3
3
13
3
3
5
8
TCL
1
1
1
\ 1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
PP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NOTES: ITD - Industrial Technology Division Analyte
TCL - Target Compound List
891003T
004.0.0
-------
Sixty-three percent of the organics detected and 32% of the TCL metals detected
are on the Priority Pollutant list. No semi-quantitative screened metals are on
the Priority Pollutant list.
3-3.2 Task 2; Daily Variation in Treatability of CERCLA Site Wastewater
For each CERCIA site where sampling occurred for more than one day, the percent
removal and the total removal for the system was calculated for each compound
across each unit process each day that samples were collected. Sites included
Verona, Reilly Tar, Stringfellow, Sylvester, Time Oil, Tyson's Dump, United
Chrome, Chemdyne (including both the wastewater and air data), Well 12A, and
Western Processing.
The daily variability in wastestream and air characteristics and the treatment
efficiencies on a daily basis were assessed for the sites. Although some
variability existed, the variability of the organic contaminants concentration
and removal efficiency was low for all sites. Contaminants were consistently
detected at similar concentrations and the removal efficiency remained fairly
consistent across each unit process for all days. For example, the
concentration of trichloroethene, detected at the Verona Well Fields, ranged
from 506 fig/£ to 812 ng/£ for the days of sampling; the total removal remained
consistent, ranging from 98% to 99%.
The variability of inorganic parameters in the CERCLA. site wastestreams was also
low at most sites. Some of the inorganic contaminants received little or no
treatment, but the treatability remained constant. This is an indication that
the system was not specifically designed to treat the particular contaminant
(i.e., sodium at the Sylvester site) and probably is not a concern. The
inorganic data for the Tyson's Dump site appears to be questionable. The
influent concentrations for many of the inorganic contaminants are less than the
final effluent concentrations, resulting in negative percent removals. As a
result, the data were considered questionable and not used for evaluating the
treatability of inorganic contaminants. The treatment system at Tyson's Dump
has also been updated and improved since this sampling event. As a result, any
anomalies due to the actual treatment system may have been corrected.
The variability of the conventional and non-conventional contaminants is
consistently high for many of the parameters at all of the sites sampled. As
was discussed previously, this is probably due to variation in the wastestreams
and the low influent concentrations detected for the conventional and
non-conventional contaminants.
3-3.3 Task 3: Variability at the Stringfellow Site
The Stringfellow site was sampled three different times during the program; a
one-day sampling event on November 3, 1987 (Episode 1221), a five-day sampling
event from March 7 through 11, 1988 (Episode 1240), and a four-day sampling
event from August 22 through 25, 1989 (Episode 1805). The site was sampled
three times in order to assess the variability of contaminants and the treatment
process over an extended period of time.
891003-mil
3-22
-------
In general, the number of contaminants detected at the site changed over time
for the organic compounds and stayed fairly consistent for the inorganics.
Thirteen organic compounds were detected above the detection limit during
Episode 1221, 32 organic compounds were detected during Episode 1240, and 27
organic compounds were detected during Episode 1807. The influent
concentrations and treatability of organic contaminants detected during the
three events remained fairly consistent and are summarized in Table 3-12.
Contaminants showing the most variability included 1,3-dichlorobenzene and
acetone. The treatability of all organic contaminants detected during all
events remained high and consistent between events (i.e., greater than 90% for
most compounds).
A number of organic contaminants detected above the detection limit during the
four- and five-day events were not detected during the one-day event and are
summarized in Table 3-13. Many of these contaminant's influent concentrations
were at levels below 1,000 ug/^K. Exceptions to this included 2-butanone (1,500
Hg/£ and 2,817 ug/,8) and 4-methyl-2-pentanone (1,404 ng/£ and 2,767 ug/^) during
the four- and five-day events, respectively, and butylbenzyl phthalate, which
was detected only during the five-day event (1,708 ug/^). Treatability of some
of the contaminants detected during the four- and five-day events were also
somewhat lower (less than 70% removal). Lower removals are, however, probably
due to the lower influent concentrations detected.
Arsenic was the only TCL inorganic detected above the detection limit during the
one-day sampling event that was not detected during the four- and five-day
events. Although the semi-quantitative screened metals varied somewhat between
events, the actual number was the same.
The influent concentrations of most of the inorganics remained fairly consistent
(i.e., within 30%). Exceptions to this included compounds such as boron,
magnesium,, and molybdenum. Influent concentrations decreased over time for
boron (16,900 ug/Jl, 4,215 ug/i, and 3,034 ng/Ji) and molybdenum (512 ug/Ji,
12 ug/<8, and 100 /*g/-O and increased for magnesium (355,000 ug/Jl,
1,242,857 ug/,8, and 1,156,000 Mg/^)• Treatability remained fairly consistent
between sampling events.
3-3.4 Task 4: Evaluation of Contaminant Treatabilitv
The treatability of CERCLA pollutants was evaluated by calculating the percent
removal across each unit process at each individual site. Tables for each site
summarizing the number of contaminants, the minimum and maximum influent and
effluent concentrations for organics and inorganics, the total mass discharged
to and from the treatment system, the percent removal over each unit process,
and the total removal for the system are presented in Attachment B. The data
presented in the tables are the average concentrations that were calculated, as
described previously. Total removal for the system was not calculated for the
Stringfellow site since two different streams were combined mid-way through the
system and flow information was not available.
891003-mll
3-23
-------
TABLE 3-12
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS DETECTED AT
ALL THREE STRINGFELLOW SAMPLING
EVENTS
Compound
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Acetone
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Isophorone
Methylene Chloride
Trichloroethene
Influent Cone. (ug/l)/GAC% Removal*
1221
3,985/99
123/90
1,077/96
14,116/96
1,264/97
1,000/96
1,910/99
3,571/99
8,020/99
1240
3,624/99
155/89
1,432/97
19,420/97
1,469/97
945/97
1,782/99
1,860/99
8,369/>99
1807
4,742/99
403/60
1,451/96
5,006/97
1,515/97
970/97
1,027/99
2,415/98
6,847/99
*GAC - Granular Activated Carbon
891003T-mll
3-24
-------
TABLE 3-13
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS NOT DETECTED
DURING SAMPLING EPISODE 1221
Compound
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2-Butanone
2-Chlorophenol
2-Hexanone
2-Methyl-4, 6-Dinitrophenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Me thy1-2-Pentanone
4-Nitrophenol
Acetophenone
Benzene
Benzyl Alcohol
Benzene
Bis(2-EthyIhexy1)phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Isobutyl Alcohol
M-Xylene
Napthalene
N,N-Dimethylformamide
N-Decane
N-Dodecane
0- + P-Xylene
OCDD
P-Dioxane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total HpCDD
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Vinyl Acetate
Influent Cone. (ug/D/GAC % Removal*
1240
91/17
436/22
2,817/93
88/25
174/26
174/59
2,767/92
447/61
87/29
90/65
105/23
1,708/<1
106/59
118/73
165/77
278/23
970/53
357/
-------
Tables sumarizing the treatment efficiency of the various unit processes at the
sites sampled are presented in Attachment C. The tables present the pollutant,
treatment technology, matrix (groundwater or leachate), effluent concentration,
and the site episode number. The data is divided according to the influent
concentration range (i.e., 0-100 ng/£, 100-1,000 ng/Ji, 1,000-10,000 pg/Jl,
10,000-100,000, and >100,000 ng/Jl) . The organic compounds evaluated include
those pollutants in the top 25% of those most frequently detected at the sites
sampled and are presented in Table C-l.
The top 25% most frequently occurring inorganics plus six additional compounds
are presented in Table C-2. The additional inorganic compounds were added to
include more priority pollutants in the evaluation. Since air stripping and
granular activated carbon are not typically used to treat inorganic contaminants
in wastewater, these technologies were not evaluated for the inorganic
pollutants.
3-3.4.1 Treatability of Inorganic Contaminants. The inorganic contaminants
that were analyzed for are presented in Section 9, Table 9-4, to show the two
groups the inorganic contaminants were divided into for analysis; the inorganics
that are included on the CERCLA Target Compound List (TCL) and the
semi-quantitative screened inorganics.
In general, treatment of inorganic contaminants was effective for sites where
chemical precipitation was a component of the treatment system (Stringfellow,
Sylvester, United Chrome, and Western Processing). These systems were designed
to treat metals since the concentrations were generally higher at those sites
compared to sites that did not use precipitation. Chemical precipitation
achieved treatment levels, on the average, greater than 75% for many of the TCL
and priority pollutant inorganics detected at these sites. Removal was often
higher (greater than 90%) at concentrations greater than 100 ng/A. The metals
listed on the semi-quantitative list (see Section 9, Table 9-4) showed slightly
lower treatment levels (averaged less than 55%). In addition, calcium, sodium,
and tin showed low levels of treatment at all of the sites sampled.
3-3.4.2 Treatability of Organic Contaminants. Treatment systems at the CERCLA
sites varied from site to site, depending on the,type of contaminants present.
Activated carbon and air stripping were the primary treatment technologies used
at the sites to treat organic contaminants. Activated carbon was used at five
of the sites (Stringfellow, Reilly Tar, Love Canal, Time Oil, and Bridgeport).
Air stripping was used at Sylvester, Tyson's Dump, Chemdyne, and Well 12A.
Carbon adsorption followed by air stripping was used at the Verona Well Fields,
and air stripping followed by carbon adsorption was used at Western Processing.
The treatment of organic contaminants using these systems was generally
effective at the sites that were sampled since most of the concentrations of
organic contaminants detected in the influent were reduced to the detection
limits.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the organic treatment systems, the
removal efficiency of compounds treated with air stripping and the removal
891003-mil
3-26
-------
efficiency of compounds treated using carbon adsorption were compared for
contaminants detected at more than one site. In general, activated carbon was
slightly more effective for treating volatile organic compounds at the CERCLA
sites sampled, although both carbon and air stripping showed removal
efficiencies greater than 90%. The influent concentrations discharged to the
carbon adsorption units were, however, often higher than the influent
conc'entrations discharged to the air stripper; higher influent concentrations
often result in relatively higher removal efficiencies.
Activated carbon was typically the technology used to treat semi-volatile
contaminants and was again effective for reducing contaminant concentrations to
their detection limits.
Carbon adsorption followed by air stripping was used at the Verona Well Fields.
For most organic contaminants, carbon adsorption alone effectively treated the
site wastewater (total removal did not increase substantially after the stream
was treated using air stripping). However, for a few volatile organics
(1,1,1-trichloroethane, acetone, and trans-l,2-dichloroethene) treatment with
air stripping did increase the level of treatment.
Air stripping followed by chemical precipitation and carbon adsorption was used
at Western Processing. Of the organic contaminants detected above the detection
limit at the site, removal due to carbon adsorption increased for approximately
50% of the compounds. The percent removal due to carbon ranged from 1%
(benzene) and 83% (trichloroethene). In general, removal due to carbon
adsorption was observed for both volatile and semi-volatile compounds. However,
most compounds that were not treated by carbon adsorption were semi-volatiles
that were already effectively removed using only air stripping (i.e.,
2-nitrophenol, 4-nitrophenol, and phenol) or were removed by air stripping as
well as by chemical precipitation (e.g., benzoic acid, o-cresol, isophorone,
etc.).
3-3.5 Task 5: Comparison of CERGLA Site Treatability Data to Data in the ORD
Treatability Data Base
Table 3-14 presents a summary comparison of the treatability of selected
frequently occurring compounds detected at the CERCLA sites to data in the ORD
Treatability Data Base. The contaminant, treatment technology, ORD influent
concentration range in which the CERCLA influent falls, the CERCLA site percent
removal, and the ORD percent removal are presented in the table. The type of
wastestream treated is defined in the ORD data base by the "Source Matrix"
(i.e., groundwater, industrial, domestic, etc.). The wastestreams at the CERCLA
sites sampled were either groundwater or leachate. Therefore, since data in the
ORD data base were limited for some compounds that were treated in either a
groundwater or leachate wastestream, percent removal data from the ORD data base
was evaluated for industrial flow, hazardous leachate, superfund waste, and/or
groundwater (rather than evaluating only data for groundwater or hazardous
leachate), depending on the data that were available. Section 13 of this
Treatability Manual presents the ORD data base.
891003-mll
3-27
-------
TABLE 3-14
COMPARISON OF CERCLA SITE TREATABILITY DATA TO DATA IN
ORD TREATABILITY DATA BASE
CONTAMINANT
Trichloroethene
Trans-1,2-
Dichloroethene
Methylene
Chloride
Benzene
1,1,2,2-
Tetra-
chloroethene
Zinc
Nickel
TECHNOLOGY
Air Str.
Air Str.
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon + Air Str.
Air Str. + Carbon
Air Str.
Air Str.
Air Str.
Air Str.
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon + Air Str.
Act SI.
Air Str.
Air Str.
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon + Air Str.
Air Str. + Carbon
Act SI.
Air Str.
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon + Air Str.
Air Str. + Carbon
Air Str.
Carbon
Precip .
Precip .
Precip .
Precip .
CERCLA
INFL. CONG.
RANGE (ue/t)
0-100
100-1000
0-100
100-1000
1000-10,000
100-1000
1000-10,000
0-100
100-1000
1000-10,000
0-100
0-100
100-1000
100-1000
0-100
0-100
100-1000
0-100
100-1000
0-100
0-100
0-100
100-1000
0-100
1000-10,000
0-100
0-100
0-100
1000-10,000
0-100
100-1000
10,000-100,000
100-1000
1000-10,000
10,000-100,000
CERCLA
PERCENT
REMOVAL
50-83
94-96
83
95-98
98->99.9
99
99
12
94-97
95
84
9-32
94-98
88
60
29-74
91
25-64
99
46
88
46
93
60
>99
60
60
54-68
98->99
1.0
87
>99.9
78
93-99
>99
ORD
PERCENT
REMOVAL
87-99.68
87-99.9
98.6->98.8
>95.8->99.36
>99.46
No data
No data
No data
No data
>99.9
No data
No data
>92.5
No data
>77-92
No data
99
No data
>94.4->99
No data
No data
>89.6
99.09->99.74
No data
>99.28
No data
>90.9
No data
>99.11
No data
96.7
. 99.932
No data
58-93.4
84-99.52
891003T
003.0.0
3-28
-------
TABLE 3-14
(continued)
COMPARISON OF CERCIA SITE TREATABILITY DATA TO DATA IN
ORD TREATABILITY DATA BASE
CONTAMINANT
Boron
-
Cadmium
*TECHNOLOGY
Act. SI.
Precip .
Precip .
Precip .
Precip .
Carbon
Precip.
Precip.
Carbon
CERCLA
INFL. CONG.
RANGE (ug/Jl)
100-1000
100-1000
1000-10,000
XLOO.OOO
100-1000
XLO.OOO
100-1000
1000-10,000
0-100
CERCLA
PERCENT
REMOVAL
12
24-86
2-71
76
0-45
9
99
99->99.9
11-23
ORD
PERCENT
REMOVAL
No data
No data
69
No data
No data
No data
No data
99.31
No data
*Technology Key: Air Str.
Act. SI.
Carbon
Precip.
- Air Stripping
- Activated Sludge
- Granular Activated Carbon
- Chemical Precipitation
891003T
003.1.0.0
3-29
-------
In most Instances, treatabllity at the CERCIA sites compares closely to the data
found in the ORD data base for the technologies and concentration ranges where
data were available. Many of the CERCIA percent removals are in the range or
close to the range of data in the ORD data base which indicates that the removal
efficiencies of treatment technologies at CERCIA sites are similar to those of
industrial waste treatment facilities.
Data at various concentration ranges for specific technologies were unavailable
or limited for some compounds (trans-1,2-dichloroethene, methylene chloride,
benzene, zinc, boron, and cadmium). In addition, data for the treatability of
phenol, acetone, and benzoic acid for the concentration ranges and technologies
observed at the CERCIA sites were unavailable in the ORD data base.
3-3.6 Task 6; Evaluation of Chemdyne Air Sampling Data
Air sampling at the Chemdyne site was performed in order to evaluate air
emission concentrations relative to wastewater concentrations and to evaluate
process efficiency ratings. A description of the sample locations, data
reduction, the treatment efficiency of the vapor phase activated carbon unit,
and the results of the,mass balance of the air stripper are presented in
subsequent sections.
3-3.6.1 Sample Point Description. The treatment process at the Chemdyne
facility consists of one air stripper. Air emitted from the stripping tower is
treated using vapor phase activated carbon since the wastewater at the site is
primarily contaminated with volatile organic compounds. The average wastewater
flow through the system is 750 gpm and flows into an airstream flowing at
approximately 7,212 cubic feet per minute (ft3/min).
Air samples from the system were collected over a,three day period. Samples
were taken at the carbon scrubber inlet and outlet simultaneously to determine
the carbon scrubber efficiency. In addition, one sample was collected at the
intake of the stripper, one blank (ambient air) sample was collected, and a
duplicate was collected at the carbon scrubber inlet and outlet. Each sample
was analyzed for the list of 41 priority pollutants (based on previous
wastewater sampling results) presented in Table 3-15. The air samples were
analyzed using Method T014 in EPA's Compendium of Methods for the Determination
of Toxic Compounds in Ambient Air, modified to detect all of the compounds
presented in Table 3-15.
3-3.6.2 Data Reduction. To evaluate the analytical data, it was assumed that
the air stripping process was leak tight (i.e., air enters through one duct and
exits through one duct). Secondly, air entering the air stripping process was
considered clean for mass balance purposes.
To evaluate the air sampling data, the concentrations detected at each sample
point over the three day sampling event were averaged. The duplicate samples
taken at the carbon scrubber inlet and outlet were included in the average. The
averaged data was then reduced so that the emission concentrations relative to
the wastewater concentrations could be compared.
891003-mil
3-30
-------
TABLE 3-15
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND LIST FOR
AIR SAMPLE ANALYSIS USING GC-MS METHOD OF TO-14
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Methyl Chloride
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
Methyl bromide
Ethyl chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methylene Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1,2:Trichloro-l,2,2-Trifluoroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2-Dichloropropane
Trichloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
1,2-Dibromoethane
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
E thyIb enz ene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Styrene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-TrimethyIbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl chloride
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
1,2-trans-Dichloroethene
891003T-mll
3-31
-------
The mass balance on the air stripper was performed using a wastewater flow rate
of 750 gpm and an air flow rate of 7,212 ft3/min. The wastewater flow is an
approximate rate for the period during which sampling occurred. The air flow
rate was calculated using the measured air velocity through the stripper and the
area of the stripper. Although a three day average was calculated and used in
the mass balance, system anamolies can effect the velocity and cause it to
fluctuate within plus or minus 10%.
Prior to evaluating the air data, the field blank (ambient air), laboratory
canister blanks, and air intake data were analyzed to determine that field or
laboratory contamination were not contributing to the analytical sample data.
All concentrations detected in both the field blank and canister blanks were
below the detection limit.
Some compounds were detected in the sample collected at the intake of the
stripper. The concentrations detected were, however, low (i.e., less than 1
fig/S. after reducing, as described previously) and were therefore considered
negligible.
3-3.6.3 Treatment Efficiency and Mass Balance. The treatment efficiency of the
vapor phase activated carbon system was evaluated and is summarized in Table 3-
16. The compound, carbon scrubber inlet and outlet concentrations, and percent
removal are presented. Although the percent removal for many 'of the compounds
was low (less than 60%) many of the contaminants were treated to their detection
limits. In many cases, the low percent removals are therefore probably due to
low influent concentrations rather than low efficiency. In addition to low
influent concentrations, low removal efficiencies could also be attributed to
system anamolies, or the fact that a particular compound is not effectively
treated using carbon (i.e., vinyl chloride).
The results of the mass balance of the air stripper for those contaminants
detected in the wastewater are summarized in Table 3-17. The raw wastewater
concentration entering the stripper, the wastewater air stripper effluent, the
concentration emitted from the air stripper, and the total mass recovered .(air
stripper effluent plus air stripper emission) are presented. A mass balance
within 20% was achieved for many of the compounds (1,1-dichloroethane,
trichloroethene, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, and 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane). However, the mass recovered of the remaining compounds was
significantly different than the mass discharged to the air stripping system.
Factors possibly contributing to the discrepencies include both the air and
wastewater flow rates (which can fluctuate plus or minus, ten percent), a high
relative humidity, fluctuations in air temperature and pressure throughout the
day, and analytical variations.
3-3.7 Task 7: Comparison of Indicator Parameter Treatability to Organic
Contaminant Treatability
An attempt was made to evaluate the removal efficiency for various organic
contaminants by comparing the removal efficiency of specific organic
contaminants at a site to the various indicator parameters for the site (i.e.,
biological oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand). It was; however, not
891003-mll
3-32
-------
TABLE 3-16
VAPOR PHASE ACTIVATED CARBON
TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
Scrubber1 .^
Compound
Vinyl Chloride
1 , 1- Dichloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloro-
1,2, 2 -Trif luoroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroe thane
Cis - 1 , 2 -Dichloroethene
Chloroform
1, 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 , 1 -Trichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethane
1,1, 2 -Trichloroethane
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
P-Xylene
1,1,2, 2 -Tetrachloroe thane
0-Xylene
1,3, 5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 , 2 , 4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2- trans -Dichloroethene
Inlet
(uz/X)
4.8
1.40
0.06
0.30
6.39
0.16
0.39
0.09
0.95
2.44
3.13
0.15
2.23
0.40
1,53
2.10
0.78
0.10
0 . 09
0.21
0.54
Scrubber1-2
Outlet
(ue./£)
6.2
1.5
0.08U
0.30
6.30
0.15
0.35
0.07
0.42
1.50
0.30
0.07U
0.07U
0.07U
0.07U
0.07U
0.07U
0.07U
0.07U
0.07U
0.56
Percent
Removal
<1
<1
<1
0
1
6
10
22
56
39
90
>53
>97
>83
>95
>97
>91
>30
>22
>67
Represents concentrations detected in air samples that have been reduced for
comparison to wastewater samples.
2U indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected. The minimum
detection limit for the sample is reported (e.g., 0.07U).
891003T-mll
3-33
-------
TABLE 3-17
AIR STRIPPER MASS BALANCE
Compound
Vinyl Chloride
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Chlo rob enz ene
Ethylbenzene
0- + P-Xylene
Raw Water
dbs/dav")
0.53
0.45
0.63
0.34
0.41
2.03
2.20
4.00
0.31
0.30
0.35
1,1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane 0.77
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
2.06
Air ^Stripper
Effluent
abs/davl
0.09
0.09
0.16
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.29
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.35
0.09
Air Stripper1
Emission
(Ibs/davl
3.11
0.91
0.19
0.25
0.62
1.58
2.03
1.45
0.26
0.99
1.43
0.51
0.35
Total Mass
Recovered
dbs/day")
3.20
1.00
0.35
0.34
0.71
1.67
2.32
1.54
0.35
1.08
1.52
0.86
0.44
the Vapor Phase Activated Carbon Scrubber Inlet.
891003T-mll
3-34
-------
possible to compare the indicator parameters to organic contaminants due to the
low and inconsistent influent and effluent concentrations of the indicator
parameters . The concentrations of both the influent and effluent at all of the
sites were typically low and the effluent concentration was often slightly
greater than the influent. As a result, overall percent removal of many of the
indicator parameters was either low or negative and inconsistent between sites,
which made it impossible to compare to organic compound removal efficiencies.
3-4.0 CONCLUSIONS
In general, the CERCLA sites sampled are providing high levels of treatment to
most inorganic and organic contaminants detected at the sites. Chemical
precipitation effectively treats most inorganic contaminants and both air
stripping and carbon adsorption individually provide effective removals of
organic contaminants. Many of the contaminants are being treated to their
detection limits prior to discharge. In addition, in those cases where the
discharge is to a POTW, the CERCLA wastewater discharge volumes and contaminant
concentrations are typically low relative to the total POTW treatment volume and
contaminant loading. It is therefore possible, that in those cases where the
discharge is to a POTW, the predicted treatment potential of the POTW is not
fully used. This is emphasized by the treatability data in the ORD treatability
data base which indicated that biological treatment, the technology used at a
majority of POTWs, is effective for organics at concentrations between 0 and
100 ng/£ (for those compounds evaluated) .
The day-to-day contaminant levels and treatment effectiveness in the
wastestreams at sites sampled for more than one day was generally consistent for
organics as well as inorganic contaminants. The inorganic data from Tyson's
dump is, however, an exception since the influent concentration for many of the
inorganic parameters was consistently lower than the effluent concentration.
The data is therefore questionable and should not be used as an indication of
the removal efficiency of inorganic contaminants .
The wastestreams at the CERCLA sites sampled varied in contamination type, the
ranges of concentrations , and the actual number of contaminants detected at each
site. The most frequently occurring contaminants detected at all of the sites
(both groundwater and leachate) were conventional and non- conventional
pollutants, which is to be expected. The most frequently occurring inorganic
parameters detected at the sites treating groundwater and at the sites treating
leachate were similar (zinc, sodium, manganese, boron, iron, and calcium). The
organic parameters, however, varied somewhat between sites. Inorganic
contaminant concentrations ranged from 8 fig/A to 3,495,000 ng/S. at leachate
sites and from 0.05 H&/H to 6,337,143 ng/Ji at groundwater sites. Organic
pollutants ranged from 3.85 x 10"4 to 2,316,700 ng/Jt at leachate sites and
10"6 pg/Jl to 58,017 MS/-2 at groundwater sites. The actual number of organic and
inorganic contaminants detected above the detection limit at individual sites
ranged from 35 to 65 at leachate sites and 17 to 74 at groundwater sites.
891003-mil
3-35
-------
AH of the samples collected from each of the CERC1A sites were analyzed for the
full ITD list of 443 organic and inorganic analytes. A summary of the percent
of ITD analytes detected at the sites and, of those compounds detected, the
percent on the RCRA Appendix VIII, TCL, SARA 110, and Priority Pollutant
contaminant lists is presented in Table 3-18.
Many of the organic contaminants detected at the leachate sites that are not on
the TCL were pesticides. This explains the low percentage of organics detected
at the leachate sites that are not on the TCL. In addition, most organic
contaminants that are not on the TCL and were detected at the leachate and
groundwater sites were detected at low concentrations (less than 500 /Jg//8 and
1,000 ng/£, respectively).
Of the inorganic parameters detected that are not on the TCL, most were the
semi-quantitative screened metals. Approximately 81% of the ITD list metals
detected are on the TCL whereas only 12% of the semi-quantitative screened
metals were on the TCL. Overall, the number of both organic and inorganic
contaminants detected at the CERCLA sites was much lower than the compounds
analyzed for from the ITD List (345 organics and 69 inorganics).
In general, concentrations of organic and inorganic contaminants at the
Stringfellow site stayed fairly consistent. The concentrations for most
contaminants in both classes of compounds did not fluctuate substantially and
the treatability of many contaminants remained high (i.e., greater than 90%)
during all events.
The treatment efficiency of the vapor phase activated carbon system at the
Chemdyne site was low (less than 60%) for many of the contaminants. Many
contaminants were, however, treated to their detection limits which indicates
that low percent removals were probably due to low influent concentrations
rather than low efficiencies.
The mass balance of the Chemdyne air stripper was within 20% for many compounds.
Differences in mass recovered from the mass discharged to the system was
probably due to various factors including discrepencies in the air and
wastewater flow rates, a high relative relative humidity, fluctuations in air
temperature and pressure, and analytical variations.
It was not possible to compare the removal efficiencies of organic contaminants
to the removal efficiency of indicator parameters due to the low influent and
effluent concentrations detected for the indicator parameters.
891003-mil
3-36
-------
TABLE 3-18
PERCENTAGE OF CONTAMINANTS DETECTED
FROM VARIOUS REGULATORY LISTS
Groundwater
Leachate
organic
inorganic
organic
inorganic
Percent of
ITD Listed
Contaminants
Detected
26%
81%
18%
43%
Percent of Contaminants Detected
on Various Regulatory Lists
Priority
TCL SARA Pollutant
59%
20%
51%
20%
63%
39%
48%
57%
50%
18%
43%
20%
44%
21%
39%
23%
891003T
006.0.0
3-37
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT A
SITE DESCRIPTIONS
891003-mil
-------
-------
BRIDGEPORT RENTAL - EPISODE 1222
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Bridgeport Rental and Oil Services (BROS) site is located on Cedar Swamp
Road at the divergence of Route 130 and 1-295 in Logan Township, Gloucester
County, NJ, approximately one mile east of the Town of Bridgeport, NJ and about
2 miles south of the Delaware River. The total area of the site is about
30 acres. The site includes a tank farm and a 12.7 acre lagoon that contains
waste oil and wastewater. The-area surrounding the BROS facility is
predominately rural and agricultural.
The BROS lagoon began to form in the 1940's when dumping of waste oil into a
sand and gravel excavation was initiated. From the 1940's to present, the
lagoon increased in size from 0.54 acres to 12.7 acres as various liquids and
oil accumulated. Presently the lagoon is 21 feet deep in some locations and the
bottom 13 feet of lagoon contents are in contact with the groundwater. The
lagoon contents consist of a layer of surface oil and scum 1 to 2 feet thick, a
middle aqueous layer approximately 10 feet thick, and a bottom layer of oily
sludge. Review of analytical data from the middle of the aqueous layer
indicated only low levels of contamination with 10-15 pollutants.
Remedial efforts at the BROS site have been divided into three separate contract
phases. Phase I consists of removal of all tanks and waste associated with the
tank farm and removal and on-site treatment of the aqueous phase liquid from the
lagoon. Phase I began in the summer of 1987 and is projected to be completed by
the end of 1987. Operation of the wastewater treatment system began only a few
weeks prior to this site visit.
The second contract, projected to cover approximately three years, includes L
removal and disposal of nonaqueous waste from the lagoon by either on-site or
off-site incineration and the final lagoon closure (backfill and revegetate). A
third contract will include an RI/FS for the purpose of determining the most
cost effective groundwater cleanup approach.
The present on-site treatment system for aqueous waste was designed by TAMS and
constructed by the U.S. Army Corps, of Engineers (COE). The system includes
oil/water separation, flocculation and sedimentation with chemical addition,
dissolved air flotation, multi-media filtration, and granular activated carbon
filtration. The treated wastewater is discharged to Little Timber Creek.
Separated oil will be disposed of in the same manner as the oil removed from the
lagoon. The system is projected to be used for treatment of aqueous phase
liquids encountered during cleanup of buried drums, incidental maintenance
pumping, and future groundwater cleanup.
Two previous removal actions to lower the liquid level of the lagoons before COE
involvement, included pumping of the aqueous phase liquid through a mobile
activated carbon treatment system.
4-90-61
Page 1
-------
-------
CHARLES GEORGE - EPISODE 1309
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Charles George Land Reclamation Trust (CGLRT) site is an inactive municipal
and industrial waste landfill, located on approximately 63 acres in the
southwestern corner of Tyngsborough, Massachusetts, and on seven adjoining acres
in the neighboring town of Dunstable. The site is in Middlesex County, about
60 miles northwest of Boston, Massachusetts, and 4 miles south of Nashua, New
Hampshire.
The landfill is bordered on the north and northwest of Blodgett-Cummings Road
and the Tyngsborough-Dunstable town boundary, on the east by the U.S. Route 3,
on the south by the Cannongate II condominium complex, and on the west by
Dunstable Road.
In the mid- to late 1950s, on-site waste disposal activities began near the
intersection of Dunstable and Blodgett-Cummings roads. The site served as the
Tyngsborough municipal dump, operated by a private contractor until 1973. The
site was acquired by Charles George, Sr., in 1967, and by CGLRT in 1971. In
1973, the Massachusetts DWPC issued CGLRT a permit to accept hazardous waste
(USEPA, 1985).
In 1976, the Town of Tyngsborough authorized the CGLRT to extend the landfill to
'the east, expanding its area from 38 to 63 acres" (NUS, 1986). In 1977, COM
designed a clay liner for the landfill to prevent downward migration of leachate
in the site's eastern and central portions. Previous investigations found, no
record of actual construction of a liner (NUS-RAMP, November 1983).
Hazardous wastes, including drummed and bulk VOCs and toxic metal sludges, were
known to have been disposed on-site from January 1973 to June 1976. The
quantity and burial locations of discarded wastes are not known. According to
the preliminary RI report, CGLRT violated DEQE regulations from 1978 to 1982
(NUS, 1986). VOCs were found in 1982 at water supply wells serving the
Cannongate condominium complex, located approximately 800 feet southeast of the
landfill. The DEQE closed these wells in July 1982. A temporary, aboveground
pipeline was installed to supply water to the complex. This water line froze
during December 1982. In 1983, the Massachusetts Attorney General, acting for
the DEQE, suspended use of the site as a landfill (USEPA, 1985).
.Two RODs concerning the CGLRT have been issued by USEPA, one in December 1983
and the other in July 1985. To address Operable Unit I, the USEPA installed a
temporary insulated pipeline under the ROD issued on December 29, 1983. A
permanent waterline connecting the complex to the Lowell municipal water supply
was required in the 1983 ROD. Under this ROD, the waterline may also serve as a
water supply to a limited number of private residences in the
Cannongate-Dunstable Road area, if necessary.
In 1983 and 1984, USEPA contracted for the installation of a .security fence
around portions of the landfill, regraded part of the landfill,. placed a soil
cover over exposed refuse, and installed 12 gas vents. Explorations during the
4-90-61
Page 2
-------
1984 preliminary RI disclosed the need for on-site source control measures. The
objectives of Operable Unit II were addressed and a source control
recommendation was presented in a subsequent source-oriented FS (NUS, 1985). As
a result, USEPA issued their second ROD on July 11, 1985, to install a flexible
membrane cap over the landfill surface, a leachate collection system, and
additional gas vents as primary contaminant source-control measures. Operable
Units III and IV are being addressed through a USEPA contract to Ebasco
initiated in June 1986.
4-90-61
Page 3
-------
CHEMDYNE-EPISODE 1807
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Chem-Dyne site is located in a northern section within the limits of the
City of Hamilton, Ohio. The site is bounded by a residential district, a
municipal park, the Ford Hydraulic Canal which flows to the Great Miami River,
and a railroad right-of-way adjacent to a sheet metal fabrication plant.
The Chem-Dyne site is believed to have begun receiving hazardous substances as
early as 1974. Additionally, Spray-Dyne, an affiliated company, produced ^~
antifreeze solution on-site by recycling chemical wastes and using virgin
chemicals. By 1976, Chem-Dyne was a rapidly growing corporation specializing
in storage, recycling, and disposing a wide variety of industrial chemical
waste. Chem-Dyne sold chemical fuels produced by mixing chemical wastes in
bulk storage tanks, open containers, and gravel-lined loading docks. Other
wastes were stored in drums and tanks (including at least one old leaking
railroad tank car) in buildings and outdoors.
In five years of operation, the facility accepted waste from approximately 200
generators. Materials handled included pesticides and pesticide residues,
chlorinated hydrocarbons, solvents, waste oils, plastics and resins, poly-
brominated biphenyls, polychlorinated biphenyls, flame retardants, acids and
caustics, heavy metal and cyanide sludges, and package laboratory chemicals,.
More than 300,000 drums and 300,000 gallons of bulk materials were on-site when
Chem-Dyne ceased operations.
Chem-Dyne operations resulted in uncontrolled releases of hazardous materials.
Mixing of liquid wastes was often done in open gravel-lined pits, releasing
noxious vapors into the atmosphere, and contaminating soil and groundwater.
Reportedly, 55-gallon drums were punctured and were allowed to leak,, or were'
dumped on the ground and into troughs and sewers. Wastes were frequently
spilled, and at one time, a large pool of waste reportedly covered one portion
of the site surface.
A number of environmental incidents were reported at the Chem-Dyne facility
during its operation, including at least five fish kills, a series of fires,
many odor complaints, and a fuming railroad tank car incident caused by improp-
er mixing of chemical wastes. Legal actions resulting from Chem-Dyne's han-
dling of wastes resulted in settlements with which Chem-Dyne did not comply.
Eventually, court action forced Chem-Dyne to stop operations, remove wastes
from the site, and clean up suspected soil and groundwater contamination.
The Chem-Dyne facility ceased operation in January 1980 when the state of Ohio
named a receiver to assume operations and respond to the problems at Chem-Dyne.
In 1981, the receivership ran short of funds to continue waste removal from the
site and stopped operation. USEPA began removal actions and initiated a site
remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS) in March 1982. Poten-
tially responsible parties (PRPs), generators of wastes left on-site, were also
identified and contacted to remove wastes and negotiate cleanup contributions.
6.90.22
0001.0.0
-------
As a result of the initial cleanup operations, all containerized surface waste
has not been removed from the site, and an RI and FS have been completed. The
RI indicated extensive soil contamination by priority pollutant acids and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), several of which are considered carcinogens.
Inorganic chemicals, semivolatile organic compounds, and pesticides were found
in the upper three feet of soils at the site while VOCs were found mainly in
the upper six feet of soil.
A hydrogeological investigation and chemical analyses of groundwater samples
conducted as part of the RI indicated that a contaminant consisting primarily
of VOCs is present in groundwater near the site and has the potential to affect
receptors in the near future. Aquifer characteristics suggest that, plume
contaminants could be taken in by a number of industrial production wells
located within a one-mile radius, resulting in near-term exposures due to
volatilization of contaminants within these industrial facilities from the use
of contaminated water. The city of Hamilton's contamination of drinking water
would result in long-term exposures due to contamination of the drinking water
supply.
RI sampling and observation also indicated extensive contamination of some of
the utilities and buildings on-site which present a future source of soil and
groundwater contamination and pose a current threat from direct contact or air
exposure.
The FS developed and evaluated remedial action alternatives to address environ-
mental problems as identified in the site RI. USEPA issued a
Record-of-Decision (ROD) on July 5, 1985, documenting the selection of a
remedial action alternative which has since been implemented. Remediation
includes source control measures and groundwater extraction, treatment by air
stripping, clarification, and vapor-phase carbon adsorption for air stripping
offgas discharge in part to the aquifer to increase the efficiency of the
extraction system and also to the Ford Canal.
6.90.22
0002.0.0
-------
GENEVA - EPISODE 1224
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Geneva Industries site is a. 13.5 acre tract located at 9334 Caniff Road in
Houston, Texas immediately adjacent to the limits of the city of South Houston.
The site is within one mile of Interstate Highway 45 and within two miles of
William P. Hobby Airport. The property is bound on the north by Caniff Road, on
the southwest by Easthaven Boulevard, and on the east by a Harris County Flood
Control Channel.
The site is an abandoned refinery which manufactured a variety of organic
compounds including biphenyl, polychlorinated, biphenyls (PCBs), phenyl phenol,
naptha, and Nos. 2 and 6 fuel oils from 1967 through 1978.
Prior to 1967, the property was used for petroleum exploration and production.
Geneva Industries began manufacturing biphenyl by distillation of toluene
dealkylation bottoms in June 1967, began .producing PCBs in June 1972, and
declared bankruptcy in November 1973. Since that time, four other corporations
owned and operated the Geneva facility, including:
Pilot Industries, February 1974 - December 1976
Intercoastal Refining, December 1976 - December 1980
Lonestar Fuel Co., December 1980 - May 1982
Fuhrmann Energy, May 1982 - Present
Operation of the facility ceased in September 1978 and was never resumed. The
current owner, Fuhrmann Energy, has salvaged much of the equipment onsite for
resale.
Records from the Texas Water Quality Board and the Harris County Pollution
Control district indicate that several citations were issued to the various
owners for unauthorized discharges of wastewater into the adjacent flood control
channel. These records also indicate that plant operation was marked by
numerous spills and process leaks and that housekeeping and disposal practices
deteriorated with time. As of 1981, the site contained processing tanks,
piping, and equipment, three open and one closed wastewater lagoon, a diked tank
area, several drum storage areas, a landfill, and possibly a landfarm.
A Planned Removal was performed by EPA during the period from October 1983 to
February 1984 to close out three onsite lagoons, remove all drummed waste on the
surface, remove all offsite soils containing greater than 50 ppm PCBs, install a
cap over all onsite soils containing greater than 50 ppm PCBs, and improve site
drainage. Approximately 3,400 cubic yards of contaminated soils and sludges,
550 drums, and 30 tons of asbestos were removed and transported to an approved
disposal facility in Emmelle, Alabama. Other removal actions to. plug abandoned
wells onsite and remove storage tank materials were performed in May and
September 1984, respectively.
A Cooperative Agreement for a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) for $630,000 was awarded by EPA to the State of Texas in December 1983.
4-90-61
Page ,4
-------
D'Appolonia, Inc., not IT Corporation, in association with Environmental
Research and Technology, Inc., and Rollins Environmental Services (TX) Inc., was
contracted by the State to conduct the RI/FS. The initial site work was
completed in September 1984, at which time it was determined that additional
field work would be required. An amendment to the grant for $300,000 was
awarded in March 1985 to investigate possible a seismic faulting at the site.
All field work was completed in October 1985.
The Remedial Investigation was completed in December 1985. The Feasibility
Study began in December 1984 and completed in April 1986. The long feasibility
study period was due to the need for the extensive fault investigation conducted
in September 1985. The detailed development and evaluation of remedial
alternatives could not be done until the effects of possible faulting across the
site could be determined.
Due to the temporary protective cap placed on the site during the 1984 Planned
Removal, on-site surface expressions of faulting were not discovered during the
site investigation. However, faulting in the vicinity of Geneva Industries has
been documented by the United States Geologic Survey. To further define the
potential for faulting at the site, an area survey was conducted to locate
surficial expressions of faulting within 1/2 mile of the site.
Wells M-5 and M-9 tap the shallow water and deep water aquifers, respectively.
Remediation efforts include plans to convert monitoring wells M-5 and M-9 to
extraction wells for a future pump and treat system. These two wells were the
recommended sample points for an EPA-ITD sampling effort.
4-90-61
Page 5
-------
GOLD COAST OIL - EPISODE 1242
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Gold Coast Oil Corporation (GCO) site is a 2-acre parcel of flat, sandy land
located at 2835 SW 71st Avenue, Miami, Florida. The site has no distinguishable
surface drainage and is enclosed by a fence with a locking gate. It is bordered
on the north and west by railroad tracks, on the south by a group of small
businesses and on the east by SW 71st Avenue. The site operations are currently
inactive. The Coral Gables Canal is approximately 850 feet south of the site on
the other side of the small businesses. The canal drains to the Biscayne bay
and on to the Atlantic Ocean.
The site property is owned by Seabord Systems Railroad Company, which is now
known as CSX Transportation, who leased the property to Gold Coast Oil
Corporation in the early 1970s. Gold Coast-Oil, along with Solvent Extraction,
Incorporated were in the business of distilling mineral spirits and lacquer
thinner and reclaiming solvents. All waste generated by the .solvent recovery
operations were disposed or stored on site; no waste was shipped off-site during
the 11 years 'of operation. Slowdown from the operations sprayed directly onto
the ground, and 53 drums of sludge-contaminated soil were stored in the
southwest area of the site near the distillation unit. Still-bottomwaste from
the distilling operation was pumped into a tank truck for storage. There were
also 2500 corroded and leaking drums containing sludge from the distilling
operation, contaminated soils, and paint sludges located on site, along with
large storage tanks of hazardous waste.
Representatives of the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources
Management (DERM) took samples of illegally dumped and stored sludge, and from
on-site wells at the Gold Coast Oil site on April 22, 1980. DERM issued a
complaint for temporary, permanent, mandatory and prohibitory injunctive relief,
civil damages, and civil penalties against Gold Coast Oil, on January 14, 1981.
On March 16, 1981, the complaint was amended to include CSX Transportation, the
owner of the property.
The DERM reported the site to the EPA in early May 1981. The EPA Surveillance
and Analyses Division (SAD) conducted a sampling investigation of the site in
June 1981. The SAD sampled groundwater from existing wells, soil, and waste
material. In August 1981, the EPA filed a complaint against Gold Coast Oil
along with a Consent Agreement and Final Order. In the fall of 1981, the Gold
Coast Oil site was submitted to the EPA for inclusion on the Interim National
Priority List. Two hazard ranking scores by Ecology and Environment's (E&E)
Field Investigation Team (FIT) was 46:51.
Also, in October 1981, the FDER conducted a RCRA interim status inspection and
reported the results to EPA. On December 1, 1981, EPA filed a Default Order
against Gold Coast Oil for failing to file a-timely answer to the complaint
issued previously and for non-payment of the civil penalty imposed. In
December 1981, an earth resistivity survey by FIT IV.was conducted. In early
1982, Dade County, with the assistance of FDER, began to prepare an enforcement
case against the property owner, the CSX Transportation Company, as well as the
4-90-61
Page 6
-------
Gold Coast Oil Corporation. CSX Transportation was also advised that the EPA
was going to undertake immediate removal of.the hazardous waste on-site under
the authority of CERC1A. Neither of these actions were undertaken because in
June of 1982, CSX Transportation evicted Gold Coast Oil from the property and
agreed to voluntarily clean up the site. In July 1982, CSX Transportation
submitted for approval a cleanup and disposal plan to clean up the site's
surface. *
The cleanup action of the surface contaminants at the GCO site was undertaken
the following month. The clean-up, conducted by Chemical Waste Management under
contract to the Railroad, involved removing the drums, emptying the storage
tanks and excavating and removing contaminated soils to a depth of approximately
six inches.
In March 1983, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation requested that
EPA take the lead at this site, and in September 1983 the GCO site was added to
the National Priority List with a 46.5 hazardous ranking score.
/
In June 1983, a Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) was developed by NUS
Corporation under an EPA contract. In March 1984, BCM Eastern Incorporated,
consultants for the PRP Steering Committee, produced an "Environmental
Investigation of the Gold Coast Site". In June 1984 a "Draft Remedial
Alternatives Evaluation Report for the Gold Coast Oil Corporation Site" was
produced by Engineering and Science under an EPA contract. In May 1985 BCM
Eastern submitted a "Selection of Remedial Approach" report, again a report for
the PRP Steering Committee.
The Biscayne Aquifer Study area-wide groundwater Record of Decision was signed
by the Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response in
September 1985. The cleanup levels established as a result of that study and
that Record of Decision have been revised and approved by the Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation for the Gold Coast Oil site.
The groundwater data associated with the site indicate an area of significant
contamination in the northeast corner of the site. The levels of contaminants
have generally decreased across the site except for the levels of
trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene which have increased in this northeast
corner. The levels of metals in the groundwater are considered to be at normal
environmental levels since they are relatively constant throughout the entire
area of the site. Wells M-8 and M-13 are considered representative of the area
of highest levels of contamination and are recommended sample points for an
EPA-ITD sampling effort.
4-90-61
Page 7
-------
HYDE PARK - EPISODE 1220
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Hyde Park landfill is approximately 15 acres in area and is located
northwest of the City of Niagara Falls in the northwest corner of the Town of
Niagara. It is"immediately surrounded by several industrial facilities and
property owned by the Power Authority for the State of New York. There is a
residential neighborhood to the northwest and south of the landfill. The
Niagara River is located 2,000 feet to the northwest.
From 1954 until 1975, Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), then known as
Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation, disposed of approximately 80,000 tons
of chemical wastes in the Hyde Park Landfill. These wastes included chloro-
benzenes, hexachlorocyclopentadiene (C-56) and trichlorophenols. Previous
chemical analyses have identified 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in the
Hyde Park wastes.
In 1979, EPA and, in 1980, the State of New York Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) sued OCC to clean up the on-site and off-site contami-
nation resulting from leakage of chemical wastes from the landfill. Negotia-
tions, were held among all the parties and on April 30, 1982, a Stipulation and
Judgement approving the Hyde Park Settlement Agreement was approved by the
United States District Court.
The Settlement Agreement provided that OCC (1) conduct surveys and tests
(Aquifer Survey Program) to determine how far and how deep groundwater had
carried chemicals away from the Hyde Park Landfill and (2) assess ways to
contain and/or clean up this contamination through the use of Requisite Remedial
Technology (RRT). OCC completed this survey program in December 1983 and
presented its findings to the federal and state governments. The findings
stated that a two-phase "plume" of chemicals is migrating away from the land-
fill: a non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) and an aqueous phase liquid (APL).
NAPL is composed of many chemicals that do not dissolve readily in water. It
moves more slowly than APL through soil and rock, and is more dense than water.
APL also is composed of many chemicals; however, the chemicals are dissolved in
groundwater and tend to be carried along with it. The APL plume has spread
further away from the landfill than the NAPL plume.
As required by the Settlement Agreement, OCC began a RRT Study in October 1983
to determine which remedies were most appropriate to clean up and/or contain the
chemicals that had escaped and were continuing to .escape from the Hyde- Park
Landfill. OCC submitted, its RRT report to the EPA and NYSDEC in May 1984 and
the agencies responded to the report in September 1984. Since that time, the
EPA, NYSDEC, and OCC have had many meetings to resolve outstanding issues and
concerns raised by OCC's report and the agencies' review Of that report. The
RRT ultimately agreed to by the parties is described in a document entitled
Stipulation on Requisite Remedial Technology Program submitted to the United
States District Court for approval on November 26, 1985.
To date, OCC has installed a barrier collection system around the perimeter of
the landfill and capped the site. Leachate intercepted by the barrier drain
4-90-61
Page 8
-------
system collects in two wet-wells located at the two western corners fof the
landfill. The leachate is pumped from the wet-wells to a holding lagoon where
separation of APL and NAPL occurs. The APL is transferred from the lagoon to a
tank truck several times each day. The truck hauls the waste to OCC's off-site
pretreatment facility. The NAPL removed to an on-site storage area consisting
of four 10,000 gallon railroad tank cars surrounded by a clay dike. Presently,
OCC is requesting authorization to incinerate the NAPL at an incineration
facility located at its plant on Buffalo Avenue in Niagara Falls.
4-90-61
Page 9
-------
LOVE CANAL - EPISODE 1219
SITE DESCRIPTION
Love Canal is an abandoned landfill once owned by Hooker Chemicals (now
Occidental Chemical Corporation) where 21,800 tons of both drummed and undrummed
liquid and solid chemical wastes were disposed from 1942 to 1953. Love Canal is
now a contained area controlled by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) since August 1978.
NYSDEC installed a French drain around the dump boundary and capped the site in
1979. Leachate and groundwater intercepted by the drain collects in four
collection chambers located along the collection system. In the northern and
central sectors of the canal, vertical centrifugal pumps transfer leachate from
the collection chambers to six underground storage cells (30,000-gallon total
capacity) located behind the leachate treatment plant. Horizontal centrifugal
-pumps transfer leachate collected in the southern sector to a 25,00,0-gallon
in-ground holding ,tank at a rate of 300 gpm.
Raw leachate from the holding tank and the storage cells is pumped to a
2,000-gallon fiberglass storage tank located inside the treatment building. A
double-diaphragm pump transfers the water from the fiberglass tank to the
15,600-gallon rectangular clarifier that contains redwood flights and weirs.
Equipment is available for the addition of coagulants and flocculants, however,
it is not used. Every other month, sludge is removed from the clarifier to a
fiberglass holding tank. The effluent from the clarifier flows by gravity to a
2,000-gallon fiberglass filter feed tank. Two double-diaphragm pumps transfer
the water at a rate of 160 gpm from the filter feed tank through two separate
feed lines to 50 /im polypropylene filter bags (a series of two in each line).
Filtrate from the filters combines before going to two Calgon carbon adsorbers
operated in series. Treated wastewater is discharged from the treatment system
to the City's sewer at an average rate of 40,000 gallons per operating day.
Sludge removed from the clarifier is transferred to a 1,500-gallon sludge
holding tank. Supernatant from the sludge holding tank is recycled back to the
filter feed tank, and the settled sludge is pumped to one of the four on-site
outdoor storage tanks, each with a 10,000-gallon capacity. Three of the four
outdoor sludge storage tanks are unlined: one is epoxy-lined. The Love Canal
pretreatment system produces approximately 150 gallons per month of sludge,
which is being stored on-site until NYSDEC officials can find a suitable means
for its disposal.
All of the treatment system piping at Love Canal was teflon-lined, and the
system itself was designed by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada.
The entire pretreatment system at Love Canal is closed to the atmosphere, and
55-gallon carbon canisters scrub the vented gases from the treatment plant unit
operations, including the raw leachate holding tank, the clarifier, the filter
feed tank, and the sludge holding tank.
4-90-61
.Page 10
-------
The current average wastewater discharge from Love Canal is 40,000 gallons per
operating day. During the summer, discharge occurs approximately once every two
weeks; during the spring, discharge is as often as twice per week. The volume
of discharge has decreased from 4.5 to 2.5 million gallons per year since
capping of the site was completed.
The pollutants identified in previous studies at Love Canal are Lindane
(33 percent), and chlorinated hydrocarbons (67 percent) such as toluene,
benzene, heptachlor, di-octyl phthalates, chloroform, methylene chloride,
tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, total phenols, and chlorobenzene.
4-90-61
Page 11
-------
NYANZA CHEMICAL - EPISODE 1310
SITE DESCRIPTION
The 35-acre Nyanza site is located on Megunko Road in the Town of Ashland,
Middlesex County, Massachusetts, approximately 35 miles west of Boston. The
site was the location of chemical dye manufacturing facilities for 61 years and
is currently occupied by several small industrial enterprises. The current
owners are MCL Development Corporation (MCL) and Edward Camille.
From 1917 to 1977, the site was occupied by several companies involved in the
manufacture of textile dyes and dye intermediates. During that period, several
types of chemical wastes were disposed in various on-site locations. These
wastes included partially treated process wastewater; chemical sludge from the
wastewater treatment process; solid process wastes (e.g., chemical precipitate
and filter cakes) in drums; solvent recovery distillation residue in drums; and
off-specification products. Process chemicals that could not be recycled or
reused (e.g., phenol, nitrobenzene, and mercuric sulfate) were also disposed
on-site. The most recent dye manufacturing company to occupy the site, Nyanza,
Inc., acquired the property in 1965.
The first type of contamination linked to Nyanza was mercury, discovered in the
Sudbury River in 1972 (CDM, 1982). From 1972 through 1977, the Massachusetts
Departments of Public Health and Water Pollution Control (DPH and DWPC) cited
Nyanza, Inc., for several contamination problems associated with dumping
activities. In 1974, Camp, Dresser, and McKee (CDM), working for Nyanza, Inc.,
devised plans to control groundwater contamination on the Nyanza property;
however, implementation did not occur. Nyanza, Inc., ceased business in 1978
due to financial difficulties.
Edward Camille, a private citizen, acquired the property from Nyanza, Inc., in
1978. In 1979, the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE)
stayed plans, on behalf of Mr. Camille, to complete the groundwater pollution
control activities, pending further investigation by the newly established DEQE
Division of Hazardous Waste.
Since 1972, several investigations have been prompted by contamination present
at or originating from Nyanza. JBF Scientific Corporation conducted a 1972
Sudbury River investigation that revealed mercury contamination paused by
uncontrolled sludge disposal at the Nyanza, Inc., property. Tfcfe.-.CDM groundwater
pollution control program designed in 1974 for Nyanza, Inc.,. included a site
investigation aimed at source identification. In 1979, Mr. Camille hired
Connorstone Engineering, Inc., to complete the CDM pollution control program.
In 1980, the DEQE released a Preliminary Site Assessment Report summarizing the
site history and findings of previous investigations at the site (DEQE, October
1980).
In 1981, MCL acquired a portion of the property. MCL hired Connorstone Engi-
neering, Inc., and Carr Research Laboratory, Inc., to characterize soil compo-
sition and locate sludge deposits.
4-90-61
Page 12
-------
The Nyanza site was included on the original National Priority List (NPL) of
Superfund sites in 1982. A preliminary Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) was
prepared for EPA by CDM in 1982. To expedite remediation, the RI/FS for Nyanza
was divided into two phases, or "operable units." At that time, some sampling
and analysis had been performed, and it became evident that site remediation
would ultimately address two distinct problems: surficial deposits of sludges
and sediments contaminated primarily by heavy metals, and groundwater contami-
nated primarily by organic chemicals. The surficial sludge and sediment problem
was designated Phase I, or Operable Unit I, and primarily encompassed source
identification and control. In 1984, EPA authorized NUS Corporation (NUS) to
complete an RI/FS for Operable Unit I (NUS, March 1985).
A Record of Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit I was signed in September 1985.
The ROD calls for excavation of nine localized areas of contamination; solidi-
fication of the excavated sludges, sediments, and soils; and placement of those
materials on the "Hill" area in the southern part of the site. A diversion
trench will also be constructed around the southern end of the capped area to
divert surface water flow and lower the groundwater table within the capped
area.
In 1986, EPA authorized CDM to conduct additional field investigations to define
source locations and design the remedial action stipulated in the ROD. The
design is currently underway, and remediation of some contaminated areas is in
progress.
After further investigation, EPA elected to divide the remaining problems at
Nyanza into two additional operable units. Operable Unit II addresses ground-
water contamination and migration. This study is the focus of Nyanza II.
4-90-61
Page 13
-------
REILLY TAR - EPISODE 1239
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Reilly Tar and Chemical Company site occupies 80 acres of land located in
St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The plant site, called the Republic Creosote Works,
is located west of Gorham, Republic, and Louisiana Avenues, south of
32nd Street, east of Pennsylvania Avenue, and north of Walker Street. The City
of St. Louis Park purchased the land from Reilly in 1972. The St. Louis Park
Housing and Redevelopment Authority currently controls the site. The City is
contiguous to the City of Minneapolis and exhibits a similar population density.
Currently, the "site is a park with a portion of it developed with condominiums.
It is located in the midst of a residential area with some small industry.
From 1918 to 1972 the company operated a coal tar distillation facility and wood
preserving plant. Its primary production was creosote. The chemical compounds
associated with this process are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and
phenolics. The release to the environment of these compounds occurred during
the coal distillation process and from materials stored on the site. The
materials were apparently dumped into a well, referred to as W-23, which
penetrated to the Mt. Simon/Hinckley Aquifer, a depth of about 900 feet. The
well was cleaned out by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to a depth
of 866 feet. Coal tar was removed down to a depth of 740 feet. Wastes
containing coal tar and its distillation by-products were discharged, as a
matter of disposal practice, overland into ditches that emptied into a peat bog
south of the site. This practice, according to Reilly, occurred from 1917 to
1939. In 1940 and 1941 Reilly installed a wastewater treatment plant and
discharged the effluent into the bog south of the site. The values of both
phenolics and oil and grease in the discharge water varied typically from 100 to
1,000 milligrams per liter. This discharge continued for the duration of
Reilly's operation. The peat bog has retained contamination that was discharged
over the years and, as is explained below, is now a major source of groundwater
contamination.
In 1972, the plant was dismantled and the land sold to the City of St. Louis
Park. In 1973,• a storm water runoff collection system was built which fed into
a lined pond on the site. The pond discharges into a drain which is routed to
another pond off-site before it eventually discharges into Minnehaha Creek. The
City of St. Louis Park (SLP) monitors the discharge into the creek.
Construction of a block of condominiums on the northern part of the site began
in 1976. At this time, no further construction is underway, although plans for
new development of the site are pending by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority. All excavation of material has been inspected by the State and if
contaminated, the soils were disposed of.
There are three conceptual operable units involved with the Reil.ly Tar Remedial
response. These include: (1) restoration of drinking water supply to St. Louis
Park, (2) containment or treatment of groundwater in contaminated aquifers, and
(3) source control of the bog and contaminated soil at the site.
In August 1981, the MPCA was awarded a cooperative agreement to investigate Well
W23, and to perform a feasibility study for restoration of drinking water.
4-90-61
Page 14
-------
During that study, the State removed coal tar deposits from Well W23 that were a
source of groundwater contamination. The well itself is now clean although some
residual contamination probably remains in the aquifers penetrated by the well.
Presently, there are two extraction wells that alternately pump contaminated
groundwater to an on-site pretreatment facility. The wastestream is pumped to a
sand filter (iron removal) prior to discharge to a granular activated carbon
unit. Treated effluent from the carbon unit flows to a 1.5 million gallon
holding tank where approximately 95 percent of the water is discharged to the
drinking water supply for the City. The remaining 5 percent is discharged to
the City's sewer system.
4-90-61
Page 15
-------
STRINGFELLOW ACID PITS - EPISODE 1221
SITE DESCRIPTION
Stringfellow Acid Pit was operated by Stringfellow Quarry Co. from 1956 to 1972
as a hazardous waste disposal facility. The landfill disposal site was permit-
ted by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (R¥QCB). About
34 million gallons of wastes, mostly from metal finishing, electroplating, and
DDT production, were deposited on approximately 17 acres of the site. In 1969
and 1978, excessive rainfall caused the ponds used for solar evaporation to
overflow, spreading contamination into the nearby town of Glen Avon. In July
1980, the RWQCB advocated total removal of all solids and liquids but the funds
were not available. In December 1980, RWQCB selected an interim plan that
included installation of channels to divert surface water, a gravel drain and a
network of wells for monitoring and extraction, and a clay core barrier dam
downgradient to ,stop subsurface leachate migration.
California placed Stringfellow at the top of the California priority list. The
State conducted a study in compliance with the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (the National Contingency Plan or NCP) to
obtain CERCLA funds. The results of the study indicated that on-site management
was more cost effective than total removal.
On July 22, 1983, Lee Thomas, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), signed a Record of Decision (ROD) which
endorsed the State's request for funds for both existing activities and proposed
actions. The interim actions authorized in the ROD were:
o removal of DDT contaminated material
o operation of extraction wells upgradient of the clay barrier to
protect the barrier
o fencing the entire site to prevent entry
o erosion control to prevent destruction of a clay cap
The state also requested EPA to lead a fast track Remedial Investigation/Feasi-
bility Study (RI/FS) while the Department of Health Services completed the
long-term RI/FS.
As a result of the fast track RI/FS, a pretreatment system was installed to
treat the groundwater before its discharge to the Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority. The series of extraction wells transfer two groundwater streams from
the contaminated canyon area to the field storage tanks. On-site groundwater
(Stream A), known to contain metal compounds and organics, is transferred from
the field storage tanks to one of four equalization tanks (each with a
12,000-gallon capacity) at the on-site treatment plant. Once equalization of
Stream A occurs, Stream A proceeds to a 400-gallon capacity rapid mix tank where
lime and caustic soda are added to aid precipitation and to control
acidity/alkalinity, and polymer is added to aid floe formation. The chemically
treated and mixed stream flows to two parallel-operating clarifiers.
4-90-61
Page 16
-------
The thickened sludge is pumped from the clarifiers to the sludge holding tanks,
and the clarified effluent flows to two gravity sand filters operating in
parallel. Each filter has a 7.6 square foot area, and the sand is about three
feet deep. Wastewater from the sand filters is transferred to the 500-gallon
Stream A filter effluent tank.
Groundwater from mid-canyon (Stream B), which contains mostly organic compounds,
is transferred from the field storage tanks to one of three equalization tanks
(12,000-gallon capacity each) located at the on-site treatment plant. Stream A
effluent from the 500-gallon filter effluent tank is blended with Stream B
before discharging to activated carbon adsorption vessels. The two carbon
adsorption vessels each have a 10-ton capacity for granular activated carbon and
are operated in series with a third vessel functioning as a transfer tank.
Effluent from the carbon adsorption vessels is transferred to one of four final
effluent storage tanks (80,000-gallon total capacity), before it is discharged
to the sewer at an average rate of 870,000 gallons per month. As necessary,
effluent from these storage tanks is used as backwash and other plant utility
water.
Sludge is pumped from the clarifiers to two 11,000-gallon sludge holding tanks."
The sludge from the two sludge holding tanks is fed to two plate-and-frame
filter presses. Depending on the pollutant content, the filtrate from the
filter press operation can be recycled to either the Stream A influent equal-
ization tanks, the Stream B influent equalization tanks, or the Stream A filter
effluent tank. Usually, the filtrate is pumped to the Stream A equalization
tanks. The sludge cake is discharged into containers and is hauled off-site by
a contractor for disposal at a RCRA approved Class I disposal site as hazardous
waste.
As part of the Stringfellow discharge permit, the effluent must be tested prior
to any discharge. Currently, the facility is allowed to fill two storage tanks
simultaneously, but is only required to test one tank.
The pretreatment system located at Stringfellow operates five days per week
during the daylight hours.
4-90-61
Page 17
-------
STRINGFELLOW ACID PITS - EPISODE 1240
SITE DESCRIPTION
Stringfellow Acid Pit was operated by Stringfellow Quarry Co. from 1956 to 1972
as a hazardous waste disposal facility. The landfill disposal site was permit-
ted by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). About
34 million gallons of wastes, mostly from metal finishing, electroplating, and
DDT production, were deposited on approximately 17 acres of the site. In 1969
and 1978, excessive rainfall caused the ponds used for solar evaporation to
overflow, spreading contamination into the nearby town of Glen Avon. In July
1980, the RWQCB advocated total removal of all solids and liquids but funds were
not available. In December 1980, RWQCB selected an interim plan that included
installation of channels to divert surface water, a gravel drain,.and a network
of wells for monitoring and extraction, and a clay core barrier dam downgradient
to stop subsurface leachate migration.
California placed Stringfellow at the top of the California priority list. The
State conducted a study in compliance with the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (National Contingency Plan (NCP)) to
obtain CERCLA funds. The results of the study indicated that on-site management
was more cost effective than total removal.
On July 22, 1983, Lee Thomas, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), signed a Record of Decision (ROD) which
endorsed the State's request for funds for both existing activities and proposed
actions. The interim actions authorized in the ROD were:
o removal of DDT contaminated material
o operation of extraction wells upgradient of the clay barrier to
protect the barrier
o fencing the entire site to prevent entry
o erosion control to prevent destruction of a clay cap
The State also requested EPA to lead a fast track Remedial Investigation/Feasi-
bility Study (RI/FS) while the Department of Health Services completed the
long-term RI/FS.
As a result of the fast track RI/FS, a pretreatment system was installed to
treat the groundwater before its discharge to the Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority. The series of extraction wells transfer two groundwater streams from
the contaminated canyon area to the field storage tanks. On-site groundwater
(Stream A), known to contain metal compounds and organics, is transferred from
the field storage tanks to one of four equalization tanks (each with a
12,000-gallon capacity) at the on-site treatment plant. Once equalization of
Stream A occurs, Stream A proceeds to a 400-gallon capacity rapid mix tank where
lime and caustic soda are added to aid precipitation and to control
4-90-61
Page 18
-------
acidity/alkalinity, and polymer is added to aid floe formation. The chemically
treated and mixed stream flows to two parallel-operating clarifiers.
The thickened sludge is pumped from the clarifiers to the sludge holding tanks,
and the clarified effluent flows to two gravity sand filters operating in
parallel. Each filter has a 7.6 square foot area, and the sand is about three
feet deep. Wastewater from the sand filters is transferred to the 500-gallon
Stream A filter effluent tank.
Groundwater from mid-canyon (Stream B), which contains mostly organic compounds,
is transferred from the field storage tanks to one of three equalization tanks
(12,000-gallon capacity each) located at the on-site treatment plant. Stream A
effluent from the 500-gallon filter effluent tank is blended with Stream B
before discharging to activated carbon adsorption vessels. The two carbon
adsorption vessels each have a 10-ton capacity for granular activated carbon and
are operated in series with a third vessel functioning as a transfer tank.
Effluent from the carbon adsorption vessels is transferred to one of four final
effluent storage tanks (80,000-gallon total capacity), before it is discharged
to the sewer at an average rate of 870,000 gallons per month. As necessary,
effluent from these storage tanks is used as backwash and other plant utility
water.
Sludge is pumped from the clarifiers to two 11,000-gallon sludge holding tanks.
The sludge from the two sludge holding tanks is fed to two plate-and-frame
filter presses. Depending on the pollutant content, the filtrate from the
filter press operation can be recycled to either the Stream A influent equal-
ization tanks, the Stream B influent equalization tanks, or the Stream A filter
effluent tank. Usually, the filtrate is pumped to the Stream A equalization
tanks. The sludge cake is discharged into containers and is hauled off-site by
a contractor for disposal at a RCRA approved Class I disposal site as hazardous
waste.
As part of the Stringfellow discharge permit, the effluent must be tested prior ,
to any discharge. Currently, the facility is allowed to fill two storage tanks
simultaneously, but is only required to test one tank.
The pretreatment system located at Stringfellow operates five days per week
during the daylight hours.
A one-day sampling episode was conducted by E.G. Jordan Co. at the Stringfellow
site on November 3, 1987. The decision was made at that time to return for a
supplemental five-day sampling episode if permission could be obtained. Upon
receipt of permission, Jordan personnel conducted the sampling as outlined in
this report.
4-90-61
Page 19
-------
SYLVESTER - EPISODE 1325
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Gilson Road hazardous waste dump site is located in the City of Nashua, New
Hampshire, off Route 111, in the south easterly corner of that community. The
6-acre site had been used as a sand borrow pit for an undetermined number of
years. During the late 1960s, the operator of the pit began an unapproved and
illegal waste disposal operation, apparently intending to fill the excavation.
Household refuse, demolition materials, chemical sludges, and hazardous liquid
chemicals all were.dumped at the site at various times. The household refuse
and demolition material were usually buried, while the sludges and hazardous
liquids were either mixed with the trash or were allowed to percolate into the
ground adjacent to the old sand pit. Some hazardous liquids were also stored in
steel drums which were either buried or placed on the ground surface.
The illegal dumping at the site was first discovered in late 1970. After
several court appearances, and court actions, an injunction was issued in 1976
which ordered the removal of all materials from the site. This injunction was
ignored by the operator.
The first indication that the illegal dumping had included hazardous wastes came
in November 1978 when State personnel observed drums being stored at the site.
A court order was issued in October 1979 prohibiting all further disposal of
hazardous wastes on the site.
It is impossible to estimate the total quantities of waste materials discarded
at the site. However, it has been documented that over 800,000 gallons of
hazardous waste were discarded there during a ten month period in 1979.
In 1981, initial investigations showed that there were high concentrations of
heavy metals and volatile and extractable organics in the groundwater under the
site. The contamination formed a plume in the groundwater which was moving from
the site toward Lyle Reed Brook at the rate of 0.8 to 1.6 feet per day.
The Gilson Road hazardous waste site has received remedial action under the
Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) since
November, 1981. EPA used CERCLA emergency funds to install a ground water
interception and recirculation system. This system was operated until October,
1982 when a slurry wall was' completed. The State of New Hampshire developed a
remedial investigation and feasibility study in January, 1982 and a supplemental
study providing costs associated with various groundwater treatment rates in
July, 1982. A Record of Decision was signed in July, 1982 which approved the
installation of the slurry wall and pilot studies.
Upon completion of the slurry wall, a pilot treatment plant was constructed and
operated for several months. The data from this pilot study resulted in a
recommendation to construct a treatment plant capable of removing 90 percent of
the hazardous constituents within the slurry wall. This design was based on
evaluating the present and potential hazards to human health and environmental
targets previously identified in the risk assessment portion-of the feasibility
4-90-61
Page 20
-------
study and supplement. A subsequent design modified to reduce operation and
maintenance costs, but still capable of 90 percent removal is presently
operating at the site.
The treatment system includes chemical precipitation, filtration, and air
stripping before the waste stream splits. Approximately 250 gpm is reinjected
through recharge trenches inside the slurry wall and the remaining flow
(~ 50 gpm) receives biological treatment before reinjection to the groundwater
through trenches outside the slurry wall.
4-90-61
Page 21
-------
TIME OIL - EPISODE 1804
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Time Oil Site's history includes waste oil recycling processes and paint and
lacquer thinner manufacturing. The City of Tacoma maintains a treatment system
for a production well (Well 12A) near the Time Oil Site. Studies associated
with Well 12A resulted in the development of the present treatment system at the
Time Oil Site. Operation of the Well 12A treatment system by the City of Tacoma
continues on a seasonal basis to protect the wellfield.
Because the remedial investigation completed in late 1982 identified a general
source area only and not a specific site, EPA authorized in December 1982 a
study of historical solvent use and disposal practices in the suspect area.
Records of past investigations by the Tacoma/Pierce County Health Department,
Tacoma Water Division and the State Department of Ecology were reviewed and
interviews were conducted with owners of numerous businesses in the area. A
follow-up study focused on the historical uses and disposal of
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane in the vicinity of Well 12A. These studies reduced
both the number and location of potential sources of the contamination.
In mid-May 1983, EPA authorized a supplemental remedial investigation to define
further the extent of groundwater contamination and to attempt to locate the
source. Four monitoring wells were installed and these, as well as the
previously installed monitoring wells, were sampled several times between July
and November. One of the new wells (near the Time Oil, Fleetline and Burlington
Northern property) showed levels of trichloroethylene, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
and 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene in the low parts per million (ppm) range;
substantially higher than detected in other wells.
S
With the apparent source area narrowed down substantially, EPA obtained air and
near surface soil samples along the Burlington Northern railroad spur adjacent
to the Time Oil plant. Air sampling results showed very low levels of
contaminants, but soil samples were very high in trichloroethylene and
1,1,2,2,-tetrachloroethane.
Research into the past ownership and activities on these properties indicated
that waste oil and solvent reclamation processes were used and that some of the
spent filter cake was used to build the railroad spur'. The use of the Time Oil
site for oil recycling and related operations dates back to 1927 when
William Palin began operations under the name of Palin and Son. In 1933, the
business name was changed to National Oil and Paint. The two main activities of
the businesses were waste oil recycling and paint and lacquer thinner
manufac tur ing.
The waste oil recycling process consisted of collecting waste oil in a large
tank, adding chemicals such as sulfuric acid, and pressurizing and heating the
contents of the vessel. This process resulted in the formation for a tar-like
sludge on the bottom of the tank which was removed and disposed of. Absorbents
and clay materials were also added to the oil. The sludge was filtered from the
oil, and the resulting filter cake was disposed of or stored'in various piles on
the site. Some of this sludge was also used for fill around the site.
4-90-61
Page 22
-------
The paint and lacquer thinner manufacturing .involved the use of many solvents
that were stored on the site in barrels which may have leaked their contents
into the soil.
Prior to purchase of the property by Time Oil, Inc., in 1964, the remaining
barrels and drums of solvent were removed from the site. After Time Oil
purchased the property, operations continued under the name National Oil and
Paint until 1972. During this period, National Oil was involved only in waste
oil recycling. Waste sludges and filter cakes were not known to be stored on
the site during this period.
In 1972, Time Oil leased the facilities to Golden Penn, Inc. Golden Penn
operated on the site until 1976, before going out of business as a result of a
destructive fire. In 1975 and 1976, Golden Penn was ordered by the State of
Washington to clean up the site by removing some of the filter cake and spilled
oil from the ground.
In 1976, Time Oil resumed operation at the site. Since then their operation has
been limited to canning oil brought to the site in bulk containers. In 1982,
the Burlington Northern Railroad spur was extended by Time Oil to its present
length so that oil could be delivered by tanker car. During the construction of
the spur, some of the filter cake or sludge material stored on the site was used
in the roadbed.
During the remedial investigation, the extent of soil and groundwater
contamination near the Time Oil plant was explored by means of surface soil
samples, shallow and deep soil borings and monitoring wells.
Chemical data for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and tetrachloroethylene taken from
soil borings along the spur and along a North-South line and data for
trichloroethylene shows these compounds are the ones of primary interest because
they are the contaminants at Well 12A. Many others, not found at Well 12A, were
also detected at much lower concentrations.
Along the east-west line of borings, high values of soil contamination are
located along the spur adjacent to the western Time Oil building and continuing
for a distance of at least 150 feet west of that building. Measured
concentrations of the contaminants is greater than 3,000 parts per billion (ppb)
of soil to depths of about 25 feet. Highest concentrations were found near the
surface at levels up to 1000 parts per million (ppiri) of soil.
Along the north-south soil boring line, soil contamination concentrations to
about 3,000 ppb of soil were measured to a depth of about 20 feet on the north
end of the Fleetline property.
Continuity between this near surface soil contamination and that in the aquifer
was established. The total quantity of solvents contained in the soil from the
ground surface to the groundwater level was grossly estimated at about 1500 Ibs.
Groundwater contamination was found along the east-west line,of borings in the
same boreholes as the major soil contamination, Levels ranged up to about
4-90-61
Page 23
-------
11,000 ppb of water. Along the north-south line of borings, levels up to
863,000 ppb were measured under the Fleetline property. This southward
displacement of the highest aquifer contamination is likely to have resulted
from the previous pumping action of the wellfield.
Prior to startup of the Well 12A treatment system in July 1983, Well 12A had
been shutdown since mid 1981, except for brief periods of operation for water
sampling. However, other wells in the wellfield had been being operated on
demand.
The approximate contours of 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane that existed at the time
of startup of the treatment system shows the highest concentrations existed near
the Time Oil site with decreasing concentrations toward the wellfield. The
translation of the plume is toward operating wells (9A & 2B). After pumping
began at Well 12A, the contamination levels increased at Well 12A and decreased
at the other production wells as the plume was preferentially drawn to Well 12A.
At the end of the pumping season in early November, the
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane concentration at Well 12A was about 45 ppb, a decrease
from the mid August level of about 60 ppb. Following shutdown of the 12A
treatment system in November; the plume contours returned more nearly to their
original locations, and the concentration at Well 12A was reduced to about
5 ppb.
A liquid phase carbon adsorption system is used at the Time Oil facility to pump
and treat contaminated groundwater. Treated groundwater is discharged to a
stormwater sewer system. Sampling was conducted during the same week as
sampling at the Well 12A site.
4-90-61
Page 24
-------
-------
TYSON'S DUMP - EPISODE 1568
SITE DESCRIPTION
Tyson's Dump Site is an abandoned septic waste and chemical waste disp.osal site
reported to have operated from 1960 to 1970 within a sandstone quarry. The site
is located in Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Several
formerly unlined lagoons were used to store various industrial municipal, and
chemical wastes. Spills and overflows reportedly occurred during the period of
operation, thus allowing for the dispersal of wastes throughout the site.
Surface water run-off and seeps contributed to off-site migration of the wastes
toward the Schuylkill River. The approximately 4-acre plot, which constitutes a
series of formerly unlined lagoons, is bordered on the east and west by unnamed
tributaries to the Schuylkill River, a steep quarry high-wall to the south, and
a Conrail railroad switching yard to the north. North of the Conrail tracks is
the Schuylkill River floodplain. The area of the former lagoon lies above the
100-year floodplain.
The Tyson's Site was owned and operated by companies owned by Franklin P. Tyson
and Fast Pollution Treatment, Inc. (FPTI). The stock of FPTI was owned by the
current owner of the land, 'General Devices, Inc. (GDI) and by Franklin P: Tyson.
The site was used by Tyson and FPTI for disposal of liquid septic tank waste and
sludges and chemical wastes which were hauled to the site in bulk tank trucks.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) ordered GDI to
close the facility in 1973. Although some ponded water was removed in 1973, GDI
did not arrange for removal and off-site disposal of contaminated soils.
In January 1983, EPA investigated an anonymous citizen complaint about condi-
tions at Tyson's and subsequently determined that immediate removal measures
were required. These measures included the construction of a leachate collec-
tion and treatment system, drainage controls and cover over the site, and the
erection of.a fence around the lagoon area.
Between January 1983 and August of 1984, EPA and its contractors conducted a
series of investigations primarily in what is now referred to as the On-Site
Area. The On-Site Area is defined here as that area south of the railroad
tracks and within or immediately adjacent to the security fence erected during
the emergency response measures. In December 1984, EPA issued its Record of
Decision (ROD) for the On-Site Area which recommended the following remedial
actions:
Excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils and wastes to a
permitted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) landfill.
Upgrading the existing air-stripping facility to treat leachate,
shallow groundwater and surface run-on encountered during excavation.
Excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated sediments within the
tributary which receives effluent from the existing air stripper.
4-90-61
Page 25
-------
Following issuance of the ROD, EPA began remedial design for the selected
alternative in January 1985. this design included additional borings throughout
the lagoon area to define the volume of material to be excavated. From August
1985 through November 1985, EPA performed additional borings and magnetometer
surveys throughout the lagoon area to better delineate the areas to be
excavated.
In the fall of 1985, CIBA-GEIGY Corporation agreed to conduct a further inves-
tigation of the Off-Site Area, the need for which was described in the December
1984 EPA ROD. The Off-Site Area is defined here as that area outside of the
security fence including the deep aquifer (bedrock aquifer). EPA subdivided the
Off-Site Area into five sub-areas or "operable units." The Off-Site Operable
Units included the following:
Deep Aquifer (Operable Unit 1)
Hillside Area (Operable Unit 2)
Railroad Area (Operable Unit 3)
Floodplain/Wetlands (Operable Unit 4)
Seep Area (Operable Unit 5)
On May 27, 1986, an Administrative Consent Order (AGO) was signed between EPA
and Ciba-Geigy Corporation for the Off-Site Operable Unit Remedial Investiga-
tion/Feasibility Study (RI/FS).
In November 1986, Ciba-Geigy Corporation initiated an on-site pilot study using
an innovative vacuum extraction technology process. Due to zoning restrictions,
the pilot study operated for only a short duration (less than 10 days).
However, in May 1987, the pilot study was recommended and operated for more than
three weeks.
In December 1986, Ciba-Geigy submitted a draft Off-Site Operable Unit RI Report
to EPA. This report indicated that much of the site-related contamination had
migrated off-site into the deep aquifer toward the Schuylkill River.
On March 24, 1987, a second addendum to the Off-site RI/FS Work Plan was
submitted to EPA by Ciba-Geigy Corporation. This addendum included a detailed
investigation of the Schuylkill River and the installation of wells on the north
side of the river.
In June and July 1987, four responsible parties, Ciba-Geigy Corporation,
Smith-Kline Beckman, Wyeth Laboratories, and Essex Group submitted a proposal to
EPA for clean-up of the on-site lagoon areas, upgrading of the leachate
collection system and clean-up of the tributary sediments. Additionally, the
parties proposed to initiate groundwater remediation measures since the
information contained in the draft Off-Site Operable Units RI report indicated
that much of the contamination formerly in the lagoon areas was now in the
aquifer system, downgradient of the site, and was discharging to the Schuylkill
River.
The parties' proposal was based on a Comprehensive Feasibility Study (CFS)
submitted to the Agency on June 15, 1987. The CFS was developed independently
4-90-61
Page 26
-------
by Ciba-Geigy Corporation and was not formally commented on by EPA. The CFS
incorporated the results of the innovative vacuum extraction process for
clean-up of the lagoon soils, preliminary results of the Off-Site RI and
additional studies for the installation of groundwater recovery wells. Some of
the results of the CFS indicated that the contaminants in the bedrock underlying
the lagoons would be a source of continuing contamination of the backfilled
soil. The study raised the possibility that the remedy selected in the ROD
would be of limited effectiveness without the installation of a barrier, which
would limit upward movement of contamination from the underlying bedrock.
On July 29, 1987, Ciba-Geigy Corporation submitted the final draft Operable
Units RI report to EPA. This report concluded that much of the site
contamination, specifically the dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLS), were
in the underlying bedrock and aquifer. The report also found that a dissolved
portion of the DNAPLs was discharging into the Schuylkill River.
The leachate collection and treatment system constructed in 1983 is scheduled to
operate through 1988, and will then be dismantled. The air-stripping treatment
system was installed to remove volatile organic compounds from the collected
leachate. The plant is effective in removing many volatile organic compounds,
however, its efficiency for reducing some organic compounds, particularly
xylenes and 1,2,3 trichloropropane, is lower.
4-90-61
Page 27
-------
-------
UNITED CHROME - EPISODE 1738
SITE DESCRIPTION
The United Chrome Products (UCP) site is a former industrial hard chrome plating
facility located at 2000 Airport Road in the Airport Research Industrial Park
complex, approximately 3.5 miles south of the city of Corvallis, Oregon. , The
UCP site consists of a single building on approximately 1.5 acres of level
ground and is bounded by the Corvallis Airport. The city of Corvallis owns the
UCP site and all surrounding property.
UCP began electroplating operations in 1956. A dry well disposal pit was
created in the same year and was reportedly used until 1975 to dispose of floor
drippings, washings, and product rinsate from a sump within the building.
Liquids were reportedly neutralized with sodium hydroxide and/or soda ash prior
to disposal in the dry well. The specific composition of water discharged is
unknown; however, the nature of the facility indicates that spent plating bath
solutions; spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions, and sludges from plating
baths may have been disposed in the dry well. Quantities of waste discharges
are unknown, but have been estimated at 1,000 gallons per year. Use of the dry
well reportedly ceased in 1975.- The amount and disposition of wastes produced
since then is unknown.
In November 1984, UCP announced that it would shut down and cease all
operations, and in May 1985, the equipment and contents of the building were
sold. The building is currently vacant, and the city of Corvallis has indicated
that it presently has no plans for alternative use of the site area and
building, or for demolition of the facility.
Environmental investigations at UCP conducted by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and EPA took place between November 1982 and
December 1984. In July 1983, the site was scored using the Hazard Ranking
System and subsequently included on the National Priorities List. Investi-
gations indicated considerable chromium contamination in the soil beneath and
near the building and in both the upper and lower aquifers as a result of
leaching from the drywell and plating tanks. Investigations also indicated
contamination of approximately 2.4 million gallons of groundwater in the upper
unconfined and lower confined aquifers. Total chromium concentrations in the
upper aquifer are as high as 1.5 percent near the former plating tanks, but
range from 142 to 689 milligrams per liter (mg/1) in the surrounding monitoring
wells. Total chromium concentrations in the lower aquifer are generally an
order of magnitude lower; however, the primary drinking water standard of
0.05 mg/ has been exceeded in numerous deep well samples.
An immediate removal action initiated in July 1985 and completed in October 1985
stabilized the site after the company vacated the building. Perimeter fencing
was installed, and spent plating solution, drums, and containers were removed
from the site. All hazardous substance source materials are believed to have
been removed from the site with the exception of residual sludges in plating
tanks.
4-90-61
Page 28
-------
EPA completed a Feasibility Study (FS) addressing site cleanup alternatives in
August 1985. A Record-of-Decision (ROD) was issued by EPA Region X in September
1986 recommending limited excavation of contaminated soil from the dry well and
plating tank areas, and unconfined and confined aquifer groundwater extraction,
treatment, and surface discharge. Installation of two percolation, barriers in
the excavated area was recommended to flush contaminated soil in the unsaturated
zone above the shallow groundwater table. The ROD recommended that the drainage
ditch within the contaminated area be culverted to protect the local surface
drainage ditch system from contamination. The objective of the selected
alternative is to remove contamination in the confined aquifer and control the
migration of further contamination from the upper unconfined zone, The cleanup
criteria in the confined aquifer is the drinking water standard of 0.05 mg/ for
chromium, because this aquifer is considered a drinking water source in direct
hydraulic connection with the local drinking water supply wells. The cleanup
criteria for the unconfined aquifer is also 0.05 mg/. The site boundary is
considered the point of compliance at which these criteria must be met.
UCP site remediation is currently in progress. Extracted groundwater is being
treated on-site. Groundwater is pumped to an influent holding tank and then
transferred to a sectioned tank. Metals are reduced chemically in the first
section. Groundwater then flows to a section where the pH is raised to between
9 and 10 to cause the formation of metal hydroxides and a polymer flocculant
solution is added. Groundwater then flows to the final section for settling and
clarification. After settling and clarification, the groundwater flows from the
sectioned tank through polishing filters (not operating during sample episode)
to one of the two holding tanks where total chromium and pH are monitored to
determine whether the water meets discharge standards. If treated water does
not meet discharge standards, it is recirculated through the treatment system.
Adequately treated water is discharged as a batch from the holding tank to an
on-site sewer which connects to the Corvallis wastewater treatment plant.
4-90-61
Page 29
-------
VERONA - EPISODE 1223
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Verona Well Field is located approximately 1/2 mile northeast of Battle
Creek, Michigan. The well field incorporates property on both sides of the
Battle Creek River, consisting of three wells west of the river (in .Bailey
Park), and 27 wells, with a major pumping/water treatment station, east of the
river. The area north and east of the well field is essentially rural. Land
use to the south and west is light to heavy industrial, with a residential area
directly south, and the Grand Trunk Western Railroad (Grand Trunk) marshaling
yard adjoining the well field on the east.
The,Verona Well Field provides potable water to 35,000 residents of Battle
Creek, and part or all of the water supply requirements for two major food
processing industries and a variety of other commercial and industrial* estab-
lishments. A review of the monthly pumping data indicates that the City
requires an average supply of water equal to approximately 10 million
gallons/day (MGD) with additional supplies needed to meet a peak demand
equalling 19 MGD.
During August 1981, while conducting routine testing of private water supplies,
the Calhoun County Health Department discovered that the water supply from the
Verona Well Field was slightly contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Follow-up testing by the Calhoun County Health Department and the
Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH) revealed that ten of the City's
30 wells contained detectable levels of volatile compounds. The MDPH then began
weekly sampling of the well field.
During that same period, the MDPH began sampling private residential wells in
the area to the south of the well field. To date, approximately 80 private
wells have been found to contain varying concentrations of contaminants.
Several of the private wells have total VOC contamination levels on the order of
1,000 parts per billion (ppb); the private well with the highest reported level
had a dichloroethylene concentration of 3,900 ppb.
The Verona Well Field was listed as a National Priorities List site in July
1982. Since then several studies, investigations, and activities have been
conducted in'the area.
The Michigan, Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) investigated potential
sources of the contamination, and identified the Thomas Solvent Company facili-
ties, the Grand Trunk marshaling yard, and the Raymond Road Landfill as possible
sources of the volatile hydrocarbons. The EPA Technical Assistance Team (TAT)
conducted a groundwater survey during the spring of 1982, and further concluded
that the source of contamination was most likely in the vicinity of the Thomas
Solvent facilities. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) initiated a hydrological
investigation under contract with the City of Battle Creek in 1982. The study
examined the geology and groundwater flow patterns in the vicinity of the Verona
Well Field. The,USGS has prepared a groundwater flow model (1985) to evaluate
the effects of pumping Verona wells on groundwater flow. E-PA began Phase I of a
remedial investigation (RI) in November 1983.
4-90-61
Page 30
-------
The purpose of the RI was to identify the sources of contamination to the well
field.
By January 1984, all but six of the City's 30 water supply wells in the Verona
Well Field were contaminated with VOCs from the advancing groundwater plume.
Under these conditions, it was apparent -that there would not be a sufficient
supply of uncontaminated water to meet the City's peak demand in the summer of
1984. In response, EPA initiated a focused feasibility study (FFS) in February
1984 to address the water supply problem, while the remedial investigation on
the sources of contamination proceeded. ,
The FFS resulted in a Record-of-Decision by Region V, EPA in May 1984 that
recommended the installation of three new water supply production wells, and the
use of selected existing Verona wells to form a blocking well system to halt the
spread of contamination to the northernmost Verona wells. The purge water from
the blocking wells would be treated by an air stripper to be constructed at the
well field.
Blocking well operations were initiated in May 1984, with temporary carbon
adsorption beds providing treatment until the air stripper could be constructed.
Construction of the air stripper was completed in August 1984. Since operation
of the barrier wells began, the advance of the contaminant plume has been
halted. In its Record-of-Decision, EPA determined that the barrier system
should be maintained for a period of five years to insure adequate supplies of
uncontaminated water until final remedial measures are implemented.
The results of the Phase I remedial investigation were published in technical
memorandum in November 1984. The results confirmed that the Thomas Solvent
facilities are major sources of groundwater contamination, and also identified
an unknown source of perchloroethylene (PCE) from a location east of the well
field.
Phase II of EPA's remedial investigation was initiated in July 1984 to charac-
terize in greater detail the extent of VOC contamination at the Thomas Solvent
facilities, and to investigate the source of the eastern plume of PCE.
The Thomas Solvent Company operations at the Raymond Road facility consisted of
the packaging and distribution of liquid solvent commercial products, with the
exception of minor amounts of reclaimed acetone. The generators of the re-
claimed acetone hauled by Thomas are unknown, and since this activity repre-
sented a. minor portion of Thomas Solvent business (less than 5 percent),
enforcement efforts have been directed at Thomas as owner/operator.
In February 1985, EPA determined that source control measures at the Verona Well
Field site should be carried out in separate operable units. Source control at
the Thomas Raymond Road facility was identified as the first operable unit that
should be conducted at the Verona Well Field site because of the relative
magnitude of contamination at the facility. The groundwater beneath and
surrounding the facility is contaminated at levels exceeding 100,000 ppb VOCs.
This is approximately 100 times more concentrated than levels in the majority of
the plume.
4-90-61
Page 31
-------
Presently, contaminated groundwater from the Thomas Raymond Road facility is
pumped from several on-site extraction wells to the pretreatment facility at the
Verona Well Field site. This wastestream is discharged to, two of three
activated carbon adsorption vessels before blending with groundwater from the
blocking well system. The blended streams collect in a wet well prior to being
pumped through an air stripping unit. Final discharge is to the Battle Creek
River.
Personnel from MDNR have noted that desorption of several compounds from the
granular activated carbon units occurs periodically. These compounds are not
air-stripped efficiently and have on occasion been found by MDNR in the final
'effluent.
4-90-61
Page 32
-------
-------
WELL 12A - EPISODE 1808
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Well 12A site in Tacoma, Washington is a production well with treatment
consisting of an air stripping system discharging treated water to either
Commencement Bay or to the City's water system. During the remedial investi-
gation, 11 monitoring wells were installed. By measuring groundwater elevation
in the wells, it was determined that the natural (undisturbed by well field
pumping) groundwater flow direction was from west to east with a relatively flat
gradient and therefore, a low flow velocity. The study also determined that the
major source of contamination was generally northeast of Well 12A. A specific
source was not identified. Under these conditions, with the wellfield shut down
most of the year, the contaminant plume moves slowly away from the production
wells. However, under the influence of production well pumping action, the
natural gradient is reversed and the contamination is drawn towards the
operating wells.
One conclusion of the Remedial Investigation was that operation of Well 12A
would intercept the contamination drawn from the source area even if other
production wells were pumping. In effect, Well 12A would provide a barrier to
the spread of contamination and protect the rest of the wellfield. If Well 12A
were not operated to provide a barrier, other operating wells would draw the
contaminant plume and would be lost for use.
To avoid the potential loss of the wellfield during the approaching summer peak
water demand period, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in January
1983, authorized a focused feasibility study to determine a cost-effective
treatment system for the output of Well 12A. Treatment of the wellwater was
necessary to achieve a quality that would permit discharge to Commencement Bay,
or would permit its use in the City water system.
The initial remedial measure for Well 12A treatment was determined to be an air
stripping system consisting of five packed towers operating in parallel at a
total flow rate of 3,500 gallons per minute (gpm) and discharging treated water
to either Commencement Bay or the the City's water system depending on measured
quality and the City's needs. The decision level used to determine whether the
treated well water would be used in the City water system or discharged to the
bay was the 10"6 level of hazard at the tap (after dilution in the system) .
Construction of this treatment system was authorized in late March 1983, and it
was started up in mid-July and operated by the City until early November.
Treatment performance was better than anticipated and effluent solvent concen-
trations did not reach the design levels. Treated water was therefore suitable
for use in the City's water system during the full pumping season.
Operation of the Well 12A treatment system by the City of Tacoma will continue
on a seasonal basis to protect the wellfield.
Research into the past ownership and activities on these properties indicated
that waste oil and solvent reclamation processes were used and that some of the
4-90-61
Page 33
-------
spent filter cake was used to build the railroad spur. The use of the Time Oil
site for oil recycling and related operations dates back to 1927 when
William Palin began operations under the name of Palin and Son. In 1933; the
business name was changed to National Oil and Paint. The two main activities of
the businesses were waste oil recycling and paint and lacquer thinner
manufacturing.
The waste oil recycling process consisted of collecting waste oil in a large
tank, adding chemicals such as sulfuric acid, and pressurizing and heating the
contents of the vessel. This process resulted in the formation of a tar-like
sludge on the bottom of the tank which was removed and disposed of. Absorbents
and clay materials were also added to the oil. The sludge was filtered from the
oil, and the resulting filter cake was disposed of or stored in various piles on
the site. Some of this sludge was also used for fill around the site.
The paint and lacquer thinner manufacturing involved the use of many solvents
that were stored on the site in barrels which may have leaked their contents
into the soil.
Prior to purchase of the property by Time Oil, Inc., in 1964, the remaining
barrels and drums of solvent were removed from the site. After Time Oil
purchased the property, operations continued under the name National Oil and
Paint until 1972. During this period, National Oil was involved only in waste
oil recycling. Waste sludges and filter cakes were not known to be stored on
the site during this period.
In 1972, Time Oil leased the facilities to Golden Penn, Inc. Golden Penn
operated on the site until 1976, before going out of business as a result of a
destructive fire. In 1975 and 1976, Golden Penn was ordered by the State of
Washington to clean up the site by removing some of the filter cake and spilled
oil from the ground.
In 1976, Time Oil resumed operation at the site. Since then their operation has
been limited to canning oil brought to the site in bulk containers. In 1982,
the Burlington Northern Railroad spur was extended by Time Oil to its present
length so that oil could be delivered by tanker car. During the construction of
the spur, some of the filter cake or sludge material stored on the site was used
in the roadbed.
During the remedial investigation, the extent of soil and groundwater contami-
nation near the Time Oil plant was explored by means of surface soil samples,
shallow and deep soil borings and monitoring wells.
Chemical data for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and tetrachloroethylene taken from
soil borings along the spur and along a north-sbuth line and data for tri-
chloroethylene shows these compounds are the ones of primary interest because
they are the contaminants at Well 12A. Many others, not found at Well 12A, were
also detected at much lower concentrations.
Along the east-west line of borings, high values of soil contamination are
located along the spur adjacent to the western Time Oil building and continuing
4-90-61
Page 34
-------
for a distance of at least 150 feet west of that building. Measured
concentrations of the contaminants is greater than 3,000 parts per billion (ppb)
of soil to depths of about 25 feet. Highest concentrations were found near the
surface at levels up to about 1,000 parts per million (ppm) .
Along the north-south soil boring line, soil contamination concentrations to
about 3,000 ppb of soil were measured to a depth of .about 20 feet on the north
end of the Fleetline property.
Continuity between this near surface soil contamination and that in the aquifer
was established. The total quantity of solvents contained in the soil from the
ground surface to the groundwater level was grossly estimated at about
1,500 pounds. '
Groundwater contamination was found along the east-west line, of borings in the
same boreholes as the major soil contamination. Levels ranged up to about
11,000 ppb of water. Along the north-south line of borings, levels up to
863,000 ppb were measured under the Fleetline property. This southward dis-
placement of the highest aquifer contamination is likely to have resulted from
the previous pumping action of the wellfield.
4-90-61
Page 35
-------
-------
WESTERN PROCESSING - EPISODE 1739
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Western Processing site is located at 7215 South 196th Street in Kent, King
County, Washington. From 1953 to 1961, the site was leased and used as a
U.S. Army Nike Anti-Aircraft Artillery facility. In 1961, the property was sold
to Western Processing Company, Inc. (Western Processing). Originally, Western
Processing was a reprocessor of animal by-products and brewer's yeast. In the
1960s, the business expanded to recycling, reclaiming, treating, and disposing
of many industrial wastes, including waste oils, electroplating wastes, waste
pickle liquor, battery acids, steel mill flue dust, pesticides, spent solvents,
and zinc dross.
Discharges from Western Processing were monitored and regulated by the
Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) until 1981. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) inspected the site in March 1981 to determine compliance
with the new RCRA regulations and in September 1982, EPA.initiated an
investigation. Western Processing had violated many EPA hazardous waste
management regulations. Approximately 100 of the 129 priority pollutants were
detected in the soil or groundwater on and off the Western Processing Site, or
in the adjacent Mill Creek.
After soil and groundwater sample analyses were completed in April 1983,
confirming widespread site contamination, EPA ordered cessation of site
operations. Western Processing could not comply with EPA's specifications to
clean up the site, so EPA conducted emergency cleanup operations funded by
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCIA).
The emergency response activities included removal of wastes (drums, liquids,
and solids) for off-site disposal, reorganization of the remaining on-site
drums, and excavation of contaminated soil from the reaction pond area.
A Record-of-Decision was signed fn 1984. In July 1984, further site cleanup
activities were initiated as a result of the agreement reached between EPA,
WDOE, and the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for the Phase I remedial
action program. These surface cleanup activities were completed in November
1984 under the direction of Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (consultant for the
PRPs).
The selected alternative for the Phase II remedial action program included
installation of a slurry wall around the site to a depth of 42 to 46 feet below
ground and pumping and treating the groundwater from the shallow aquifer
directly below the site and contaminated groundwater from deeper in the aquifer
that has migrated off-site. More than 200 well points, laid out in a grid
across the site, will be used to extract groundwater from below the site.
Extraction wells located off-site will be used to pump contaminated groundwater
from deeper in the aquifer. The on-site well points and off-site pumping wells
are divided into six different cells so that the pumping zones and the pumping
rate from each cell can be controlled. Interspersed amongst the on-site well
points are infiltration drains that will be used to recycle clean water through
the unsaturated zone and flush contamination from the shallow soils. The
4-90-61
Page 36
-------
groundwater was pumped initially at a rate of 100 gallons per minute (gpm) and
routed through an on-site pretreatment plant designed by Chemical Waste
Management, Inc. (and subcontractors HDR and Canoni) . The pumping system and
pretreatment plant are designed to pump and treat the groundwater at a rate of
up to 200 gpm. Pretreated groundwater is discharged directly into the city
sewer system for additional treatment by activated sludge at the Renton
wastewater treatment plant.
Negotiations were initiated in 1986 between EPA, WDOE and the POTW authority of
Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) to discuss the feasibility of discharging
contaminated water from the Western Processing site. Initially, Metro was
reluctant to accept the wastewater because of concerns about liability. In
April 1987, EPA entered a Consent Decree to expedite the Phase II clean-up
effort. Chemical Waste Management, Inc.,•submitted a contract to Metro for
discharge from the site in the summer of 1987. After Metro received written
indemnification assurance from EPA and WDOE regarding environmental consequences
associated with accepting the contaminated wastewater, Metro developed initial
local limits for acceptable loading from the site.
The Western Processing pretreatment plant operates 24 hours per day, and will
operate for a minimum of seven years. The pretreatment plant process includes
sequentially: air stripping with carbon adsorption and hot gas regeneration
systems to control volatile emissions; phenol oxidation; metals reduction; pH
adjustment; flocculation; inclined-plate clarification; and sludge thickening.
A stand-by granulated carbon adsorption system to treat the groundwater is also
in place. The sludge generated from the pretreatment plant is disposed at the
Arlington, Oregon, hazardous waste landfill.
4-90-61
Page 37
-------
WHITEHOUSE OIL - EPISODE 1241
SITE DESCRIPTION
The community of Whitehouse, Florida is located within 0.25 miles east and
southeast of the site. Two major east-west highways, U.S. Highway 90 and
Interstate 10, are approximately 0.5 miles south of the site. A low-density
residential area is located west and northwest of the site, and several miles
northwest of the site is the Cecil Field U.S. Naval Air Station. The area north
and northeast of the site is largely undeveloped land comprised of pine forests
and cypress swamp.
The Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits occupy approximately seven acres on an upland
area. The northern and western sides of the site border a swamp system through
which the Northeast Tributary runs. The stream originates from a 220-acre
cypress swamp located approximately 0.5 miles upstream from the site. The
southern side of the site is bordered by open grassland, with the exception of
the southwestern corner, which is a private residence.
The site consists of seven unlined pits where waste oil sludge, acid, and
contaminated waste oil from an oil reclaiming process were disposed. 'Allied
Petroleum constructed the pits to dispose of waste oil sludge and acid from its
oil reclaiming process. The first pits were constructed in 1958, and by 1968
the company had constructed and filled seven pits. Allied Petroleum then went
bankrupt, and most of the property transferred to the City of Jacksonville for
nonpayment of taxes. After they were abandoned by Allied Petroleum, the pits
remained an "open dump" for several years. It is reasonable to assume that.
indiscriminate dumping occurred during that time.
The waste oil recovery process used by Allied Petro Products was the
Acid-Clay Process. This process forms, as by-products, a waste-acid tar and
spent acidic clays which are corrosive. The seven unlined pits contained an
estimated 127,000 cubic yards of waste. Stabilization activities have increased
the volume of contaminated material to an estimated 240,000 cubic yards.
Major contaminants at the site include hexavalent chromium, arsenic, lead,
phenols, benzene, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (fluoranthene,
phenanthrene, pyrene).
Improvements made to the site by the City of Jacksonville in 1980 and the
initial remedial measures (IRM) done under cooperative agreement with the State
have significantly reduced the hazards at the site and ensured that no
large-scale spills would occur again. Erosion continues to be a problem at the
site. Testing by the State indicated that heavy rains and eroding dike walls
have allowed pollutants to slowly seep into surface water. As expected, soil
samples from beneath the clay cap of the pits show gross contamination by heavy
metals and low levels of a few organic compounds. The only soils beyond the
pits which are badly contaminated are the soils in the swamp or floodplain north
of the pits, between the pits and the northeast tributary.
4-90-61
Page 38
-------
The quality of surface water was tested at five sampling stations in the
drainage basin. These samples show that the surface water quality in McGirt's
Creek significantly improved since 1977. This improvement is directly related
to the work done by the local, state, and federal agencies which prevented
further large scale contamination. However, the effect of the pits is still
evident since the surface water contains heavy metals and a lowered pH. The
water quality of the creek is also threatened by the seepage which has polluted
the soil in the flood plain north of the pits.
Areas of potential groundwater contamination were located by conductivity tests.
Thirty-six wells at a variety of depths were installed to sample groundwater.
The shallow groundwater (7 to 15 feet) between the pits and the northeast
tributary is grossly contaminated by heavy metals and organic compounds. Only
low levels of organic compounds were detected across the northeast tributary and
beyond the south drainage ditch. Thus, shallow groundwater contamination seems
to be localized close to the site.
Vertical migration has reached into the aquitard (35 - 60 feet). The deeper
wells (100 to 125 feet) close to the site show low levels of heavy metals and
organic compounds. This is of special concern since these wells are in the same
aquifer used by many residents. All the residential wells near the site that
were downgradient of the pits were tested during the remedial investigation. No
contamination from the pits was detected in any of the wells. The State will
continue to monitor quality of the residential wells.
The eventual receptor for surface runoff is McGirt's creek which empties into
the St. John's River approximately ten miles downstream. Neither of these
bodies of water supply drinking water, but are areas of environmental concern.
As late as 1983 (prior to completion of the IRM), seepage of contaminated
leachate through the dike walls was observed. State bioassays using a weak
concentration of the leachate showed it to be very toxic. Direct contact with
leachate and leachate contaminated surface water is a concern.
The domestic water supply aquifer beneath the site is protected by a fairly
consistent aquitard. Sampling has shown contamination in the shallow aquifer
and evidence of contamination moving down into the aquitard (permeability about
10-s centimeters/second) . Groundwater degradation is an immediate concern and a
reason for taking preventative action.
Although the IRM was constructed as an attempt to reinforce the dike walls and
prevent further spread of contamination, this measure is not adequate for long-
term containment of the waste. To compound site problems, erosion caused by
motorcycles, dirt buggies, heavy rainfall, and hurricanes pose additional risks
to all population .groups surrounding the site.
Monitoring Wells MW-5 and MW-9, and RW-1 (4-inch pump test well) are being
considered in future remediation efforts as representative wells to be used as
extraction wells for a pump and treat system. These wells would be recommended
sample points for an EPA-ITD sampling effort.
4-90-61
Page 39
-------
STRINGFELLOW ACID PITS - EPISODE 1805
SITE DESCRIPTION
Stringfellow Acid Pit was operated by Stringfellow Quarry Co. from 1956 to 1972
as a hazardous waste disposal facility. The landfill disposal site was permit-
ted by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). About
34 million gallons of wastes, mostly from metal finishing, electroplating, and
DDT production, were deposited on approximately 17 acres of the site. In 1969
and 1978, excessive rainfall caused the ponds used for solar evaporation to
overflow, spreading contamination into the nearby town of Glen Avon. In July
1980, the RWQCB advocated total removal of all solids and liquids but the funds
were not available. In December 1980, RWQCB selected an interim plan that
included installation of channels to divert surface water, a gravel drain and a
network of wells for monitoring and extraction, and a clay core barrier dam
downgradient to stop subsurface leachate migration.
California placed Stringfellow at the top of the California priority list. The
State conducted a study in compliance with the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (the National Contingency Plan or NCP) to
obtain CERCLA funds. The results of the study indicated that on-site management
was more cost effective than total removal.
On July 22, 1983, Lee Thomas, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), signed a Record of Decision (ROD) which
endorsed the State's request for funds for both existing activities and proposed
actions. The interim actions authorized in the ROD were:
o removal of DDT contaminated material
o operation of extraction wells upgradient of the clay barrier to
protect the barrier
o fencing the entire site to prevent entry
o erosion control to prevent destruction of a clay cap
6
The state also requested EPA to lead a fast track Remedial Investigation/Feasi-
bility Study (RI/FS) while the Department of Health Services completed the
long-term RI/FS.
As a result of the fast track RI/FS, a pretreatment system was installed to
treat the groundwater before its discharge to the Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority. The series of extraction wells transfer two groundwater streams from
the contaminated canyon area to the field storage tanks. On-site groundwater
(Stream A), known to contain metal compounds and organics, is transferred from
the field storage tanks to one of four equalization tanks (each with a
12,000-gallon capacity) at the on-site treatment plant. Once equalization of
Stream A occurs, Stream A proceeds to a 400-gallon capacity rapid mix tank where
lime and caustic soda are added to aid precipitation and to.control
acidity/alkalinity, and polymer is added to aid floe formation. The chemically
treated and mixed stream flows to two parallel-operating clarifiers.
4-90-61
Page 40
-------
The thickened sludge is pumped from the clarifiers to the sludge holding tanks,
and the clarified effluent flows to two gravity sand filters operating in
parallel. Each filter has a 7.6 square foot area, and the sand is about three
feet deep. Wastewater from the sand filters is transferred to the 500-gallon
Stream A filter effluent tank.
Groundwater from mid-canyon (Stream B), which contains mostly organic compounds,
is transferred from the field storage tanks to one of three equalization tanks
(12,000-gallon capacity each) located at the on-site treatment plant. Stream A
effluent from the 500-gallon filter effluent tank is blended with Stream B
before discharging to activated carbon adsorption vessels. The two carbon
adsorption vessels each have a. 10-ton capacity for granular activated carbon and
are operated in series with a third vessel functioning as a transfer tank.
Effluent from the carbon adsorption vessels is transferred to one of four final
effluent storage tanks (80,000-gallon total capacity), before it is discharged
to the sewer at an average rate of 870,000 gallons per month. As necessary,
effluent from these storage tanks is used as backwash and other plant utility
water.
Sludge is pumped from the clarifiers to two 11,000-gallon sludge holding tanks.
The sludge from the two sludge holding tanks is fed to two plate-and-frame
filter presses. Depending on the pollutant content, the filtrate from the
filter press operation can be recycled to either the Stream A influent equal-
ization tanks, the Stream B influent equalization tanks, or the Stream A filter
effluent tank. Usually, the filtrate is pumped to the Stream A equalization
tanks. The sludge cake is discharged into containers and is hauled off-site by
a contractor for disposal at a RCRA approved Class I disposal site as hazardous
waste.
As part of the Stringfellow discharge permit, the effluent must be tested prior
to any discharge. Currently, the facility is allowed to fill two storage tanks
simultaneously, but is only required to test one tank.
The pretreatment system located at Stringfellow operates five days per week
during the daylight hours.
4-90-61
Page 41
-------
ATTACHMENT B
SITE SUMMARY TABLES
891003-mll
-------
-------
Influent From
Lagoon
Surface
Water
Treatment: OS - DAF - MF - HT - GAC
Wastewater Type: Leachate
Average Ftow: 300 GPM (24 Hours/7Days)
Surface Water Discharge
% Mass
# Compounds Cone Cone Influent Discharge Removed
r 1 2 3 4
Detected
ITD
PP2 Loading
OS4
%Mass
Removed
DAF4
%Mass
Removed
MF4
%Mass
Removed
GAC4
%Mass
Removed
Overall
Pollutant
Total
Organlcs
Metals
PP : TCL : TO
5 : 8 : 16
5:14:19
Mln-Max
6-3246
^™
Mln-Max
6401
1u9g3/I3
(SR)
»,««
680 : 106X190
-------
Treatment: Future
WastewaterType: Groundwater
# Compounds Cone Cone
Detected1
Pollutant
Total
Organlcs .
Metals
PP:TCL:ITD
3:?no
4:12:19
Mln-Max
15-643
ug/L
a200-15900
ug/L
Mln-Max
15-93
ug/L
10-213
ug/L
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. From samples collected from a one day sampling event
FIGURE B-2
CHARLES GEORGE -1309
ONE DAY SAMPLING EVENT
REGION ITYNGSBOROUGH, MA
6098-01
-------
Influent
To Surface
Water
Treatment: Air Stripping
Wastewater Type: Groundwater
Average Flow: 750 GPM (24 Hours/7Days)
60% to Surface Water/ 40% Relnjected
% Mass
# Compounds Cone Cone Influent Discharge Removed
n^t^-tn^ii rrn2 002 i .^Hin/-! 3 a AS *
ITD2
PP2 Loading
AS
% Mass
Removed
CL4
%Mass
Removed
Overall
Pollutant
Total
Organlcs
Metals
PP : TCL : ITD
12:12:16
4:11:16
Mln-Max
0.027ppt-
444tig/L
2-
137.167
ug/L
Min-Max
34-444
ug/L
6-34
ug/L
(LBS/YR)
PP:fTD
5,110:6,300
225 : 669X120
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
344; 490
97 : 375,900
PP: ITD
89:88
13.: 3
PP: ITD
41:34
78:42
PP: ITD
93:92
57:43
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. Taken from concentration averages over a four day
sampling event
3. Based on pollutant concentration averages
4. AS = Air Stripping
CL = Clarifier
FIGURE B-3
CHEMDYNE-1807
FIVE DAY SAMPLING EVENT
REGION V HAMILTON, OH
6093-01
-------
Treatment: Future
WastewaferType: Groundwater
# Compounds Cone Cone
Detected' ITD2 PP*
Pollutant
Total
Organics
Metals
PP:TCL:ITD
20:25:32
5 : 14 : 23
Mln-Max
Mppt-IOMJ
ug/l
3-1.075.000
ugfl.
Mln-Max
16-10X145
UQ/l
5-25
ug/L
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. From samples collected from a one day sampling event
FIGURE B-4
GENEVA INDUSTRIES -1224
ONE DAY SAMPLING EVENT
REGION VI HOUSTON, TX
6098-01
-------
Treatment: Future
Wastewater Type: Groundwater
# Compounds Cone Cone
Detectedr 1TD2 PP*
Pollutant
Total
Organics
Metals
PP : TCL : ITD
4:5;6
3:10:15
Mln-Max
12-68,017
UQ/L
4-205/300
ug/L
Mln-Max
30-58J017
ug/L
4-1,130
ug/L
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. From samples collected from a one day sampling event
FIGURE B-5
GOLD COAST OIL-1242
ONE DAY SAMPLING EVENT
REGION IV MIAMI, FL
6098-01
-------
Wet-We*
A
AH.-TO
Pielreohnsnf/POlW
Holding
Lagoon
Wet-Well
B
Treatment: Lagoon
WastewaterType: Leachate
Average Row: <6,000 GPD
T048MGDPOTW
NAPL-To
Storage Area
" „ ' %Mass
# Compounds Cone Cone Influent Discharge Removed
Detected1 ITD2 pp2 Loading3 Overall
Pollutant
Total
Organlcs
Metals
PP : TCL : [TD
ISH7J40
5:13:24
Mln-Max
0.38 ppf-
2,316,700
ug/L
16-349300
ug/L
Mln-Max
^2ppt-
1548,330
ug/L
24-1567
ug/L
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
195,180;
484x590
270:801,930
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
118^001
517250
91:521260
PP:ITD
39t<1
66:35
NOTES:
1. APL = Aqueous Phase Liquid
NAPL = Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
2. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
3. From samples collected from a one day sampling event
4. Based on average of raw leachate collected from two
wet-wells
FIGURE B-6
HYDE PARK-1220
ONE DAY SAMPLING EVENT
REGION II NIAGRA FALLS, NY
6098-01
-------
Influent
To Sanitary ^
Sewer
Treatment: Granular Activated Carbon
Wastewater Type: Leachate
Average Flow: 40,000 GPD (2Days/Wk)
T048MGDPOTW
# Compounds Cone Cone
Detected1 ITD2 PP2
%Mass
Influent Discharge Removed
Loading Overall
Pollutant
Total
Organics
Metals
PP : TCL : ITD
15 ; T8 ( 22
2:10: 19
Mln-Max
6ppt-
ST496
U0/L
27-225000
. ug/L
Mln-Max
6ppt-
18,166
ud/L
70-144
ug/L
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
3050; 7J300
19 : 40220
(LBS/YR)
PPilTD
32; 23
7:37,130
PP:ITD
>99;>99
63:8
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. From samples collected from a one day sampling event
FIGURE B>7
LOVE CANAL-1219
ONE DAY SAMPLING EVENT
REGION II NIAGRA FALLS, NY
6098-01
-------
Treatment: Future
WastewaferType: Groundwater
# Compounds Cone Cone
rwor-te>Hr rrnz no 2
Detected
PP:
Pollutant
Total
Organics
Metals
PP : TCL : ITD
9;9:10
7:17:30
Mfn-Max
164-18,378
ug/L
12-821000
ug/L
Mln-Max
164-18,378
ug/L
12-6000
ug/L
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Ahalyte
2. From samples collected from a one day sampling event
FIGURE B-8
NYANZA CHEMICAL-1310
ONE DAY SAMPLING EVENT
REGION I ASHLAND, MA
6098-01
-------
95% To Drinking Water Supply
5% To POTW
Treatment: SF-GAC
Wastewater Type: Groundwater
Average Flow: 500 GPM (24 Hours/7Days)
95% To Drinking Water Supply
5% To POTW
%Mass
To IVIUS5
# Compounds Cone Cone Influent Discharge Removed
Detectedr ITD5 PP2 Loading3 SF *
%Mass
Removed
GAC4
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. Taken from concentration average over a five day sampling event
3. Based on pollutant concentration averages
4. SF = Sand Filter
GAC = Granular Activated Carbon
%Mass
Removed
Overall
Pollutant
Total
Organics
Metals
PP : TCL : ITD
2:2:4
1 :7:13
Mln-Max
0,001 ppt-
2262
ug/L
7-89617
ug/L
Mln-Max
18-2262
ug/L
7
ug/L
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
9,970:10,070
29 : 620580
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
900:990
245:616,060
PP:ITD
8231
-------
Treatment: CP-SF-GAC
WastewatefType: Groundwater
Average Flow: 0.04 MGD (8 Hours/5 Days/Wk)
To220MGDPOTW
% Mass
# Compounds Cone Coric Influent Discharge Removed
r 2 2 5
PP2 Loading
CP
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. Prom samples collected from a one day sampling event
3. Based on pollutant concentration averages
4. The flows for streams A and B are unavailable - overall
removal can not be calculated
5. CP = Chemical Precipitation
SF = Sand Filter
GAC = Granular Activated Carbon
% Mass % Mass
Removed Removed
SF s GAC5
Pollutant
Total
Organics
Metals
PP:TCL:rTD
9:11:13
9:19:43
Mln-Max
ug/L
9-2.130.000
Mln-Max
^gf
44.1MJOOO
1,830:3240
•ffi
TO
8:17
11:196/20
PP:fTD
39:57
>99:48
PP : ITD
<1:<1
-------
Stream A ^"
i
Filtrate
Equalization
Tanks
Chemical
Precipitation
»-( Clarifier ) »•
Filter
CO
1
Treatment: CP-SF-GAC
Wastewater Type: Groundwater
Average Flow: 0.04 MGD (8 Hours/5 Days/Wk)
To 220 MGD POTW
# Compounds Cone Cone Influent
Detected' ITD1 PP2 Loading
%Mass
Discharge Removed
4 CP5
%Mass
Removed
SF 5
%Mass
Removed
GAC5
Pollutant
Total
Organic$
Metals
PP : TCL : ITD
20:25:32
8 : 18 : 42
Mln-Max
87-19/420
12-6.337,143
ug/L
Mln-Max
88-8,370
ug/L
13-121/129
ug/L
(LPSR)
2,090:4,540
18,010 :
1, 024x140
99:68
PP:ITD
7:<1
3:<1
PP:ITD
83:82
56:14
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. Taken from concentration averages over a five day event
3. Based on pollutant concentration averages
4. The flows for streams A and B are unavailable - overall
removal can not be calculated
5. CP = Chemical Precipitation
SF = Sand Filter
GAC = Granular activated Carbon
FIGURE B-11
STRINGFELLOW-1240
FIVE DAY SAMPLING EVENT
REGION IX GLEN AVON HEIGHTS, CA
6098-01
-------
I
Treatment: CP-SF-GAC
Wastewater Type: Groundwater
Average Flow: 0.04 MGD (8 Hours/5 Days/Wk)
To 220 MGD POTW
# Compounds Cone Cone Influent
Detectecf ITD2 PP2 Loading
% Mass % Mass % Mass
Discharge Removed Removed Removed
CP5 SF 5 GAC5
Pollutant
Total
Organlcs
Metals
PP : TCL : (TD
15:20:27
7:17:30
Mln-Max
Q.Q28ppt
-6,848
ug/L
30-
5,792,000
ug/L
Mln-Max
12-
6.848
ug/L
114-
112,600
ug/L
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
1,760:2/190
16,780 : 965,700
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
13; 45 '
8: 212X160
PPilTD
24:29
>99:57
PP:ITD
14:17
33:<1
PP:ITD
97:94
58:5
NOTES:
1. PP= Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. Taken from concentration averages over a four day sampling event
3. Based on pollutant concentration averages
4. The flows for streams A and B are unavailable - overall
removal can not be calculated
5. CP = Chemical Precipitation
SF= Sand Filter
GAC = Granular Activated Carbon
FIGURE B-12
STRINGFELLOW-1805
FOUR DAY SAMPLING EVENT
REGION IX GLEN AVON HEIGHTS, CA
6098-01
-------
Flow from
To Relniectlon _
MonWells
To Relnjectlon Trench
Outside Slurry Well
Treatment: CP-SF-AS-BT
Wastewater Type: Groundwater
Average Flow: 400,000 GPD (7Days/Wk, 24 Mrs/Day)
Relnjected Treated Water
Sludge Temporarily Disposed at On-Site Landfill
# Compounds Cone Cone Influent
Detected" ITD2 PP2 Loading3
%Mass
Discharge Removed
CP4
%Mass
Removed
SF 4
%Mass
Removed
AS4
%Mass
Removed
BT4
%Mass
Removed
Overall
Pollutant
Total
Organics
Metals
PP : TCL : ITD
»»,»
6:14:18
Mln-Max
13-9,178
ug/L
*$L6
Mln-Max
13-9,178
ug/l
"S?
(KR)
'l99:99
99:85
NOTES:
1. PP= Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. Taken from concentration averages over a five day sampling event
3. Based on pollutant concentration averages
4. CP = Chemical Precipitation
' SF = Sand Filtration
AS = Air Stripping
BT = Biological Treatment
FIGURE B-13
SYLVESTER -1325
REGION II NASHUA, NH
6098-01
-------
Influent from
Extraction Wells
To Sanitary Sewer
Treatment: Granular Activated Carbon
Wastewafer Type: Groundwater
Average Flow: 160 GPM
Stormwater Sewer System
%Mass
# Compounds Cone Cone Influent Discharge Removed
Detectedr fTD? PP2 Loading3 GAC1
%Mass
Removed
GAC"
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. Taken from concentration averages over a five day sampling event
3. Based on pollutant concentration averages
%Mass
Removed
Overall
Pollutant
Total
Organics
Metals
PP : TCL : ITD
8:8:8
1:8:12
Mln-Max
17-
1543
ug/L
3-
21.620
ug/L
Mln-Max
17-
1543
.Ug/L
18 ug/L
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
3,720:5,720
12 : 43,130
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
250:250
9 : 47.380
PP:ITD
96:96
30:<1
PP:ITD
<1;<1
-------
Influent
To Surface
Water
Treatment: Air Stripping
Wastewater Type: Groundwater
Average Flow: 43,000 GPD (24 Hours/2 Days/WK)
Surface Water Discharge
# Compounds Cone Cone Influent .
Detected' ITD2 PP2 Loading'
%Mass
Discharge Removed
Overall
Pollutant
Total
Organlcs
Metals
PP : TCL : tTD
7)3:12
3:10:15
Mln-Max
1W,668
ug/L
2-22,357
ug/L
Mln-Max
H-70,571
ug/L
2-289
ug/L
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
22:520
27 : 6,670
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
7:164
45 ; 6,920
PP : ITD
68:68
-------
S~^ S~
\
Influent from Chemical _ L^SSJJSSLA ^HoldlncA ToPOTW ^
Extraelion Wells
Addition - ^- osssry ' v Taok
rX
Sludge
Press
Treatment: CP-HT
Wastewater Type: Groundwater
Average Flow: 50,000 GPD (8 Hours/5 Days)
T08.8MGDPOTW
# Compounds
Detected1
Pollutant PP:TCL:rTD
Total
Organics
Metals °:i°'33
% Mass % Mass % Mass
Cone Cone Influent Discharge Removed Removed Removed
ITD* PPf Loading3 CP 4 HT " Overall
Mln-Max Mln-Max «j*jff Offlff PF
H7^/L 82 ug/L 9:77 6:89 <
12- 12- 100 ion .
4B7/SOO 1526 VSoiJn' 640:621,690
ug/L ug/L -2V.J4U
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. Taken from concentration averages over a five day sampling event
3. Based on pollutant concentration averages
4. CP = Chemical Precipitation
HT = Holding Tnak
: ITD PP : fTD PP : ITD
1:<1 43s* 33: 99 3 : < 1 > 99 : < 1
FIGURE B-16
UNITED CHROME -1738
FIVE DAY SAMPLING EVENT
REGION X CORVALLIS, OR
6098-01
-------
Influent
To Surface
Water
Treatment: GAC-AS
WastewaterType: Groundwater
Average Row: 2,000 GPM (24 Hours/7 Days)
Surface Water Discharge
%Mass
# Compounds Cone Cone Influent Discharge Removed
Detected1 ITD2 PP2 Loadings GAC4
%Mass
Removed
WW4
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. Taken from concentration averages over a five day sampling event
3. Based on pollutant concentration averages
4. GAC = Granular Activated Carbon
WW = Wet Well
AS = Air Stripping
%Moss
Removed
AS4
%Mass
Removed
Overall
Pollutant
Total
Organics
Metals
PP:TCL:fTD
10:13;17
3:11:18
Mln-Max
0.004ppt--
1,884
ug/L
6-103,200
ug/L
Mln-Max
H-532
ug/l
6-10
ug/L
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
21,7t5!
44,700
238:
1,697,865
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
2,130:4,800
206:
1490,590
PP:(TD
74:64
10:11
PP:ITD
62:69
1 :<1
PP:ITD
3:4
3:2
PP:ITD
89:90
13:12
FIGURE B-17
VERONA WELL FIELDS -1223
FIVE DAY SAMPLING EVENT
REGION V BATTLE CREEK, Ml
6098-01
-------
Influent
To Surface _
Water
Treatment; Air Stripping
WastewaterType: Groundwater
Average Flow: 3,500 GPM (24 Hours/7 Days)
Surface Water Discharge
%Mass
# Compounds Cone Cone Influent , Discharge Removed
rv-v+^-iv^l irn2 DD' I ^-i,-lli-i/-id Owen-nil
[TD
PP
Loading'
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. Taken from concentration averages over a five day sampling event
3. Based on pollutant concentration averages
Overall
Pollutant
Total
Organlcs ,
Metals
PP : TCL : ITD
4:4:7
1:8:10
Mln-Max
0.084-
142ug/L
6-
24.360
ug/L
Mln-Max
11-142
ug/L
62ug/L
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
3,740; 3,740
790:
U43560
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
4,12014120
122:
1246560
• PP:(TD
-------
Influent
Groundwater
To POTW
Treatment: AS-CP-GAC
Wastewater Type: Groundwater
Average Row: 100 GPM (24 Hours/7 Days)
T042MGDPOTW
# Compounds Cone
Detected'
% Mass % Mass % Mass
Cone Influent Discharge Removed Removed Removed
PP2 Loadings y AS < CP" GAC*
% Mass
Removed
Overall
Pollutant
Total
Organics
Metals
PP:TCL:ITD
19:17:34
8:17:25
Mln-Max
aiSppt-
1,804
ug/L
2-
341.667
ug/L
Mln-Max
14-
t.804
ug/L
2-
35533
ug/L
(LBS/YR)
PP:[TD
2,740:3^70
17200:
413,390
(LBS/YR)
PP:ITD
100:240
70 : 327,220
PP:ITD
90:79
<1:5
PP:ITD
35:46
99:5
PP:ITD
40:44
69 : 12
PP:ITD
46:93
>99:21
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. Taken from concentration averages over a five day sampling event
3. Based on pollutant concentration averages
4. AS = Air Stripper
CP = Chemical Precipitation
GAC = Granular Activated Carbon
FIGURE B-19
WESTERN PROCESSING -1739
FIVE DAY SAMPLING EVENT
REGION X KENT, WA
6096-01
-------
Treatment: Future
Wastewater Type: Groundwater
# Compounds Cone Cone
Detectedr ITD2 PP?
Pollutant
Total
Organics
Metals
PP:TCL:fTD
2t*ni
9:19:29
Mln-Max
iMASOOX
ug/L
4-852,500
ug/L
Mln-Max
64-364
ug/L
4-6,375
ug/L
NOTES:
1. PP = Priority Pollutant
TCL = Compound from Target Compound List
ITD = Industrial Technology Division Analyte
2. From samples collected from a one day sampling event
FIGURE B-20
WHITEHOUSE OIL PITS -1241
ONE DAY SAMPLING EVENT
REGION IV WHITEHOUSE, FL
6098-01
-------
ATTACHMENT C .
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY TABLES
891003-mll
-------
-------
KEY TO EPISODE NUMBERS
Bridgeport Rental
Charles George
Chemdyne
.Geneva Industries
Gold Coast Oil
Hydepark Landfill
Love Canal
Nyanza
Reilly Tar
Stringfellow
Stringfellow
Stringfellow
Sylvester
Time Oil
Tyson's Dump
United Chrome
Verona Well Fields
Well 12A
Western Processing
White House Oil
EPISODE NUMBER
1222
1309
1807
1224
1242
1220
1219
1310
1239
1221
1240
1805
1325
1804
1568
1738
1223
1808
1739
1241
KEY TO TECHNOLOGIES
AirS
Bio
ChPt
DAF
GAG
OWS
SF
Air Stripping
Activated Sludge
Chemical Precipitation
Dissolved Air Flotation
Granular Activated Carbon
Oil-Water Separator
Sand Filter
891003-mll
-------
-------
TABLE C-l
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
ITD ORGANIC POLLUTANTS FREQUENTLY DETECTED AT 18 CERCLA SITES
891003-mll
-------
-------
TABLE C-1
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
ITD ORGANIC POLLUTANTS FREQUENTLY DETECTED AT 18 CERCLA SITES
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
AirS • GW 10.00
Airs GW 39.17
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
GAC LE 10.00
LAGOON LE 2435.00
GAC GW 84.67
0 - 100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
68
54
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
99
17
98
EPISODE
1808
1807
EPISODE
1219
1220
1804
1 , 2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
SF GW 11.00
GAC GW 10.00
AirS GW 10.00
ChPt GW 11.20
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX ' CONC.
GAC LE 10.00
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
2
17
86
88
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
> 99
EPISODE
1240
1240
1568
1240
EPISODE
1219
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
ChPt ,
GAC
SF
GAC
ChPt
Airs
AirS+ChPt+GAC
AirS
GAC
GAC+AirS
AirS
TECHNOLOGY
LAGOON
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 0 - 100
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 11.20
• GW 10.00
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
GW 10.25
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
GW 64.20
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 1,000 -
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
LE 1211.00
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 0 - 100
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 10.00
UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-12
0
2
11
33
38
38
73
-65
74
84
10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
34
UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
60
EPISODE
1739
1805
1805
1739
1805
1739
1739
1807
1223
1223
1223
EPISODE
1220
EPISODE
1805
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE (CONTINUED)
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
SF GW 48.20
SF GU 69.20
GAC GW 10.00
GAC GW 10.00
SF GW 100.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 100 - 1,
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
ChPT GW 100.00
ChPt GW 83.40
ChPt GW 62.25
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 0 - 100
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
AirS GW 10.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 100 - 1
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
GAC GW 10.00
GAC GW 10.00
GAC GW 10.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
23
17
89
90
0
,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
19
46
85
UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
26
,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
96
96
97
EPISODE
1805
1240
1240
1221
1221
EPISODE
1221
1240
1805
EPISODE
1568
EPISODE
1221
1805
1240
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
SF
SF
SF
GAC
TECHNOLOGY
ChPT
ChPt
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
AirS
BIO
SF
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
AirS
GAC
MATRIX
GU
GW
GU
LE
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
LE
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
EFFL.
CONC.
476.00
605.80
605.40
10.00
CONCENTRATION 1,000 -
EFFL.
CONC.
485.00
704.60
656.00
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
CONCENTRATION 0 - 100
EFFL.
CONC.
15.00
17.57
10.00
39.40
33.60
10.00
32.40
10.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
2
8
14
99
10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
55
51
55
UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
6
38
69
-17
2
71
18
78
EPISODE
1221
1805
1240
1219
EPISODE
1221
1240
1805
EPISODE
1222
1568
1325
1325
1325
1325
1325
1739
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
2,4-DIHETHYLPHENOL (CONTINUED)
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
ChPt GW 44.60
SF LE 24.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 100
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
OWS LE 110.00
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC LE 15.00
DAF LE 74.00
AirS GW 69.00
AirS+ChPt+GAC GW 10.00
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 0 -
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
SF GW 74.80
GAC GW 50.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 100
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY , MATRIX CONC.
ChPt GW 60.80
PERCENT
REMOVAL
35
68
- 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-9
85
33
47
92
100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-23
22
- 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
86
EPISODE
1739
1222
EPISODE
1222
1222
1222
1739
1739
EPISODE
1240
1240
EPISODE
1240
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
2-BUTANONE (MEK) (CONTINUED)
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 0 - 100
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
AirS GW 50.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 100 - 1
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
GAC GW V 54.20
GAC+AirS GW 50.00
ChPt GW 691.00
GAC ' GW 50.00
GAC GW 50.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 1,000 -
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
SF GW 1105.00
SF GW 1076.40
ChPt GW 1242.25
ChPt GW 1179.00
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 0 - 100
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
8
,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
86
87
-27
92
93
10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
6
13
17
58
UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
EPISODE
1223
EPISODE
1223
1223
1738
1805
1240
EPISODE
1240
1805
1805
1240
EPISODE
ChPt
GW
71.00
-42
1739
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
4-HETHYL-2-PENTANONE (CONTINUED)
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
AirS GW 50.00
Ai rS+ChPt+GAC GW 50.00
GAC GW 50.00
BIO GW 50.00
GAC GW ' 50.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
AirS GW 80.20
GAC GW 50.00
SF GW 613.00
SF GW 599.20
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
SF GW 1009.20
ChPt . GW 915.80
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO GW 50.00
ChPt GW 738.00
ChPt GW 1070.00
ACETONE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
PERCENT
REMOVAL
27
27
30
38
48
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
87
92
17
35
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
6
17
95
47
61
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
EPISODE
1739
1739
1739
1325
1805
EPISODE
1325
1240
1805
1325
EPISODE
1240
1325
1325
1805
1240
EPISODE
ChPt
GW
53.00
1738
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
ACETONE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
BIO
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
SF
AirS
AirS
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
GAC
GAC
GAC
GAC+AfrS
GAC
SF
DAF
SF
OWS
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC
ChPt
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GU
GU
GU
GU
GU
GU
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GU
GU
GU
GU
GU
LE
LE
LE
GU
LE
LE
GU
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
50.00
582.20
50.00
590.20
145.20
55.33
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
50.00
50.00
50.00
912.80
55.33
2565.00
2350.00
2426.00
4964.00
2925.00
2565.00
5343.50
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
66
H
-10
91
-1
75
94
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
96
97
97
52
97
-8
3
17
-60
10
21
-7
EPISODE
1325
1325
1325
1325
1325
1223
EPISODE
1221
1805
1240
1223
1223
1222
1222
1222
1240
1222
1222
1805
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
ACETONE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
SF
TECHNOLOGY
ChPT
ChPt
LAGOON
TECHNOLOGY
AirS
GAC
SF
GAC
ChPt
ChPt
BIO
GAC
GAC+AirS
AirS
AirS+ChPt+GAC
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 4085.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 2256.00
GW * 3110.20
LE 63472.00
BENZENE
' ; INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
GW 10.67
GW 10.00
GW 10.80
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
GW 17.40
GW 10.67
PERCENT
REMOVAL
24
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
84
84
-21
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
0
0
; 1
18
38
46
60
60
34
60
EPISODE
1805
EPISODE
1221
1240
1220
EPISODE
1223
1805
1805
1739
1805
1739
1325
1223
1223
1739
1739
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
BENZENE (CONTINUED)
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
AirS GW 10.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
SF GW 245.60
AlrS GW 18.40
ChPt GW 241.20
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO GW 10.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
GAC LE 10.00
LAGOON LE 2363.00
BENZOIC ACID
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
GAC GW 50.00
GAC LE 50.00
OUS LE 67.00
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC LE 50.00
ChPt GW 72.60
PERCENT
REMOVAL
78
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-2
93
23
97
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
99
19
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
0
-25
7
-31
EPISODE
1807
EPISODE
1325
1325
1325
1325
EPISODE
1219
1220
EPISODE
1739
1222
1222
1222
1325
-------
TABLE Cr1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
BENZOIC ACID (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
ChPt
BIO
DAF
SF
AirS
AirS+ChPt+GAC
AirS
TECHNOLOGY
SF,
GAC
GAC
SF
SF
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
ChPT
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
LE
GW
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
LE
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX .
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
LE
EFFL.
CONC.
50.00
50.00
50,00
124.00
80.00
56.80
50.00
59.80
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
60.00
50.00
45.00
1023.20
736.00
677.40
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
819.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
50.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
10
12
16
-85
-10
23
32
25
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
52
90
91
-51
10
25
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
55
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
> 99
EPISODE
1325
1739
1325
1222
1325
1739
1739
1325
EPISODE
1222
1221
1240
1240
1221
1240
EPISODE
1221
EPISODE
1219
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS,TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
BENZOIC ACID (CONTINUED)
~""~™~™™™""'~~~~~"---------'--------------------«---------»»------.»----------«.----.---.--___«.»______„»,
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION > 100,000 UG/L
EFFL. PERCENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC. REMOVAL EPISODE
LAGOON LE 3210030.00 -39 1220
BENZYL ALCOHOL
>«•....__._..._____-•---.--.___».»»___«»_w________-_-___________-_--__________---______ _«•_„.__„_„
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 0 - 100 UG/L
EFFL. PERCENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC. REMOVAL EPISODE
Airs
SF
GAC
GAC
GAC+AirS
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
TECHNOLOGY
LAGOON
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
21.00
24.60
10.00
17.80
21.00
26.00
-18
5
65
49
40
71
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 100 - 1,000 UG/L
EFFL.
CONC.
PERCENT
REMOVAL
MATRIX
LE 10.00 99
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
MATRIX
LE
EFFL.
CONC.
8220.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
38
1223
1240
1240
1223
1223
1240
EPISODE
1219
EPISODE
1220
-------
TABLE C-1 CCONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE (CONTINUED)
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
GAC GW 37.80
SF GW 59.20
GAC GW 46.40
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
ChPt GW 50.80
GAC GW 206.17
AirS GW 239.33
GAC GW 192.17
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY . MATRIX CONC.
SF GW 394.60
SF+GAC GW 192.17
CHLOROBENZENE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
23
-17
22
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
52
-77
-69
51
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
83
92
0 - 100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
EPISODE
1240
1240
1223
EPISODE
1240
1804
1808
1239
EPISODE
1239
1239
EPISODE
BIO
GW
10.00
28
1325
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
CHLOROBENZENE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
AirS
TECHNOLOGY
AirS
SF
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
GAC
GAC
GAC
SF
SF
SF
TECHNOLOGY
ChPT
ChPt
ChPt
LAGOON
GAC
MATRIX
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
LE
LE
EFFL.
CONC.
10.00
CONCENTRATION 100 -
EFFL.
CONC.
13.80
186.00
189.60
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
1000.00
620.00
737.20
CONCENTRATION 1,000
EFFL.
CONC.
600.00
657.20
878.00
2267.00
10.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
71
1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
93
2
15
96
97
97
97
-67
6
16
- 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
53
55
42
15
> 99
EPISODE
1807
EPISODE
1325
1325
1325
1325
1221
1805
1240
1221
1240
1805
EPISODE
1221
1240
1805
1220
1219
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
CHLOROFORM (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
BIO
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
GAC-
GAC
SF
AirS
AirS
AirS+ChPt+GAC
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
GAC
SF
SF
SF
ChPt
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GU
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
LE
GW
GW
GW
GW
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
10.00
10.00
19.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
10.00
10.00
10.00
368.40
23.00
56.00
10.00
359.40
10.00
10.00
491.60
1000.00
603.60
523.80
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
47
57
66
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
96
97
97
-2
94
86
98
18
98
98
6
-84
16
45
EPISODE
1739
1325
1739
EPISODE
1221
1240
1805
1325
1325
1739
1739
1325
1325
1219
1240
1221
1805
1240
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
CHLOROFORM (CONTINUED)
EFFL. PERCENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC. REMOVAL EPISODE
ChPt GW 718.50 26 1805
ChPT GW 544.00 46 1221
CHLOROMETHANE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
EFFL. PERCENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC. REMOVAL EPISODE
LAGOON LE 7049.00 33 1220
ETHYLBENZENE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 0 - 100 UG/L
EFFL. PERCENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC. REMOVAL EPISODE
BIO
GAC
AirS
SF
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
10.00
10.00
10.00
30.20
37.00
0
30
70
18
55
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 100 - 1,000 UG/L
MATRIX
GW
GW
EFFL.
CONC.
419.00
10.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-46
97
1325
1805
1807
1805
1805
EPISODE
1325
1325
-------
TABLE C-1 CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
ETHYLBENZENE (CONTINUED)
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
AirS GW 10.00
SF GW 345.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
LAGOON LE 2156.00
HEXANOIC ACID
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
DAF LE 10.00
GAC LE 10.00
SF LE 10.00
OWS LE . 10.00
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC ; LE 10.00
GAC GW 9.00
GAC GW 10.00
SF GW 100.00
INFLUENT, CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
GAC LE 10.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
97
18
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
18
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
0
0
59
59
78
90
0
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
92
EPISODE
1325
1325
EPISODE
1220
EPISODE
1222
1222
1222
1222
1222
1240
1221
1221
EPISODE
1219
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
HEXANOIC ACID (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
ChPt
SF
ChPT
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
BIO
ChPt
SF
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
AirS
AirS
AirS+ChPt+GAC
GAC
SF
OWS
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC
DAF
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
EFFL.
CONC.
154.00
97.00
100.00
ISOPHORONE
CONCENTRATION 0 -
EFFL.
CONC.
10.00
10.00
10.00
13.20
12.60
10.00
11.00
12.20
10.00
23.00
60.00
60.00
23.00
58.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-7
37
71
100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
9
18
-5
4
24
17
*
21
35
57
-3
-3
61
3
EPISODE
1240
1240
1221
EPISODE
1739
1325
1739
1325
1325
1325
1325
1739
1739
1222
1222
1222
1222
1222
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
ISOPHORONE (CONTINUED)
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 100-1,
1 .
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
GAC _ GW 10.00
GAC GW 10.00
GAC GW 10.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 1,000 -
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY . MATRIX CONC.
ChPt GW 1749.25
SF GW 1130.00
SF GW 1495.60
SF GW 1269.20
ChPt GW 1577.40
ChPT GW 1102.00
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 0 - 100
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
AirS GW 10.00
GAC GW 14.00
GAC+AirS GW 10.00
000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
99
99
99
10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-70
-3
5
27
12
42
UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
29
25
46
EPISODE
1221
1805
1240
EPISODE
1805
1221
1240
1805
1240
1221
EPISODE
1223
1223
1223
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
ChPt
BIO
GAC
ChPt
AfrS
AirS+ChPt+GAC
TECHNOLOGY
SF
AirS
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
GAC
GAC
GAC
TECHNOLOGY
SF
SF
ChPt
ChPt
SF
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GU
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
EFFL.
CONC.
27.40
10.00
10.00
52.33
21.80
10.00
CONCENTRATION 100 -
EFFL.
CONC.
271.60
25.20
249.60
10.00
10.00
10.50
10.00
CONCENTRATION 1,000
EFFL.
CONC.
1226.40
1382.00
1227.80
1230.25
2706.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-26
60
64
36
74
88
1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-9
91
24
97
99
99
99
; 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
-12
34
49
1
EPISODE
1739
1325
1739
1738
1739
1739
EPISODE
1325
1325
1325
1325
1805
1240
1221
EPISODE
1240
1805
1240
1805
1221
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
METHYLENE CHLORIDE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
LAGOON
ChPT
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
GAC
AirS
ChPt
BIO
SF
AirS
Ai rS+ChPt+GAC
TECHNOLOGY
SF
ChPt
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
LE 2279.00
GW 2729; 00
N.N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 0 - 100
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 18.83
GW 78.40
GW 10.00
GW 15.50
GW 78.40
GW 38.80
GW 10.00
GW 76.80
GW 77.80
GW 18.83
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 100 - 1
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 109.40
GW 147.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
36
24
UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
51
-15
85
77
-2
50
87
2
15
79
,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
26
11
EPISODE
1220
1221
EPISODE
1739
1325
1325
1240
1325
1739
1325
1325
1739
1739
EPISODE
1240
1240
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
P-CRESOL (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
GAC
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
SF
BIO
ChPt
SF
AirS
OAF
AirS
AirS+ChPt+GAC
OWS
OWS-fDAF+SF+GAC
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GH
LE
GW
GW
LE
GW
GW
GW
GW
LE
GW
GW
LE
LE
INFLUENT
MATRIX
LE
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
10.00
10.00
48.20
10.00
44.00
10.00
10.00
52.40
42.20
36.00
44.80
10.00
66.00
10.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
10.00
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
63
-65
66
-22
76
78
-9
19
45
37
86
9
86
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
94
EPISODE
1739
1222
1325
1325
1222
1325
1739
1325
1325
1222
1739
1739
1222
1222
EPISODE
1219
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
P-DIOXANE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
ChPt
GAC
GAC
TECHNOLOGY
ChPt
SF
AirS
AirS+ChPt+GAC
GAC
SF
ChPt
ChPt
AirS
SF
BIO
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
11.00
83.00
119.83
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
150.60
107.00
102.60
131.83
131 .83
152.00
155.25
111.60
471 .60
457.40
367.50
459.40
367.50
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
17
1
-20
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-47
4
27
6
12
2
28
69
-3
0
22
12
30
EPISODE
1738
1805
1240
EPISODE
1739
1240
1739
1739
1739
1805
1805
1240
1325
1325
1325
1325
1325
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
PHENOL (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
AirS
ChPt
SF
GAC
OUS
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC
DAF
BIO
AirS
GAC
TECHNOLOGY
SF
GAC
ChPt
SF
GAC
ChPt
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
LE
GW
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
10.00
10.00
10.00
45.00
27.00
36.00
27.00
27.00
10.00
42.60
10.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
49.60
10.00
162.00
134.20
10.00
125.80
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
8
44
-67
16
-3
23
25
77
14
83
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
61
93
-2
17
95
39
EPISODE
1739
1568
1739
1222
1222
1222
1222
1222
1325
1325
1240
EPISODE
1325
1221
1240
1240
1219
1325
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
PHENOL (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
ChPt+SF+AiYs+BIO
SF
>
TECHNOLOGY
AirS
AirS+ChPt+GAC
TECHNOLOGY
LAGOON
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 10.00
GU 215.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 17.80
GW , 10.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
LE 932050.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
95
19
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
99
99
> 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
40
EPISODE
1325
1221
EPISODE
1739
1739
EPISODE
1220
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TECHNOLOGY
AirS
ChPt
GAC
BIO
GAC
AirS
SF
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 10.00
GW 11.00
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
GW 65.00
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
-10
9
41
66
71
22
EPISODE
1223
1739
1739
1325
1805
1568
1805
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
TETRACHLOROETHENE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
SF
GAC
TECHNOLOGY
AirS
AirS
AirS+ChPt+GAC
SF
GAC
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
ChPt
AirS
GAC
GAC+AirS
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
LAGOON
MATRIX
GW
GU
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
LE
LE
EFFL.
CONC.
93.00
10.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
17.00
10.00
10.00
145.60
15.00
83.00
150.20
10.00
94.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
10.00
3037.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
. 1
90
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
88
93
93
3
91
58
35
96
76
98
98
98
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
99
16
EPISODE
1240
1240
EPISODE
1325
1739
1739
1325
1804
1805
1325
1325
1240
1807
1223
1223
EPISODE
1219
1220
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
TOLUENE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
AirS
GAC
GAC
ChPt
AirS
Ai rS+ChPt+GAC
GAC
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
SF
SF
BIO
ChPt
GAC
GAC+AirS
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
AirS
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
GW 11.80
GW 26.80
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
:. GW 10.00
GW 155.20
GW 207.80
GW 10.00
GW 192.25
GW 10.00
GW 10.00
GW 224.80
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 270.60
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
15
48
56
53
82
86
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
92
19
8
96
57
98
98
64
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
96
EPISODE
1223
1739
1804
1739
1739
1739
1805
EPISODE
1240
1805
1240
1325
1805
1223
1223
1240
EPISODE
1325
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
TOLUENE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX
SF GW
ChPt GW
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO GW
INFLUENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX
LAGOON LE
GAC LE
EFFL.
CONC.
6397.00
7006.40
10.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
9757.00
10.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
9
24
> 99
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
28
> 99
EPISODE
1325
1325
1325
EPISODE
1220
1219
TRANS- 1 , 2-D I CHLOROETHENE
INFLUENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX
GAC GW
AirS GW
GAC GW
SF GW
SF GW
SF+GAC GW
GAC GW
ChPt GW
ChPt GW
BIO GW
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
10.00
10.00
10.00
14.80
19.40
13.17
13.17
15.20
15.75
10.00
0 - 100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
9
12
34
6
-9
26
32-
33
48
84
EPISODE
1805
1808
1739
1805
1239
1239
1239
1739
1805
1325
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
GAC
GAC+AirS
AirS
AirS
GAC
AirS
AirS+ChPt+GAC
TECHNOLOGY
SF
AirS
LAGOON
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
TECHNOLOGY
EFFL.
HATRIX CONC.
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 100 - 1,
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
LE 10.00
GW 334.60
GW 21.00
GW 10.00
GW 21.00
GW 10.00
GW 22.80
GW 10.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 1,000 -
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 1320.20
GW 60.60
LE 1000.00
GW 1299.60
GW 10.00
TRICHLOROETHENE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 0 - 100
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
PERCENT
REMOVAL
000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
94
-87
88
96
94
98
97
99
10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-2
95
26
14
99
UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
EPISODE
EPISODE
1219
1223
1223
1807
1223
1804
1739
1739
EPISODE
1325
1325
1220
1325
1325
EPISODE
AirS
GW
10.00
50
1568
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
TRICHLOROETHENE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
BIO
AirS
ChPt
AirS
GAC
TECHNOLOGY
AirS
AirS
SF
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
GAC
GAC
GAC+AirS
TECHNOLOGY
GAC
GAC
AirS
AirS+ChPt+GAC
GAC
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
LE
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
EFFL.
CONC.
10.00
10.00
60.00
10.00
10.00
CONCENTRATION 100 -
EFFL.
CONC.
10.00
25.20
388.60
393.00
10.00
10.00
31.60
10.00
CONCENTRATION 1,000
EFFL.
CONC.
30.67
10.00
54.00
10.00
10.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
60
68
-11
83
83
1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
96
94 "
1
22
98
98
95
99
- 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
98
99
97
99
99
EPISODE
1325
1223
1739
1808
1739
EPISODE
1807
1325
1325
1325
1325
1219
1223
1223
EPISODE
1804
1805
1739
1739
1221
-------
TABLE C-1 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
TRICHLOROETHENE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX
GAC GW
LAGOON LE
SF GW
SF GW
SF GW
ChPt GW
ChPT GW
ChPt GW
EFFL.
CONC.
10.00
2661.00
2977.20
3366.40
5247.00
3654.00
5429.00
3679.40
PERCENT
REMOVAL
> 99
25
19
9
3
47
32
56
EPISODE
1240
1220
1805
1240
1221
1805
1221
1240
-------
-------
TABLE C-2
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
ITD INORGANIC POLLUTANTS FREQUENTLY DETECTED AT 18 CERCLA SITES
891003-mil
-------
-------
TABLE C-2
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
ITD INORGANIC POLLUTANTS FREQUENTLY DETECTED AT 18 CERCLA SITES
ALUMINUM
INFLUENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX
SF LE
SF GW
INFLUENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO GW
ChPt GW
BIO GW
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC ' LE
OWS LE
DAF LE
INFLUENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX
SF GW
LAGOON LE
SF GW
ChPt GW
. SF GW
INFLUENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX
ChPt GW
AirS+ChPt+GAC GW
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
9.00
92.80
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
119.33
94.00
119.33
37.00
422.00
66.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
2230.00
2760.00
5262.00
35.00
5580.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
229.00
136.67
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
86
1
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-8
15
-7
91
-5 ;
84
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
9
21
3
> 99
38
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
99
> 99
EPISODE
1222
1325
EPISODE
1325
1325
1325
1222
1222
1222
EPISODE
1221
1220
1240
1738
1805
EPISODE
1739
1739
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
ALUMINUM (CONTINUED)
*""*™™~"""""*~"""~~~~~~~~"*~~~~~"~"'~""~""""------"""-------*--------------------«-----.»----.--•«._______
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION > 100,000 UG/L
EFFL. PERCENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX , CONC. REMOVAL EPISODE
ChPT GW 2460.00 > 99 1221
ChPt GW 8987.50 > 99 1805
ChPt GW 5440.00 > 99 1240
ARSENIC
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 0 - 100 UG/L
EFFL. PERCENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC. REMOVAL EPISODE
AirS+ChPt+GAC
ChPt
ChPt
SF
LAGOON
TECHNOtOGY
SF
BIO
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
ChPt
ChPT
GW
GW
GW
GW
LE
3.15
2.00
20.00
40.00
6.00
71
84
-56
-82
79
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 100 - 1,000 UG/L
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
EFFL.
CONC.
123.00
104.50
104.50
114.20
22.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-8
21
81
80
97
1739
1739
1738
1221
1220
EPISODE
1325
1325
1325
1325
1221
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
BARIUM (CONTINUED)
INFLUENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX
SF LE
SF GW
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC LE
OWS LE
DAF LE
BIO GW
SF GW
SF GW
ChPt GW
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO GW
ChPt GW
ChPt GW
AirS+ChPt+GAC GW
ChPt GW
INFLUENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX
SF .GW
SF+GAC GW
SF GW
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
9.30
13.20
13.00
16.00
9.30
17.83
27.80
31.00
25.75
17.83
13.40
9.00
11.67
9.80
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
98.20
171 .33
170.20
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
1
13
-7
42
-10
-8
-19
14
59
69
81
76
86
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
3
2
3 \
EPISODE
1222
1325
1222
1222
1222
1325
1805
1221
1805
1325
1325
1738
1739
1739
EPISODE
1240
1239
1239
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
BORON (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
SF
BIO
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
SF
SF
SF+GAC
OAF
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC
OWS
ChPt
SF
TECHNOLOGY
SF
AirS+ChPt+GAC
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
LAGOON
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
LE
GW
GW
LE
LE
LE
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
LE
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
124.40
135.83
119.20
135.83
177.00
225.20
225.00
214.00
135.00
241.00
52.67
950.20
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
1204.00
1820.00
2246.00
931.00
1212.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
0.01
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-4
12
24
13
17
-1
0
11
45
2
86
-2
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
1
18
2
69
71
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
> 99
EPISODE
1325
1325
1325
1325
1222
1239
1239
1222
1222
1222
1738
1805
EPISODE
1240
1739
1739
1805
1240
EPISODE
1220
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
BORON (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
SF
TECHNOLOGY
ChPT
TECHNOLOGY
SF
SF
SF
LAGOON
TECHNOLOGY
Ai rS+ChPt+GAC
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
ChPt
ChPT
ChPt
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GU 40400.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GU 39800.00
CADMIUM
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 4.20
GW 7.20
GW 13.00
LE 21.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 4.00
GW 4.60
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX . CONC.
GW 6.20
GW 13.00
GW , 4.75
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-2
> 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
76
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
12
-16
0
11
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
99
99
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
> 99
> 99
> 99
EPISODE
1221
EPISODE
1221
EPISODE
1805
1240
1221
1220
EPISODE
1739
1739
EPISODE
1240
1221
1805
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
CALCIUM (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
SF
DAF
OWS
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC
TECHNOLOGY
SF
BIO
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
ChPt
SF
SF+GAC
AfrS+ChPt+GAC
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
ChPT
ChPt
ChPt
SF
SF
INFLUENT
MATRIX
LE
LE
LE
LE
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
3850.00
3830.00
4110.00
4030.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
59380.00
72816.67
72816.67
59360.00
89920.00
89633.33
61800.00
82920.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
545000.00
684250.00
190333.33
578000.00
763000.00
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-T
7
1
3
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
-18
8
25
0
0
34
17
> 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-40
-52
61
-6
-12
EPISODE
1222
1222
1222
1222
EPISODE
1325
1325
1325
1325
1239
1239
1739
1739
EPISODE
1221
1805
1738
1221
1805
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
CALCIUM (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
LAGOON
SF
TECHNOLOGY
BIO
SF
SF
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
ChPt
SF
SF
SF
OWS
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC
DAF
TECHNOLOGY^,
AirS+ChPt+GAC
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
ChPT
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
LE 665000.00
GW 891800.00
CHROMIUM
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW , 10.17
GU 10.40
LE 6.00
GW 10.17
GW 11.60
GW 28.00
GW 45.00
GW 29.40
LE 55.00
LE 4.00
LE 13.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 13.00
GW 12.60
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 34.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
19
-1
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
11
10
54
28
18
18
1
41
-3
93
76
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
99
99
> 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
> 99
EPISODE
1220
1240
EPISODE
1325
1325
1222
1325
1325
• 1221
1240
1805
1222
1222
1222
EPISODE
1739
1739
EPISODE
1221
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
CHROMIUM (CONTINUED)
EFFL. PERCENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC. REMOVAL EPISODE
ChPt GW 50.00 > 99 1805
ChPt GW 45.60 > 99 1240
COBALT
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 0 - 100 UG/L
EFFL. PERCENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC. REMOVAL EPISODE
SF
SF
LAGOON
SF
ChPt
AirS+ChPt+GAC
TECHNOLOGY
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
ChPT
ChPt
ChPt
GU
GU
LE
GW
GW
GW
9.00
10.00
10.00
25.00
20.00
20.00
0
0
38
0
67
77
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 100 - 1,000 UG/L
EFFL.
CONC.
PERCENT
REMOVAL
MATRIX
GW 20.00 85
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION 1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
EFFL.
CONC.
10.00
25.00
9.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
> 99
99
> 99
1805
1221
1220
1240
1738
1739
EPISODE
1739
EPISODE
1221
1240
1805
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
COPPER (CONTINUED)
,
TECHNOLOGY
DAF
OWS
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC
SF
SF
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
ChPt
BIO
TECHNOLOGY
SF
SF
SF
AirS+ChPt+GAC
ChPt
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
ChPt
ChPt
INFLUENT
MATRIX
LE
LE
LE
LE
GW
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
37.00
24.00
17.00
18.00
17.60
24.17
71.20
24.17
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
140.00
250.00
198.80
9.00
44.40
6.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
'CONC.
315.00
274.80
0 - 100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-54
8
35
51
75
72
17
74
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
7
9
37
98
90
99
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
96
97
EPISODE
1222
1222
1222
1222
1325
1325
1325
1325
EPISODE
1221
-1240
1805
1739
1739
1738
EPISODE
1805
1240
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
COPPER (CONTINUED)
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
ChPT GW 150.00
IRON
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
ChPt GW 25.00
SF GW 60.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
SF GW * 10Z.20
SF GW 70.40
SF GW 233.60
SF+GAC GW 149.33
SF GW 49.00
BIO GW 148.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
SF LE 635.00
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC LE 308.00
OWS LE 9070.00
DAF LE 8260.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO GW 148.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
98
0 - 100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
55
15
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
10
52
8
75
92
84
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
92
97
0
9
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
99
EPISODE
1221
EPISODE
1738
1221
EPISODE
1240
1805
1325
1239
1239
1325
EPISODE
1222
1222
1222
1222
EPISODE
1325
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
IRON (CONTINUED)
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
ChPt GW 253.40
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
Ai rS+ChPt+GAC GW 614.50
ChPt GW 371.20
ChPt GW 113.40
ChPT GW 71.00
ChPt GW 147.25
LAGOON LE 0.01
LEAD
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
SF LE 24.00
SF GW 41.00
SF GW 50.00
SF GW 50.00
DAF LE 24.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
OWS LE 88.00
i
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC LE 24.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
99
> 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
99
> 99
> 99
> 99
> 99
> 99
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
0
0
1
73
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
19
78
EPISODE
1325
EPISODE
1739
1739
1240
1221
1805
1220
EPISODE
1222
1805
1221
1240
1222
EPISODE
1222
1222
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
LEAD (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
ChPt
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
ChPT
TECHNOLOGY
SF
OAF
OWS
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC
SF
810
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
TECHNOLOGY
SF
SF+GAC
SF
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 50.40
GW 41.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 50.00
MAGNESIUM
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
LE 2690.00
LE . 2680.00
.LE 2860.00
LE 2460.00
GW 2964.00
GW ' 3355.00
GW 3014.00
GW 3355.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 31560.00
GW 31466.67
GW 45700.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
77
92
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
97
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
6
1
15
2
0
55
50
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-1
-1
-20
EPISODE
1240
1805
EPISODE
1221
EPISODE
1222
1222
1222
1222
1325
1325
1325
1325
EPISODE
1239
1239
1805
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
MAGNESIUM (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
AirS+ChPt+GAC
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
SF
SF
ChPt
LAGOON
ChPT
ChPt
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
SF
SF
SF+GAC
TECHNOLOGY
BIO
DAF
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GU 34216.67
GU 39480.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 107020.00
GW 136000.00
GW 7723.33
LE 201000.00
GW 137000.00
GW 38000.00
GW 109500.00
MANGANESE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.'
GW 42.40
GW 84.20
GW 83.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 29.83
LE 847.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
17
11
> 100.000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
2
1
95
21
61
97
91
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
6
0
2
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
86
-20
EPISODE
1739
1739
EPISODE
1240
1221
1738
1220
1221
1805
1240
EPISODE
1325
1239
1239
EPISODE
1325
1222
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
MANGANESE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
OWS
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC
SF
TECHNOLOGY
SF
ChPt
SF
SF
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
AirS+ChPt+GAC
TECHNOLOGY
LAGOON
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
ChPT
ChPt
ChPt
MATRIX
LE
LE
LE
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
LE
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
- GW
GW
EFFL.
CONC.
705.00
668.00
814.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
1117.80
4.00
2334.00
4740.00
45.00
29.83
1471.67
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
0.01
2278.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
4820.00
1058.75
2388.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
6
4
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-6
> 99
2
2
99
99
83
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
> 99
83
> 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
98
>, 99
99
EPISODE
1222
1222
1222
EPISODE
1805
1738
1240
1221
1325
1325
1739
EPISODE
1220
1739
EPISODE
1221
1805
1240
_
-------
TABLE C-2 99
97
93
99
99
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
> 99
EPISODE
1805
1222
1222
1222
1222
1240
1221
1325
1325
EPISODE
1738
EPISODE
1220
1739
1739
1325
1325
EPISODE
1240
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
NICKEL (CONTINUED)
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX _ CONC.
ChPT GW 27.00
ChPt GW 11.00
POTASSIUM
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
OWS LE 1000.00
SF GW 1560.00
chpt GW 1580.00
SF LE 3420.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
chp* GW 15700.00
SF GW 20500.00'
ChPT GW 20700.00
ChPt GW 24900.00
SF GW 24920.00
AirS+ChPt+GAC GW 26167.00
ChPt GW 30400.00
,-
PERCENT
REMOVAL EPISODE
> 99 1221
> 99 1805
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL EPISODE
1 1222
1 1240
0 124Q
13 1222
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL EPISODE
-8 1738
1 1221
14 1221
-3 1805
0 1805
15 1739
4 1739
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION > 100,000 UG/L
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
LAGOON . LE 438000.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL EPISODE
29 1220
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
SILICON (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
SF
TECHNOLOGY
SF
TECHNOLOGY
SF
SF+GAC
SF
OWS
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC
DAF
SF
BIO
LAGOON
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
ChPt
ChPt
TECHNOLOGY
ChPT
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION i
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GU 0.01
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 129.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW 1240.00
GW 1267.00
LE 1620.00
LE 2090.00
LE 1550.00
LE 1690.00
GW 4140.00
GW 4050.00
LE 5200.00
XGW 0.01
GW 4050.00
GW 4180.00
GW 3067.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
MATRIX CONC.
GW . 179.00
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
> 99
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
28
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
2
0
4
-2
24
19
1
5
19
> 99
45
43
66
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
99
EPISODE
1240
EPISODE
1221
EPISODE
1239
1239
1222
1222
_ 1222
1222
1325
1325
1220
1240
1325
1325
1738
EPISODE
1221
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
SILICON (CONTINUED)
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
AirS+ChPt+GAC GU 5133.00
ChPt GU 2340.00
ChPt GW 225.00
SODIUM
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
SF GW 8332.00
SF+GAC GW 8351 .67
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
ChPt GW 31080.00
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO GW 38400.00
SF GW 31160.00
BIO GW 38400.00
OWS LE 51900.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
SF LE 124000.00
ChPt GW 484600.00
AirS+ChPt+GAC GW 466333.33
ChPt GW 996000.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
66
88
99
1.000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-1
-1
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-23
-52
0
-20
0
> 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-1
-66
-36
-15
EPISODE
1739
1739
1805
EPISODE
1239
1239
EPISODE
1325
1325
1325
1325
1222
EPISODE
1222
1739
1739
1240
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
SODIUM (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
ChPT
SF
SF
SF
LAGOON
-
TECHNOLOGY
SF
SF
SF+GAC
BIO
ChPt
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO
AirS+ChPt+GAC
ChPt
SF
TECHNOLOGY
SF
ChPT
SF
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
GU
LE
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GU
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GW
GW
EFFL.
CONC.
943000.00
943000.00
1290000.00
1656000.00
2500000.00
STRONTIUM
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
200.00
200.00
200.00
200.00
200.00 •
200.00
400.00
520.00
1120.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
1100.00
1080.00
1440.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
0
-30
0
28
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0
0
0
0
50
50
37
28
-36
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-2
2
0
EPISODE
1221
1221
1240
1805
1220
EPISODE
1325 _
1239
1239
1325
1325
1325
1739
1739
1805
EPISODE
1221
1221
1240
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
STRONTIUM (CONTINUED)
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
ChPt GW 1440.00
ChPt GW 825.00
LAGOOM LE 2300 .fOO
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
ChPt GW 6967.00
SULFUR
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
SF LE 4180.00
DAF LE 4230.00
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC LE 3090.00
OUS LE 6210.00
SF GW 8800.00
SF+GAC GW 9167.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO . GW 37200.00
ChPt GW 34780.00
BIO GW 37200.00
SF GW 34620.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
7
59
27
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
44
1,000 - 10,000 UG/L
*
PERCENT
REMOVAL
1
32
56
12
8
4
10,000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-92
-79
-9
0
EPISODE
1240
1805
1220
EPISODE
1738
EPISODE
1222
1222
1222
1222
1239
1239
EPISODE
1325
1325
1325
1325
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
SULFUR (CONTINUED)
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL,
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
ChPt GW 203000.00
AirS+ChPt+GAC GW 147167.00
LAGOON LE 379000.00
SF GW 1600000.00
SF GW 1712000.00
SF GW 1760000.00
ChPT V GW 1490000.00
ChPt • GW 1655000.00
ChPt GW 1746000.00
TITANIUM
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
SF -GW 4.20
SF LE 5.00
SF GW 9.00
OWS+DAF+SF+GAC LE 5.00
OWS LE 9.00
DAF LE 5.00
SF GW 13.00
> 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-17
28
20
-7
-3
-1
30
71
72
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
1
0
-29
.'' t 38
:" -12
44
-20
EPISODE
1739
1739
1220
1221
1805
1240
1221
1805
1240
EPISODE
1805
1222
1221
1222
1222
1222
1240
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
TITANIUM (CONTINUED)
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
AirS+ChPt+GAC GW 13.17
ChPt GW 3.60
LAGOON LE 40.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
ChPt GW 4.25
ChPt GW 10.80
ChPt GW 6.67
ChPT GW 7.00
ZINC
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
SF GW 8.00
SF GW 20.20
SF GW 18.00
BIO GW 24.33
SF GW 30.00
ChPt+SF+AirS+BIO GW 24.33
ChPt ' GW 24.40
SF LE 17.00
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX CONC.
ChPt GW 18.00
PERCENT
REMOVAL
-7
83
-10
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
96
91
98
98
0-100 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
32
-46
18
-10
-23
1
1
60
100 - 1,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
87
EPISODE
1739
1739
1220
EPISODE
1805
1240
1738
1221
EPISODE
1805
1240
1221
1325
1325
1325
1325
1222
EPISODE
1738
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
ZINC (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
DAF
OUS+DAF+SF+GAC
OWS
LAGOON
TECHNOLOGY
AirS+ChPt+GAC
ChPT
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
MATRIX
LE
LE
LE
LE
INFLUENT
MATRIX
GW
GU
GW
GW
GW
EFFL.
CONC.
42.00
25,00
309.00
_ 593.00
CONCENTRATION
EFFL.
CONC.
59.67
22.00
11.75
220.40
13.80
PERCENT
REMOVAL
86
92
1
-7
10.000 - 100,000 UG/L
PERCENT
REMOVAL
> 99
> 99
> 99
> 99
> 99
EPISODE
1222
1222
1222
1220
EPISODE
1739
1221
1805
1739
1240
-------
-------
SECTION 4
SITE VISIT SUMMARY REPORT
9.89.107C
0006.0.0
-------
SECTION 4 - SUMMARY SITE VISIT REPORT. Site visits were conducted with
personnel associated with 27 CERCLA sites which had existing, potential, or
denied discharges to a POTW. The site visits consisted of meetings with members
of USEPA, state, POTW, or potentially responsible parties (PRPs) in order to
discuss experiences with implementing the discharge of wastewater from a
specific CERCIA site.
Section 4 presents a summary of individual site visits conducted with
representatives from EPA, state, POTW, or responsible parties to discuss the
discharge of a specific CERCLA. site wastewater to a POTW. The information
presents the major political, technical, and economic issues concerning the
discharge of CERCLA. site wastewaters to POTWs that were found to arise in the
negotiations and approval process, and is provided to aid the user in foreseeing
potential issues that may require consideration.
891003B-mll
8.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
TITLE
INTRODUCTION '
SUPERFUND SITE WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
POTW CHARACTERISTICS
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES. . . '
4.1 Negotiations
4.2 POTW Concerns.
4 . 3 Discharge Limits
4.4 Liability , . . .
4.5 Costs
CONCLUSION
REFERENCE . . .
PAGE NO.
. . . 4-1
. . . 4-1
... 4-3
... 4-3
. . . 4-3
. . . 4-4
... 4-4
... 4-5
... 4-5
... 4-6
... 4-7
TABLE
LIST OF TABLES
TITLE
PAGE NO.
4-1
REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF SITES VISITED AND DISCHARGE STATUS
4-2
JW050301
002.0.0
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
USEPA initiated a two-year program to collect information regarding technical,
economic, regulatory, and administrative issues associated with Superfund site
wastewater discharges to POTWs. The purpose of the study was to conduct site
visits in each USEPA region with USEPA and state regulatory personnel,
responsible parties, and POTW representatives to evaluate current experience
with the discharge to POTW remedial alternative. During 1988 and 1989, sites
with existing or prospective discharges to POTWs were identified. Where site
access was provided, 47 site visits were conducted associated with 27
Superfund sites with existing, potential, or denied discharges of wastewater
to a POTW.
Each site visit consisted of an informational meeting with a regional USEPA,
state, POTW, or responsible party representative to discuss discharge of a
specific Superfund site wastewater to a POTW. The site visit program targeted
all ten USEPA regions to address potential regional variations in
implementation of discharges and other issues and concerns associated with the
POTW discharge alternative. Table 1 provides a regional overview of the sites
visited and their discharge status at the time of the visit.
The site visits were used to collect a broad range of information.
Information obtained from POTW operators ranged from basic technical data
concerning POTW treatability characteristics and flow capacity to specific
information concerning economic and liability issues associated with accepting
a Superfund wastewater discharge. Information derived from discussions with
USEPA and state regulatory personnel was geared toward developing an
understanding of the negotiation process and administrative, regulatory, and
technical issues involved in evaluating and implementing a discharge of
Superfund wastewater to a POTW. The remainder of this report summarizes the
variety of Superfund wastestreams considered for POTW discharges and the
characteristics of the POTWs that have been evaluated as potential receptors.
The significant issues that affect the implementability of the POTW discharge
alternative are also presented.
2.0 SUPERFUND SITE WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Contaminated groundwater is the most common wastestream either currently being
discharged or considered for discharge to a POTW; leachate is the second most
common. Surface water, storm water, decontamination water, and wastewater
generated by on-site soil treatment methods have also been discharged or
considered for discharge to a POTW. Most wastewaters are pretreated or
planned for pretreatment either on- of off-site before discharge to a POTW.
Both the untreated and pretreated wastestreams generally contained only low
levels of contaminants. For the Superfund sites studied, wastewater discharge
volumes generally comprised less than four percent of the POTW influent
volume.
JW050301
003.0.0
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1
REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF SITES VISITED AND DISCHARGE STATUS
USEPA
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
SITES
VISITED
1
8
1
1
5
2
1
1
3
4
NUMBER OF POTW DISCHARGES
EXISTING NEGOTIATING DENIED
4
1
ALTERNATE
DISCHARGES
2
1
1
1
3
jw0503tl
001.0.0
4-2
-------
Most Superfund wastewaters are transported to the receiving POTW via an
existing sewer. In several cases, sewer lines are planned or were constructed
specifically to receive Superfund site wastewaters. Sewer transport was
preferred for its safety and convenience. When sewer transport was not
available or feasible, truck transport was typically the next most common
transport method. One of the planned future discharges will use dedicated
pipe to transport the wastestream from the site to the POTW.
Under the Domestic Sewage Exclusion at Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations
Part 261.4, when the Superfund wastewater is considered a hazardous waste
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), but is mixed with
domestic waste as it flows through the sewer system to the POTW, the POTW is
not required to meet the additional regulatory requirements for a RCRA
permit-by-rule facility. None of the POTWs visited were RCRA permit-by-rule
facilities, nor were any interested in adopting additional RCRA requirements.
3.0 POTW CHARACTERISTICS
Each of the 16 POTWs receiving existing or potential discharges of Superfund
wastewaters use secondary treatment processes. The most prevalent form is
activated sludge, followed by rotating biological contactors and other aerated
biological treatment processes including brush aeration, oxidation ponds, and
trickling filters. One POTW employs physical-chemical treatment. At least
five POTWs use additional tertiary treatment.
Seven POTWs have design flows less than 10 million gallons per day (MGD), six
have flows between 10 and 100 MGD, and three have flows greater than 100 MGD.
Nine POTWs land-apply, two landfill, and three incinerate their sludge. One
POTW is storing incinerator ash for an undetermined reuse, one landfills its
ash, and another sends ash off-site for metals reclamation.
The majority of the POTWs which have previously received or are currently
receiving Superfund wastewaters have approved pretreatment programs and most
have good compliance records. In some cases, a poor POTW compliance record
led USEPA to eliminate discharge to the POTW from consideration as a remedial
alternative.
4.0 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Several significant issues which affected the evaluation and implementation of
Superfund site wastewater discharges to POTWs were identified during the site
visit study. These issues are discussed in the following paragraphs.
4.1 Negotiations
Discharge negotiations proceeded most smoothly when POTW representatives were
involved in discharge planning either during the remedial investigation or
early in the feasibility study process. POTW representatives indicated that
they were more likely to accept a Superfund wastewater when they were
technically confident that POTW operations would not be adversely impacted.
Early involvement in discharge planning and technical evaluation fostered this
confidence.
jw050301
005.0.0
4-3
-------
4.2 POTW Concerns
POTW representatives expressed various concerns which impacted their decisions
to accept or reject Superfund site wastewater discharges. Limited
availability of specific regulatory guidance addressing Superfund wastewater
discharges discouraged some POTW representatives from accepting discharges.
Other POTWs were willing to accept Superfund site discharges as a service to
the community. Occasionally, POTW representatives accepted discharges in
exchange for discharger-provided community benefits, such as sewer
construction subsidies or site-related construction contract bidding
preference.
Most POTW representatives were primarily concerned about the potential impact
of Superfund wastewater on the POTW's biological treatment systems, effluent
quality, and sludge management practices. Several POTW representatives
expressed concern that accepting a Superfund discharge for many years would
reserve POTW capacity that might better serve community growth. In some
instances, negative public responses impacted the POTW's decision to accept
the discharge.
4.3 Discharge Limits
Contaminant concentration limits for discharges of Superfund site wastewaters
to POTWs are set in various ways. Discharges of Superfund wastewaters must
comply with identified applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
If a POTW had previously developed pretreatment limits for compounds in its
existing influent, those limits often became part of the site discharge
limits. Some sites used national categorical standards when the Superfund
site previously operated as an industry for which standards are promulgated.
In most cases, discharge limits were based on concentrations believed or
proven to be treatable at the POTW, or based on alternative regulatory
criteria such as ambient water quality criteria or toxicity characteristic
leaching procedure concentrations.
Though some Superfund site wastewater contaminants are often not regulated by
local limits or any published standard, many contaminants are the same as
those found in industrial discharges. POTW representatives familiar with
industrial discharges are therefore somewhat more prepared to evaluate effects
of Superfund wastewater discharges on POTW operations than representatives of
POTWs which more exclusively treat domestic sewage. Many POTWs needed
guidance or lacked the financial resources to perform detailed treatability
studies to evaluate the potential impacts of unfamiliar Superfund site
wastewater contaminants on POTW treatment operations, permit compliance, and
sludge management. POTW representatives commonly instituted highly
conservative site discharge limits that did not fully utilize predictable
treatment potential at the POTW. These .highly conservative limits were set to
protect the POTW from violating its own discharge permit or other
environmental or safety standards. The POTW was rarely considered a primary
treatment source for Superfund site wastewaters. Rather, discharging to a
POTW was considered a cost-effective form of secondary treatment for highly
pretreated wastewaters. Discharge limits often reflected the highest level of
contaminant removal attainable by on-site pretreatment systems.
JW050301
006.0.0
4-4
-------
In a few cases, USEPA or state regulatory personnel requested more
conservative limits than the limits agreed upon by the POTW and responsible
party. USEPA and state regulatory personnel explained that conservative
discharge limits are often set to (1) reduce the possibility of environmental
degradation once wastewaters leave the Superfund site; (2) address POTW
representatives' concerns about the potential impacts of the wastewater on the
POTW's operations; and (3) address citizens' concerns.
4.4 Liability
When POTW representatives, regulatory personnel, and responsible parties
failed to come to a discharge agreement, irreconcilable liability issues were
often cited. Factors influencing the amount of liability protection a POTW
required before authorizing a discharge include community concern, wastewater
contaminants, and POTW toxic pollutant treatment experience. A POTW's
discharge authorization and control mechanisms usually reflected the level of
liability protection POTW representatives required.
Some POTW representatives requested indemnification agreements releasing the
POTW of any and all liability for adverse impact to POTW treatment processes,
effluent, or sludge. However, under Section 119(c)(5)(D) of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and subsequent USEPA decisions,
USEPA cannot provide indemnification to any POTWs under Section 119 authority
(USEPA, 1987).
POTW representatives authorized discharges of Superfund site wastewaters
either by contract, permit, or letter agreement with the discharger. The
majority of discharges were authorized by permits renewable annually or every
two years. These permits generally specified acceptable site discharge limits
and/or conditions and contained enforcement provisions for violations.
Permits provided POTW representatives a convenient regulation and liability
protection method. Under Section 107(J) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), "federally permitted
releases" are exempt from clean up cost liabilities. A POTW with an approved
pretreatment program can protect itself from CERCLA liabilities by regulating
the contaminants of concern in its local limits or in a permit issued to the
Superfund wastewater discharger.
Because most Superfund site wastewater discharges are anticipated to extend
beyond one permit term, the permit system does not guarantee the wastewater's
access to the POTW throughout site remediation. .Contracts were favored by
some dischargers because they offered more reliable long-term access to the
POTW. Contracts generally described conditions under which the POTW could
terminate the discharge. In several cases, a less formal letter agreement
was used when the negotiating parties readily came to agreement upon the
duration of and contaminant concentrations in the wastewater discharge.
4.5 Costs
POTW representatives did not want to accept a Superfund site wastewater
discharge if acceptance would cost more than collected revenue either in labor
costs, monitoring costs, or fines resulting from enforcement actions. POTWs
accepting Superfund site wastewater discharges have incurred unanticipated
JW050301
007.0.0
4-5
-------
costs for increased recordkeeping requirements, sample analyses which must be
contracted outside the POTW laboratory, and increased liability insurance
premiums.
Many state and regional USEPA regulatory personnel and responsible parties
considered POTW discharge a relatively inexpensive Superfund remedial
alternative component. POTWs usually charge for treatment services on a
per-gallon or contaminant concentration-based rate. The rate applied to
Superfund site discharges was often the same rate applied to local industrial
discharges. In some cases, however, the Superfund discharge's rate increased
to reflect increased POTW liability insurance and monitoring costs. Discharge
to POTW costs increased if no sewer existed to transport the waste from the
site to the POTW. Where sewer lines were not readily available, more costly
truck transport was used, or new sewer lines were planned and constructed. For
the sites studied, disposal of Superfund wastewaters at an off-site RCRA
treatment facility was predictably more costly than discharging to a POTW.
Lengthy negotiations, POTW treatability studies, and wastewater monitoring
requirements can also affect the cost of Superfund wastewater discharges to
POTWs.
Costs of discharging a Superfund wastewater to a POTW are often comparable to
or lower than the costs of discharging directly to surface waters.
Implementing a direct discharge could require costly permit negotiations, and
meeting potentially more stringent direct discharge standards could increase
on-site pretreatment costs. Discharge pipe construction or trucking costs
could also increase direct discharge costs.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The information collected as part of the site visit study indicated that the-
POTW discharge alternative can be a successful, effective, and safe means of
disposing wastestreams from Superfund sites. Like any other remedial
alternative, there are important issues that affect and complicate the
evaluation and implementation process. The wastewater characteristics, POTW
characteristics, and the level and type of wastewater pretreatment provided or
required created a unique set of circumstances at each site.
The information that was gathered from discussions with USEPA, state, PRP, and
POTW representatives familiar with the evaluation and implementation process
served to highlight the major issues and obstacles that must be overcome to
successfully implement the POTW discharge alternative. In summary, the major
issues are as follows:
o Comprehensive regulatory and technical guidance was not previously
available to assist POTW representatives, PRPs, and RPMs with evaluating
and implementing CERCLA site discharges to POTWs; agreement on '
acceptable discharge limits often represents several iterations of
negotiation;
o Superfund wastewater discharge volumes and contaminant concentrations are
typically low relative to total POTW treatment volume and contaminant
loading;
_
JW050301
008.0.0
4-6
-------
cannot provide indemnification to any POTWs accepting Superfund
wastestreams. This lack of indemnification has lead to concern over
liability and, therefore, can impact a POTW's decision to accept a
Superfund wastewater discharge;
Including a POTW early in the negotiation process is a key step to
developing- open communication and can facilitate the evaluation of the
POTW discharge alternative;
Currently, there are few incentives offered to POTWs to encourage
acceptance of Superfund wastestreams. POTWs that have accepted Superfund
wastestreams have incurred additional costs related to increased
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, sample analyses, and increased
liability insurance premiums;
Most POTWs considered for CERCLA site wastewater discharges lack the
resources to conduct treatability studies for unfamiliar wastewater
contaminants. As a result, the Superfund wastestreams are often highly
pretreated and the treatment capability of the POTW is not fully
employed;
Community perception and acceptance is an important variable in a POTW's
willingness to accept CERCLA. site wastewaters.
6.0 REFERENCES
USEPA Memorandum, 1987. "USEPA Interim Guidance on Indemnification of
Superfund Response Action Contractors Under'Section 119 of SARA"; J.W. Porter,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; C.M. Kinghorn, Office of
Administration and Resources Management; Directive No. 9835.5, October 6,
1987.
USEPA 1990 "CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs," Office of Water, Industrial
Technology Division, Draft, April 1990.
jw050301
009.0.0
4-7
-------
-------
SECTION 5
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
JULY 1987
9.89.107C
0007.0.0
-------
SECTION 5 - STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS. Section 5 presents the status of State
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs. The table
indicates whether the state is authorized to administer the NPDES permit
program, regulate federal facilities, and whether the state has an approved
state pretreatment program. The NPDES authority can assist in the
identification of POTWs that may accept a CERCIA site discharge and provide
specific information about the POTW that will be helpful for screening the POTWs
during the RI/FS process. Section 5 identifies the appropriate agency to
contact (either the USEPA regional office or a state agency) for NPDES issues.
891003B-mll
9.
-------
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
7/10/87
^Arkansas
Alabama
California
^Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
"Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
-Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
^Missouri
^Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
*New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
^Oregon
Pennsylvania
*Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
*Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
*West Virginia
^Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTALS
Approved State
NPDES Permit
Program
39
Approved to
Regulate Federal
Facilities
30
Approved State
Pretreatment
Program
11/01/86
10/19/79
05/14/73
03/27/75
09/26/73
04/01/74
06/28/74
11/28/74
10/23/77
01/01/75
08/10/78
06/28/74
09/30/83
09/05/74
10/17/73
06/30/74
05/01/74
10/30/74
06/10/74
06/12/74
09/19/75
04/13/82
10/28/75
10/19/75
06/13/75
03/11/74
09/26/73
06/30/78
09/17/84
06/10/75
12/28/77
07/07/87
03/11/74
06/30/76
03/31/75
11/14/73
05/10/82
02/04/74
01/30/75
11/01/86
10/19/79
' 05/05/78
—
—
•
12/08/80
06/01/79
09/20/79
12/09/78
08/10/78
08/28/85
09/30/83
—
12/09/78
12/09/78
01/28/83
06/26/79
06/23/81
11/02/79
08/31/78
04/13/82
06/13/80
09/28/84
—
01/28/83
03/02/79
06/30/78
09/17/84
09/26/80
—
07/07/87
—
—
02/09/82
05/10/82
11/26/79
05/18/81
11/01/86
10/19/79
...
— —
06/03/81
— —
03/12/81
08/12/83
— —
--
06/03/81
— —
09/30/83
09/30/85
06/07/83
07/16/79
05/13/82
06/03/81
--
09./07/84
*"'•.•
04/13/82
--
06/14/82
— —
07/27/83
03/12/81
— -
09/17/84
04/09/82
08/10/83
07/07/87
03/16/82
— -
--
09/30/86
05/10/82
12/24/80
--
25
COMPLETE State Programs (NPDES, Federal Facilities & Pretreatment)
* - indicates State approved to issue General Permits
20
7.88.93T
0018.0.0
5-1
-------
-------
SECTION 6
PERCENT REMOVAL OF COMPOUNDS IN POTWS
9.89.107C
0008.0.0
-------
SECTION 6 - PERCENT REMOVAL OF COMPOUNDS IN POTWS. To evaluate the feasibility
of discharging wastes from CERCLA sites to-POTWs, the user of the treatability
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. Section 6 presents summary tables
of published treatability data for individual compounds that can be used to ,
estimate a mass balance for each compound detected in a CERCLA wastestream if
site specific treatability data is unavailable.
The data presented in Table 6-1 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 Table 6-1:
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% CI - 90% Confidence Interval
Table 6-2 presents an estimated average percent of the influent that may be
partitioned to sludge and/or volatilized in activated sludge treatment systems
for many compounds. Published partitioning and volatilization data in
biological treatment systems were limited for most compounds and non-existent
for almost all compounds with regard to biodegradation. The tables can,
however, be used to obtain an estimated overall percent removal.
891003B-rall
10.
-------
TABLE 6-1
TOTAL PERCENT REMOVAL IN BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANTS
CERCLA. SITE DISCHARGES TO POTWS GUIDANCE MANUAL
PARAMETER: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
POTW - Percent Removal
•\S-l\pr-9Q
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
140
29
24
0
6
N
30
12
6
-
-
-
CHLORINATED NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I. . N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 1 90.91 90.91 90.91 0.00 (0,0)
1 88.76 88.76 88.76 0.00 (0,0) .----- -
- - - - -
------
-.----,
-----
TREATMENT: AS TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I. N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
16 50.51 0.00 95.35 10.45 (32,69) 103 18 69.67 0.00 100.00 7.06 (57 82)
/ m /.7 SR Oi. OR AS R AR ffS 99} 6 2 77.64 69.57 85.71 8.0( (ly.lUUJ
4 87:82 11:66 U'.ll 6.76 ffi'.W) 24 4 95.33 90.40 99.77 1.93 (91)100)
i 98 28 98 28 98 28 0 00 (0 0) 7 2 98.93 97.98 99.88 0.95 (93,100)
1 87:04 87:04 &7.ol 0.00 (O'.O) 6 2 99.25 98.64 99.24 0.60 (95,100)
TREATMENT: TF TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I. N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
5 55 08 0.00 98.00 22.57 (7,100) 6 1 41.18 41.18 41.18 0.00 (0,0)
] 92:94 92:94 92:94 0:§0 $$ 6 i 98.40 98.45 98.40 0.00 (0,0)
_
----- " ""
-
_ _-- „-___--- -S--S ==-=-=:==-====:= === =-=== ===== ====_========-========-=-===
PARAMETER: 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
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.
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
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
7 2 85.29 70.59 100.00
0 1 90.00 90.00 90*00
6 2 95.31 94.53 96.15
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
.
SE 90% C.I.
-
SE 90% C.I.
14.71 (0,100)
0.00 (0,0)
0.81 (90,100)
SE 90% C.I.
-
6-1
-------
2-9
(O'O) OO'O Z/'*£ Z/'<7£ ZZ'^£ I n
(O'O) OO'O OO'S^ OO'SZ OO'S/ I 9
T3 %06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO N
dl '1N3H1V381
(001'8/) ZZ'Z WV6 00'06 ZZ'Z6 Z n
(SS'££) 6S'6 OO'OOL OO'O Z6'6V II L*J
'I'0%06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO N
SV :j
(o'o) oo'o srs9 s/'89 srs9 i n
'I'3 7,06 .35 XVW NIH NV3H ASSO N
IV :j
a31VNia01H3-NON
===================================Z====ESr3323E = ESS!:
(O'O) OO'O OO'O OO'O OO'O I 9
'I '3 %06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO H
di 'lN3HlV3Hi
(OOl'O) S£'SZ OS'/S OO'O £8'S«7 £ El
'I '3 %06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO H
SV '1N3H1V3H1
(O'O) OO'O 96'Z9 96'E9 96'E9 I 9
'I '3 %06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO N
TW * luauiwavi
iv * Anan*V3ax
031VN!tt01H3
S3KXKXBXXKK
OOOS <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOl-lOS
OOS-lOl
001-lS
os-o
OOOS <
OOOS-lOOl
oooi-ios
OOS-lOl
001-lS
os-o
OOOS <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOl-lOS
OOS-lOl
001-lS
os-o
•ONOD
1JM1
==============-==^=========================================================================S==
T3 %06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO N
(£8'9Z) £S'0 OO'OS S6'8Z 1M'6L Z OZ
(OOL'O) 00'6Z OO'OOL OO'O SZ'ZS £ S
TO %06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO N
SV :j
T37.06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO N
IV 'J
Q31VNI2101H3-NON
3NVH130»01HOia-l'l
============5======:ss===:=========!:====s==ss=ss33ssSB
'I '3 %06 3S
XVH
NIH
dl :
(06'S) £8'6l S9'S6 OO'O
M'3%06 3S XVH NIH
SV
NV3H ASSO
NV3H
S 18
ASSO "H
'I '3 %06 3S
XVH
NIH
IV :
NV3H ASSO
OOOS <
OOOS- 1001
OOOl-lOS
OOS-lOl
00 I- IS
os-o
OOOS <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOl-lOS
OOS-lOl
001-lS
os-o
OOOS <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOl-lOS
OOS-lOl
001-lS
os-o
*3HOO
UHI
==SSSS=SSSS====5^:=====:==SSSSSSSSBSHSSSSaXSSSX8SKBXSZ)GVBB
3NVH130»01H3I8i-2'l'l :
06-Jdv-8l
- mod
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
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
100 8 50.92 0.00
TREATMENT: TF
_ N OBSV MEAN MIN
6 1 75.00 75.00
MAX SE 90% C.I.
98.61 15.43 (22,80)
MAX SE 90% C.I.
75.00 0.00 (0,0)
NON -CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN
14 1 60.85 60.85
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
12 4 53.47 0.00
20 1 99.74 99.74
14 2 94.20 93.40
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN
6 1 50.00 50.00
14 1 59.91 59.91
MAX
60.85
MAX
97.22
99.74
95.00
MAX
50.00
59.91
=rrs;s:=s===5====— =
SE 90% C.I.
o.do 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 57.35 50.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE- 90% C.I.
64.71 7.35 (11,100)
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
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.
-
b-3
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
18-Apr-90
IMFL
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
xsxwxsxatsa;
PARAMETER: 1
CHLORINATED
N
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
H
76
6
6
N
12
ZSSSSS3SS
,2-DICHLC
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
11 53.22 0.00 95.65 12.27 (31.75)
1 98.00 98.00 98.00 0.00 (6,0)
1 94.29 94.29 94.29 0.00 (0)0)
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
2 25.00 0.00 50.00 25.00 (0,100)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
36 8 39.96 0.00 100.00
5 3 91.79 90.00 93.82
6 2 99.72 99.50 99.94
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 28.57 28.57 28.57
IROETHANE
SE 90% C.I.
14.72 (12,68)
1.11 (89,95)
0.22 (98,100)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
IHFL
CMC.
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
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N
6
6
6
N
OBSV MEAN MIN
4 21.72 0.00
1 99.75 99.75
2 60.94 32.85
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
86.91 21.72 (0,73)
99.75 0.00 (0.0)
89.03 28.09 (0,lfiO)
MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 1 50.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 (0,0)
ssasassss=s=====ss======== =—======= =—========= — =s
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN
14 1 70.59 70.59
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
4 4 60.30 0.00
14 2 87.81 85.62
5 1 98.28 98.28
6 2 98.41 98.25
TREATMENT,: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN
14 1 39.22 39.22
MAX SE
70.59 0.00
MAX SE
90.00 20.71
90.00 2.19
98.28 0.00
98.57 0.16
MAX SE
39.22 0.00
90% C.I.
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(12,100)
(74,100)
(0,0)
(97,99)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
6-4
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: 1,2-01CHLOROPROPANE
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.
6 1 99.54 99.54 99.54 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN
6 1 33.33
MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
33.33 33.33 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
8 2 75.00 50.00 100.00 25.00
25 3 94.33 90.00 98.06 2.35
6 2 99.33 99.01 99.65 0.32
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN .MIN MAX SE
90% C.I.
(0,100)
(88,100)
(97,100)
90% C.I.
PARAMETER: 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
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
======srs=:==
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 45.70 33.33 58.07 12.37 (0,100)
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.
0 1 87.10 87.10 87.10 0.00 (0,0)
0 1 90.00 90.00 90.00 0.00 (0,0)
6 3 99.80 99.48 99.99 0.16 (99,100)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
.
6-5
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
18-Apr-90
IHFL
C0NC.
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 HIN MAX
TREATMENT: AS
H OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
35 1 83.33 83.33 83.33
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
-
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
-
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 9
11 2 83.33 67.67 100.00 16.67
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 9
36 5 86.52 70.59 100.00 5.02
11 1 94.62 94.62 94.62 0.00
0 1 90.00 90.00 90.00 0.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 9
11 1 37.63 37.63 37.63 0.00
(6,0)
(00)
PARAMETER: 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
1UFI
COMC.
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
H OBSV MEAN MIN
35 1 50.00 50.00
-
- - _ .
TREATMENT: TF
H OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I,.
50.00 0.00 (0,0)
- - •
- -
MAX SE 90% C.I.
-
NON-CHLORINATED
================
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
.
• -..".
11 1 32.02 32.02 32.02
-
-
'TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
2 1 100100 100.00 100.00
16 3 95.88 93.08 99.54
6 2 86.19 77.18 95.20
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
-
-----
11 1 12.28 12.28 12.28
-
-
SE "90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
-
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
1.92 (90,100)
9.01 (29,100)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
-
6-6
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: 2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
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.
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
-
"
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
-
— —
-
- - -
SE 90% C.I.
-
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0.0)
1.57 (87,100)
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
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 90.00 90.00 90.00
5 1 91.23 91.23 91.23
6 1 99.31 99.31 99.31
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
- - - -
SE 90% C.I.
-
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
-
6-7
-------
8-9
T3 %06 3S
XVH
HIM NV3H ASSO N
dl :iN3HJLV3Hl
(00) OO'O 00'S6 00'S6 00'S6 I 0
(00) OO'O 96'££ 96'££ 96'££ I S
(00) OO'O OO'OOl OO'OOl OO'OOl I Z
T3 %06 3S
XVH
NIW NV3H ASSO
SV :iN3HJ.V3Hi
•I'0%06 3S XVW NIW NV3W ASSO N
IV :
C13iVNia01H3-NON
1
1
-
•
((
•
-
•
'I'3 X06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO N
di =J
(O'O) OO'O OO'O OO'O OO'O I S£
•I'3 %06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASBON"
SV :j
'I'3 %06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO N
IV :j
Q31VNI2I01H3
ooos <
OOOS-lOOl
0001-LOS
OOS-lOV
OOl-lS
os-o
ooos <
OOOS-lOOl
oooi-tos
OOS-lOl
OOl-lS
os-o
ooos <
OOOS-lOOl
0001.-LOS
OOS-lOl
OOl-lS
os-o
•DNOD
1JH!
10N3Hd05K)1H3-3
(O'O) OO'O OO'O OO'O OO'O L 0
•I'0%06 3S XVW NIH NV3H AS80 N
dl :iN3WiV3ai
(O'O) OO'O OO'OOl OO'OOl OO'OOl I 0
(O'O) OO'O 00'S6 00'S6 00'S6 1 0
(O'O) OO'O OO'OS OO'OS OO'OS I 0
TO %06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO N
SV :iN3HiV3ai
(O'O) OO'O OO'OOl OO'OOl OO'OOl I 0
'I'0%06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO N
IV :iN3H.LV381
031VNIM01H3-NON
'I'O %06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO N
dl :iN3HiV3Hi
T3 %06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO N
SV UN3H1V3U1
'I'D %06 3S XVH NIH NV3H ASSO N
IV UNSHiVSai
031VNI2I01H3
:S]»BSB8««B
OOOS <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOl-lOS
oos-ioi
OOl-lS
os-o
ooos <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOl-lOS
oos-ioi
OOl-lS
os-o
ooos <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOl-lOS
OOS-lOl
OOl-lS
os-o
•3K03
IdHl
06-JdV-8l
-------
POTU • Percent Removal
PARAMETER: ACENAPHTHENE
18-Apr-?G
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 89.18 88.89 89.47 0.29 (87,91)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
=====-======-==============-===========
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
1 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
18 3 99.00 96.99 100.00
5 1 94.05 94.05 94.05
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
.
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
1.01 (96,100)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
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.
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
5 1 92.31 92.31 92.31
0 1 95.00 95.00 95.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
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.
;======================================================
6-9
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAHETER: ANTHRACENE
18-Apr-90
tuci
COHC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
afatxssHjesxss:
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN
...
• . .
...
...
...
...
MIN MAX
.
. .
.
_
.
-
SE 90% C.I.
.
_
_
_
-
-
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN
116 14 8.10
6 1 78.85
...
...
MIN MAX
0.00 80.00
78.85 78.85
.
-
SE 90% C.I.
6.02 (0.19)
0.00 (0,0)
.
-
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN
42 6 6.76
...
...
.
...
MIN MAX
0.00 40.54
_
_
.
-
SE 90% C.I.
6.76 (0,20)
_
_
.
-
-
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN
6 1 0.00
...
...
...
...
MIN MAX
0.00 0.00
_
_
.
-
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
_
_
.
-
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN
62 11 17.95
0 1 95.00
...
...
MIN MAX
0.00 100.00
95.00 95.00
.
-
SE 90% C.I.
12.04 (0,49)
0.00 (0,0)
_
-
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN
6 1 0.00
-
-
-
-
MIN MAX
0.00 0.00
_
„
_
-
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
_
_
.
-
PARAHETER: ANTIMONY
TUPI
CMC.
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
a*«M«Bawran
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
35 3 41.23 0.00
....
....
TREATMENT: TF
H OBSV MEAN MIN
...
...
...
...
...
- * -
SSSSSESISSSSSSS — SS— SSSS — S— — S —
MAX SE 90% C.I.
73.68 21.72 (0,100)
-
-
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
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
6-10
-------
POTW - 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 SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN
MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
149 19 39.40 0.00 90.63 7.53 (26,53)
0 1 50.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 (6,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN
6 1 25.00
MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
25.00 25.00 0.00 (0,0)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT:
AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
TREATMENT:
AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
45 3 33.85 18
0 1 50.00 50
TREATMENT:
.93 63.33
.00 50.00
TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 10.00 10
.00 10.00
SE 90% C.I.
-
SE 90% C.I.
14.74 (0,77)
0.00 (p,0)
SE 90% C.I.
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
TREATMENT: AL
N
_
-
6
-
-
~
OBSV
_
-
1
-
-
,
MEAN
_
-
75.90
-
-
"
MIN
•
-
75.90
-
-
"
MAX
_
-
75.90
-
-
—
SE
.
-
0.00
-
-
—
90% C.I.
_
-
(0,0)
-
-
—
TREATMENT: AS
N
6
37
170
4
-
-
OBSV
1
5
18
1
-
-
MEAN
72.09
70.43
72.75
65.68
-
-
MIN
72.09
64.15
43.72
65.68
-
—
MAX
72.09
75.64
99.17
65.68
-
"
SE
0.00
2.24
3.79
0.00
-
—
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(66,75)
(66!79)
(6,0)
-
. "
TREATMENT: TF
N
_
18
30
-
-
OBSV
.
3
4
-
-
MEAN
_
58.56
50.21
-
-
MIN
_
38.89
21.28
-
-
MAX
_
87.37
70.23
-
-
SE
.
14.72
11.91
-
-
90% C.I.
.
(16.100)
(22,78)
-
-
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
-----
6 1 56.60 56.60 56.60 0.00 (0,0)
------
------
------
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
12 2 75.82 72.62 79.01 3.20 (56,96)
52 10 76.14 62.31 94.21 4.04 (69,84)
------
- -
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
.
12 2 55.65 53.55 57.75 2.10 (42,69)
------
------
6-11
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: BENZENE
18-Apr-90
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.
6 1 98.91 98.91 98.91 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
H 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
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
30 4 56.74 0.00 96.97 21.26 (7,100)
N
0
N
56
20
13
5
15
N
6
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
2 100.00 100.00 100.00
1 100.00 100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
12 74.04 48.53 98.25
1 99.73 99.73 99.73
4 98.41 95.00 99.83
1 98.97 98.97 98.97
3 99.95 99.87 100.00
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
1 91.67 91.67 91.67
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)
PARAMETER: BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
tuei
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 66.67 66.67 66.67 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
H OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
3SS333S=ss=sss=ss=s=s==s==sss:=ssss=r =====:==:=:::==:===:==:=:===
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)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
0 1 66.67 66.67 66.67 0.00 (0,0)
0 1 10.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
" — — — — - "
6-12
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
18-Apr- PO
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 OBSV MEAN
~~~0 1 0.00
CHLORINATED
NT: AL
MIN MAX SE 90%- C.I.
ENT: AS
MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
0.00 0.00 0.00 (0,0)
ENT: TF
MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
- •
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
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
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 OBSV MEAN MIN
6 1 40.65 40.65
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
157 17 39.80 0.00
36 6 61.57 0.00
18 4 76.24 55.63
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV . MEAN MIN
36 5 32.94 14.29
6 2 6.06 0.00
MAX
40.65
MAX
87.50
89.54
98.76
MAX
64.52
12.12
SE 90% C.I.
.0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
7.91 (26,54)
14.37 (33.91)
9.93 (53,100)
SE 90% C.I.
8.50 (15,51)
6.06 (0,44)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV
5 1
6 1
11 1
MEAN
100.00
23.47
79.76
MIN
100.00
23.47
79.76
MAX
100.00
23.47
79.76
SE
0.00
0.00
0.00
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(0,0)
(00)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV
41 10
26 4
61 6
MEAN
43.93
48.41
82.25
MIN
0.00
10.11
58.53
MAX
78.00
78.14
100.00
SE
9.40
16.56
6.19
90% C.I.
(27,61)
(9,87)
(70,95)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV
12 3
11 1
MEAN
65.66
76.79
MIN
33.33
76.79
MAX
100.00
76.79
SE
19.27
0.00
90% C.I.
(10,100)
(0,0)
===::= =:=:====
6-13
-------
(OOt'O) SZ'L£ OS'Z9 OO'O S2'l£ Z Zl
T3%06 3S XVW NIW NV3W AS80 N
JJ. :iN3WiVaai
(O'O) OO'O 00'56 00'S6 00'56 1 0
(00) OO'O Z0'£6 Z0'£6 Z0'£6 1 5
(Z9 6Z) Z/'Ol OO'OOL OO'O 06VV 51 V/
'I '3 %06 3S XVW NIW NV3W ASSO N
(OOl'<7Z) ZS'£ OO'OOL 98'Z6 £V96 Z 9
'1'3 7.06 3S XVW NIW NV3W ASSO N
. iv =iNawivaai
a3JLVNia01H3-NON
(£9'l) 9Z'SL
'I '3 %06 3S
(001 '66) £1'0
(00) OO'O
(zrzi) 9iv
'I '3 %06 3S
(O'O) OO'O
'I '3 X06 3S
OZ'2.6 OO'O 90'Z£ L 8V
XVW NIW NV3W ASSO N
jj. :iN3WiV3ai
89'66 £V66 9S'6(5 Z 9
/9'96 /9'96 /9'96 I 9
00'Z6 OO'O 09'VZ 02 9VI
XVW NIW NV3W ASSO N
SV :j.N3WJLV3HJL
OO'O OO'O OO'O I 9
XVW NIW NV3W ASSO N
IV :iN3WJLV3Hi
aaiVNi™
ooos <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOl-lOS
OOS-lOl
OOl-lS
os-o
ooos <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOl-lOS
OOS-lOl
OOl-lS
os-o
ooos <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOl-lOS
OOS-lOl
00 I- IS
os-o
*3KOO
Id HI
------
'I '3 %06 3S XVW NIW 'NV3W ASSO N
JJ. :j.N3WiVaiU
(O'O) OO'O 8/'6'6 8Z'66 8/'66 I OZ
(001 6) OS'ZL OO'OOL OO'S/ OSV8 Z S
T3 %06 35 XVW NIW NV3W ASSO N
SV : J.N3W1V3U.I.
T3 %06 3S XVW NIW NV3W ASSO N
IV :1N3W1V31U
Q31VNIH01H3-NON
HiVIVHlHd 1AZN38 lAiP
-
TO %06 3S XVW NIW NV3W ASSO N
(9S'S) £8'0l OO'OS OO'O £8'0£ V 81
'I '3 %06 35 XVW NIW NV3W ASSO N
-
'I '3 %06 3S XVW NIW NV3H ASSO N
IV :1N3H1V3U
Q31VNia01H3
SSEXHEKSBIX
8 :»3i9Hmd
OOOS <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOl-lOS
OOS-lOl
OOl-lS
os-o
ooos <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOl-lOS
OOS-lOl
OOl-lS
os-o
ooos <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOl-lOS
OOS-lOl
OOl-lS
os-o
*ON03
1JNI
06-Jdv-8l
-------
P07W - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
1S-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
.
6
-
-
-
-
OBSV
_
1
-
-
-
-
MEAN
_
0.00
-
-
-
—
MIN
_
0.00
-
-
-
—
MAX
_
0.00
-
-
-
"
SE
_
0.00
-
-
-
"
90% C.I.
_
(0,0)
-
-
-
"
TREATMENT: AS
N
265
12
6
6
6
-
OBSV
35
2
1
1
1
-
MEAN
39.47
43.14
91.38
90.06
93.96
~
MIN
0.00
0.00
91.38
90.06
93.96
~
MAX
99.47
86.28
91.38
90.06
93.96
~
SE
6.24
43.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
"
90% C.I.
(29.50)
(0,100)
{0,0)
(00)
(0,0)
"
TREATMENT: TF
N
48
-
-
-
OBSV
7
-
-
,-
MEAN
6.35
-
. -
-
MIN
0.00
-
-
-
MAX
33.33
-
-
-
SE
4.76
-
-
-
90% C.I.
(0,16)
-
-
-
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN
6 1 44.00
-
-
_
- - -
MIN MAX
44.00 44.00
-
•
•
~ *
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
-
"
— -
~ *
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN
119 15 30.60
6 1 97.02
0 1 27.00
-
-
.
MIN MAX
0.00 97.06
97.02 97.02
27.00 27.00
-
-
SE 90% C.I.
9.47 (14.47)
0.00 (6,0)
0.00 (0,0)
-
-
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN
20 2 14.00
6 1 76.12
•
_
.
MIN MAX
0.00 28.00
76.12 76.12
-
•
••
SE 90% C.I.
14.00 (0,100)
0.00 (0,0)
~
"
~ ~
PARAMETER: CHLOROBENZENE
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.
6 1 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
41 2 40.00 0.00 80.00 40.00 (0,100)
6 2 99.32 98.91 99.72 0.40 (97,100)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 2 37.50 0.00 75.00 37.50 (0,100)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
17 3 62.22 20.00
20 4 97.10 90.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
100.00 23.20 (.0,100)
99.89 2.37 (92,100)
MAX SE 90% C.I.
.
6-15
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: CHLOROETHANE
18-Apr-90
fUCt
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
===== — === = = — ================ — =====_========= — ======================
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN HIM
MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
H 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 SE 90% C.I.
5 1 58.33 58.33 58.33 0.00 (0,0)
0 1 95.00 95.00 95.00 0.00 (0,0)
------
------
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV «MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
'
------
---___
------
- -
-
PARAMETER: CHLOROFORM
fuel
COMC.
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
axxxsxxxxss:
CHLORINATED
H
.
•
6
-
H
152
6
.
-
N
42
6
-
.
.
-
ssssssss
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN
_
_ .
' 97.79 97.79
"
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN
23 40.27 0.00
2 60.44 52.06
1 50.00 50.00
...
- - -
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN
6 37.64 0.00
1 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)
(0,0)
-
.
-
.
NON-CHLORINATED
N
6
_
14
3
-
N
166
39
.
0
N
12
14
-
.
-
OBSV
1
_
1
1
-
OBSV
28
4
.
1
OBSV
3
1
-
.
-
TREATMENT: AL
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
. .
-
MAX
0.00
.
60.74
100.00
-
MAX
100.00
97.37
,
99.25
MAX
100.00
24.44
.
•
SE
0.00
0.00
0.00
-
SE
5.56
2.55
.
0.00
SE
6.50
0.00
.
-
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(0,0)
(0,0)
• ••
90% C.I.
(50,69)
(87,99)
.
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(69,100)
(0,0)
.
-
——__—__
6-16
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: CHLOROMETHANE
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.
6 1 58.33 58.33 58.33 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
47 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0,0)
18 3 81.65 67.29 97.98 8.92 (56,100)
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 SE 90% C.I.
0 1 100.00 100.00 10.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0,0)
0 1 95.00 95.00 95.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 1 60.32 60.32 60.32 0.00 (0,0)
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
CHLORINATED
N
6
. N
58
53
160
6
18
N
36
= -12
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN
1 89.78 89.78
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN
3 94!24 89^73
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN
5 36.41 0.00
2 46.49 22.59
MAX
89.78
MAX
83.72
94 55
93«44
97! 46
MAX
58.33
70.40
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
2~32 (87,l6o)
SE 90% C.I.
10.12 (15,58)
23.90 (0,100)
-======= — ===-===-=-=-============================-===
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 1 48.78 48.78 48.78 0.00 (0,0)
14 1 70.59 70.59 70.59 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV. MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
50 10 81.29 70.00 89.49 1.90 (78,85)
45 1 46.03 46.03 46.03 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 1 67.39 67.39 67.39 0.00 (0,0)
20 2 54.20 51.58 56.18 2.62 (38,71)
.6-17
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: COPPER
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
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
H
6
OBSV
1
MEAN
96.38
MIN
96.38
MAX
96.38
SE
0.00
90% C.I.
(0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
H
39
89
137
18
6
OBSV
10
18
1
MEAN
63.77
80.18
81.85
91.47
92.43
MIN
0.00
41.27
50.00
89.91
92.43
MAX
90.00
99.00
95.51
93.82
92.43
SE
11.82
6.26
2.95
1.20
0.00
90% C.I.
(41,87)
(69 92)
(77,87)
(88'95)
(6,0)
TREATMENT: TF
H
6
12
24
OBSV
1
2
4
MEAN
MIN
MAX
0.00 0.00 0.00
53.89 49.15 58.62
58.41 38.18 74.79
.*.,._
szssssssss—ssr: =:=:=========
SE
0.00
4.73
9.56
90% C.I.
(0.0)
(24,84)
(36,81)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN
6 1 20.97
14 1 74.20
MIN MAX
20.97 20.97
74.20 74.20
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN
6 2 45.24
12 , 3 79.93
62 10 80.07
45 1 80.00
MIN MAX
0.00 90.48
56.10 99.00
0.00 96.97
80.00 80.00
SE 90% C.I.
45.24 (0,100)
12.61 (43*100)
9.18 (63.97)
0.00 (6,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN
MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
.
PARAMETER: CYANIDE
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
CHLORINATED
N
6
N
50
12
18
H
6
36
6
OBSV
1
OBSV
6
8
8
2
OBSV
1
1
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
89.78 89.78
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
55.68 0.00
18.99 0.00
59.78 28.76
69.04 57.91
86.72 71.13
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
36.15 36.15
39.29 0.00
56.80 56.80
MAX
89.78
MAX
85.71
67.07
91.87
80.17
97.58
MAX
36.15
73.14
56.80
SE
0.00
SE
11.87
9.65
7.99
11.13
7.99
SE
90% C.I.
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(32,80)
(1 37)
(45 75)
(0,100)
(63,100)
90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
16.19 (5,74)
0.00 (6,0)
:==.=====.::======: =====:
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)
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)
6-18
-------
P01V • Percent Removal
PARAMETER: DI-N-OCTYL 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
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.
=====-= =— =— =- — ===sr=======:=========:====i:===============-
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
13 2 82.56 82.14 82.98
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
0.42 (80,85)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
PARAMETER: DIBROMOCHLOROMETANE
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 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 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
M.M M
6-19
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
18-Apr-90
PARAMETER: DIETHYL PHTHALATE
Til PI
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
MEKS3XXX3S!
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN HIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
-
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
187 23 54.03 0.00 100.00 8.05 (40,68)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
30 4 33.75 0.00 60.00 13.44 (2,65)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
6 2 50.00 0.00 100.00 50.00
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
85 14 28.68 0.00 100.00 11.57
5 2 91.64 90.00 93.28 1.64
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
12 2 30.77 0.00 61.54 30.77
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00
90% C.I.
(0,100)
90% C.I.
(8,49)
(81,100)
90% C.I.
(0,100)
(0,0)
PARAMETER: ETHYLBENZENE
1HFL
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.
6 1 61.54 61.54 61.54 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN
MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
199 24 41.53 0.00 97.73 8.98 (26,57)
12 3 98.73 97.45 98.73 0.64 (97,100)
TREATMENT: TF
H OBSV MEAN
48 7 33.03
MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
0.00 90.00 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 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 MEAN MIN MAX
6 25.00 0.00 50.00
1 72.07 72.07 72.07
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)
6-20
-------
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
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
MAX SE 90% C.I.
83.33 41.67 (0,100)
MAX SE 90% C.I.
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)
11 1 65.39 65.39 65.39 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
13 4 85.46 64.71 100.00 7.73 (67,100)
11 1 95.19 95.19 95.19 0.00 . (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
11 1 52.89 52.89 52.89 0.00 (0,0)
PARAMETER: FLUORENE
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.
-
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 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
. .
6-21
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: HEPTACHLOR
l«»miaaz=ii:====s================:==============================================================-===-=-.
18-Apr-90
I NFL
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
1001-5000
> 5000
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN HIM
MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
03SV MEAN HIM
MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90%~c"i"
3 1 66.67 66.67 66.67 0.00(0^0)"
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
11 2 79.71 6.67 92.74 13.04 (0,100)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
3 1 53.85 53~85~"53"85~"~o!oO~"~(o]o)~
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: IRON
rr3EK=SE3-E3 =
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
N
6
H
6
120
85
M
CHLORINATED
03SV
1
OBSV
1
15
9
OBSV
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
85.46 85.46
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
81.18 81.18
80.66 42.58
88.41 66.78
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
24 3 74.52 55.23
18 3 32.65 3.74
6 1 50.61 50.61
MAX
85.46
MAX
81.18
98.00
99.20
MAX
90.71
69.97
50.61
SE
0.00
SE
0.00
3.37
4.11
SE
10.36
19.58
0.00
90% C.I.
(0.0)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(75,87)
(81196)
90% C.I.
(44,100)
(6.90) .
(6,0)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
6 1 25.98 25.98 25.98 0.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
111 12 85.41 67.00 96.65 3.
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
12 6 72.30 68.87 75.72 3.
90% C.I.
00 (0,0)
90% C.I.
27 (80,91)
90% C.I.
42 (65,79)
6-22
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: ISOPHORONE
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.
: : i '. '. '. 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
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 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
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)
PARAMETER: LEAD
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
148
56
65
6
6
N
42
6
5SS=='======:==================================-==============:::=====:==:=:====— ===
CHLORINATED NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I. N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
I I I I - '- 61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0,0)
1 7.83 7.83 7.83 0.00 (0,0) 14 1 57.58 57.58 57.58 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I. N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
15 45 95 0.00 97.96 10.88 (27,65) 18 . 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0,0)
9-7721 196 9868 1059 (5897) 24 5' 48. 17 9.09 86.46 13.20 (20,76)
12 7391 51 22 98 18 486 (65:83) 38 ' 7 56.59 25.20 83.09 8.56 (40!73)
1 7$:93 79:93 79:93 3:00 (6,0) 45 1 87.50 87.50 87.50 0.00 (6,0)
1 97.22 97.22 97.22 0.00 (0,0) - - - - - -
TREATMENT: TF . TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I. N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 9.03 0.00 54.17 9.03 (0,27, 6 1 £00 £00 £00 0.00 <0 0)
1 19.62 19.62 19.62 0.00 (0,0) 14 1 47.88 47.88 47.88 0.00 (0,0)
6-23
-------
POTW - Percent Reraoval
PARAMETER: LIHDANE
18-Apr-90
1HFL
COMC.
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
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
OSSV MEAN HIM
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
2 37.50 0.00 75.00 37.50 (OJOO)~
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN
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'.l'.'
11 2 31.91 20.51 43.30 11.39 (0,100)
0 1 7.58 7.58 7.58 0.00 (o,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90%'c'ii"
3 1 12.82 12.82 12.82 0.00 (0,0)
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
SHXSS8SSS3;
CHLORINATED
==-=—==== ===_= — === — ==-===== ====== =====-=
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
21 3 33.33 0.00 50.00
7 1 33.33 33.33 33.33
91 9 32.69 11.77 86.67
-----
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
16.67 (0.82)
0.00 (0,0)
7.96 (18,4>)
-
SE 90% C.I.
53S33sssss333rs=3— 3— 3 — -— . . -.
=====-=================
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
45 1 38.46 38.46
-
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX SE 90% C.I.
38.46 0.00 (0,0)
-
MAX SE 90% C.I.
------
6-24
-------
SZ-9
=-=-====-=-============-= — === — ==-=-========-========
(O'O)
(O'O)
(O'O)
•ro %06
(001 '66)
(O'O)
(001 £S)
(001 ZZ)
(zs'zz)
•ro %06
(O'O)
(O'O)
•ro %06
OO'O
OO'O
OO'O
as
OI'O
OO'O
£6'£l
8S'£l
OS'S
as
OO'O .
OO'O
as
££'68
W99
OO'OOl
xvw
16 '66
28 'I/
oo;ooi
6Z-£6
XVH
OO'OOl
SL'96
- XVW
££'68 ££'68
V0'99 V0'99
OO'OOl OO'OOL
NIH NV3H
di :iN3WiV32Ji
ZZ'66 L8'66
/8'IZ /8'1/
O0'_0 16;6/
OO'O ll'/£
NIH NV3H
SV :iN3WiV3>U
OO'OOl OO'OOl
Sl'96 Sl'96
NIW NV3W
IV :iN3WiV3Hi
L
I
AS80
I
£
Asao
L
I
Asao
9
9
0
N
9
0
81
SZ
N
£
9
N
OaiVNiaOIHO-NON
_
(O'O) OO'O
(62 */> 9£'0
(£8'99) 69'£
•ro %06 as
(O'O) OO'O
(OOl'OX- Z8'l£
(OOl'O) SZ'ZZ
(001 0) l£'/Z
(.01. Zl) SO'Ol
(OV'OZ) 8/'S
•ro%06 as
-
_
(O'O) OO'O
•ro %06 as
_
_
££'£8
xvw
9£'ll
61'66
iz;s/
29' 09
00 '09
xvw
-
_
Z9'18
XVW
_
_
Z9'99
NIW
di =iN
9£;n
OO'O
OO'O
69VZ
OO'O
NIH
SV :iN
-
_
Z9'L8
NIW
_
_
l£'9/
59 ~1L
NV3W
3WiVaai
9£'ll
99.99
££'9£
l£VZ
86; Of
NV3W
3WiV3*u
-
_
Z9'18
Nvaw
_
_
.
I 9
V 0£
AS80 N
I 9
£ *Z
£ ZL
Z 9
£ ZV
91 911
AS80 N
.
_ •
.
I 9
AS80 N
TW * 1 M2LI 1 W3M 1
IV • JLr(3n i v 3u J.
aaiVNiaonHO
OOOS <
OOOS-lOOl
000 1 -LOS
OOS-lOl
OOl-lS
OS-0
OOOS <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOl-lOS
OOS-IOL
OOl-lS
.05-0
OOOS <
OOOS-lOOl
0001 -IDS
OOS-lOl
OOl-lS
OS-0
'ONOO
IdNI
(OOL'06) LZ'Ol ZrU OO'OS l/'09 Z Zl
•ro %06 as xvw NIW Nvaw Asao N
di :iN3W!V3Hi
(U'S£) /I'Ol OO'OOl OO'O 8l'£S 91 III
•ro %06 3s xvw NIW Nvaw ASSO N
sv ••iNawivaai
(O'O) OO'O QO'O OO'O OO'O I 9
"•ro %06 as xvw NIW Nvaw ASSO N
IV =J
Q3iVNia01HO-NON
(99'6l) Sl'Zl OO'SZ OO'O ZS'Zf /
8V
•ro %06 as xvw NIW Nvaw Asao N
di :iN3WiV3Hi
(O'O) OO'O
(WX0£> 80V
10'OV LO'OV 10'Of I
S2'£6 OO'O 90'ZV Z
9
SOZ
•ro %06 as
XVH
NIW
SV
Nvaw Asao
(O'O) OO'O
•I'3 %06 3S
Z9-99 /9'99 /9'99 I
xvw NIW Nvaw Asao
IV :iN3WiV3Hi
OOOS <
OOOS-LOOL
0001- LOS
OOS-IOL
OOl-LS
OS-0
OOOS <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOL-IOS
OOS-IOL
OOl-lS
OS-0
OOOS <
OOOS-lOOl
OOOL-LOS
OOS-lOl
OOl-lS
OS-0
•ONOO
UNI
06-Jdv-8l
- HiOd
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: NAPHTHALENE
18-Apr-90
INFL
COHC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> sooo
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
m „
_ ^
-
.
- -
MEAN
_
w
-
-
™
MIN
.
_
-
-
™
MAX
-
_
-
-
"*
SE 90% C.I.
.
_
-
-
"
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV
157 17
12 2
6 1
*
MEAN
41.12
89.79
94.65
~
MIN
0.00
85.46
94.65
**
MAX
96.33
94.12
94.65
~
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV
18 3
6 1
. .
.
-
MEAN
16.67
60.00
-
-
-
MIN
0.00
60.00
-
-
.
MAX
50.00
60.00
-
-
-
SE 90% C.I.
10.33 (23.59)
4.33 (62,100)
0.00 (0,0)
"
S
SE 90% C.I.
16.67 (0,65)
0.00 (6,0)
-
-
-
NON-CHLORINATED
N
8
11
-
~
N
80
8
11
0
N
6
0
11
-
-
~
— = == — ===== ===-======-===-
OBSV
2
1
-
"
OBSV
13
2
1
OBSV
1
1
-
-
"
======
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
50.00 0.00
66.67 66.67
~ "
"
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
31.94 0.00
99.09 99.09
95.65 95.00
99.25 99.25
97.83 97.83
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
96.30 96.30
100.00 100.00
31.48 31.48
~
-
"
MAX
100.00
66.67
~
~
MAX
100.00
99.09
96.30
99.25
97.83
MAX
96.30
100.00
31.48
"
•
SE
50.00
0.00
"
~
SE
11.88
0.00
0.65
0.00
0.00
SE
0.00
0.00
0.00
~
"
90% C.I.
(0,100)
(0,0)
—
90% C.I.
(11,53)
(0.0)
(92,160)
(0,0)
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(0,0)
(0)0)
~
"
PARAMETER: NICKEL
INFL
CMC.
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
104
99
80
6
6
-
N
24
18
6
-
-
-
OBSV
.
1
-
•
-
OBSV
16
13
~
OBSV
4
2
1
-
-
-
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
_
75.69 75.69
-
-
- -
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
39.86 0.00
22.45 0.00
50.26 15.00
44.87 0.00
81.22 81.22
~ "
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
15.92 0.00
54.43 23.44
4.27 4.27
-
-
-
MAX
-
75.69
-
-
—
MAX
94.44
56.99
99.71
76.56
81.22
~
.
MAX
56.00
85.42
4.27
-
-
-
SE
.
0.00
-
-
—
SE
8.49
8.24
7.92
23.06
0.00
"*
SE
13.48
30.99
0.00
-
-
-
90% C.I.
-
(0,0)
-
-
"
90% C.I.
(25,55)
(6 38)
(36.64)
(OMOO)
{0,0)
"
90% C.I.
(0.48)
(0,100)
*0,0)
-
-
—
N
6
14
-
~
"
N
30
18
77
0
"
N
6
20
-
-
"*
OBSV
1
1
~
~
OBSV
5
3
2
OBSV
1
2
-
-
"
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
13.64 13.64
35.46 35.46
- -
*" ""
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
8.33 0.00
39.37 16.67
35.19 5.80
27.34 0.00
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
35.48 35.48
32.84 30.50
-
"
"
MAX
13.64
35.46
~
~
MAX
41.67
66.67
60.00
54.69
MAX
35.48
35.19
"
"
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
— ~
-
SE 90% C.I.
8.33 ' (0,26)
14.62 (0,82)
6.64 (22.48)
27.34 (0,100)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
2.34 (18,48)
~
.
6-26
-------
POJU • Percent Removal
PARAMETER: NITROBENZENE
==— =— r"==== —
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.
•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 (0,100)
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
TREATMENT: AL
TREATMENT: AS
TREATMENT: TF
NATED
MAX SE 90% C.I.
-
MAX SE 90% C.I.
- •
MAX SE 90% C.I.
.
N C
-
N (
8
0
N <
-
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
1 91.34 91.34 91.34 0.00 (0,0)
1 92.00 92.00 92.00 0.00 " (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
6-27
-------
POTM - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: PEHTACHLOROPHENOL
18-Apr-90
TttFf
CONC.
0-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
> 5000
o-so
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
H OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
104 9 38.52 0.00 86.67
TREATMENT: TF
H OSSV MEAN MIN MAX
36 5 30.87 0.00 68.89
SE 90% C.I.
-
SE 90% C.I.
10.04 (20,57)
SE 90% C.I.
13.50 (2,60)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
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.
-
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: PHEHANTHRENE
IHFL
COfiC.
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.
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
H 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
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)
6-28
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: PHENOL
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.
6 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN
MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
116 14 31.28 0.00 94.44 11.67 (11.52)
18 3 54.82 11.11 95.71 24.46 (0,100)
53 4 93.12 80.10 99.59 4.48 (83,100)
12 . 2 99.57 99.25 99.89 0.32 (98,100)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN
6 1 96.08
MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
96.08 96.08 0.00 (0,0)
18-Apr-9
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN
9 2 75.00 50.00
11 1 33.33 33.33
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN
54 9 19.07 0.00
61 7 94.14 80.77
6 1 99.99 99.99
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN
6 2 90.00 80.00
6 1 98.18 98.18
11 2 74.60 49.21
MAX
100.00^
33.33
MAX
80.00
100.00
99.99
MAX
SE
25.00
0.00
SE
10.11
2.69
0.00
SE
100.00 10.00
98.18 0.00
100.00 25.40
==" •======—=—=
90% C.I.
(0,100)
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(0,37)
(89,99)
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(37,100)
(0,0)
(0,l60)
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER:PYRENE
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
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)
6-29
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAKETER:SILVER
19-Apr-90
111 PI
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
znasanEsssxs:
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
H OBSV MEAN HIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
TREATMENT: AS
H OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
35 4 72.38 26.04 94.22 15.72 (35,100)
TREATMENT: TF'
H OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
BSHSSSSSSSSSSSSI:====S===— s — — ===s=s:=s;=s:=:===r= :
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.
PARAH6TER:TETRACHLOROETHENE
tuci
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
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
H
1
»
.
.
-
-
OBSV
6
_
.
.
-
-
MEAN
80.00
.
.
_
.
-
MIN
80.00
_
.
_
.
-
MAX
80.00
_
.
.
.
-
SE
0.00
.
„
.
-
90% C.I.
(0,0)
-
_
.
-
TREATMENT: AS
N
95
9
18
0
6
™
OBSV
17
6
3
1
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
OJOO
0.00
—
90% C.I.
(31,63)
(59,99)
(61!87)
(0,0)
(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)
(0,0)
.
-
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 2 95.65 91.30100.00 4.53(68,100)
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV
120
47
6
21
4
2
MEAN
62
93
98
.69
.50
.24
MIN
0
90
97
.00
.00
.42
MAX
100.00
96.68
99.05
SE
7.
1.
0.
02
37
82
90%
(51
(90
(93.
C.I.
,75)
,97)
100)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
12 2 90.00 86.67 93.33
SE 90% C.I.
3.33 (69,100)
6-30
-------
POTW - Percent Removal
PARAMETER: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
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN
MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
~ ~ 1 ™ ~ *"
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
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
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.
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
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N
1
-
_
6
-
—
OBSV
.
-
_
1
-
—
MEAN
.
-
-
97.23
-
—
MIN
.
-
-
97.23
-
—
MAX
-
-
-
97.23
-
"
SE
.
-
-
0.00
-
"
90% C.I.
-
-
-
(0.0)
-
"
TREATMENT: AS
N
124
12
57
12
6
~
OBSV
17
2
6
2
1
"
MEAN
53.74
98.24
78.88
96.16
99.81
~
MIN
0.00
97.86
0.00
92.84
99.81
~
MAX
97.73
98.63
99.11
99.48
99.81
~
SE
9.51
0.39
15.87
3.32
0.00
"
90% C.I.
(37.70)
(96,100)
(47,100)
(75 100)
{0,0)
"
TREATMENT: TF
N
42
-
6
-
-
"
OBSV
6
-
1
-
-
"
MEAN
61.90
-
97.29
-
-
"
MIN
0.00
-
97.29
-
-
MAX
96.00
•
97.29
-
-
SE
14.50
-
0.00
-
-
90% C.I.
(33,91)
-
(0,0)
-
-
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE .90% C.I.
6 1 88.89 88.89 88.89 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN
N
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
112
19
58
6
0
19
4
6
1
1
85
98
98
95
99
99
.21
.01
.85
.39
.84
.94
0
96
95
95
99
99
.00
.67
.00
.39
.84
.94
TOO
99
100
95
99
99
.00
.00
.00
.39
.84
.94
5.65 (75,95)
0.49 (97.99)
0.78 (97,100)
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (00)
0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
OBSV MEAN MIN
MAX
SE 90% C.I.
6-31
-------
POTU - Percent Removal
PARAMETER:TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
19-Apr-90
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
»»UBKZS2:
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV REAM HIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
6 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
H OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
146 20 42.09 0.00 100.00 8.88 (27,57)
TREATMENT: TF
H OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
48 7 47.07 0.00 97.67 17.99 (12,82)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
6 1 87.50 87.50 87.50 0.00
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
59 11 49.22 0.00 93.75 12.45
0 1 90.00 90.00 90.00 0.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE
6 1 50.00 50.00 50.00 0.00
90% C.I.
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(27,72)
(0,0)
90% C.I.
(0,0)
PARAMETER:TR1BROMOMETHANE
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
.
HIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
I
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN
HIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
:ssss====ss:3ss======-=— ===========
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
14 1 83.33 83.33 83.33
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
14 1 67.78 67.78 67.78
0 1 65.00 65.00 65.00
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
14 1 54.44 54.44 54.44
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (00)
0.00 (00)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
6-32
-------
POTW - 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
========5=====================================-= =======
CHLORINATED
N
6
-
-
-
-
-
N
157
36
12
6
-
~
N
24
18
6
-
-
OBSV
1
-
-
-
-
™
OBSV
17
2
1
-
~
OBSV
3
1
-
-
TREATMENT: AL
MEAN MIN
75.00 75.00
-
-
-
-
— —
TREATMENT: AS
MEAN MIN
48.24 0.00
78.46 51.72
89.71 86.86
86.80 86.80
-
«. —
TREATMENT: TF
MEAN MIN
94.19 88.84
94.19 88.84
99.19 99.19
-
-
MAX
75.00
-
-
-
-
—
MAX
97.73
98.21
92.56
86.80
-
~
MAX
98.04
98.04
99.19
-
-
SE
0.00
•
-
—
-
"
SE
10.22
7.87
2.85
0.00
-
"
SE
2.85
2.85
0.00
-
-
90% C.I.
(0,0)
-
-
-
-
90% C.I.
(30,66)
(62 95)
(72,100)
(0,0)
-
90% C.I.
(86,100)
(86,100)
(0,0)
-
-
:==-====== ======- -===-====- _ ==== = .
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV
6 1
-
- -
- -
-
MEAN
97.30
~
-
~
~
MIN MAX
97.30 97.30
~ ""
~ ™
~ ~
~
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
"
"
-
—
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV
106 18
6 1
26 3
"
~ -
MEAN
53.77
97.65
97.74
~
~
MIN MAX
0.00 100.00
97.65 97.65
95.00 99.61
— —
-
SE 90% C.I.
8.26 (39.68)
0.00 (6.0)
1.40 (94,100)
"
-
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV
6 2
6 1
-
~
-
MEAN
91.67
88.24
-
~
t
MIN MAX
83.33 100.00
88.24 88.24
"
~ ""
• **
SE 90% C.I.
8.33 (39,100)
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
OBSV MEAN
MIN
MAX
41
TREATMENT: AS
OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
2 48.65 0.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN
6 1 0.00 0.00
MAX
D
SE 90% C.I.
- ,
( SE 90% C.I.
50 48.65 (0,100)
< SE 90% C.I.
30 0.00 (0,0)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0" 1 95.00 95.00 95.00
5 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
0 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
SE 90% C.I.
-
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
6-33
-------
POTW - Percent Ronoval
19-Apr-90
PARAHETER:VINYL CHLORIDE
1NFL
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
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
H OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
TREATMENT: AS
H 06SV MEAN MIN MAX
41 Z 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 1 71.43 71.43 71.43
6 1 94.05 94.05 94.05
6 1 92.93 92.93 92.93
TREATMENT: TF
H 06SV MEAN MIN MAX
SE 90% C.I.
-
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (0)0)
0.00 (0,0)
0.00 (OjO)
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 1 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 (0,0)
0 1 95.00 95.00 95.00 0.00 (0,0)
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX SE 90% C.I.
PARAMETERIZING
IHFL
CO«C.
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
•Ksssssssa:
CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N
6
OBSV
1
MEAN
89.98
MIN
89.9E
MAX
89.98
SE
0.00
90% C.I.
(0,0)
TREATMENT: AS
H
7
183
24
69
12
OBSV
1
21
i
MEAN
97.50
68.59
82.13
83.32
71.27
HIN
97.50
29.73
74.15
49.05
63.64
MAX
97.50
68.59
88.74
99.25
78.90
SE
0.00
3.41
4.27
4.66
7.63
90% C.I.
(0,0)
(63,74)
(70,95)
(75!92)
(23,100)
TREATMENT: TF
N
6
42
ssssssss!
OBSV
1
6
MEAN
17.20
47.20
MIN
17.20
30.77
MAX
17.20
75.17
SE
90% C.I.
0.00 (0.0)
6.27 (34. &0)
NON-CHLORINATED
TREATMENT: AL
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
6 1 51.10 51.10 51.10
TREATMENT: AS
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
48 9 79.90 60.00 90.27
18 3 77.24 82.55 80.45
45 3 74.10 62.90 90.63
TREATMENT: TF
N OBSV MEAN MIN MAX
12 2 69.25 65.49 73.01
SE 90% C.I.
0.00 (0,0)
SE 90% C.I.
3.42 (74,86)
1.63 (72,82)
8.26 (51,99)
SE 90% C.I.
3.76 (46,93)
6-34
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
COMPOUND
TABLE 6-2
PERCENT OF INFLUENT PARTITIONED TO SLUDGE AND VOLATILIZED
IN ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANTS
PERCENT OF INFLUENT
VOLATILIZED
PERCENT OF INFLUENT
PARTIONED TO SLUDGE
** METALS (AN I ON.)
ARSENIC
SELENIUM
** METALS (CATION)
ANTIMONY
BARIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SILVER
** MISCELLANEOUS
CYANIDE
** PCBs
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCS-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCS-1260
** PESTICIDES (HERBICIDE)
DNBP
** PESTICIDES (ORGANOHALIDE)
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID
ALDRIN
CAPTAN
CHLORODANE
ENDRIN
METHOXYCHLOR
TOXAPHENE
TRI PLURAL IN
** PESTICIDES (ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS)
DIAZINON
DICHLORVOS
DISULFOTON
FENTHION
MEVINPHOS
NALED
PARATHION
PHORATE
** SEMI-VOLATILES (ACID)
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2-CHLOROPHENOL
CRESOLS
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
RESORCINOL
** SEMI-VOLATILES (BASE)
BENZENAMINE
DIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSCOIMETHYLAMINE
P-NITROANILINE
PYRIDINE
** SEMI-VOLATILES (NEUTRAL)
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
9
0
54
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
45
45
45
1
50
50
0
90
27
70
30
50
35
90
90
34
34
34
34
8
8
8
7
7 '
33
7
33
35
8
4
33
7
9
7
6
9
8
0
7
8
8
8
9
8
8
17
14
10
10
7
9
0
2
8
32
3
22
35
6-35
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
COMPOUND
TABLE 6-2 (CONTINUED)
PERCENT OF INFLUENT PARTITIONED TO SLUDGE AND VOLATILIZED
IN ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANTS
PERCENT OF INFLUENT
VOLATILIZED
PERCENT OF INFLUENT
PARTIONED TO SLUDGE
ACEHAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL> ETHER
BISC2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
HEXACHLOROeUTADIEKE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
** VOLATILES
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DlCHLOROETHANE
1,1-D1CHLORO£THENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DlCKLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANOHE
2-PICOtINE
2-PROPAHONE
2-PROPENAL
2-PROPEHEMITRILE
BENZENE
8ROHOHETHANE
CARBOH DISULFIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
DIBROHOMETHANE
ETHYL8ENZENE
KETHYLENE CHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROHETHANE
TOtUENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRIBROMOMETHANE
TR1CHLOROETHENE
TRICHIOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLEHES
19
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
48
76
36
40
63
76
30
45
45
0
1
1
1
1
0
24
86
76
27
76
63
86
42
24
38
22
45
72
24
63
36
66
76
86
24
9
52
1
9
66
43
1
8
9
9
27
9
4
9
4
0
0
0
6
4
0
9
10
8
10
10
0
2
0
1
14
1
2
1
13
0
13
14
3
12
27
49
5
6
0
2
14
6-36
-------
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) pg.
1457-1468.
Berglund, R.L. and Whipple, G.M., "Predictive Modeling of Organic Emissions."
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.
Hutton, 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 (Feb.
1983) pg. 157-163.
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, pg.
340-360.
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.
900409-mil
Page 1
6-37
-------
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.
* i
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).
900409-mil
Page 2
6-38
-------
SECTION 7
COMPUTER SOFTWARE PACKAGES
9.89.107C
0009.0.0
-------
SECTION 7 - COMPUTER SOFTWARE PACKAGES. Section 7 presents a list of computer
software packages that may aid POTW authorities and regulatory agencies in
developing local limits. Local limits can be used to determine the level of
pretreatment required at a CERCLA site.
891003B-mll
11.
-------
COMPUTER SOFTWARE PACKAGES
Wastewater Data Management System. This software package was reviewed in
the April issue of Pollution Engineering magazine. It is IBM PC/XT-, AT-
compatible, costs about $2,000, and rated very highly except for ease of
use, initially. For more information, contact WDMS Computer Services,
P.O. Box 27561, .Tulsa, Oklahoma 74149,, (918) 241-5755.
Pretreattnent. This software package was written by a USEPA pretreatment
coordinator. It is IBM PC-, PC/XT-, or PC/AT-compatible and costs about
$2,500. For more information, contact Spica Systems, 4921 Seminary Road,
Suite 1502, Alexandria, Virginia 22311, (703) 671-5874.
PGME Software. This is a package developed by USEPA to go along with the
PCME guidance and training. It is IBM PC-, PC/XT-, or PC/AT-compatible
and will be essentially free. For more information, contact Richard Kinch
at (203) 475-8319.
PRELIM. This is a USEPA product for use in developing local limits.
is IBM PC-, PC/XT-, or PC/AT-compatible. For more information, call
(202) 475-9539.
It
PRETRE. This is a comprehensive package that is IBM PC-, PC/XT-, and
PC/AT-compatible and costs about $2,500. For more information, contact
Jay Fink, Cochran Associates, Inc., 236 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massa-
chusetts 02115, (617) 247-0444.
Operator Ten. This is a package that requires minimal development, is IBM
PC-, PC/XT-, and PC/AT-compatible, and costs about $2,500. For more
information, contact Don G. Knaur, Macola Inc., 196 S. Main Street,
P.O. Box 485, Marion, Ohio 43302, (800) 468-0834.
Integrated Model For Predicting The Fate Of Organics In Wastewater Treat-
ment Plants. This software package is currently being developed by the
USEPA Office of Research and Development. For more information contact
Richard Dobbs at (513) 569-7649.
FATE. The Fate and Treatability Estimator (FATE) model predicts the fate
of pollutants in activated sludge POTWs and is contained in Section 14.
This IBM PC-compatible software was developed by C-E Environmental, Inc.
for the USEPA Industrial Technology Division (ITD). For more information,
contact ITD at (202) 382-7149.
9.89.107C
0010.0.0
7-1
-------
-------
SECTION 8
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL CONSTANTS OF COMPOUNDS
9.89;107C
0011.0.0
-------
SECTION 8 - PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL CONSTANTS OF COMPOUNDS. Section 8 presents the
compound name, the molecular weight, Henry's Law Constant, Log octanol/water
coefficient (Kow), and solubility of compounds where information was available
for compounds on the ITD list of analytes (Section 9). Values of Henry's Law
constant and Log Kow were extracted from various EPA publications (i.e.,
Treatabilitv Manual: Vols. 1-5; USEPA 600/2 82-001A through 600/2 82-042;
September-October 1986 and "Superfund Public Emergency and Remedial Response;
USEPA/540/1-86/060; 1986) and in most cases, were measured values.
The physical and chemical constants of compounds detected in CERCLA wastestreams
can be used to evaluate a compound's fate in a POTW where no other data are
available. The compound's fate can be estimated by using its physical and
chemical constants (as well as its compound class) to locate similar compounds
for which fate (percent removal) data are available.
891003B-mll
12.
-------
Page No.
04/18/90
REGULATORY NAME
TABLE 8-1
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
(g/mole)
HENRY'S LAW COEF.
(atm m3/mole)
LOG KOU
SOLUBILITY
(ppm)
SOLUBILITY TEMP
(CELCIUS)
oo
I
** DIOXINS
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1.2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Dibenzo[b,e][1,4]dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Hexachlorodvbenzofurans
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-di.oxins
PentachIorod ibenzofurans
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
TetrachIorodibenzofurans
** METALS (ANIONS)
Arsenic
Boron
Chlorine
Iodine
Phosphorus (black, uhite, red, yellow, or violet)
Selenium
Silicon
Sulfur
** METALS (CATIONS)
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Calcium
Cerium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Dysprosium
Erbium
Europium
Gallium
Germanium
Gold
Hafnium
Holmium
Hydrogen ion
Indium
Iridium
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
Lutetium
Hagnes i urn
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
322
75
10.81
35.45
126.9
30.97
79
28.09
32.06
26.98
122
137
9
208.98
112
40.08
140.12
52
58.93
64
162.5
167.26
151.96
69.72
72.59
196.97
178.49
164.93
114.82
192.2
56
138.91
207
6.94
174.97
24.31
55
201
95.94
3.60X10E-03
6.72
0.0002
-------
Page Wo.
04/18/90
REGULATORY NAME
TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED)
CHEMICAL AHO PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MOLECULAR HEIGHT
(g/wole)
HENRY'S LAM COEF.
(atsi mS/mole)
LOG KOW
SOLUBILITY
(ppm)
SOLUBILITY TEHP
(CELCIUS)
00
I
ro
Neodyraium
Nickel
Niobium
Osmium
Palladiun
Platinum
Potassium
Praseodymium
Rhenium
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Samarium
Scandium v
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Tellurium
Terbium
Thallium
Thorium
Thulium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
** MISCELLANEOUS
Ammonia
Asbestos
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloramine
Chloride
Chlorine dioxide
Chlorite
Copper cyanide (CuCN)
Corrosivity
Cryptosporidium
Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes) NOS
Cyanogen chloride
Disodium cyanodithioimidocarbonate
Fluoride
Hypochlorite ion
Ignitability
Nitrate/nitrite
Nitrites
OjI and grease
OiI and grease
Reactivity
Residue, filterable
144.24
59
92.91
190.2
106.4
195.09
39.1
140.91
186.2
102.91
101.07
150.35
44.96
108
22.99
87.62
180.95
127.6
158.92
204
232.04
168.93
118.69
47.9
183.85
238
51
173.04
88.91
65
91.22
17.03
67.45
115.58
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
REGULATORY NAME
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
(g/mole)
•TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED)
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
HENRY'S LAW COEF.
(atm nti/mole)
LOG KOW
SOLUBILITY
(ppn.)
SOLUBILITY TEMP
(CELCIUS)
Residue, non-filterable
Residue, total
Specific conductivity
Sulfide
Total organic carbon
Total volatile organic carbon
** PCB
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
** PESTICIDES (CARBAMATES)
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid, salts and esters
Diallate \ Avadex
Nabam
Maneb \ Vancide
Zineb \ Dithane Z
Busan 85
Carbamic acid, methyldithio-, monopotassium salt
oo Carbamic acid, dimethyldithio-, sodium salt
' Thiram \ Thiuram \ Arasan
Ziram \ Cymate
** PESTICIDES (HERBICIDES)
2,4-D \ Acetic acid, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-
Pronamide \ Kerb
DNBP \ Dinoseb \ 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dimtrophenol
Dinex \ DN-111 \ 2-Cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
2,4,5-TP \ Silvex
** PESTICIDES (ORGANOHALIDES)
Isodrin (Stereoisomer of Aldrin)
Mi rex \ Dechlorane
Kepone
Dichlone \ Phygon
Endrin
Aldrin
2,4,5-T \ Ueedone \ Acetic acid, 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy-
Heptachlor epoxide
Dieldrin
Alachlor \ Metachlor \ Lasso
4,4'-DDD/Benzene,
1,1'-(2,2-dichloroethylidene)bis[4-chloro-
4,4'-DDE/Benzene,
1,1'-(dichloroethenlyidine)bis[4-chloro
4,4'-DDT/Benzene,
1,1'-(2,2,2-trichloroethytidene)bis[4-chloro
Chiordane
Heptachlor
Captafot \ Difolatan
Captan
257.9
200,
232,
266.
299.
328,
375.7
274
256.34
265.3
275.73
240.41
273.59
221
256.14
240
266.25
269.51
490.6
227
380.9
365
255.48
389.3
381
320
318
354.5
409.8
373.3
300.6
1.8x10E-04
3.24X10E-04
8.64x10E-04
5.7x10E-04
3.5x10E-03
2.8x10E-03
7.1x10E-03
1.65x10E-04
Low
1.88x10E-04
1.20x10E-03
0.5x10E-06
1.6x10E-05
4.39x10E-04
4.58x10E-07
7.96x10E-06
6.8x10E-05
5.13x10E-04
9.63x10E-06
8.19x10E-04
4.7x10E-05
4.38
4.08
4.54
4.11
5.60
6.04
7.15
0.73
Low
2.81
2.00
5.6
5.30
2.70
3.50
6.20
7.00
6.19
3.32
4.40
2.35
0.049
0.59
1.45
0.10
0.054
0.057
0.08
14
620
50
140
0.010
Insoluble
0.26
0.017-0.18
278
0.35
0.20
0.02-0.09
0.040
0.0031
0.056-1.85
0.18
0.5
24C
24C
25C
24C
25C
24C
24C
25C
25C
25C
25C
25C
25C
25C
20C
25C
25C
25C
25C-
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
REGULATORY NAME
TABLE 8-1 (COHTIKUED)
CHEMICAL AJTO PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
(g/roole)
HEHRY'S LAU COEF.
(atra m3/mole)
LOG KOU
SOLUBILITY
Cppt)
SOLUBILITY TEMP
(CELCIUS)
Hethoxychlor
Chtorobenzilate \ Ethyl-4,4'-dichlorobenzilate 325.2
Lindone \ gamma-BHC \ Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamna) 290.8
alpha-BHC " 290.8
delta-BHC 290.8
beta-BHC 290.8
6.9-Methano-2,3,4-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7 423
Thiodan I
Thiodan II
Endrjn aldehyde
Endrine ketone
Mitrofen \ TDK
Camphechlor 414
o.p'-DDT
Trifluralin \ Treflan
** PESTICIDES (ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS)
Coumaphos \ Co-Ral 362.8
Crotoxyphos \ Ciodrin
Mevinphos \ Phosdrin 224.2
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0,8-triethyt ester
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-methyl ester
Zinophos \ Thionazin
PCNB \ Terraclor \ Quintozene 295
CD Phosacetin
i Trichlorofon \ Dylox 257
*• Naled \ Dibrora 380.8
Dichlorvos \ DDVP 221
Tetrachlorvinphos \ Gardona
Chlorfenvinphos \ Supona
Dicrotophos \ Bidrin
Monocrotophos \ Azodrin
Phosphamidon \ Dimecron
Tricresylphosphate \ TCP \ TOCP
Trimethylphosphate
Hexametnylphosphoramide \ HHPA
Oemeton \ Systox
Diazinon \ Spectracide 304.4
Chlorpyrifos \ Dursban 350.6
Fensulfothion \ Desanit
Phorate \ Thimet 260.4
Disulfoton 274.4
Azinphos-ethyl \ Ethyl Guthion
Terbufos \ Counter
Azinphos-methyl \ Guthion 317.3
Phosmet \ Imidan
Cygon \ Dimethoate 229
Fenthion \ Baytex
Ethion \ Bladan 384.5
Dioxathion
Carbophenothion \ Trithion
Parathion \ Parathion, ethyl 291.3
Methyl parathion \ Parathion-methyl \ Hetaphos 263.2
Famphur \ Faraophos
Leptophos \ Phosvel
EPN \ Santox
7.85x10E-06
5.87x10E-06
2.07X10E-07
4.47X10E-07
4.89x10E-03
3.2x10E-08
6.18x10E-04
1.71x10E-11
3.4x10E-07
1.4x10E-06
4.1x10E-06
2.5x10E-06
3.8x10E-06
6.1x10E-07
5.59x10E-08
3.90
3.90
4.10
3.90
3.66
3.3
5.45
2.29
2.71
1.91
17.0
1.63
21.3
0.70
0.117
0.5
1.5
Hiscible
0.071
154,000
Almost Ins
10,000
24C
25C
25C
25C
25C
25C
25C
25C
20C
40
2
50
25
33
25,000
Slightly
24
60
20C
35C
23C
25
25C
25C
-------
CO
I
Ln,
Page No.
04/18/90
REGULATORY NAME
Malathion \ Sumitox
TEPP \ Phosphoric acid, tetraethyl ester
Sulfotepp \ Bladafum \ Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
** SEMI-VOLATILES (ACIDS)
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Djchlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Nitrophenol
Benzoic acid
Benzonitrile, 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxy-
Hexanoic acid
PentachIorophenol
Phenol
Phenol, 2-methyl-4,6-dinitro-
Resorcmol
Sulfurous acid, 2-chloroethyl-, 2-C4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)
phenoxy]-1-methylethyl ester
m-Cresol
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
** SEMI-VOLATILES (BASES)
1,1'-Biphenyl-4.4'-diamine, 3,3'-dimethoxy
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
1,2-Etfianediamine, N,N-dimethyl-N'-2pyridinyl-N'-(2-
thienylmethyl)-
1,3-Benzenediamine, 4-methyl-
1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-(1-propenyl)-
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,5-Naphthalenediamine
1-Naphthylamine
2,3-Dichloroaniline
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-dichloro-4-nitroaniline
2-(Methylthio)benzothiazole
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
4-Chloro-2-nitroaniline
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acetamide, N-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-
Anmonium, (4-(p-(dimethylamino)-alpha-phenylbenzyli
dine)-2,5-cylcohexadien-1-ylidene)-dimethyl chloride
Aniline, 2,4,5-trimethyl-
TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED)
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
(g/mole)
330.36
290i2
322.31
231.89
197.46
197.45
197.45
163.0
122.17
184.11
163.0
128.56
142.59
139.11
122.1
276.92
116.16
266.34
94.11
198.13
110.11
334.87
108.15
108.14
108.14
244
215.89
184.24
261 .39
122
168
147.0
158.21
143
162.02
182.1
207.02
162.5
138.13
253.13
267
152
256
179.21
HENRY'S LAW COEF.
(atm m3/mole)
2.18x10E-04
4.0x10E-06
2.75X10E-06
2.52x10E-06
6.45x10E-10
4.7x10E-06
2.5x10E-06
1.82X10E-08
2.8x10E-06
4.54x10E-07
4.49x10E-05
1.0x10E-13
1X10E-11
3.42x10E-09
1.28X10E-10
3.25X10E-12
3.1X10E-03
5.21X10E-09
3.27x10E-06
3.15x10E-04
8.33X10E-07
SOLUBILITY
LOG KOW
2.89
4.1
3.72
3.87
2.90
50
53
2.17
3.13
1.91
5.04
1.48
2.70
0.80
1.46
4.67
2.90
0.35
2.66
3.60
2.07
2.05
4.12
3.50
6.94
145
Hiscible
25-66
1,000
1190
800
4,500
1,000
5,600
28.500
3,850
16,000
2,900
14
80.000
25&
2,290,000
31,000
24,000
0.3
1840
47,700
1090
79
2350
270
6.74
4.0
0.0004
760
SOLUBILITY TEMP
(CELCIUS)
25C
20C
25C
25C
25C
20C
18C
20C
20C
25C
20C
20C
25C
30C
40C
40C
22C
25C
22C
25C
22C
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
REGULATORY HAKE
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
Cg/mole)
TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED)
CHEMICAL AWO PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
HENRY'S LAM COEF.
(ntm ra3/mole)
LOG KOW
SOLUBILITY
(ppt)
SOLUBILITY TEMP
(CELC1US)
oo
I
Benzenmine
Benzenwnine, 4-chloro-
Benzenwiine, N,N-dintethyt-4-(pehnylazo)-
Benzencthiol
Benzidine
Carbazole
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
Diphenylatine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butytawiine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylphenylamine
N-Nitrosonwrpnoune
N-Mitrosopiperidine
Nitrobenzene
Phenothiazine
Propane, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloro-
Pyridine
Thioxanthe-9-one
[1,1'-Biphenyl]-4-amine
beta-Maphthylamina
o-Anisidine
o-Toluidine
o-Toluidine, 5-chloro-
p-Nitroanihne
** SEMI-VOLATILES (NEUTRAL)
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trimethoxybenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Benzenedicarboxyljc acid, dibutyl ester
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane
1,3,5-Trithiane
1,3-Cyclopentadiene, 1.2,3,4,5,5-hexachloro-
1,3-Dichloro-2-propanol
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1, 3 -Di nit robenzene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Chloro-3-nitrobenzene
1-Hethylfluorene
1-Hethylphenanthrene ,
1-Phenylnaphthalene
3-
methoxy-
2,3-Benzofluorene
2,3-Dichloronitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-di-tert-Butyl-p-benzoquinone
2,7-Dimethylphenanthrene
2-Isopropylnaphthalene
2-Hethylbenzothioazole
2-Hethylnaphthalene
93.1
127.57
225
110.17
184.23
167.21
130.19
169
102
74.08
198.23
114
123.1
199.28
236
79.10
169.0
143.0
123.16
107.16
141.61
138.13
181.45
168.2
181.4
278.35
194.2
147.0 -
86.09
138.27
272.8
128.99
147.0
168
158.16
157.56
180.25
192.26
204.28
216.29
192
182.1
222.23
206.28
170.25
142.20
1.1X10-E06
7..19X10E-09
3.03x10E-07
6.92x10E-06
1.47x10E-07
Low
7.9X10E-07
1.11x10E-08
1.3X10E-05
3.11x10E-04
7.0x1OE-09
1.59x10E-08
8.23x10E:08
1X10E-06
2.3x10E-03
2.8X10E-07
2.10x10E-07
1.93x10E-03
1.37x10E-03
3.59x10E-03
5.09x1OE-06
0.98
1.83
3.72
2.52
1.30
1.50
3.60
0.48
0.68
2.57
-0.49
1.85
2.29
0.66
2.78
2.07
1.3,9
4.28
5.6
2.12
3.60
5.04
3.56
1.62
2.01
35,000
13.6
470
400
9,900
57.6
Hiscible
1,900,000
1,900
1.000
Hiscible
842
586
25C
15C
12C
25C
25C
20C
12
13
5,000
145
1.8
123
470
270
22C
25C
20C
25C
25C
25C
22C
-------
Page No.
04/18/90
REGULATORY NAME
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
REGULATORY NAME
HOIECULAR WEIGHT
(g/n»le)
TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED)
CHEMICAL AW) PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
HENRY'S LAW COEF.
(atra rrt5/mole)
LOG KOW
SOLUBILITY
(ppffl)
SOLUBILITY TEHP
(CELCIUS)
oo
I
00
Triphenylene
Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
alpha-Terpineol
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)roethane
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
n-Decane
n-Docosane
n-Dodecane
n-Eicosane
n-Hexacosane
n-Hexadecane
n-Octacosane
n-Octadecane
n-Tetracosane
n-Tetradecane
n-Triacontane
p-Cymene
** VOLATILES
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Djchloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,4-Dioxane
1-Bromo-2-chlorobenzene
1-Bromo-3-chlorobenzene
1-Propene, 3-chloro-
2-Butanone
2-Butenal
2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro (mixture of cis and trans)
2-Chloro-1.3-butadiene
2-Chloroetnylvinyl ether
Z-Hexanone
2-Picoline
2-propanone
2-Propen-1-o1
2-Propenal
2-Propenenitrile
2-Propenenitrile, 2-methyl-
4-HethyI-2-pentanone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Chloroacetonitrile
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
228.29
154.26
173.1
143.01
171.07
390.54
142.29
310.61
170.34
282.56
366.72
226.45
394.78
254.51
338.67
198.4
422.83
134.22
167.85
133.4
167.8
133.4
98.96
96.94
147.43
187.9
98.98
113.0
112.99
88
191.46
191.46
76.53
72
70.1
125
88.5
106.55'
100.16
93.13
58.08
58.08
56.1
53.1
67.09
100.16
78.11
163.8
94.94
76.14
75.5
112.56
64.52
2.7x1OE-07
1.3x10E-05
1.13X10E-04
3.0X10E-07
3.8U10E-04
1.44x10E-02
3.8x10E-04
1.17x10E-03
4.26x1OE-03
3.4x10-02
6.73x10E-04
9.78x10E-04
2.31x10E-03
1.07x10E-05
0.4
2.74x10E-05
1.4x10E-05
2.16x10E-05
2.4x10E-05
2.06x10E-05
3.69x10E-06
6.79x10E-05
8.84x10E-05
5.55x10E-03
2.12X10E-03
1.06X10E-01
1.2x10E-02
3.72x10E-03
1.48x10E-02
1.26
1.46
2.10
8.70
3.04
2.49
2.39
2.47
1.80
1.84
2.01
1.76
1.53
2.00
0.001
0.26
1.28
1.20
0.57
-0.22
-0.097
0.25
2.13
1.88
1.10
2.00
2.84
1.54
81,000
10,200
1,700
0.285
200
4,400
2,900
4,500
5.500
210
4,310
8,690
2,700
3,600
268,000
180,000
6,000
Hiscible
5.10X10E5
208,000
73,$00
1,780,1800
900
2,940
488
5,740
25C
25C
24C
20C
20C
20C
20C
20C
25C
30C
20C
20C
20C
20C
20C
25C
20C
20C
25C
20C
-------
Page No.
04/18/90
REGULATORY NAME
MOLECULAR UE1GHT
(g/mole)
TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED)
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
HENRY'S LAW COEF.
(atm m3/mole)
LOG KOW
SOLUBILITY
(PPnO
SOLUBILITY TEMP
(CELCIUS)
Chloroform
Chloromethane
D jbromochIoromethane
Dibromomethane
Dichloroiodomethane
Diethyl ether
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tet rachIoroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
Total xylenes
Tribromomethane
Trichloroethene
TrichlorofIuoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
o + p xylene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
119.4
50.49
208.3
173.85
210.83
74.12
55.08
114.15
106.2
142
74
100.13
84.94
104.1
165.8
153.8
92.13
106.2
252.8
131.4
137.4
86.10
62.5
111.0
106.2
96.94
m.o
3.39x10E-03
4.4x10E-02
2.08x10E-03
9.98x10E-04
6.44x10E-03
5.34x10E-03
2.43x10E-01
2.03x10E-03
9.7x10E-03
2.59x1OE-02
23x10E-02
6.7x10E-03
5.1x10E-03
5.52x10E-04
9.10x10E-03
5.8x10E-02
6.20x10E-04
8.19x10E-02
3.55x10E-03
6.6x10E-03
3.55x10E-03
1.97
0.95
2.09
3.15
1.69
0.79
1.30
2.95
2.6
2.64
2.73
2.8-3.2
2.4
2.38
2.53
1.38
1.98
0.48
1.98
9,300
6,450
0.2
11,000
152
14,000
16,700
300
150
785
515
Insoluble
3,200
1,100
1.100
20.000
1.1
2,700
600
2,800
25C
20C
20C
20C
25C
20C
20C
20C
20C
30C
25C
25C
20C
25C
25C
20C
25C
-------
-------
SECTION 9
USEPA CONTAMINANT LISTS
9.89.107C
0012.0.0
-------
SECTION 9 - USEPA CONTAMINANT LISTS. Section 9 presents several commonly
referenced lists of compounds: a) the ITD List of Analytes, taken from "The
1987 Industrial Technology Division List of Analytes"; USEPA Industrial
Technology Division; Office of Water Regulations and Standards; Washington,
D.C.; March 1987, b) the Target Compound List (TCL), is a list generally used by
the CERCLA program, which contains compounds commonly found at CERCLA sites, c)
the Priority Pollutant List, was developed by the USEPA Office of Water and
lists organic toxic pollutants, d) the "Appendix VIII List", a list of the RCRA
hazardous constituents as defined in the Federal Register. Volume 51. Number 151
Appendix VIII. and e) the "Section 110 SARA List", a list of 100 hazardous
substances as defined by Section 110 of SARA in the Federal Register. Volume 52.
Number 74.
Tables 9-1 through 9-4 present the ITD list analytes in various formats. Table
9-1 lists the compounds according to their compound classification (volatiles,
semi-volatiles, elements, etc). Within each compound classification, the
compounds are listed alphabetically according to each compound's Regulatory
Name. The CAS Number and Common Name are also listed to help locate the
specific compound of interest. To further aid the user in locating the compound
of interest, Tables 9-2 through 9-4 are also presented. Table 9-2 lists the
compounds according to the CAS Number. The Regulatory Name, Common Name, and
Compound Class are also included. Table 9-3 lists the compounds alphabetically
according to the Common Name and also includes the Regulatory Name, Compound
Class, and CAS Number. Table 9-4 lists the ITD inorganic contaminants.
Tables 9-5 through 9-8 present the remaining lists mentioned above.
891003B-mll
13.
-------
Page No.
04/18/90
TABLE 9-1
CLASSES OF COMPOUNDS
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CAS NUMBER
COMMON NAME
** DIOXINS
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-djoxin
1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
DibenzoCb.e][1,4]dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
HexachIorodibenzofurans
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-djoxins
PentachIorodi benzofurans
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
** METALS (ANIONS)
Arsenic
Boron
Chlorine
Iodine
Phosphorus (black, white, red, yellow, or violet)
Selenium
Silicon
Sulfur
** METALS (CATIONS)
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Calcium
Cerium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
'Dysprosium
Erbium
Europium
Gallium
Germanium
Gold
Hafnium
Holmium
Hydrogen ion
Indium
Indium
37871004 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpOD
1-030 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxDD
57653857 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxDD
19408743 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxDD
40321764 1,2,3,7,8-PeDD
1746016 Dioxin \ TCDD \ 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1-200 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
1-201 Hexachlorodibenzofurans
1-289 Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
1-290 Pentachlorodibenzofurans
1-331 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
1-332 Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
7440382 As
7440428 B
7782505 Chlorine
7553562 I
7723140 P
7782492 Se
7440213 Si
7704349 S
7429905 Al
7440360 Sb
7440393 Ba
7440417 Be
7440699 Bi
7440439 Cd
7440702 Ca
7440451 Ce
7440473 Cr
7440484 Co
7440508 Cu
7429916 Dy
7440520 Er
7440531 Eu
7440553 Ga
7440564 Ge
7440575 Au
7440586 Hf
7440600 Ho
1-006 pH
7440746 In
7439885 Ir
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
TABLE 9-1
CLASSES OF COMPOUNDS
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF AHALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CAS NUMBER
COMMON NAME
vO
I
NJ
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithiun
Lutetium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Neodymium
Nickel
Niobium
Osmium '
Palladium
Platinum
Potassium
Praseodymium
Rhenium
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Samarium
Scandium
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Tellurium
Terbium
Thallium
Thorium
Thulium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
** MISCELLANEOUS
Ammonia
Asbestos
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloramine
7439896
7439910
7439921
7439932
7439943
7439954
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440008
7440020
7440031
7440042
7440053
7440064
7440097
7440100
7440155
7440166
7440188
7440199
7440202
7440224
7440235
7440246
7440257
13494809
7440279
7440280
7440291
7440304
7440315
7440326
7440337
7440611
7440622
7440644
7440655
7440666
7440677
7664417
1332214
1-002
1-004
0-012
Fe
La
Pb
Li
Lu
Hg
Mn
Hg
Ho
Nd
Ni
Nb
OS
Pd
Pt
K
Pr
Re
Rh
Ru
Sm
Sc
Ag
Na
Sr
Ta
Te
Tb
Tl
Th
Tm
Sn
Ti
U
U
V
Yb
Y
Zn
Zr
Ammonia
Asbestos
BOD
COD
Chloramine
-------
Page No.
04/18/90
TABLE 9-1
CLASSES OF COMPOUNDS
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CAS NUMBER
COMMON NAME
Chloride
Chlorine dioxide
Chlorite
Copper cyanide (CuCN)
Corrosivity
Cryptosporidium
Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes) NOS
Cyanogen chloride
Disodium cyanodithioimidocarbonate
Fluoride
Hypochlorite ion
Ignitability
Nitrate/nitrite
Nitrites
Oil and grease
Oil and grease
Reactivity
Residue, filterable
Residue, non-filterable
Residue, total
Specific conductivity
Sulfide
Total organic carbon
Total volatile organic carbon
** PCB
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
** PESTICIDES (CARBAMATES)
Carbamodithioic acid, 1,2-ethanediylbis-, salts and
esters
Carbamothioic acid, bis(1-methytethyl)-S-(2,3-dichloro
-2-propenyl) ester
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid, -sodium salt
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid,-manganese salt
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid,-zinc salt
Potassium dimethyldithjocarbamate
Potassium-N-methyldithiocarbamate
Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate
Thioperoxydicarbonic diamide, tetramethyl
Zinc bis(dimethyldithiocarbamato)-
1-003 Chloride
10049044 Chlorine oxide
0-011 Chlorite
544923 Copper cyanide
1-014 Corrosivity
0-039 Cryptosporidium
57125 Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes)
506774 Chlorine cyanide
138932 Disodium cyanodithioimidocarbonate
16984488 Fluoride
0-009 Hypochlorite ion
1-013 Ignitability
1-005 Nitrate/nitrite
14797650 Nitrites
1-007 O&G
1-016 Retort
1-015 Reactivity
1-010 Total dissolved solids \ TDS
1-009 Total suspended solids \ TSS
1-008 Total solids
1-011 Conductivity, specific
18496258 Sulfide
1-012 TOC \ Organic carbon, total
1-001 TVOA \ VOC \ Organic carbon, volatile
12674112 Aroclor 1016
11104282 Aroclor 1221
11141165 Aroclor 1232
53469219 Aroclor 1242
12672296 Aroclor 1248
11097691 Aroclor 1254
11096825 Aroclor 1260
111546 Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid, salts and esters
2303164 Diallate \ Avadex
142596 Nabam
12427382 Maneb \ Vancide
12122677 Zineb \ Dithane Z
128030 Busan 85
137417 Carbamic acid, methyldithio-, monopotassium salt
128041 Carbamic acid, dimethyldithio-, sodium salt
137268 Thiram \ Thiuram \ Arasan
137304 Ziram \ Cymate
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
TABLE 9-1
CLASSES OF COMPOUNDS
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF AMALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CAS NUMBER
COMMON HAKE
I
•P-
** PESTICIDES (HERBICIDES)
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, salts and esters
Benzamide, 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-djniethyl-2-propynyl)-
Phenol, 2-(1-methylpropyl)-4,6-dinitro-
Phenol, 2-cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitro-
Propanoic acid, 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)-
** PESTICIDES (ORGANOHALIDES)
1,2,3,4f10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-1,4:5,
8-endo,endo-dimethanonaphthalene
1,3,4-Hetheno-1H-cyclobuta[cd]pentalene, 1,1a,2,2,3,3a,
4I5,5,5a,5b,6,-dodecachlorooctahydro
1,4-Maphthoquinone, 2,3-dichloro-
1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene, 1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-
1a,2,2a,3,6,6a,7,8,8a-octahydro-endo,endo-
1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene, 1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-
1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-endo,exo-
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2,5-Hethano-2H-indeno[1,2b]oxirene, 2,3,4,5,6,7,7-hepta
chloro-1a,1b,5,5a,6,6a-hexahydro- (alpha, beta, and
gamma isomers)
2,7:3,6-Dimethanonaphth(2,3-b)oxirene, 3,4,5,6,9,9-hexa
chloro-1a,2,2a,3,6,6a,7,7a-oxtahydro-, (1a-alpha,
2-beta 2a-alpha, 3-beta, 6-beta, 6a-alpha, 7-beta,
7a-alpha>-
2-Chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)
acetamide
4,4'-ODD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,7-Hethano-1H-indene 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8-octachloro-2,3,3a,
• 4,7,7a-hexahydro-
4,7-Hethano-1H-indene, 1,4,5,6,7,8,8-heptachloro-da,4,7,
7a-tetrahydro-
4-Cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximide N-((1,1,2,2-tetrachloro
e'thyDthio)-
4-Cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximide N-(trichloromethyl)thio-
4-Hetheno-2H-cyclobuta(cd)pentalen-2-one, 1,1a,3,3a,
4,5,5,5a,5b,6-decachlorooctahydro-
Benzene, 1,1'-(2,2,2-trichloroethylidene)bis[4-
methoxy- ^ .
Benzeneacetic acid, 4-chloro-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-
alpha-hydroxy, ethyl ester
94757 2,4-D \ Acetic acid, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-
23950585 Pronaraide \ Kerb
88857 DNBP \ Dinoseb \ 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
131895 Dinex \ DH-111 \ 2-Cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
93721 2,4,5-TP \ Silvex
465736 Isodrin (Stereoisomer of Aldrin)
2385855 Hi rex \ Dechlorane
117806 Dichlone \ Phygon
72208 Endrin
309002 Aldrin
93765 2,4,5-T \ Weedone \ Acetic acid, 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy-
1024573 Heptachlor epoxide
60571 Dieldrin
15972608 Alachlor \ Metachlor \ Lasso
72548 4,4'-DDD/Benzene,
- 1,1'-(2,2-dichloroethylidene)bis[4-chloro-
72559 4,4'-DDE/Benzene,
1,1'-(dichloroethenlyidine)bis[4-chloro
50293 4,4'-DDT/Benzene,
1,1'-(2,2,2-trichloroethylidene)bis[4-chloro
57749 Chlordane
76448 Heptachlor
2425061 Captafol \ Difolatan
133062 Captan
143500 Kepone "
72435 Methoxychlor
510156 Chlorobenzilate \ Ethyl-4,4'-dichlorobenzilate
-------
Page No.
04/18/90
TABLE 9-1
CLASSES OF COMPOUNDS
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CAS NUMBER
COMMON NAME
Cyclohexane, 1,2,3.4,5,6-hexachloro-, (1-alpha, 2-alpha,
3-beta, 4-alpha, 5-alpha, 6-beta)
Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, (1-alpha, 2-alpha,
3-beta, 4-alpha, 5-beta, 6-beta)-
Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, (1-alpha, 2-alpha,
3-alpha, 4-beta, 5-alpha, 6-beta)-
Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, (1-alpha, 2-beta,
3-alpha, 4-beta, 5-alpha, 6-beta)-
Endosulfan sulfate
Endosulfan-I
Endosulfan-II
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Ether, 2,4-dichlorophenyl p-nitrophenyl-
Toxaphene
o,p'-DDT
p-Toluidine, alpha, alpha, alpha-trifluoro-2,6-dlnlt^o-
N,N-dipropyl-
** PESTICIDES (ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS)
Coumarin, 3-chloro-7-hydroxy-4-methyl-, 0-ester with 0,
0-diethylpyrophosphorothioate
Crotonic acid, 3-hydroxy, alpha-methylbenzyl ester, di
methylphosphate (E)
Crotonic acid, 3-hydroxy-, methyl ester, dimethyl phos
phate (E)-
0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate
0,0-Diethyl S-methyl ester of phosphorodithioic acid
0,0-Diethyl-0-(2-pyrazinyl)phosphorothioate
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Phosphoramidothioic acid, acetamidoyl, 0,0-bis(p-
chlorophenyl) ether
Phosphoric acid, (2,2,2-trichloro-1-hydroxyethyl)-,
dimethyl ester
Phosphoric acid, 1,2-dibromo-2,2-dichloroethyl di
• methyl ester
Phosphoric acid, 2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl ester
Phosphoric acid, 2-chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)
vinyl dimethyl ester .
Phosphoric acid, 2-chloro-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)vmyl di
methyl ester
Phosphoric acid, dimethyl ester, ester with (E)-3-
hydrox-N,N-dimethylcrotonamide
Phosphoric acid, dimethyl ester, ester with (E)-3-
hydroxy-N-methylcrotonamide
Phosphoric acid, dimethyl ester, ester with 2-chloro-N-
N-diethyl-3-hydroxycrotonamide
58899 Lindane \ gamma-BHC \ Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma)
319846 alpha-BHC
319868 delta-BHC
319857 beta-BHC
1031078 6,9-Methano-2,3,4-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7
959988 Thiodan I
33213659 Thiodan II
7421934 Endrin aldehyde
53494705 Endrine ketone
1836755 Nitrofen \ TOK
8001352 Camphechlor
789026 o,p'-DDT
1582098 Trifluralin \ Treflan
56724 Coumaphos \ Co-Ral
7700176 Crotoxyphos \ Ciodrin
7786347 Mevinphos \ Phosdrin
126681 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0,5-triethyl ester
3288582 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-methyl ester
297972 Zinophos. \ Thionazin
82688 PCNB \ Terraclor \ Quintozene
4104147 Phosacetin
52686 Trichlorofon \ Dylox
300765 Naled \.Dibrom
62737 Dichlorvos \ DDVP
961115 Tetrachlorvinphos \ Gardona
470906 Chlorfenvinphos \ Supona
141662 Dicrotophos \ Bidrin
6923224 Monocrotophos \ Azodrin
13171216 Phosphamidon \ Dimecron
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
TABLE 9-1
CUSSES OF COMPOUNDS
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST Of AHALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CAS NUMBER
COMMON HAKE
I
0\
Phosphoric acid, tri-o-tolyl ester 78308
Phosphoric acid, trimethyt ester 512561
Phosphoric triamide, hexamethyl- 680319
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(2-(ethylthio) 8065483
ethyl) ester mixed with 0,0-diethyl S-(2-(ethylthio)
ethyl) ester (7:3)
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(2-isopropyl-6- 333415
methyl-4-pyrimidinyI) ester
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(3,5,6-trichloro- 2921882
2-pryidyl) ester
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(p-(methylsul 115902
finyOphenyl ester
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-t(ethylthio) 298022
methyl] ester
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio) 298044
ethyl] ester
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl ester, S-ester with 2642719
3-(mercaptomethyl)-1,2,3-benzotriazin-4(3H)-one
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl-S-<«1,1-dimethyl 13071799
ethyl)thio)methyl ester
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl ester, S-ester with 86500
3-(mercaptomethyl)-1,2,3-benzotriazin-4(3H)-one
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl ester, S-ester with 732116
N-(mercaptomethyl)phthalimide
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl s-[2-(methylainino)- 60515
2-oxoethyl] ester
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl-, 0-(4-methylthio)- 55389
m-tolyl)ester
Phosphorodithioic acid, S,S'-methylene 0,0,0',O'-tetra 563122
ethyl ester
Phosphorodithioic acid, S,S'-p-dioxane-2,3-dryl 0,0,0', 78342
O'-tetraethyl ester
Phosphorodithioic acid, s(((p-chlorophenyl)thio) 786196
methyl) 0,0-diethyl ester
Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(4-nitrophenyl) 56382
. ester
Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl 0-{4-nitrophenyl) 298000
ester
Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl 0-[p-[(dimethylamino) 52857
sulfonyOphenyl] ester
Phosphorothioic acid, phenyl, 0-(4-bromo-2,5-dichloro 21609905
phenyl) 0-methyl ester
Phosphorothioic acid, phenyl-, 0-ethyl 0-(p-nitro 2104645
phenyl) ester
Succinic acid, mercapto-, diethyl ester, S-ester with 0, 121755
0-dimethyl phosphorodithioate
Tetraethylpyrophosphate 107493
Tricresylphosphate \ TCP \ TOCP
Trimethylphosphate
Hexamethylphosphoramide \ HHPA
Deweton \ Systox
Diazinon \ Spectracide
chlorpyrifos \ Dursban
Fensulfothion \ Desanit
Phorate \ Thimet
Disulfoton
Azinphos-ethyl \ Ethyl Guthion
Terbufos \ Counter
Azinphos-methyl \ Guthion
Phosmet \ Imidan
Cygon \-Dimethoate
Fenthion \ Baytex
Ethion \ Bladan
Dioxathion
Carbophenothion \ Trithion
Parathion \ Parathion, ethyl
Methyl parathion \ Parathion-methyl \ Metaphos
Famphur \ Famophos
Leptophos \ Phosvel
EPN \ Santox
Halath ion \ Sumitox
TEPP \ Phosphoric acid, tetraethyl ester
-------
Page No.
04/18/90,
TABLE 9-1
CLASSES OF COMPOUNDS
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CAS NUMBER
COMMON NAME
Thiopyrophosphoric acid (t(HO)2P(S)]20), tetraethyl 3689245
ester
** SEMI-VOLAT1LES (ACIDS)
2.3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 58902
2,3,6-Trichlorophenol 933755
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95954
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88062
2,4-Dichlorophenol 120832
2,4-Dimethylphenol 105679
2,4-Dinitrophenol 51285
2,6-Dichlorophenol . 87650
2-Chlorophenol 95578
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 59507
4-Nitrophenol 100027
Benzoic acid 65850
Benzonitrile. 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxy- 1689845
Hexanoic acid . 142621
Pentachlorophenol 87865
Phenol 108952
Phenol, 2-methyl-4,6-dinitro- 534521
Resorcinol 108463
Sulfurous acid, 2-chloroethyl-, 2-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl) 140578
phenoxy]-1-methylethyl ester
m-Cresol 108394
o'Cresol 95487
p-Cresol 106445
** SEMI-VOLATILES (BASES)
1,1'-Biphenyl-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dimethoxy 119904
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95943
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 122667
1,2-Ethanediamine, N,N-dimethyl-N'-2pyridinyl-N'-(2- 91805
thienylmethyl)-
1,3-Benzenediamine, 4-methyl- 95807
.1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-(1-propenyl)- 120581
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106467
1,5-Naphthalenediamine 2243621
1-Naphthylamine 134327
2,3-Dichloroaniline 608275
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606202
2,6-dichloro-4-nitroaniline . 99309
2-(Methylthio)benzothiazole 615225
2-Chloronaphthalene 91587
2-Nitroaniline 88744
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 91941
3-Nitroaniline . 99092
Sulfotepp \ Bladafum \ Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
Phenol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachloro-
2,3,6-Trichlorophenol
Phenol, 2,4,5-trichloro-
Phenol, 2,4,6-trichloro-
Phenol, 2,4-dichloro-
Phenol, 2,4-dimethyl-
Phenol, 2,4-dinitro
Phenol, 2,6-dichloro-
Phenol, 2-chloro
p-Chloro-m-cresol \ Phenol, 4-chloro-3-methyl-
p-Nitrophenol \ Phenol, 4-nitro-
Benzoic acid
Bronnoxynil \ 3,5-Dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile
Caproic acid
PCP \ Phenol, pentachloro-
Carbolic acid
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol \ DNOC \ 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
1,3-Benzenediol
Aramite
3-Methylphenol \ Phenol, 3-methyl-
2-Methylphenol \ o-Cresylic acid \ Phenol, 2-methyl-
4-Methylphenol \ Phenol, 4-methyl-
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
Benzene, 1,2,4,5-tetrachloro-
Hydrazine, 1,2-diphenyl
Methapyrilene
2,4-Diaminotoluene \ Toluene, 2,4-diamino-
Isosafrole
Benzene, 1,4-dichloro- \ p-Dichlorobenzene
1,5-Naphalenediamine
. alpha-Naphthylamine
2,3-Dichloroaniline
Benzene, 2-methyl-1,3-dinitro-
Dichloran \ Botran
2-(Methylthio)benzothiazole
Naphthalene, 2-chloro-
Benzenamine, 2-nitro
1,1'-Biphenyl-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dichloro
Benzenamine, 3-nitro
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
TABLE 9-1
CUSSES OF COMPOUNDS
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST Of AHALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CAS HUHBER
COMHOH NAME
VD
I
00
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 101144
4-Chtoro-2-nftroamtine 89634
5-Hitro-o-toluidine 99558
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 57976
Acetamide, N-(4-ethoxyphenyl)- 62442
Aimonium, (4-(p-(dimethylamino)-alpha-phenylbenzyli 569642
dine)-2,5-cylcohexadien-1-ylidene)-diniethyl chloride
Aniline, 2,4,5-trimethyl- 137177
Benzenamine 62533
Benzenamine, 4-chloro- 106478
Benzenamine, N,N-diroethyl-4-(pehnylazo)- 60117
Benzenethiot 108985
Benzidine 92875
Carbazole • 86748
Di-n-propylnitrosamine 621647
Diphenylamine 122394
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine 924163
N-Nitrosodiethylamine 55185
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 62759
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86306
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine 10595956
N-Njtrosomethylphenylamine 614006
N-Nitrosomorpholine 59892
N-Nitrosopiperidine 100754
Nitrobenzene 98953
Phenothiazine 92842
Propane, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloro- 96128
Pyridine 110861
Thioxanthe-9-one 492228
[1,1'-Biphenyl]-4-amine 92671
beta-Naphthylamine 91598
o-Anisidine 90040
o-Toluidine 95534
o-Toluidine, 5-ehloro- 95794
p-Mitroaniline 100016
*'* SEHI-VOLATILES (NEUTRAL)
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 87616
1,2,3-Trimethoxybenzene 634366
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120821
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl ester 84742
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester 131113
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95501
1,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane 1464535
1,3,5-Trithiane 291214
1,3-Cyclopentadiene, 1,2,3,4,5,5-hexachloro- 77474
1,3-Dichloro-2-propanol 96231
Benzensnine, 4,4'-niethylenebist2chloro \ HOCA
4-Chloro-2-nitroaniIine
Benzenamine, 2-rnethyl-5-nitro
9,10-Dimethyl-1,2-Benzanthracene
Phenacetin \ Phorazetim
Malachite green \ C.I. Basic Acid Green 4
2,4,5-Trimethylaniline
Aniline
p-Chloroaniline
p-D imethylami noazobenzene
Thiophenol \ Hercaptobenzene
(1,1'-Biphenyl)-4,4'-diam?ne
Carbazole
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylainine
Benzenamine, N-phenyl
1-Butenainine, N-butyl-N-nitroso
Ethanamine, N-ethyl-N-nitroso-
Dimethylnitrosamine \ Hethamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso-
Benzenamine, N-nitroso-N-phenyl
Ethanamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso
N-Nitrosomethylphenylamine
Horpholine, 4-nitroso-
Piperidine, 1-Nitroso-
Benzene, nitro-
Nemazine \ 10H-Phenothiazine
Dibroipochloropropane \ DBCP
Pyridine
Thioxanthone \ Thiaxanthone
4-Aminobiphenyl
2-Naphthylamine
o-Anisidine
o-Toluidine
5-Chloro-o-toluidine
Benzenamine, 4-nitro-
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trimethoxybenzene
Benzene, 1,2,4-trichloro-
Di-n-butyl phthalate \ Dibutyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Benzene, 1,2-dichloro- \ o-Dichlorobenzene
Erythritol anhydride \ 2,2'-Bioxirane
1,3,5-Trithiane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene \ HCP
1,3-Dichloro-2-propanol
-------
Page No.
04/18/90
TABLE 9-1
CLASSES OF COMPOUNDS
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CAS NUMBER
COMMON NAME
I
vD
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541731
1,3-Dinitrobenzene 99650
1,4-Naphthoquinone 130154
1-Chloro-3-nitrobenzene 121733
1-Methylfluorene 1730376
1-Methylphenanthrene 832699
1-Phenylnaphthalene 605027
17-alpha-19-Norpregna-1,3,5(10)-trien-20-yn-17-ol, 3- 72333
methoxy-
2,3-Benzoftuorene 243174
2,3-Dichloronitrobenzene 3209221
2,4-Dim'trotoluene 121142
2,6-di-tert-Butyl-p-benzoquihone 719222
2,7-Dimethylphenanthrene 1576698
2-Isopropylnaphthatene 2027170
2-Methylbenzothioazole 120752
2-Methylnaphthalene 91576
2-Nitrophenol 88755
2-Phenylnaphthalene 612942
3.3'-Dichloro-4,4'-diaminodiphenyl ether 28434868
3,6,-Dimethylphenanthrene 1576676
4,5-dimethyl phenanthrene 203645
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101553
4-Chlorophenylphenyl ether 7005723
Acenaphthene 83329
Acenaphthylene 208968
Anthracene 120127
Benz[j]aceanthrylene, 1,2-dihydro-T3-methyl- 56495
Benzanthrone 82053
Benzo(a)anthracene 56553
Benzo(a)pyrene 50328
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205992
Benzo(ghi)perylene 191242
Benzo(k)fluoranthene , 207089
Benzyl alcohol 100516
Biphenyl 92524
Biphenyl, 4-nitro 92933
Butyl benzyl phthalate 85687
Chloropicrin 76062
Chrysene 218019
Di-n-octyl phthalate 117840
D|benzo(a,h)anthracene 53703
Dibenzofuran 132649
Dibenzothiophene 132650
Diethyl phthalate 84662
Dimethyl sulfone 67710
Diphenyl ether 101848
Benzene, 1,3-dichloro- \ m-Dichlorobenzene
Benzene, 1,3-dinitro- \ m-Dinitrobenzene
1,4-Naphthalenedione
3-chloronitrobenzene
1-Methylfluorene
1-Methylphenanthrene
1-Phenylnaphthalene
Mestranol \ 17-alpha-Ethynylestradiol 3-methyl ether
2,3-benzofluorene
2,3-Dichloronitrobenzene
Benzene, 1-methyl-2,4-dinitro
2,6-di-tert-Butyl-p-benzoquinone
2,7-Dimethylphenanthrene
2-Isopropylnaphthalene
2-Methylbenzoth i oazole
Naphthalene, 2-methyl
Phenol, 2-nitro-
2-Phenylnaphthalene
3,3'-Dichloro-4,4'-diaminodiphenyl ether
3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene
4,5-dimethyl phenanthrene
1-Bromo-4-phenoxybenzene \ Benzene, 1-bromo-4-phenoxy-
Benzene, 1-chloro-4-phenoxy
Acenaphthylene, 1,2-dihydro-
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
3-Methylcholanthrene
Benzanthrone
Benz[a]anthracene \ 1,2-Benzanthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benz[e]acephenanthrylene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzenemethanol
Diphenyl
4-Nitrobiphenyl
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl phenylmethyl ester
Methane, trichloronitro-
Chrysene
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dioctyl ester \ Dioctyl ph
D i benz[a,h] anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiophene
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester
Dimethyl sulfone
Diphenyl ether
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
10
TABLE 9-1
CLASSES OF COMPOUNDS
USEPA IHDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
REGULATORY MAKE
CAS NUMBER
COMHOH HAHE
vO
I
Diphenyldisulfide
Ethane, pentachloro-
Ethanethioamide
Ethanone, 1-phenyl
Ethylenethiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
HexachIorobutadi ene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indenod,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Longifolene
Methanesulfonic acid, ethyl ester
Methyl methanesulfonate
N.N-Dimethylfortiamide
Naphthalene
PentachIorobenzene
Pentamethylbenzene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Safrole
Squalene
Thianaphthene
Triphenylene
Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
alpha-Terpineol
b|s(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether •
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
n-Decane
n-Docosane
•n-Dcxiecane
n-Eicosane
n-Hexacosane
n-Hexadecane
n-Octacosane
n-Octadecane
n-Tetracosane
n-Tetradecane
n-Triacontane
p-Cymene
882337 Diphenyl sulfide
76017 Pentachloroethane
62555 Thioacetamide
98862 Acetophenone
96457 Ethylenethiourea
206440 Fluoranthene
86737 Fluorene
118741 HCB \ Benzene, hexachloro-
87683 1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro-
67721 Ethane, hexachloro
1888717 1-Propene, 1,1,2,3,3,3-hexachloro-
193395 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
78591 3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexenone
475207 Longifolene
62500 Ethyl methanesulfonate
66273 Methylsulfonic acid, methyl ester
68122 N,N-Dimethylformamide
91203 Naphthalene
608935 Benzene, pentachloro-
700129 Pentamethylbenzene
198550 Perylene
85018 Phenanthrene
129000 Benzo[def]phenanthrene
94597 1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-(2-propenyl)-
7683649 Squalene
95158 2,3-Benzothiophene \ Benzo(b)thiophene
217594 Triphenylene
20324338 Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
98555 alpha-Terpineol
111911 Ethane, 1,1'-[methylenebis(oxy)]bis[2-chloro-
111444 Dichloroethyl ether
108601 Propane, 2,2'-oxybisC1-chloro-
117817 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl)ester
124185 n-C10
629970 n-C22
112403 n-C12
112958 n-C20
630013 n-C26
544763 n-C16
630024 n-C28
593453 n-C18
646311 n-C24
629594 n-C14
638686 n-C30
99876 p-Isopropyltoluene
-------
Page No.
04/18/90
11
TABLE 9-1
CLASSES OF COMPOUNDS
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CAS NUMBER
COMMON NAME
vD
I
** VOLATILES
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Djchloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2-Djbromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Djchloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,4-Dioxane
1-Bromo-2-chlorobenzene
1-Bromo-3-chlorobenzene
1-Propene, 3-chloro-
2-Butanone
2-Butenal
2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro (mixture of cis and trans)
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
2-Hexanone
2-Picoline
2-Propanone
2-Propen-1-o1
2-Propenal
2-Propenenitrile
2-Propenenitrile, 2-methyl-
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Benzene
BromodichIoromethane
Broroomethane
Carbon disulfide
Chloroacetonitrile
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chioromethane
D i bromochIoromethane
Dibromomethane
Dichloroiodomethane
Diethyl ether
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
630206 Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloro-
71556 Methyl chloroform \ Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-
79345 Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro
79005 Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro
75343 Ethylidene chloride \ Ethane, 1,1-dichloro-
75354 1,1-Dichloroethylene \ Vinylidine chloride
96184 Propane, 1,2,3-trichloro-
106934 Ethylene dibromide \ EDB \ Ethane, 1,2-dibromo-
107062 Ethylene dichloride \ EDC \ Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-
78875 Propylene dichloride \ Propane, 1,2-dichloro-
142289 1,3-Dichloropropane
123911 p-Dioxane \ 1,4-Diethyleneoxide
694804 2-Bromochlorobenzene
108372 3-Bromochlorobenzene
107051 Allyl chloride \ 3-Chloropropene
78933 Methyl ethyl ketohe \ MEK
4170303 Crotonaldehyde \ Crotylaldehyde
764410 1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
126998 Chloroprene \ 1,3-Butadiene, 2-chloro
110758 Ethene, (2-chloroethoxy)
591786 2-Hexanone
109068 alpha-Picoline \ 2-Methylpyridine
67641 Acetone
107186 Allyl alcohol
107028 Acrolein
107131 Acrylonitrile
126987 Methacrylonitrile
108101 MIBK \ Methylisobutylketone \ 2-Pentanone, 4-methyl
71432 Benzene
75274 Methane, bromodichloro
74839 Methyl bromide \ Methane, bromo
75150 Carbon disulfide
107142 Chloroethanenitrile
108907 Benzene, chloro-
75003 Ethane, chloro \ Ethyl chloride
67663 Methane, trichloro- \ Trichloromethane
74873 Methyl chloride \ Methane, chloro
124481 Chlorodibromomethane \ Methane, dibromochloro-
74953 Methylene bromide \ Methane, dibromo
0-015 Dichloroiodomethane
60297 Diethyl ether
107120 Propionitrile \Propanenitrile
97632 2-Propenoic ,acid, 2-methyl-, ethyl ester
100414 Benzene, ethyl
74884 Methyl iodide \ Methane, iodo
78831 1-Propanol, 2-methyl-
-------
Page Ho.
M/18/90
12
TABLE 9-1
CUSSES OF COMPOUNDS
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF AHALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CAS HUHBER
COMMON NAME
Methyl methacrylote
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
Total xylenes
Tribromomethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
o + p xylene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-DichIoropropene
t rans-1,4-D i chIoro-2-butene
80626
75092
100425
127184
56235
108883
1330207
75252
79016
75694
108054
75014
10061015
1-952
156605
10061026
110576
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl, methyl ester
Dichloromethane \ Hethane, dichloro-
Benzene, ethenyl-
Perchloroethylene \ Ethene, tetrachloro
Carbon tetrachloride \ Hethane, tetrachloro-
Benzene, methyl
Benzene, dimethyl- \ Xylenes \ Xylene, (total)
Bromoform \ Hethane, tribromo-
Ethene, trichloro \ Trichloroethylene
Fluorotrichloromethane \ Hethane, trichlorofluoro-
Acetic acid, ethenyl ester
Ethene, chloro
1-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-, (Z)-
o + p xylene
Ethene, 1,2-dichloro-, (E)-
1-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-, (E)-
2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro-, (E)-
vO
I
-------
''age No.
'J4/18/90
CAS NUMBER
REGULATORY NAME
TABLE 9-2
ANALYTES SORTED BY CAS NUMBER
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
COMMON NAME
CLASS
0-009 Hypochlorite ion
0-011 Chlorite
0-012 Chloramine
0-015 Dichloroiodomethane
0-039 Cryptosporidium
1-001 Total volatile organic carbon
1-002 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
1-003 Chloride
1-004 Chemical Oxygen Demand
1-005 Nitrate/nitrite
1-006 Hydrogen ion
1-007 Oil and grease
1-008 Residue, total
1-009 Residue, non-filterable
1-010 Residue, filterable
1-011 Specific conductivity
1-012 Total organic carbon
1-013 Ignitability
1-014 Corrosivity
1-015 Reactivity
1-016 Oil and grease
1-030 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1-200 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
1-201 Hexachlorodibenzofurans
1-289 Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
1-290 Pentachlorodibenzofurans
1-331 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
1-332 Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
1-952 o + p xylene
50293 4,4'-DDT
50328 Benzo(a)pyrene
51285 2,4-Dinitrophenol
52686 Phosphoric acid, (2,2,2-trichloro-1-hydroxyethyl)-, dimethyl ester
52857 Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl 0-[p-[(dimethylamino)sulfonyl)phenyl] ester
53703 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
55185 N-Nitrosodiethylamine
55389 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl-, 0-(4-methylthio)-m-tolyl)ester
56235 Tetfachloromethane
56382 Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(4-nitrophenyl) ester
56495 Benztjlaceanthrylene, 1,2-dihydro-3-methyl-
56553 Benzo(a)anthracene
56724 Coumarin, 3-chloro-7-hydroxy-4-methyl-, 0-ester with 0,
0-diethylpyrophosphorothioate
57125 Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes) NOS
57749 4,7-Methano-1H-indene 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8-octachloro-2,3,3a,4,7,7a-hexahydro-
57976 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
58899 Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, (1-alpha, 2-alpha,3-beta, 4-alpha,
5-alpha, 6-beta)
Hypochlorite ion MISC
Chlorite HISC
Chloramine MISC
Dichloroiodomethane VOL
Cryptosporidium HISC
TVOA \ VOC \ Organic carbon, volatile MISC
BOD
Chloride
COD MISC
Nitrate/nitrite MISC
PH MCCD
O&G MISC
Total solids MISC
Total suspended solids \ TSS MISC
Total dissolved solids \ TDS MISC
Conductivity, specific MISC
TOC \ Organic carbon, total MISC
Ignitability MISC
Corrosivity MISC
Reactivity MISC
Retort MISC
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxDD DIOXINS
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins DIOXINS
Hexachlorodibenzofurans DIOXINS
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins , DIOXINS
Pentachlorodibenzofurans DIOXINS
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins DIOXINS
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans DIOXINS
o + p xylene VOL
4,4'-DDT/Benzene, 1,1'-(2,2,2-trichloroethylidene)bis[4-chloro P(OH)
Benzo(a)pyrene SV(M)
Phenol, 2,4-dinitro SV(A)
Trichlorofon \ Dylox P(OP)
Famphur \ Famophos P(OP)
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene SV(N)
Ethanamine, N-ethyl-N-nitroso- SV(B)
Fenthion \ Baytex P(OP)
Carbon tetrachloride \ Methane, tetrachloro- VOL
Parathion \ Parathion, ethyl P(OP)
3-Methylcholanthrene SV(N)
BenzCa]anthracene \ 1,2-Benzanthracene SV(N)
Coumaphos \ Co-Ral P(0P)
Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes) MISC
Chlordane P(OH)
9,10-Dimethyl-1,2-Benzanthracene SV(B)
Lindane \ gamma-BHC \ Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma) P(OH)
-------
"•age Ho.
(4/18/90
CAS NUMBER
REGULATORY HAKE
TABLE 9-2
AHALYTES SORTED BY CAS MUHB6R
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF AMALYTES
COMMON HAKE
CLASS
£1
I
58902 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
59507 4-Chloro-3-»ethylphenol
59892 H-Hitrosomorpholine
60117 Benzenamine, H,N-di»ethyl-4-(pehnytazo)-
60297 Diethyl ether
60515 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl s-[2-(methylamino)-2-oxoethyl] ester
60571 2,7:3,6-Dimethanonaphth(2,3-b)oxirene, 3,4,5,6,9,9-hexa
chloro-1a,2,2a,3,6,6a,7,7a-oxtahydro-, (1a-alpha, 2-beta2a-alpha, 3-beta,
6-beta, 6a-alpha, 7-beta, 7a-alpha)-
62442 Acetamide, N-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-
62500 Methanesulfonic acid, ethyl ester
62533 Benzenamine
62555 Ethanethioamide
62737 Phosphoric acid, 2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl ester
62759 N-Nitrosodimethylamine
65850 Benzoic acid
66273 Methyl methanesulfonate
67641 2-Propanone
67663 Chloroform
67710 Dimethyl sulfone
67721 Hexachloroethane
68122 N,N-Dimethylformamide
71432 Benzene
71556 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
72208 1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene, 1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-
1a,2,2a,3,6,6a,7,8,8a-octahydro-endo,endo-
72333 17-alpha-19-Norpregna-1,3,5(10)-trien-20-yn-17-ol, 3- methoxy-
72435 Benzene, 1,1'-(2,2,2-trichloroethylidene)bis[4- methoxy-
72548 4,4'-ODD
72559 4,4'-DDE
74839 Bromomethane
74873 Chloromethane
74884 lodomethane
74953 Dibromomethane
75003 Chloroethane
75014 Vinyl chloride
75092 Hethylene chloride
75150 Carbon disulfide
75252 Tribromomethane
75274 Bromodichloromethane
75343 1,1-Dichloroethane
75354 1,1-Dichloroethene
75694 Trichloroflupromethane
76017 Ethane, pentachloro-
76062 Chloropicrin
76448 4,7-Methano-lH-indene, 1,4,5,6,7,8,8-heptachloro-da,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-
77474 1,3-Cyclopentadiene, 1,2,3,4,5,5-hexachloro-
78308 Phosphoric acid, tri-o-tolyl ester
Phenol, 2,3,4,6-tetraehloro- SV(A)
p-Chloro-m-cresol \ Phenol, 4-chloro-3-roethyl- SV(A)
Horpholine, 4-nitroso- SV(B)
p-Ditnethylaminoazobenzene SV(B)
Diethyl ether VOL
Cygon \ Diraethoate P(OP)
Dieldrin P(OH)
Phenacetin \ Phorazetira SV(B)
Ethyl methanesulfonate SV(M)
Aniline SV(B)
Thioacetamide SV(N)
Dichlorvos \ DDVP P(OP)
Dimethylnitrosamine \ Hethamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso- SV(B)
Benzoic acid SV(A)
Hethylsulfonic acid, methyl ester SV(N)
Acetone VOL
Methane, trichloro- \ Trichloromethane VOL
Dimethyl sulfone SV(N)
Ethane, hexachloro ' SV(N)
N,N-Dimethylformamide SV(N)
Benzene VOL
Methyl chloroform \ Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro- VOL
Endrin P(OH)
Mestranol \ 17-alpha-Ethynylestradiol 3-methyl ether . SV(N)
Methoxychlor P(OH)
4,4'-DDD/Benzene, 1,1'-(2,2-dichloroethylidene)bis[4-chloro- P(OH)
4,4'-DDE/Benzene, 1,1'-(dichloroethenlyidine)bis[4-chloro P(OH>
Methyl bromide \ Methane, bromo . VOL
Methyl chloride \ Methane, chloro VOL
Methyl iodide \ Methane, iodo VOL
Hethylene bromide \ Methane, dibromo VOL
Ethane, chloro \ Ethyl chloride VOL
Ethene, chloro ' i VOL
Dichloromethane \ Methane, dichloro- VOL
Carbon disulfide VOL
Bromoform \ Methane, tribromo- VOL
Methane, bromodichloro VOL
Ethylidene chloride \ Ethane, 1,1-dichloro- VOL
1,1-Dichloroethylene \ Vinylidine chloride VOL
Fluorotrichloromethane \ Methane, trichlorofluoro- VOL
Pentachloroethane SV(N)
Methane, trichloronitro- SV(N)
Heptachlor P(OH)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene \ HCP SV(N)
Tricresylphosphate \ TCP \ TOCP -P(OP)
-------
"age No.
'14/18/90
CAS NUMBER
REGULATORY NAME
TABLE 9-2
ANALYTES SORTED BY CAS NUMBER
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
COMMON NAME
CLASS
78342 Phosphorodithioic acid, S,S'-p-dioxane-2,3-dryl 0,0,0', O'-tetraethyl ester
78591 Isophorone
78831 Isobutyl alcohol
78875 1,2-Dichloropropane
78933 2-Butanone
79005 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
79016 Trichloroethene
79345 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
80626 Methyl methacryIate
82053 Benzanthrone
82688 Pentachloronitrobenzene
83329 Acenaphthene
84662 Diethyl phthalate
84742 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl ester
85018 Phenanthrene
85687 , Butyl benzyl phthalate
86306 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86500 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl ester, S-ester
with3-(mercaptomethyl)-1,2,3-benzotriazin-4(3H)-one
86737 Fluorene
86748 Carbazole
87616 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
87650 2,6-Dichlorophenol
87683 Hexachlorobutadiene
87865 Pentachlorophenol #
88062 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
88744 2-Nitroaniline
88755 2-Nitrophenol
88857 Phenol, 2-(1-methylpropyl)-4,6-dimtro-
89634 4-Chloro-2-nitroaniline
90040 o-Anisidine
91203 Naphthalene
91576 2-Methylnaphthalene
91587 2-Chloronaphthalene
91598 beta-Naphthylamine
91805 1,2-Ethanediamine, N,N-dimethyl-N'-2pyridinyl-N'-<2- thienylmethyl)-
91941 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
92524 Biphenyl
92671 [1,1'-Biphenyl]-4-amine
92842 Phenothiazine
92875 Benzidine
92933 Biphenyl, 4-nitro
93721 Propanoic acid, 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)-
93765 2,4,5-THchlorophenoxyacetic acid
94597 Safrole
94757 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, salts and esters
95158 Thianaphthene
95487 o-Cresol
Dioxathion
3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexenone
1-Propanol, 2-methyl-
Propylene dichloride \ Propane, 1,2-dichloro-
Methyl ethyl ketone \ MEK
Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro
Ethene, trichloro \ Trichloroethylene
Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl, methyl ester
Benzanthrone
PCNB \ Terraclor \ Quintozene
Acenaphthylene, 1,2-dihydro-
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester
Di-n-butyl phthalate \ Dibutyl phthalate
Phenanthrene
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl phenylmethyl ester
Benzenamine, N-nitroso-N-phenyl
Azinphos-methyl \ Guthion
Fluorene
Carbazole
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
Phenol, 2,6-dichloro-
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro-
PCP \ Phenol, pentachloro-
Phenol, 2,4,6-trichloro-
Benzenamine, 2-nitro
Phenol, 2-nitro-
DNBP \ Dinoseb \ 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
4-Chloro-2-nitroaniline
o-Anis,idine
Naphthalene
Naphthalene, 2-methyl
Naphthalene, 2-chloro-
2-Naphthylamine
Methapyrilene
1,1'-Biphenyl-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dichloro
Diphenyl
4-Aminobiphenyl
Nemazine \ 10H-Phenothiazine
(1,1'-Biphenyl)-4,4'-diamine
4-Nitrobiphenyl
2,4,5-TP \ Silvex
2,4,5-T \ Ueedone \ Acetic acid, 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy-
1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-(2-propenyl)-
2,4-D \ Acetic acid, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-
2,3-Benzothiophene \ Benzo(b)thiophene
2-Methylphenol \ o-Cresylic acid \ Phenol, 2-methyl-
P(0f)
SV(N)
vou
VOL
VOL
VOL
VOL
VOL
VOL
SVCN)
P(OP)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SVCN)
SV(N)
SV(B)
P(OP)
SV
-------
age Ho.
"./18/90
CAS NUMBER
REGULATORY HAHE
TABLE 9-2
AMALYTES SORTED BY CAS WJHBER
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
COMMON HAHE
CLASS
95501 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
95534 o-Toluidine
95578 2-Chlorophenol
95794 o-Toluidfne, 5-chloro-
95807 1,3-Benzenediemine, 4-rnethyt-
95943 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
95954 2,4,5-Trichtorophenol
96128 Propane, 1,2-dibron»-3-chloro-
96184 1,2,3-Trichloropropane
96231 1,3-Dichloro-2-propanol
96457 Ethylenethiourea
97632 Ethyl methacrylate
98555 alpha-Terpineol
98862 Ethanone, 1-phenyl
98953 Nitrobenzene
99092 3-Nitroaniline
99309 2,6-dichloro-4-nitroanilfne
99558 5-Nitro-o-toluidine
99650 1,3-Dinitrobenzene
99876 p-Cymene
100016 p-Nitroaniline
100027 4-Nitrophenol
100414 Ethylbenzene
100425 Styrene
100516 Benzyl alcohol
100754 N-Nitrosopiperidine
101144 . 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
101553 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
101848 Diphenyl ether
105679 2,4-Dimethylphenol
106445 p-Cresol
106467 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
106478 Benzenamine, 4-chloro-
106934 1,2-Dibromoethane
107028 2-Propenal
107051 1-Propene, 3-chloro-
107062 1,2-Dichloroethane
107120 Ethyl cyanide
107131 2-Propenenitrile
107142 Chloroacetonitrile
107186 2-Propen-1-61
107493 Tetraethylpyrophosphate
108054 Vinyl acetate
108101 4-Hethyl-2-pentanone
108372 1-Bromo-3-chlorobenzene
108394 m-Cresol -
108463 Resorcinol
108601 bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
Benzene, 1,2-dichloro- \ o-Dichlorobenzene
o-Tolufdine
Phenol, 2-chloro
5-Chloro-o-toluidine
2,4-Oia«inotoluene \ Toluene, 2,4-diatnino-
Benzene, 1,2,4,5-tetrachloro-
Phenol, 2,4,5-trichloro-
Dibromochloropropane \ DBCP
Propane, 1,2,3-trichloro-
1,3-Dichloro-2-propanol
Ethylenethiourea
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, ethyl ester
alpha-Terpineol
Acetophenone
Benzene, nitro-
Benzenamine, 3-nitro
Dichloran \ Botran
Benzenamine, 2-methyl-5-nitro
Benzene, 1,3-dinitro- \ m-Dinitrobenzene
p-Isopropyltoluene
Benzenamine, 4-nitro-
p-Nitrophenol \ Phenol, 4-nitro-
Benzene, ethyl
Benzene, ethenyl-
Benzenemethanol
Piperidine, 1-Nitroso-
Benzenamine, 4,4'-methylenebis[2chloro \ HOCA
1-Bromo-4-phenoxybenzene \ Benzene, 1-bromo-4-phenoxy-
Diphenyl ether
Phenol, 2,4-dimethyl-
4-Methylphenol \ Phenol, 4-methyl-
Benzene, 1,4-dichloro- \ p-Dichlorobenzene
p-Chloroaniline
Ethylene dibromide \ EDB \ Ethane, 1,2-dibromo-
Acrolein
Allyl chloride \ 3-Chloropropene
Ethylene dichloride \ EDC \ Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-
Propionitrile \ Propanenitrile
Acrylonitrile
Chloroethanenitrile
Allyl alcohol
TEPP \ Phosphoric acid, tetraethyl ester
Acetic acid, ethenyl ester
MIBK \ Hethylisobutylketone \ 2-Pentanone, 4-methyl
3-Bromochlorobenzene
3-Hethylphenol \ Phenol, 3-methyl-
1,3-Benzenediol
Propane, 2,2'-oxybis[1-chloro-
SV(H)
SV(B)
SV(A)
SV
SV(B>
VOL
SV(H)
SV(H)
VOL
SV(N)
SV(H)
SV(B)
SV(B)
SV(B)
SV(B)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(B)
SV(A)
VOL
VOL
SV(N)
SV(B)
SV(B)
SV(M)
SV(N)
SV(A)
SV(A)
SV(B)
SV(B)
VOL
VOL
VOL
VOL
VOL
VOL
VOL
VOL
P(OP)
VOL
VOL
VOL
SV(A)
SV(A)
SV(N)
-------
age No.
'4/18/90
CAS NUMBER
REGULATORY NAME
TABLE 9-2
ANALYTES SORTED BY CAS NUMBER
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
COMMON NAME
CLASS
esters
finyOphenyl ester
108883 Toluene
108907 Chlorobenzene
108952 Phenol
108985 Benzenethiol
109068 2-Picoline
110576 trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
110758 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
110861 Pyridine
111444 bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
111546 Carbamodithioic acid, 1,2-ethanediylbis-, salts and
111911 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
112403 n-Dodecane
112958 n-Eicosane
115902 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(p-(methylsul
117806 1,4-Naphthoquinone, 2,3-dichloro-
117817 bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
117840 Di-n-octyl phthalate
118741 Hexachlorobenzene
119904 1,1'-Biphenyl-4,4'-diajnine, 3,3'-dimethoxy
120127 Anthracene
120581 1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-<1-propenyl>-
120752 2-Methylbenzothioazole
120821 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
120832 2,4-Dichlorophenol
121142 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121733 1-Chloro-3-nitrobenzene
121755 Succinic acid, mercapto-, diethyl ester, S-ester with 0,0-dimethyl
phosphorodi th i oate
122394 Diphenylamine '
122667 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
123911 1,4-Dioxane
124185 n-Decane
124481 Dibromochloromethane
126681 0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate
126987 2-Propenenitrile, 2-methyl-
126998 2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene
127184 Tetraehloroethene
128030 Potassium dimethyldithiocarbamate
128041 Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate
129000 Pyrene
130154 1,4-Naphthoquinone
131113 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester
131895 Phenol, 2-cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitro-
132649 Dibenzofuran
132650 Dibenzothiophene
133062 4-Cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximide N-(trichloromethyl)thio-
134327 1-Naphthylamine
137177 Aniline, 2,4,5-trimethyl-
Benzene, methyl
Benzene, chloro-
Carbolic acid
Thiophenol \ Mercaptobenzene
alpha-Picoline \ 2-Methylpyridine
2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro-, (E)-
Ethene, (2-chloroethoxy)
Pyridine
Dichloroethyl ether
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid, salts and esters
Ethane, 1,1'-[methylenebis(oxy)]bis[2-chloro-
n-C12
n-C20
Fensulfothion \ Desanit
Dichlone \ Phygon
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl)ester
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dioctyl ester \ Dioctyl ph
HCB \ Benzene, hexachloro-
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
Anthracene
Isosafrole
2-Methylbenzothioazole
Benzene, 1,2,4-trichloro-
Phenol, 2,4-dichloro-
Benzene, 1-methyl-2,4-dinitro
3-chloronitrobenzene
Malathion \ Sumitox
Benzenamine, N-phenyl
Hydrazine, 1,2-diphenyl
p-Dioxahe \ 1,4-Diethyleneoxide
n-C10
Chlorodibromomethane \ Methane, dibromochloro-
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0,5-triethyl ester
Methacrylonitrile
Chloroprene \ 1,3-Butadiene, 2-chloro
Perchloroethylene \ Ethene, tetrachloro
Busan 85
Carbamic acid, dimethyldithio-, sodium salt
Benzo[def]phenanth rene
1,4-Naphthalenedione
Dimethyl phthalate
Oinex \ DN-111 \ 2-Cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiophene
Captan
alpha-Naphthylamine
2,4,5-Trimethylaniline
VOL
VOL
SV
-------
age Ho.
'4/18/90
CAS HUHBER
REGULATORY HAME
TABLE 9-2
AHALYTES SORTED BY CAS HUHBER
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY OIVISIOK LIST OF AHALYTES
COHHOH HAHE
CUSS
137268 Thioperoxydicarbonic diamide, tetromethyl
137304 Zinc bis(din«thyldithiocarba»ato)-
137417 Potassiun-N-methyldithiocarbauiate
138932 Disodiun cyanodithioimfdecarbonate
140578 Sutfurous acid, 2-chloroethyl-, 2-[4-(1,1-dimethyl6thyl)phenoxy]-1-methylethyl
ester
141662 Phosphoric acid, dimethyl ester, ester with (E)-3-
hydrox-N,N-dirnethylcrotonamide
142289 1,3-Dichloropropane
142596 Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid, -sodium salt
142621 Hexanoic acid
143500 4-Hetheno-2H-cyclobuta(cd)pentalen-2-one, 1,1a,3,3a,
4,5,5,5a,5b,6-decachlorooctahydro-
156605 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
191242 Benzo(ghi)perylene
193395 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
198550 Perylene
203645 4,5-dimethyl phenanthrene
205992 Benzo(b)fluoranthene
206440 Fluoranthene
207089 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
208968 Acenaphthylene
217594 Triphenylene
218019 Chrysene
243174 2,3-Benzofluorene
291214 1,3,5-Trithiane
297972 0,0-Diethyl-0-(2-pyrazinyl)phosphorothioate
298000 Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl 0-(4-nitrophenyl)
298022 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-C(ethylthio)
298044 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)
300765 Phosphoric acid, 1,2-dibromo-2,2-dichloroethyl di
309002 1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene, 1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-
1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-endo,exo-
319846 Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, (1-alpha, 2-alpha,3-beta, 4-alpha, 5-beta,
6-beta)-
319857 Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, (1-alpha, 2-beta, 3-alpha, 4-beta,
5-alpha, 6-beta)-
319868 Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, (1-alpha, 2-alpha,3-alpha, 4-beta,
5-alpha, 6-beta)-
333415 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(2-isopropyl-6- methyl-4-pyrimidinyl)
ester
465736 1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-1,4:5,
8-endo,endo-dimethanonaphthalene
470906 Phosphoric acid, 2-chloro-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)vinyl dimethyl ester
475207 Longifolene
492228 Thioxanthe-9-one
506774 Cyanogen chloride
510156 Benzeneacetic acid, 4-chloro-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)- alpha-hydroxy, ethyl
ester
ester
methyl] ester
ethyl] ester
methyl ester
Thiraw \ Thiuram \ Arasan
Ziram \ Cymate
Carbaiiiic ocid, »ethyldithio-, roonopotassiuii salt
Disodium cyanodithioimidocarbonate
Arami te
Dicrotophos \ Bidrin
1,3-Dichloropropane
Nabam
Caproic acid
Kepone
Ethene, 1,2-dichloro-, (E)-
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Perylene
4,5-dimethyl phenanthrene
Benz te]acephenanthrylene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fIuoranthene
Acenaphthylene
Triphenylene
Chrysene
2,3-benzofluorene
1,3,5-Trithiane
Zinophos \ Thionazin
Methyl parathion \ Parathion-methyl \ Hetaphos
Phorate \ Thimet
Disulfoton
Naled \ Dibrom
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Diazinon \ Spectracide
Isodrin (Stereoisomer of Aldrin)
Chlorfenvinphos \ Supona
Longifolene
Thioxanthone \ Thiaxanthone
Chlorine cyanide
Chlorobenzilate \ Ethyl-4,4'-dichlorobenzilate
P(C)
P(C)
PCC)
HISC
SV(A)
P(OP)
VOL
P(C)
SV(A)
P(OH)
VOL
SV(H)
SV(H)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(M)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(M)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
P(OP)
P(OP)
P(OP)
P(OP)
P(OP)
P(OH)
P(OH)
P(OH)
P(OH)
P(OP)
P(OH)
P(OP)
SV(M)
SV(B)
HISC
P(OH)
-------
nge NO.
14/18/90
CAS NUMBER
REGULATORY NAME
TABLE 9-2
ANALYTES SORTED BY CAS NUMBER
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
COMMON NAME
CLASS
512561 Phosphoric acid, trimethyl ester
534521 Phenol, 2-methyl-4,6-dinitro-
541731 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
544763 n-Hexadecane
544923 Copper cyanide (CuCN)
563122 Phosphorodithioic acid, S,S'-methylene 0,0,0',O'-tetra ethyl ester
569642 Ammonium, (4-(p-(dimethylamino)-alpha-phenylbenzyli
dine)-2,5-cylcohexadien-1-ylidene)-dimethyl chloride
591786 2-Hexanone
593453 n-Octadecane
605027 1-Phenylnaphthalene
606202 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
608275 2,3-Dichloroaniline
608935 Pentachlorobenzene
612942 2-Phenylnaphthalene
614006 N-Nitrosomethylphenylamine
615225 2-(Methylthio)benzothiazole
621647 Di-n-propylnitrosamine
629594 n-Tetradecane
629970 n-Docosane
630013 n-Hexacosane
630024 n-Octacosane
630206 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
634366 1,2,3-Trimethoxybenzene
638686 n-Triacontane
646311 n-Tetracosane
680319 Phosphoric triamide, hexamethyt-
694804 1-Bromo-2-chlorobenzene
700129 Pentamethylbenzene
719222 2,6-di-tert-Butyl-p-benzoquinone
732116 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl ester, S-ester
HithN-(mercaptomethyl)phthalimide
764410 2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro (mixture of cis and trans)
786196 Phosphorodithioic acid, s(((p-chlorophenyl)thio)
ester
789026 o,p'-DDT
832699 1-Methylphenanthrene
882337 Diphenyldisulfide
924163 N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
933755 2,3,6-Trichlorophenol
959988 Endosulfan-I
961115 Phosphoric acid, 2-chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)
1024573 2,5-Methano-2H-indeno[1,2b]oxirene, 2,3,4,5,6,7,7-hepta
chloro-1a,1b,5,5a,6,6a-hexahydro- (alpha, beta, and gamma isomers)
1031078 Endosulfan sulfate
1330207 Total xylenes
1332214 Asbestos
1464535 1,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane
methyl) 0,0-diethyl
vinyl dimethyl ester
Trimethylphosphate .
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol \ DNOC \ 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Benzene, 1,3-dichloro- \ m-Dichlorobenzene
n-d6
Copper cyanide
Ethion \ Bladan
Malachite green \ C.I. Basic Acid Green 4
2-Hexanone
n-C18
1-Phenylnaphthalene
Benzene, 2-methyl-1,3-dinitro-
2,3-Dichloroaniline
Benzene, pentachloro-
2-Phenylnaphthalene
N-Nitrosomethylphenylamine
2-(Methylthio)benzothiazole
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
n-CH
n-C22
n-C26
n-C28
Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloro-
1,2,3-T r i methoxybenzene
n-c30
n-C24
Hexamethylphosphoramide \ HMPA
2-Bromochlorobenzene
Pentamethylbenzene
2,6-di-tert-Butyl-p-benzoquinone
Phosmet \ Imidan
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Carbophenothion \ Trithion
o,p'-DDT
1-Methylphenanthrene
Diphenyl sulfide
1-Butenamine, N-butyl-N-nitroso
2,3,6-Trichlorophenol
Thiodan I
Tetrachlorvinphos \ Gardona
Heptachlor epoxide
6,9-Methano-2,3,4-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7
Benzene, dimethyl- \ Xylenes \ Xylene, (total)
Asbestos
Erythritol anhydride \ 2,2'-Bioxirane
P(QP)
SVCA)
SVQN)
SVCN)
MISC
P(OP)
SVCB)
VOL
SVCN)
SVCN)
SVCB)
SVCB)
SVCN)
SVCN)
SVCB)
SVCB)
SVCB)
SVCN)
SVCN)
SVCN)
SVCN)
VOL
SVCN)
SVCN)
SVCN)
P(OP)
VOL
SVCN)
SVCN)
P(OP)
VOL
P(OP)
P(OH>
SVCN)
SVCN)
SVCB)
SV
-------
1 age Ho.
•4/18/90
CAS NUMBER
REGULATORY HAHE
TABLE 9-2
AHALYTES SORTED BY CAS HW8ER
USEPA 1MDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY D1VISIOH LIST OF AMALYTES
COHHOH HAKE
CLASS
1576676 3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene
1576698 2,7-Dimethylphenanthrene
1582098 p-Toluidine, alpha, alpha, alpha-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-
1689845 BenzonitrUe, 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxy-
1730376 1-Methylfluorene
1746016 Dibenzo[b,e][1,4Jdioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
1836755 Ether, 2,4-dichlorophenyl p-nitrophenyl-
1888717 Hexachloropropene
2027170 2-Isopropylnaphthalene
2104645 Phosphorothioic acid, phenyl-, 0-ethyl 0-(p-nitro
2243621 1,5-Naphthalenediamine
2303164 Carbamothioic acid, bis(1-methylethyl)-S-(2,3-dichloro
2385855 1,3,4-Hetheno-1H-cyclobuta[cd]pentalene, 1,1a,2,2,3,3a,
4,5,5,5a,5b,6,-dodecachlorooctahydro
2425061 4-Cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximide N-((1,1,2,2-tetrachloro
2642719 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl ester, S-ester with
3-(inercaptomethyl)-1,2,3-benzotriazin-4(3H)-one
2921882 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(3,5,6-trichloro-
3209221 2,3-Dichloronitrobenzene
3288582 0,0-Diethyl S-methyl ester of Phosphorodithioic acid
3689245 Thiopyrophosphoric acid ([(HO)2P(S)]20), tetraethyl
4104147 Phosphoramidothioic acid, acetamidoyl, 0,0-bis(p-
4170303 2-Butenal
6923224 Phosphoric acid, dimethyl ester, ester with
-------
'•'age No.
14/18/90
CAS NUMBER
REGULATORY NAME
TABLE 9-2 .
ANALYTES SORTED BY CAS NUMBER
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
COMMON NAME
CLASS
7440166 Rhodium
7440188 Ruthenium
7440199 Samarium
7440202 Scandium
7440213 Silicon
7440224 Silver
•7440235 Sodium
7440246 Strontium
7440257 Tantalum
7440279 Terbium
7440280 Thallium
7440291 Thorium
7440304 Thulium
7440315 Tin
7440326 Titanium
7440337 Tungsten
7440360 Antimony
7440382 Arsenic
7440393 Barium
7440417 Beryllium
7440428 Boron
7440439 Cadmium
7440451 Cerium
7440473 Chromium
7440484 Cobalt
7440508 Copper
7440520 Erbium
7440531 Europium
7440553 Gallium
7440564 Germanium ' .
7440575 Gold
7440586 Hafnium
7440600 Holmium
7440611 Uranium
7440622 Vanadium
7440644 Ytterbium
7440655 Yttrium
7440666 Zinc
7440677 Zirconium
7440699 Bismuth
7440702 Calcium
7440746 Indium
7553562 Iodine
7664417 Ammonia
7683649 Squalene
7700176 Crotonic acid, 3-hydroxy, alpha-methylbenzyl ester, di methylphosphate (E)
7704349 Sulfur
7723140 Phosphorus (black, white, red, yellow, or violet)
Rh
Ru
Sm
Sc
Si
Ag
Ma
Sr
Ta
Tb
Tl
Th
Tin
Sn
Ti
U
Sb
As
Ba
Be
B
Cd
Ce
Cr
Co
Cu
Er
Eu
Ga
Ge
Au
Hf
Ho
U
V
Yb
Y
Zn
Zr
Bi
Ca
In
I
Ammonia
Squalene
Crotoxyphos \ Ciodrin
S
P
M(C)
MCC)
MCC)
M(C)
M(A)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCA)
HCC)
MCC)
MCA)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCO
MCC)
MCC)
MCC)
MCA)
MISC
SV(N)
PCOP)
MCA)
MCA)
-------
age Ho.
4/18/90
10
CAS NUMBER
REGULATORY NAME
TABLE 9-2
AHALYTES SORTED BY CAS mJHB'ER
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST Of ANALYTES
COMHON MAHE
CUSS
7782492 Selenium
7782505 Chlorine
7786347 Crotonic acid, 3-hydroxy-, methyl ester, dimethyl phos phate (E)-
8001352 Toxaphene
8065483 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(2-(ethylthio) ethyl) ester mixed with
0,0-diethyl S-(2-(ethylthio) ethyl) ester (7:3)
10049044 Chlorine dioxide
10061015 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
10061026 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
10595956 N-Nitrosoroethylethylamine
11096825 PCB-1260
11097691 PCB-1254
11104282 PCB-1221
11141165 PCB-1232
12122677 Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid,-zinc salt
12'»27382 Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid,-manganese salt
12672296 PCB-1248
12674112 PCB-1016
13071799 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl-S-(«1,1-dimethyl ethyl)thio)methyl ester
13171216 Phosphoric acid, dimethyl ester, ester with 2-chloro-N-
N-diethyl-3-hydroxycrotonamide
13494809 Tellurium
> 14797650 Nitrites
1 15972608 2-Chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl) acetamide
16984488 Fluoride
18496258 Sulfide
19408743 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
20324338 THpropyleneglycol methyl ether
21609905 Phosphorothioic acid, phenyl, 0-(4-bromo-2,5-dichloro phenyl) 0-methyl ester
23950585 Benzamide, 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)-
28434868 3,3'-Dichloro-4,4'-diaminodiphenyl ether
33213659 Endosulfan-II
37871004 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin '
40321764 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
53469219 PCB-1242
53494705 Endrin ketone
57653857 1,2;3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Se
Chlorine
Hevinphos \ Phosdrin
Camphechlor
Demeton \ Systox
Chlorine oxide
1-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-, (Z)-
1-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-, (E)-
Ethanamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso
Aroclor 1260
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Zineb \ Dithane Z
Maneb \ Vancide
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1016
Terbufos \ Counter
Phosphamidon \ Dimecron
Te
Nitrites
Alachlor \ Hetachlor \ Lasso
Fluoride •
Sulfide
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxDD
Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
Leptophos \ Phosvel
Pronamide \ Kerb
3,3'-Dichloro-4,4'-diaminodiphenyl ether
Thiodan II
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeDD
Aroclor 1242
Endrine ketone
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxDD
H(A)
K(A)
P(OP)
P(OH)
P(OP)
HISC
VOL
VOL
SV(B)
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
P(C)
P(C)
PCB
PCB
P(OP)
P(OP)
H(C)
MISC
P(OH)
HISC
HISC
DIOXINS
SV(N)
P(OP)
P(H)
SV(N)
P(OH)
DIOXINS
DIOXINS
PCB
P(OH)
DIOXINS
-------
Page No.
04/18/90
COMMON NAME
TABLE 9-3
ANALYTES SORTED BY COMMON NAME
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CLASS
CAS NUMBER
==========
(1,1'-Biphenyl)-4,4'-diamine
1/1'-Bipnenyl-4I4'-diamine, 3,3'-dichloro
1,1-Dichloroethylene \ Vinylidine chloride
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpOD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeDD
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trimethoxybenzene
1,2-Benzertedicarboxylic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl)ester
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl phenylmethyl ester
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dioctyl ester \ Dioctyl ph
1,3,5-Trithiane
1,3-Benzenediol
1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-(2-propenyl)-
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro-
1,3-Dichloro-2-propanol
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
1,4-Naphthalenedione
1,5-Naphalenediamine
1-Bromo-4-phenoxybenzene \ Benzene, 1-bromo-4-phenoxy-
1-Butenainine, N-butyl-N-nitroso
1-Hethylfluorene
-Hethylphenanthrene
-Phenylnaphthalene
-Propanol, 2-methyl-
-Propene, 1,1,2,3,3,3-hexachloro-
-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-, (E)-
1-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-, (Z)-
2,3,6-Trichlorophenol
2,3-Benzothiophene \ Benzo(b)thiophene
2,3-Dichloroaniline
2,3-Dichloronitrobenzene
2,3-benzofluorene
2,4,5-T \ Weedone \ Acetic acid, 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy-
2,4,5-TP \ Silvex
2,4,5-Trimethylaniline
2,4-D \ Acetic acid, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-
2,4-Diaminotoluene \ Toluene, 2,4-diamino-
2,6-di-tert-Butyl-p-benzoquinone
2,7-Dimethylphenanthrene
2-(Methylthio)benzothiazole
2-BromochIorobenzene
2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro-, (E)-
2-Hexanone
Benzidine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trimethoxybenzene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1,3,5-Trithiane
Resorcinol
Safrole
Hexachlorobutadiene
1,3-Dichloro-2-propanol
1,3-Dichloropropane
2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro (mixture of cis and trans)
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1,5-Naphthalenediatnine
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
1-Methylfluorene
1-Methylphenanthrene
1-Phenylnaphthalene
Isobutyl alcohol
Hexachloropropene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
2,3,6-Trichlorophenol
Thianaphthene
2,3-Dichloroaniline
2,3-Dichloronitrobenzene
2,3-Benzofluorene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
Propanoic acid, 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)-
Aniline, 2,4,5-trimethyl-
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, salts and esters
1,3-Benzenediamine, 4-methyl-
2,6-di-tert-Butyl-p-benzoquinone
2,7-Dimethylphenanthrene
2-(Methylthio)benzothiazole
1-Brorao-2-chlorobenzene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
2-Hexanone
SV(B)
SV(B)
VOL
DIOXINS
DIOXINS
DIOXINS
DIOXINS
DIOXINS
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(A)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
VOL
VOL
SV(N)
SV(B)
SV(N)
SV(B)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
VOL
SV(N)
VOL
VOL
SV(A)
SV(N)
SV(B)
SV(N)
SV(N)
P(OH)
P(H)
SV(B)
P(H)
SV(B)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(B)
VOL
VOL
VOL
92875
91941
75354
37871004
1-030
57653857
19408743
40321764
87616
634366
117817
85687
84662
117840
291214
108463
94597
87683
96231
142289
764410
130154
2243621
101553
924163
1730376
832699
605027
78831
1888717
10061026
10061015
933755
95158
608275
3209221
243174
93765
93721
137177
94757
95807
719222
1576698
615225
694804
110576
591786
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
COKHOH HAKE
TABLE 9-3
AHALYTES SORTED BY COHHOH HAME
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF AHALYTES
REGULATORY HAHE
CLASS
CAS NUMBER
2-Isopropylnaphthalene
2-Hethyl-4,6-dinitrophenol \ DNOC \ 4,6-Dinttro-o-cresol
2-Methylbenzothioazole
2-Methylphenol \ o-Cresytic acid \ Phenol, 2-methyl-
2-Naphthylamine
2-Phenylnaphthalcne
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl, methyl ester
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, ethyl ester
3,3'-Dichloro-4,4'-diaiTrinodiphenyl ether
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexenone
3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene
3-Bromochlorobenzene
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Methylphenol \ Phenol, 3-methyl-
3-chloronitrobenzene
4,4'-DDD/Benzene, 1,1'-(2,2-dichloroethylidene)bis[4-chloro-
4,4'-DDE/Benzene, 1,1'-(dichloroethenlyidine)bis[4-chloro
4,4'-DDT/Benzene, 1,1'-(2,2,2-trichloroethylidene)b?s[4-chloro
4,5-dimethyl phenanthrene
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Chloro-2-nitroaniline
4-Hethylphenol \ Phenol, 4-methyl-
4-Nitrobiphenyl
5-Chloro-o-toluidine
6,9-Hethano-2,3,4-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7
9,10-Dimethyl-1,2-Benzanthracene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthylene, 1,2-dihydro-
Acetic acid, ethenyl ester
Acetone
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Ag
Al
Alachlor \ Hetachlor \ Lasso
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
AUyl chloride
Anntonia
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramite
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
\ 3-Chloropropene
2-Isopropylnaphthalene SV(H)
Phenol, 2-methyl-4,6-dinitro- SV(A)
2-Hethylbenzothioazole SV(H)
o-Cresol SV(A)
beta-Naphthylaniine SV(B)
2-Phenylnaphthalene SV(H)
Methyl raethacrylate VOL
Ethyl methacrylate VOL
3,3'-Dichloro-4,4'-diaminodiphenyl ether SV(H)
1,1'-Biphenyl-4,4'-diaraine, 3,3'-dimethoxy SV(B)
Isophorone SV(H)
3,6-Diraethylphenanthrene SV(H)
l-Brorao-3-chlorobenzene VOL
Benz[j]aceanthrylene, 1,2-dihydro-3-methyl- SV(H)
m-Cresol SV(A)
1-Chloro-3-nitrobenzene SV(M)
4,4'-ODD P(OH)
4,4'-DDE P(OH)
4,4'-DDT P(OH)
4,5-dimethyl phenanthrene SV(H)
[1,1'-Biphenyl]-4-amine SV(B)
4-Chloro-2-nitroaniline SV(B)
p-Cresol * SV(A)
Biphenyl, 4-nitro 'SV(N)
o-Toluidine, 5-chloro- SV(B)
Endosulfan sulfate P(OH)
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene SV(B)
Acenaphthylene SV(N)
Acenaphthene SV(N)
Vinyl acetate VOL
2-Propanone VOL
Ethanone, 1-phenyl SV(N)
2-Propenal VOL
2-Propenenitrile VOL
Silver H(C)
Aluminum H(C)
2-Chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl) P(OH)
1,4:5,8-Dinnethanonaphthalene, 1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro- P(OH)
2-Propen-1-o1 VOL
1-Propene, 3-chloro- VOL
Ammonia HISC
Benzenamine SV(B)
Anthracene - SV(M)
Sulfurous acid, 2-chloroethyl-, 2-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl) SV(A)
PCB-1016 PCB
PCS-1221 PCB
PCB-1232 PCB
PCB-1242 PCB
2027170
534521
120752
95487
91598
612942
80626
97632
28434868
119904
78591
1576676
108372
56495
108394
121733
72548
72559
50293
203645
92671
89634
106445
92933
95794
1031078
57976
208968
83329
108054
67641
98862
107028
107131
7440224
7429905
15972608
309002
107186
107051
7664417
62533
120127
140578
12674112
11104282
11141165
53469219
-------
Page No.
04/18/90
COMMON NAME
TABLE 9-3
ANALYTES SORTED BY COMMON NAME
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CLASS
CAS NUMBER
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
As
Asbestos
Au
Azinphos-ethyl \ Ethyl Guthion
Azinphos-methyl \ Guthion
B
BOD
Ba
Be
Benz[a]anthracene \ 1,2-Benzanthracene
Benz[e]acephenanthrylene
Benzanthrone
Benzenamjne, 2-methyl-5-nitro
Benzenamine, 2-nitro
Benzenamine, 3-nitro
Benzenamine, 4,4'-methylenebist2chloro \ MOCA
Benzenamine, 4-nitro-
Benzenamine, N-nitroso-N-phenyl
Benzenamine, N-phenyl
Benzene
Benzene, 1,2,4,5-tetrachloro-
Benzene, 1,2,4-trichtoro-
Benzene, 1,2-dichloro- \ o-Dichlorobenzene
Benzene, 1,3-dichloro- \ m-Dichlorobenzene
Benzene, 1,3-dinitro- \ m-Dinitrobenzene
Benzene, 1,4-dichloro- \ p-Dichlorobenzene
Benzene, 1-chloro-4-phenoxy
Benzene, 1-methyl-2,4-djnitro
Benzene, 2-methyl-1,3-dinitro-
Benzene, chloro-
Benzene, dimethyl- \ Xylenes \ Xylene, (total)
Benzene, ethenyl-
Benzene, ethyl
Benzene, methyl •
Benzene, nitro-
Benzene, pentachloro-
Benzenemethanol
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fIuoranthene
Benzo[def]phenanth rene
Benzoic acid
Bi
Bromoform \ Methane, tribromo-
Bromoxynil \ 3,5-Dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile
PCB-1248 PCB
PCS-1254 PCB
PCB-1260 PCB
Arsenic H(A)
Asbestos MISC
Gold M(C)
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl ester, S-ester with P(OP)
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl ester, S-ester with P(OP)
Boron M(A)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand MISC
Barium M(C>
Beryllium "(C)
Benzo(a)anthracene SV(N)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene . SV(N)
Benzanthrone - SV(N)
5-Nitro-o-toluidine SV(B)
2-Nitroaniline SV(B)
3-Nitroaniline SV(B)
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) SV(B)
p-Nitroaniline SV(B)
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine SV(B)
Diphenylamine SV(B)
Benzene VOL
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene , SV(B)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene SV(N)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene SV(N)
1,3-Dichlorob^nzene SV(N)
1,3-Dinitrobenzene SV(N)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene SV(B)
4-Chlorophenylphenyl ether SV(N)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene SV(N)
2,6-Dinitrotoluene SV(B)
Chlorobenzene VOL
Total xylenes VOL
Styrene * VOL
Ethylbenzene VOL
Toluene VOL
Nitrobenzene . SV(B)
Pentachlorobenzene SV(N)
Benzyl alcohol SV(N)
Benzo(a)pyrene SV(M)
Benzo(ghi)perylene SV(N)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene SV(N)
Pyrene SV(N)
Benzoic acid SV(A)
Bismuth M(C)
Tribromomethane VOL
Benzonitrile, 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxy- SV(A)
12672296
11097691
11096825
7440382
1332214
7440575
2642719
86500
7440428
1-002
7440393
7440417
56553
205992
82053
99558
86744
99092
101144
100016
86306
122394
71432
95943
120821
95501
541731
99650
106467
7005723
121142
606202
108907
1330207
100425
100414
108883
98953
608935
100516
50328
191242
207089
129000
65850
7440699
75252
16S9845
-------
Page Mo.
04/18/90
COHMON NAME
TABLE 9-3
AMALYTES SORTED BY COHHOH NAME
USEPA IHDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF AHALYTES
REGULATORY HAKE
E sssa
CLASS
X23XS
CAS NUMBER
Busan 85
COD
Ca
Camphechlor
Caproic acid
Captafol \ Difotatan
Captan
Carbamic acid, dimethyldithio-, sodium salt
Carbamic acid, roethyldithio-, monopotassium salt
Carbazole
Carbolic acid
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride \ Methane, tetrachloro-
Carbophenothion \ Trithion
Cd
Ce
Chloramine
Chlordane
Chlorfenvinphos \ Supona
Chloride
Chlorine
Chlorine cyanide
Chlorine oxide
Chlorite
Chlorobenzilate \ Ethyl-4,4'-dichlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane \ Methane, dibromochloro-
Chloroethanenitrile
Chloroprene \ 1,3-Butadiene, 2-chloro
Chlorpyrifos \ Dursban
Chrysene
Co
Conductivity, specific
Copper cyanide
Corrosivity
Coumaphos \ Co-Ral
Cr
Crotonaldehyde VCrotylaldehyde
Crotoxyphos \ Ciodrin _
Cryptosporidium
Cu
Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes)
Cygon \ Dimethoate
DNBP \ Dinoseb \ 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
Demeton \ Systox
Di-n-butyl phthalate \ Dibutyl phthalate
Dial late \ Avadex
Diazinon \ Spectracide
D i benz[a,h] anthracene
Potassium ditnethyldithiocarbamate P(C)
Chemical Oxygen Demand HISG
Calcium H(C)
Toxaphene P(OH)
Hexanoic acid SV(A)
4-Cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximide N-((1,1,2,2-tetrachloro P(OH)
4-Cyclohexene-1,2-d|carboxinide N-CtrichloromethyDthio- P(OH)
Sodium ditnethyldithiocarbamate p(C)
Potassium-N-methyldithiocarbamate p(C)
Carbazole SV(B)
Phenol SV(A)
Carbon disulfide VOL
Tetrachloromethane VOL
Phosphorodithioic acid, s«(p-chlorophenyl)thio) P(OP)
Cadmium H(C)
Cerium M(C)
Chloramine HISC
4,7-Methano-1H-indene 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8-octachloro-2,3,3a, P(OH)
Phosphoric acid, 2-chloro-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)vinyl di P(OP)
Chloride HISC
Chlorine H(A)
Cyanogen chloride HISC
Chlorine dioxide MISC
Chlorite MISC
Benzeneacetic acid, 4-chloro-alpha-(4-chlorophenyt)- P(OH)
Dibromochloromethane VOL
Chloroacetonitrile VOL
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene VOL
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(3,5,6-trichloro- P(OP)
Chrysene SV(N)
Cobalt H(C)
Specific conductivity HISC
Copper cyanide (CuCN) MISC
Corrosivity HISC
Coumarin, 3-chloro-7-hydroxy-4-methyl-, 0-ester with 0, P(OP)
Chromium H(C)
2-Butenal VOL
Crotonic acid, 3-hydroxy, alpha-methylbenzyl ester, di P(OP)
Cryptosporidium MISC
Copper H(C)
Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes) NOS MISC
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl s-[2-(methylamino)- P(OP)
Phenol, 2-(1-methylpropyl)-4,6-dinitro- p(H)
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(2-(ethylthio) P(OP)
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl ester SV(N)
Carbamothioic acid, bis(1-methylethyl)-S-(2,3-dichloro P(C)
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(2-isopropyl-6- P(OP)
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene SV(N)
128030
1-004
7440702
8001352
142621
2425061
133062
128041
137417
86748
108952
75150
56235
786196
7440439
7440451
0-012
57749
470906
1-003
7782505
506774
10049044
0-011
510156
124481
107142
126998
2921882
218019
7440484
1-011
544923
1-014
56724
7440473
4170303
7700176
0-039
7440508
57125
60515
88857
8065483
84742
2303164
333415
53703
-------
Page No.
04/18/90
COMMON NAME
TABLE 9-3
ANALYTES SORTED BY COMMON NAME
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CLASS
CAS NUMBER
===5======
Dibenzofuran
D i benzoth i ophene
Dibromochloropropane \ DBCP
Dichlone \ Phygon
Dichloran \ Botran
Dichtoroethyl ether
Dichloroiodomethane
Dichloromethane \ Methane, dichloro-
Dichlorvos \ DDVP
Dicrotophos \ Bidrin
Dieldrin
Diethyl ether
Dimethyl phthalate
Dimethyl sulfone
Dimethylmtrosamine \ Methamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso-
Dinex \ DN-111 \ 2-Cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
Dioxathion
Dioxin \ TCDD \ 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Diphenyl
Diphenyl ether
Diphenyl sulfide
Disodium cyanodithioimidocarbonate
Disulfoton
Dy
EPN \ Santox
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrine ketone
Er
Erythritol anhydride \ 2,2'-Bioxirane
Ethanamine, N-ethyl-N-nitroso-
Ethanamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso
Ethane, 1,1'-[methylenebis(oxy)]bis[2-chloro-
Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloro-
Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro
Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro
Ethane, chloro \ Ethyl chloride
Ethane, hexachloro
Ethene, (2-chloroethoxy)
Ethene, 1,2-dichloro-, (E)-
Ethene, chloro
Ethene, trichloro \ Trichloroethylene
Ethion \ Bladan
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylene dibromide \ EDB \ Ethane, 1,2-dibromo-
Ethylene dichloride \ EDC \ Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid, salts and esters
Ethylenethiourea
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiophene
Propane, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloro-
1,4-Naphthoquinone, 2,3-dichloro-
2,6-dichloro-4-nitroaniline
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
Dichloroiodomethane
Methylene chloride
Phosphoric acid, 2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl ester
Phosphoric acid, dimethyl ester, ester with (E)-3-
2,7:3,6-Dimethanonaphth(2,3-b)oxirene, 3,4,5,6,9,9-hexa
Diethyl ether
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester
Dimethyl sulfone
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
Phenol, 2-cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitro-
Phosphorodithioic acid, S,S'-p-dioxane-2,3-dryl 0,0,0',
Dibenzo[b,e][1,4]dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
Biphenyl
Diphenyl ether
Diphenyldisulfide
Disodium cyanodithioimidocarbonate
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)
Dysprosium
Phosphorothioic acid, phenyl-, 0-ethyl 0-(p-nitro
1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene, 1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Erbium
1,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Chloroethane
Hexachloroethane
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Trichloroethene
Phosphorodithioic acid, S,S'-methylene 0,0,0',0'-tetra
Methanesulfonic acid, ethyl ester
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Carbamodithioic acid, 1,2-ethanediylbis-, salts and
Ethylenethiourea
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(B)
P(OH)
SV(B)
SV(N)
VOL
VOL
P(OP)
P(OP)
P(OH)
VOL
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(B)
P(H)
PCOP)
DIOXINS
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
MISC
P(OP)
M(C)
P(OP)
P(OH)
P(OH)
P(OH)
M(C)
SV(N)
SV(B)
SV(B)
SV(N)
VOL
VOL
VOL
VOL
SV(N)
VOL
VOL
VOL
VOL
P(OP)
SV(N)
VOL
VOL
P(C)
SV(N)
132649
132650
96128
117806
99309
111444
0-015
75092
62737
141662
60571
60297
131113
67710
62759
131895
78342
1746016
92524
101848
882337
138932
298044
7429916
2104645
72208
7421934
53494705
7440520
1464535
55185
10595956
111911
630206
79345
79005
75003
67721
110758
156605
75014
79016
563122
62500
106934
107062
111546
96457
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
COHKOM HAHE
===========
TABLE 9-3
AJMLYTES SORTED BY COHHOH NAME
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
REGULATORY HAHE
CLASS
TKX3SXS
CAS NUMBER
Ethylidene chloride \ Ethane, 1,1-dichloro-
Eu
Fumphur \ Famophos
Fe
Fensulfothion \ Desanit
Fenthion \ Baytex
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Fluoride
Fluorotrichloromethane \ Methane, trichlorofluoro-
Ga
Ge
HCB \ Benzene, hexachloro-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene \ HCP
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
HexachIorodi benzofurans
Hexamethylphosphoramide \ HHPA
Hf
Hg
Ho
Hydrazine, 1,2-diphenyl
Hypochlorite ion
I
Ignitafoility
In
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Ir
Isodrin (Stereoisomer of Aldrin)
Isosafrole
K
Kepone
La
Leptophos \ Phosvel-
Li
Lindane \ gamma-BHC \ Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma)
Longifolene
Lu
MIBK \ Methylisobutylketone \ 2-Pentanone, 4-methyl
Malachite green \ C.I. Basic Acid Green 4
Malathion \ Sumitox
Maneb \ Vancide
Mestranol \ 17-alpha-Ethynylestradiol 3-methyl ether
Methaerylonitrile
Methane, bromodichloro
Methane, trichloro- \ Trichloromethane
Methane, trichloronitro-
1,1-Dichloroethane VOL
Europium H(C)
Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-dinethyl 0-rp-t(dimethyla(nino) P(OP)
Iron H(C)
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(p-(methylsul P(OP)
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl-, 0-(4-raethylthio)- P(OP)
Fluoranthene SV(N)
Fluorene SV(N)
Fluoride MISC
Trichlorofluoromethane VOL
Gallium M(C)
Germanium H(C)
HexachIorobenzene SV(N)
4,7-Methano-1H-indene, 1,4,5,6,7,8,8-heptachloro-da,4,7, P(OH)
2,5-Methano-2H-indeno[1,2b]oxirene, 2,3,4,5,6,7,7-hepta P(OH)
1,3-Cyclopentadiene, 1,2,3,4,5,5-hexachloro- SV(N)
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins DIOXINS
Hexachlorodibenzofurans DIOXINS
Phosphoric triamide, hexamethyl- P(OP)
Hafnium M(C)
Mercury M(C)
Holmium M(C)
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine SV(B)
Hypochlorite ion MISC
Iodine M(A)
Ignitability MISC
Indium ~ M(C)
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene SV(N)
Iridium M(C)
1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-1,4:5, P(OH)
1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-(1-propenyl)- SV(B)
Potassium H(C)
4-Metheno-2H-cyclobuta(cd)pentalen-2-one, 1,1a,3,3a, P(OH)
Lanthanum M(C)
Phosphorothioic acid, phenyl, 0-(4-bromo-2,5-dichloro P(OP)
Lithium M(C)
Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, <1-alpha,-2-alpha, P(OH)
Longifolene SV(N)
Lutetium H(C)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone VOL
Ammoniura, (4-(p-(dimethylamino)-alpha-phenylbenzyli SV(B)
Succinic acid, mercapto-, diethyl ester, S-ester with 0, P(OP)
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid,-manganese salt P(C)
17-alpha-19-Norpregna-1,3,5(10)-trien-20-yn-17-ol, 3- SV(N) ,
2-Propenenitrile, 2-methyl- VOL
Bromodichloromethane VOL
Chloroform VOL
Chloropicrin SV(N)
75343
7440531
52857
7439896
115902
55389
206440
86737
16984488
75694
7440553
7440564
118741
76448
1024573
77474
1-200
1-201
680319
7440586
7439976
7440600
122667
0-009
7553562
1-013
7440746
193395
7439885
465736
120581
7440097
143500
7439910
21609905
7439932
58899
475207
7439943
108101
569642
121755
12427382
72333
126987
75274
67663
76062
-------
Page No.
04/18/90
COMMON NAME
TABLE 9-3
ANALYTES SORTED BY COMMON NAME
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CLASS
CAS NUMBER
D
Methapyrilene
Methoxychlor
Methyl bromide \ Methane, bromo
Methyl chloride \ Methane, chloro
Methyl chloroform \ Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-
Methyl ethyl ketone \ MEK
Methyl iodide \ Methane, iodo
Methyl parathion \ Parathion-methyl \ Metaphos
Methylene bromide \ Methane, dibromo
Methylsulfonic acid, methyl ester
Mevinphos \ Phosdrin
Mg
Mi rex \ Dechlorane
Mn
Mo
Monocrotophos \ Azodrin
Morpholine, 4-nitroso-
N,N-Dimethylformamide
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosomethylphenylamine
Na
Nabam
Naled \ Dibrom
Naphthalene
Naphthalene, 2-chloro-
Naphthalene, 2-methyl
Nb
Nd
Nemazine \ 10H-Phenothiazine
Ni
Nitrate/nitrite
Nitrites
Nitrofen \ TDK
O&G
Os
P
PCNB \ Terraclor-\ Quintozene
PCP \ Phenol, pentachloro-
Parathion \ Parathion, ethyl
Pb
Pd
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Pentachlorodi benzofurans
Pentachloroethane
Pentamethylbenzene
Perchloroethylene \ Ethene, tetrachloro
Perylene
Phenacetin \ Phorazetim
1,2-Ethanediamine, N,N-dimethyl-N'-2pyridinyl-N'-(2-
Benzene, 1,1'-(2,2,2-trichloroethylidene)bis[4-
Bromomethane
Chloromethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
2-Butanone
lodomethane
Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl 0-(4-nitrophenyl)
Dibromomethane
Methyl methanesulfonate
Crotonic acid, 3-hydroxy-, methyl ester, dimethyl phos
Magnesium
1,3,4-Metheno-1H-cyclobuta[cd]pentalene, 1,1a,2,2,3,3a,
Manganese
Molybdenum
Phosphoric acid, dimethyl ester, ester with (E)-3-
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N,N-Di methylformaraide
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
N-Nitrosomethylphenylamine
Sodium
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid, -sodium salt
Phosphoric acid, 1,2-dibromo-2,2-dichloroethyl di
Naphthalene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Niobium
Neodymium
Phenothiazine
Nickel
Nitrate/nitrite
Nitrites
Ether, 2,4-dichlorophenyl p-nitrophenyl-
Oil and grease
Osmium
Phosphorus (black, white, red, yellow, or violet)
Pentachloroni trobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(4-nitrophenyl)
Lead
Palladium
PentachIorodibenzo-p-dioxins
PentachIorodi benzofurans
Ethane, pentachloro-
PentamethyIbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Perylene
Acetamide, N-(4-ethoxyphenyl>-
SV(B)
P(OH)
VOL
VOL
VOL
VOL
VOL
P(OP)
VOL
SV(N)
P(OP)
M
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
COMMON HAME
====
TABLE 9-3
AHALYTES SORTED BY COHHOH HAHG
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST Of AHALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CLASS
CAS NUMBER
Phenanthrene
Phenol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachloro-
Phenol, 2,4,5-trichloro-
Phenol, 2,4,6-trichloro-
Phenol, 2,4-dichloro-
Phenol, 2,4-dimethyl-
Phenol, 2,4-djnitro
Phenol, 2,6-dichloro-
Phenol, 2-chloro
Phenol, 2-nitro-
Phorate \ Thimet
Phosacetin
Phosmet \ Imidan
Phosphamidon \ Dimecron
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0,8-triethyl ester
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-methyl ester
Piperidine, 1-Nitroso-
Pr
Pronamide \ Kerb
Propane, 1,2,3-trichloro-
Propane, 2,2'-oxybis[1-chloro-
Propionitrile \ Propanenitrile
Propylene dichloride \ Propane, 1,2-dichloro-
Pt
Pyridine
Re
Reactivity
Retort
Rh
Ru
S
Sb
Sc
Se
Si
Sm
Sn
Squalene
Sr
Sulfide
Sulfotepp \ Bladafum \ Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
TEPP \ Phosphoric acid, tetraethyl ester
TOC \ Organic carbon, total
TVOA \ VOC \ Organic carbon, volatile
Ta
Tb
Te
Terbufos \ Counter
Phenanthrene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2-Chlorophenol
2-Nitrophenol
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-[(ethylthio)
Phosphoraraidothioic acid, acetamidoyl, 0,0-bis(p-
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl ester, S-ester with
Phosphoric acid, dimethyl ester, ester with 2-chloro-N-
0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate
0,0-Diethyl S-ipethyl ester of phosphorodithioic acid
N-Nitrosopiperidine
Praseodymium
Benzamide, 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)-
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
Ethyl cyanide
1,2-Dichloropropane
Platinum
Pyridine
Rhenium
Reactivity
Oil and grease
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Sulfur
Antimony
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Samarium
Tin
Squalene
Strontium
Sulfide
Thiopyrophosphoric acid (C(HO)2P(S)]20), tetraethyl
Tetraethylpyrophosphate
Total organic carbon
Total volatile organic carbon
Tantalum
Terbium
Tellurium
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl-S-«(1,1-dimethyl
SV(H)
SV(A)
SV(A>
SV(A)
SV(A)
SV(A)
SV(A)
SV(A)
SV(A)
SV(N)
P(OP)
PCOP)
P(OP)
PCOP)
P(OP)
P(OP)
SV(B)
M(C)
P(H)
VOL
SV(N)
VOL
VOL
H(C)
SV(B)
H(C)
MISC
HISC
M(C)
H(C)
H(A)
M(C)
M(C)
H(A)
H(A)
H(C)
M(C)
SV(N)
H(C)
HISC
P(OP)
P(OP)
HISC
HISC
H(C)
H(C)
H(C)
P(OP)
85018
58902
95954
88062
120832
105679
51285
87650
95578
88755
298022
4104147
732116
13171216
126681
3288582
100754
7440100
23950585
96184
108601
107120
78875
7440064
110861
7440155
1-015
1-016
7440166
7440188
7704349
7440360
7440202
7782492
7440213
7440199
7440315
7683649
7440246
18496258
3689245
107493
1-012
1-001
7440257
7440279
13494809
13071799
-------
Page No.
04/18/90
COMMON NAME
TABLE 9-3
ANALYTES SORTED BY COMMON NAME
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST OF ANALYTES
REGULATORY NAME
CLASS
CAS NUMBER
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodi benzofurans
Tetrachlorvinphos \ Gardona
Th
Thioacetamide
Thiodan I
Thiodan II
Thiophenol \ Mercaptobenzene ,
Thioxanthone \ Thiaxanthone
Thiram \ Thiuram \ Arasan
Ti
Tl
Tin
Total dissolved solids \ TDS
Total solids
Total suspended solids \ TSS
Trichlorofon \ Dylox
Tricresylphosphate \ TCP \ TOCP
Trifluralin \ Treflan
^ Trimethylphosphate
i Triphenylene
^ Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
"" U
V
U
Y
Yb
Zineb \ Dithane Z
Zinophos \ Thionazin
Ziram \ Cymate
Zn
Zr
alpha-BHC
alpha-Naphthylamine
alpha-Picoline \ 2-Methylpyridine
alpha-Terpineol
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
n-C10
n-d2
n-C14
n-C16
n-C18
n-C20
n-C22
n-C24
n-C26
n-C28
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
Phosphoric acid, 2-chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)
Thorium
Ethanethioami'de
Endosulfan-I
Endosulfan-II
Benzenethiol
Thioxanthe-9-one
Thioperoxydicarbonic diamide, tetramethyl
Titanium
Thallium
Thulium
Residue, filterable
Residue, total
Residue, non-filterable
Phosphoric acid, (2,2,2-trichloro-1-hydroxyethyl)-,
Phosphoric acid, tri-o-tolyl ester
p-Toluidine, alpha, alpha, alpha-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-
Phosphoric acid, trimethyl ester
Triphenylene
Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
Uranium
Vanadium
Tungsten
Yttrium
Ytterbium
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid,-zinc salt
0,0-Diethyl-0-(2-pyrazinyl)phosphorothioate
Zinc bis(dimethyldithiocarbamato)-
Zinc
Zirconium
Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, (1-alpha, 2-alpha,
1-Naphthylamine
2-Picoline
alpha-Terpineol
Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, (1-alpha, 2-beta,
Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, (1-alpha, 2-alpha,
n-Decane
n-Dodecane
n-Tetradecane
n-Hexadecane
n-Octadecane
n-Eicosane
n-Docosane
n-Tetracosane
n-Hexacosane
n-Octacosane
DIOXINS
DIOXINS
P(OP)
M(C)
SV(N)
P(OH)
P(OH)
SV(B)
SV(B)
P(C)
M(C)
M(C)
M(C)
MISC
MISC
MISC
P(OP-)
P(OP)
P(OH)
P(OP)
SV(N)
SV(N)
M(C)
M(C)
M(C)
M(C)
M(C)
P(C)
P(OP)
P(C)
M(C)
M(C)
P(OH)
SV(B)
VOL
SV(N)
P(OH)
P(OH)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
SV(N)
1-331
1-332
961115
7440291
62555
959988
33213659
108985
492228
137268
7440326
7440280
7440304
1-010
1-008
1-009
52686
78308
1582098
512561
217594
20324338
7440611
7440622
7440337
7440655
7440644
12122677
297972
137304
7440666
7440677
319846
134327
109068
98555
319857
319868
124185
112403
629594
544763
593453
112958
629970
646311
630013
630024
-------
Page Ho.
04/18/90
10
COHHOH HAHE
TABLE 9-3
AHALYTES SORTED BY COHHOH HAKE
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION LIST Of AHALYTES
REGULATORY HAHE
CLASS
CAS NUMBER
n-C30
o + p xytene
o,p'-DDT
o-Anisidine
o-Totuidine
p-Chloro-i-cresol \ Phenol, 4-chloro-3-methyl-
p-Chloroaniline
p-Djmethylaminoazobenzene
p-Dioxane \ 1,4-Diethyleneoxide
p-IsopropyItoluene
p-Nitropnenol \ Phenol, 4-nitro-
pH
n-Triacontane
o + p xylene
o,p'-DDT
o-Anisjdine
o-Toluidine
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
Benzenamjne, 4-chloro-
Benzenamine, M,N-diniethyl-4-(pehnylazo)-
1,4-Dioxane
p-Cymene
4-Nitrophenol
Hydrogen ion
SV(H)
VOL
P(OH)
SV(B)
SV(B)
SV(A)
SV(B)
SV(B)
VOL
SV(H)
SV(A)
H(C)
638686
1-952
789026
90040
95534
59507
106478
60117
123911
99876
100027
1-006
-------
TABLE 9-4
ITD LIST OF INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
TCL-LISTED INORGANICS
Antimony
Arsenic
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt.
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
. Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
SEMI-QUANTITATIVE SCREEN METALS
Bismuth
Cerium
Dysprosium
Erbium
Europium
Gadolinium
Gallium
Germanium
Gold
Hafnium
Holminum
Indium
Iodine
Iridium
Lanthanum
Lithium
Lutetium
Neodymium
Niobium
Osmium
Palladium
Phosphorus
Platinum
Potassium
Pras eodymium
Rhenium
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Samarium
Scandium
Silicon
Strontium
Sulfur
Tantalum
Tellurium
Terbium
Thorium
Thulium
Tungsten
Uranium
Ytterbium
Zirconium
891003T
002.0.0
9-33
-------
TABLE 9-5
USEPA TARGET COMPOUND LIST
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROGTHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLORO£THANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHAHE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIHETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DIHITROPHENOL
2,4-DINlTROTOLUEHE
2,6-DIHITROTOLUEHE
2-BUTAHONE (HEK)
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-CHLQROPHENOL
2-HEXANONE
2-HETHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-NITROANILINE
2-HITROPHENOL
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
3-HITROAHILIHE
4,4-DDO
4,4-DOE
4,4-DDT
4.6-D1HITRO-2-HETHYLPHENOL
4-BROHOPHEHYL-PHEMYLETHER
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
4-CHtO«OAHILIHE
4-CHLOROPHENYL-PHEHYLETHER
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
4-HITRCAHILIHE
4-MITROPHENOL
ACEHAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ACETONE
ALDRIH
ALPHA-BKC
ALPKA-CHLORDANE
ALUH1NUH
ANTHRACENE
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BENZENE
BENZO(A)AKTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO
-------
TABLE 9--6
THE USEPA PRIORITV'POLLUTANTS
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-01CHLOROBENZENE
2,3,7,8-TCDO
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-NITROPHENOL
2-PROPENAL
2-PROPENENITRILE
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
4,6-OINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL
4-BROMOPHENYL-PHENYLETHER
4-CHLOROPHENYL-PHENYLETHER
4-NITROPHENOL
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ALDRIN
ALPHA-BHC
ANTHRACENE
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
ASBESTOS
BENZENE
BENZIDINE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
BENZOdOFLUORANTHENE
BERYLLIUM
BETA-BHC
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
BISC2-CHLOROETHYDETHER
BIS<2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
BROMOMETHANE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORDANE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
CHROMIUM
CHRYSENE
COPPER
CYANIDE
DELTA-BHC
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DIBENZ(A,H ^ANTHRACENE
01BROMOOICHLOROMETHANE
DIELDRIN
DIETHYLPHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
ENDOSULFAN I
ENDOSULFAN II
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
ETHYLBENZENE
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
GAMMA-BHC
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOR08UTADIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
ISOPHORONE
LEAD
MERCURY
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSOOIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE (1)
NAPHTHALENE
NICKEL
NITROBENZENE
P-CHLORO-M-CRESOL
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCS-1242
PCS-1248
PCB-1254
PCS-1260
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENANTHRENE •
PHENOL
PYRENE
SELENIUM
SILVER
TCDD
TETRACHLOROETHENE
THALLIUM
TOLUENE
TOXAPHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ZINC
Q-35
-------
Page No.
05/22/90
TABLE 9-7
RCRA LISTED COMPOUNDS
COMPOUND
CAS NUMBER
1,1 Dimethylhydrazine
1,1'-Biphenyl-4,4'-di8mine, 3,3'-dichloro
1,1-Dichloroethylene \ Vinytidine chloride
1,2 Dimethylhydrazine
1,2 Propylenimene
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl)ester
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl phenylmethyl ester
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dioctyl ester \ Dioctyl ph
1,3 Dichloropropene
1,3 Propane sultone
1,3-Benzenediol
1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-(2-propenyl)-
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro-
1,3-Dichloro-2-propanol
1,3-Dfchloropropane
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
1,4-Naphthalenedione
l-(o-Chlorophenyl) thoiurea
1-Acetyl-2-thiourea
1-Bromo-4-phenoxybenzene \ Benzene, 1-bromo-4-phenoxy-
1-Butenamine, H-butyl-N-nitroso
1-Chloro 2,3-epoxpropane
1-Propanol, 2-methyl-
1-Propene, 1,1,2,3,3,3-hexachloro-
1-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-, (E>-
1-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-, (Z)-
2,4,5-T \ Weedone \ Acetic acid, 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy-
2,4,5-TP \ Silvex
2,4-D \ Acetic acid, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-
2,4-Diaminotoluene \ Toluene, 2,4-diamino-
2,6-Toluenediaraine
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro-, (E)-
2-Cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
2-Hethyl-4,6-dinitrophenol \ DNOC \ 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2-Hethylphenol \ o-Cresylic acid \ Phenol, 2-methyl-
2-Naphthylamine
2-Nitropropane
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl, methyl ester
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, ethyl ester
2-methyllactonitrile
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
3,3-Dimethylbenzdine
3,4 Dihydroxy-alpha-(methylamino)methyl benzyl alcohol
3,4-Tolucnediaroine
3-Chloropropionitrile
3-Hethylcholanthrene
3-Methylphenol \ Phenol, 3-methyl-
4,4'-DDD/Benzene, 1,1'-(2,2-dichloroethylidene)bis[4-chloro-
4,4'-DDE/Benzene, 1,1'-(dichloroethenlyidine)bis[4-chloro
4,4'-DDT/Benzene, 1,1'-<2,2,2-trichloroethylidene)bis[4-chloro
4-Am!nobiphenyl
92875
57147
91941
75354
540738
75558
117817
85687
84662
117840
542756
1120714
108463
94597
87683
96231
142289
764410
130154
5344821
591082
101553
924163
106898
78831
1888717
10061026
10061015
93765
93721
94757
95807
823405
53963
110576
131895
534521
95487
91598
79469
80626
97632
75865
119904
119937
329657
496720
542767
56495
108394
• 72548
72559
50293
92671
9-36
-------
Page No.
05/22/90
COMPOUND
.TABLE9-7 (CONTINUED)
RCRA LISTED COMPOUNDS
CAS NUMBER
4-Aminopyridine
4-Methylphenol \ Phenol, 4-methyl-
4-Nitroquinoline-1-oxide
5-(Aminomethyl)-3-isoxazolol
7H-Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole
9,10-Dimethyl-1,2-Benzanthracene
Acetonitrile
Acetophenone
Acetyl chloride
Acrolein
AeryIamide
Acrylonitrile
Aflatoxins
Aldicarb
Aldrin
Ally! alcohol
Allyl chloride \ 3-Chloropropene
Alpha-Naphthylthiourea
Aluminum phosphide
Amitrole
Anmonium vanadate
Aniline
Antimony
Antimony and compounds, N.O.S.
Arami te
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Arsenic
Arsenic Acid
Arsenic pentoxide
Arsenic trioxide
, Auramine
Barium
Barium cyanide
Benz
-------
Page No.
05/23/90
COMPOUND
TABLE 9-7 (CONTINUED)
RCRA LISTED COMPOUNDS
CAS NUMBER
Benzene, 2-methyl-1,3-dinitro-
Benzene, chloro-
Benzene, methyl
Benzene, nitro-
Benzene, pentachloro-
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(j)fluoranthene
Bcnzonearsonic acid
Benzotr{chloride
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(chloromethyl)ether
Bromoacetone
Bromoform \ Methane, tribromo-
Brucine
Cacodylic acid
Cadmium
Calcium chromate
Calcium cyanide
Camphechlor
Carbolic acid
Carbon disulfide
Carbon oxyfluoride
Carbon tetrachloride \ Methane, tetrachloro-
Chlomaphazine
Chloral
Chlorambucil
Chlordane
Chlorinated benzenes (N.O.S.)
Chlorinated ethane N.O.S.
Chlorinated fluorocarbons N.O.S.
Chlorinated naphthalene N.O.S.
Chlorinated phenol N.O.S.
Chlorine cyanide
ChIoroacetaIdehyde
Chloroalkyl ethers, N.O.S.
Chlorobenzilate \ Ethyl-4,4'-dichlorobenzilate
Chlorotnethyl methyl ether '
Chloroprene \ 1,3-Butadiene, 2-chloro
Chromium
Chrysene
Citrus red No. 2
Coal tars
Copper cyanide
Creosote
Cresols (Cresylic acid)
CrotonaIdehyde \ Crotylaldehyde
Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes)
Cyanogen
Cyanogen bromide
Cycasin
Cygon \ Dimethoate
DMBP \ Dinoseb \ 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
606202
108907
108883
98953
608935
50328
205823
98055
98077
100447
7440417
39638329
542881
598312
75252
357573
75605
7440439
13765190
592018
8001352
108952
75150
353504
56235
494031
75876
305033
57749
506774
107200
510156
107302
126998
7440473
218019
6358538
8005452
544923
8001589
1319773
4170303
57125
460195
506683
14901087
60515
88857
9-38
-------
Page No.
05/22/90
TABLE 9-7 (CONTINUED)
RCRA LISTED COMPOUNDS
COMPOUND
CAS NUMBER
Daunomycin
Di-n-butyl phthalate \ Dibutyl phthalate
Diallate \ Avadex
Dibenz{a,h)acridine
D i benz[a,h]anthracene
Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene ,
D i benzo(a,i)pyrene
Dibromochloropropane \ DBCP
Dichlorobenzene, N.O.S.
Dichlorodiffuoromethane
Dichloroethyl ether
Dichloroethylene N.O.S.
Dichloromethane \ Methane, dichloro-
Dichlorophenylarsine
Dichloropropane,N.O.S.
Dichloropropanol,N.O.S.
Dichloropropene N.O.S.
Dieldrin
Diethyl-p-nitro phenyl phosphate
Diethylarsine
Diethytstilbesterol
Dihydrosafrole
Diisopropylfluorophosphate (DFP)
Dimethyl phthalate
Dimethyl sulfate
Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride
Dimethylnitrosamine \ Methamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso-
Dinex \ DN-111 \ 2-Cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
Dinitrobenzene N.O.S.
Dioxin \ TCDD \ 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Disulfoton
Dithiobiuret
Dubenz(a)acridine
Endosulfan
Endothal
Endrin
Endrine ketone
Erythritol anhydride \ 2,2'-Bioxirane
Ethanamine, N-ethyl-N-nitroso-
Ethanamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso
Ethane, 1,1'-tmethylenebis(oxy)]bis[2-chloro-
Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloro-
Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro
Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro
Ethane/ hexachloro t
Ethene, (2-chloroethoxy)
Ethene, 1,2-dichloro-, (E)-
Ethene, chloro
Ethene, trichloro \ Trichloroethylene
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylene dibromide \ EDB \ Ethane, 1,2-dibromo-
Ethylene dichloride \ EDC \ Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-
Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether
20830813
84742
2303164
226368
53703
192654
189640
189559
96128
25321226
75718
111444
25323302
75092
696286
26638197
26545733
26952238
60571
311455
692422
56531
94586
55914
131113
77781
79447
62759
131895
25154545
1746016
298044
541537
224420
115297
145733
72208
53494705
1464535
55185
10595956
111911
630206
79345
79005
67721
110758
156605
75014
79016
62500
106934
107062
110805
9-39
-------
Page Mo.
05/22/90
COMPOUND
TABLE 9-7 (CONTINUED)
RCRA LISTED COMPOUNDS
CAS NUMBER
Ethylene oxide
Ethylenebfsdithiocarbamic acid, salts and esters
Ethyleneimine
Ethylenethiourea
Ethylidene chloride \ Ethane, 1,1-dichloro-
Farcphur \ Famophos
Fluoranthene
Fluorine
Fluoroacetsmide
Fluoroacetic acid, sodium salt
Fluorotrichloromethane \ Methane, trichlorofluoro-
Formaldehyde
Glycidylaldehyde
HCB \ Benzene, hexachloro-
Halomethane N.O.S.
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene \ HCP
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzofurans
HexachIorophene
Hexaethyltetraphosphate
Hydrazine
Hydrazinc, 1,2-diphenyl
Hydrogen cyanide
Hydrogen fluoride
Hydrogen sulfide
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Iron dextran
Isodrin (Stereoisomer of Aldrin)
Isosafrole
Kepone
Lasiocarpine
Lead
Lead acetate
Lead phosphate
Lead subacetate
Lindane
Lindane \ gamma-BHC \ Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma)
HNNG
Halec hydrazide
Maleic anhydride
Halononitrile
Helphalan
Mercury
Mercury fulminate
Hethacrylonitri le
Methane, trichloro- \ Trichlororoethane
Hethapyrilene
Hethomyl
Hethoxychlor
Methyl bromide \ Methane, bromo
Methyl chloride \ Methane, chloro
75218
111546
151564
96457
75343
52857
206440
7782414
640197
62748
75694
50000
765344
118741
76448
1024573
1024573
77474
70304
757584
302012
122667
74908
7664393
7783064
193395
9004664
465736
120581
143500
303344
7439921
301042
7446277
1335326
58899
58899
70257
123331
108316
109773
148823
7439976
628864
126987
67663
91805
16752775
72435
74839
74873
9-40
-------
Page Ho.
05/22/90
TABLE 9-7 (CONTINUED)
RCRA LISTED COMPOUNDS
COMPOUND
CAS NUMBER
Methyl chloroform \ Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-
Methyl ethyl ketone \ MEK
Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide
Methyl hydrazine
Methyl iodide \ Methane, iodo
.Methyl isocyanate
Methyl parathion
Methyl parathion \ Parathion-methyl \ Metaphos
Methylchlorocarbonate
Methylene bromide \ Methane, dibromo
Methylsulfonic acid, methyl ester
MethylthiouraciI
Mitomycin C
Morpholine, 4-nitroso-
Mustard Gas
N,N-Diethylhydrazine
N-Nitroso-N-ethyl urea
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine /-
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine
N-Nitrosonornicotine
N-Nitrososarcosi ne
Nabam
Naphthalene
Naphthalene, 2-chloro-
Nickel
Nickel carbonyl
Nickel cyanide
Nicotine and salts
Nitric oxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitrogen mustard N-oxide and hydrochloride salt
Nitrogen mustard and hydrochloride salt
Nitroglycerin
Nitrosamine, N.O.S.
Nitrosopyrrolidine
Octamethylpyrophosphoramide
Osmium tetroxide
PCNB \ Terraclor \ Quintozene
PCP \ Phenol, pentachloro-
Paraldehyde
Parathion \ Parathion, ethyl
Parathon
PentachIorethane
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzofurans
PentachIoroethane
Perchloroethylene \ Ethene, tetrachloro
Phenacetin \ Phorazetim
Phenol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachloro-
Phenol, 2,4,5-trichloro-
Phenol, 2,4,6-trichloro-
71556
78933
1338234
60334
74884
624839
298000
298000
79221
74953
66273
56042
50077
59892
505602
1615801
759739
684935
615532
621647
1116547
4549400
16543558
13256229
142596
91203
91587
7440020
13463393
557197
54115
10102439
10102440
126852
51752
55630
35576911
930552
152169
20816120'
82688
87865
123637
56382
56362
76017
76017
127184
62442
58902
95954
88062
9-41
-------
Page Ho.
05/22/90
COMPOUND
TABLE 9-7 (CONTINUED)
RCRA LISTED COMPOUNDS
CAS NUMBER
Phenol, 2,4-dichloro-
Phenol, 2,4-dimethyl-
Phenol, 2,4-dinitro
Phenol, 2,6-dichloro-
Phenol, 2-chloro
Phenylenediamine
Phenylmercury acetate
Phenylthiourea
Phorate \ Thimet
Phosgene
Phosphine
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0,8-triethyl ester
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-methyl ester
Phthalic acid esters, N.O.S.
Phthalic anhydride
Piperidine, 1-Nitroso-
Potassiura cyanide
Potassium silver cyanide
Pronamide \ Kerb
Propane, 1,2,3-trichloro-
Propane, 2,2'-oxybis[1-chloro-
Propargyl alcohol
Propionitrile \ Propanenitrile
Propylene dichloride \ Propane, 1,2-dichloro-
Propylthiouracil
Pyridine
Pyridine
Reserpinen
Saccharin and salts
Selenium
Selenium dioxide
Selenium sulfide
Selenourea
Si Ivor
Silver cyanide
Sodium cyanide
Streptozotocin
Strontium sulfide
Strychnine and salts
Sulfotepp \ Bladafum \ Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
TEPP \ Phosphoric acid, tetraethyl ester
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
Tetrachloroethane N.O.S.
Tetraethyl lead
Tetranitromethane
Thallium
Thallium (1) sulfate
Thallium and compounds N.O.S.
Thallium selenite
Thallium<1) nitrate
Thallium(1)acetate
Thai liund )carbonate
Thallium(1)chloride
120832
105679.
51285
87650
95578
25265763
62384
103855
298022
75445
7803512
126681
3288582
85449
100754
151508
506616
23950585
96184
108601
107197
107120
78875
51525
110861
110861
50555
81072
7782492
7783008
7446346
630104
7440224
506649
143339
18883664
1314961
57249
3689245
107493
25322207
78002
509148
7440280
10031591
7440280
12039520
10102451
563688
6533739
7791120
9-42
-------
Page Ho.
05/22/90
COMPOUND
TABLE 9-7 (CONTINUED)
RCRA LISTED COMPOUNDS
CAS NUMBER
Thioacetamide
Thiodan I
Thiodan II
Thiofanox
Thiophenol
Thiophenol \ Mercaptobenzene
Thi osemicarbazide
Th i ourea
Thiram \ Thiuram \ Arasan
Thoimethanol
Toluene diisocyanate
Toluenediamine
Trichloromethanethiol
Trichloropropane, N.O.S.
Tris(1-aziridinyl)phosphine sulfide
Tris(2,3-dibromoprppyl)phosphate
Trypan blue
Undecamethlyenediamine,N,N-bis(2-chlorobenzyl)-dihydrochloride
Uracil mustard
Vanadium pentoxide
Vinyl Chloride
Warfarin
Zinc cyanide
Zinc phosphide
Zinophos \ Thionazin
alpha.alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine
alpha-Naphthylamine
alpha-Picoline \ 2-Hethylpyridine
n-Propylamine
p-Benzoquinone
p-Chloro-ra-cresol \ Phenol, 4-chloro-3-methyl-
p-Chloroaniline
p-D i met hyIam i noa zobenzene
p-Dioxane \ 1,4-Diethyleneoxide
p-Nitrophenol \ Phenol, 4-nitro-
p-Toluidine
q-Toluidine hydrochloride
sym-Trinitrobenzene
62555
959988
33213659
39196184
108985
108985
79196
62566
137268
74931
584849
25376458
75707
52244
126727
72571
2056259
66751
1314621
75014
81812
557211
1314847
297972
122098
134327
109068
107108
106514
59507
106478
60117
123911
100027
106490
636215
99354
9-43
-------
Page Ho.
05/18/90
COMPOUND
TABLE 9-8
SARA LISTED COMPOUNDS
CAS NUMBER
COMPOUND
CAS NUMBER
** PRIORITY GROUP 1
BENZODICHLOROGENZIDINE 91941
BENZIDIHE 92875
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 107062
TOLUENE 108883
PHENOL 108952
BISC2-CHLOROETHYDETHER 111444
2,4-OIHITROTOLUENE 121142
BHC-ALPHA,GAMHA,BETA,DELTA 319846
BISCCHLOROHETHYDETHER 542881
N-HITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 621647
MERCURY 7439976
ZINC 7440666
SELENIUM 7782492
** PRIORITY GROUP 3
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROMETHANE
OXIRANE
BROMOFORM
1,1-DICHLOROTHANE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
NAPTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
CHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
CHLORODIBROHOMETHANE
1,2 TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
2,6 DINITROTOLUENE
TOTAL XYLENES
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE/ENDRIN
SILVER
COPPER
AMMONIA
TOXAPHENE
** PRIORITY GROUP 4
2,4-DINTROPHENOL
P-CHLORO-M-CRESOL
ANITINE
BENZOIC ACID
HEXACHLOROETHANE
BROMOMETHANE
CARBONDISULFIDE
FLUOROTRICHLOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
2-BUTANONE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
PHENANTHRENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
PHENOL,2-METHYL
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2-PENTANONE, 4-METHYL
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
1,4-DIOXANE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
FLUORANTHENE
4.6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
THALLIUM
71556
74873
75218
75252
75343
84742
88062
91203
98953
100414
107028
107131
108907
118741
122667
124481
156606
193395
606203
1330207
7221934
7440224
7440508
7664417
8001352
51285
59507
62533
65850
67721
74839
75150
75694
75718
78933
84662
85018
87683
95487
95501
105679
108101
120821
120832
123911
131113
206440
534521
541731
7440280
Q-ii
-------
SECTION 10
DESCRIPTION OF AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
9.89.107C
0013.0.0
-------
SECTION 10 - DESCRIPTION OF AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. Various studies have
documented the fate of contaminants in the most common conventional biological
treatment processes. Those processes include aerated lagoons, activated sludge,
trickling filters, rotating biological contactors (RBCs), and powdered activated
carbon treatment (PACT) facilities. Section 10 presents a description of each
of the above listed treatment processes.
891003B-mll
14.
-------
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
The fate of contaminants has been studied in the most common conventional
biological treatment processes, including aerated lagoons, activated sludge
trickling filters, rotating biological contactors (RBCs), and powdered activat-
ed carbon treatment (PACT) facilities. Each treatment process and its use and
performance characteristics is discussed in the following sections.
AERATED LAGOON
Aerated lagoons are completely mixed biological reactors without biomass
recycle. They can be large multicellular basins or individual basins that are
mixed and aerated using surface aerators (either fixed or floating). Good
removal of soluble organic matter can be achieved with the proper mix of
retention time and aeration. A biomass removal step must follow the aerated
lagoon process before discharge to the receiving water. This is often accom-
plished in a large quiescent pond or in a section of the aerated lagoon isolat-
ed by baffles or dikes. If the lagoon is used as a pretreatment device, the
biomass is carried with the liquid to. subsequent unit processes. The primary
purpose of the operation is to remove soluble organic matter by conversion to
biological mass. The main differences between it and the activated sludge
system is that the microorganisms in the lagoon are grown in the dispersed
state rather than as a flocculant mass, and biomass is not recycled from the
sedimentation step to the aeration step.
The performance of aerated lagoons in removing biodegradable organic compounds
depends on several parameters, including detention time, temperature, and the
nature of waste. Aerated lagoons generally provide a high degree of BOD
reduction. In general, problems with aerated lagoons are excessive algae
growth, offensive odors if sulfates are present and dissolved oxygen is de-
pressed, and seasonal variations in effluent quality. Aerated lagoons can
handle considerable variations in organic and hydraulic loading if sized
properly, and are less vulnerable to process upsets than most biological
wastewater treatment methods.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE . .
The activated sludge system is a biological treatment process including a mixed
suspension of aerobic and facultative microorganisms, a settling basin for
separation of the biomass, and a biomass recirculation system.
The microorganisms oxidize soluble organics and agglomerate colloidal and
particulate solids in the presence of dissolved molecular oxygen. The mixture
of microorganisms, agglomerated particles, and wastewater (referred to as mixed
liquor) is aerated in a basin. The aeration step is followed by sedimentation
to separate biological solids from the treated wastewater. A major portion of
these biological solids are removed .by sedimentation and recycled to the
aeration basins to be recombined with the incoming wastewater. The excess
biological solids (i.e., waste sludge) must be disposed of by thickening,
7.88.93
0262.0.0
10-1
-------
pretreatment, dewatering, or direct disposal (e.g., land-spreading, landfil-
ling, and incineration.)
Activated sludge is the most widely used biological wastewater treatment
process. The effectiveness of this process is dependent on several design and
operation variables such as organic loading, sludge retention time, mixed
liquor suspended solids concentration, hydraulic detention time, and oxygen
supply. In addition to the removal of dissolved organics by biosorption, the
biomass can also remove suspended and colloidal matter. The suspended matter
is removed by enmeshment in the biological floe, and the colloidal matter is
removed by physiochemical adsorption to the biological floe. VOCs may be
air-stripped to a certain extent during the aeration process, and metals are
partially removed and accumulate in the sludge.
TRICKLING FILTER
A trickling filter is a biological waste treatment process in which a microbial
population adheres to a fixed medium and is used to biodegrade the organic
components of a wastewater. The physical unit consists of a suitable structure
packed with an inert medium (e.g., rock, wood, or plastic) on which a biologi-
cal mass is grown. The wastewater is distributed over the upper surface of the
medium. As it flows through the medium, which is covered with biological
slime, both dissolved and suspended organic matter are removed by adsorption.
The adsorbed matter is oxidized by the organisms in'the slime during their
metabolic processes. Air flows through the filter by convection or through the
use of blowers, thereby providing the oxygen necessary to maintain aerobic
conditions. Recycling a. large portion of the flow is necessary to attain high
BOD removals. A wide range of effluent quality can be expected, depending on
the design and operating conditions. Many modifications of the traditional
trickling filter system are available, but all rely on a fixed media with an
attached biological growth to perform the treatment.
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR
RBCs provide a fixed-film biological treatment method for the removal of BOD
from wastewaters. The most common types consist of corrugated plastic discs
mounted on horizontal shafts to which a biological mass attaches. The medium
slowly rotates in the wastewater with 40 to 50 percent of its surface immersed.
During rotation, the medium picks up a thin layer of wastewater (when sub-
merged), which then absorbs oxygen when exposed to the atmosphere. The biolog-
ical mass growing on the medium surface adsorbs, coagulates, and biodegrades
the organic pollutants from the wastewater. The excess microorganisms continu-
ously slough from the disc because of the shearing forces created by the
rotation of the discs in the wastewater. This rotation also mixes the waste-
water, keeping the sloughed solids in suspension until they are removed in a
final clarifier.
7.88.93
0263.0.0
10-2
-------
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON TREATMENT
PACT is the addition of powdered activated carbon to a biological process
(usually activated sludge). The powdered activated carbon is added to the
aeration tank of the activated sludge system. Depending on waste characteris-
tics, mixed liquor carbon levels in the tank will range from approximately
1,000 mg/£ to as high as 10,000 mg/Jl. After aeration, the solids are separated
in the final clarifier and a portion of the solids are recycled to meet the
requirements of the activated sludge system (Meidl and Wilhelmi, 1986).
Performance of the PACT process generally depends on the amount of carbon
carried in the aeration tank and the solids retention time in the system. The
PACT process is able to effect greater removals of conventional and
nonconventional organics than the activated sludge process (Grieves, et al.,
1978; Hutton and Temple, 1979).
7.88.93
0264.0.0
10-3
-------
REFERENCES
Greives, L. et al. "Powdered Carbon Enhancement Versus Granular Carbon
Adsorption for Oil Refinery Wastewater Treatment"; 51st Annual Conference;
WPCF; Anaheim, California; October 1978.
Hutton, D. and S. Temple. "Priority Pollutant Removal: Comparison of DuPont
PACT Process and Activated Sludge"; 52nd Annual Conference, WPCF; Houston,
Texas; October 1979.
900409-mil
Page 3
10-4
-------
SECTION 11
INFORMATION FOR EVALUATING PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
9.89.107C
0014.0.0
-------
SECTION 11 - INFORMATION FOR EVALUATING PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES.
Prior to discharge of a CERCIA wastestream to a POTW, the stream may require
pretreatment. Pretreatment systems are commonly composed of a number of unit
operations, depending on the types of contaminants and concentrations in a
wastestream. Section 11 provides information on 12 separate unit operations
that may be used to construct a pretreatment system. A description of each unit
operation (how the process works, equipment types available, advantages and
limitations, design criteria, etc.) and a detailed evaluation of the process
(effectiveness, implementability, costs, etc.) are included. The section is
structured to contain information in the same format as a CERCLA Feasibility
Study.
The user of the technology manual may use Section 11 in two ways:
o To help make screening decisions while assembling the pretreatment
train.
o To provide information that can be used in detailed evaluation of the
"discharge to POTW" alternative.
891003B-mll
15.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title - Page No.
SECTION 11 INFORMATION FOR EVALUATING PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES . . 11-1
11-1 OIL AND GREASE SEPARATION 11-1
11-1.1 Description 11-2
11-1.2 Evaluation of Oil and Grease Separation . . . . . 11-6
11-2 OXIDATION 11-7
11-2.1 Description '. 11-7
11-2.2 Evaluation of Oxidation . 11-16
11-3 REDUCTION . 11-17
11-3.1 Description 11-17
11-3.2 Evaluation of Chemical Reduction 11-22
11-4 PRECIPITATION 11-23
11-4.1 Description 11-23
11-4.2 Evaluation of Precipitation 11-32
11-5 NEUTRALIZATION 11-36
11-5.1 Description 11-36
11-5.2 Evaluation of Neutralization 11-42
11-6 SEDIMENTATION 11-45
11-6.1 Description 11-45
11-6.2 Evaluation of Sedimentation 11-51
11-7 FILTRATION 11-52
11-7.1 Description 11-52
11-7.2 Evaluation of. Filtration 11-58
11-8 AIR- AND STEAM-STRIPPING 11-59
11-8.1 Description 11-59
11-8.2 Evaluation of Air- and Steam-stripping 11-67
11.89.45
0002.0.0
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section
Title
Page No,
11-9
11-10
11-11
11-12
ANAEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 11-69
11-9.1 Description 11-69
11-9.2 Evaluation of Anaerobic Biological
Treatment 11-78
AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 11-83
11-10.1 Description 11-83
11-10.2 Evaluation of Aerobic Biological
Treatment 11-87
CARBON ADSORPTION - - 11-92
11-11.1 Description 11-92
11-11.2 Evaluation of Carbon Adsorption 11-99
ION EXCHANGE 11-102
11-12.1 Description 11-102
11-12.2 Evaluation of Ion Exchange 11-108
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
REFERENCES
11.89.45
0003.0.0
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-5
11-6
11-7
11-8
11-9
11-10
11-11
11-12
11-13
11-14
11-15
11-16
11-17
11-18
11-19
11-20
11-21
11-22
11-23
11.89.45
0004.0.0
Title *
OIL/WATER SEPARATION
OIL AND GREASE SEPARATION - CAPITAL COSTS
OIL AND GREASE SEPARATION - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COSTS
CHEMICAL OXIDATION
ULTRAVIOLET/HYDROGEN PEROXIDE OXIDATION. v
OXIDATION - CAPITAL COSTS
OXIDATION - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
CHEMICAL REDUCTION
REDUCTION - CAPITAL COSTS
REDUCTION - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION - BATCH FLOW
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION - CONTINUOUS FLOW •
SOLUBILITY OF METAL HYDROXIDES AND SULFIDES
PRECIPITATION - CAPITAL COSTS
PRECIPITATION - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
NEUTRALIZATION
NEUTRALIZATION - CAPITAL COSTS
NEUTRALIZATION - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS . . .
SEDIMENTATION
REPRESENTATIVE TYPES OF SEDIMENTATION. . . ... - - • • •
SEDIMENTATION - CAPITAL COSTS . . .
SEDIMENTATION - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
GRANULAR MEDIA FILTRATION BED
rage a
-------
Figure
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
Title
Page No.
11-24 FILTRATION - CAPITAL COSTS 11-60
11-25 FILTRATION - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 11-61
11-26 AIR-STRIPPING 11-63
11-27 STEAM-STRIPPING 11-65
11-28 AIR-STRIPPING - CAPITAL COSTS 11-70
11-29 AIR-STRIPPING - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 11-71
11-30 ANAEROBIC TJPFLOW FILTER 11-73
11-31 AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT - ACTIVATED SLUDGE 11-84
11-32 AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT - CAPITAL COSTS 11-93
11-33 AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COSTS 11-94
11-34 CARBON ADSORPTION 11-97
11-35 CARBON ADSORPTION - CAPITAL COSTS 11-101
11-36 CARBON ADSORPTION - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS. . . . 11-103
11-37 ION EXCHANGE 11-106
11-38 ION EXCHANGE - CAPITAL COSTS 11-111
11-39 ION EXCHANGE - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 11-112
11.89.45
0005.0.0
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-5
1,1-6
11-7
1 1 _O
Title
EFFECTIVE TYPES OF PRECIPITATION FOR SELECTED METAL IONS .
VARIOUS CHEMICAL/LOADING- SPECIFIC TOXICITY OR INHIBITION
PARTIAL LISTING OF DESIGN CRITERIA: ACTIVATED SLUDGE,
PRIORITY POLLUTANT COMPOUND CLASS RESPONSES TO
Trvu TTYrHATJfiK APPT.TP ATTfyW SUMMARY
Page NO.
11-11
11-33
11-76
11-79
11-88
11-89
11-90
11-109
11.89.45
0006.0.0
-------
-------
SECTION 11
INFORMATION FOR EVALUATING PRETKEATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
This section provides information for evaluating pretreatment technologies.
It should be used to construct and evaluate a pretreatment train as a part of
the overall POTW discharge alternative. The FS writer may use this section in
two ways.
f
o This section may be used to help make screening decisions while
assembling the pretreatment train. This section contains detailed
information and references that discuss applicability, performance,
and feasibility of technologies for specific contaminants and
wastestreams.
o Once the pretreatment train is assembled, this section provides
information that can be used in the detailed evaluation of the
"discharge to POTW" alternative.
Section 11 is organized into 12 subsections, each discussing a separate unit
operation. These unit operations are not intended to be used individually, but
should be combined into an appropriate pretreatment train. The information on
each technology has been tailored to address the "discharge to POTW" alterna-
tive .
Each subsection is organized into two major parts:
Description. The description contains information on how the process
works, major types of equipment available, advantages and limitations of
the technology, chemicals required to implement the process, residuals
generated or released, design criteria, and a discussion of expected
performance. The description also contains the technical data and refer-
ences necessary to select and size an appropriate unit operation.
Evaluation. The evaluation is designed specifically for use by the FS
writer. Once the process has been selected; the evaluation provides the
information necessary to perform a detailed evaluation of the process.
Included are discussions of effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
Costs are presented only to provide a general sense of relative costs of
different technologies. The costing figures included in this section
were generated from information gathered from several sources. The
references listed at the end of this section provide an initial source
for costing information. However, any FS should rely on site-specific
estimates, derived from discussions with process vendors and other
sources.
11-1 OIL AND GREASE SEPARATION
This subsection discusses the use of oil/water separators to remove free oils
and greases from wastestreams prior to discharge to the POTW; Information is
11-1
11.89.45
0007.0.0
-------
provided to aid in the evaluation of this technology as a part of a total waste
treatment alternative.
11-1.1 Description
Oil/water separators are used to separate nonaqueous phase organic liquids
(oils and grease) from a CERCLA waste discharge. Separators find use in
removing oil and grease from leachate streams and in separating the organic
phase from joint groundwater/floating product extraction systems.
The oil in these streams can exist as either free or emulsified oil, depending
on the wastestream characteristics and the recovery technique.. Free oils can
be separated by gravity separators, which operate on the principal that under
quiescent conditions, the lighter phase will rise to the surface and may be
collected. Emulsified oils exist as small droplets of oil interspersed
throughout the aqueous stream. These emulsions are treated to cause the small
droplets to combine and separate by gravity similar to free oils. The emulsion
breaking step can be achieved using thermal treatment, chemical additives, or
coalescing devices.
Oil/water separation is typically one of the first unit processes in a treat-
ment train. The separators are usually large tanks that provide several
minutes (i.e., 10 to 30) of holding time for the wastewater stream.
The oil/water separator generates three effluent streams: the treated waste-
water, the nonaqueous phase organic layer, and any sludge resulting from the
settling of solids. The treated wastewater may be suitable for discharge to a
POTW or further pretreatment. If the oil phase is hazardous, it should be
disposed of as a RCRA waste or reclaimed. Likewise, if the sludge is
hazardous, it can be dewatered and disposed of as a RCRA waste.
11-1.1.1 Equipment Types Available. Most oil/water separators are based on
the design developed by the American Petroleum Institute (API) for treatment of
wastewater containing oil. This basic design has been modified by numerous
vendors to optimize flow patterns and oil collection efficiency. These units
are available as self-contained package units, or can be designed and installed
with relative ease.
The two major types of treatment units are presented in Figure 11-1. The raw
discharge enters the treatment unit into an equalization basin area. Treatment
chemicals may be added here, if necessary. Heavy solids settle to the bottom
of the equalization basin. The flow then proceeds through a series of baffles
designed to produce laminar flow conditions, which promote,separation of oil
and the remaining solids. Flow through the central part of the separator is
characterized by the settling of solid particles to the bottom of the chamber
and rising of oil particles to the surface of the water.
Sludge collecting on the bottom is trapped by a sludge baffle and drawn off
periodically. Any nonaqueous phase organics that are heavier than water would
also be removed at this point. Lighter oils are trapped by an upper baffle and
diverted into an oil collection reservoir. Alternate methods for removing the
light oils include rope skimmers or rotating drums. These skimmer systems pass
11-2
11.89.45
0008.0.0
-------
ACCESS PORTS
OILY WATER .
INLET
I
BAFFLES TO INDUCE
LAMINAR FLOW
-OIL BAFFLE
r
VENT
SLUDGE REMOVAL PORT
ON. COLLECTION RESERVOIR
•(PUMPOUT TO OIL HOLDING TANK)
OR. COLLECTION TROUGH
.TREATED WATER
OUTLET
SLUDGE BAFFLE
I
U)
GRAVITY OIL/WATER SEPARATOR
OILY WATER
INLET
COALESCING MEDIA
OIL COLLECTION TROUGH
Ol
TREATED WATER
OUTLET
COALESCING OIL/WATER SEPARATOR
5307-83
FIGURE 19-1
OIL/WATER SEPARATION
-------
through the oil phase collecting oil on. the surface of the rope or drum. The
oil is then scraped into a collection reservoir. Oils are periodically pumped
out of the collection reservoir. Wastewater passing through the baffles exits
the oil/water separator ready for further pretreatment or discharge.
Coalescing separators are similar to gravity-
portion of the separator, a series of baffles
to act as a coalescing medium (see Figure 11-
oleophilic (i.e., oil-loving) materials that
droplets collect on the surface of the media
detach and float to the surface. Oil removal
similarly to gravity separators. Alternative
vendors for specialized applications.
type separators. In the center
, tubes, or plates are installed
1). These plates are composed of
attract small oil droplets. These
and form larger globules that
and sludge removal are conducted
arrangements are available from
11-1.1.2 Advantages and Limitations. Gravity oil/water separators are simple
processes that are easy to design and construct. The units are extremely
reliable within design operating ranges and require little maintenance.
Dispersed or emulsified oils require the use of chemical additives or
coalescing-type separators. High removal efficiencies can be achieved through
the use of emulsion-breaking chemicals; however, these chemicals may increase
the volume of sludge, making treatment of the sludge more difficult. Limita-
tions of chemical treatment include increased cost and the need for skilled
operators.
11-1.1.3 Chemicals Required. Chemicals are only required if it is necessary
to break chemically stable emulsions to separate oils. Chemicals used include
polymers, ferric chloride (FeC£3), alum, and sulfuric acid.
11-1.1.4 Residuals Generated. Oil skimmings are generally disposed of by
recycling, incineration, or other commercial disposal. Sludges may be disposed
by dewatering and landfilling or incinerating. Chemicals used, to break emul-
sions may increase the metals content of the sludges, but these metals are of
low toxicity (Fe, Al).
11-1.1.5 Design Criteria. Effective oil removal requires careful considera-
tion of the physical properties and mechanical relationships of oil and waste-
water. Properties such as types of oily wastes, specific gravity, and vis-
cosity, plus mechanical relationships such as rate of rise, short-circuiting
factor, turbulence factor, horizontal velocity, and overflow rate, are impor-
tant in sizing oil separation units. Treatment of emulsified oils requires
consideration of chemical type, dosage and sequence of addition, pH, mechanical
shear and agitation, heat, and retention time.
Design of the API separator is based on the following three basic design
relationships:
1. Minimum Total Horizontal Area
= F
m
11-4
11.89.45
0010.0.0
-------
where:
= minimum total horizontal area (ft2)
F = design factor
Q = flow rate of wastewater (ft3/min)
m
V = rate of rise of the minimum-size oil droplet to be removed;
typically 150 microns (ft/min)
The design factor F is the product of a short-circuiting factor recom-
mended as 1.2 and a turbulence factor (varying from 1.07 to 1.45 for
V /V ratios from 3 to 20; where V = mean horizontal velocity of waste
through separator and V = rate of rise of the minimum-size oil droplet to
be removed).
The velocity of the rising droplet, V , is found using a modified version
of Stokes Law.
V '= 0.0241
S - S
w o
where: S = specific gravity of wastestream
S = specific gravity of oil
jj° = absolute viscosity of wastestream (poises)
All values are based on design temperature.
2. Minimum Vertical Cross-sectional Area
A =
c
where:
V.
H
A = vertical cross-sectional area (ft2)
c
Q = flow rate of wastewater (ft3/min)
m
V = horizontal flow velocity (ft/min)
H
The value of V should not exceed 15 times the value of V and should not
exceed 3 feet/minute.
3. Minimum Ratio of Depth to Width of 0.3
These specifications are designed for a stream containing oil droplets of
150-micron diameter or larger. For smaller droplets, a coalescing-type
separator is recommended. In practice, most package units are designed to
11-5
11.89.45
0011.0.0
-------
meet these specifications. For large flow systems, units may be operated
in series or parallel to optimize oil removal and operating efficiencies.
11-1.1.6 Performance. The removal efficiency of oil by gravity separation is
partly a. function of the retention time of the water in the tank and the waste
stream composition. The performance level of emulsion-breaking is dependent
primarily on the raw waste characteristics and proper maintenance and function-
ing of the system components. The systems discussed in the previous sections
are designed to remove free oil and grease to below 15 mg/liter (ppm). Gravity
separators will achieve this level of performance for droplets larger than 150
microns. Coalescing separators will achieve this level of performance for
emulsions containing droplets as small as 20 microns.
11-1.2 Evaluation of Oil and Grease Separation
This section provides information for evaluation of oil/water separators as a
part of an alternative in the FS. The information is organized under three
general headings: effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
11-1.2.1 Effectiveness. Oil/water separators provide a highly reliable method
for removing free organic phase oils from a wastestream. Typical effluent
concentrations of 15 mg/£ total oil and grease can be achieved. The technology
provides a significant reduction of free oils in the wastestream. The oils may
be disposed of using permanent disposal technologies, such as incineration.
Oil/water separation is one of the first steps in an overall treatment train.
Separators available as package units are typically constructed as enclosed
containers, reducing the possibility for VOC emissions. In combination with
other pretreatment technologies and/or discharge to a POTW, oil/water separa-
tors will successfully achieve and maintain a high level of protection of
public health and the environment.
11-1.2.2 Implementability. Oil/water separators are well-proven technologies
that are available in a variety of packaged units for specific applications.
The technology has been well-demonstrated for removal of free oils and grease
from aqueous streams. With relatively few moving parts and low maintenance
requirements, separators achieve a high level of reliability.
Separators generally are placed at the beginning of a treatment train and may
also act as flow equalization tanks and sedimentation basins for large solids.
Trash should be removed from a stream prior to the oil/water separator. Post-
treatment may include treatment for additional removal of organics or inor-
ganics, depending on the specific discharge requirements.
Prepackaged oil/water separators can be installed with relatively little site
work. OSM requirements are minimal. The separator must be emptied of sludge
and oil on a regular schedule. Appropriate disposal options must be identified
for these materials.
11-1.2.3 Cost. Cost information was compiled for flow rates ranging from 30
to 1,000 gpm. These costs are based on the following assumptions.
11-6
11.89.45
0012.0.0
-------
Capital Costs
o Oil/water separator of API gravity separator design with and without
coalescing media.
o Separator with coalescing media designed to remove droplets as small
as 20 microns with an effluent quality of less than 15 mg/£ total oil
and grease.
o Separator without coalescing media designed to remove droplets down
to 150 microns with an effluent quality of less than 15 mg/£ total
oil and grease.
o Oil pumped from separator to storage tank capable of holding 2
percent of daily volumetric flow.
o Pumps and piping designed with 100-percent backup capability.
o Oil/water separator installed on concrete pad.
O&M Costs
o Electricity to operate pumps is included.
o Labor required to operate and maintain system is 8 hours/week for
system flows less than 100 gpm, and 16 hours/week for system flows
greater than 100 gpm.
o No disposal costs for residual streams are included.
o No chemical costs are included.
Cost information is presented in Figures 11-2 and 1-1-3. Cost curves were
prepared for two cases: Case I, a standard API gravity separator for use with
nonemulsified oils; and Case II, a coalescing separator for use with emulsified
oils.
11-2 OXIDATION
11-2.1 Description
Oxidation is a chemical reaction in which one or more electrons are transferred
from the chemical being oxidized to an oxidizing agent. The process can be
controlled to oxidize undesirable compounds through control of pH and choice of
oxidizing agent. Metals and inorganic compounds can be oxidized to less toxic
forms. Organics can either be completely oxidized to carbon dioxide and water,
or partially oxidized to a form more desirable for subsequent treatment.
e
Industrial wastewater treatment applications of chemical oxidation include
destruction of cyanide, transformation of selected organics to_biodegradable
11-7
11.89.45
0013.0.0
-------
00
V)
WO
KC
-------
OIL & GREASE SEPARATION
i
vD
CO
-------
forms, or detoxification of organics and inorganics. Frequently, oxidation is
used as a preliminary step to precipitation of metals.
11~2.1.1 Equipment Types Available. A variety of oxidizing agents are avail-
able for use. The contaminant requiring oxidation controls the choice of
oxidizing agent; therefore, it also determines the equipment that will be
required. Table 11-1 lists some commonly used oxidizing agents and their
corresponding applications.
All oxidizing agents in Table 11-1 can be applied as batch or continuous
processes. Generally, smaller quantities' of wastewater are treated more
economically in batch, while larger quantities are treated continuously.
Reaction times for oxidation are typically less than one hour. Therefore,
batch operations may require a significant amount of operator attention. The
choice between batch and continuous oxidation is generally reduced to a compar-
ison of the tank sizes and operational requirements.
Two process flow diagrams are shown in Figures 11-4 and 11-5. The first
represents a general diagram for continuous oxidation using chemical additions
such as ozone, chlorine, permanganate, or hydrogen peroxide. The second
represents continuous oxidation using ultraviolet (UV) photolysis in combina-
tion with a hydrogen peroxide. UV photolysis is also applied in combination
with ozonation.
Both flow diagrams contain conventional process equipment: influent feed
pumps, reaction tanks, chemical addition metering pumps, mixers, oxidation
reduction potential (ORP) meters (with controls), and pH monitors (with con-
trols). The differences are the types of reactors or contact tanks. The
reaction tanks and chemical feed points should be designed to allow complete
mixing and reaction of waste and chemicals.
The UV photolysis contact tank, shown in Figure 11-5, is baffled to ensure the
TJV radiation sufficiently contacts the wastewater. UV light is easily absorbed
by suspended solids and by the water itself. If the wastestream is inconsis-
tent in flow or concentration, a flow equalization chamber may be required at
the beginning of the treatment tra'i'n. Depending on the oxidizing agent em-
ployed, various wastewater characteristics may affect the equipment require-
ments. Parameters affecting the process configurations are included in the
discussion of required chemicals (see Section 11-2.1.3).
11-2.1.2 Advantages and Limitations. Advantages of using oxidation as a
metals treatment include its reliability and proven effectiveness on industrial
wastewaters. Oxidation can destroy cyanide and oxidize selected metals to a
more precipitable form. If reduction must also be applied to the wastestream
(i.e., chromium reduction), the oxidized contaminant must be removed from
solution prior to reduction, and vice versa. The equipment and chemicals
required to oxidize most wastestreams are readily available.
Oxidation of organics is a growing application. However, the primary disadvan-
tage of the technology is its inability to selectively oxidize an individual
contaminant in a wastestream. Excessive doses of oxidizing agent may be
required to oxidize the target pollutant. For instance, if a wastestream
11-10
11.89.45
0016.0.0
-------
TABLE 11-1
APPLICATIONS OF COMMONLY USED OXIDIZING AGENTS
OXIDIZING AGENT
TARGET COMPOUND
REFERENCE
Ozone
Manganese, Cyanide, Phenol
Organics (general)
Iron
Patterson, 1985
Kawamura, 1987
Clifford et al., 1986
Chlorine or
Chlorine Dioxide
Cyanide
Iron, Manganese
Cyanide, Selenium, Phenol
Weber, 1972
Clifford et al., 1986
Patterson, 1985
Potassium
Permanganate
Iron
Manganese, Selenium, Phenol
Clifford et al., 1986
Patterson, 1985
Hydrogen Peroxide
Phenol, Selenium
Patterson, 1985
Ultraviolet/Ozone
or Hydrogen Peroxide
Methylene Chloride, Pentachloro- Fletcher,, 1987
phenol
Phenols
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Organics (general)
McShea et al., 1986
Fletcher, 1987
Arisman et al.,
1980
Fletcher, 1987
Hager, 1988
Bourbigot et al.,
1985
Fletcher, 1987
11.89.45T
0001.0.0
11-11
-------
CAUSTIC OR
ACID STORAGE
-CHEMICAL
METERING
PUMPS
t
,
OXIDIZING
AGENT
STORAGE
CONTROLLER
CONTROLLER
o o
o o
1
H»-OXIDIZING AGENT
-*- pH ADJUSTMENT
INFLUENT
_J
ORP PROBE
ph PROBE
EFFLUENT
1
TO PRECIPITATION CHAMBER
(OPTIONAL DEPENDENT ON
INFLUENT CONTAINMENT)
FIGURE 11-4
CHEMICAL OXIDATION
5307-87
11-12
-------
STORAGE
METERING PUMP
INFLUENT
ER
T ULTRAVIOLET 1
| LIGHT CONTROL
I PANEL I
L_ _J
'I'
V
ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT BULBS
EFFLUENT
^ HAGER 1988
FIGURE II-5
ULTRAVIOLET/HYDROGEN PEROXIDE OXIDATION
5307-87
11-13
-------
contains high concentrations of iron, and the pollutant requiring oxidation is
phenol, most of the iron will be oxidized before the oxidizing agent reacts
With the phenol. A similar disadvantage occurs when the wastewater contains
various contaminants. Chemical interactions may take place and interfere with
oxidation of the target pollutant, thus requiring high oxidant dosing.
The individual oxidizing agents have specific advantages and limitations.
These advantages and limitations are discussed with the description of the
oxidizing agents in the following subsection.
11-2.1.3—Chemicals Required. In addition to the oxidizing agent, oxidation
usually requires pH adjustment. Ozone is the only oxidant in Table 11-1 that
±s not pH-sensitive. The remainder of the oxidizing agents listed require PH
adjustment or buffering agents to provide the hydroxide or hydrogen ions
required of the reaction. Weber (1972) and Snoeyink and Jenkins (1980) provide
complete discussions on the calculation of buffer requirements and appropriate
buffering agents. The following paragraphs discuss individual oxidizing
agents.
Ozone' Ozone is a highly reactive and unstable form of oxygen and it must be
generated on-site. Ozone is generated by passing air or oxygen through an
electronic arc. Because ozone is used as a gas, high organic materials concen-
trations can create frothing in the reaction tank, requiring skimmers and
ultimate disposal of the froth. Air quality standards will require additional
equipment to recycle or treat ozone escaping from the reaction tank. Most
reaction tanks are covered to minimize off-gas losses. A catalytic destruction
system is often employed to convert ozone back to oxygen. The additional
equipment requirements associated with the use of ozone make it much more
expensive than other chemical oxidants; however, it is the most powerful
oxidant. The oxidizing potential of ozone is only slightly sensitive to pH;
however, ozone is more stable in acidic solutions. Manufacturers offer
complete ozone generation and monitoring equipment.
Chlorine/Chlorine Dioxide. Chlorine (C12) has been used as a disinfectant and
oxidant in wastewater treatment for over a century. The oxidation potential of
chlorine generally increases with increasing pH. Chlorine is a gas at atmos-
pheric pressure; therefore, it requires special handling considerations.
Sodium hydroxide can be used as a method for increasing the pH during chlori-
nation. Chlorine is used extensively in the destruction of cyanide.
Chlorine oxidation of wastewaters with high organic content can produce chloro-
phenols or trihalomethanes (THMs) as by-products; however, oxidation with
chlorine dioxide reduces the production of toxic chlorophenols and THMs.
Chlorine dioxide is similar to ozone in that they both require on-site genera-
tion (due to chemical instability), making chlorine dioxide more expensive than
chlorine. Chlorine dioxide is produced from sodium chlorite (NaCIO ) and
chlorine gas (C12).
Permanganate. Permanganate oxidation potential increases with increasing pH.
Most organics will not completely oxidize even under severe alkaline condi-
tions. Rates of oxidation of metals and inorga'nics can be increased through
the use of catalysts and pH adjustments. Potassium permanganate (KMn04) is the
11-14
11.89.45
0020.0.0
-------
most easily manageable form for oxidation purposes, as it will keep indefinite-
ly as a solid when stored in a cool dry place. Potassium permanganate is
generally added to the process stream as a liquid of known concentration.
Hydrogen Peroxide. Use of hydrogen peroxide for organics decomposition is
growing; however, at present it does not provide economic oxidation of inor-
ganics. At increased pH, hydrogen peroxide provides more oxidizing power than
ozone for organics. The oxidation potential can be further increased when it
is used in conjunction with UV radiation. Hydrogen peroxide may cause foaming
similar to ozone, resulting in floe flotation problems during precipitation.
UV/Ozone or UV/Hydrogen Peroxide. Use of UV radiation with hydrogen peroxide
or ozone is recognized as economical and efficient for the destruction of toxic
organics. UV photolysis treatment processes require specially designed reac-
tion tanks to ensure adequate UV-wastewater contact. Suspended solids may
interfere with UV contact by absorbing UV radiation.
11-2.1.4 Residuals Generated. Whether a residual is generated depends on the
oxidation process employed. For example, oxidation of organics using ozone
creates a froth, which ultimately must be landfilled or incinerated. In
addition, oxidation with ozone will require either recycling or treatment of
gases escaping from the reaction tank. For iron and manganese, oxidation is a
preparatory step for precipitation. Oxidation of iron or manganese will
produce sludges using any oxidant. The sludge generated during the precipita-
tion process will require disposal or incineration. The documents referenced
in the performance section indicate whether residuals are generated during
individual applications.
11-2.1.5 Design Criteria. Design of an oxidation process for a wastestream is
straightforward. Weber (1972) and Snoeyink and Jenkins (1980) provide infor-
mation on appropriate oxidizing agents and pH for given undesirable contami-
nants. Several oxidizing agents may be appropriate for the wastewater.
Determination of the most effective reagent, where several may be appropriate,
is a function of the following:
o reagent consumption (grams of oxidizing agent/gallon of wastewater)
o required reaction or contact time
These factors vary with the composition and concentration of the wastewater
requiring treatment. Estimates of reagent consumption and the required reac-
tion times are possible through literature comparisons with similar appli-
cations. Table 11-1 lists references for information on full-scale and
pilot-scale applications of a variety of oxidants and contaminants.
Although oxidation has been widely used as a treatment method for industrial
wastestreams, bench-testing is almost always required to determine the neces-
sary reaction times and oxidant concentration requirements. To determine the
reagent consumption and reaction time in a bench test, batch reactors are
generally used. By performing a series of batch tests at different oxidant
concentrations, the optimum dosage requirement can be determined. Sampling of
the supernatant at various times throughout the reaction will reveal the
optimum reaction time.
11-15
11.89.45
0021.0.0
-------
Bench-testing establishes the relationship between the ORP of the wastewater
and completeness of the reaction. The relationship between ORP and concentra-
tion of an unoxidized contaminant is important because in full-scale designs,
ORP electrodes can provide continuous adjustment of chemical addition to meet
the demand of the wastewater, resulting in a consistent effluent quality.
While analytical data on concentrations can take months to acquire, ORP,elec-
trodes are attached to instrumentation that can immediately adjust feed rate of
oxidizing agents. Knowing the relationship between the ORP of the reaction and
a specific contaminant concentration can ensure that the process will effec-
tively meet discharge limits.
The optimum doses and reaction times, with the flow rates and flow fluctua-
tions, provide sufficient information to determine type and size of the neces-
sary equipment.
11-2.1.6 Performance. As discussed in previous sections, oxidation is not
selective, and the order in which an oxidizing agent reacts with the compounds
in the wastestream is dependent on the wastewater characteristics. Most metals
can be oxidized and subsequently precipitated. The potential for oxidation of
VOCs and SVOCs varies within the compound class. Table 11-1 provides referenc-
es for the treatability of several commonly oxidized compounds.
11-2.2 Evaluation of Oxidation
11-2.2.1 Effectiveness. The oxidation process can transform a variety of
compounds into more stable, less toxic forms. When used in conjunction with
precipitation, inorganics are transformed into more stable solid forms.
Although this significantly reduces the volume of the contaminant, the solids
settle to produce a sludge that must be disposed of. Oxidation alone (i.e.,
UV/hydrogen peroxide), or followed by biological degradation, can permanently
transform organics to less toxic forms. Because oxidation of metals generally
requires pH adjustment to conditions not normally encountered in nature, there
is little potential for the contaminants to revert to their more toxic forms.
Because of their strong oxidizing power, many of the common oxidants can be
toxic to microorganisms and therefore may require residuals monitoring prior to
discharge to a POTW. For example, chlorine is used as a disinfectant for
drinking water because of its known toxicity to many microorganisms. Residuals
should be carefully controlled to prevent substituting one undesirable pollu-
tant for another.
11-2.2.2 Implementability. Oxidation is well-demonstrated for concentrated
industrial wastestreams (see Section 11-2.1.6). Application at hazardous waste
sites is well-demonstrated in pilot- and full-scale. The equipment required
for this technology is conventional and readily available. The operational
requirements are minimal when metering pumps are used in conjunction with pH
and ORP monitoring devices and controls.
As discussed in Section 11-2.1.5, oxidation is not a selective process, and
bench-testing is normally required prior to design of a full-scale operation
system to identify optimum operating parameters.
11-16
11.89.45
0022.0.0
-------
Residuals created during oxidation may require equipment for monitoring,
removal, or treatment. One example is oxidation used prior to precipitation,
where sludge is generated. Another example is oxidation by ozonation, which
frequently requires recycling or treatment of the ozone off-gas and disposal of
froth.
11-2.2.3 Cost.
Capital cost estimates for treatment by oxidation are present-
ed in Figure 11-6. The figure shows two different chemical doses, representa-
tive of hydrogen peroxide treatment of phenol; The doses used in the cost
estimate represent those found in the literature (5 and 20 milligrams of
hydrogen peroxide per milligram of phenol in the influent, with influent
concentrations of phenol ranging from 5 to 500 ppm) (Patterson, 1985). Addi-
tional assumptions used to develop the capital cost estimates include the
following:
o all storage tanks for hydrogen peroxide are a maximum 3,000 gallons
and separated by concrete dikes for safety;
o pH is adjusted to 2 to 3 using sulfuric acid in quantities of approx-
imately half the oxidizing agent;
o all pumps are duplicated for easy repair and maintenance;
o all pumps and piping are directly attached to pH and ORP probes for
automatic addition adjustments;
o reaction times are assumed to be on the order of 5 minutes; and
o storage tanks provide at least one-month storage.
Operation and maintenance costs are presented in Figure 11-7. These costs
include chemical requirements, operator labor, and electricity. The costs for
the two different chemical usage rates bracket the range of O&M costs for
hydrogen peroxide oxidation of phenols. Because of its explosive nature,
hydrogen peroxide is one of the more expensive oxidants. Ozone is more ex-
pensive because it requires on-site generation and off-gas treatment.
Both capital and O&M costs are dependent on the contaminant type .and concen-
tration.
11-3 REDUCTION
11-3.1 Description
— *— i
Chemical reduction and oxidation occur simultaneously when electrons are
transferred during a chemical reaction from one chemical (the reducing agent)
to another. Reduction is defined as the gain of electrons; oxidation as the
loss of electrons. Chemical reduction is commonly used to detoxify chromium in
metal-plating wastewaters. Other applications not practiced as widely are
mercury and lead reduction. Generally, chemical reduction must be accompanied
by precipitation, ion exchange, or some other form of pretreatment for adequate
wastewater treatment. There are currently no common applications involving
11-17
11.89.45
0023.0.0
-------
oo
a: c
280
40
OXIDATION
CAPITAL COST
0.2
0.4 0.6
(Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
a LOW CHEM USE + HIGH CHEM USE
0.8
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.
FIGURE 11-6
OXIDATION - CAPITAL COSTS
-------
6T-TT
11
wro
DOLLARS
(Millions)
maj
mm
53!
CO
§
5
§
g
m
DO
a
>
z
m
m O
I!
n
-------
reduction of organic compounds. The process of reducing chemicals in a waste-
water normally consists of an initial pH adjustment followed by addition of the
reducing agent. Although the pH adjustment can direct the reduction process to
be more reactive with certain metals to a limited extent, reduction is general-
ly not a selective process.
11~3.1.1 Equipment Types Available. Reduction process equipment is similar to
oxidation process equipment. Batch and continuous process configurations are
available for both technologies. Generally, batch processes are limited to low
flow rates, less than 10 gallons per minute (gpm). Reaction times for reduc-
tion processes are typically short; therefore, batch reactions may require more
operator time than continuous reactions.
«
A continuous flow diagram is shown in Figure 11-8, which represents the most
commonly used configuration. ORP and pH probes measure the effluent parameters
for process control. Chemicals are added near the influent to ensure adequate
mixing, and reaction time prior to pH and ORP measurement. The pH and ORP
probes are connected to control devices, which continuously feed the appropri-
ate amounts of reducing agent and caustic or acid to maintain the desired pH
and ORP. If the flow rate of the influent is highly variable, flow meters can
be used in conjunction with the pH and ORP probes to more accurately apply the
chemicals. Several different control schematics are available from manufac-
turers .
Although complete package systems are not available for the continuous flow
configuration, the individual pieces of equipment shown in the process flow
diagram are easily obtained from several manufacturers., -
11—3.1.2 Advantages and Limitations. Advantages of chemical reduction include
simple and readily available equipment. It is a well-studied and understood
reaction. The continuous process configuration is easily automated, reducing
operator requirements.
Disadvantages relate to its nonselective nature. The potential for reducing
nontarget compounds in a complex wastewater can create increased reducing agent
requirements. Also, because many reduced forms of organics and metals are more
toxic than the oxidized form, nonselective reduction may render a wastewater
more toxic than before the reduction. Chemical reduction appears to be limited
to a few selected metals as a water treatment method. Reduction has not been
demonstrated as a treatment method for organic compounds.
11-3.1.3 Chemicals Required. The major chemicals required during chemical
reduction are the caustic or -acid for pH adjustment and the reducing agent.
Full-scale industrial wastewater treatment operations show sulfur dioxide to be
the most commonly used reducing agent for chromium when waste sulfur dioxide is
available (Patterson, 1985). When sulfur dioxide is not available, chemical
reducing agents such as sodium bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite, or ferrous
sulfate can be used. Commonly used reducing agents for mercury include alumi-
num, zinc, hydrazine, stannous chloride, or sodium, borohydride.
11-20
11.89.45
0026.0.0
-------
CAUSTIC OR
ACID STORAGE
CONTROLLER
CHEMICAL
METERING
PUMP
CHEMICAL
METERING
PUMP
O
REDUCING AGENT
pH ADJUSTMENT
*- INFLUENT
REDUCING
AGENT
STORAGE
FIGURE 11-8
CHEMICAL REDUCTION
5307-87
11-21
-------
Typically, the pH for chromium reduction is adjusted with the addition of
hydrochloric or sulfuric acid. Mercury reduction occurs at varying pH for
different reducing agents. These reagents are readily available.
11-3.1.4 Residuals Generated. As with any chemical reaction, potential exists
for the residual reducing agent to exit the reaction chamber in the effluent
stream. Proper control systems regulating the reducing agent feed pump reduce
the chance for this to occur. Also, if reduction is followed by precipitation
(as in the case of chromium), sludge that requires disposal is produced.
11-3.1.5 Design Criteria. Information necessary to design a system capable of
reducing one or several metals should be acquired through bench-testing prior
to the design. The design information consists of the following:
o reducing agent type and dosage
o reaction time
o optimal pH
o ORP-contaminant concentration ratio
These criteria vary with the characteristics of the wastewater due to the
nonselective nature of the process. A variety of compounds may compete for the
reducing agent, 'which can increase the reducing agent dosage and potentially
the reaction time required. The pH is affected by the concentration of the
reducing agent applied. Knowing the relationship between the target contami-
nant concentration and the ORP of the wastewater will reduce the possibility of
either discharging an excess of the reducing agent or allowing excessive pass-
through of the nonreduced contaminant.
The size of the reaction chamber can'be determined from the known flow rate and
the required reaction time (determined during bench-testing). Weber (1972)
discusses in detail the process of calculating tank sizes.
11-3.1.6 Performance. Chemical reduction of chromium (Cr) and mercury (Hg)
has-been widely practiced in full-scale operations. The reduction of Cr to
Cr decreases the metal's toxicity to organisms and allows subsequent removal
by precipitation. Reduction of ionic mercury allows recovery in the metal
form. Treatability information on the reduction of mercury and chromium is
presented in the literature. Applications of reduction to organics do not
appear to be practical.
11-3.2 Evaluation of Chemical Reduction
The following sections evaluate some of the characteristics of chemical re-
duction as they might be discussed in an FS. The evaluation focuses mainly on
reduction of chromium and mercury because these are the two compounds that have
been chemically reduced in full-scale operations successfully.
+6
+3
11-3.2.1 Effectiveness. Reduction of chromium from Cr'~ to Cr " results in a
decrease in the toxicity of the chemical form. Chromium can be permanently
removed from the wastewater through reduction and precipitation processes.
When ionic mercury is reduced to its metallic form, it can be permanently
removed from the wastewater by subsequent precipitation. In summary, reduction
11-22
11.89.45
0028.0.0
-------
of chromium or mercury followed by precipitation decreases the toxicity of the
wastewater.
11-3.2.2 Implementability. A complex wastewater may contain chemicals in
their oxidized form, exerting a demand on the reducing agent. Increased demand
on the reducing agent may decrease the overall efficiency of the reaction.
Another potential problem associated with reducing a complex wastewater is that
oxidized chemicals may be reduced to more toxic forms. These potentially
adverse effects can be investigated through bench-testing.
In general, the process of chemical reduction of a wastewater can be quickly
and easily implemented. The equipment is readily available and many manufac-
turers offer controls for automation.
11-3.2.3 Cost. Cost estimates for the capital requirements of reduction of a
chromium- waste using sodium metabisulfite are presented in Figures 11-9 and
11-10. The two curves are representative of low and high published chemical
doses (Patterson, 1985). Sodium metabisulfite, the most commonly used reducing
agent for industries, is a medium-priced reducing agent. The capital costs are
based on the following:
o a reaction time of 20 minutes
o premixing the dry reducing agent for influent flow rates less than
300 gpm
o dry feed addition of the reducing agent for influent flow rates above
300 gpm
o chemical storage, for a minimum of one month
o all reaction tanks are surrounded by dikes for leak protection
o all pumps and piping are in parallel to facilitate maintenance
Because sodium metabisulfite is readily soluble in water, its premix require-
ments may be. less than those of other reducing agents (e.g., sulfur dioxide).
O&M cost estimates, presented in Figure 11-10, include operator's labor, low
and high published chemical doses, and electricity. O&M costs are primarily
affected by the labor requirements involved in the chemical addition. Reducing
agents that are difficult to handle, or that may produce undesirable off-gases
or sludges, will increase the O&M costs.
11-4 PRECIPITATION
11-4.1 Description
Precipitation is a chemical unit process in which soluble metallic ions are
removed from solution by conversion to an insoluble form. It is a commonly
used treatment technique for removal of heavy metals, phosphorus, and hardness.
11-23
11.89.45
0029.0.0
-------
NJ
-F-
REDUCTION
CAPITAL COSTS
0.2
b LOW CHEMICAL USAGE
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.
1 ' T
0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
+ HIGH CHEMICAL USAGE
FIGURE 11-9
REDUCTION - CAPITAL COSTS
-------
5l
o
a
REDUCTION
ANNUAL COSTS
0.2
D LOW CHEMICAL USAGE
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.
I I I
0.4 0.6 0.8
(Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
+ HIGH CHEMICAL USAGE
FIGURE 11-10
REDUCTION - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
-------
Chemical precipitation is always followed by a solids-separation operation,
which may include clarification/sedimentation or filtration to remove the
precipitates (see Sections 11-6 and 11-7, respectively). The process can be
preceded by chemical oxidation or reduction to change the valence of certain
metal ions to a form that can be precipitated (see Sections 11-2 and 11-3).
The most common precipitation treatment processes use either hydroxide, carbon-
ate, or sulfide compounds to produce insoluble metal salts. Each process is
pH-dependent and governed by the optimal pH for removal of the metals desired.
A brief description of each process follows.
Hydroxide Precipitation. Hydroxide precipitation, the most common technique,
uses alkaline agents as a source of hydroxide to raise the pH of the wastewater
to the optimum pH for precipitation. The metal ions subsequently precipitate
as insoluble metal hydroxides. A general form of the hydroxide precipitation
reaction may be written as:
M
,+X
X (OH )
M (OH)
X
metal ion + hydroxide compound = insoluble metal hydroxide
where X equals the metal cation charge
Principal sources of hydroxide are lime (CaO), hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2), and
caustic soda (NaOH). Lime hydrolizes in water to form the hydroxide ion.
Carbonate Precipitation. Carbonate precipitation may be used to remove metals
either by direct precipitation or by converting hydroxides into carbonates
using carbon dioxide. A general form of the direct carbonate precipitation
reaction may be written as:
or
M
2M
CO,
_2
MC
-------
Two processes used to precipitate metal sulfides are (1) insoluble sulfide
precipitation (ISP) (i.e., sulfide is added as a slightly soluble iron sulfide
[FeS].slurry); and (2) soluble sulfide precipitation (SSP) (i.e., sulfide is
added as sodium sulfide [Na2Sj or sodium hydrosulfide [NaHS]). With the SSP
process, overdosing of sulfide compounds can produce toxic hydrogen sulfide gas
(H2S); therefore, reaction tanks should be covered and vented. The advantages
and limitations of each process are discussed in Section 11-4.1.2.
11-4.1.1 Equipment Types Available. Chemical precipitation typically requires
using a reaction tank with a mixer, a pH monitoring system, and pumps for
influent flow and chemical addition. Chemicals utilized in precipitation are
discussed in Sections 11-4.1.2 and 11-4.1.3; this subsection addresses basic
process equipment types (Figures ll-ll and 11-12).
"
Chemical precipitation requires a tank in batch (see Figure 11-11) or con-
tinuous operation for reaction (see Figure 11-12). For small or intermittent
flow rates or where waste characteristics may vary substantially with time,
batch systems are more feasible. Continuous treatment is applicable to uniform
and high flow rate wastewater streams (Peters et al., 1985). A continuous
system may use an equalization tank in which retention times range from"several
hours to a few days, to even out fluctuations in contaminant levels and flows
before treatment begins (Clifford et al., 1986).
The batch treatment tanks serve the multiple functions of equalizing the flow,
acting as a reactor, a flocculation chamber, and a settler. In Figure 11-11, a
cone bottom tank is used to allow solids to be removed.
Pump selection will depend on characteristics of the wastestream. Corrosive
environments may necessitate special materials of construction. The metering '
pumps, ,for precipitant and pH adjustment chemicals, are sized after assessing
the concentration of metal ions to be removed and their associated chemical
demand. Chemical demand is determined through bench-scale testing.
Several vendors offer package precipitation treatment systems. Alternatively,
individual components are readily available to fit other designs.
11-4.1.2 Advantages and Limitations. The benefits of precipitation include
low treatment cost, and reliable and easily operated equipment. However,
precipitation is primarily a metal ion removal process, potentially interfered
with by other organic, chelating, or oil and grease contaminants (Federal
Register, 1987). The advantages and limitations of each hydroxide, carbonate,
and sulfide precipitation process are listed in the following paragraphs
(Peters et al., 1985).
Hydroxide Precipitation.
are as follows:
The advantages of the hydroxide precipitation process
o
o
o
Certain chemicals for precipitation are available at low cost.
Systems can be automated, minimizing operator time.
Heavy metal ion concentrations can be effectively reduced.
11-27
11.89.45
0033.0.0
-------
FLOCCULANTS
METERING
PUMP
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITANTS
INFLUENT
METERING
PUMP
CONTROL
METERING
PUMP
pH PROBE
MIXER
—txh-
-N-
SLUDGE TO
DEWATERING
ACID/BASE
pH ADJUSTERS
EFFLUENT
•5307-83
FIGURE 11-11
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION - BATCH FLOW
11-28
-------
CHEMICAL
PREOPITANTS
INFLUENT
CONTROL
r
I
METERING
PUMP
O
o1
FLOW
METER
METERING
PUMP
ACID/BASE
pH ADJUSTERS
a
pH PROBE
MIXER
EFFLUENT
530743
FIGURE 11-12
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION - CONTINUOUS FLOW
11-29
-------
The limitations of the hydroxide precipitation process are as follows:
o The pH must be strictly controlled near the optimal pH to ensure
effective removal.
o Systems must be designed to allow adequate reaction times.
o Certain metals (e.g., chromium, iron, and manganese) must be reduced
or oxidized prior to precipitation.
o If two or more metals are present, the optimal pH for removal may be
different for each, thus affecting removal efficiency.
o Precipitated metals can resolubilize if pH changes.
o Complexing agents (e.g., cyanide, ethylene-diamine-tetraacetic acid
[EDTA], and other chelating agents) may adversely affect removal if
the wastestream is not pretreated to overcome these effects.
o Sludges may require further treatment prior to dewatering.
Carbonate Precipitation. The advantages of the carbonate precipitation process
are as follows:
o Certain metals require lower pH values to initiate precipitation.
fM
o Certain metals can be removed more effectively than by hydroxide
precipitation.
o Generally, a denser sludge is produced that is easier to settle and
dewater.
Carbonate precipitation limitations are similar to hydroxide precipitation.
Metals can resolubilize, complexing agents can interfere with the chemical
reactions, and the sludge may require further treatment.
Sulfide Precipitation. The advantages of the sulfide precipitation process are
as follows:
o The process removes metal ions at pHs as low as 2 to 3.
o Sulfides reduce hexavalent chromium to trivalent state under the same
conditions as required for precipitation.
o Sulfides are highly reactive, thus requiring less detention time.
o Thicker sludges are easier to dewater and dispose.
11-30
11.89.45
0036.0.0
-------
The limitations of the sulfide precipitation process are as follows:
o The process is more expensive.
o Toxic hydrogen sulfide gas is generated in the SSP process if strict
control of chemical addition is not maintained.
o High sulfide concentrations in the effluent can inhibit POTW biologi-
cal treatment processes.
However, the hydrogen sulfide gas and sulfide can be reduced by,controlling the
sulfide reagent dose or aerating after reaction time. Housing and venting the
process equipment controls hydrogen sulfide fumes.
Coprecipitation. In coprecipitation, contaminants that cannot be removed
effectively by direct precipitation are removed by incorporating them into
particles of another precipitate. It is a phenomenon that can be induced by
adding calcium, iron, or other ions to the wastewater prior to precipitation.
Examples of coprecipitation have been documented in Peters et al. (1985).
11-4.1.3 Chemicals Required. The following chemicals are described in
Section 11-4.1. The advantages and disadvantages of each type of precipitation
are listed in Section 11-4.1.2.
Hydroxide Precipitation; Quicklime (CaO), hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2), and liquid
caustic soda (NaOH). These compounds are most commonly used; others are
available at a higher cost.
Sulfide Precipitation; Sodium sulfide (Na2S) and ferrous sulfide (FeS).
Carbonate Precipitation: Calcium carbonate (CaCO3), carbon dioxide (C02), and
sodium carbonate (NaCO3).
H-4.1.4 Residuals Generated. Chemical precipitation generates solids that
must be removed in a subsequent treatment step (e.g., clarification or filtra-
tion). Ultimately, the treatment train produces a Sludge that must be de-
watered and disposed of. The sludge should be sampled and tested for contami-
nant concentrations that would classify it as a hazardous waste.
11-4.1.5 Design Criteria. In all design considerations, bench- and pilot-
scale studies should be conducted to match waste characteristics with a treat-
ment process. The reaction tank is sized based on wastewater flow and chemical
contact time required. Pilot- and bench-scale testing can provide other design
criteria that depend on contaminant concentration, as follows:
o performance of different chemical precipitant types
o chemical dosage requirements to drive the precipitation reaction to
completion
o minimum contact ,time to produce the desired quality of effluent
11-31
11.89.45
0037.0.0
-------
o rate of mixing to allow the chemicals and waste to react
o equipment sizes
o optimal pH for the reaction to occur
o sludge handling requirements
The precipitating reagent choice is important because the chemicals affect the
solubility and settling characteristics of precipitated metal compounds. -The
chemical choice can be complicated by metal complexing agents that reduce the
number of free metal ions available to precipitate. Polyelectrolyte (i.e.,
flocculant) addition is required to induce particle flocculation when pre-'
cipitated particles are too small to readily settle easily.
The most important operating parameter of the precipitation process is pH.
Since each metal ion has its lowest solubility at a different pH, operating pH
for a mixture of metal ions is either a compromise value, or must be based on
the pH optimum for the metal constituent requiring the most stringent effluent
limitation. Alternatively, a staged precipitation process can be used that has
different pH settings for specific metals to be removed during each stage
(Cliffqrd et al., 1986).
During operation, it is easier to control pH for a batch system than a continu-
ous system. A continuous system requires controls to keep the pH in optimal
range. Air treatment and controls are sometimes needed (as with sulfide
precipitation) to vent hydrogen sulfide fumes.
11-4.1.6 Performance. The precipitation process is effective in removing
metal ions from wastewater. Equipment is relatively simple and easy to oper-
ate. The process is most sensitive to the chemistry involved. Chemical
choice, dose, and the optimum operating pH are best determined from bench- or
pilot-scale studies. However, Table 11-2 and Figure 11-13 will provide a
starting point for chemical and pH considerations. Table 11-2 lists priority
metal pollutants and the precipitating compounds most effective in removing
that contaminant. The graph in Figure 11-13 shows the solubility of some of
the same metal ions as a hydroxide or sulfide metal salt. Figure 11-13 may be
helpful in choosing an optimum pH for a target metal ion, provided other ions
do not interfere with the chemical reaction. Bench- or pilot-scale data are
not available for confirmation. However, the metal salts solubility indicates
that precipitation may occur.
11-4.2 Evaluation of Precipitation
11-4.2.1 Effectiveness. Chemical precipitation can be an effective, permanent
means of reducing the metal ion concentration in wastewater. Pre- and/or
post-treatment is necessary to remove other contaminants such as organics,
suspended solids, oil and grease, or residual metals.
The level of metal removal partially depends on how well the waste characteris-
tics were evaluated with bench- and pilot-scale tests. The pH must be strictly
11.89.45
0038.0.0
11-32
-------
METAL ION
TABLE 11-2
EFFECTIVE TYPES OF PRECIPITATION FOR SELECTED METAL IONS
HYDROXIDE
TYPE OF PRECIPITATION
SULFIDE CARBONATE
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Iron
Manganese
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
T
X
X
T
T
X
-
X
X
T
NOTES:
"X" indicates process is applicable for removal of the metal ion. Bench-
or pilot-scale data are available to affirm precipitation occurrence.
"T" indicates process may be applicable for removal of the metal ion.
Bench- or pilot-scale data are not available for confirmation. However,
the metal salt's solubility indicates precipitation may occur.
11.89.45T
0002.0.0
11-33
-------
c
CD
O
-n
m
D
DO
§
o
m
§2
O
a
D
CO
O
O
3)
1
m
O
-n
N
>
3)
D
O
W
I
m
m
§
I
m
w
m
•o
CO
O)
CONCENTRATION OF DISSOLVED METAL SALT, mg/llter
o
•
_A
N
o
I
_L
O
O
i
oo
O
O)
O
M
O
o
O
M
-------
controlled to assure optimal precipitating conditions. - Metal complexing agents
that bind metal ions in solution need to be identified.
11-4.2.2 Implementability. Precipitation is a widely used and well-
demonstrated, method of metal removal. The equipment is basic and easily
designed. Many manufacturers also provide compact single treatment units that
are deliverable to a site. Precipitating chemicals are readily available and,
as in the case of lime, relatively inexpensive.
Sludge production can be voluminous, difficult to dewater, and may require
further treatment prior to disposal. Landfill or incineration should be
considered as disposal methods. Contaminated sludges may need RCRA approval
for transport and disposal.
11-4.2.3 Cost. A continuous flow sodium hydroxide (NaOH) precipitation
process has been costed based on the following assumptions.
Capital Costs
o Chemically resistant reaction tanks are closed and vented. They are
sized for a 20-minute detention time.
o Chemical storage tanks for liquid NaOH and a polymer are sized for 30
days' storage. The NaOH storage tank is insulated and heat-traced to
prevent crystallization.
!
o A NaOH premix tank with paddle mixer and metering pump controls is
included to dilute the NaOH in case it is too concentrated for the
wastestream.
o Variable speed mixers are in reaction tanks.
o Metering pumps and a pH probe control NaOH and polymer addition.
o Pumps and piping are designed with 100-percent backup capability.
«
o The process equipment is installed on a concrete pad.
O&M Costs
Electricity to operate pumps and mixers is included.
A 50-percent NaOH solution is costed for a range of 200 mg/£
(0.262 gal/1,000 gal) to 1,000 mg/£ (1.31 gal/1,000 gal).
The polymer dose ranges from 1 to 100 mg/X..
Labor is 8 hours/week for system flows less than or equal to 100 gpm,
and 16 hours/week for flows greater than 100 gpm.
Solids disposal is not costed (solids will be removed later in the
treatment train).
11.89.45
0041.0.0
11-35
-------
Capital and O&M costs are presented as a range of costs in Figures 11-14 and
11-15.
11-5 NEUTRALIZATION
One of the common types of chemical treatment used by industrial wastewater
treatment facilities is pH adjustment. Waters that are acidic or alkaline
could be disruptive to collection systems, treatment plants, and receiving
waters. The adjustment of alkalinity or acidity to yield a final pH of approx-
imately 7.0 is called neutralization.
One reason for pH adjustment is that the General Pretreatment Regulations
prohibit any discharge to a POTW with a pH less than 5.0. Further, wastes
entering biological treatment processes should have a pH between 6.5 and 8.0
for optimum growth of the microorganisms (Sundstrom and Klei, 1979; Water
Pollution Control Federation, 1977).
11-5.1 Description
The process of neutralization is the interaction of an acid with a base or vice
versa. The typical+properties exhibited by acids in solution are a result of
the hydrogen ion (H ) concentration in solution. Similarly, alkaline (or
basic) properties are a result of the hydroxyl ion (OH~) concentration. In
aqueous solutions, pH is a measure of acidity and basicity where pH = - log
[H ], or pH = 14.0 + log [OH_] at room temperature, respectively. Streams with
a higher concentration of OH ion that H ion have pH levels greater than 7.0
and are said to 1j>e basic or alkaline. Streams with a higher concentration of
hydrogen ions [H ] have pH levels less than 7.0, and are said to be acidic. A
typical neutralization system is shown in Figure 11-16.
Many industries produce effluents that are acidic or alkaline in nature.
Neutralization of an acidic or basic wastestream is necessary in a variety of
situations, for example:
o pH adjustment for precipitation
o preventing metal corrosion and/or damage to other materials
o preliminary treatment, allowing effective operation of biological
treatment processes
o providing neutral pH water for recycling uses and reducing detri- %
mental effects in the receiving water
o oil-emulsion breaking (see Section 11-1.1)
o controlling of chemical reaction rates (e.g., chlorination)
11-5.1.1 Equipment Types Available. Many acceptable methods of neutralizing
acidic or basic wastewaters are available, including the following:
11-36
11.89.45
0042.0.0
-------
W
WO
K C
<0
3s
O O
360
PRECIPITATION
CAPITAL COSTS
0.2
D LOW CHEMICAL USAGE
GALLONS
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.
0.4 0.6 0.8
(Thousands)
S PER MINUTE
+ HIGH CHEMICAL USAGE
FIGURE 11-14
PRECIPITATION - CAPITAL COSTS
-------
oj
00
5°
_i »—
= 0.6 r
PRECIPITATION
ANNUAL COSTS
0.2
D LOW CHEMICAL USAGE
0.4 0.6 0.8
(Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
+ HIGH CHEMICAL USAGE
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.
FIGURE 11-15
PRECIPITATION - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
-------
i
CO
vO
BASE
STORAGE
METERING PUMP
AGITATOR
FEED
METERING PUMP
ACID
STORAGE
i
\
\
NEUTRALIZATION TANK
->• EFFLUENT
FIGURE IM 6
NEUTRALIZATION
5307-87
-------
o
o
mixing acidic and alkaline wastes so that the net effect is a near-
neutral pH
passing acid wastes through beds of limestone
mixing acid wastes with lime slurries or dolomitic lime slurries
o adding basic solutions (e.g., caustic soda [NaOH] and soda ash
[Na2C03]) to acid wastes
o blowing waste boiler-flue gas through alkaline wastes
o adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to alkaline wastes
o adding acid (e.g., sulfuric and hydrochloric) to alkaline wastes
(Nemerow, 1971)
The method chosen depends on the wastewater characteristics and subsequent
handling or use. For example, mixing of various streams is often insufficient
as & preliminary step to biological treatment or sanitary sewer discharge. In
this case, supplemental chemical addition is generally required to obtain the
proper pH.
Equipment for acid or base addition include dry feeders, metering pumps, slurry
pumps, and eductors. Lime compounds (i.e., CaO, CaC3O, and Ca(OH)2) are added
to a mixing tank with a dry feeder, water is added, and the solution is mixed
to form a slurry. Slurry pumps or eductors (water-induced flow) are used to
feed the slurry into the wastestream for neutralization. Metering pumps are
used for feeding solutions such as sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, or
acids to the wastestream.
Addition of neutralization chemicals is controlled by pH monitoring equipment,
placed near the discharge of the neutralization tank. Mixers are required to
ensure adequate mixing of reagents. Where large variations in wastewater flow
can occur, flow monitoring equipment is commonly used in conjunction with pH
controls to control the speed and frequency of metering or slurry pumps.
Mixing of wastestreams can be performed in a collection tank, rapid mix tank,
neutralization tank, or equalization tank. Final pH adjustment in preparation
for discharge can be done in a small neutralization tank at the end of the
treatment process.
11-5.1.2—Advantages and Limitations. The major limitation of neutralization is
that it is subject to the influence of temperature and the resulting heat
effects common to most chemical reactions. In neutralization, the reaction
between acid and base normally is exothermic (i.e., creates heat), and may
raise the temperature of the wastewater "stream or create hydrogen gas (an
explosion hazard). An average value for heat released during neutralization of
dilute solutions by strong acids or bases is 13,400 cal/g mole (24,100 BTU/lb.
mole) of water formed. By controlling the rate of addition of the neutralizing
reagent(s), the heat produced may be dissipated and the temperature increase
minimized. Heat can also be recovered by heat exchangers and used in other
11-40
11.89.45
0046.0.0
-------
processes (e.g., building heating). For each reaction, the final temperature
depends on initial wastestreara temperature, chemical species participating in
the reaction (e.g., strong acids or strong bases), and pH of the wastestream.
In general, concentrated solutions with extreme pH values (i.e., less than 3 or
greater than 12) can produce large temperature increases. This can result in
boiling and splashing of the solution, and accelerated chemical attack on
materials, or hydrogen generation. In most cases, proper planning of the
neutralization system with respect to required dosages of neutralizing agent,
rate of addition, reaction time, and equipment design can alleviate the heating
problem.
Neutralization will usually cause increased TDS content due to addition of
chemical agents. Anions and cations (e.g., sulfate, chloride, and calcium)
resulting from neutralization may not be considered hazardous; however, local
limits may exist for discharge to a POTW.
Acidification of streams containing sulfide tends to produce toxic gases. If
there is no satisfactory alternative, the gas must be removed through scrubbing
or some other treatment. Salt-containing wastestreams should be
bench-scale-tested to determine if such a problem would occur.
11-5.1.3 Chemicals Required.
Chemicals used in neutralization are specific to
Chemicals used frequently are lime (CaO),
the wastewater being treated. _
hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2), limestone (CaCO3), sodium hydroxide (NaOH), sodium
carbonate (Na2CO3), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), potassium
hydroxide (KOH), and hydrochloric acid (HC1).
The selection of a neutralization chemical depends on factors such as price,
availability, and process compatibility. Sulfuric acid is the most common acid
used for the neutralization of alkaline waste. It is less costly than hydro-
chloric acid, but tends to form precipitates with calcium-containing alkaline
wastewater. When hydrochloric acid is used for neutralization, the compounds
formed are soluble. An important consideration in the use of alkaline reagents
for neutralization of acidic wastewaters is the "basicity factor" (see
Section 11-5.1.5), which is the number of grams of calcium oxide equivalent
available for reaction in a particular alkali. Caustic soda has a high
basicity factor and high solubility; however, it is expensive. Lime compounds
are less costly, but have low-to-moderate solubility and form precipitates with
acidic wastewaters containing sulfuric acid, potentially causing disposal and
scaling problems. Soda ash has a low-to-moderate basicity and higher
solubility than lime.
11-5.1.4 Residuals Generated. Neutralization may be accompanied by metals
precipitation if the treatment proceeds to an alkaline pH. This may result in
the generation of residuals that can be removed in subsequent operations.
as clarification or filtration.
such
11-5.1.5 Design Criteria. There is no direct correlation between acidity or
basicity and pH. Therefore, to determine the chemical feed requirements for
design purposes, a laboratory titration curve using a pH meter'and a titrant of
standardized normality should be prepared using a representative sample of the
wastewater to be treated (Water Pollution Control Federation, 1977).
11-41
11.89.45
0047.0.0
-------
Depending on the volumes of wastewater, either batch treatment or continuous
treatment can be utilized. With continuous treatment, a minimum detention time
of 10 minutes is recommended.
Continuous systems can be designed as a single or multiple stage. As a general
rule, one stage can be used if the pH of the raw wastewater is between 4 and
10. Two or more stages are often required if the pH is as low as 2 or higher
than 10. Two-stage pH adjustment is often used in metal hydroxide precipita-
tion. The first stage provides rough pH control, followed by a second pH
"trimming11 step.
Design of an acid feed system is influenced by many factors, including type and
quantity of acid to be fed, purchase and installation costs, labor, and method
of control. The size of the neutralizing vessel depends on the wastewater
volume or flow, reaction time, solubility of the reagent, and the insoluble
precipitates formed during the reaction.
11-5.2 Evaluation of Neutralization
11-5.2.1 Effectiveness. Neutralization efficiency varies with the pH of the
influent stream and the reaction time. Off-gas treatment units may be required
when treating wastewaters that could produce hydrogen sulfide or other undesir-
able gases. Effluent streams from a neutralization unit include the neutral-
ized wastewater and sometimes solids or gases. The treated water may require
additional treatment to meet discharge limits. Pretreatment may be required
for wastewater streams containing large amounts of suspended solids, and oils
and greases. Neutralization substantially reduces the toxicity due to pH of
the influent water.
11-5.2.2 Implementability. Neutralization systems are feasible for on-site
pretreatment when large volumes of contaminated water/groundwater require pH
adjustment. Neutralization is suitable for the treatment of .water with high or
low pH levels (outside the range of 6 to 9).
Neutralization is used to process contaminated water at hazardous waste sites,
manufacturing facilities, and municipal water treatment plants. On-site
facilities have proven successful for a. broad range of pH values and flow
rates. Due to the nature of the neutralization process, a consistent quality
effluent can be obtained, provided there are no large changes in pH that the
system has not been designed to handle.
11-5.2.3 Cost. The material and methods used should be selected on the basis
of overall cost, because material costs vary widely and equipment for utilizing
various agents will differ with the method selected. The flow, type, and pH of
acid or alkali waste to be neutralized are also factors in deciding which
neutralizing agent to use (Nemerow, 1971).
For illustration, cost information was compiled for flow rates ranging from 10
to 1,000 gpm. These costs, as presented in Figures 11-17 and 11-18, are based
on the following assumptions.
11-42
11.89.45
0048.0.0
-------
I
-p-
U>
a:
5°
^•4 •—•
3.5
2.5 -
1.5 -
1 -
0.5 -
NEUTRALIZATION
CAPITAL COST
T —i 1 r
0.2 0.4 0.6
(Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
D LOW CHEM USE + HIGH CHEM USE
0.8
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.
FIGURE 11-17
NEUTRALIZATION - CAPITAL COSTS
-------
38
rnaj
m
9
m
H
N
6
m
3)
o
>
z
m
o30
gm
531
(/>00
n
DOLLARS
(Millions)
-------
Capital Costs
o
o
neutralization tank equipped with both acid and caustic feed systems
influent acidity concentrations ranging from 10 to 1,000 mg/£
O&M Costs
o Electricity to operate pumps is included.
o Labor required to operate and maintain system is 8 hours/week for
system flows less than or equal to 100 gpm, and 16 hours/week for
system flows greater than 100 gpm.
o Chemical costs are included.
Systems that require neutralization greater than 1,000 mg/£ will require heat
exchangers or special tank construction at additional costs, depending on the
duration of the acid flow, tank volume, and acid concentration.
11-6 SEDIMENTATION
11-6.1 Description
Sedimentation is a physical process that removes suspended solids from a liquid
matrix by gravitational settling. The following are fundamental elements of
most sedimentation processes:
o a basin or container of sufficient size to maintain the liquid in a
relatively quiescent state for a specified period of time;
o a means of directing the liquid to be treated into the basin or
container in a manner that is conducive to settling;
o a means of removing the settled particles from the liquid or vice
versa, as may be required; and
o a means of removing the clarified liquid from the tank without
disturbing the separation of solids and liquid.
Sedimentation is often preceded by precipitation or coagulation/flocculation.
Precipitation converts dissolved material to suspended form and coagulation/
flocculation combines colloidal particles into larger, faster settling
particles. Whether or not it is preceded with chemical pretreatment, plain
sedimentation involves feeding the wastewater into a tank or lagoon, where it
loses velocity and the suspended solids settle.
Sedimentation is used to separate suspended solids, chemically precipitated
solids, and other settleable solids from wastewater. It is also used in
conjunction with other unit processes to separate solids generated in other
waste treatment. The settling basins can also be used for other purposes, such
as oil and grease separation (see Section 11-1) and flow equalization.
11-45
11.89.45
0051.0.0
-------
11-6.1.1 Equipment Types Available. Sedimentation tanks are square, rectangu-
lar, or circular in plan view, and may operate with a horizontal or vertical
flow path. They may have flat, pitched, conical, or hopper bottoms; and may be
of single-story, two-story, or multiple-tray design. Sludge collection equip-
ment is a part of most units, although it is sometimes not included in small
Installations.
Sedimentation tanks can be operated on a batch or a continuous-flow basis
Continuous-flow is more common except in small installations or in tanks
serving the dual purposes of chemical treatment and sedimentation. Dual-
purpose tanks are usually limited to small flow rates because of their lower
operating efficiency. Batch treatment, however, provides more reliable control
of effluent quality, especially with widely varying waste compositions or flow
rates; therefore, it is used when critical control of effluent is necessary
(Gurnham, 1955).
Although there are many variations of the sedimentation process, the components
of the settling process are the same. The settling chamber has four zones:
the inlet zone, the clarification zone, the outlet zone, and the sludge zone
The inlet zone allows a smooth transition from the high velocities of the inlet
pipe to the low uniform velocity needed in the settling zone. Careful control
of the velocity change is necessary to avoid turbulence, short-circuiting, and
carry over. The clarification zone must be large enough to reduce the net
upward water velocity to below the settling rate of the solids. The outlet
zone provides a transition from the low velocity settling zone to the relative-
ly high overflow velocities. The sludge zone must effectively settle, compact
and collect the solids and allow removal of the sludge without disturbing the
settling zone above. The major representative types are discussed in the
following paragraphs and are shown in Figures 11-19' and 11-20.
Settling Ponds. Settling ponds can vary from less than 1 acre to several
hundred acres in size. The wastewater is merely decanted as the particles
accumulate on the bottom of the pond and eventually fill it. The accumulated
sludge is periodically emptied by mechanical shovels, draglines, or siphons.
Sedimentation Tanks. The tanks in which sedimentation is carried out may be
circular or rectangular in design and generally employ sludge collection
equipment. The sedimentation basins are also classified as horizontal-flow or
vertical-flow, according to the predominant direction of the flow. Applica-
tions of vertical-flow units are generally settling compartments in floccula-
tion-clarifiers and solids contact units.
Flow-through rectangular basins or tanks enters at one end, pass a baffle
arrangement,,and traverse the length of the tank to effluent weirs. Rectangu-
lar tanks are generally used for removal of truly settleable particles from a
liquid. The settled solids are mechanically transported along the bottom of
the tank by a scraper mechanism and removed as a sludge underflow. .The
sludge-removal equipment usually consists of crosspieces or flights attached to
endless conveyor chains, or suspended by a bridge-type mechanism that travels
up and down the tank on rails supported on the sidewalls.
11-46
11.89.45
0052.0.0
-------
FLOCCULANT
INFLUENT •
Cl
METERING PUMP
SEDIMENTATION TANK
FILTRATE
DEWATERED SLUDGE
^. SUPERNATANT WATER
"*" (TO FILTRATION)
WET
SLUDGE
SLUDGE
STORAGE
\/
SLUDGE DEWATERING
^
0
•« • / -y
FIGURE 11-19
SEDIMENTATION
5307-83
-------
SETTLING POND
Inlet Liquid
Overflow Discharge Weir
Accumulated Settled Particles
Periodically Removed by Machinical Shovel
SEDIMENTATION BASIN
Inlet Zone
Inlet Liquid
Settled Particles Collected
and Periodically Removed
CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
Baffles to Maintain
"Quiescent Conditions'
Settling Particles Trajectory
Outlet Zone
Outlet Liquid
Belt-Type Solids Collection Mechanism
Circular Baffle
Settling Zone.
Revolving Collection
Mechanism
_J
Inlet Zone •
V
JTlNJ
i ^
1
s
^
,/
/
,'
•
1'
f Liquid
/ Flow
-'TTTT-
tion ^^^3i_am • • • ,, S^^*
Annular Overflow V
Outlet Liquid
— Settling Panic
Settled Particles | Collected and Periodically Removed
Sludge Drawoff
Souice: De Renzo. 1978
5307-S7
_
FIGURE 11-20
REPRESENTATIVE TYPES OF SEDIMENTATION
11-48
-------
The most common type of circular basin or clarifier is the center-feed, in
which the wastewater to be treated enters the clarifier through the feedwell
located at or near the liquid surface in the center. The bottom of the clari-
fier is usually sloped 5 to 8 degrees to the center of the unit where sludge is
collected in a hopper for removal. Mechanically driven sludge rakes rotate
continuously and scrape the sludge down the sloped bottom to the sludge hopper.
The clarifier effluent or overflow leaves the clarifier over a weir mounted on
the rim of the tank. Equipment associated with the clarifier tank and sludge-
rake drive assembly may include surface skimmers and scum pits to collect foam
and/or oil that may collect on the surface of the clarifier, scum pumps, and
sludge pumps. Vacuum sludge-removal equipment is also available for the rapid
.removal of biological sludges.
Circular clarifiers are usually used in applications that involve precipita-
tion, flocculation, sedimentation, and biological sludge removal. Very often
all three processes occur within the same piece of equipment, because many
clarifiers are equipped with separate zones for chemical mixing, flocculation,
and settling. Clarifiers that use settling aids are equipped with a low lift
turbine, which mixes a portion of the previously settled solids with the incom-
ing feed to improve the settling efficiency.
The peripheral-feed or rim-feed circular clarifiers are designed to utilize the
entire volume of the clarifier basin for sedimentation. Wastewater is intro-
duced into the clarifier around the periphery of the tank causing a radial flow
pattern. The clarified liquid flows over weirs located in the center of the
tank.
Clarifiers or settling basins can be designed to include inclined plates,
slanted tubes, and lamella settlers placed in the clarifier tank or basin to
decrease the vertical settling distance and reduce turbulence, and to increase
the capacity of the clarifier or basin.
11-6.1.2 Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of solids removal by
settling is the simplicity of the process itself. The major limitation of
simple settling (without chemical addition) is the long retention time neces-
sary to achieve complete settling, especially if the specific gravity of the
suspended matter is close to that of water. In addition, some materials are
not removed by simple sedimentation alone (i.e., dissolved solids), and chemi-
cals must be added to achieve removal.
The major advantage of clarifiers and basins is that they require less space
than settling ponds. In addition, with clarifiers and basins, closer control
of operating parameters (e.g., retention time and sludge removal) can be
maintained, while problems such as runoff from precipitation and short-
circuiting can be avoided. However, the cost of installing and maintaining a
clarifier or basin is substantially greater than the cost associated with a
settling pond.
11-6.1.3 Chemicals Required. No chemicals are required in this process,
although settling aids such as polymers, lime, or alum may be used.
11-49
11.89.45
0055.0.0
-------
11-6.1.4—Residuals Generated. Inorganic and/or organic sludge is generated.
The quantity of sludge per unit volume of wastewater treated depends on the
characteristics of the wastewater treated, the type of equipment, and chemical
conditioning agents added during pretreatment.
11-6.1.5—Design Criteria. Because the individual particle settling theories
are of little practical use to the designer, design d'ata must be obtained by
study of existing plants and by laboratory or pilot plant investigations of the
waste in question. Batch sedimentation tanks, operating on the fill-and-draw
principle, are used for small flow rates; however, continuous-flow units with
continuous or intermittent removal of sludge are commonly preferred for larger
flow rates. For continuous-flow sedimentation tanks, the elemental design
factors to be specified include surface area, depth, ratio of length to width,
and sludge-collecting facilities. Detention time, overflow rate, and liquid
velocity are governed by these factors (Gurnham, 1955).
Sedimentation tank performance is related to the surface hydraulic loading,
which is the inflow divided by the surface area of the basin, commonly ex-
pressed in units of flow per day per unit area (i.e., L/day/sq.ra. or gpd/
sq.ft.).
Therefore, a practical and economical tank depth is selected for use with the
permissible overflow rate, in settling tank design. The depth should usually
be at least 5 feet (8 to 10 feet is more common), and depths of 12 to 14 feet
are often used. Common geometrical ratios for rectangular units are
lengthrwidth of 3:1 or greater; and width:depth of 1:1 to 2.25:1. Typical
depths when used as a primary settling tank are 2.4 to 3.0 m (8 to 10 feet);
and when used as a secondary tank, 3.0 to 4.2 m (10 to 15 feet).
The diameters of circular units range from 3 to greater than 60 m (10 to 200
feet). Tank side water depths, when used for primary settling, range from 2 to
3 m (8 to 10 feet); and when used for secondary settling and thickening, from 3
to 4 m (10 to 14 feet) and greater (Water Pollution Control Federation, 1977).
Design of sedimentation tanks as outlined herein will usually result in
detention times of 1 to 4 hours. For most wastes, 1 to 2 hours are sufficient;
however, if sedimentation is the sole form of treatment provided, more thorough
removals may be necessary (Gurnham, 1955).
11-6.1.6—Performance. A properly operating sedimentation system can effi-
ciently remove suspended solids and precipitated materials from wastewater.
The performance of the process depends on a variety of factors, including the
density and particle size of the solids, the effective charge on the suspended
particles, and the types of chemicals used in pretreatment. The performance of
simple settling is a function of the surface loading, upflow rate or retention
time, and settleable solids. The sedimentation process preceded by chemical
precipitation and/or coagulation and flocculation will remove colloidal and
dissolved solids, some of which could be toxic pollutants. Performance data
for such removal are included in the appropriate technology descriptions.
_
11-50
11.89.45
0056.0.0
-------
11-6.2 Evaluation of Sedimentation
11-6.2.1 Effectiveness. The efficiency of sedimentation tanks depends, in
general, on the following factors:
o detention period
o wastewater characteristics
o tank depth
o floor surface area and
overflow rate
o operation (cleanliness)
o temperature
o particle size
o inlet and outlet design
o weir loading rate
o velocity of particles
o density of particles
o container-wall effect
o number of tanks
(baffles)
/
o sludge removal
o pretreatment (grit
removal)
o flow fluctuations
o wind velocity
For removal from aqueous sources, efficiencies can be as high as 90-percent
removal of suspended solids based on design and residence times. Dewatering of
sludge is normally required.
Effluent streams from a sedimentation tank include the effluent water, scum,
and settled solids. The treated water may require additional treatment to
further reduce concentrations to discharge limits. The solids may need to be
treated or dewatered prior to disposal. Influent restrictions to a sedimenta-
tion system may dictate pretreatment prior to settling. Pretreatment may be
required for wastewater streams containing large amounts of suspended solids
and oils and greases.
Sedimentation substantially reduces the toxicity of the influent water caused
by the solids. The volume of contaminated media is reduced by transferring to
the solid phase. Sedimentation processes transfer the potential for mobility
of the contaminant from the water to the solids. __ -
11-6.2.2 Implementability. Sedimentation is feasible for on-site pretreatment
when large volumes of contaminated water/groundwater require treatment.
Sedimentation is suitable for the treatment of water with high concentrations
of solids. However, solids settled from groundwater treatment must be disposed
of.
Sedimentation tanks currently process contaminated water at hazardous waste
sites, manufacturing facilities, and municipal water treatment plants. On-site
facilities have proven successful for a broad range of contaminants and flow
rates. Due to the nature of the sedimentation process, a consistent quality
11-51
11.89.45
0057.0.0
-------
effluent, can be obtained, provided there are no large fluctuations in influent
concentrations.
11-6.2.3 Cost. Consideration of the rate of waste flow through the settling
tank (in gallons per day) and overflow rate (in gallons per day per square
foot) provides design data for the area of settling tank needed. If flow is
variable over a 24-hour period, the area must be increased to correspond with
maximum flow rate, except perhaps for purely momentary high rates. If the area
is greater than 2,500 or 3,500 square feet, a circular settling tank is proba-
bly cheaper than a rectangular tank. Rectangular tanks are usually less
expensive for smaller installations; however, these generalizations must be
used with discretion, because factors of land value, compactness of plant,
topography, and price quotations on specific equipment may reverse the trend
(Gurnham, 1955). Cost information was compiled for flow rates ranging from 10
to 1,000 gpm, and two polymer addition rates: 0.5 and 10 mg/£.
Capital Costs
o carbon-steel sedimentation tank
o polymer feed system
O&M Costs
o Electricity to operate pumps is included.
o Labor required to operate and maintain system is 8 hours/week for
system flows less than or equal to 100 gpm, and 16 hours/week for
system flows greater than 100 gpm.
o Disposal costs for sludge.
o Chemicals required at specified addition rates of 0.5 and 10 mg/£.
Capital and O&M costs are presented in Figures 11-21 and 11-22.
11-7 FILTRATION
11-7.1 Description
Filtration is a physical process used to remove suspended solids from waste-
water. The separation is accomplished by passing water through a physically
restrictive medium, resulting in the entrapment of suspended particulate
matter. The flow pattern is usually top-to-bottom, but other patterns are
sometimes used (e.g., upflow, horizontal flow, and biflow). The media used for
filtration include sand, coal, garnet, and diatomaceous earth (USEPA, 1986c).
Within the treatment train, the filtration process is generally preceded by
chemical precipitation and neutralization (see Sections 11-4 and 11-5,
respectively). To further polish the effluent, filtration can be followed by
carbon adsorption or ion exchange (see Sections 11-11 and 11-12, respectively).
11-52
11.89.45
0058.0.0
-------
SEDIMENTATION
CAPITAL COST
3.2
CO
0.2
0.4 0.6
(Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
0.8
a . LOW CHEMISE
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN ^T,,^|
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.
+ HIGH CHEM USE
FIGURE 11-21
SEDIMENTATION - CAPITAL COSTS
-------
w
c
1 -
SEDIMENTATION
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS
SECTION.
n LOW CHEM USE
+ HIGH CHEM USE
ANNUAL COST
i r
0.4 0.6
(Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
0.8
FIGURE 11-22
SEDIMENTATION - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
5307-01
-------
11-7.1.1 Equipment Types Available. Filtration equipment types range from
traditional, built-in-place, gravity granular-media design to new, compact,
pressure-filtration units. Filter beds vary in filter mediaj backwash methods,
underdrain design, and rate and direction of flow. A typical filtration bed is
shown in Figure 11-23. A discussion of different filter bed types follows.
Gravity granular-media bed typically' contains one to three layers of filter
media. The top layer is coarse (e.g., anthracite), the middle layer is sand,
and the bottom layer is fine garnet. This grading allows particles to collect
in-depth; that is, particles are filtered throughout the media depth, not just
at the media surface. The media is supported by an underdrain system that
collects the filtrate. During filter operation, particles removed from the
applied wastewater clog media pores. The filters are cleaned by backwashing in
the reverse direction of original flow. During this scouring process, solids
are dislodged from the media, collected in a backwash trough, and discharged in
the spent wash cycle. Water or an air/water combination is used to scour the
filter media during the backwash cycle.
Diatomaceous-earth. filters, employing a diatomite earth material as a medium,
operate on three steps. A support material is precoated with diatomite,
wastewater is filtered through, and finally, the dirty filter cake is disposed.,
Pressure filters have the granular media and underdrains contained in a steel
tank. Water is pumped through the filter under pressure. For relatively low
flows, cartridge filtration can be used. Wastewater is pumped through a sealed
vessel until flow drops, indicating plugged media. The plugged matted cloth
cartridge is disposed of a'nd replaced with a new one.
Self-backwashing filters are sold by some filter manufacturers. The units
divide influent equally among several filter cells. Backwashing is automatic,
using the effluent of the remaining on-line filters. The units often run
unattended (Kawamura, 1987).
There are many design alternatives among these types of filters. For example,
each filter described, except diatomaceous-earth filters, can employ carbon as
a medium to adsorb contaminants. Reference text, wastewater engineers, and
manufacturers can help match the wastewater with a proper filtration unit.
11-7.1.2 Advantages and Limitations. Filtration is a conventional, proven
method of removing suspended solids from wastewater. Biological floes are also
filtered, although the floes generally plug filter media at a faster rate.
Filters normally require little space and can be installed easily.
-Filtration1s limitation is that contaminants other than suspended solids will
not be removed. Filter media will not catch colloidal-size particles and
dissolved solids (coagulants can be added before filtration to remove these
fine particles). Oil and grease coat filter media and prevent effective back-
wash; therefore, pretreatment to remove oil and grease is required. Pretreat-
ment is also necessary if the total suspended solids concentration is high
enough (30 to 50 mg/£ for gravity granular-media filters) to clog the media too
quickly.
11-55
11.89.45
OO61.0.0
-------
BACKWASH DRAIN
HEAD
BACKWASH
TROUGH
INFLUENT
SINGLE OR MULTIPLE
LAYER FILTER MEDIUM
UNDERDRAIN
•AIR
BACKWASH
• EFFLUENT
FIGURE 11-23
GRANULAR MEDIA FILTRATION BED
5307-83
11-56
-------
11-7.1.3 Chemicals Required. The filtration process does not require chemical
use for the removal of suspended solids. Alum salts, iron salts, and polymers
can be added as coagulants or coagulant aids directly ahead of filtration units
for colloidal and dissolved solids removal. This will generally improve solids
captured by the filter, but at the expense of reduced run lengths.
11-7.1.4 Residuals Generated. The residue cleaned from surface filters
requires disposal. Backwash water (generally 2 to 10 percent of the through-,
put) from the cleaning of granular media filters requires further treatment and
disposal; spent backwash often is returned to the head of the plant for treat-
ment by sedimentation (USEPA, 1986c).
11-7.1.5 Design Criteria. Final quality of the filtered wastestream will
depend on how well the design criteria and operating parameters are chosen,
based on wastewater characteristics. The wastestream should be evaluated for
the concentration of TSS, the size of these particles, and the presence of
grease and oil that may coat the media. These characteristics and the waste-
stream flow will affect filtration performance.
Design criteria to be considered include the following:
o bed sizing as a function of wastewater flow and design loading rate
o a bed deep enough to allow relatively long filter runs
o filter media possessing qualities coarse enough to retain large
quantities of floe, sufficiently fine to prevent passage of suspended
solids, and graded to permit backwash cleaning (Viessman and Hammer,
1985)
o an underdrain to .support the bed, prevent loss of media with water,
and evenly distribute flow during backwash
Whenever possible, designs should be based on pilot filtration studies of the
actual wastewater to be treated. Pilot tests should help determine operating
parameters (i.e., hydraulic loading rate, run time, terminal head loss, and
backwash or air scour rate) that best remove the concentration of suspended
solids to acceptable levels.
Pilot studies can also help evaluate the following:
o cost comparisons between different filter designs capable of equiva-
lent performance
o effluent quality for a given medium
o adequate run times between backwashing cycles
o determination of the effects of pretreatment variations (USEPA,
1987e)
11-57
11.89.45
0063.0.0
-------
As general guidance, typical operating parameters for granular, gravity flow
filters are as follows:
o hydraulic loading rate
o backwash rate
o air scour rate
2 to 10 gpm/ft2
10 to 30 gpm/ft2
3 to 5 standard cubic feet/min
11-7.1.6 Performance. Filtration is an established, reliable method for
suspended solids and biological floe removal. However, the filtration process
can be inhibited by too great a concentration of suspended solids that clog
filter media, and excessive oil and grease that coat filter media to prevent
effective backwashing. In addition, collodial-size particles and dissolved
solids will not be filtered, but will pass through into the effluent. In each
case, a pretreatment process to remove suspended solids, separate oil and
grease, or coagulate colloidal and dissolved solids should be considered.
The performance of any filtration system should be determined from pilot
Studies on the actual wastewater or from information provided by filter manu-
facturer services.
11-7.2 Evaluation of Filtration
11-7.2.1 Effectiveness. Filtration is an effective treatment for suspended
solids and biological floe removal. The process will, at some point in the
treatment cycle, produce a residual sludge for which disposal must be consid-
ered. Surface filters produce sludge on the medium surface. In-depth filters,
backwashed for regeneration, generally send residual back to the treatment
headworks. At some point, perhaps during clarification, the residuals will be
collected. Landfill and incineration are disposal alternatives; waste from a
CERCLA site will generally require RCRA-permitted disposal.
11-7.2.2 Implementability. Filtration is a conventional, proven treatment
technology. It is rarely used as the sole method of treatment, but rather in
conjunction with other technologies, such as precipitation and clarification.
Filtration equipment is relatively simple to install •• and no chemicals are .
required. Design should be based on pilot studies performed on actual waste-
water. Filter manufacturers supply integrated field units. Where filter units
are not automated, skilled operators may be needed to monitor parameters such
as backwash.
11-7.2.3 Cost. The filtration process costing is based on a vendor package
unit. Assumptions are listed as follows.
Capital Costs
o Gravity flow with a loading rate of 5 gpm/ft2
o A 30-inch bed depth of multigrade sand media
11-58
_
11.89.45
0064.0.0
-------
o At least two units are installed in parallel to cover unit downtime
during backwash cycles, thus providing continuous filtering
capability
o Influent pump and piping designed with 100-percent backup capability
o Concrete pad to support each unit
O&M Costs
o Electricity for influent pump and unit is included.
o Backwash water is recycled treated effluent.
o Labor is 8 hours/week for system flows less than or equal to 1OO gpm,
and 16 hours/week for flows greater than 100 gpm.
o No disposal cost for the backwash stream is included. Assume stream
is returned to the treatment headworks.
The cost curves are presented in Figures 11-24 and 11-25.
11-8 AIR- AND STEAM-STRIPPING
Stripping, in general, refers to the removal of relatively volatile components
from wastewater by the passage of air, steam, or other gas through the contami-
nated liquid. Contaminants are transferred to the gas phase; therefore,
off-gas treatment is often employed.
To improve removal efficiencies (or rates) by stripping, the temperature and/or
pH of the wastewater may.be adjusted. Efficiency is not only a function of
temperature and pH, but also of size, shape, arrangement, and surface charac-
teristics of the column; its packing material; the rates of liquid and vapor
flowing; and various physical* properties and distribution of the vapor and
liquid (Brown, 1950).
In most cases, air-stripping will achieve effective removals of ammonia,
chlorinated solvents, monoaromatics, and other VOCs. Steam is used as the
stripping medium for increased efficiency, removal of less volatile compounds,
or applications in cold weather. Steam-stripping may also be used to remove
phenols and trace organics from wastewater. However, removal rates of some
compounds decrease with increasing temperature.
11-8.1 Description
Typical stripping processes involve surface aeration, spray aeration, diffused
aeration, packed-tower aeration, bubble-cap trays, valve trays, or sieve trays.
This discussion will be limited to packed-tower processes involving the ap-
plication of steam or air. The function of the packing material is to increase
the area of contact between the air or steam and the liquid waste.
11-59
11.89.45
0065.0.0
-------
FILTRATION
CAPITAL COST
DOLLARS
"housands)
X.X
%J*+\J —
320 -
300 -
280 -
260 -
240 -
220 -
200 -
180 -
160 -
140 -
120 -
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
on -
/
/
/
/
/
/
V
0.2
0.4 0.6
(Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
a CAPITAL COSTS
0.8
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.
FIGURE 11-24
FILTRATION - CAPITAL COSTS
-------
FILTRATION
ANNUAL COST
OT
t/)-o
a c
<0
J W
-J 3
O O
O.C
0.2
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION,
1 1 T
0.4 0.6 0.8
(Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
D ANNUAL COST
FIGURE 11-25
FILTRATION - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
-------
The tower consists of a cylindrical column containing a liquid inlet, a dis-
tributing device, and a gas outlet at the top; a gas inlet, a distributing
space, and a liquid outlet at the bottom; and a packing material in the tower.
The air or steam enters the distributing space below the packed section, rises
upward through the packing, and contacts the descending liquid flowing through
the same openings. The packing disperses the influent water, providing a large
area of intimate contact between the liquid and gas phase. Figure 11-26 is a
schematic of the packed tower flow and characteristics.
Many different types of tower packing have been developed and several are used
commonly. Packings, which usually are dumped at random in the tower, are
available in sizes of 3 to 75 mm, and are made of inert materials such as clay,
porcelain, graphite, or plastic. These packings are dumped into the tower with
redistribution plates to prevent channeling of the liquid.
Stacked packing with sizes of 75 mm and larger is also used. The packing is
stacked vertically, with open channels running uninterrupted throughout the
bed. Typical stacked packings are wood grids, drip-point grids, spiral parti-
tion rings, and PVC films (Geankoplis, 1983).
11-8.1.1 Equipment Types Available. Stripping processes differ according to
the stripping medium and packing material chosen for the treatment system. Air
and steam are the most common media; inert gases are also used. Air- and
steam-stripping using packed towers are described in the following paragraphs.
Air-stripping. The stripping tower consists of a cylindrical vertical shell
filled with packing material, and blowers to induce air flow. The towers are
of two basic types: countercurrent and cross-flow. In countercurrent towers,
the entire air flow enters at the bottom of the tower, while the water enters'
the top of the tower and falls through the packing material to the bottom. In
crossflow towers, the air is pulled through the sides of the tower along its
entire height, while water flow proceeds down the tower through the packing.
In either type flow, treated effluent is collected in a sump at the bottom of
the tower.
Reflux (i.e., condensing a portion of the vapors from the top of the column and
returning it to the column) may be practiced if it is desired to increase the
concentration of the stripped material derived from the stripping column.
Introducing the feed at a point below the top of the column (while still using
the same height of packing in the stripper) will yield a vapor stream richer in
VOCs. The combination of using reflux and introducing the feed at a lower
level will further increase the concentration of the VOC component in the
overhead.
Steam-stripping. Steam-stripping is fundamentally comparable to air-stripping.
The process is used to volatilize contaminants from a wastewater stream. Steam
is used in cases where the volatility of the organic constituents makes removal
at ambient air temperatures difficult. This unit operation has been applied to
the removal of water-immiscible compounds (i.e., chlorinated hydrocarbons),
which must be reduced to trace levels because of their toxicity.
11-62
11.89.45
0068.0.0
-------
GAS OUTLET
INFLUENT
LIQUID LEVEL
EFFLUENT
1
liOiOiOiOit
/ i V i V i V i \/ i \
LIQUID DISTRIBUTOR
PACKING SUPPORT
GAS WLET
2307-87
11-63
FIGURE 11-26
AIR STRIPPING
-------
Steam-stripping is usually conducted as a continuous operation in a packed
tower. Figure 11-27 shows a schematic of a typical steam-stripping system.
Wastewater, preheated by a. heat exchanger, enters at the top of the column and
flows by gravity down through the packing. Steam rises up from the bottom of
the column and volatilizes contaminants. As the wastewater passes down through
the column, it contacts the vapors and steam rising from the lower portion of
the column. Due to the countercurrent flow pattern, this contact progressively
lessens the concentrations of VOCs or gases in the wastewater as it approaches
the bottom of the column. At the bottom of the column, the wastewater is
heated by the incoming steam to further reduce the concentration of VOC com-
ponent (s) to their final concentration. Much of the heat in the wastewater
discharged from the bottom of the column is recovered by the heat exchanger
preheating the feed to the column.
The contaminated steam passes out through the top of the column. Depending on
the contaminant, the steam may be condensed to a liquid and separated from the
contaminant or refluxed to the tower. If concentrations are at permissible
levels, the steam may be emitted directly into the atmosphere. Otherwise, the
condensed stream must be treated to remove the organics or disposed' of at an
appropriate facility.
11-8.1.2—Advantages and Limitations. Advantages of both stripping processes
are that acids and other corrosive materials can be handled because appropriate
construction materials are available. Packings can be fabricated from ceramic,
stainless steel, Teflon, or chemical-resistant plastics. Towers can be con-
structed of polyethylene, stainless steel, or chemical-resistant plastics.
Also, liquids that tend to foam may be handled more readily in packed columns
because of the relatively low degree of liquid agitation by the gas (Perry,
1973). *
Disadvantages are associated with the packing material of the column. Some
packing materials break easily during insertion into the column or from thermal
expansion and contraction. Low liquid flow rates (air-to-water ratios up to
5:1) decrease the contact efficiency due to incomplete wetting of the column
packing. Packed columns are limited to operating ranges narrower than other
stripping processes using film packings.
A drawback of air-stripping is its low efficiency in cold weather. Also, when
lime is used to raise the pH, fouling problems may occur in towers and the
efficiency of the process is affected. The pH also affects the volatility of
compounds. Iron and manganese can be oxidized and magnesium and calcium can be
precipitated by the process, creating scale that can cause channeling of flow
in the column. High suspended solids, as well as oils and greases, can also
accumulate in the stripper and cause fouling.
f
Steam-stripping is more efficient than air-stripping in certain applications,
but has much higher operating costs. Also, if VOCs react with each other, as
in refinery sour water containing hydrogen sulfide (H S) and ammonia, the vapor
pressure exerted by each component must be experimentally developed because
vapor/liquid equilibrium data do not exist for many specific combinations of
water soluble components.
11-64
11.89.45
0070.0.0
-------
INFLUENT
i
HEAT
EXCHANGER V\
INFLUENT
TANK
TOWER
REFLUX
->-OUT
IN
COOLING
WATER
L-Q-
DISTILLATE
ACCUMULATOR
DRUM
REBOILER
STEAM
STEAM
TRAP
EFFLUENT
FIGURE 11-27
STEAM STRIPPING
iS307-87
11-65
-------
11-8.1.3—Chemicals Required. For wastewater containing high concentrations of
calcium, an inhibiting polymer may be added to ease the fouling problem. Acid
wash systems can be used to solubilize the scale in a continuous or batch-flow
tower.
11-8.1.4—Residuals Generated. Stripped VOCs in the off-gas can be processed
further for recovery or incineration. For sites that are in areas attaining
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, VOC air emissions may
need control to meet state ARARs, risk management guidelines or other require-.
ments of CERCLA Section 121. In ozone nonattainment areas VOC controls are
more likely to be required to meet state ozone attainment strategies. The
USEPA policy memorandum "Control of Air Emissions from Superfund Air Strippers
at Superfund Groundwater Sites" (OSWER' Directive 9355.0-28, June 15, 1989)
provides more guidance on VOC air emission control.
Scale from packed towers may need to be recycled or landfilled. Spent acid
wash chemicals are saved for recovery. Post-treatment of the effluent stream
may be necessary if the effluent concentration^ ) are above discharge limits.
11-8.1.5—Design Criteria. Design considerations and factors important in the
removal of organics from wastewater by stripping include temperature, pressure,
air-to-water ratio, and surface area available for mass transfer.
The first design variables to specify for a stripping system include the water
flow rate and composition, and the desired effluent concentration of oneior
more of the solutes. Next, the packing material fpr the column should be
selected, and should offer the following characteristics: (1) large intersti-
tial surface between liquid and gas; (2) desirable fluid-flow characteristics;
(3) chemical inertness to fluids being processed; (4) structural strength to
permit easy handling and installation; and (5) low cost (Treybal, 1955).
Given the packing type and the water flow rate, the designer must then deter-
mine an optimum gas flow rate through the packed column to yield the desired
contaminant removal. The practice is to design for gas velocities at 40 to
70 percent of the flooding velocity (Treybal, 1955), with the optimum operating
velocity about 50 percent of flooding (Stenzel and Gupta, 1985; and Perrv
1973).
Vendor recommendations can then be used to determine the tower height and
diameter, provided that the tower will be operated for the specified removal
rate. The removal rate dictates the depth of packing, which in turn determines
the air flow rate at a given liquid flow. Operating pressure, the pressure
drop across the tower, and the blower or reboiler specifications can then be
determined CStenzel and Gupta, 1985; and USEPA, 1984).
Practical tower diameters range from 1 to 12 feet, with packing heights as high
as 50 feet; air-to-water volumetric ratios may range from 10 to 1, up to 300 to
JL. •
11-8.1.6 Performance. One indicator of a compound's volatility relative to
water is the Henry's Law constant. Other factors that affect both the magni-
11.89.45
0072.0.0
11-66
-------
tude of the Henry's Law constant and the compound strippability include molecu-
lar weight, solubility, vapor.pressure, and polarity (Michael, 1988).
Stripping has been shown to achieve removals of 90 to 99 percent for certain
VOCs (Lenzo, 1988; Stenzel and Gupta, 1985; and USEPA, 1986a).
Several researchers have published analytical techniques to predict removal
efficiencies based on mass-transfer theory and packed tower design. However,
if a definitive prediction is required, pilot tests should be conducted rather
than relying on a theoretical method.
11-8.2 Evaluation of Air- and Steam-stripping
11-8.2.1 Effectiveness. Removal efficiencies vary with the volatility and
concentration of the compound. For removal from aqueous sources, efficiencies
can be as high as 99.99-percent removal. Off-gas treatment with granular
activated carbon (GAG) or condensation units may be required to meet federal
and state air emission standards.
Effluent streams from a stripping tower include the off-gas, effluent water,
and tower scale. The off-gases may contain VOCs requiring treatment. The
treated water may require additional treatment to further re?duce VOC and SVOC
concentrations to discharge limits. The scale from the tower may need to be
treated prior to disposal.
Influent restrictions to a stripping system may dictate pretreatment prior to
stripping. High influent concentrations of metals such as iron, manganese,
calcium, or magnesium that would oxidize and cause scaling or fouling of the
tower may need to be reduced before stripping. Pretreatment may be required
for waxstewater streams containing large amounts of suspended solids and oils
and greases.
Stripping substantially reduces the toxicity of the influent water caused by
the contaminants. The contaminant(s) is transferred to the gas phase. Strip-
ping processes significantly decrease the potential for mobility of the contam-
inant in groundwater, but increase mobility in the atmosphere. The remedy is
permanent if stripping is used in conjunction with vapor-phase treatment.
11-8.2.2 Implementability. Stripping systems are feasible for on-site pre-
treatment when large volumes of VOC-contaminated water/groundwater require
treatment. Stripping is suitable for the treatment of water with high concen-
trations of VOCs (greater than 100 ppm). However, concentrated organics
extracted from groundwater treatment must be disposed of, and tower off-gases
may require treatment (i.e., scrubbing, carbon absorption or incineration) to
meet local and federal air quality standards.
Stripping towers currently process VOCs, THMs, and ammonia-contaminated water
at hazardous waste sites, manufacturing facilities, and municipal water treat-
ment plants. On-site facilities have proven successful for a broad range of
contaminants and flow rates. Due to the nature of the air-stripping process, i
11-67
11.89.45
0073.0.0
-------
consistent quality effluent can be obtained, provided there are no large
increases in influent concentrations or irreversible tower fouling.
1.1-8.2.3 Cost. Only after the tower has been designed can the capital and
operating costs be estimated for treatment of the wastestream. Information on
process equipment costs has been published in various engineering books,
journals, and several USEPA reports. The cost methods presented in this
section have been derived from these sources, and not from vendor quotes or
case histories.
Capital costs are the costs of the equipment used, and are expressed in terms
of purchased cost, delivered cost, and installed cost. An installation factor,
usually different for each type of equipment, can be used to determine the
installed capital cost. Installation factors are usually based on the pur-
chased equipment cost.
The capital cost of air-/steam-stripping systems can be grouped into costs for
the following major components:
o mass transfer equipment (tray and packed towers)
o heat transfer equipment (heat exchangers, condensers, and reboilers)
° fluid transfer and handling equipment (pumps, compressors, and tanks)
o installation materials including foundation, structural, instrumenta-
tion and controls, paint, insulation, and electrical and piping, as
well as labor
The purchased cost for tray and packed towers can be divided into the following
components:
o shell cost, including heads, skirts, manholes, and nozzles
o cost for internals, including trays and accessories, packing, sup-
ports, and plates
o cost for auxiliaries, such as platforms, ladders, handrails, and
insulation
The basic engineering design parameters that have primary impact on the cost of
stripping VOCs are effluent concentrations, required system size, and air-to-
water ratio.
Cost information was compiled for flow rates ranging from 10 to 1,000 gpm, and
is based on the following assumptions.
11-68
11.89.45
0074.0.0
-------
Capital Cost
o air-stripping tower of packed-tower design
o tower capable of removing up to 99.5 percent of the influent tri-
chlorethene (TCE)
o air-stripping tower installed on concrete pad
OSeM Costs
o Electricity to operate pumps is included.
o Labor required to operate and maintain system is 8 hours/week for
system flows less than or equal to 100 gpm, and 16 hours/week for
system flows greater than 10O gpm.
o No disposal costs for residual streams are included.
o No pretreatment chemicals are. included.
Cost information is presented in Figures 11-28 and 11-29. Cost curves were
prepared for two cases: (1) a packed air-stripping tower to treat 100 ppb of
influent TCE; and (2) a packed air-stripping tower to treat influent TCE at
1,000 ppb.
11-9 ANAEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
11-9.1 Description
The anaerobic biological treatment process involves bacterial reduction of
organic matter in an oxygen-free environment. The complex microbiological
process involved in anaerobic treatment utilizes many types of bacteria working
in an assembly-line fashion under favorable conditions for growth. In general,
certain key factors encompass a favorable environment for anaerobic treatment
to occur efficiently, including optimum bacterial retention time, adequate
bacterial-substrate contact, proper pH, proper temperature control, adequate
concentrations of proper nutrients, the absence or assimilation of toxic
materials, and proper feed characteristics (Parkin and Owen, 1986). Anaerobic
treatment is best utilized specifically to reduce high strength organic wastes
and wastewaters to concentrations that can be degraded aerobically (VandenBerg,
1984).
The anaerobic treatment process has traditionally been used to stabilize and
reduce municipal treatment plant sludges and to treat easily biodegradable
wastes and food industry effluents. The process suffers from a reputation of
unreliability, fostered in part by various unknowns associated with physical,
biological, and chemical operational factors, and has had difficulty in being
applied to a variety of wastestreams as an alternative to aerobic treatment.
However, a wide variety of applications have been seen, generally on concen-
trated wastestreams with or without suspended solids^ (Olthof and Oleszkiewicz,
1982).
11-69
11.89.45
0075.0.0
-------
OL-ll
I
zw
00
me
W3J
SI
il
m
o
DOLLARS
(Thousands)
o
•
fco
o
>
top
01 £
>eu
«z
CO
m
73
+
M
£§
ZQ.
coq^
(£>;
ui
a?
m
o>
TJ
2
O
i
5
p
bo
O
m
oo
-------
to
wo
on c
<0
*°
O O
as:
\-
20
AIR STRIPPING ANNUAL COSTS
REMOVAL PERCENTAGE AS SHOWN
0.2
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.
0.4 0.6
(Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
D 95% + B9.596
FIGURE 11-29
AIR STRIPPING - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
-------
11-9.1.1 Equipment Types Available. Essentially, there are two anaerobic
system and reactor process types available for use. The first is a straight-
through, completely mixed, suspended-growth reactor system similar to the «
sludge-digester system, in which microorganisms are not attached to fixed or
suspended media and the hydraulic retention time (HRT) equals the biological
solids retention time (SRT). in this type of system, the minimum SRT is
approximately 12 days, therefore leading to the design of large reactors and a
system generally not chosen for industrial application (Anderson et al., 1982).
Examples of reactors within this process type include septic tanks, anaerobic
lagoons, and sludge bed reactors.
The second process type is the contact reactor (Figure 11-30), in which the
biomass is retained by attachment on fixed or suspended media to maintain a
high SRT; at the same time, a low HRT is allowable, resulting in a smaller
reactor volume. The attached growth systems offer advantages of a high biomass
concentration retained in the reactor, increased resistance to adverse condi-
tions due to the longer period of time the microorganism has to adapt to a
variety of conditions, and the likelihood that natural stratification of the
various microorganisms will occur and allow the optimum species to prevail
(Anderson et al., 1982). Examples of these reactors include stationary medium
reactors (which include upflow or downflow randomly dumped or fixed orientation
filter systems, and rotating biological disc systems) and fluidized bed reac-
tors in which bacteria form films around small-diameter solids held in fluid
suspension by recycling a percentage of the substrate flowthrough.
In general, if easy-to-degrade organics, high-suspended organic solids, low
concentrations of toxic compounds, and higher temperatures are present in the
wastewater, suspended-growth reactors have been selected over fixed growth;
opposite characteristics result in a fixed growth selection (Olthof et al.,
1984). Selection of the appropriate process configuration and reactor type is
critical and warrants detailed consideration; each offers varying SRTs and HRTs
and has different optimal operating parameters and effluent treatment efficien-
cies (Switzenbaum and Grady, 1986). Literature searches, treatability studies,
and vendor contacts should be conducted to determine the optimum system for a
particular wastestream.
11-9.1.2 Advantages and Limitations. Anaerobic biological treatment has
certain advantages over aerobic treatment, including (1) reduced energy re-
quirements , due to the lack of need for aeration or oxygen-providing equipment
and the possibility of using the resulting methane as a fuel; (2) reduced
sludge production (10 percent of aerobic); (3) freedom from the constraints
that food to microorganism (F/M) operational controls place on aerobic systems,
allowing the anaerobic systems to treat the high strength wastes above
1,000 mg/£ COD, which are difficult to treat aerobically, as well as more
dilute wastes; (4) less sensitivity to heavy metal poisoning; and (5) reduced
nutrient requirements (Witt et al., 1979).
Anaerobic systems can break down some halogenated organic compounds and can
treat the high strength organic wastes that cannot be treated efficiently by
aerobic systems (USEPA, 1986f).
11-72
11.89.45
0078.0.0
-------
INFLUENT
OFF-GASES
METHANE AND CARBON DIOXIDE
EFFLUENT
SUPPORT MEDIA
•530743
FIGURE 11-30
ANAEROBIC UPFLOW FILTER
11-73
-------
The disadvantages of anaerobic systems include (1) the relative lack of
practical experience in full-scale operations, and general lack of acceptance
as a treatment method; (2) the relatively long and variable start-up period
required to allow for microorganism development (i.e., nine months for filter,
10 weeks for sludge blanket); (3) the need for process optimization data for
various types of wastewater; and (4) the general understanding that, to meet
water quality standards, anaerobic processes are limited to pretreatment
applications prior to aerobic or other organics-removal options (for treatment
of low-strength COD concentrations, only 50- to 60-percent conversion is
expected) (Obayaski et al., 1981). Also, for lower-strength wastes, larger
digester volumes are frequently required. Because this is a biological pro-
cess, it is subject to toxicity failure if certain toxic levels are reached.
Relative toxicity limits must be determined for the wastewater to be treated,
as well as whether the toxicity is reversible or irreversible. Methane bac-
teria are reportedly killed easily by low concentrations of toxic substances
(Yang and Speece, 1985), and often recover much more slowly after toxic shocks.
Anaerobic treatment has had unfavorable past experiences, and is a poorly
understood process, resulting in a generally negative feeling toward its use as
a wastewater treatment system. Significant odors may be given off if the gas
is not collected and treated and, if the methane is to be stored or utilized,
the sulfur must be removed.
11-9.1.3 Chemicals Required. As in aerobic systems, certain chemicals and/or
nutrients may be required to ensure that (1) toxic conditions that could
inhibit growth and anaerobic degradation do not develop within the biological
reactors; (2) the required nutrients are present in sufficient quantities to
ensure that efficient microbial growth and biological degradation are occur-
ring; and (3) certain other inhibitory conditions, correctable with chemical
addition, do not persist (Olthof and Oleszkiewicz, 1982). Extensive laboratory
bench- and pilot-scale testing is sometimes necessary to pinpoint the problem
areas and determine the chemical additions required to efficiently operate the
systems.
11-9.1.4 Residuals Generated. The primary residuals of the anaerobic process
include methane, carbon dioxide, and sludge. Of the amount of COD entering the
system, it has been shown that 11 to 15 percent is converted into biomass
Csludge) requiring treatment/disposal, versus 50 to 60 percent conversion in
aerobic systems; therefore, the anaerobic system is a more efficient organic
degradation system (Suidan et al., 1981). It has been shown that 90 percent of
the biodegradable fraction of organics is converted into methane, which com-
prises approximately 75 to 80 percent of the total gas produced, and is yielded
at a rate of approximately 0.350 m3/kg COD (Olthof and Oleszkiewicz, 1982).
Depending on SRT, HRT, strength of incoming wastes, and operation efficiency,
the methane production rate will vary. The methane generated can be utilized
as a fuel supply and/or to heat the influent prior to treatment (which allows
for more efficient removal of organics). However, if hydrogen sulfide gas is
present in the gas stream, it must be scrubbed before it can be stored or used
as a fuel. An iron sponge scrubber system has been utilized to perform this
task and to precipitate the H2S as ferrous sulfide.
11-74
11.89.45
0080.0.0
-------
11-9.1.5 Design Criteria. There are basically two approaches to designing
wastewater reactors: (1) use of years of process-type information involving
volumetric organic loadings and expected effluent quality; or (2) use of
conceptual simulation models of processes and conditions to predict the optimum
design. Numerous models are described in the literature of fixed film re-
actors; however, to date, none have been sufficiently refined to be used,to
design full-scale systems. Due to the lack of many full-scale systems treating
high-strength wastes, and the relative lack of published design criteria and
research and development, treatability and pilot studies are normally required.
These studies will be useful to pinpoint problem areas and modify system design
and operation constraints, in order to determine (1) if additive, antagonistic
synergistic toxicities will result among the various chemicals in the waste-
water, and (2) the rate-limiting step. The preferred sequential approach for
design parameter selection should include (1) toxicity testing and wastewater
analyses studies combined with a detailed literature search of available
anaerobic treatment technologies; (2) bench-scale tests in fixed film and
flowthrough reactors installed in parallel; and (3) pilot-scale tests on the
selected process to determine scale-up factors and specific reactor require-
ments (Olthof and Oleszkiewicz, 1982).
In an effort to provide an understanding of anaerobic toxicity, Table 11-3
lists a few of the reported wastewater concentrations that generally are toxic
to anaerobic wastewater treatment. Several contaminants of concern are listed
more than once to illustrate the differences among the concentration generali-
zations made or reported by different authors. ' * •
There are many published general design recommendations of which to be aware
when considering anaerobic systems. The desirable' design will maximize the SRT
and minimize the HRT. Sludge and flow recycling is usually required, as well
as efficient solids recapture of the recycle. Recycle pumps and piping that
have no high shear zones, which would disperse biomass floes, are preferred.
Reactor configurations ensuring low turbulence, efficient sedimentation, and
prevention of. plugging are also recommended. Processes resulting in a higher
biomass concentration in the reactor are generally preferred, and induced
thickening of the return sludge often will improve efficiency. Optimal design
is also dependent on adequate bacterial and food source contact, often achieved
by active or passive mixing. If fluctuations in flow or waste strength are
anticipated, consideration should be given to adding an equalization tank to
the process; stable, consistent operating conditions are necessary for ef-
ficient results. __ -
Whether primary sedimentation is required depends on the reactor hydrolysis
rates and HRT. Methods to remove gaseous products from early stages of bac-
terial conversion improves efficiency in the later stages of treatment and ••
increases process stability.
11-9.1.6 Treatability of Waste/Performance. As previously noted, anaerobic
processes are more efficient than aerobic processes in treating high-strength
biodegradable organics. Anaerobic treatment processes have been consistently
recommended for treating wastewater stronger than 1,000 mg/A COD. Anaerobic
systems typically handle wastewaters greater than 3,000 to 5,000 mg/£ COD,
while aerobic systems are limited to concentrations below 5,000 mg/A COD due to
11-75
11.89.45
0081.0.0
-------
TABLE 11-3
VARIOUS CHEMICAL/LOADING-SPECIFIC TOXICITY OR INHIBITION RESPONSES
IN ANAEROBIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT
CHEMICAL/PARAMETER
INHIBITION/
TOXICITY RESPONSE
SOURCE
Inorganic
Total Dissolved Inorganics
Nickel, Copper, Cyanide
Nickel
Copper
Sulfide
Sulfide
Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
Ammonia-N
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
Calcium
Chromium 6
Zinc
pH
PH
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Chloride
Chromium (total)
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Tin
>30,000 mg/S,
>1 mg/£
>2 mg/£
2-200 mg/S.
<0.5 mg/S.
0.5-100 mg/S.
>300 mg/S.
>200 mg/S,
50-100 mg/S.
> 12,000 mg/S,
>3,000 mg/S.
1,000 mg/S,
>8 g/S.
3,500 mg/S,
>3,000 mg/S.
1,500-3,000 mg/S,
<1,000-5,000 mg/S.
<1,000 mg/S.
>8,000 mg/S.
>3 mg/S,
>1 mg/S,
1-10 mg/S.
6.8 200-1,000 mg/S,
>500 mg/S,
>250 mg/S.
Parkin and Owen, 1986
Parkin and Owen, 1986
Metcalf & Eddy, 1979
11.89.45T
0003.0.0
11-76
-------
TABLE 11-3
(continued)
VARIOUS CHEMICAL/LOADING-SPECIFIC TOXICITY OR INHIBITION RESPONSES
IN ANAEROBIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT
CHEMICAL/PARAMETER
INHIBITION/
TOXICITY RESPONSE
SOURCE
Organic (continued)
Volatile acids
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Phenol
Ethylene dichloride
Halogenated aliphatics
Nitro/chlorogenic
semivolatiles
COD
COD
COD
BOD
BOD
Aromatics
Chlorinated benzenes
Nitrogen compounds
Oxygenated compounds
Organic acids
Chlorophenols
Nitrophenols
>6,OOO mg/S.
>200-400 mg/S,
>5-10 mg/S.
>3 mg/£
>0.5 mg/S.
>2.4-200 mg/£
>400 mg/S,
>2,000 mg/S.
>28 mg/S.
100-200 mg/S.
>5-7 mg/S.
>1 mg/S.
0.1-100 mg/S,
variable, in 100-mg/£
range
<1,500 mg/S.
<2,000-3,000 mg/S,
<10,000 mg/S.
1,000
-------
limitations in oxygen mass-transfer. Because no oxygen is required in
anaerobic treatment, this limitation does not exist. As noted previously,
proper reactor and system configuration and careful operational control result
in increased organics removal efficiency. Metals removal at rates of 50 to 60
percent have been noted in anaerobic systems . If metals removals are a con-
cern, treatability studies should determine if sufficient removals are possible
in the anaerobic system.
Chemicals normally considered inhibitory or toxic to anaerobic bacteria can
often be degraded or removed efficiently if the system provides high SRTs .
Examples of chemicals that have been treated anaerobically are listed in
Table 11-4. As discussed previously, attempts to extrapolate these data to
determine treatability in a particular wastestream are generally not recom-
mended; bench- and pilot-scale testing will likely provide the degree to which
particular contaminants will be removed.
11-9.2 Evaluation of Anaerobic Biological Treatment
11-9. 2. I Effectiveness. Anaerobic treatment of wastewater for organics
removal is a permanent remedy that reduces a significant portion of biological-
ly degradable organics into methane and innocuous end-products. Under optimum
conditions, anaerobic treatment has removed over 98 percent of influent organic
contaminants in wastestreams . With proper design, no significant public health
risks would result. However, as discussed in Section 11-9.1.6, with varying
influent concentrations, certain contaminants are more readily removed than
others, and the system design and operating parameters should be tailored to
optimize treatment. In addition, to operate with efficiency, the minimum COD
in the substrate surrounding anaerobic bacteria should be in the 600 to
900 mg/£ range; concentration levels lower than these result in reduced treat-
ment effectiveness , with expected COD degradation of 50 to 60 percent (URS
Company, Inc., 1987). Therefore, to decrease effluent BOD to acceptable
concentrations for discharge to receiving waters, it is sometimes necessary to
use aerobic treatment systems after anaerobic systems. Also, depending on the
discharge criteria, additional processes to remove residual VOCs and suspended
solids may be required.
The methane generated is usually treated and/or used as a fuel, or flared
on-site; these are permanent remedies for this by-product. The sludge generat-
ed in the anaerobic process will usually contain a certain amount of the
influent metals and organics. Therefore, "the sludge may require dewatering
followed by incineration or further treatment prior to consideration for
landfilling.
Implementability. Most of the existing full-scale wastewater appli-
cations are for treatment of warm, concentrated organic wastestreams, such as
grain milling, sugar refining, food processing, fermentation, pharmaceutical,
organic chemical, textile, tanning, petrochemical, pulp and paper, coal pro-
cessing, and synfuels wastewater. Perhaps the most suitable application is as
an organics treatment step for landfill leachate, during which storage, mixing,
and flow regulation can be accomplished. However, before widespread use of
anaerobic systems occurs, process design information must be developed.
11-78
11.89.45
0084.0.0
-------
TABLE 11-4
EXAMPLES OF ORGANICS DEGRADED ANAEROBICALLY
ORGANIC COMPOUND
REFERENCE
Acetaldehyde
Acetic acid
Acetic anhydride
Acetone
Acrylic acid
Adipic acid
Aniline
1-Amino butyric acid
Benzoic acid
Butanoic acid
Butanol
Butyraldehyde
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate Esters
Butylene glycerol
Butyric acid
Catechol
Chloroform
Cresol
Crotonaldehyde
Crotonic acid
DDT
Diacetone gulusonic acid
Dieldrin
Diraethoxy benzoic acid
DimethyInitrosamine
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
dichloromethane
Ethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl acrylate
EthyIpheno1
Ferulic acid
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Fumaric acid
Glutamic acid
Glutaric acid
Glycerol
Hexachloro 1,3-Butadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorbethene
Hexanoic acid
Hydroquinone
Indole
Introhenzene
Isobutyric acid
CD
(5)
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C5)
CD
CD
C2)
CD
C3)
CD
C4)
CD
CD
CD
C2)
CD
C2)
CD
C2)
C7)
Cio)
C7)
CD
CD
CD
C9)
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C8)
C8)
C8)
CD
CD
C5)
C2)
CD
11.89.45T
0005.0.0
11-79
-------
TABLE 11-4
(continued)
EXAMPLES OF ORGANICS DEGRADED ANAEROBICALLY
ORGANIC COMPOUND
REFERENCE
Isopropanol
Isopropyl alcohol
Lactic acid
Lindane
Maleic acid
Methanol
Methyl acetate
Methyl acrylate
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl formate
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pentanoic acid
P-Cresol
P-Ni tropheno1
Pentaerythritol
•Pentanol
Phenol
Phloroglucinol
Phthalic acid
Propanal
Propanol
Propionate
Propionic Acid
Propylene glycol
Protocatechuic acid
Pyridine
Quinoline
Resorcinol
Sec-butanol
Sec-butylamine
Sorbic acid
Syringaldehyde
Syringic acid
Succinic acid
Tert-butanol
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichloromethane
Trihalomethane
Valeric acid
Vanillic acid
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidine chloride
3,4-Xylenol
CD
CD
CD
C2)
CD
(1)
CD
(1)
CD
CD
CD
C2)
C5)
C5)
(2)
CD
CD
CD
C2)
CD
CD
CD
CD
C3)
CD
CD
C9)
C5)
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C7)
C2)
C2, 4)
C4, 10)
C2)
C6)
C3)
CD
CD
Cio)
Cio)
C9)
11.89.45T
0006.0.0
11-80
-------
TABLE 11-4 (continued)
EXAMPLES OF ORGANICS DEGRADED ANAEROBICALLY
REFERENCES
(1) Speece, 1983
(2) Olthof et al., 1984
(3) Parkin and Owen, 1986
(4) Switzenbaum and Grady, 1986
(5) Fox et al., 1988
(6) Bouwer et al., 1981
(7) Vargas and Ahlert, 1987
(8) Johnson and Young, 1983
(9) Blum et al., 1986
(10) Fogel et al., 1986
11.89.45T
0007.0.0
11-81
-------
Various vendors exist and can provide selected microbes, nutrients, and system
designs. In addition, most of the companies that offer mobile aerobic systems
also offer anaerobic systems. However, vendors are generally reluctant to
recommend the anaerobic systems (USEPA, 1986d). As discussed previously, to
assess the implementability of anaerobic treatment on a particular wastestream,
laboratory and pilot-scale treatability studies should be conducted to de-
termine CD to what extent the wastewater is degraded; (2) what type of reactor
should be used; (3) what nutrients are required; (4) maximum loading and gas
composition; (5) the necessity of supplemental alkalinity; and (6) whether
there is any inhibition or toxicity. These treatability studies can take more
than six months to conduct, with additional time required for system design and
construction.
The residuals produced during treatment must be disposed of. Sludge dewatering
technology, gas treatment systems, and landfilling are widely used and avail-
able. Once the system is operating, frequent monitoring is required to ensure
efficient treatment. Downtime occurs during repairs to process tanks or
piping, for removal of excess solids (which may plug the reactor), and/or for
reseeding with microorganisms, if necessary. Sufficient surface area should be
made available for the system, process downtime wastewater storage, emergency
wastewater removal, and/or additional pretreatment units, if determined neces-
sary during design.
11-9.2.3 Cost. Capital costs for anaerobic reactors have been shown to be
Similar to those for aerobic reactors. For example, capital costs for anaero-
bic reactors can be approximately 10 percent greater than those for aerobic
reactors (Witt et al., 1979; and Olthof and Oleszkiewicz, 1982). However,
depending on design, anaerobic reactors can have a capital cost 25 percent
below that of aerobic reactors. Increased costs result in systems that require
a refined flow distribution system and added pumps, as required in the
fluidized bed systems. These requirements also apply frequently to aerobic
systems. Increased costs for filter media have added to a reluctance to use
anaerobic systems, with packing materials costs found to be comparable to tank
costs. For example, for a large system (assuming 10-percent annual interest,
1988 dollars), reactors and media each have been indicated to cost $560/m3
(Speece, 1983):
When considering anaerobic versus aerobic wastewater treatment systems, the
cost savings most often indicated for anaerobic systems are those due to
decreased O&M (i.e., lower sludge production, energy conservation, and methane
production/use), with savings of $.20 to $.50/1,000 gallons treated (Jewell,
1987). Although available literature often praises the O&M costs savings of
anaerobic systems over aerobic systems ($160/metric ton COD treated, assuming
$.06/kWh, $4.50/106 BTU for methane [1988 dollars], and $100/ton dewatered
sludge disposal [Speece, 1983]), it has been noted that, when COD loading is
below 15,000 pounds per day, there is little difference between anaerobic and
aerobic operating costs. It has also been noted that anaerobic treatment may
become cost-effective when the process generates enough methane to heat the
system.
To accurately estimate costs, bench-scale tests should be used to determine if
biological treatment alone is sufficient to meet treatment requirements.
11-82
11.89.45
0088.0.0
-------
Typical costs and cost curves have not been developed for anaerobic treatment
systems because costs are highly site-specific and therefore should be
developed on a site-by-site basis.
11-10 AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
11-10.1 Description
Aerobic biological treatment is used'to remove biodegradable organic matter
from wastestreams through microbial degradation in the presence of dissolved
oxygen. Oxygen acts as an electron acceptor for microorganisms, and should be
present in sufficient quantity to promote and sustain their growth. As a
treatment technology, biological treatment is often technically more effective
and less costly than physical-chemical treatment for control of organic
pollutants in wastewaters, especially those with complex mixtures of waste. In
some cases, a combination of biological and physical-chemical treatment will be
the optimum treatment option (Bishop and Jaworski, 1986).
Aerobic processes can be used to significantly reduce a wide range of organic
and hazardous compounds; however, in general, only dilute wastes (i.e., less
than 1 percent) are normally treatable. Relatively low levels (i.e., BOD less
than 10,000 mg/Ji) of nonhalogenated and/or certain halogenated organic waste-
streams are recommended for aerobic biological treatment, with consistent,
stable operating conditions required.
One feature that makes biological treatment practical is the retention of
biological cells in a large biomass, which fosters rapid and complete oxidation
of organic matter within a relatively short liquid detention time. The goal
of biological treatment of wastewater is mineralization of the organic con-
stituents. However, this process is never 100-percent complete, and degrada-
tion products are usually released. These degradation products may be toxic,
depending on the influent characteristics.
11-10.1.1 Equipment Types Available. Two general types of biological reactors
are in use: (1) suspended, mobilized growth reactors, and (2) ''fixed film,
immobilized cell reactors. Suspended growth reactors are generally stirred-
tank reactors in which the microorganisms (biomass) and substrate (biode-
gradable organics) in the wastestream are totally or partially mixed. In
immobilized cell reactors, the biomass is attached, or fixed, to media, and the
substrate contacts immobilized biomass by flowing over the media (URS Company,
Inc., 1987). Section 10 provides a brief description of five common aerobic
systems. , .
The two most common and longest standing methods of aerobic treatment are the
activated sludge, suspended growth reactor and the trickling filter, fixed film
reactor. In the activated sludge process (Figure 11-31), microorganisms must
accumulate into relatively large aggregates known as floes. These large masses
of cells can settle after they exit the aeration tank in a secondary clarifier,
and are returned to the reactor tank to allow buildup of biomass. In trickling
filter systems, the cell mass is retained directly in the filter media, and is
attached to fixed, solid surfaces. Organic contaminant and ammonia removal,
11-83
11.89.45
OO89.0.0
-------
i
00
-P-
INFLUENT-
NUTRIENTS
PUMP
AERATOR
FLOCCULANTS
I
I
I
AERATION TANK
I
i
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE
RECYCLE PUMP
WASTED
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
EFFLUENT
5307-83
FIGURE 11-31
AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT - ACTIVATED SLUDGE
-------
oxygen use, new cell mass growth, and biofilm retention all occur on and around
the media. The wastewater moves from the trickling filter to a settler to
improve effluent quality, but settled cell mass is not usually returned to the
filter reactor CRittman, 1987). Detailed descriptions of these two, as well as
other aerobic treatment types, are provided in Section 10.
11-10.1.2 Advantages and Limitations. There are various advantages when
choosing aerobic biological treatment over other wastewater treatment systems.
Depending on the system type, these advantages include the following:
o technology often offers the lowest cost method of treatment per pound
of organic removed, destroying organic compounds at a much lower cost
than carbon absorption
o biomass acclimates to degrade many compounds that are initially
refractory
o handles fluctuating organic loading
o good resistance to shock loads if designed properly, and adapts to
many types of wastewater treatment problems
o operates within a limited space environment and provides a high
quality effluent
However, certain disadvantages are often noted when selecting aerobic biologi-
cal treatment systems. Depending on the specific system type, these dis-
advantages include the following:
o requires relatively consistent, stable operating conditions and can
treat wastes with generally low levels (i.e., BOD less than 10,000
mg/£) of non-halogenated organic and/or certain halogenated organics
o not suitable for removal of many aliphatics, amines, aromatic com-
pounds , and certain heavy metals and other organics
o relative high complexity of system operation and equipment; high
amount of sludge production; and high energy requirements
6 relative sensitivity of the systems, possibly requiring precipi-
tation/flocculation/sedimentation to remove metals and suspended
solids, neutralization to bring the pH to near neutral, nutrient
addition, post-treatment carbon adsorption to remove nonbiodegradable
organics, and filtration to remove suspended solids; chemical ad-
ditions may be required to achieve the desired result
o start-up time may be slow if the organism needs to be acclimated to
the wastes
o hydraulic detention times can be long for complex wastes
11-85
11.89.45
0091.0.0
-------
o loss of VOCs from unit processes can pose localized air pollution and
a health hazard to field personnel
o the sludge produced may be considered a hazardous waste, which would
require RCRA-approved disposal
11-10.1.3—Chemicals Required. As discussed previously, certain chemical
additions may be required to bring the wastestream to optimum conditions before
introducing the wastestream to the biologically active reactor. Oxygen or air
must usually be provided and distributed in the amount and manner necessary to
ensure efficient oxygen mass transfer within the reactor. Regarding sludge
settling, inert solids or coagulants are sometimes added in the secondary
Clarifier to cause sludge to clump together, and small concentrations of
chlorine, heavy metals and/or lime may be added to reduce the number of fila-
mentous bacteria present. Bench- and pilot-scale treatability studies are
especially useful to pinpoint problem areas and determine the chemical ad-
ditions required to efficiently operate the system.
11-10.1.4 Residuals Generated. Sludge production is a function of the type of
aerobic system selected and the type of wastewater entering the system. For
example, a high colloid concentration in the influent results in increased
sludge production, and use of an extended aeration system results in low net
sludge production. Conversion of at least 40 to 60 percent of the organic
material, as COD, into excess sludge is a rule of thumb. The sludge will often
require further treatment prior to disposal, usually through (1) direct dis-
charge into aerobic or anaerobic digesters for volume reduction; and/or (2)
dewatering, through use of belt or filter presses, or sludge drying beds.
After dewatering, sampling and analyses are usually conducted to determine
whether the sludge is disposed of as a hazardous waste.
VOC releases may occur in the various treatment processes, possibly resulting
in localized air pollution and health hazards. In addition, if ana,erobic
conditions exist within the system, either through inadequate operation or
intentional design, methane and hydrogen sulfide gases may be released. These
released gases may possibly require collection and treatment.
11-10.1.5—Design Criteria. Several steps should be taken before deciding on a
biological treatment system for the cleanup of a particular groundwater:
CD search literature for biodegradability of the compound; (2) run generic
organic concentration tests (i.e.,, BOD, COD, TOC); (3) run treatability
studies; and (4) select and design process to be applied.
Specific design criteria vary among the different types of biological treatment
systems. For example, activated sludge process design considerations include
loading criteria, selection of the reactor type, sludge production and process
control, oxygen requirements and transfer, nutrient requirements, environmental
requirements, solids separation, effluent characteristics, settling basin
sidewater depth, overflow rate, and weir loading. Aerated lagoon design
criteria considerations include BOD removal, effluent characteristics, oxygen
requirements, temperature effects, energy requirements for mixing, and solids
separation. Trickling filter design criteria considerations include the type
and dosing characteristics of the distribution system, type and physical
11-86
11.89.45
0092.0.0
-------
characteristics of filter medium to be used, configuration of the underdrain
system, provision for adequate ventilation (either natural or forced air), and
design of the required settling tanks (Metcalf & Eddy, 1979).
Most of these criteria can be designed through use of reported design calcula-
tions, characteristics of the influent, and desired effluent, rather than
empirical derivations from treatability studies for each specific wastewater.
A partial listing of design criteria available in the literature for a specific
system (e.g., activated sludge, conventional and mechanical aeration) is
provided in Table 11-5.
11-10.1.6 Performance. Table 11-6 a summarizes the response to biodegradation
of 10 classes of chemical species found in hazardous wastestreams.
Aerobic bacteria are usually used to treat organic concentrations between 50
and 4,000 mg/£ BOD with capabilities for treatment of 1O,000 or even 15,OOO
mg/£ for small waste flows (Nyer, 1985). Table 11-7 provides a list of
treatment efficiencies for various systems. As noted previously, specific
treatment efficiency will be more accurately defined after treatability results
are received for a particular wastestream.
11-10.2 Evaluation of Aerobic Biological Treatment
11-10.2.1 Effectiveness. Aerobic biological treatment of wastewater for
organics removal is a permanent remedy that reduces a significant portion of
biologically degradable organics into carbon dioxide and water end-products.
As indicated previously, under optimum conditions, aerobic treatment has
removed over 95 percent of influent organics. However, to achieve effluent
quality capable of discharge to receiving waters, additional treatment (often
in the form of carbon adsorption, filtration, and/or chlorination) may be
required. Also, it is often necessary to pretreat the wastestreams before
using the biological systems that use physical/chemical treatment processes.
?
The VOCs that may be released during treatment might require treatment. The
sludge generated will usually contain metals and organics. The sludge can
usually be treated anaerobically, which will reduce the volume and increase its
stability. It may then require dewatering followed by incineration or further
treatment prior to consideration for_landfilling.
11-10.2.2 Implementability. Biological treatment has not been used as widely
for hazardous site remediation as activated carbon, filtration, and precipita-
tion/flocculation. As previously indicated, the process is well established
for treating a wide variety of organic contaminants. It is a broadly used
technology in industry for organics treatment.
As a general rule, biological systems will work best under stable, consistent
operating conditions with little variation in wastewater characteristics.
Pretreatment units and careful monitoring may be needed to achieve this re-
quirement. Several clean-up contractors have used biological treatment as part
of their mobile treatment systems. In addition, several companies have
11-87
11.89.45
0093.0.0
-------
TABLE 11-5
PARTIAL LISTING OF DESIGN CRITERIA:
ACTIVATED SLUDGE, CONVENTION/MECHANICAL AERATION
CRITERIA
VALUE
Volumetric loading, Ib BOD /day/1,000 ft3
Aeration detention time, hours
(based on average daily flow)
Mixed liquor suspended solids, mg/£
F/M, Ib BOD /day/mixed liquor volatile
suspended solids
Air required, standard ft3/lb BOD removed
Sludge retention time, days
25-50
4-8
1,500-3,000
0.25-0.5
800-1,500
(agitator -
sparger system
only)
5-10 ,,
SOURCE: USEPA, 1980a
11.89.45T
0008.0.0
11-88
-------
TABLE 11-6
PRIORITY POLLUTANT COMPOUND CLASS RESPONSES TO BIODEGRADATION
COMPOUND CLASS
DEGREE OF BIODEGRADATION
Alcohols
Aliphatics
Amines
Aromatics
Halocarbons
Metals
Pesticides
Phenols
Phthalate
Polynuclear
Aromatics
General removals of 75-100%
Wide range of removal efficiency
Some readily degradable with acclimated cultures;
others showing inhibition to system
Generally high removal, although removals may be
due to air-stripping or adsorption onto biomass
Generally biorefractory; removals may be due to
air-stripping
Removals at levels below toxicity threshold;
toxicity and inhibition at levels above threshold
No significant degradation
Greater than 70% removals generally reported;
toxic effects have been reported
High removals reported; may be attributed to air-
stripping or adsorption onto biomass
Generally inhibitory or refractory
SOURCE: Venkataramani et al., 1983
11.89.45T
0009.0.0
11-89
-------
TABLE 11-7
PERFORMANCE OF AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM
Performance
PROCESS TYPE
Activated Sludge: Conventional;
Diffused or Mechanical Aeration
Activated Sludge: High Rate,
Diffused Aeration
(A) Modified Aeration
(B) High Rate Aeration
Activated Sludge: Pure Oxygen, Covered
Activated Sludge: Pure Oxygen, Uncovered
Activated Sludge: Extended Aeration,
Diffused and Mechanical
Contact Stabilization, Diffused Aeration
Aerated Lagoons
Oxidation Ditch
Rotating Biological Contactors
Trickling' Filter, Plastic Media
Trickling Filter, High Rate, Rock Media
Trickling Filter, Low Rate, Rock Media
BOD,. REMOVALS
5
85-90%
50-70%
85-95%
89-95%
75-95%
85-95%
80-95%
60-90%
92-94%
80-90%
80-90%
60-80%
75-90%
NH,~ REMOVALS
*t
10-20%
5-10%
5-10%
20-98%
20-98%
50-90%
10-20%
—
40-80%
up to 90%
20-30%
20-30%
20-40%
SOURCE: USEPA, 1980a
11.89.AST
0010.0.0
11-90
-------
developed mobile biological reactors that are well-suited to treatment of
aqueous wastestreams contaminated with low levels of organics.
The main restrictions associated with aerobic biological treatment have
limited the application of biological technology to wastestreams that can meet
those factors. These restrictions include the need for continuous sources of
food (organics), nutrients, and oxygen; project start-up time of two to eight
weeks; and lower and upper BOD limits of 75 and 4,000 mg/Jd, respectively (Nyer,
1985).
Laboratory and pilot studies should be conducted to determine the proper system
design, nutrients and toxicity limits, and treatment efficiency. The residuals
produced must be disposed of. Sludge dewatering technology, gas treatment
systems (if necessary), and landfilling are widely used and available. Once
the system is operating, frequent monitoring is required to ensure efficient
treatment. Downtime occurs during repairs to process tanks or piping, and for
reseeding with microorganisms, if necessary. Sufficient surface area should be
made available for the system, emergency process 'downtime wastewater storage,
emergency wastewater removals, and/or additional pretreatment units, if deter-
mined necessary during design.
11-10.2.3 Cost. The characteristics of treatment vary from case to case, and
because factors specific to various treatment processes available from vendors
result in different effluent qualities, cost comparisons between processes are
generally not valid. However, there have been attempts to compare costs
between systems for magnitude estimation only (Venkataramani, 1983).
Cost information was compiled for a package-activated sludge system incorporat-
ing powdered activated carbon (PAC). Two different wastestream characteristics
were assumed to aid the costing. A lower level concentration wastestream
contains the following:
COD =500 mg/Jg.
BOD = 200 mg/SL
TSS = 200 mg/£
A relatively concentrated wastestream contains the following:
COD = 10,000 mg/&
BOD = 4,000 mg/£
TSS = 3,000 mg/£
Design assumptions and the package unit description are listed as follows.
Capital Costs
o The vendor package unit is equipped with an aeration-contact tank,
final clarifier, aerobic digestion tank, recycle' pump, mixers,
blowers, and polyelectrolyte and carbon feed systems.
11-91
11.89.45
O097.0.0
-------
O&M Costs
A filter press, conveyor equipment, conditioning tanks, sludge
storage tanks, and pressure pump system is costed to dewater the
waste sludge to 40-percent solids. A graph from the "Innovative and
Alternative Technology Assessment Manual" (USEPA, 1980a), adjusted
for 1988 dollars, provided the cost data.
j
Pumps and piping are designed with 100-percent backup capability.
Concrete pads support the units.
No off-gas treatment is costed.
No carbon regeneration systems are costed.
o Electricity to operate all equipment is included.
o Analytical testing depends on wastestream characteristics and the
POTW local limits. This example includes three BOD analyses per
week and one VOC analysis per month.
o Carbon dose must be determined in bench- or pilot-scale studies. To
cost, the easy-to-treat wastestream assumed less than 50 mg/Jtl of
carbon use; the difficult-to-treat wastestream assumed greater than
500 tag/SL.
o The unit provides polymer storage and feed systems for 0.25 to 5.0
mg/£ of polymer addition. The 0.25 mg/jH was assumed to apply to the
easy-to-treat wastestream; 5.0 mg/£ applies to the difficult-to-treat
wastestream.
o No nutrients are costed.
o Labor required was 8 hours/week for system flows less than 100 gpra,
and 16 hours/week for flows greater than 100 gpm.
o Sludge wasting during operation is derived from graphs provided by
the vendor. The graphs are based on BOD loading and solids retention
time.
o The dewatered sludge is trucked 500 miles to a RCRA landfill.
Capital and O&M costs are presented in Figures 11-32 and 11-33, respectively.
11-11 CARBON ADSORPTION
11-11.1 Description
Activated carbon adsorption is a physical separation process in which organic
and inorganic materials are removed from wastewater by sorption or the
11-92
11.89.45
0098.0.0
-------
i
vO
OJ
0
AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
CAPITAL COST
0.2
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.
i r
0.4 0.6
(Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
D LOW CHEM USE
FIGURE 11-32
AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT - CAPITAL COSTS
-------
AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
V)
WO
C
O o
Q.C
I-
800
700 -
600 -
500 ~
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
0.2
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.
ANNUAL COST
0.8
1
0.4 0.6
(Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
a LOW CHEMICAL USE
FIGURE 11-33
AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
-------
attraction and accumulation of one substance on the surface of another.
Traditionally, activated carbon has been used to remove undesirable odors and
colors in drinking water, or to aid in treatment of wastewater. An important
aspect of carbon adsorption is its capability of removing organics that are not
completely removed by conventional biological treatment. Activated carbon can
be used to (1) reduce COD, BOD, and other related parameters; (2) remove toxic
and refractory organics; (3) remove and recover certain organics; and
(4) remove selected inorganic chemicals including some heavy metals from
wastewaters. Most dissolved organics can be adsorbed by carbon.
Much of the surface area available for adsorption by carbon is found in the
pores within the carbon particles created during the activation process. A
carefully controlled process of dehydration, carbonization, and oxidation of
raw materials (e.g., coal, wood, coconut shells, and petroleum-based residues)
yields the activated carbon. As activated carbon adsorbs molecules or ions
from wastewater, the carbon pores eventually become saturated and the exhausted
carbon must be regenerated for reuse or replaced with fresh carbon. The
adsorptive capacity of the carbon can be partially restored by chemical or
thermal regeneration.
11-11.1.1 Equipment Types Available. There are two forms of activated carbon
in common use: granular (GAC) and powdered (PAC). Granular carbon is effec-
tive on dilute aqueous solutions with low suspended solids. GAC is primarily
used in two forms: (1) columns, where wastewater passes vertically through the
column; and (2) beds, where the wastewater passes horizontally through the bed.
Carbon columns are convenient for, flow rates below 1 mgd. Beds are more
practical in the range of 1 mgd and greater. The column or bed is sized to
allow enough contact time for the carbon to reduce the contaminant levels to a
predetermined concentration.
PAC is generally mixed with a more concentrated wastewater in an aerated
settling chamber. The wastewater detention time is predetermined to allow
sufficient contact time for contaminant removal. PAC is removed as a sludge
during clarification or sedimentation, and is not usually regenerated. When
used in combination with biological processes, PAC can greatly increase removal
of nonbiodegradable toxic organics. Details of the process configurations for
both forms of carbon are presented in the following paragraphs.
Granular Activated Carbon. GAC is about 0.1 to 1 mm in diameter and contacts
wastewater in columns or beds. Generally, carbon beds are used in large-scale
applications; that is, 1 mgd or greater. The bed provides the advantage of
easy access to the activated carbon for replacement. Columns become cost-ef-
fective at lower flow rates. They require less design and maintenance effort
than beds. Therefore, the remainder of this section discusses process configu-
rations related to activated carbon columns.
The water to be treated either flows down (downflow) or up (upflow) through the
carbon column. Upflow configurations include countercurrent operations, in
which exhausted carbon is continuously removed from the bottom of the column;
fluidized bed, in which forced flows expand the column's carbon bed volume by
10 percent; and fixed bed, in which wastewater flow is interrupted periodically
to replace portions of exhausted carbon.
11-95
11.89.45
0101.0.0
-------
Dovmflow configurations use fixed beds, with complete replacement of the column
when breakthrough has occurred. (Breakthrough occurs when the concentrations
of the target pollutant in the effluent are higher than the desired level.)
Multistage operations for fixed bed configurations (upflow or downflow) provide
more efficient use of activated carbon than single-stage configurations.
In a typical downflow fixed bed operation, two columns are operated in series
with a spare column. Figure 11-34 shows a series operation of two downflow
columns, including the sampling port between the columns used to monitor the
exit concentration of the lead column. When breakthrough occurs for the lead
column, it is removed from service for carbon disposal or regeneration. The
partially exhausted second column becomes the lead column, and the first spare
column is added as a second column in the series. When breakthrough is again
reached, the cycle is repeated. Influent to the carbon column is normally
filtered prior to passing into the column, to minimize clogging. Although
downflow configurations are more sensitive to suspended solids, downflow fixed-
bed columns are the most widely used form of GAC.
In an upflow configuration, the exhausted carbon is periodically removed from
the bottom of the column, and virgin or regenerated carbon is added at the top.
Continuous addition of carbon is not widely practiced because of difficulties
in moving solids through the active column without affecting the liquid flow.
Powdered Activated Carbon. PAC is about 50 to 70 microns in diameter and is
usually mixed with the wastewater to be treated. This "slurry" of carbon and
wastewater is then agitated to allow proper contact. Finally, the spent carbon
carrying the adsorbed impurities is coagulated, settled, or filtered. In
practice, a multistage countercurrent process is commonly used to make the most
efficient use of the carbon's capacity. Often, PAC is used in conjunction with
aerobic biological treatment.
Because PAC is generally used to enhance removal of high concentrations of
contaminants through settling, this application generates large volumes of
sludge. Normally, it is not economical to regenerate this form of carbon.
Spent PAC must be landfilled (RCRA-landfilled when hazardous) or incinerated.
11-11.1.2 Advantages and Limitations. The major benefits of carbon treatment
include applicability to a wide variety of organics and inorganics, with high
removal efficiencies. The system is compact, and recovery of adsorbed materi-
als is sometimes practical. Compared to biological systems for removal of
organic pollutants, activated carbon offers the following advantages:
o insensitivity to toxics (the system will remove most toxic organics
and some heavy metals)
o reduced sensitivity to temperature
o less time required for installation and start-up
o increased tolerance of concentration and flow rate variations
o reduction of organics to drinking water standards (GAC)
11.89.45
0102.0.0
11-96
-------
SAMPLING PORT
INFLUENT
PUMP
EFFLUENT
£- DOWNFLOW CARBON COLUMNS
FIGURE 11-34
CARBON ADSORPTION
5307-87
11-97
-------
o higher removal of BOD, COD, and total organic carbon (TOC) for many
wastes (PAG)
o effectiveness in streams with high dissolved solids
Limitations of the process include ineffective removal of low molecular weight,
highly soluble or highly polar organics; low tolerance for suspended solids in
the wastewater; and relatively high capital and operating costs. Iron concen-
trations of 10 ppm or greater may host slime-producing bacteria which can clog
the carbon. In addition, concentrated aqueous solutions can result in rapid
exhaustion of the carbon, increasing the O&M costs.
In general, carbon adsorption is a well-proven treatment for dilute solutions
of organics and inorganics. Prefabricated packages are readily available, and
manufacturers can provide expeditious treatability information for specific
wastestreams.
11-11.1.3 Chemicals Required. Acid,may be required to wash the exhausted or
regenerated carbon to remove metals, as well as other inorganic materials,
adsorbed on the carbon. GAG columns usually require periodic replacement
and/or regeneration. PAC will have to be continuously or periodically supplied
to the system.
11-11.1.4 Residuals Generated. PAC will generate sludge requiring disposal.
GAG can be landfilled, incinerated, or regenerated even when it contains
hazardous constituents. Only one RCRA-permitted facility is currently operable
for commercial regeneration of hazardous GAC.. On-site regeneration may be
practical if large volumes of carbon are used. The cost-effectiveness of
regeneration versus disposal must be evaluated on a site-by-site basis.
11-11.1.5 Design Criteria. Design of an activated carbon treatment system is
difficult without bench- or pilot-scale information on the treatability of the
particular wastewater. The size of the carbon columns (GAC) or the contacting
and settling basins (PAG) are both flow- and contaminant-concentration-depen-
dent. Pilot-scale tests and laboratory bench-scale testing (see Section
11-11.1.6) can provide the following design criteria:
o performance of different carbon types under the same dynamic flow
conditions
o minimum contact time required to produce the desired quality of
effluent
remove
pretreatment requirements to (1) reduce suspended solids; (2) remove
oil and grease; (3) adjust pH'to the optimum level; and (4) equalize
flow and organic concentrations
activated carbon dosages in terms of kilograms (kg) of carbon per
million liters of wastewater treated, kg of organic material removed
per kg of carbon, or pounds of carbon per 1,000 gallons treated
breakthrough characteristics of the system
11.89.45
0104.0.0
11-98
-------
o hydraulic loadings, head loss characteristics, and backwash needs
o biological growth effects
Carbon system sizing is based on consideration of the required carbon contact
time and the breakthrough characteristics of the system. Hydraulic loadings
and head loss (GAC only) characteristics will determine the size and type of
pumps and piping. The other design criteria provide informa'tion on potential
complications in the full-scale system.
11-11.1.6 Performance. Activated carbon is effective in removing various
organic and inorganic materials. Compound-specific isotherms are useful in
assessing the adsorption ability of a wastewater with a single contaminant.
"Carbon Adsorption Isotherms for Toxic Organics" contains a compilation of
compound-specific adsorption information (USEPA, 1980b). However, wastewater
is commonly a mixture of many compounds. The compounds may mutually enhance
adsorption, act relatively independently, or interfere with one another.
The following generalizations regarding the relative adsorption of compounds
help to determine whether carbon adsorption can provide the appropriate level
of removal. In general, molecules are more readily adsorbed than ionized
compounds. The aromatic compounds tend to be more readily adsorbed than the
aliphatics, and large molecules more readily adsorb than smaller ones. How-
ever, extremely high molecular weight materials can.be too large to penetrate
the pores in the carbon. Less soluble organics are more readily adsorbed than
soluble organics. Organics adsorption increases with decreasing pH; inorganic
adsorption varies with pH among compounds. Because activated carbon is slight-
ly polar, slightly polar compounds are readily adsorbed; whereas, extremely
polar compounds are not.
•
The generalizations and the information contained in the literature can be
extrapolated to use on any particular wastestream. However, accurate quantita-
tive information can only be determined on a site-by-site basis through pilot-
testing or carbon manufacturer services. Manufacturers provide services to
assess the•treatability of individual wastestreams. One approach uses computer
simulation; another provides reduced-scale laboratory column-testing. Both
methods correlate well to full-scale treatment, and can often significantly
reduce treatability testing costs.
Pilot studies can be more time-consuming and expensive than the services
provided by manufacturers. However, pilot tests provide the most complete and
accurate information on treatability of specific wastewaters.
11-11.2 Evaluation of Carbon Adsorption
11-11.2.1 Effectiveness. Treatment with activated carbon is a permanent
remedy. However, carbon adsorption is a separation process that generates
either contaminated GAC or a sludge of PAC as a residual. GAC may be land-
filled or incinerated; however, it is sometimes feasible to reactivate it.
Thermal reactivation is considered permanent.
11-99
11.89.45
0105.0.0
-------
PAC from a CERCLA waste generally will require disposal in a RCRA-permitted
landfill or incineration. Landfilling is not permanent and, therefore, poses
uncertainties in the long-term scope regarding effectiveness. Incineration in
a RCRA-permitted facility is a permanent remedy.
11-11.2.2 Implementability. Activated carbon adsorption is well-demonstrated
full-scale as a polisher (GAC), and as an additive to primary treatment (PAC).
Both forms of activated carbon are applicable to a variety of toxic organics
and inorganics. GAC columns are readily available from manufacturers and can
be installed quickly. PAC is readily available for use in settling chambers.
GAC columns may require filters or silt traps on the influent. Full-scale
designs of carbon columns require frequent monitoring to determine when break-
through occurs. Regeneration and incineration are well-documented residual
management technologies. However, the availability of incine-ration may be
limited by the type of waste removed. The availability of off-site regenera-
tion facilities is currently limited to a single RCRA-permitted facility.
Landfilling of exhausted activated carbon is widely used and available, and can
be quickly implemented.
11-11.2.3 Cost. Capital cost of treatment with activated carbon is dependent
on contaminant concentrations in the wastestream. Capital costs are also
increased in cold weather climates where buried piping, heating, and housing
units are required. O&M costs increase proportionally with concentration. The
three major contributors to O&M costs are (1) replacement of exhausted carbon,
(2) management of residuals generated, and (3) monitoring effluent concentra-
tions. The first two contributors depend on waste concentration.
Cost information on capital requirements is presented in Figure 11-35. The
figure shows estimates for flow rates varying from 10 to 1,000 gpm for a
downflow carbon column system. ¥The capital costs were developed for five flow
rates using the following assumptions:
o pumps and piping installed with 100-percent backup
o carbon columns are sized to handle maximum flow rate possible
o two carbon columns are used in a series with one spare on-site
o all equipment is installed on a concrete pad
o valves are available for monitoring the effluent concentrations
Capital costs are dependent on contaminant types and concentration. As dis-
cussed in Section 11-11.1.6, the contaminants present in a wastewater can
mutually enhance or interfere with the absorption process. The carbon columns
chosen for costing purposes were sized for the maximum flow rate the columns
could support hydraulically (taken from the manufacturer's specifications).
Therefore, the capital cost is representative of a low carbon usage rate,
similar to what could be required of a mutually enhancing or noninterfering
mixture of contaminants. Contaminant mixtures that increase the overall carbon
usage rate, associated with interfering contaminants, would require larger
carbon columns, increasing the overall capital cost.
11-100
11.89.45
0106.0.0
-------
900
CARBON ADSORPTION
CAPITAL COSTS
0.2
0.4 0.6
(Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
a CAPTITAL COST
NOTE- FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.
0.8
FIGURE 11-35
CARBON ADSORPTION - CAPITAL COSTS
-------
O&M costs are presented in Figure 11-36 for the same range of flow rates. O&M
costs were estimated for two different carbon usage rates: 0.1 and 10.0 pounds
of carbon per thousand gallons influent. These carbon use rates fall at the
low and high ends of the scale provided in the literature. O&M costs include
operator labor, electricity, carbon purchase, and disposal. The O&M costs will
increase proportionally with the amount of monitoring required; disposal costs
can vary with type of contaminant and transport distance.
11-12 ION EXCHANGE
— /
11-12.1 Description
Ion exchange is the process of exchanging selected dissolved ionic contaminants
in a wastewater with a set of substitute ions. The exchange occurs on a
synthetic or natural resin containing the substitute ions (functional ionic
groups) and is reversible. Undesirable ions are removed from a wastewater by
contacting the wastewater with the resin. Because the process is reversible,
backwashing with regeneration solutions can remove .the ions from the resin.
Backwashing the resin transfers the ions to a concentrated liquid, and leaves
the resin ready to treat a new volume of wastewater. The regeneration solu-
tions are strong or weak acids or bases, depending on the application.
Traditional uses of ion exchange include removal of selected dissolved metals
as polishing or recovery steps, nitrate removal for drinking water purifica-
tion, and decreasing TDS of influents. Ion exchange is frequently used in
water treatment to soften the water by removing ions (e.g., calcium and
manganese).
Industrial applications of ion exchange are primarily recovery operations for
dilute solutions of metals, where the value of the recovered metals makes the
process economical. Metals can be removed as ions in solution or as complexes.
Organic compounds are generally not removed with ion exchange.
11-12.1.1 Equipment Types Available. Various resin types are available.
These differences provide systems that are selective to discrete ionic mixes.
The generic categories of resins are strong acid, weak acid, strong base, and
weak base. The acid exchangers replace cations in the wastewater with hydrogen
ions, and the base exchangers replace anions with hydroxide ions. Ions other
than hydrogen or hydroxide can be exchanged, depending on the resin types and
functional groups to which they are attached. Other exchangeable ions include
sodium, chlorine, lithium, carbonate, and ammonium.
The weak acid and base exchangers are selective for only the more easily
removed ions. The strong acid and base exchangers are less selective, and will
remove most ions in the wastewater. A typical cation removal sequence is as
follows:
11-102
11.89.45
0108.0.0
-------
I
I—*
o
CARBON ADSORPTION ANNUAL COSTS
CARBON USAGE IN POUNDS PER 1000 GALLONS
4 -
2 -
1 -
0.2
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.
0.4 0.6
(Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
a 0.1 o 10.0
0.8
FIGURE 11-36
CARBON ADSORPTION - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
-------
Ra
+2 > Ba2+ > Pb2+ > Sr2+ > Ca2+
> Cu2+ > Co2+ > Zn2+ > Mn2+
Ag+ > Cs+
NH
4+
Na > Li
where radium is the most preferred ion, and lithium is the least preferred
(Clifford et al. , 1986). Similarly, a typical anion sequence is as follows:
HCrO.> CrO.
4 4
2~
>SO,
4
HAsO,
2-
> CIO
>Br~ >HPO
2-
2-
C032~> CN~> N02"
CHO > OH
>CH COO
>F
Weak acid and base resins will remove the more preferred ions present in the
wastewater, while a strong acid or base resin would sequentially remove all
ions present in the wastewater, including those more difficult to adsorb.
Advances in the development of synthetic resins have resulted in numerous
resins with unique selectivity sequences. Resin manufacturers can provide
specific information on the applicability of the various resins.
Several process configurations are available to contact the wastewater with the
ion exchange resin. Batch, fixed-bed column, and continuous column contact
schematics are the most widely used. Column contact occurs most commonly in
fixed-bed downflow operation. In the fixed-bed downflow system, wastewater is
passed through the column from top to bottom and periodically backwashed
(bottom to top) to regenerate the resin. This form of column contact requires
minimal suspended solids, to avoid clogging the void spaces within the resin.
Batch operations consist of adding resin to the wastewater, and mixing well for
a specified time. This method of contact can be inefficient because ion
exchange ceases when chemical equilibrium is reached. Column operation is
generally preferred over batch unless:
o the resin has unusually high selectivity for the target compound at
equilibrium; or
o the ion released from the resin precipitates or reacts with another
chemical so that it is removed from solution.
11-104
11.89.45
0110.0.0
-------
Continuous column contact consists of regenerating the resin while treating.the
wastewater. This method of ion exchange eliminates the need to interrupt the
treatment process for backwashing. It also allows a more complete and effi-
cient use of the resin. Continuous column contact can be better than fixed-bed
column contact for high flows or high ionic concentrations. However, continu-
ous column contact is not commonly used because of the complexity of the
mechanics involved in removing the solids for regeneration.
Figure 11-37 shows a typical fixed-bed column operation with anion and cation
columns in series. Ion exchange column manufacturers have developed many
different column arrangements for treatment of specific combinations of contam-
inants. Weber (1972) describes several available package systems; continuous
contact column diagrams are discussed in Seamster and Wheaton (1966).
The actual contact apparatus is available through a number of manufacturers.
The ancillary equipment that the process requires (i.e., pumps, flow meters,
valves, and storage tanks) is conventional chemical processing equipment.
Figure 11-39 shows a millivolt controller measuring the conductivity of the
effluent. This controller is generally connected to a control device to
activate the backwash cycle when the conductivity of the effluent reaches a
certain point (see Section 11-12.1.5 for design details).
11-12.1.2 Advantages and Limitations. Generally, ion exchange is used as a
polishing step. Dissolved solids concentrations in the range of 1,000 mg/S. may
require an evaluation of the relative cost-effectiveness of other alternatives
(Weber, 1972). Suspended solids concentration must be kept to a minimum to
prevent clogging of the resin void spaces. Iron, manganese, calcium, and high
organics concentrations may permanently foul the resins. The resins are
generally highly sensitive to oxidants; contact with oxidants should be avoided
to prevent degradation of the resin. Large organic molecules can clog the void
spaces of the resin. If a single exchange column is used, the effluent may be
basic or acidic, requiring neutralization (see Section 11-5).
Advantages of ion exchange include its versatile selectivity for specific
contaminants. High removal efficiencies are possible for dilute wastestreams.
The systems are insensitive to variations in flow rates; and are available for
a wide range of flows.
11-12.1.3 Chemicals Required. Ion exchange requires regeneration of the
exchange resin. In general, regenerates are commonly used chemicals. Examples
are sodium hydroxide, sodium chloride, sulfuric acid, calcium oxide, and
ammonia (Kunin, 1969). The regenerate is dependent on the resin type and the
functional group required to remove the undesirable ionic contaminants in the
wastewater.
11-12.1.4 Residuals Generated. Residuals generated during ion exchange
include waste solutions from the regeneration process and spent resins. The
waste solution will be concentrated in the ionic contaminants removed from the
wastewater. This liquid must be disposed of potentially as a RCRA waste or
further treated on-site. Possible solutions are on-site precipitation, oxida-
tion, reduction, and off-site incineration. Spent resins can be landfilled or
incinerated (also potentially as a RCRA waste).
11-105
11.89.45
0111.0.0
-------
PROCESS
PUMP
INFLUENT
r
MILLIVOLT
CONTROLLER
CATION
ANION
EFFLUENT
CATION
(SPARE)
r'
ANION
(SPARE)
SPENT
REGENERATION
SOLUTION
STORAGE
\
c
REGENERATION
SOLUTION
TANK
•) -
I
REGENERATION
PUMP
~l
SPENT
REGENERATION
SOLUTION
STORAGE
)
V
f
REGENERATION
SOLUTION
TANK
•) '
t
REGENERATION
PUMP
-I
I
THREE-WAY CONTROL VALVE
FIGURE 11-37
ION EXCHANGE
5307-87
11-106
-------
11-12.1.5 Design Criteria. A wide, variety of resins is available for use in
designing ion exchange systems. Manufacturers provide charts that characterize
the resins they produce, including recommendations for typical applications.
Generally, the manufacturer can suggest an appropriate resin based on the
wastewater characteristics. Final decisions on which resin is best-suited for
a particular application can be made through laboratory testing of the waste-
water.
Column configurations and the number of columns are a function of the waste-
water characteristics. As discussed in Section 11-12.1.1, resin manufacturers
have developed several configurations that decrease the need to neutralize the
wastestream, while maximizing the efficiency of the column. Resins release
ionic constituents (i.e., hydroxide and hydrogen ions) during ion exchange,
which alter the pH. Frequently, a single column in use will require effluent
neutralization prior to discharge. Where both anions and cations require
removal, using acid and base columns in series can eliminate the need for
neutralizing the effluent. Manufacturers can provide guidance on potential •
column configurations.
The resins possess theoretical exchange capacities, defined as the number of
ionic groups per unit weight or volume of the resin. The theoretical capacity
is expressed in equivalents per volume (e.g., eq/ft3) of resin. (NOTE: an
equivalent per mole is defined as the molecular weight of a chemical species
divided by its charge: grams/mole/charge. Equivalents are expressed in
municipal wastewater treatment as grams of calcium carbonate, as a normaliza-
tion technique for a wastestream with several contaminants. One equivalent is
equal to 50 grams of calcium carbonate. The molecular weight of calcium
carbonate is 100 g/mole and the change is 2; therefore, one equivalent is 100/2
or 50.) Theoretical capacity is not achievable during operations due to
equilibrium, time, influent concentration, and economic considerations. The
efficiency of a column of resin is defined as the operating capacity divided by
the theoretical capacity. Determination of the operating capacity is accom-
plished during bench tests. Manufacturers provide samples of resins for
bench-testing purposes.
The,bench tests can be conducted using small-diameter glass columns packed-with
resin. By passing known quantities of wastewater through the column, measuring
the conductivity (in millivolts), and sampling the effluent for analysis every
few bed volumes, a relationship can be determined between the conductivity of
the wastewater and the concentration of the contaminants. The result of this
relationship is an operating capacity per unit volume of influent (i.e., the
volume of resin required to treat a unit volume of wastewater).
The dimensions of the column are guided by several factors. The total volume
is dependent on the desired time between backwashes (usually on the order of
hours to days):
Total Column Volume = volume resin required per unit volume influent
X influent flow rate
X period of time between backwashes
11.89.45
0113.0.0
11-107
-------
A vertical cross section should allow a maximum 5 to 10 gpm/ft2 (Weber, 1972),
and most ion exchange columns are 2 to 6 feet high.
11-12.1.6 Performance. Ion exchange, when used on wastestreams with low
suspended solids (i.e., less than 50 mg/S. [USEPA, 1987a]) and low TDS (i.e.,
5,000 mg/£ [Patterson, 1985]), can exhibit high removal efficiencies for metals
and other ionic inorganic species. Applications to organics are infrequent
because many organics can permanently foul and degrade the resins.
Weak acid and base resins remove only strongly ionized cations and anions, but
require less Degeneration solution. Strong acid and base resins remove both
weakly and strongly ionized species and require more regeneration solution than
the weak resins. Table 11-8 presents work on ion exchange in industrial waste
treatment (Patterson, 1985).
11-12.2 Evaluation of Ion Exchange
1I-12.2.1 Effectiveness. Treatment using ion exchange is a permanent remedy,
in that the selected ionic contaminants are permanently removed from the
wastewater. Removal can be accomplished to the ppb level. However, ion
exchange transfers the ions to a more concentrated solution. The residual is a
waste solution highly concentrated with the exchanged ions. This wastewater
must be further treated using precipitation, oxidation, or some other treatment
method, or it must be disposed of as a hazardous waste. The resin, when used
properly, has a long lifetime but may require replacement if permanent fouling
occurs. Spent resins can be incinerated or landfilled at RCRA facilities.
11-12.2.2 Implementability. Ion exchange is in use in full-scale industrial
wastewater treatment applications where the wastewater contains valuable
recoverable metals. Municipal water treatment plants use ion exchange full-
scale as a water softener (i.e., removal of dissolved calcium and manganese).
Full-scale exchange equipment is widely available from several resin manufac-
turers. The manufacturers provide consulting services and brochures to aid in
selecting the appropriate resins and regenerates. Also, laboratory quantities
of the resins are available for use in bench-testing. The regeneration solu-
tions are generally common commercial-grade chemicals; therefore, they are also
readily available. Periodically, the resin must be checked for degradation.
The effluent must be sampled and analyzed to ensure that no pass-through will
occur.
Several wastewater characteristics may preclude the use of ion exchange as an
effective treatment. The wastewater must:
o have low suspended solids less than 50 mg/S. (USEPA, 1987a)
o have low total dissolved solids less than 5,000 mg/S, (Patterson,
1985)
o not contain cyanide (except ferrocyanides), ferrous iron, strong
oxidants, oil and grease, or cadmium-cyanide compounds, because these
may permanently foul or degrade the resin
11-108
11.89.45
0114.0.0
-------
TABLE 11-8
ION EXCHANGE APPLICATION SUMMARY
ION
As5+
Ba2+
Cd2+
Cr6+
Cr3+
Cu2+
CN~
F~
Fe2+
Fe2+
Pb2+
Mn2"*"
Hg2+
O
Ni2+
WASTEWATER SOURCE
Acid mine drainage
Groundwater
__
Chromium plating rinse water
Dilute chromium plating
rinse water
(dilute)
Not applicable - cyanide
deteriorates resins
Sodium fluoride solutions
Acid mine drainage
Water treatment
Ammunition
Water treatment
Chlor-alkali plants
Nickel sulfate plating
bathwater
Nitrate/Nitrite Drinking water
Se2~
Ag+
Zn2
Sewage treatment-
Plating rinse water
Plating rinse water
SCALE OF
APPLICATION
Pilot
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Pilot
Pilot
Full
Pilot
Full
Full
Full
Full
Pilot
Full
Pilot
MOST COMMON
TREATMENT
METHOD
Precipitation
Precipitation
Precipitation
Precipitation
Reduction
Precipitation
Lime precipitation
Activated
alumina
Precipitation
Ion exchange,
coagulation
Precipitation,
coagulation
Ion exchange,
coagulation
Ion exchange
(polisher)
Precipitation,
ion exchange
. Biological, ion
exchange
Ion exchange,
precipitation
Precipitation,
ion exchange
Precipitation
NOTE:
— = Not available from text
SOURCE
11.89.
O011.0
: Patterson, 1985
45T
.0
11-109
-------
Additionally, large organic molecules can foul ion exchangers. Chemical
cleaning can reduce the problem. Finally, other treatment equipment may be
required to treat the residual backwash (e.g., oxidation, precipitation, or
reduction equipment).
11-12.2.3 Cost. Capital cost estimates for treatment by ion exchange are
presented in Figure 11-38. The figure shows two cost estimates that reflect
the extremes of the treatability of wastewaters using ion exchange. The low
chemical dose line on the figure represents a system using weak acid and base
columns, with low chemical regenerant requirements. The high chemical dose
line represents a system using strong acid and base columns, with high chemical
regenerant requirements. The following list compares the design parameters
used in creating the capital costs.
Design. Assumptions
High Dose
Low Dose
Column cross-sectional area
Column depth
Regenerant (anion and cation)
Resin type
5 gpm/ft2
6 feet
20 lb/ft3 resin
macroporous
10 gpm/ft2
3 feet
1 lb/ft3 resin
gel
Both capital costs reflect dual columns in series with spare columns in paral-
lel for continuous operation during regeneration. Also, both estimates include
millivolt controllers to activate regeneration, with the appropriate valving,
pumps, and storage tanks contained on a concrete pad with a retaining wall to
contain any leaking substances.
OSM cost estimates for the two systems are shown in Figure 11-39. The costs
include operator labor, chemical regenerant requirements, spent regeneration
solution disposal, resin replacement, and electricity.
The costs for the two chemical regenerant requirements correspond to low and
high published doses (Weber, 1972). The low regeneration requirements parallel
the capital cost for the weak acid and base resins, while the high regeneration
requirements parallel the capital cost for the strong acid and base resins.
11-110
11.89.45
0116.0.0
-------
TIT-IT
m
DOLLARS
(Millions)
0)00
-------
100
ION EXCHANGE
ANNUAL COST
0.2
n LOW CHEMICAL USAGE
NOTE: FIGURE SOURCES ARE INCLUDED IN
REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.
0-4 0.6 0.8 1
(.Thousands)
GALLONS PER MINUTE
+ HIGH CHEMICAL USAGE
FIGURE 11-39
ION EXCHANGE - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
-------
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
API
ARARs
BOD
CERCLA
COD
EDTA
F/M
FS
GAC
gpm
HRT
ISP
kg
m
mm
mgd
mg/S.
O&M
ORP
PAC
POTW
ppb
ppm
PVC
RCRA
SRT
SSP
SVOC
TCE
TDS
THM
TOC
TSS
American Petroleum Institute
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
biochemical oxygen demand
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980
chemical oxygen demand
ethylene-diamine-tetraacetic acid
food to microorganism
Feasibility Study
granular activated carbon
gallons per minute
hydraulic retention time
insoluble sulfide precipitation
kilogram
meter
millimeter
million gallons per day
milligrams per liter
operation and maintenance
oxidation reduction potential
powdered activated carbon
publicly owned treatment works
parts per billion
parts per million
polyvinyl chloride
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
solids retention time
soluble sulfide precipitation
semivolatile organic compound
trichloroethene
total dissolved solids
trihalomethane
total organic carbon
total suspended solids
11.89.45
0119.0.0
11-113
-------
USEPA
UV
VOC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ultraviolet
volatile organic compound
11.89.45
0120.0.0
11-114
-------
REFERENCES
Anderson, G.K., T. Donnelly, J.A. Anderson, and C.B Saw, 1986. "Fate of COD in
an Anaerobic System Treating High Sulfate Bearing Wastewater"; in
Proceedings of the International Conference on Innovative Biological
Treatment of Toxic Wastewaters; U.S. Army Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory; Champaign, Illinois; pp. 505-533; June 1986.
Anderson, G.K., T. Donnelly, and K.J. McKeown, 1982. "Application of Anaerobic
Packed-bed Reactors to Industrial Wastewater Treatment"; in Proceedings of
the 37th Industrial Waste Conference; Purdue University; West Lafayette,
Indiana; pp. 651-659; July 1982.
Apmsman, R.K., R. Musick, J.D. Zeff, and T.C. Crase, 1980. "Experience in
Operation of an Ultraviolet-Ozone (Ultrox) Pilot Plant for Destroying
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Industrial Waste Influent"; in Proceedings at
the 35th Industrial Waste Conference; Purdue University; West Lafayette,
Indiana; May 1980.
Bishop, D.S., and R.A. Jaworski, 1986. "Biological Treatment of Toxics in
Wastewater: The Problems and Opportunities"; in Proceedings of the
International Conference on Innovative Biological Treatment of Toxic
Wastewaters; U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory;
Champaign, Illinois; pp. 2-25'; June 1986.
Blum, D.J.W., R. Hergenroeder, G.F. Parkin, and R.E. Speece, 1986. "Anaerobic
Treatment of Coal Conversion Wastewater Constituents: Biodegradability
and Toxicity"; Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation;
Vol. 58, No. 2; pp. 122-132; February 1986. -
Bourbigot, M.M., R. Brunet, A. Zeana, and M. Dore, 1985. "The Simultaneous Use
of Ozone and Ultraviolet Rays in Water Treatment"; presented at I.O.A.;
Berlin, West Germany; April 1985.
*r
"Bouwer, E.J., B.E. Rittman, and P.L. McCarty, 1981. "Anaerobic Degradation of
Halogenated 1- and 2-Carbon Organic Compounds"; Environmental
Science and Technology; Vol. 15, No. 5; pp. 596-599; May 1981.
Brown, G.; Granger & Associates, 1950. Unit Operations; John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.; New York, New York.
Clifford, D., S. Subramonian, and T.J. Sorg, 1986. "Removing Dissolved
Inorganic Contaminants from Water"; Environmental Science and Technology;
Vol. 20, No. 11; pp. 1072-1080; November 1986.
Federal Register, 1987. Vol. 52, No. 155; pp. 29998-30004; August 12, 1987.
Fletcher, D.B., 1987. "UV/Ozone Process Treats Toxics"; Waterworld News;
Vol. 3, No. 3; May/June 1987.
11.89.45
0121.0.0
11-115
-------
Fogel, M.M., A.R. Taddeo, and S. Fogel, 1986. "Biodegradation of Chlorinated
Ethenes by a Methane-utilizing Mixed Culture"; Applied and Environmental
Microbiology; Vol. 51, No. 4; pp. 720-724; April 1986.
Fox, P., M.T. Suidan, and J.T. Pfeffer, 1988. "Anaerobic Treatment of
Biologically Inhibitory Wastewater"; Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation; Vol. 60, No. 1; pp. 86-92; January 1988.
Geankoplis, C., 1983. Transport Processes and Unit Operations, 2nd Edition;
Allyn and Bacon, Inc.; Boston, Massachusetts.
Gurnham, C.F., 1955. Principles of Industrial Waste Treatment; John Wiley and
Sons, Inc.; New York, New York; 1955.
Hager, D.G., 1988. "On-site Chemical Oxidation of Organic Contaminants in
Groundwater Using UV Catalyzed Hydrogen Peroxide"; American Water Works
Association Award Conference; June 1988.
Jewell, W.J., 1987. "Anaerobic Sewage Treatment"; Environmental Science and
Technology; Vol. 21, No. 1; pp. 14-20; January 1987.
Johnson, L.D., and J.C. Young, 1983. "Inhibition of Anaerobic Digestion by
Organic Priority Pollutants"; Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation; Vol. 55, No. 12; pp. 1441-1449; December 1983.
Kawamura, S., 1987. "Recent Advances in Water Treatment Processes"; Public
Works; pp. 63-65; January 1987.
Kunin, R., 1969. "Ion Exchange for the Metal Products Finisher": Parts I, II,
and III; Products Finishing; pp. 66-73, 71-79, and 182-190; April, May,
and June 1969.
Lenzo, F., 1988. "Air-stripping -Teases VOCs from Groundwater";
Water Engineering and Management; February 1988.
McCarty, P.L., 1964. "Anaerobic Waste Treatment Fundamentals: Toxic
Materials and Their Control"; Public Works; pp. 91-94; November 1964.
McCarty, P.L., and D.P. Smith, 1986. "Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment";
Environmental Science and Technology; Vol. 20, No. 12; pp. 1200-1206;
December 1986.
McShea, L.J., M.D. Miller, and J.R. Smith. "Combining UV/Ozone to Oxidize
Toxics"; Pollution Engineering; reprinted by ULTROX International; Santa
Ana, California.
Metcalf & Eddy, 1979. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and
Reuse; McGraw-Hill Book Co.; New York, New York.
Michael, J., 1988. "Air-stripping of Organic Compounds"; Arizona Water and
Pollution Control Association 1988 Annual Conference; Lake Havasu City,
Arizona; copyright Delta Cooling Towers, Inc.
11.89.45
0122.0.0
11-116
-------
Nemerow, N.L., 1971. Liquid Waste of Industry: Theories, Practices, and
Treatment; Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.; Reading, Massachusetts.
Nyer, E.K., 1985. Groundwater Treatment Technology; Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, Inc.; New York, New York.
Obayaski, A.W., H.D. Stensel, and E. Kominek, 1981. "Anaerobic Treatment of
High Strength Wastes"; Chemical Engineering Progress; pp. 68-73;
April 1981.
Olthof, M. , W.R. Kelly, G. Wagner, and J. Oleszkiewicz, 1984. "Anaerobic
Treatment of a Variety of Industrial Wastestreams"; in Proceedings of the
39th Industrial Waste Conference; Purdue University; West Lafayette,
Indiana; pp. 697-704; July 1984.
Olthof, M., and J. Oleszkiewicz, 1982. "Anaerobic Treatment of Industrial
Wastewaters"; Chemical Engineering; Vol. 89, No. 23; pp. 121-126;
November 1982.
Parkin, G.F., and W.F. Owen, 1986. "Fundamentals of Anaerobic Digestion of
Wastewater Sludges"; Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division,
Proceedings of the ASCE; Vol. 112, No. 5; pp. 867-920; October 1986.
Patterson, J.W., 1985. Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology, 2nd
Edition; Butterworth Publishers; Boston, Massachusetts.
Perry, R.H., 1973. Chemical Engineers Handbook 5th Edition; McGraw-Hill Book
Co.; New York, New York.
Peters, R., Y. Ku, and D. Bhattacharyya, 1985. "Evaluation of Recent Treatment
Techniques for Removal of Heavy Metals from Industrial Wastewaters";
American Institute of Chemical Engineers Symposium Series; Vol. 81,
No. 243; pp. 166-172.
Rittman, B.E., 1987. "Aerobic Biological Treatment"; Environmental Science and
Technology; Vol. 21, No. 2; pp. 128-135; February 1987.
Sachs, E.F., J.C. J.ennett, and M.C. Rand, 1982. "Pharmaceutical Waste
Treatment by Anaerobic Filter"; Journal of the Environmental Engineering
Division, Proceedings of the ASCE; Vol. 108, No. EE2; pp. 297-314;
April 1982.
Seamster, A.H., and R.M. Wheaton, 1966. "A Basic Reference on Ion Exchange";
Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology; 2nd Edition; Vol. 11; John Wiley and
Sons, Inc.; New York, New York; pp. 871-899.
Snoeyink, V.L., and D. Jenkins, 1980. Water Chemistry; John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.; New York, New York.
Speece, R.E., 1983. "Anaerobic Biotechnology for Industrial Wastewater Treat-
ment"; Environmental Science and Technology; Vol. 17, No. 9; pp. 416A-
427A'; September 1983.
11.89.45
0123.0.0
11-117
-------
Stenzel, M.H., and U.S. Gupta, 1985. "Treatment of Contaminated Groundwaters
with Granular Activated Carbon and Air-stripping"; Air Pollution Control
Association Journal; Vol. 35, No. 12; December 1985.
Stuckey, D.C., W.F. Owen, P.L. McCarty, and G.F. Parkin, 1980. "Anaerobic
Toxicity Evaluation by Batch and Semi-continuous Assays"; Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation; Vol. 52, No. 4; pp. 720-729;
April 1980.
Suidan, M.T., W.H. Cross, M. Fong, and J.W. Calvert, 1981. "Anaerobic Carbon
Filter for Degradation of Phenols"; Journal of the Environmental
Engineering Division, Proceedings of the ASCE; Vol. 107, No. EE3;
pp. 563-579; June 1981.
Sundstrom, D.W., and H.E. Klei, 1979. Wastewater Treatment; Prentice-Hall
Inc.; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; pp. 241-270.
Switzenbaum, M.S., and C.P.L. Grady, Jr., 1986. "Anaerobic Treatment of
Domestic Wastewater"; Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation;
Vol. 58, No. 2; pp. 102-106; February 1986.
Switzenbaum, M.S., and W.J. Jewell, 1980. "Anaerobic Attached-Film Expanded-
Bed Reactor Treatment"; Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation;
Vol. 52, No. 7; pp. 1953-1965; July 1980.
Treybal, R.E., 1955.
New York.
Mass-Transfer Operations; McGraw-Hill Book Co.; New York,
URS Company, Inc., 1987. "Biological Treatability Study Scope of Work - Helen
Kramer Landfill Superfund Site"; URS Company, Inc.; Syracuse, New York;
pp. 2-2 to 2-4; October 1987.
USEPA, 1980a. "Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual";
USEPA/430/9-78-009; February 1980.
USEPA, 1980b. "Carbon Adsorption Isotherms for Toxic Organics"; Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory; USEPA-600/8-80-023; April 1980.
USEPA, 1984. "USEPA Project Summary: Process Design Manual for Stripping of
Organics1
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory; Cincinnati,
Ohio; USEPA/600/52-84-139; September 1984.
USEPA, 1986a. Memorandum: "Discharge of Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into
POTWs"; H.L. Longest II, 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.
USEPA, 1986b. "Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes"; Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response; USEPA/540/2-86/003(F); September 1986.
11.89.45
0124.0.0
11-118
-------
USEPA, 1986c. "Superfund Treatment Technologies: A Vendor Inventory"; Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response; USEPA/540/2-86/004(F); September 1986.
USEPA, 1986d. "Interim Guidance on Superfund Selection of Remedy"; OSWER
Directive No. 9355.0-19; December 24, 1986.
USEPA, 1986e. "A Handbook on Treatment of Hazardous Waste Leachate"; PEI
Associates, Inc.; contracted by the Office of Research and Development;
USEPA/68-03-3248; December 1986.
USEPA, 1986f. "Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual"; Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response; USEPA/540/1-86/060.
USEPA, 1987a. Memorandum: "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. N
USEPA, 1987b. "Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at POTWs"; USEPA
Permit Division EN-336; prepared by J.M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers,
Inc.; USEPA/68-03-1821; Washington, DC.
Vandenburg, L., 1984. "Development in Methanogenesis from Industrial
Wastewater"; Canadian Journal of Microbiology; Vol. 30, No. 8; pp.
975-989; August 1984.
Vargas, C., and R.C. Ahlert, 1987. "Anaerobic Degradation of Chlorinated
Solvents"; Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation; Vol. 59, No.
11; pp. 964-968; November 1987.
Venkataramani, E.S., R.C. Ahlert, and P. Corbo, 1983. "Biological Treatment of
Landfill Leachates"; CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control; Vol.
14, No. 4; pp. 333-376.
Viessman, W., Jr., and M. Hammer, 1985. Water Supply and Pollution Control;
Harper and Row Publishers; New York, New York; pp. 322-345.
Water Pollution Control Federation, 1977. Wastewater Treatment Plant Design -
WPCF Manual of Practice No. 8; Lancaster Press, Inc.
Weber, W.J., Jr., 1972. Physiochemical Processes for Water Quality Control;
John Wiley and Sons; New York, New York.
Witt, E.R., W.J. Humphrey, and T.E. Roberts, 1979. "Full-scale Anaerobic
Filter Treats High-strength Wastes"; in Proceedings of the 34th
Industrial Waste Conference; Purdue University; West Lafayette, Indiana;
pp. 229-234; July 1979.
11.89.45
0125.0.0
11-119
-------
-------
SECTION 12
ORD TREATABILITY PROJECTS
9.89.107C
0015.0.0
-------
SECTION 12 - ORP TREATABILITY PROJECTS. The USEPA Office of Research and
Development (ORD) in Cincinnati, Ohio conducted research to support ithe
evaluation for the potential to use POTWs to treat CERC1A and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) wastes. ORD, in conjunction with the
Engineering Department at the University of Cincinnati, performed pilot-scale
treatability studies at the EPA Testing and Evaluation Facility to generate
treatability data for toxic organic compounds. Eight technical papers were
produced as a result of the studies. Section 12 presents a list of the papers
with a brief description of each study.
891003B-mll
16.
-------
ORD TREATABILITY RESEARCH
The USEPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) in Cincinnati, Ohio, was
contracted to conduct research supporting the evaluation for POTWs' potential
to treat CERCLA and RCRA wastes. ORD, in conjunction with the Engineering
Department at the University of Cincinnati, performed bench and pilot-scale
treatability studies at the USEPA Test and Evaluation Facility to generate
treatability data for RCRA and CERCLA organic compounds. Eight technical
papers were produced as a result of the studies. Below is a list of the
papers with a brief description of the purpose of each study:
1. "The Determination of Biodegradability and Biodegradation Kinetics of
Organic Pollutant Compounds with the Use of Electrolytic Respirometry,"
Tabak et al., April 1989.
This report explains in detail the methodology of electrolytic respirometry
which was used to determine acclimation periods and Monod and first-order
degradation rate constants for approximately 50 RCRA and CERCLA compounds.
This study supports the development of the treatability fate model by
experimentally determining rate constants. The biodegradation data will also
be used to validate a University of Cincinnati modeling routine which is being
developed to estimate biological rate constants from an organic compound's
physical structure.
2. "Biodegradation Studies With Selected Leachate Compounds Using
Electrolytic Respirometry, Part I (September 1988), Part II
(October 1988)," Tabak et al.
The purpose of this study was to experimentally determine biokinetic rate
constants (i.e., maximum specific growth rate, half saturation constant, and
yield coefficient) for six CERCLA compounds. Studies were initially performed
at a concentration of 100 mg/1 for each compound and consisted of measuring
the oxygen uptake of microorganisms characteristic of an activated sludge
plant.
3. "Prediction and Modeling of Biodegradation Kinetics of Hazardous Waste
Constituents," Govind et al., April 1989.
The fate model being generated by ORD will have three methods to input a
biodegradation rate constant. A user.will be able to input his own value,
select a value from an existing database, or use a submodel to estimate the
rate constant from the organic compound's chemical structure. The
biodegradation rate constant estimation methodology compared nine predicted
values with experimentally derived values. The average error in prediction of
the first-order degradation rate constant ranged from 13 to 85 percent for the
compounds evaluated.
/
4. "Fate and Effects of RCRA and CERCLA Toxics in Anaerobic Digestion of
Primary and Secondary Sludge," Dobbs et al.
gs041701
001.0.0
12-1
-------
Data on the fate of selected RCRA and CERCLA compounds in pilot-scale
anaerobic digesters was presented in this paper. Both volatile and
semi-volatile compounds did not appear to inhibit digester operation at the
low digester input concentrations. In the RCRA study, methane and total gas
production were 13 and 6 percent less, respectively, between test and control
digesters. In the CERCLA study, methane production was not affected and total
gas production was 12 percent less in the test digesters when compared to the
control. Data indicated that volatile compounds were removed by volatilization
and degradation while semi-volatile compounds were degraded or sorbed onto
solids.
5. "Status Report: Development of a Fate Model for Organics in a Wastewater
Treatment Plant," Govind et al., April 1989.
This report provided a brief description of individual models to describe
volatilization, sorption, and biodegradation of organic pollutants discharged
to a POTW. Flow charts were presented to describe the model process for each
mechanism.
6. "The Effect of Carbon Tetrachloride on Anaerobic Digestion of Primary and
Waste Activated Sludge," B.M. Wysock, March 1989.
This work studied: (1) the effect of carbon tetrachloride on anaerobic
digestion of sludge; (2) the effect of carbon tetrachloride on various phases
of anaerobic digestion of sludge; and (3) the effect of gas recirculation on
the digester performance if carbon tetrachloride was present. Serum bottles
and a pilot-scale digester were used in this study. The study concluded: (1)
in serum bottle studies, up to 14 mg/1 of carbon tetrachloride had no effect
on gas production while up to 5 mg/1 had no significant effect on digester
performance in pilot-scale studies; (2) carbon tetrachloride affected mostly
the methanogenic phase of digester operation; (3) acclimation and increased
solids concentration within the digester could be utilized to treat carbon
tetrachloride and avoid inhibition; and (4) recirculation of the gas did not
impact volatile solids or volatile acid reduction.
7. "Treatability of RCRA Compounds in a BOD/Nitrification Wastewater
Treatment System with Dual Media Filtration," Safferman et al.
This study utilized a pilot-scale extended aeration system to: (1)
investigate the treatability and fate of selected RCRA pollutants in a
nitrification process under both acclimated and unacclimated conditions; and
(2) determine the effectiveness of effluent dual media filtration on the
removal of RCRA pollutants. Pollutants were composited before addition to the
system's influent stream. This report provided an extensive literature review
on the nitrification process and modeling the fate of organic pollutants
discharged to a POTW. The results can be summarized as follows:
o no inhibition effects of organic pollutants at mg/1 levels on chemical
oxygen demand removal (supported by discussions with ORD personnel);
o no inhibition effects of organic pollutants at mg/1 levels on.suspended
solids removal;
gs041701
002.0.0
12-2
-------
8.
no inhibition effects of organic pollutants at mg/1 levels on phosphorous
removal;
significant inhibition of ammonia removal at a composite organic spike
concentration of 19.2 mg/1. Nitrification may have been inhibited at low
concentrations, though ammonia reduction by secondary treatment was not
,inhibited until an influent concentration of 4.8 to 19.2 mg/1 was
reached. This result was supported by discussions with ORD personnel who
provided a reference on pollutant concentrations and the associated
percent nitrification inhibition;
sorption not a significant removal mechanism for volatile compounds;
little observed experimental difference between acclimated and
unacclimated systems; and
dual media effluent filters were only effective on removal of the
strongly sorbed compounds.
"Treatability of RCRA and CERCLA Wastes in POTWs," Bhattacharya et al.
This report reviews the findings of the five pilot-scale research projects
completed by the USEPA Office of Research and Development. The projects
generated data regarding:
o pollutant concentrations that caused inhibition of POTW biological
treatment process;
o biodegradation of .organic pollutants.
In addition to these technical papers, ORD is currently developing a software
package entitled, "Integrated Model for Predicting the Fate of Organics in
Wastewater Treatment Plants." The model will attempt to simulate the fate of
organic compounds in a wastewater treatment plant.
gs041701
003.0.0
12-3
-------
-------
; SECTION 13
WERL TREATABILITY DATA BASE
9.89.107C
0016.0.0
-------
SECTION 13 - WERL TREATABILITY DATA BASE. The USEPA Water Engineering Research
Laboratory (WERL) developed and is continuing to expand a data base containing
information on the treatability of compounds in various types of waters and
wastewaters. The data base consists of selected published data taken from
government reports and data bases, peer reviewed journals, and various other
publications. Each source was reviewed by a quality review committee before
including it in the data base. In addition to treatability data, the data base
contains chemical and physical properties, environmental data, and adsorption
data for specific compounds, where available. Section 13 contains instructions
for loading the data base onto a computer.
For any additional information concerning the WERL data base contact:
Mr. Kenneth A. Dostal
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Rm 191
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513) 569-7503
891003B-mll
1.
-------
TO LOAD WERL TREATABILITY DATABASE PROGRAM
COPY DISK 1 TO THE COMPUTER HARD DRIVE, IN A SUBDIRECTORY. TO DO THIS, AT THE
SUBDIRECTORY PROMPT (SUCH AS C:\DBASE\EPA\) TYPE
COPY A:*.* [ENTER]
COPY DISKS 2, 3, AND 4 TO THE SAME SUBDIRECTORY BY TYPING AT THE PROMPT:
COPY A:*.* [ENTER]
THE FILES ON THE DISKS HAVE BEEN "ARCHIVED", ALLOWING US TO USE THE DISKS MORE
EFFICIENTLY AND MINIMIZE THE NUMBER REQUIRED. TO RUN THE PROGRAM THE FILES MUST
BE UNARCHIVED. TO UNARCHIVE THE PROGRAMS TYPE THE FOLLOWING, AT THE SUBDIRECTORY
PROMPT, TYPE:
EPALOAD
[ENTER]
THE FOLLOWING MESSAGES WILL APPEAR ON SCREEN:
PKARC FAST!
UNARCING ....
UNSQUASHING ....
UNCHRUNCHING ....
ETC ....
WHEN UNARCHIVING OF THE FILES IS FINISHED THE COMPUTER AUTOMATICALLY RETURNS TO
THE SUBDIRECTORY PROMPT. TO RUN THE PROGRAM AT THE PROMPT TYPE:
MAIN [ENTER]
THE UNARCHIVING NEED ONLY BE DONE THIS ONE TIME. FROM THEN ON TO RUN THE PROGRAM
ENTER THE SUBDIRECTORY AND TYPE:
MAIN [ENTER]
13-1
-------
-------
SECTION 14
FATE MODEL
9.89.107C
0017.0.0
-------
SECTION 14 - FATE MODEL - As part of the CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs study,
a user friendly, computerized model has been developed to evaluate the fate of
inorganic and organic pollutants discharged to POTWs. POTW managers and
feasibility study writers can use the model to evaluate the fate and
treatability of toxic pollutants discharged to POTWs by predicting the overall
percent removal of the compounds and percent removals of organic compounds due
to volatilization, sorption, and biodegradation.
The FATE User's Manual, provided in Section
14, introduces the user of the model to the concepts and assumptions used in its
development and presents simple instructions for the model's operation.
891003B-mll
18.
-------
\
FATE
FATE AND TREATABILITY ESTIMATOR FOR CONVENTIONAL
ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANTS
USERS' MANUAL
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
OFFICE OF WATER
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC
+JUNE 1990+
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. INSTALLATION
3. TUTORIAL
3.1. Using FATE
3.2. Selecting a Facility
3.2.1. Selecting an Existing Facility
3.2.2. Selecting and Creating A New Facility
3.3. Selecting a Compound
3.4. Running/Printing
4. OPERATION MODES
4.1. SELECTION MODE
4.1.1. SELECTING A FACILITY
4.1.2. SELECTING A COMPOUND
4.1.3. FUNCTION KEYS
4.1.3.1. HELP
4.1.3.2. EDIT AND UNIT CONVERSION
4.1.3.3. COPY
4.1.3.4. ADD
4.1.3.5. DELETE
4.1.3.6. UNMARK
4.1.3.7. GROUP
1
3
4
4
5
5
5
7
9
11
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.1.3.8. CAS SEARCH
4.2. MENU MODE
4.2.1. RUN
4.2.2. PRINT
4.2.3. UTILITIES
4.2.4. SYSTEM ACCESS
4.2.5. CONTINUE
4.2.6. QUIT
5. REPORTS
5.1. SCREEN REPORT
5.2. SINGLE COMPOUND REPORTS
5.3. MULTIPLE COMPOUND REPORTS
5.4. PRINTING THE FACILITY DATABASE
5.5. PRINTING THE COMPOUND DATABASES
5.6. PRINTING THE MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
APPENDIX A - Warning Errors and Messages
APPENDIX B - Technical Description of Model
APPENDIX C - Inorganic/Organic Compound List
APPENDIX D - System Database Description
APPENDIX E - FATE Model Map of Cursor Key Movements
INDEX
15
15
15
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
19
20
20
20
20
22
11
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This manual describes the uses and com-
ponents of the EPA Fate and Treatability Es-
timator (FATE) Model. This model was
developed to help users understand the fate
and treatability of pollutants in wastewaters
discharged to conventional activated sludge
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).
It aids the user in evaluating whether pol-
lutants in an influent to a POTW are sorbed
onto sludge, are volatilized off into the atmos-
phere, or are biodegraded. The software also
will estimate the amount of the pollutant in
each process end point of the model, as well
as percent total removal from the wastewater
influent stream.
The FATE model has the capability to
evaluate the treatability of both inorganic and
organic pollutants discharged to a POTW.
Since inorganic and organic compounds are
removed by different physical and chemical
processes in a POTW, FATE consists of
separate models for organic fate analysis and
inorganic fate analysis.
The calibration and validation of the FATE
model is based on actual plant data from a
recent nation-wide survey of domestic
POTWs. Plant performance data used in the
calibration and validation was obtained from
actual measurements of the influents and ef-
fluents of the surveyed POTWs.
The major assumptions used in developing the
FATE model are:
1) The model is for conventional diffused
aeration activated sludge sewage treatment
plants only.
2) No significant volatilization or
biodegradation occurs in the primary clarifier.
3) All reactors are completely mixed.
4) Steady state is assumed to exist in all
reactors (e.g., aeration basin and clarifiers) so
that pollutant concentrations in a reactor do
not change over time. (Thus, the model may
not be as accurate for plants with pulse inputs
of pollutants).
5) Liquid inflow equals liquid outflow.
6) For volatilization, the concentration of the
organic compound of interest is assumed to be
negligible in the inlet gas used for aeration.
7) For volatilization, the partial pressure of an
individual compound in the gas exiting the
aeration basin is in equilibrium with the in-
dividual compound concentration in the aera-
tion basin liquid.
8) Sorption partitioning follows a linear
relationship between concentrations in the liq-
uid and solid phases.
9) Biodegradation follows Monod kinetics
and the organic compound influent concentra-
tion is assumed to be much less than' the
Monod half-saturation coefficient (i.e., in-
fluent concentrations are at relatively low
levels).
10) For the biodegradation model step, it is
assumed that a compound is removed by
secondary utilization.
11) The fate of a compound is not affected by
the presence of other compounds except as
may be inherent in the data used for model
calibration.
-------
INTRODUCTION
12) The POTW is operating effectively and
no inhibition of the biological process is oc-
curring.
13) For model calibration, measured effluent
concentrations reported as not detected were
assumed to equal half the reported detection
limit.
14) The organic model was calibrated with all
compounds grouped together rather than by
individual compound.
15) Removal mechanisms (volatilization,
biodegradation, and sorption in the primary
and secondary clarifiers) were estimated using
final effluent concentration data and best en-
gineering judgement.
16) Data for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-
octyl phthalate, aldrin, and alpha-BHC were
not used for final calibration due to inconsis-
tencies in the analytical data compared to
other compounds within similar classes.
17) Total removal of compounds primarily
removed by sorption may be slightly over-
predicted, while compounds primarily
removed by volatilization and biodegradation
may be slightly underpredicted.
A printout listing these assumptions may be
obtained using the Print option, which is ex-
plained in Section 5.6.
Section 2.0 - Installation describes the sys-
tem package contents, the program's
hardware and software requirements, and
steps for installing the program for use on an
IBM compatible personal computer (PC).
Section 3.0 - Tutorial guides the user through
an example session.
Section 4.0 - Operation Modes describes the
different modes of operation and the functions
they perform in using the model.
Section 5.0 - Reports discusses printed report
options and reports of the databases, including
single compound and multiple compound
reports.
A glossary, index, appendices with warning
errors and messages, a technical description of
the model, a list of organic and inorganic
compounds FATE is capable of modeling, a
description of the four databases which FATE
uses, and a FATE model map of cursor key
movements follow at the end.
-------
2. INSTALLATION
When you receive the FATE diskette, the
following files should be available:
FILE NAME
FC
CO
CI
CV
HELP
HELP
HELP
FCFCL
FCSEL
COCMP
CICMP
CISEL
COSEL
CVPRM
FATE
INSTALL
EXTENSION
DBF
DBF
DBF
DBF
DBF
DBT
NTX
NTX
NTX
NTX
NTX
NTX
NTX
NTX
EXE
BAT
If any of these files are missing or are
damaged, the program will not run.
FATE may be run on any IBM compatible or
near compatible computers with a minimum
of 384K of available memory. Installing
FATE is a simple process using the INSTALL
program and the following directions:
1. Insert FATE diskette No. 1 into the
selected disk drive.
2. Type the following commands after the
prompt:
A:
INSTALL A: C:^:ENTER>
!^
If FATE is located in a drive other than A,
type the letter of that drive instead of A in the
commands above.
The install program creates a subdirectory
entitled EPA FATE and copies the files to this
subdirectory. After FATE has been installed,
the user is automatically in the C:\EPA FATE
subdirectory.
,NOTE
It is very important to backup the five
database files (fiies with the DBF exten-
tion) in case the files get damaged. You
should also maintain a backup copy of
the entire FATE diskette. Backup the
files prior to attempting to run the model.
-------
3. TUTORIAL
In this section you will be shown how to run
the FATE model. FATE has many options,
only a few of which will be displayed in this
tutorial. Other functions are described in suc-
ceeding chapters of this manual.
3.1. Using FATE
In order to run FATE, you must be in the
appropriate subdirectory containing the
FATE programs. Once you are in this direc-
tory, at the prompt, simply type:
FATE
After two header screens, FATE's main data
screen will appear as below:
SLCT
SIUXT rACILm: 3/3 TYPE
muse
RtBIUM .
SWLL
ri««t floo (Q) 140.0
l*ri stu4ye fluw (Qp) 40OOO®
fri sludge cunc (Xp) 4.60
Her Wtlns vol (U) 33207700
MSS (XI) 3000 i
CM riw rate (C) ZtSSUOOO i
Uvislt! El»d:jc flo(Qu) 123ZCMO
Uaste il«dac cone (Xu) 8.75
nco
ig'i
-r/d
8pd
•/.
SELECT ORGAMIC: 1/34S
l.r-Blpheniil-i.V-dlttilne
1,1, l.Z-Tctrachloroe thane
1,1,1-Irichloroetlune
l»l-Dlchlorocthanc
CftS HUHBER 119304
henry's Lau constant 1
Log or octano I/water 1
Log of hlo rate -3
TYPE ng/1 1
0.1000
0.1000
6.1809
0.1000
0,1000
0.1000
.OOE-II n
.46 n
.096 E
«2>-rBit -cart -(OD -DELIIE -noRE KEYS
Figure 3-1
NOTE
No matter what function is performed,
FATE will always return you to this
screen.
This screen is divided into two halves: facility
information on the left and pollutant informa-
tion on the right. The left section displays
facilities and their corresponding operating
parameters. Note that the operating
parameters displayed in the lower left section
correspond to the specific facility highlighted
in the upper left section. The user has the
option of creating his/her own facility with
specific operating parameters. The right half
of the screen displays information concerning
the pollutants contained in the compound data
bases. The upper right section lists com-
pounds and the lower right section displays
the chemical constants for the compound
highlighted in the upper right. At the bottom
of the screen, the function keys are defined.
For more information on the function keys,
refer to Section 4.1.3.
In order to move between screens, you must
use the right and left arrow keys on your
keyboard. The arrow keys do not allow access
to the lower half of the display for any facility
or compound that is marked with an '*' in the
column titled TYPE. These facilities and
compounds cannot be altered in any way since
they are the default parameters. Access to the
lower half of the display will be discussed in
Section 4.2.
•' ^- ., , ;NOTE ^
If your keyboard does not have dedi-
cated keys for arrows, then use the num-
ber pad to'the right of the main key board
with the numbers lock disabled so that
;the arrow keys may be used.
-------
TUTORIAL
3.2. Selecting a Facility
In this section you will learn how to run FATE
using a default facility ('SMALL,'
'MEDIUM,' or 'LARGE'), and how to run
FATE for a facility that you have created.
3.2.1. Selecting an Existing Facility
A facility is selected by moving the cursor
with the up or down arrow keys to the desired
facility and pressing the bar. A
yellow '#' will appear to the left of the chosen
facility. FATE informs you that you are in the
selection mode when "SLCT" appears in the
uppermost right hand corner of the screen.
For more information on modes of operation,
refer to Section 4.0 of this manual.
NOTE
Only one facility at a time may be
chosen. A facility rnust be chosen in
order for FATE to run.
Example: Choose the 'MEDIUM' facility:
SLCT
SELECT FflCILCTV:
LARGE
> HEDIUM
SMALL
Plant Tlou
Aer basins uol (V)
HLSS CXI)
Gas riou rate CG)
Uaste sludge f loCQu)
2/3 TVPE
•M
*t
25.0 MGD
7022388 gal
3868 mg/1
47174888 cf/d
220088 gpd
SELECT QRGflN 1C: 1x345 ]
l,l'-Biphenyl-'l,4'-dlanine
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 , 1-Tr 1 ch loroethane
1 , 1-D ich loroethane
CflS hUTIBER 119S04
Henry's Law constant 1
Log of octanol/uater 1
Log of bio rate -3
VPE ng/1 1
8.1000 1
a.ieoo i
0.1008 1
o.iooe i
80E-11 n 1
46 B; 1
.868 E 1
-EDIT -COP»
-DELEIE -nORE KEKS
Figure 3-2
The 'MEDIUM' facility has now been chosen
for a FATE run. If you press the
bar again, the '#' will disappear, and the
facility is no longer chosen for a FATE run.
You now have the option of selecting a new
facility.
3.2.2. Selecting and Creating A New
Facility
You may want to run FATE for a facility not
included as a default. To add a new facility
press the function key (which is called
'ADD,' at the bottom of the screen). Figure
3-3 shows what the screen should look like.
Use of the function keys are described in more
detail in Section 4.1.3.
SELECT FftCILITK: 2/3
TVPE
LflBGE
StlBLL •
Plant flou (Q>
Fri sludge flou CQp)
Pri sludge cone (Xp)
fler basins uol (W)
HLSS (XI)
Gas flow rate (G)
Uaste sludge f loCQuJ
Uaste sludge cone (Xw>
8.0 ItGD
8 gpd
8.00 V.
0 gal
8 ng/1
8 cF/d
• 8 gpd
o.eo •/.
SELECT ORSflN 1C: 1/34S TYPE
l,l'-Blphenyl-J.4J-dianlnc
1,1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1',1-Irich loroethane
1 , 1 j 2 > 2-Tetrach loroethane
1 , 1 , 2-Tr i ch loroethane
1 , 1-D Ich loroethane
ng/1 1
0.1000 1
0.1008 1
0.1008 1
0.1008 1
0.1000 1
0.1000 1
CflS NUMBER 119984
Henry's Lau constant l.OOE-11 fl 1
Log of octanol/water 1.-16 fl 1
Log of bio rate -3.088 E 1
-EDIT -COPX -ftDD -DELETE -HUKE KEVS
Figure 3-3
Now you are able to input data from any
POTW you wish. First, type the name of the
POTW you wish FATE to model. For ex-
ample, type 'PORTLAND MAINE' in the
facility name box, and press .
Note that you are now in the TYPE column.
Enter a letter or symbol for your own records,
or simply leave it. blank, then press
. The cursor should now be blink-
-------
TUTORIAL
ing at the first entry for the facility parameter
secdon, which is Plant Flow Rate. FATE now
asks for PORTLAND MAINE'S plant operat-
ing parameters. For the first entry, Plant rate
(Q), assume PORTLAND MAINE'S plant
flow rate is 50 MOD. Type in this number,
and press . Follow the same pro-
cedure for the remaining plant parameters:
Enter this
value:
75000
Unit:
GPD
10000000 GAL
4000
MG/L
Plant Parameter:
Qp (Primary
Sludge Flow
Rate)
Xp (Primary
Sludge
Concentration)
V (Volume of the
Aeration Basins)
XI (Mixed Liquor
Suspended
Solids)
G (Gas
Volumetric Flow
Rate)
Qw (Wasted
Sludge Flow
Rate)
Xv (Wasted
Sludge
Concentration)
You should now be viewing a screen which
looks like Figure 3-4.
100000000 cf/d
250000
GPD
surer raciim: zxi TYPE
snftu
KMR/
LftHCE
riant floo (Q) 50,0 nCB
frf lliklgc flou (Qf) 7SOOO gpd
Fri ilu.'jr nine (Xp) 4.00 v.
ncr Ultra vol (U) 16000000 gal
MSS (XI) 4006 «,/!
(-.I rl(M rate (G) 109000008 cf/d
it tiu4{c rio«gu) zsoooo gpd
Uillc slu4|e cone (Xu) Z,00 X
SELECT OKKHIC: 1x345
TYPE ng/1 1
l,l'-Slphenyl-4,4'-dlajiliic
<1i2-Tetrach1oroethane
»l-Trichloroethane
•2,2-Tetrachloroethane
«2-Trichloroethane
-Dlchlorocthane
0.1000 I
0.1000 I
o.iaoo i
0.1000 I
0.1000 I
• o.ieoo i
ens nunsEn 113901
llenry'c Lau constant l.OOE-11 H I
Log of octanol/uater 1.46 n I
Log of bio rate -3.000 E I
-nDD -l)ELEn: -MOBE KEJS
NOTE
You do not have to use the units.
provided. For further instruction on unit
conversion, read on.
After pressing the key for Xv
(Wasted Sludge Concentration), FATE asks
you if you want to accept the data shown on
the screen or continue to edit the facility
parameters. As you have all the data you need
typed in the appropriate boxes, press 'Y' and
FATE will store PORTLAND MAINE'S
facility parameters in the database.
For more information on the aspects of creat-
ing your own facility, please refer to Section
4.1.3 of this manual.
FATE will allow input of these plant
parameters in units of measure other than
those that appear on the screen. For example,
while the cursor still appears in front of the
PORTLAND MAINE facility, press to
invoke the Edit command. This key allows
you to change information already typed in the
facility fields. Now, arrow down to Xp
(Primary Sludge Concentration). While hold-
ing the key, press again.
Your screen should now be similar to Figure
3-5.
TI7TO}
SELECT FftCIUTy: Z/3 TYPE
SELECT ORGANIC: 1/34S
TYPE «3/l
SHALL
> raRTLnm MAINE
LARGE
FUnt flou 50.0 ItGD
Fri sludge flou (Qp) 75000 gpd
Pri sludge cone (Xp) -1.08 Y.
Aer basins uol (U) 10000000 gal
MLSS (XI) 4000 ng/1
Gas flou rate (G) 100000000 cf/d
Uaste sludge flo(Qu) 250000 gpd
Jaste sludge cone (Xu) 2.00 '/.
l,lJ-mphenyl-4,4'-dl««!ne
lil.l,2-Tetrachlopoethone
-EDIT -COPY -flDD -DEL£IE -t1DBE KEYS
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
-------
TUTORIAL
Example: Your POTW keeps track of the
primary sludge concentration in units of mg/1
and the value is 35,000 mg/1. Arrow down to
the 'mg/1' option, and press .
Type in '35000', and your screen should look
like Figure 3-6. Now, when^you press
, the pop-up screen should disap-
pear, and in place of the '4%' you typed in
previously, Xp will be '3.5 %'. (Figure 3-7)
SELECT FACILITY: Zx3 TYPE
IflflGE
8 PORTLAND I1AINE
SHALL
SELECT ORSON 1C:
i.l'-Blphenyl—4.4'-dla«lne
1,1,1,2-Tetrach loroethane
PARAMETER: XP
4.00e«C04
Plant flew (Q) 59.0 HGD
Pri sludge flou CQp) 75099 gpd I
Pri sludge cone (Xp) 4.OO :
Bcr basins uol W) 18000090 gal
MLSS (XI) 4000 ng/1
Gas f lou rate (6) 160000009 cf/d I
Uaste sludge f lo(Qu) 250099 gpd |
Uaste sludge cone CXv) 2.00 :
0.1009 I
0.1009 I
0.1009 I
0.1008 I
0.1000 I
0.1009 I
1.001-11 H I
..46 fl I
3.906 E I
-UMnftHK -GBOUP HARKS -CAS SEABCH -tlOHE KEYS
Figure 3-6
For more information on this feature of FATE
refer to Section 4 of this manual. In order to
continue with the model run press the
key and, as before, press 'Y', and FATE will
return you to the upper half display of the
facility database.
Select the PORTLAND MAINE facility as
described previously. If FATE tells you that
a facility has already been selected, simply
arrow up or down to the facility which has a
'#' in front of its facility name, and press the
bar. Be sure that a '#' appears in
front of the PORTLAND MAINE facility
before continuing.
3.3. Selecting a Compound
In this section you will learn how to choose a
compound for a FATE run. FATE allows you
to choose an organic or an inorganic com-
pound. The upper right section of the screen
displays the organic compound list. If you use
the right arrow key, the inorganic compound
listing will appear in the upper right corner of
the screen.
SELECT FACILITY: 4/4 TYPE
SELECT ORGANIC: V345
LARGE
a PORTLAND MAINE
MEDIUM
Plant f lou (q>
Pri sludge flou (Qp)
Pri sludge cone CXp)
Acr basins val (U>
rtLSS (XI)
HGD
gpd
59.9
75800
3. SO
10909003 gal
4000 ngxl
Gas flou rate (G) 100800009 cfxd
Uaste sludge, flo(Qu) 256000 gpd
Uaste sludge cone (Xu> 2.60
I
l,l'-Biphenyl-4,4'-diamine
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
1.1.2, 2-Tetrach loroe thane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dich loroe thane
e.iooe i
e.ioee i
0.1090 I
e.iooe i
0.1090 I
0.1090 I
CAS NUMBER 119904
Henry's Lau constant l.OOE-11 H I
Log of octanol/Mater 1.46 H 1
Log of bio rate -3.090 E I
00-HEHU -*1ELF -HORE KEKS
Figure 3-7
Using the right arrow key, move the cursor
from the PORTLAND MAINE facility over
to the organic compound list. For further
information on the separate databases please
refer to Appendix D. Selecting a compound
is accomplished in the same manner as select-
ing a facility; move the cursor to the desired
compound using the up or down arrow key,
press the bar and a '#' will appear
to the left of the compound name. FATE now
asks you to enter the influent concentration of
the compound you have chosen. You may
either choose the default concentration (0.100
mg/1) or input some other concentration.
Press and FATE asks you to ac-
cept what is on the screen; press 'Y'.
-------
TUTORIAL
NOTE
If physical/chemical constants are not
available for a compound, FATE will not
allow you to select it for a model fun/
If you do not wish to run a compound you have
already selected, press the bar
again, and the '#' will disappear. There is no
limit to the number of compounds FATE can
run at one time.
FATE has a few special features which will
make selecting a compound easier. If the
compound you wish to choose is not shown
on the immediate screen, you may press the
first letter or number of the compound you
wish to choose, and FATE will take you to the
area in its database where that compound is
listed. The compounds are listed in the
database in numerical and then alphabetical
order.
Example 1: Suppose you wish to choose
'Benzene'. Simply press the letter 'B', and
FATE will take you to the first compound
beginning with the letter 'B' - 'Benzanthrone'
(Figure 3-8). FATE tells you which com-
pound is highlighted in the bottom center of
the screen, just above the Function Key Menu.
In our case, 'Benzathrone' is written. Now,
arrow down to 'Benzene', and press the
bar. FATE now asks you to enter
the influent concentration of the compound
you have chosen. You may either choose the
default concentration (0.100 mg/1) or input
some concentration of benzene. Press
and FATE once again asks you to
accept what is on the screen; press 'Y'.
'Benzene,' at the selected influent concentra-
tion, is now chosen for a FATE run.
Another way to choose a compound is by
performing a CAS number search. FATE al-
lows you to do this by pressing the key,
SELECT FACILITY: 4x-i TYPE
MEDIUM .
« FOHILAND MAINE
SHALL ' «
Plant f loo (Q) 50.6 IKD
Her basins uol (U> 10000009 gal
HLSS (XI) 1000 ng/1
Gas flou rate (G) 160000030 cf/d
Haste sludge floCQu) Z50000 gpd
SELECT ORGANIC: 268/345 IYPE
Azlnphas-methtjl s Guthloh
Benzanihrane
Benzenafilne
Benzene
CAS NUttDEB D6500
Henry's Lau constant 3.80E
Leg of octanol/^Mter 0.00
Log of bio rate -2.000
«g
0.
0.
e.
0.
-6
10
10
10
10
n
u
E
Azinphos-nethyl s Guthion
c/>-ntnu -HELP -nonE KEYS
Figure 3-8
as indicated at the bottom of the screen in the
Function Key Menu. FATE asks you for the
CAS number of the compound you wish to
choose.
Example 2: Choose bis(2-ethylhexyl) phtha-
late which has a CAS number of '117817'.
Press. , type <117817>, press
, and FATE will bring you to the
section of its database where bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl) phthalate is listed. Once again, press
the bar and input the concentration
of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, say 0.100
mg/1; press again to accept the
screen.
Example 3: Use the right arrow key to obtain
the inorganic compound list. To choose
'nickel' you may arrow down until this com-
pound is highlighted on the screen, or you may
simply press 'N' and FATE will take you to
the portion of the database where the inor-
ganic compounds beginning with 'N' are
listed. Press the space bar and a '#' will
appear to the left of the compound name.
As with the facility database, compounds can
be added or copied for editing of, the default
8
-------
TUTORIAL
parameters. For more information see Section
4.1.3, Function Keys, of this manual.
A facility (PORTLAND MAINE) and three
compounds (benzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, and nickel have been selected).
FATE is now ready to run.
3.4. Running/Printing
In this section you will learn how to run the
FATE model and how to print the results.
In order to run the FATE model, you must
access the Menu Mode by pressing the
(forward slash) key. The menu will appear at
the top of the screen (Figure 3-9). Use the left
or right arrow key to work your way across the
menu options, and highlight the 'Run' option.
Press and FATE runs for the first
selected organic compound.
SELECT FflCILlTY: 4x4 TYPE
IIEDIUH
8 Foniuttffl MAINE
• StlflLL •
Plant flou 50. 8 nGD
Her basins uol CU) 10000000 gal
HLSS (XI) 4008 ng/1
Gas flou rate (G) 16O600000 cf/d
Unste sludge f lotQu) 250000 gpd
SELECT ORSdNIC: 1Z9/34S UPE
nzlnphos-nethyl N Guthlon
fienzanthrone
Benzenanine
enzenanine, -c or°7
tt Benzene
CflS NUNBER 7143Z
Henry's Lau constant ° 5.55E
Log of octanolxwater Z.'13
Log of bio rate -2.096
«g^l
0.1003
0.1008
0.1099
0 1008
0.1008
-3 H
n
E
1
1
1
|
1
1
1
Benzene
-ED1T -COPV -ftI)B -DELEIE -flORE KEVS
Figure 3-9
Figure 3-10 is an example of the screen dis-
playing the results for the PORTLAND
MAINE facility and benzene. Note the total
percent removal and the effluent concentra-
tion (labeled overall removal and sec. eff.
cone, respectively) are reported in the lower
right hand corner of this pop-up screen. Also
note that the mechanism removals [primary
sorption (pri. sorbed), secondary sorption
(sec. sorbed), volatilization (volatized) and
biodegradation (biodegraded)] are rounded
off to the nearest integer, and therefore do not
exactly total to the reported overall percent
removal. (For further information on screen
Reports, refer to-Section 5.1 of this manual.) -
To run FATE for the second and third com-
pounds, successively press or any
other key, and the results for bis(2 ethylhexyl)
phthalate and then nickel will appear, respec-
tively. When FATE has finished running all
the compounds selected, press
and the cursor will return to the menu.
foj COMPOUND: Benzene
| FflCILlTY: PORTLflND MftIHE
pri. influent cone.
™ pri. sorpt. re*, rate
pri. cUr. eft. coiic.
uo 1 . rcM . .rate
bio. ren. rate
~ sec . sorpt . re* . rate
Flout flou CQ) 58
Pri sludge flou 75069
Fri sludge cone CXp> 3
fter basins uol tU) 10000090
HLSS -UltttRK -CflS SEftRCH -nORE KEVS
Figure 3-10
In order to obtain a printout of the FATE
results, press the key to return to the menu,
arrow over to the 'Print' option of the menu,
and press . You are now allowed
to select a single compound report or a sum-
mary report for multiple compounds. A single
report prints an extensive FATE analysis, the
compound information and the facility
parameters for one compound only. If more
than one compound is selected, a single report
-------
TUTORIAL
will be generated for the last compound
selected. A multiple report prints facility
parameters, effluent concentrations and per-
cent removals for all compounds chosen.
Arrow over to 'Single', and press .
Your printer will give you a report which will
be similar to Figure 3-11. Once FATE returns
you to the menu, arrow over to 'Multiple',
and press . Now, your printer will
give you a report which will be similar to
Figure 3-12.
These are the report options you have for
obtaining printouts of FATE results. For fur-
rate And Treatability Estimator
for Conventional Activated Sludge
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Version 1.05
05/22/90
ABI Environmental Services, Inc.
Portland, Maine
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Technology Division, Washington, DC
COHPOMO: Nickel
Primary coefficient RU « 130.00 mg/l
secondary coefficient Ml * 1000.00 «ig/l
plant influent concentration Si « 0.1000 ng/l
FACILITY: Portland Mine
plant flow o « 50 HGO
primary sludge flow rate Op « 75000 gpd
primary sludge concentration Xp 3.5 X
total volume of aeration tanks V 10000000 gal
temperature of aeration basins T 20 C
mixed liquor suspended solids XI 4000 ng/l
total gas volumetric flow rate G 100000000 ft3/d
secondary wasted sludge flow rate... Ou = 250000 god.
concentration of uasted sec. sludge. Xv * 2.0 X
HOOEL JESUITS:
Removal in Primary Clarifier(s):
primary removal rate........ = 9.23 Its/day
primary clarifier effluent cone So » 0.08 mg/l
Removal In Aeration Tank(s) and Secondary Clarifier(s):
secondary removal rate ' * 1.31 Ibs/day
Overall removal rate.........
Final effluent concentration.
Overall percent removal......
ther information and discussion of the results
. obtained, see Section 5 of this manual.
You have now seen what FATE can ac-
complish. This tutorial was meant to be only
an introduction to the FATE model. The
model has many options which are not dis-
cussed in this tutorial, but are discussed in
detail in other sections of this manual. In
addition, Appendix E contains a FATE model
map of cursor key movements for quick and
easy reference.
Fate And Treatability Estimator
for Conventional Activated Sludge
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Version 1.05
05/22/90
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
t Portland, Maine
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Technology Division, Washington, DC
FACILITY: PORTLAND MAINE
plant flow 0
primary sludge flow rate Op
primary sludge concentration........ Xp
total volume of aeration tanks...... V
temperature of aeration basins T
mixed liquor suspended solids XI
total gas volumetric flow rate G
secondary uasted sludge flow rate... Qu
concentration of wasted sec. sludge. Xv
50 HGO
75000 gpd
3.5 X
10000000 gal
20 C
4000 mg/l
100000000 ft3/d
250000 gpd
2 X
Influent Effluent i Percent Removals -_-
Cone, mg/l Cone, mg/l Total Sorption Volatilization Biodegradatitj
Benzene
0.1000 0.0328 67.1 1.2 / 10.2 43.0 12.8
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
0.1000 0.0000 100.0 70.5 / 29.5 0.0 0.0
Nickel
0.10 0.08 25.3
Figure 3-12
10.55 Ibs/day
0.0752 ng/l
25.3 X
Figure 3-11
10
-------
4. OPERATION MODES
The FATE model is composed of two modes ,
of operation: the Selection Mode and the
Menu Mode. This section describes the two
modes of operation in detail.
4.1. SELECTION MODE
When the user starts the FATE model pro-
gram, the Selection Mode is automatically
displayed. The Selection Mode is indicated
by the letters "SLCT" in the upper right hand
corner of the display screen. From the Selec-
tion Mode the user can view the default
parameters of the facility database, the organic
compound database, and the inorganic, com-
pound database. Two of the three databases
will, be displayed on the screen at the same
time: either the facility and organic compound
database or the facility and inorganic com-
pound database.
NOTE
If your keyboard does not'have dedi»
cated keys for arrows, then use the num-
ber pad to the rigtit of the main keyboard
with the numbers lock disabled so that
r the arrow keys may be used,
4.1.1. SELECTING A FACILITY
This section provides instructions for select-
ing a facility to perform a FATE run..
The upper left of the facility screen displays
the names of all facilities contained in the
facility database. Those facilities marked
with an asterisk (*) in the TYPE column are
defaults and cannot be altered in any way.
The asterisk facilities are named 'SMALL',
'MEDIUM', and 'LARGE' and contain
operating plant parameters which are repre-
sentative of a range of plant flow rates.
The user may view plant parameters for any
facility; these are listed in the lower left sec-
tion of the screen:
Plant flow (Q)
Pri sludge flow (Qp)
Pri sludge cone (Xp)
Aer basins vol (V)
MLSS (Xi)
Gas flow rate (G)
Waste sludge flo
(Qw)
Waste sludge cone
(Xv)
Plant Flow Rate
Primary Sludge
Flow Rate
Primary Sludge
Concentration
Total Volume of
Aeration Basins
Mixed Liquor
Suspended Solids
Gas Volumetric
Flow Rate to
Aeration Basins
Secondary Wasted
Sludge Flow Rate
Secondary Wasted
Sludge Concentration
A facility is selected by moving the cursor
with the up or down arrow key to the desired
facility and pressing the bar. A
yellow '#' will appear to the left of the chosen
facility.
NOTE
Only one facility ata time maybe chosen.
A facility must be chosen to run FATE.
If you press the bar again, the '#'
sign will disappear; the facility is no longer
chosen for a FATE run, and you have the
option of selecting a new facility. For further
information on adding/editing a user added
facility refer to Section 4.1.3, Function Keys.
11
-------
OPERATION MODES
4.1.2. SELECTING A COMPOUND
FATE allows the user to select either organic
or inorganic compounds. The upper right sec-
tion of the screen displays the organic com-
pound list. Using the right arrow key while
the organic compound list is displayed will
move the user to the inorganic compound list.
In the lower right hand corner of the screen,
FATE displays chemical information on the
pollutant that is highlighted.
Chemical information for a highlighted or-
ganic compound includes the Chemical
Abstract System (CAS) Number, the Henry's
Law Constant, the log octanol/water partition
coefficient constant and the biodegradation
rate constant. The values of these constants
are either measured, estimated, or unavailable
and FATE indicates this with 'M', 'E', or 'U'
written after the constant's values.
When an inorganic compound is highlighted,
the lower right hand corner of the screen dis-
plays the inorganic CAS number and the
primary and secondary removal coefficients.
For a description of these coefficients and
their relation to the inorganic FATE model,
refer to the technical report included as Ap-
pendix B of this manual.
Appendix C lists all organic and inorganic
compounds with their respective CAS num-
bers, constants and coefficients, and Appen-
dix D explains in more detail the contents of
the organic and inorganic databases.
Selecting a compound is accomplished in the
same manner as selecting a facility: move the
cursor to the desired compound using the up
or down arrow key, press the bar
and a yellow '#' will appear to the left of the
compound name. FATE will then ask you to
enter the influent concentration of the com-
pound you have chosen. You may choose the
default concentration (0.100 mg/1) or input
some other concentration. Press
and FATE asks you to accept what is on the
screen. To unmark a compound already
selected, press the bar (after ac-
cepting a compound concentration) and the
'#' will disappear. There is no limit to the
number of compounds FATE can run.
FATE has a special feature which will make
selecting a compound easier. If the compound
you wish to choose is not shown on the imme-
diate screen, you may press the first letter or
number of the compound you wish to choose,
and FATE will take you to the area in its
database where that compound is listed. The
compounds are listed in the database in
numerical and then alphabetical order.
EXAMPLE: You wish to select Toluene. Go
to the organic compound database and type in
the letter "T". Then, use the down arrow key
to select toluene. Once the cursor is next to
toluene you will be able to view the informa-
tion in the database on toluene. To use toluene
in either a single or multiple compound
analysis press the space bar. A pound sign (#)
will appear to indicate that toluene was
selected for the model run. Enter the desired
compound concentration, press ,
and press 'Y' to accept* the concentration.
Press the bar again and toluene
will no longer be selected.
4.1.3. FUNCTION KEYS
When you are in the Selection Modes you may
define your own facility or change the chemi-
cal parameters of any compound from the
default parameters provided 'in the model.
This option gives you the flexibility to use the
model in specific real-life situations. The
mechanics of defining your own facility and
changing the parameters for a compound are
discussed in the following descriptions of the
various function keys.
12
-------
OPERATION MODES
4.1.3.1. HELP
The Help function is activated by pressing the
key. While using the Help function, a
message referring to the specific mode or vari-
able currently being used is displayed. The
Help Mode provides immediate on-line
guidance to the user and can be activated in
every mode of the FATE program. Use the
up or down arrow keys to scroll through the
help message. Press to return to the
program.
4.1.3.2. EDIT AND UNIT CON-
VERSION
The Edit command allows you to change the
facility operating parameters (e.g., plant flow
rate, primary sludge concentration, etc}
and/or the chemical constants for a specific
compound (e.g., Henry's Law Constant.)
By editing different parameters and then run-
ning the model, the user may evaluate the fate
of compounds under different plant condi-
tions. In addition, if the user has obtained
chemical properties for a compound that differ
from the default values, or has measured
values from studies performed at his/her plant
(e.g., plant specific biodegradation rate con-
stants from treatability studies), then these
may be entered in the EDIT Mode.
NOTE
You may not edit the operational
parameters of a facility or chemical con-
stants of a compound if the facility or
compound is followed by an asterisk. If
this is the case, see the directions for the
Copy Mode .
To actually edit a facility or compound, select
the facility or compound to be edited and press
the key. The items which you will be
able to edit will be highlighted; select the
parameter to be changed, type in the new
entry, press , and move on to the
next entry. To obtain an explanation of the
specific parameter you wish to edit, press
for help.
UNIT CONVERSION
FATE will allow input of plant parameters in
units other than those that appear on the
screen. For example, highlight a facility,
press to invoke the EDIT command,
and arrow down to a facility parameter of your
choice. While holding the key,
press , and a pop-up screen will appear
to the right. This pop-up screen contains a list
of units for which that parameter may be
recorded in a POTW. You may enter a value
for that parameter in any of the units dis-
played. By pressing over the unit
you wish to select, inputing your value and
pressing again, FATE converts
.your entered value to standard FATE units.
After you have altered all of the parameters
you wish, press the key. The follow-
ing message will appear:
: to Accept, to continue edit, or to Abort changes I
-»ELEIE -nOBE KE»S
Figure 4-1
Press the appropriate key for your situation.
Remember that pressing the escape key again
while this message still appears on the screen
will mark this record for deletion. See the
instructions on Delete for further guidance.
For record removal, see Section 4.2.3.
13
-------
OPERATION MODES
4.1.3.3. COPY
The Copy command is used when the user
wishes to edit a default facility or compound
(shown by an asterisk). Once you have iden-
tified the facility or compound you wish to
edit (copy), move the cursor to that facility or
compound and press the key. The fol-
lowing message will appear when the copy
has been successfully accomplished:
one data field to the next, and the right or left
arrow key will move the cursor within the data
field. Once you are in a data field, pressing
the key (Help key) will display a
description of the data requirements for that
field. Refer to Section 4.1.3.2. for a descrip-
tion of the unit conversion option which al-
lows you to enter facility parameters in units
other than what appear in the lower left of the
screen. Also, refer to Appendix D for a
description of the facility and compound
database contents.
Record has been copied; ready for editing
Press any key to continue...
Figure 4-2
Press any key to remove this message from the
screen. When the message is removed, the
copied data is highlighted. This data is now
available to be edited; use the up or down
arrow key to go from data field to data field,
and the right or left arrow key to move the
cursor within a data field. For more informa-
tion on the contents of the facility or com-
pound databases, refer to Appendix D.
NOTE
It is a good idea to edit the name field of
the facility or compound (e.gk, change
Toluene to Toluene"!) to identify any
records that you have created.
4.1.3.4. ADD
The Add command allows the user to add a
new facility or compound record to a selected
database by pressing the key. The data
fields that need to be filled to complete the
new record will be highlighted. The database
is now ready for you to add data to it. The up
or down arrow key will move the cursor from
4.1.3.5. DELETE
The deletion of a facility or compound record
is a two step process. Use of the Deletion
command is the first step. It may more ac-
curately be called the "Mark-for-Deletion"
command. Use the arrow keys to move to
the desired record and press the key
once. A "D" in the "SLCT" column indi-
cates a record marked for deletion. To actual-
ly delete the record the
Utilities-Maintenance function in the Menu
Mode is used and is described in the Menu
Mode, Section 4.2.3. To remove the mark-
for-deletion press the key once again.
The record is not actually deleted, however,
until you perform the Utilities-Maintenance
function in the Menu Mode.
NOTE
' ''" ' '"j"
Facilities or compounds followed by an
asterisk {*} cannot be deleted. Because
these records are defaults, they have
been protected against any changes.
You may overwrite the mark-for-selection (a
# sign) with a mark-for-deletion (a 'D'), how-
ever, you may not overwrite a mark-for-dele-
tion with a mark-for selection.
14
-------
OPERATION MODES
4.1.3.6. UNMARK
The purpose of the Unmark command is to
clear selection markings in the organic and
inorganic compound databases between runs
of the model. Using the Unmark func-
tion prevents compounds that were selected
for a previous model run from being inadver-
tently included in subsequent model runs.
4.1.3.7. GROUP
The Group command option searches for all
compounds that have been selected for a
model run and groups them at the bottom of
the database. By pressing you activate
the search and can view the resulting list of
compounds that have been selected together
as a group. *
4.1.3.8. CAS SEARCH
The CAS SEARCH command allows you to
search for a particular compound by its
Chemical Abstract System (CAS) number.
The option is especially useful for a com-
pound with several names that you cannot
seem to find in the database.
NOTE
When you type in the CAS number, do
not use hyphens. For example, the
CAS number for acetic acid, 10-80-54,
would be entered as "108Q54",
4.2. MENU MODE
In the Menu Mode a user may access several
primary commands. Pressing the forward
slash key (as indicated in the lower left-
hand corner of the screen) activates the Menu
Mode. The top line of the screen should read
as follows:
Run Print Utilities Systen Continue Quit
Bun the node I for the current parameters
Figure 4-3
To return to the Select Mode, press the
key.
Options are selected and activated in the
Menu Mode by moving the arrow keys to
highlight the desired menu choice and press-
ing . You may also type the first
character of the option to make a selection
(e.g. type for RUN).
The following sections describe the different
options available while in the Menu Mode.
These are:
RUN
PRINT
UTILITIES
SYSTEM ACCESS
CONTINUE
QUIT
4.2.1. RUN
After you have marked the desired com-
pounds (in both the organic and inorganic
database) activate the Menu Mode, while in
the Selection Mode, by typing . In the
Menu Mode, the Run menu option will run
the FATE model for each selected compound.
15
-------
OPERATION MODES
The system runs the program for the organic
compounds first and then for the inorganic
compounds.
The Run command can be used to recalculate
removal rates of pollutants in the plant in-
fluent after you have copied the records and
changed various operating parameters.
4.2.2. PRINT
To use the Print option, make sure you are in
the Menu Mode. The Print option dis-
plays the Print Menu; the top line of the
screen should read as follows:
Figure 4-4
The print option consists of six sub options:
Single, Multiple, Facility, Compound, Page
and Line.
Single - Prints a report of the results for a
FATE run for one compound.
Multiple - Prints a report for a FATE run for
any number of compounds selected.
Facility - Generates a report of all facilities in
the facility database.
Compound - Generates a report listing all
organic and inorganic compounds in their
respective databases.
Assumptions - Generates a report listing the
major model assumptions.
Page - Sends a form feed command to the
printer.
Line - Sends a line feed command to the
printer.
For more information concerning content of
the various reports, refer to Section 5.
~NOTE^
* ,
All reports in this version of the, FATE^
model are set up for 80 column output *
4.2.3. UTILITIES
The Utility option is used for maintenance of
the databases. It is composed of three sub-op-
tions: Maintenance, Rebuild, and Backup.
Maintenance
Selectfng Maintenance deletes blank records
(where no facility or compound name has
been given) and those records which are
"marked for deletion." (Refer to Section
4.1.3.5 for instructions on deletion of records.)
The Maintenance option also updates index
files that are used to sort records according to
compound name, selection, or some other at-
tribute.
Rebuild
The Rebuild option is used to rebuild index
files that have become damaged, possibly
during a power outage.
' ; ^ '-/ ,„ JNOTE ;
! {itfA ^ ^5 jtj,v ^ ,. v
It is very important "to 'backup the live
database files on a regular basis'in case
-the files get damaged. You should also"
maintain a backup copy of the origmal
FATE model program and databases.
16
-------
OPERATION MODES
Backup
The Backup option copies the database files
to a diskette.
4.2.4. SYSTEM ACCESS
The System option allows you to exit to DOS
while still running the FATE model program.
You can perform other tasks in DOS, such as
checking disk space, formatting diskettes, or
locating a file program, and then return to the
FATE model program by typing 'EXIT' and
pressing .
4.2.5. CONTINUE
The Continue option allows the user to con-
tinue using the FATE model program after the
model results are obtained for all selected
compounds.
4.2.6. QUIT
The Quit option ends the modeling session
and exits from the FATE model program.
Each time you exit to DOS using this
option and then reenterthe FATE model
program, additional computer memory is
used- You Should not use this option on
a regular basis since the computer may
run out of memory. If this occurs, it will
not be possible to access DOS.
17
-------
5. REPORTS
The FATE model program allows you to print
reports for single or multiple compound for-
mats and to print the facility or compound
(organic and inorganic) databases .
Step-by-step instructions for generating
reports are as follows:
• Begin in the Selection Mode.
1. Select the desired facility using the space
bar (e.g., small, medium, large, or user-
created facility.)
2. Use the right arrow key to move to the
organic or inorganic compound database.
3. Use the space bar to select the desired
compound(s).
• Press the forward slash key (/) to obtain
the Menu Mode. Make sure the printer is
on-line and the paper is aligned.
1. If you wish to view the results on the screen
before you print them, select Run from the
Menu Mode. The run results for the selected
compound(s) will appear at the top of the
screen (this report is discussed in Section 6.1).
When you are finished viewing the results,
press any key to continue.
2. If you don't wish to view the results before
printing them, select Print from the Menu
Mode and select a report option: Single, Mul-
tiple, Facility, or Compound. These reports
are described in the following sections.
When the report has finished printing the pro-
gram will return you back to the main level of
the Menu Mode. From there, you may Quit
the program, Continue to use the program,
Run the current model again, or print another
report.
Printing may be terminated by pressing
the key.
«. , ==:
5.1. SCREEN REPORT
When you choose the Run option from the
Menu Mode, FATE provides an on-screen
report as shown in Figure 3-10. The values
shown on this report are defined below:
Organic Compounds:
pri. influent cone, is the influent concentra-
tion (mg/1) that you entered in the compound
database at the upper right hand side of the
screen.
pri. sorpt. rem. rate is the sorption removal
rate (Ib/dy) from the primary clarifier.
pri. clar. eff. cone, is the effluent concentra-
tion (mg/1) from the primary clarifier.
vol. rem. rate is the volatilization removal
rate (Ib/dy) from the aeration basins. .
bio. rem. rate is the biodegradation removal
rate (Ib/dy) from the treatment system.
sec. sorpt. rem. rate is the sorption removal
rate (Ib/dy) from the'secondary clarifier.
pri. sorbed is the percent sorbed to the sludge
in the primary clarifier.
sec. sorbed is the percent sorbed to the sludge
in the secondary clarifier.
18
-------
REPORTS
volatilized is the percent of the compound
which will volatilize in the treatment system.
biodegraded is the percent of the compound
which will biodegrade in the treatment sys-
tem.
overall removal is the total percent removal
of the compound through the POTW.
sec. eff. cone, is the effluent concentration
(mg/1) from the secondary clarifier.
Inorganic Compounds:
primary inf. cone, is the influent concentra-
tion (mg/1) that you entered in the compound
database at the upper right hand side of the
screen.
primary rem. rate is the removal rate (Ib/dy)
from the primary clarifier.
secondary rem. rate is the removal rate
(Ib/dy) from the secondary clarifier.
overall rem. rate is the overall removal rate
(Ib/dy) from the treatment system.
primary eff. cone, is the effluent concentra-
tion (mg/1) from the primary clarifier.
primary rem. is the percent removal from the
primary clarifier.
secondary rem. is the percent removal in the
secondary clarifier.
t
overall rem. is the overall percent removal
from the treatment system.
final eff. cone, is the effluent concentration
(mg/1) from the secondary clarifier.
After viewing the results press to
view other selected compounds, or press any
key to continue.
5.2. SINGLE COMPOUND
REPORTS
A 'Single' report not only generates a detailed
FATE analysis of the selected compound, but
also reports the selected facility's parameters
and compound chemical information. Figure
3-11 is an example of a single report. The
report format is as follows:
Compound information - This section
presents chemical information on the selected
compound - Henry's Law Constant, log oc-
tanol/water partition coefficient, biodegrada-
tion rate constant, and the plant influent
concentration. For more information on -
specific chemical data refer to Appendix D.
Facility information - This section prints all
the plant parameters of the selected facility.
For more information on facility parameters,
refer to section 4.1.1.
FATE analysis - The removal rates, con-
centrations and percent removals are reported
in this section. Refer to Section 5.1 for defini-
tions.
Notes: These notes are the assumptions of the
model as explained in Section 1 of this
manual.
NOTE
If more than one compound was
selected, only the last compound run
may be printed by selecting Print and,
then Single.
19
-------
REPORTS
When the report has finished printing the pro-
gram will return to the main level of the Menu
Mode.
5.3. MULTIPLE COMPOUND
REPORTS
Multiple compound reports present the
facility operating parameters and the percent
removals of each compound selected. Figure
3-12 is an example of a Multiple Compound
Report. The format is described as follows:
Facility - As for the single compound report,
the selected facility's plant parameters are
reported here. For a more detailed description
of these parameters refer to Section 4.1.1.
Results - The results of the.FATE analysis for
every compound selected are reported here.
Unlike the single report option, only the ef-
fluent concentration and percent removals are
reported. For more detailed FATE analysis,
you have the option of generating single
reports for all compounds of interest or choos-
ing the Run option from the Main Menu, and
viewing detailed analysis for each selected
compound.
When printing is complete, the program will
return you to the Main Menu.
5.4. PRINTING THE FACILITY
DATABASE
To generate a complete printout of all the
parameters in the facility database, you need
to perform the following steps:
Press the forward slash key to get to the
Menu Mode.
Select Print from the Menu Mode.
Make sure the printer is on-line and the paper
is aligned. Select Facility from the Print
Menu and the complete facility database will
begin printing.
When the printout is complete, the program
returns you back to the main level of the Menu
Mode. You may then Quit the program,
Continue using the program, or Run the cur-
rent model again.
5.5. PRINTING THE
COMPOUND DATABASES
The procedure for printing the organic com-
pound database and the inorganic compound
database is exactly the same as the procedure
for printing the facility database.
After you have selected Print and verified the
printer is on-line and the paper is aligned,
select Compound from the Print Menu,
rather than Facility.
A complete list of both the organic and the
inorganic compounds will begin printing.
The compound database is attached as Appen-
dix C.
When the report is finished printing you will
be at the main level of the Menu Mode! As
before, you may Quit, Continue, or Run the
model again.
5.6. PRINTING THE MODEL
ASSUMPTIONS
The procedure for printing the list of model
assumptions used during the development of
FATE is the same as the procedure for printing
the facility and compound databases.
20
-------
REPORTS
After you have selected Print and verified the
printer is on-line and the paper is aligned,
select Assumptions from the Print Menu.
A complete list of the model assumptions will
begin printing. The list of assumptions is
presented in Section 1.0.
When the report is finished printing, you will
be at the main level of the Menu Mode. As
before, you may Quit, Continue, or Run the
model again.
21
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Aer basins vol
total volume of the aeration basins
bio. rem. rate
biodegradation removal rate
CAS number
cf/d
cfm
cone.
CU.FT
CU.FT/D
CU.FT/HR
CU.M
CU.M/D
CU.M/HR
Chemical Abstract System Number
cubic feet per day
cubic feet per minute
concentration
cubic feet
cubic feet per day
cubic feet per hour
cubic meters
cubic meters per day
cubic meters per hour
D
DOS
when present to the left of a compound or facility, this record is
marked for deletion
Disk Operating System
E
effluent cone.
EPA
ESC
indicates a value has been estimated using an accepted method
effluent concentration
Environmental Protection Agency
The escape key
FATE
final eff. cone.
Fate And Treatability Estimator
effluent concentration reported after the secondary clarifier
22
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
G
G/CU.M
gal.
Gas flow rate
gpm
gas volumetric flow rate to the aeration basins
grams per cubic meters
gallons
gas volumetric flow rate to the aertion basins
gallons per day
gallons per minute
H '
influent cone.
•j
Henry's law constant (atm - m /mole)
influent concentration ,
L
L/D
LB/CU.M
LB/DY
LB/GAL
LK1
LKOW
Log of bio rate
Log of octanol/water
liters
liters per day
pounds per cubic meters
pounds per day
pounds per gallon
log (base 10) of the biodegration rate constant
log (base 10) of the octanol/water partition coefficient
log (base 10) of the biodegration rate constant
log (base 10) of the octanol/water partition coefficient
M
MCU.FT/D
mg/1
MGAL
MOD
ML
a measured value taken from the literature
millions of cubic feet per day
milligrams per liter
million gallons
millions of gallons per day
coefficient that predicts removal of an inorganic compound in the
secondary clarifier
23
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
MLSS
mixed liquor suspended solids
overall rem
overall rem. rate
overall removal of the compound
overall removal rate of the compound
plant flow
POTW
ppm
pri. clar. eff. cone.
pri. influent cone.
pri. sludge cone.
pri. sludge flow
pri. sorbed
pri. sorpt. rem. rate
primary coefficient
primary eff, cone.
primary rem.
primary rem. rate
plant flow rate of wastewater into POTW
publicly owned treatment works
parts per billion
parts per million
primary clarifier effluent concentration
primary clarifier influent concentration
primary clarifier sludge concentration
sludge flow rate from the primary clarifier
amount of the compound sorbed in the primary clarifier
the sorption removal rate in the primary clarifier
coefficient (RW) that predicts removal of an inorganic compound in
the primary clarifier
primary clarifier effluent concentration
percent removal of compound from the primary clarifier
removal rate of compound from the primary clarifier
Q
OP
Qw
plant flow rate
primary sludge flow rate
wasted secondary sludge flow rate
RW
coefficient that predicts removal of an inorganic compound in the
primary clarifier
sec. eff. cone.
secondary clarifier effluent concentration of compound
24
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
sec.sorbed
sec. sorpt. rem. rate
secondary coeff.
secondary rem.
secondary rem rate
Si
SLCT
So
percent of the compound sorbed in the secondary clarifier
removal rate of the compound in the secondary clarifier
coefficient (ML) that predicts the removal of an inorganic compound
in the secondary clarifier ._ ,
percent removal of compound in the secondary clarifier
removal rate of compound from the secondary clarifier
concentration of contaminant in the raw wastewater (influent to
primary clarifier)
indicates the SELECT MODE
concentration of contaminant in the primary clarifier (also equal to
primary clarifier effluent concentration)
temperature of the aeration basins (assumed to be 20° C)
U
ug/1
the value is unavailable and must be supplied by the user
micrograms per liter
V
vol. rem.
volume of the aeration basins
volatilization removal rate
waste sludge cone.
waste sludge flo
sludge concentration from the secondary clarifier
sludge flow rate from the secondary clarifier
XI
Xp
Xv
mixed liquor suspended solids
primary sludge concentration
secondary sludge concentration
.#
if present to the left of a facility or compound, it is selected for a
FATE run
indicates a default facility or compound
25
-------
APPENDIX A
Warning Errors and Messages
The following list of error and warning messages may appear in a window if an operation attempted
by a user does not meet certain conditions. The messages typically appear in a pop-up window at
the bottom-center of the screen and require the user to respond with a keystroke to clear the message.
Warning #1: "The printer is not ready."
The printer is not. attached to the computer, is not on-line, or some other printer error has occurred.
Error #100: "Cannot edit deleted or marked (*) record"
A field marked with an asterisk (*) has been provided by EPA and the values are protected from
alterations. You may copy a record which automatically removes the asterisk and allows
parameters to be edited.
Error #101: "Cannot delete a marked (*) entry."
See Error #100
Error #102: "More than one facility selected."
The user interface allows only one facility to be run at a time.
Error #103: "No compounds selected."
The user has attempted to run the model before selecting any compounds.
Error #104: "No facility selected."
The user has attempted to run the model before selecting a facility.
Error #105: "User cannot use an asterisk for this entry."
The asterisk (*) character is reserved for the default database records.
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A
Error #106: "Type must be Measured, Estimated, or Unavailable."
Each organic compound chemical parameter is qualified based on the source of the information.
The data represented is a measured value when the type field contains the capital letter 'M'.
Similarly 'E' and 'U' are used to qualify data is estimated or unavailable. When adding or editing
records the user should follow this convention.
Error #107: "Select is other than inorganic or organic."
*
Error #108: " Select is other than facility, inorganic or organic."
Error #109: "Scientific notation demands this field to be 1 or greater."
Error #111: "Cannot select deleted record."
A record which has been marked for deletion may not be selected for a model run. To select a record
marked for deletion the user must first undelete the record (using ) and then select it (using
the space bar).
Error #112: "This entry cannot begin with blank."
Name fields may not begin with a blank since they are used as Key fields in the index which controls
the order of the database.
Warning #113: "This entry should be between-13 & 2."
Warning #114: "This entry should be between -3 & 10."
Warning #115: "This entry should be between -5 & -1 (or 0 if U)."
This biodegradation rate constant is entered as the log(K).
Warning #116: "This entry should be between 0 & 100."
Warning #117: "This entry should be between 0 & 1000."
Warning #118: "This entry should be between 1000 * Q & 9000 * Q."
Q is the plant flow rate in units of MGD.
Warning #119: "This entry should be between 3 & 8%."
Warning #120: "This entry should be between 74,000 * Q & 372,000 * Q."
Q is the plant flow rate in units of MGD.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A
Warning #121: "This entry should be between 1500 & 7000."
Warning #122: "This entry should be between 2,000,000 * Q & 40,000,000 * Q."
Q is the plant flow rate in units of MOD.
Warning #123: "This entry should be between 500 * Q & 20,000 * Q."
Q is the plant flow rate in units of MOD.
Warning #124: "This entry should be between 0.5 & 2%."
Warning #125: "This entry should be between 0 & 35."
Warning #126: "This entry should be between 'N'."
Warning #127: "Cannot run this compound, Henry's or log type is U."
An organic compound must have an 'E' or an 'M' qualifier for the Henry's Law Constant and Log
Kow in order to be run. The 'U' qualifier indicates that the data is currently unavailable.
Error #200: "Select inorganic or organic database for CAS number search."
Error #201: "CAS number not found."
Error #202: "No results to print. Run model first."
For single run printouts the model must be run first using'/R'.
Error #203: "Printer is not ready."
Error #204: "Not enough memory to run a DOS shell."
The fate model requires that 60K of memory be available before it will attempt to run a DOS shell.
Error #207: "Cannot change K for an asterisked (*) entry with U or M."
Error #208: "No more records marked for run."
The following errors indicate that an internal error has taken place and is probably beyond the users
control:
Internal Error #900: "Unknown error number."
Internal Error #901: "Unknown mode."
A-3
-------
APPENDIX A
Internal Error #902: "Database empty."
If this error occurs reinstall the database and index files from the distribution diskette or backup
copies by using DOS to copy all .DBF, .DBT and .NTX files to the appropriate disk or directory.
Internal Error #903: "dspfk mode other than 1,2,3."
Internal Error #904: "Missing record or corrupt CV.DBF, CVPARM.NTX files."
The user should rebuild the indices using the rebuild utility in the Menu Mode. < ! *
A-4
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
FATE Model Technical Report
-------
-------
SECTION
FATE MODEL TECHNICAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
PAGE NO.
1.0 INTRODUCTION. B1~1
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW OF FATE IN POTW MODELS.' B2-1
2.1 ORGANIC MODELS Z^
2.2 INORGANIC MODELS B2"1
3 .0 FATE MODEL DEVELOPMENT S3'1
3.1 ORGANICS MODEL B3'J-
3.1.1 Mass Balance About the Primary Clarifier B3-1
3.1.2 Secondary System B3 " 3
3.2 INORGANICS MODEL . B3-6
3.2.1 Mass Balance About the Primary Clarifier B3-7
3.2.2 Secondary System B3 " 9
3.3 MODEL ASSUMPTIONS B3-12
4.0 DEFAULT VALUES AND INPUT VALUE RANGES , B4-1
5.0 MODEL COEFFICIENTS AND CONSTANTS B5-1
5 .1 OCTANOL/WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENTS B5-1
5.2 HENRY'S LAW CONSTANTS • fi5-l
5 . 3 BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANTS B5-2
6 .0 MODEL CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION • • • B6-1
6 .1 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS • B6-1
6 .2 DATA COLLECTION/SELECTION B6-3
6.3 ORGANIC MODEL CALIBRATION B6-4
6.3.1 FATE Model Predictions B6-4
6.3.2 Actual Observations • B6-4
6.3.3 Calibration •• B6-4
6.3.4 Calibration Model Runs B6 - 6
6.3.5 Statistical Evaluation B6-9
6.3.5.1 Method B6-9
6.3.5.2 Results - Uncalibrated Model B6 -10
6.3.5.3 Results - Calibrated Model B6-10
6.4 INORGANIC MODEL CALIBRATION B6-17
6.4.1 FATE Model Predictions B6-17
6.4.2 Actual Observations B6-17
6.4.3 Calibration B6-19
900513-mil
-------
FATE MODEL TECHNICAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
SECTION
TITLE
PAGE NO.
6.4.4 Calibration Model Runs
6.4.5 Statistical Evaluation
6.4.5.1 Method
6.4.5.2 Results - Calibrated Model ,
6.5 VALIDATION
6.5.1 Results - Organic Model
6.5.2 Results - Inorganic Model
6.6 MODEL PRECISION
6.6.1 Precision Evaluation Procedure
6.6.2 Precision Evaluation Results - Organic Model.
6.6.3 Precision Evaluation Results - Inorganic
Model
7.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
B6-19
B6-19
B6-19
B6-20
B6-26
B6-26
B6-28
B6-28
B6-28
B6-29
B6-31
B7-1
ATTACHMENT A - BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANT ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES
ATTACHMENT B - MODEL CALIBRATION PLOTS
900513-rail
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
TITLE PAGE NO.
4-1 DEFAULT PLANT PARAMETERS • • B4'2
4-2 PLANT PARAMETER RANGES • •; • B4'3
5-1 RULES OF THUMB FOR BIODEGRADABILITY B5'4
6-1 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - COMPOUND CLASSES SENSITIVE TO INPUT
PARAMETER B6'2
6-2 FATE ORGANIC MODEL INPUTS AND OUTPUTS B6-5
6-3 COMPOUNDS USED IN FATE CALIBRATION B6-7
6-4 FATE INORGANIC INPUTS AND OUTPUTS. B6-18
6-5 INORGANICS MODEL CALIBRATION FACTORS • B6-27
6-6 ORGANIC MODEL PRECISION B6-30
6-7 INORGANIC MODEL PRECISION B6-32
900513-mll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE K
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
6-10
FO . TITLE
FATE ORGANIC MODEL PRIMARY CLARIFIER
FATE ORGANIC MODEL AERATION BASIN AND SECONDARY CLARIFIER. .
FATE INORGANIC MODEL PRIMARY CLARIFIER
FATE INORGANIC MODEL AERATION BASIN AND SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
BOX PLOTS OF FATE RESIDUALS BY COMPOUND CLASS
PERCENT OF MASS REMOVED BY EACH REMOVAL MECHANISM
PROBABILITY PLOT OF FATE RESIDUALS
BOX PLOTS OF FATE RESIDUALS BY COMPOUND CLASS
PERCENT OF MASS REMOVED BY EACH MECHANISM
PROBABILITY PLOT OF MEASURED EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
PROBABILITY PLOT OF PREDICTED EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION »
PROBABILITY PLOT OF FATE RESIDUALS
BOX PLOTS OF FATE RESIDUALS BY COMPOUND
PERCENT OF MASS REMOVED BY EACH CLARIFIER
PAGE NO.
B3-2
B3-4
B3-8
B3-10
B6-11
B6-12
B6-14
B6-15
B6-16
B6-21
B6-22
B6-23
B6-24
B6-25
900513-mll
-------
FATE MODEL TECHNICAL REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Industrial Technology
Division (ITD) has supported the development of a user friendly, computerized
model, "Fate and Treatability Estimator" (FATE), to evaluate the fate of various
inorganic and organic pollutants discharged to conventional activated sludge
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). FATE was designed to assist POTW
operators and feasibility study writers in evaluating the fate and treatability
of pollutants discharged to POTWs. FATE users will be able to estimate the
overall percent removal of a pollutant discharged to a plant, and percent
removal attributed to the three principal mechanisms for removal included in the
model (i.e., volatilization, sorption, and biodegradation). USEPA's guidelines
for use of mathematical models for regulatory assessment and decision making
(USEPA, 1989) were followed wherever applicable during the development of FATE.
The purpose of this report is to present technical considerations and
methodologies used in the development of FATE. Topics addressed in this report
are: 1) review of various fate models available in the literature, 2)
development of the inorganic and organic mathematical submodels which compose
FATE, 3) selection of default plant parameter values and ranges used to check a
user's input values, 4) methodology to obtain Henry's Law constants,
octanol/water partition coefficients, and biodegradation rate constants,
5) sensivity analysis conducted on FATE's organic compound removal algorithms,
and 6) calibration and validation of FATE.
900513-mll
Bl-1
-------
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW OF FATE IN POTW MODELS
The literature reviewed in the development of the organic and inorganic FATE
models is described in subsequent sections.
2.1 ORGANIC MODELS
Several models were available in the literature for estimation of overall fate
of organic pollutants discharged to a treatment facility. Blackburn et al.
(1985) developed an overall fate model which included parameters such as
hydraulic residence time, biomass concentration, air flow volumes, and chemical
and physical properties of the pollutant to estimate fate of organics discharged
to an activated sludge treatment process. Blackburn et al. (1985) and Blackburn
(1987) presented a fate model which predicts overall removal of organic
pollutants. This model has been validated against laboratory and bench-scale
studies for seven organic compounds. Namkung and Rittmann (1987) and Rittmann
et al. (1988) have presented overall fate models developed from performing a
mass balance across an aeration basin and secondary clarifier. Namkung and
Rittmann (1987) used this model to estimate volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions of eleven VOCs from two POTWs, and found that a comparison of the
total VOC removal rate estimated from the model to actual data from two plants
resulted in estimated overall removals within 10 percent of the actual removal
rate. Barton (1987) developed a model which included similar biodegradation and
sorption removal equations as in the models of Blackburn, and Namkung and
Rittmann; however, removal due to volatilization included both stripping due to
surface or subsurface aeration and volatilization. All of these models had the
ability to model the aeration basin and secondary clarifier. Clark (1986)
developed a model which included the primary clarifier, aeration basin, and
secondary clarifier to estimate overall removal and removal due to a specific
removal mechanism. This model has been computerized, unlike the o'ther models
reviewed.
Due to the lack of sufficient data for model calibration and validation and the
variability associated with actual plant performance as indicated in USEPA's
evaluation of toxic treatability by POTWs (USEPA, 1982), a complicated model was
not believed to provide more reliable estimates of plant performance. As a
result, most of the models reviewed were eliminated as a basis for the FATE
organic model. The advantages in user understanding, computational simplicity,
and minimal amount of easily obtained plant- and chemical-specific input
parameters, however, made the model of Namkung and Rittmann a solid basis for
development of the FATE organic model.
2.2 INORGANIC MODELS
After an extensive literature search and personal communication with researchers
in this area, only three models predicting the fate of inorganic compounds in
POTWs were identified. Neufeld (1975) used batch studies to develop an
expression to describe the accumulation of metals on biological sludge. The
900513-mll
B2-1
-------
resulting expression was used to generate isotherm equations that could
represent kinetic and equilibrium relationships for six metals (lead, cadmium,
mercury, chromium, zinc, and nickel). Neufeld predicted that there,was a
maximum attainable value of metal that could be associated with sludge. Nelson
et al. (1981) also performed batch experiments to generate adsorption isotherms
that could represent equilibrium of metals between bacterial solids and
solution phases. Three metals were modeled (zinc, copper, and cadmium). Nelson
emphasized that the adsorption constants generated were valid only at the pH and
chemical composition of the water used in the experimental system. Patterson
and Kodukula (1984) used data from extended pilot studies to develop models to
predict the distribution of metals in activated sludge processes. A correlation
was found between percent removal of metals and percent suspended solids
removal; the total concentration of metals in the effluent increased as the
effluent suspended solids increased. Using this correlation, Patterson and
Kodukula proposed models for eight metals (aluminum, cadmium, chromium, copper,
iron, lead, nickel, and zinc).
Based on the inorganic literature review, the Patterson and Kodukula approach
was chosen as the basis for the FATE inorganic model. The approach was selected
for a number of reasons:
1) Patterson and Kodukula modelled the most metals;
2) pilot plant studies as opposed to adsorption isotherm studies were
used as the basis for the model; /
3) constants developed to estimate removal in the primary and in the
secondary clarifiers were given for the eight metals; and
4) the model is based on the relationship between the volatile suspended
solids and metal concentrations of the process streams rather than
only the metal concentrations.
900513-mll
B2-2
-------
3.0 FATE MODEL DEVELOPMENT
FATE has the capability to estimate the treatability of both inorganic and
organic compounds discharged to a POTW. The following two subsections describe
development of the separate models which estimate removal of orgariics and
inorganics.
3.1 ORGANICS MODEL
The organics portion of the fate model uses a mass balance approach to describe
removal of an organic compound in a conventional activated sludge treatment
facility. Significant removal of organic compounds is assumed to occur in only
the primary clarifier(s) and aeration basin(s)/secondary clarifier(s). Removal
mechanisms are assumed to be only sorption in the primary system and
volatilization (by stripping), sorption, and biodegradation in the secondary
systems. The model of Namkung and Rittmann (1987) served as the basis for the
aeration basin(s) and the secondary clarifier(s), except for a change to the
organic partitioning to solids relationship.
3.1.1 Mass Balance About the Primary Clarifier
Figure 3-1 presents a schematic of the primary clarifier. The mass balance
equation for removal in the primary clarifier(s) can be written as:
dS0/dt - QSin -
- Rsorpi
(1)
where: V,
pr -
Sin -
t
Q
Qoub
the total plant primary clarifier(s) volume, m3;
the individual compound concentration in the influent to
the primary clarifier(s), gm/m3 or mg/1;
— the time, days;
— the influent flowrate, m3/day;
- the primary clarifier(s) effluent flowrate, m3/day;
- the primary clarifier(s) sludge removal rate, m3/day;
— the individual compound concentration in the primary
clarifier(s), which also exits to the aeration basis(s),
gm/m3 or mg/1; and
— the rate of compound removal in the primary clarifier(s)
due to sorption onto organic solids, gm/day.
By assuming steady state conditions (dS/dt - 0) and liquid outflow equal to
liquid inflow (Qout + Qpw ~ Q) , Equation (1) reduces to:
0 - Q (Sln - S0) -
(2)
The sorption removal rate assumes that the compound partitions according to a
linear relationship between the liquid and solid phase, and this can be
described by an empirical relationship relating partitioning to a compound's
octanol/water partition coefficient, Kow. The empirical relationship relating
900513-mll
B3-1
-------
cd
w
I
ho
Qout,S0
KEY
Q - Totaf Flow
Qm -Primary Effluent Flow Rate
Qpa, -Primary Wasted Sludge Flow Rale
Sin - Influent Compound Concentration
$ -Steady State Compound Concentration
1 - Compound Removal Rate due to Primary Adsorption
FIGURE 3-1
FATE ORGANIC MODEL
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
6098-81
-------
partitioning of an organic compound onto the organic fraction of primary sludge
to Kow was obtained from an experimental study which examined the sorption of
organic compounds onto wastewater solids (Dobbs et al., 1989). Data for
sorption of six organics (methylene chloride, chloroform, 1,1-dichloroethylene,
carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, and tetrachlorethylene) onto primary sludge
was used to obtain a relationship between the partition coefficient, Kp (units
of m3/g VSS) and Kow. This relationship is written as:
Kp - 5.9 x 1(T5 (Kow °-35)
(3)
The statistical measure, R2, for this relationship was determined to be 0.72.
The rate of compound removal due to sorption can then be written as:
Raorpl - Qpw
(0.000059*Kow°-35) So
(4)
where Xp* is the concentration of organic solids present in the primary
clarifier sludge (gm VSS/m3) and is assumed to be 70 percent of the total solids
concentration, Xp (Viessman and Hammer, 1985).
The individual compound concentration within and exiting the primary clarifier
can then be calculated by substituting Equation (4) into Equation (2), and
including the assumption of 70 percent VSS in the primary sludge, to give:
So - (Q
/ (Q + Qp« Xp (4.1xlO-5*Kow°-35))
(5)
where S0 is the concentration of an organic pollutant entering the aeration
basin(s) in gm/m3 or mg/1.
3.1.2 Secondary System
Figure 3-2 presents a schematic of the aeration basin and secondary clarifier.
The mass balance for the aeration basin(s)/secondary clarifier(s) can be written
as:
V dS/dt - QS0 - QeS - QWS - Rbio - Rsorp - Rvol (6)
where: V - the aeration basin(s) volume, m3;
S — the individual compound concentration in the aeration
basin(s)/secondary clarifier(s) system, which also
is the plant effluent concentration, gm/m3 (mg/1);
Q, — the effluent flow rate, m3/day;
Qw - the wasted sludge flow rate, m3/day; and
Rbioi Rsorp i and RVoi •" the rates of compound removal due to
biodegradation, sorption, and volatilization,
respectively, gm/day.
By assuming steady state conditions (dS/dt - 0) and the liquid outflow equal to
the liquid inflow (Qe + QH - Q) , Equation (6) reduces to:
900513-mll
B3-3
-------
Q.So
Qe.S
Qw.S
sorp
KEY
Q - Totat Flow
Qe - Effluent Flow Rate
Qw - Wa$ted Sludge Flow Rate
S o - Influent Compound Concentration
S - Steady State Compound Concentration
fit*,, - Compound RernovaT Rates due to
8 sorp, Blodegration, Sorption, and Volatilization
"vd
FIGURE 3-2
FATE ORGANIC MODEL
AERATION BASIN AND SECONDARY CLARIFIER
6098-81
-------
0 - Q (S0 - S) -
- R80rp - Rvol
(7)
The biodegradation removal rate is assumed to follow Monod kinetics and the
compound influent concentration is assumed to be much less than the Monod half
saturation coefficient. The organic compound is assumed to be removed by
secondary utilization; therefore, the active'cell concentration, Xa, of the
system can be assumed to equal some fraction of the total biomass in the system.
The biodegradation removal rate can be written as:
Rblo - ki Xa SV (8)
where ki is the apparent first-order biodegradation rate constant, m3/gm VSS-
day, and Xa is assumed to be 0.64 of the mixed liquor suspended solids
concentration (MLSS) (Namkung and Rittmann, 1987).
Secondary utilization is the process whereby an organic substrate at low
concentrations is utilized by a microorganism, but does not supply the growth
and energy requirements of the microorganism. The microorganism uses another
individual substrate or combination of substrates for its energy and maintenance
requirements and, in the process, mineralizes the compound at low concentration.
In this situation, it is assumed that the primary substrate is the large volume
of varied organic carbon entering the plant which is measured as the plant's
influent biological oxygen demand. Namkung and Rittman provide a more detailed
description of secondary utilization.
The sorption removal rate assumes that the compound partitions according to a
linear relationship between the liquid and solid phase and this partitioning can
be described by an empirical relationship obtained experimentally by Matter-
Muller (1980). This empirical relationship relating partitioning to Kow was
developed for the sorption of several chlorinated organics onto activated sludge
solids. The sorption removal rate in the secondary clarifier(s) can then be
written as:
R.orp2 - 3.06 x 10'6 QH Xv (Kow) °-67 S (9)
where Xv is the wasted secondary sludge concentration in mg/1.
The volatilization removal rate assumes that the individual compound is
negligible in the inlet gas and the partial pressure of the gas exiting the
aeration tank liquid is in equilibrium with the compound concentration.
Rvol - GHS/RT (10)
where: G - the total gas volumetric flow rate, m3/day;
H - the compound's Henry's Law constant, atm-m3/mole;
R - the universal gas constant, 8.206 x 10"5 m3atm/°K-mole; and
T - the temperature of the aeration basin in °K.
900513-mil
B3-5
-------
The steady state concentration exiting the secondary clarifier(s) can be
calculated from substituting Equations (8), (9), and (10) into Equation (7) and
solving for S:
(Q S0)/(Q + GH/RT +
x 10'6) (Kow)0-67 + kjXaV)
(11)
For organic compounds, FATE first calculates a steady state concentration in the
primary clarifier(s) . This concentration is used as the influent concentration
to the aeration basin(s) /secondary clarifier(s) system where a second steady
state concentration is calculated. The mass removal rates of sorption in the
primary and secondary clarifier(s) , and volatilization and biodegradation in the
aeration basin(s) are then calculated, as is the percent removal due to each of
these particular removal mechanisms. Finally, FATE calculates an overall plant
percent removal.
3.2 INORGANICS MODEL
The data available for inorganics removal , primarily metals , was extremely
limited during initial formulation of the FATE model. The only approach that
appeared to be reasonable based on that data was to attempt to relate total
removal as a function of the_entire treatment system and the initial
concentration. The resultant model was calibrated to the available data through
linear regression based on the simple model:
where:
a*>?n(Sin)" + b
Sout - the plant effluent concentration, mg/1;
Sin — the plant influent concentration, mg/1; and
a,b — the linear regression coefficients.
(12)
The correlation coefficients resulting from this analysis were extremely poor.
Also evaluated, but with no more reliable results, was a model that considered
that the removal was dependent on influent concentration, with a and b assumed
to have different values for two specified concentration ranges.
In view of the inadequacy of both this model and the data base for calibration,
the literature was searched for a more reliable model with the anticipation of a
larger data base for inorganics removal by POTWs. Based on a review of the
literature as described in Section 2.2, the model of Patterson and Kodukula
(1984) was selected as appropriate for purposes of the FATE model.
Patterson and Kodukula proposed models that related total metals removal in a
wastestream to the organic volatile suspended solids removal in that unit.
While it was recognized that other parameters such as pH might affect sorption-
solubility relationships , these parameters were not well defined for typical
plant operation, and if the plant was operating within normal ranges, the
effects of these other parameters would not be significant when compared to the
mechanism of sorption to organic volatile suspended solids (VSS) , and the
900513-mll
B3-6
-------
removal of these solids in the clarifier(s) . They obtained fair to mostly good
and excellent correlation of the model predictions with actual EPA pilot plant
survey data for eight metals.
The form of Patterson's and Kodukula's (PK) model as used in this version of
FATE is referred to in their article as Model I . They modified their model to
calculate removals across treatment trains as follows :
Mt/Delta(Ms)
B/Delta(VSS)
(13)
Where: Mt — the total metals influent concentration;
Delta (MB) — the change in the solids -bound metal across
the clarifier;
Delta (VSS) - the change in the VSS concentration across
the clarifier; and
B •• the correlation coefficient for the settleable portion
of the influent VSS to the clarifier.
This model may be applied about the primary and secondary systems to yield
estimates of metals removed in each unit. This is accomplished by formulating a
mass balance about the each of the primary and secondary units (as described in
the following sections) in order to express the PK model in terms of data input
to the FATE model.
3.2.1 Mass Balance About the Primary Clarifier
Figure 3-3 presents a schematic of the primary clarifier. In applying the PK
model about the primary clarifier, the streams are identified as RW for raw
waste, PE for primary effluent, and P for primary system. The model may then be
manipulated as follows to arrive at an expression for removal rate in the
primary clarifier as a function of the FATE model required input parameters .
Patterson and Kodukula define the changes in concentration across the clarifier
as
.pE ~ Mt,Rw - Delta (Ms (P)
(14)
into which the model (Equation 13) solved for Delta(MB>p) can be substituted and
rearranged to get
Mt. RH (Bp/(Delta(VSSp) + Bp))
(15)
Some removal efficiency for VSS is assumed in the primary clarifer to satisfy
the model and is referred to as EI. This efficiency value is currently
defaulted to 0.5 in the model. If the sludge removal volume rate is small
compared to the total flow, which is usually the case, and the efficiency does
not vary much from the default value, then the removal rate is relatively
insensitive to the actual efficiency, as will be seen in the following
development.
900513-rail
B3-7
-------
Q
M,RW-
VSSnw
•Ji
u)
I
00
Q-Qp
I* Mf p£
VS'SPE
WASTED
SLUDGE
KEY
Q - Total flow
QP - Wasted Primary Sludge Flow Rate
VSS -Volatile Suspended Solids
X p - Wasted Sludge VSS Concentration
RW -RawWaste
PE -Primary Effluent
M ( »Total Metals Concentration
QP
XP
FIGURE 3-3
FATE INORGANIC MODEL
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
6098-81
-------
As with the organics model, and based on EPA studies, the organic portion of the
volatile suspended solids in the primary system is taken as 70% of the total
suspended solids. Thus the mass balance for VSS is:
- (Q - Qp)(VSSPE) + .7QpXp
where: Q — the influent flowrate;
VSSRw - the VSS raw waste VSS concentration;
Qp — the sludge withdrawal rate;
- the VSS primary effluent concentration; and
(16)
Xp — the total volatile solids concentration in the
sludge waste stream.
Patterson and Kodukula take the change in concentration across the clarifier to
be:
Delta(VSSp) - VSSRW - VSSPE (17)
Equation (16) can be solved for VSSpE and substituted into Equation (17) :
Delta(VSSp) - VSSRH - (Q(VSSRW) - .7QPXP)/(Q - QP) (18)
Since
EI - .7QpXP/(Q(VSSRW)) (19)
rearrangement gives,
Delta(VSSP) - .7QpXP(l - Qp/Q(E!)/(Q - Qp) (20)
which, as noted previously, is relatively insensitive to values of EI close to
the default when Q » Qp.
The rate of removal in the primary clarifier (ratei) is given by:
ratei - Mb.RH(Q - Qp) (Bp/(Delta(VSSP) + BP) (21)
and the percent removal (% removali) is the removal rate divided by the influent
rate:
% removali - 100(rate1/Q(Mt(RH))
3.2.2 Secondary System
22)
Figure 3-4 shows a schematic of the aeration basin and secondary clarifier. The
derivation of equations for the secondary removal parallels that for the primary
clarifier.
900513-mll
B3-9
-------
1-0
I
Q-Qp-Qw
M..SE
VSSsE
RR (Q-q,)
MI.RR
Qw
Xv
MI.RR
KEY
- Total Flow
- influent Mixed Liquor stream
- Secondary ClarK ier Effluent
- Wasted Secondary Sludge Rate
- Total Suspended Solids Concentration
- Total Metals Concentration
- Primary Effluent
VSS - Volatile Suspended Solids
RR -Recycle Flow Rate
Q
ML
SE
Qw
Xv
M*
PE
FIGURE 3-4
FATE INORGANIC MODEL
AERATION BASIN AND SECONDARY CLARIFIER
6098-81
-------
For these expressions, we use ML to indicate the influent mixed liquor stream,
SE as the secondary clarifier effluent, and S to indicate the secondary system.
An equation similar to Equation (15) can be written as:
- Mfc>ra,(B8/(Delta(VSSs) + Bs)
(23)
A balance around the secondary clarifier can be written and an expression, E2,
for the efficiency of the secondary clarifier incorporated:
1 - E2 - VSSS(Q - Qp - QK)/((Qp) (1
Where: RR - the recycle rate; and
QW - the wasted secondary sludge rate.
(24)
The recycle ratio (RR) represents the ratio of the recycle stream to the
influent stream. It is defaulted in this version of the model to 0.5. For the
secondary system, the fraction of organic settleable solids is taken as 0.64 of
the total mixed liquor suspended solids (Namkung and Rittman, 1987). Also, the
efficiency can be expressed as:
E2 - QwXv/CQ - Qp) (1 + RR)
Where: Xv - the concentration of the total suspended solids; and
Xi - concentration of mixed liquor suspended solids.
(25)
Again paralleling the development of the equations for the primary, Equation
(23) can be written upon substitution and rearrangement:
Delta(VSSs) - VSSm.(l - (1 - E2) (Q - Qp)(l + RR)/(Q - Qp - Qw))
(26)
Next, calculation of MtfML is required. This cannot be passed along from the
calculations about the primary since there are large amounts of solids generated
in the secondary system. Due to the recycle stream, it is necessary to write an
extra mass balance equation around a component of the system in order to be able
to solve for the removal in terms of the input parameters.
First, the balance about the aeration basin is written as:
(Q - QP)d + RR)Mt.ML - (Q - Qp)Mt,PE -I- RR(Q-Qp)MttfRR
and, by cancelling the common term (Q-QP) ,
L - Mt,pE + RRMt,RR
(27)
(28)
900513-mil
B3-11
-------
Taking the mass balance about the entire system yields:
(Q - Qp)Mt.PE - (Q - Qp -Qw)Mt.SE + Q«Mt,RR
or solving for Mt.RR:
Mb.HR - «Q - Qp)Mt,FE - (Q - Qp - Qw)Mt,SE)/Q*
Substituting Equation (30) into Equation (28):
(1 + RR)Mt>ML - Mt.sE + RR«Q - QP)Mt.pE - (Q - QP -
(29)
(30)
(31)
Next Equation (23) can be substituted into Equation (31) , rearranged, and solved
for MbML:
Mt ML - Mt red + RR(Q - Qp)/Qw)/(d + RR) + (RR (Q - QP - Q«>
(Bs/(Delta(VSSs) + BS)))/QM)
Equation (32) can be substituted back into Equation (23) to give:
Bt SE - Mt ^(1 + RR(Q - Qp)/Qw)(B8/(Delta(VSS8) + B8))/((l + RR)
('RR(Q - Qp - Qw)(Bs/(Delta(VSSs) + BS)))/QW)
The secondary removal rate is then:
ratez - (Q - QP)Mt,PE - (Q - QP -
and the percent removal is: .
% remova!2 - 100(rate2/QMtfRW)
(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)
Since both individual removal rates are based on the total influent (raw waste
stream) contaminant mass, the total removal rate and total percent removals are
simply sums of those of the individual units.
Note that the final removal in the secondary system does not appear to depend
directly on the secondary clarifier efficiency, E2, since the efficiency is
completely determined in Equation (25) by the input variables (RR is defaulted
to 0 5) The user should check, using Equation (25), that the variables input
for concentrations (i.e., Xv and Xi) are appropriate for the system simulation.
Note that while Equation (26) would appear to indicate that the removal in the
secondary is more sensitive to changes in the clarifer efficiency than is the
primary, the probable ranges in efficiency are much smaller for the secondary
clarifier than for the primary.
3.3 MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
A number of assumptions were used in developing the FATE model. It is important
that the user be aware of these assumptions in order to understand the
900513-mil
B3-12
-------
limitations and basis of the model results. The major assumptions are as
follows:
1) The model is for conventional diffused aeration activated sludge
sewage treatment plants.
2) No significant volatilization or biodegradation occurs in the primary
clarifier.
3) All reactors are completely mixed.
4) Steady state exists in all reactors (i.e., aeration basin and
clarifiers) which implies that pollutant concentrations in a reactor
do not change over time. (The model may therefore not be accurate for
plants with pulse inputs of pollutants).
5) Liquid inflow equals liquid outflow.
6) For volatilization, the concentration of the organic compound of
interest is assumed to be negligible in the inlet gas used for
aeration. «
7) For volatilization, the partial pressure of an individual compound in
the gas exiting the aeration basin is in equilibrium with the
individual compound concentration in the aeration basin liquid.
8) Sorption partitioning follows a linear relationship between
concentrations in the liquid and solid phases.
9) Biodegradation follows Monod Kinetics and the organic compound
influent concentration is assumed to be much less than the Monod half-
saturation coefficient (i.e., influent concentrations are at
relatively low levels).
10) For the biodegradation model step, it is assumed that,a compound is
removed by secondary utilization.
11) The fate of a compound is not affected by the presence of other
compounds except as may be inherent in the data used for model
calibration.
12) The POTW is operating effectively and no inhibition of the biological
process is occurring (i.e., the POTW is acclimated to the compounds
and concentrations present in the influent),
13) For model calibration, measured effluent concentrations reported as
not detected were assumed to equal half the reported detection limit.
14) The organic model was calibrated with all compounds grouped together
rather than by individual compound.
900513-mll
B3-13
-------
15) Removal mechanisms (volatilization, biodegradation, and sorption in
the primary and secondary clarifiers) were estimated using final
effluent concentration data and best engineering judgement.
16) Data for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-octyl phthalate, aldrin, and
alpha-BHC were not used for final calibration due to inconsistencies
in the analytical data compared to other compounds within similar
classes.
17) Total removal of compounds primarily removed by sorption may be
slightly over predicted while compounds primarily removed by
volatilization and biodegradation may be slightly underpredicted.
900513-mll
B3-14
-------
4.0 DEFAULT VALUES AND INPUT VALUE RANGES
FATE users can either input their own plant-specific parameters or select
default values for three POTWs spanning a range of size. Default influent flow
values of 3.3, 25, and 140 million gallons per day are available to FATE users.
MLSS concentration was obtained from standard reported practice (WPCF and ASCE,
1977) and temperature (20°C) was obtained from plant operating experience
(Lovejoy, 1989). The remainder of the plant default values were obtained from a
USEPA report which evaluated the cost of POTW construction (USEPA, 1984).
Default values for all plant-specific operating parameters required for FATE are
presented in Table 4-1.
If the default values are not used, FATE was designed so that a warning message
will appear if the user inputs a plant or compound parameter that is either
outside of a standard acceptable range or is inconsistent with previous plant
inputs. Ranges for log Kow and Henry's Law constants were obtained from Lyman
et al. (1982) and expanded to include known log Kow and Henry's Law constant
values in FATE's organic data base. Ranges and relationships for plant
conditions were obtained from Viessman and Hammer (1985) and WPCF and ASCE
(1977). Sludge flow rates, aeration basin(s) volumes, and air flow rates were
related to the plant influent flow. Concentration levels of various organic and
inorganic pollutants that result in biological inhibition were obtained from a
number of references (Anthony and Breimhurst, 1981, Russell et al., 1983, Tabak
et al., 1981, USEPA, 1987a, USEPA, 1987b, and Volskay and Grady, 1988). The
user will be warned if an influent concentration exceeding the inhibition level
is entered. For organic compounds where inhibition data is unavailable, an
influent concentration of 10,000 ug/1 was used. This level was set so that
inhibition effects would not affect the biodegradation removal rate and the
secondary utilization, and so that first-order kinetics assumptions would be
followed. Table 4-2 lists parameters, ranges, and associated references for all
FATE plant input values.
900513-nll
B4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1
DEFAULT PLANT PARAMETERS
l*arameter
Q (Plant Flow Rate, MGD)
Qp (Primary Sludge Flow
Rate, gpd)
Xp (Primary Sludge
Concentration, %)
V (Total Volume of
Aeration Basins, gal)
XI (Mixed Liquor Suspended
Solids, mg/l)
G (Gas Volumetric Flow
Rate, ft*3/d) *
Qw (Secondary Wasted Sludge
Flow Rate, gpd)
Xv (Secondary Wasted Sludge
Concentration, %)
Large
140.0
400,000
4.00
39,287,700
3.000
245,514,000
1,232,000
0.75
Medium
2&.0
72,000
4.00
7,022,300
3,000
47,174,000
220,000
0.75
Small
3.3
9,500
4.00
931,900
3,000
6,359,000
29,000
0.75
B4-2
-------
TABLE 4-2
PLANT PARAMETER RANGES
Parameter
Range
Reference
Q (Plant Flow Rate, MGD)
0 < Q < 1,000
Lovejoy, 1989
Qp (Primary Sludge Flow
Rate, gpd)
1,000*Q
-------
5.0 MODEL COEFFICIENTS AND CONSTANTS
Measured values of octanol/water partition coefficients and Henry's Law
constants for compounds in FATE's organic compound data base were obtained from
a number of sources. Sources included data from chemical manufacturers (e.g.,
material safety data sheets), USEPA resources (USEPA manuals and data bases),
and journal publications.
Experimentally-determined values of octanol/water partition coefficients and
Henry's Law constants were not available for many compounds. In addition,
biodegradation rate constants for all compounds in the data base in an activated
sludge treatment plant are not available. Thus, some octanol/water partition
coefficients and Henry's Law constants and all data base-stored biodegradation
rate constants had to be estimated.. Estimation of octanol/water partition
coefficients and Henry's Law constants was conducted from knowledge of a
compound's molecular structure and other physical/chemical properties of the
organic compound. Estimation of biodegradation constants was generally
performed by relating rate of degradation to degree of degradation associated
with biological processes.
5.1 OCTANOL/WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENTS
Unknown octanol/water partition coefficients were estimated from knowledge of a
compound's molecular structure. The Universal Quasi-Chemical Functional Group
Activity Coefficient (UNIFAC) approach was used to estimate a compound's
activity coefficients in water and in octanol. The UNIFAC approach computes
activity coefficients from knowledge of the compound's molecular structure, heat
of fusion, and melting temperature. Compound heats of fusion and melting point
temperatures were obtained from Verschueren (1977).
The computer program, AROSOL (Fu et al., 1986), was used to estimate activity
coefficients of a compound in octanol and water. This program was developed
through the support from EPA's Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
to estimate organic solute solubility in a mixed solvent system. Row can be
estimated from the approach of Arbuckle (1983) as:
Kow - 0.151 sigmaw/sigma°
(36)
where sigma" is the compound's activity in the water phase and sigma0 is the
compound's activity in the octanol phase. During estimation of a compound's
activity coefficients in water and octanol, AROSOL was programmed to allow for
the solubility of water in octanol (2.6 M) and octanol in water (0.0178M).
5.2 HENRY'S LAW CONSTANTS
Henry's Law constants (atm-m3/mole) were estimated from knowledge of the
compound's activity in pure water and the compound's vapor pressure as follows
(Arbuckle, 1983):
900513-mll
B5-1
-------
H - (ISxlCT6) sigmaw B
vp
(37)
where sigma" is the activity of the compound in pure water (provided by AROSOL)
and Pvp (atra) is the compound's vapor pressure as estimated from knowledge of
its boiling point (Lyman et al., 1982).
5.3 BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANTS
No large data base of biodegradation rate constants for secondary utilization of
an organic compound in an environment similar to an activated sludge system was
available. In addition, actual biodegration rate constants for individual
compounds are facility specific. Therefore, a methodology was developed to
assign compound-specific biodegradation rate constants based on the compound's
relative biodegradability for input into FATE's data base.
A sensitivity analysis conducted on FATE's organic compound removal algorithms
indicated that a biodegradation rate constant of 0.1 m3/gm VSS-day resulted in
overall removals in the low 90-percent range which were typical of removals
observed in the field for highly biodegradable compounds (USEPA, 1982). The
sensitivity analysis also indicated that a biodegradation rate constant of
0.0001 resulted in insignificant compound biodegradation removal for compounds
which were removed mostly by volatilization or biodegradation. This conclusion
is also supported by sensitivity analyses performed by Namkung and Rittmann
(1987). From the sensitivity analysis performed on the biodegradation rate
constant, a highly biodegradable compound would have a rate constant of about
0.1 mVgm-day while a compound resistant to biodegradation would have a rate
constant of 0.0001 or lower.
The biodegradability of compounds was first estimated based on three different
sources of information. The first source was obtained from a study in Lyman et
al. (1982) where it was reported that a highly biodegradable compound would have
a BOD/COD ratio of 1 while a resistant compound would have a value of 0.
Reported ratios spanned three orders of magnitude and were assigned rate
constants according to the compound's BOD/COD ratio. The BOD/COD ratios and
corresponding rate constants assigned were as follows:
Reported
BODs/COD ratio
Assigned
Biodegradation
Rate Constant
0
0.
- 0.01
01 -
0.05 -
0.10 -
0.25 -
>0.60
0.05
0.10
0.25
0.60
1
1
5
1
5
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
10-*
ID"3
ID-3
ID-2
lO-2
10'1
900513-mll
B5-2
-------
Another study reported in Lyman et al. (1982) listed average rates of
biodegradation in mg COD/gm-hr. These data were also used to estimate the
biodegradability and subsequently, the rate constant. The average rate and
corresponding rate constant assigned were as follows:
Average
Rate of Removal
(mgCOD/g-hr)
Assigned
Biodegradation
Rate Constant
0
1-9
10-25
> 25
1 x 10'4
1 x 1(T3
1 x ID"2
1 x ID"1
Finally, the relative biodegradability of compounds in aerobic treatment systems
was obtained from a USEPA guidance manual (USEPA, 1987b) that based the
biodegradability on USEPA's Best Professional Judgement. The rate of
biodegradation was judged to be "Rapid, Moderate, Slow, or Resistant". A rate
constant of 1 xlO'1, IxlO"2, IxlCT3, and lx!0'4 was respectively assigned to
compounds where a rate was predicted.
All three of the previously described sources of information were considered in
assessing the biodegradability of a compound. If a compound was listed in more
than one reference, an average was used.
If a compound was not listed in any of the sources above, a number of "Rules of
Thumb of Biodegradability11 (Lyman et al, 1982) were used to aid in estimating
values and are presented in Table 5-1. Next, rate constants were assigned by
attempting to interpret particular biodegradability patterns based on a
compounds functional groups by using all of the information described above. For
example chlorinated compounds were assumed to have a rate constant of IxlO'3
since these compounds are more resistant to degradation; acids, alcohols, and
esters were given values of IxlO"2 while ethers and ketones (mostly chlorinated)
were assigned values from IxlO'4 to IxlO'3; dioxans and furans (mostly
chlorinated) were assigned values of IxlO'4; functional groups (i.e. benzo-,
fluoro-, chloro-, nitro-, etc.) were grouped with similar compounds, and if a
pattern could be established from estimates or assumptions already made, the
pattern was followed (i.e., chlorobenzene with benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene,
etc.).
Finally, compounds that could not be assigned a value using any of the
previously described methods were given values based on compounds within the
same class (e.g., dioxins, pesticides, semi-volatile organics, volatile
organics, etc.). Values assigned based on such a ranking were conservatively
estimated since little is known about the compound's characteristics and its
susceptibility to biodegradation.
The ITD list of 345 organic compounds, their estimated biodegradation rate
constants, and the method of estimation is presented in Attachment A. The full
900513-mil
B5-3
-------
TABLE 5-1
RULES OF THUMB FOR BIODEGRADABILITY
Sulfate-reducing bacteria more rapidly degrade long length carbon
chains than short-length carbon chains.
Alcohols, aldehydes, acids, esters, amides, and amino acids are more
susceptible to biodegradation than the corresponding alkanes, olefins,
ketones, dicarboxylic acids, nitriles, amines, and chloroalkanes.
Functional groups on aromatic rings: benzoic acid is quickly
degraded; monochloro - and monofluoro - benzoates are more resistant
to biodegradation but can be degraded; di-, tri-, and tetra-
functional groups are quite resistant. The more chlorines, the more
resistant the compound.
For naphthalene compounds, nuclei bearing simple small alkyl groups
(methyl, ethyl, or vinyl) oxidize at a more rapid rate than those with
a phenyl substitute.
ether functions are sometimes particularly resistant to
biodegradation.
Source: Lyman, W.J. and D.H. Rosenblatt, Handbook of Chemical Property
Estimation Methods. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, New York, 1982.
900513T-mll
B5-4
-------
ITD list of organic and inorganic compounds is presented in Section 9 of this
Treatability Manual.
900513-mil
B5-5
-------
6.0 MODEL CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION
Model calibration/validation Is the process that adjusts the overall
theoretically based FATE model to more accurately predict effluent
concentrations and percent removals that are observed in actual plant processes.
The process of calibration/validation, including a sensitivity analysis, is
described in subsequent sections.
6.1 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Prior to actual calibration/validation, Jordan performed a sensitivity analysis
on the FATE model. The detailed report summarizing the methodology, results,
and conclusions was submitted to EPA in February 1990. A brief summary is
presented here. The sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate how
sensitive output parameters (i.e., percent removals for volatilization,
biodegradation, and sorption) are to changes in input parameters (e.g., plant
flow, temperature, primary sludge concentration, etc.).
A number of compounds and all of the FATE model input parameters were chosen for
the analysis. The compounds were divided into four different categories
according to their primary mechanisms for removal (i.e., compounds that
primarily sorb to sludge, volatilize, biodegrade, or both volatilize and
biodegrade). An overall summary of the results of the FATE Model Sensitivity
analysis is presented in Table 6-1. The four compound categories and the list
of parameters analyzed are presented with a mark in the appropriate box to
indicate If the compound In a particular category showed some level of
sensitivity to a specific plant or compound parameter.
After performing the sensitivity analysis on the FATE model, the following
conclusions were made:
1. Parameters the model was not sensitive to included compound input
concentration (relative to percent removals) and temperature in the
aeration basin.
2. FATE predicts that the following removal mechanisms may contribute
significantly to removal of a compound in a POTW:
Primary Adsorption
Secondary Adsorption
Volatilization/Stripping
Biodegradation
In all cases, except for changes in compound concentration and
temperature, one or more of these mechanisms contributed to compound
removal when a parameter was changed. However, of the mechanisms,
primary adsorption was the least sensitive to changes in input
parameters. This is partly due to the non-linear dependence on the
900513-mil
B6-1
-------
ON
N3
TABLE 6-1
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
COMPOUND CLASSES SENSITIVE TO
INPUT PARAMETERS
INPUT PARAMETER
COMPOUND CONCENTRATION
PLANT FLOW
PRIMARY SLUDGE CONCENTRATION
PRIMARY SLUDGE FLOW RATE
AERATION BASIN VOLUME
MIXED LIQUOR SUSPENDED
SOLIDS CONCENTRATION *
TEMPERATURE OF AERATION BASIN
TOTAL GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE
WASTE SLUDGE FLOW RATE
WASTED SECONDARY SLUDGE
CONCENTRATION
HENRY'S LAW CONSTANT
Kow CONSTANT
BIO RATE CONSTANT
COMPOUND CLASSIFICATION
SORB
+
+
+
-
•f
+
+
+
BIODEGRADE
+
+
+
+
VOLATILIZE
+
-
+
+ •
+
BIODEGRADE/
VOLATILIZE
+
+ •
+
+
+
+ '
4- Compound classes sensitive to changes in input parameters
<
6098-81
-------
rate of removal with Kow while being directly proportional to sludge
concentration and sludge flow rate.
Input parameters that affected primary adsorption included plant flow,
primary sludge concentration, primary sludge flow rate, and Kow.
3. Based on the results of the sensitivity analysis, data collection
efforts for calibration/validation were not prioritized except that
emphasis was not placed on collection of data for temperature of the
aeration basin since the model indicated that predicted removal is not
sensitive to this parameter. Further, temperature was defaulted in
the model to 20°C and no input for temperature is required of the
user.
6.2 DATA COLLECTION/SELECTION
Analytical data and plant operating parameters for calibration and validation
were obtained from the following sources:
o USEPA, 1982. "Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment
Works," USEPA/440/1-82/303, Washington, D.C.
o Contacts with additional conventional activated sludge
POTWs to obtain plant operational data and chemical
concentration for the plant influent and effluent.
The USEPA study involved sampling the influent, effluent, and sludge for various
organic and inorganic pollutants at a number of POTWs. Only data from
conventional activated sludge treatment plants that use diffused aeration were
used. In addition, each of the POTWs used was contacted and the plant
parameters under which the plant operated during the sampling period were
obtained and used for calibration. Additional data were obtained from a number
of operating conventional activated sludge treatment plants. Jordan requested
analytical data (i.e., priority pollutant scans and monthly monitoring data) as
well as corresponding plant operating parameters for the sampling days.
Data to calibrate and validate FATE's organic and inorganic compound algorithms
were limited to the following selection criteria. First, a data pair (an
influent and a corresponding effluent concentration value) was used only if the
reported influent concentration was greater than the detection limit. Second,
if the effluent concentration was reported as zero or nondetect, the detection
limit (typically a value of 5 or 10 ug/1) was used. This selection criteria
should result in a consistent set of acceptable data for calibration and
validation of the algorithms of FATE. It should also provide an accurate
account of what a POTW would encounter if required to follow strict laboratory
analytical procedures and reporting requirements.
900513-mil
B6-3
-------
6.3 ORGANIC MODEL CALIBRATION
The procedure used to calibrate the FATE Organic Model is described in
subsequent sections.
6.3.1 FATE Model Predictions
FATE's organic model is specifically intended for activated sludge wastewater
treatment systems that employ primary and secondary clarifiers. The development
of the organic model was detailed in Section 3.1.
The organic model requires thirteen input parameters; nine are facility-
specific, three are compound-specific, and one is both compound and facility-
specific (influent concentration). These input parameters are listed in Table
6-2.
The organic model predicts six output parameters; steady-state concentrations in
the primary and secondary clarifiers, and removal rates of the selected compound
through sorption in the primary clarifier and sorption, volatilization, and
biodegradation in the secondary clarifier. In addition, removal efficiencies
are also computed. These output parameters are also presented in Table 6-2.
Four of the eleven model outputs require calibration for the model to be
considered valid; specifically, the four predicted removal rates. Calibration
of the removal rates will result in calibration of all other parameters since
the remaining output parameter values are dependent on the removal rates.
6.3.2 Actual Observations
The data required for model calibration was collected from a variety of sources,
as described in Section 6.2. The collected data provided inputs to FATE in
order to predict removal rates and effluent concentration for each set of input
data. These model predictions were compared to actual observations of removal
rates and effluent concentrations provided by the collected data. All data
sources used to calibrate FATE provided,observations of all the FATE input
parameters. None of the data sources provided observations of the four removal
mechanisms that require calibration. However, all the data sources did provide
observations of POTW effluent concentrations.
Because observations of the four removal mechanisms were not provided, FATE
could not be directly calibrated by removal mechanism. Nevertheless, the
availability of effluent concentration data allowed FATE to be calibrated for
total removal. Subsequently, calibration of each removal mechanism was
conducted by using best engineering judgement.
6.3.3 Calibration
The purpose of model calibration is to adjust the theory-based model equations
with a calibration factor to minimize the differences between actual
observations and model predictions. The process of calibration is facilitated
by a copious amount of actual observations. A greater number of actual
observations increases the likelihood that the model will accurately predict the
900513-mil
B6-4
-------
TABLE 6-2
FATE Organic Model Inputs and Outputs
Model Inputs
Q
Qo
QP
Q*
V
G
X.£
Si
H
Influent flow rate to primary clarifier
Flow rate between primary and secondary clarifiers
Primary clarifier wasted sludge flow rate
Secondary clarifier wasted sludge flow rate
Volume of aeration basin(s)
Gas flow rate through aeration basin(s)
concentration of mixed liquor suspended solids
Concentration of cells in wasted primary sludge
Concentration of cells in wasted secondary sludge
Influent concentration of pollutant to primary clarifier
Octanol-water partition coefficient of pollutant
Henry's Law constant of pollutant
First-order biodegradation rate constant of pollutant
Model Outputs
So
S
Raorp.2
f«orp,i
f«orp,2
fbio
totai
Steady- state concentration of pollutant in primary clarifier
Steady- state concentration of pollutant in secondary clarifier
(effluent cone.)
Mass removal rate of pollutant by sorption in primary clarifier
Mass removal rate of pollutant by sorption in secondary clarifier
Mass removal rate of pollutant by volatilization/stripping in
aeration basin
Mass removal rate of pollutant by biodegradation in secondary
system
Percent of pollutant removed by sorption in primary clarifier
Percent of pollutant removed by sorption in secondary clarifier
Percent of pollutant removed by volatilization/stripping in
aeration basin
Percent of pollutant removed by biodegradation in secondary
system
Percent of pollutant removed by all mechanisms in POTW
900606-mll
B6-5
-------
removal of a pollutant from the influent waste stream.
observations, the model can not be calibrated.
Without actual
The calibration of the model is a potentially complex process. Four different
removal mechanisms are predicted by the model, each requiring calibration.
Actual observations do not exist for these mechanisms; thus, calibration factors
for each removal mechanism were estimated from actual observations of total
removal. Compounds used in the calibration process are listed in Table 6-3 by
compound class .
Calibration factors were incorporated into the formula of each removal mechanism
as follows :
Rsorpi - (Qp«Xpw (0.000059 * Ron0-35) S0) calbsl (38)
Rbio - (kiXaSV) calbb ' (39)
Rvol - (GHS/RT) calbv (40)
RsorP2 - (3.06 x ID"6 Q^Ko,,0-67 S) calbs2 (41)
Hence, the computation of steady-state concentrations in the primary and
secondary clarifiers can be rewritten as
S0 - (QSm)/(Q + QpwXp (4.1 x ID-3* KoW°-35) calb.i) (42)
S - (QS0)/(Q + (GH/RT)calbv + Q«XV(3.06 x 10"6 K^0 • 67 ) calbs2 +
k!XaVcalbb) (43)
The calibration process began by entering actual observations of model input
data into FATE, which then predicted four removal rates and an effluent
concentration for each set of input data. Statistical distributions of the
model predictions and corresponding actual observations were subsequently
evaluated and residuals (a measure of error between actual observations and
model predictions) computed. The residuals were evaluated for statistical
distributions and dependencies on input parameters. Finally, the calibration
factors were estimated from statistical evaluations of the residuals and .best
engineering judgement.
6.3.4 Calibration Model Runs
Actual observations of facility parameters were entered into a facility data
base that included the facility name, the pollutant observed, all facility input
parameters (see Table 6-2), influent concentration, and effluent concentration.
Compound input parameters from the FATE organic data base were used. The model
was then run with calibration factors set at iteratively determined values.
The model output was formatted such that the model predictions were listed
alongside the facility name, pollutant observed, the facility and compound input
parameters, and the actual observations of influent and effluent concentrations.
The output was subsequently imported into SYSTAT (Systat, Inc., 1989) for
statistical evaluation.
900513-mil
B6-6
-------
TABLE 6-3
Compounds used in FATE Calibration
Compound
Class
Compound
CAS No.
Compound
Name
Aromatic Volatile Organic Compounds CARO)
100414
108883
71432
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Benzene
Haloeenated Volatile Organic Compounds (HVO)
107062
127184
156605
56235
67663
71556
75003
75092
75343
75354
75694
79005
79016
79345
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Miscellaneous Volatile Organic Compounds (MVO)
107131
67641
2-Propenenitrile
2-Propanone
Polvcvclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
120127
129000
191242
205992
206440
207089
218019
50328
56553
85018
86737
91203
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
900606-rail
B6-7
-------
TABLE 6-3
Compounds Used in FATE Calibration
(continued)
Compound
Class
Compound
CAS No.
Polychlorinated Biphenvls (PCS)
11097691
53469219
Compound
Name
PCB-1254
PCB-1242
Pesticides (POH)
Phthalates CPTH')
309002
319846
50293
58899
60571
76448
117817
117840
121142
131113
78591
84662
84742
85687
95501
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
4,4'-DDT
Lindane
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid,
Isophorone
Diethyl phthalate
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid,
Butyl benzyl phthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
dimethyl ester
dibutyl ester
Acid Extractable Semivolatile Compounds (SVA)
105679
108952
120832
51285
65850
87865
95578
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Phenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Benzoic acid
Pentachlorophenol
2-Chlorophenol
Base Extractable Semivolatile Compounds (SVB)
106467
122667
606202
91587
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Diphenylhydraz ine
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
900606-mil
B6-8
-------
6.3.5 Statistical Evaluation
6.3.5.1 Method. The objectives of the statistical evaluation were to
demonstrate calibration of the FATE predicted effluent concentration with
measured effluent concentration and demonstrate that removal rates for each
mechanism agreed with best engineering judgement.
The demonstration of calibration was conducted with an analysis of FATE
residuals. The residual, which is a measure of error between predicted and
measured effluent concentration, can be defined in several ways depending on the
distribution of the predicted and measured data. For example, if the predicted
and measured concentrations are normally distributed, the residual can be simply
defined as
E - Sn
Where E - residual,
- measured effluent concentration (mg/^) , and
- FATE predicted effluent concentration (mg/^) .
(44)
If the predicted and measured concentrations are lognormally distributed, the
residual can be defined as
E —
(45)
Thus, the first step in the calibration demonstration was the evaluation of the
distribution of the predicted and measured effluent concentrations. After the
evaluation was completed, the residual was defined and computed for each case.
The residual was evaluated for normality and the mean and variance subsequently
computed. Calibration was demonstrated when the mean of the residuals equaled
zero. The variance was computed to represent the precision of the model.
In some cases, measured effluent concentrations were reported as not detected.
For the purpose of calibration, these concentrations were assumed to equal half
the reported detection limit. A few cases reported measured effluent
concentrations greater than measured influent concentrations. These cases were
rejected on the basis that they violated mass balances.
The agreement of removal rates with best engineering judgement was demonstrated
by analyzing the contribution of each removal mechanism to the total removal
rate. The contributions were defined as
fblo ~ Rbio/Rtotal
fyol ~ Rvol/Rtotal
(46)
(47)
(48)
(49)
where f - fraction of total removal, and
Rtotai ~ Rsorpi + Rbio + Rvoi + Rsorpz ~ total removal.
900513-mil
B6-9
-------
Compounds with known properties were selected for evaluation. For example,
phenol is known to biodegrade readily and is expected to have an fbio of
approximately 0.95. Chloroethane and trans-l,2-dichloroethene are known to
volatilize readily and are expected to have an fvoi of approximately 0.95.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) are known to sorb readily and are
expected to have a sum of fBOrpi and f80rp2 greater than 0.95.
Thus, the selection of calibration factors was conducted through an iterative
process that produced a model calibrated for total removal with individual
removal mechanisms adjusted to agree with best engineering judgement.
6.3.5.2 Results - Uncalibrated Model. The calibration factors for the organics
model were set equal to unity to evaluate the model in its uncalibrated state.
Measured and predicted effluent concentration distributions were evaluated. The
distributions included all cases, regardless of the compound, and in both the
measured and predicted cases, a lognormal distribution adequately characterized
the data. Probability plots of the measured and predicted effluent
concentration data are presented in Attachment B.
The residual for each case was computed in accordance with Equation (45). The
normal distribution adequately characterized the distribution of the residuals
and a mean of 1.13 was computed with a standard deviation of 1.28. The mean
indicates that on average, the uncalibrated model predicts effluent
concentrations below measured effluent concentrations by a factor of 13.5. This
can be seen by rewriting Equation (45) as
Smeas/Spred *™ 10
(50)
Since predicted effluent concentrations were much lower than measured, the total
removal rate predicted by the uncalibrated model was too high.
Boxplots of the residuals by compound class are presented in Figure 6-1, while
boxplots of the residuals by compound are presented in Attachment B. A bar
chart of the removal mechanism contributions for each compound class is
presented in Figure 6-2, while bar charts for each compound are presented in
Attachment B. These charts facilitate the selection of calibration factors by
highlighting the differences between compounds and compound classes.
Analysis of the bar charts indicates that sorption removal was overpredicted
relative to biodegradation and volatilization, and that biodegradation was
overpredicted relative to volatilization. Examples include phenol where
biodegradation accounted for only 88% of the mass removed when 95% was expected,
and chloroethane where volatilization accounted for only 72% of the mass removed
when 95% was expected.
6.3.5.3 Results-Calibrated Model. Calibration factors were adjusted
iteratively until the mean of the residuals equaled zero and the removal
mechanism contributions agreed with best engineering judgement. The statistical
evaluation of each iteration was identical to that of the uncalibrated model.
The statistical evaluation of the final iteration is presented here.
900513-mil
B6-10
-------
Figure 6-1
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound Class
Uncalibrated Model
5
4
3
2
3 1
a
2
CO
0 0
OC
111
g-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-A
II 'I
—95% Confidence Interval , ~
_. -t _
JL
T T r'n
JL
_ — ' — i
— — L
J I — r-
-T-
T l
i i i
ARO HVO MVO PAH PCB POH PTH SVA SVB
Compound Class
B6-11
-------
Figure 6-2
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
o
i
DC
(0
CO
(0
o
o
1
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
Uncalibrated Model
ARO HVO MVO PAH PCS POH PTH SVA SVB
Compound Class
Biodegradation, Secondary Clarifier
Volatilization, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Primary Clarifier
B6-12
-------
The lognormal distribution adequately characterized the predicted effluent
concentration data. Thus, the residuals were computed identically to the
uncalibrated model. The normal distribution adequately characterized the
distribution of the residuals with a mean of -0.00543 and a standard deviation
of 0.774. The mean is sufficiently close to zero given the standard deviation
of the residuals (coefficient of variation - -142). The probability plot of the
residuals is presented in Figure 6-3.
Boxplots of the residuals by compound class are presented in Figure 6-4 while
boxplots of the residuals by compound are presented in Attachment B. A bar
chart of the removal mechanism contributions for each compound class is
presented in Figure 6-5, while bar charts for each compound are presented in
Attachment B.
Analysis of the bar charts indicates that the contributions of each removal
mechanism to total removal are consistent with best engineering judgement.
Examples include phenol where biode gradation accounted for 93% of the mass
removed, chloroethane where volatilization accounted for 92% of the mass
removed, and a variety of PAHs where sorption accounted for nearly 100% of the
mass removed.
Analysis of the boxplots indicates that some bias in the model exists on a
compound specific basis. Generally, compounds with higher sorption removal tend
to be slightly overp'redicted while compounds predominantly removed by
volatilization and biodegradation tend to be slightly underpredicted. As a
result, residual dependence on input parameters was evaluated. The residuals
did not correlate strongly with any of the input parameters, although some
correlation was exhibited between the residuals and Iog10
The correlation between the residuals and Iog10 K<,w is most likely a result of -
the equations used to represent the partition coefficients to the respective
clarifier solids, Kp. The relationships between Kp and KOW, shown in Equations
(3) and (9) , were established empirically from data obtained for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) . These relationships are limited to ranges of logic KOW
from 0 to 3; however, the readily sorbed compounds, such as PAHs, PCBs,
pesticides, and phthalates, have a logic K^ range from 3 to 10. The
extrapolation of the empirical relationships established for VOCs into the
higher range of logio K
-------
Figure 6-3
Probability Plot of FATE Residuals
Calibrated Model
-4 -3 -2
-1 o 1
Expected Value
B6-14
-------
Figure 6-4
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound Class
Calibrated Model
2
«
in
i-
-2
-3
-6
I I I
95% Confidence Inteifval
JIJVJ
JL JL
I
I I I
I
ARO HVO MVO PAH PCS POH PTH SVA SVB
Compound Class
B6-15
-------
Percent of Mass Removed
ro
o
o
o
Ol
o
a>
o
09
O
(0
o
o
o
CO CO < CO
2, 005-
T» -O g. g-
«-» i-» g.
-------
which can potentially bias the measured removal efficiency to values lower than
expected. The consistent overprediction of removal efficiency by the model
indicates that this bias may be present. Additionally, the results highlight
the necessity of evaluating the empirical relationship between Kp and KQW for
these and similar compounds, and possibly a laboratory confirmation of the
reported K<>* values.
The final calibration factors were established as follows
calb,i
calbv
calbb
calbS2
1.0
0.38
0.076
0.038
These calibration factors were subsequently entered into the model computer
code.
6.4 INORGANIC MODEL CALIBRATION
The procedure used to calibrate the FATE Model for inorganic compounds is
described in subsequent sections.
6.4.1 Fate Model Predictions
Fate's inorganic model is specifically intended for activated sludge wastewater
treatment systems that employ primary and secondary clarifiers.
of the inorganic model was detailed in Section 3.2.
The development
The inorganic model requires ten input parameters; seven are facility-specific,
two are compound-specific, and one is both compound and facility-specific.
These input parameters are listed in Table 6-4.
The inorganic model predicts six output parameters; effluent concentrations from
the primary and secondary clarifiers, and removal rates of the selected compound
in each clarifier. In addition, removal efficiencies are also computed. These
output parameters are also presented in Table 6-4. Two of the six model outputs
require calibration for the model to be considered valid; specifically the two
predicted removal rates. Calibration of the removal rates will result in
calibration of all other output parameters since the remaining output parameter
values are dependent on the removal rates.
6.4.2 Actual Observations
The data required for model calibration was collected from a variety of sources,
as described in Section 6.2. The collected data provided inputs to FATE in
order to predict removal rates and effluent concentration for each set of input
data. These model predictions were compared to actual observations of removal
rates and effluent concentrations provided by the collected data. All data
sources used to calibrate FATE provided observations of all the FATE input
parameters. None of the data sources provided observations of the FATE removal
900513-mil
B6-17
-------
TABLE 6-4
FATE Inorganic Model Inputs and Outputs
Model Inputs
Q
Qo
QP
Qw
p
xv
Influent flow rate to primary clarifier
Flow rate between primary and secondary clarifiers
Primary clarifier wasted sludge flow rate
Secondary clarifier wasted sludge flow rate
Concentration of mixed liquor suspended .solids
Concentration of cells in wasted primary sludge
Concentration of cells in wasted secondary sludge
Influent concentration of pollutant to primary clarifier
Primary clarifier calibration factor of pollutant
Secondary clarifier calibration factor of pollutant
Model Outputs
Mt.PE
Mt.SE
ratei
rate2
% removali
% remova!2
% removal
Primary clarifier effluent concentration
Secondary clarifier effluent concentration
Mass removal rate of pollutant in primary clarifier
Mass removal rate of pollutant in secondary clarifier
Percent of pollutant removed in primary clarifier
Percent of pollutant removed in secondary clarifier
Percent of pollutant removed in POTW
900606-mll
B6-18
-------
rates that require calibration. However, all the data sources did provide
observations of POTW effluent concentrations. Because observations of the two
removal rates were not provided, FATE could not be calibrated by each removal
rate. Nevertheless, the availability of effluent concentration data allowed
FATE to be calibrated for total removal. Calibration of each removal rate was
conducted by best engineering judgement.
6.4.3 Calibration
The calibration of the inoganics model is a relatively simple process. Since
the model is based on an empirical relationship between removal of a metal and
removal of volatile suspended solids (VSS), calibration factors are already
included. However, because actual observations of primary clarifier effluent
concentrations did not exist, linear regression analysis could not be used to
determine the compound-specific calibration factors, Bp and Bs. Instead, the
factors were determined iteratively to accomplish calibration of the total
removal rate and estimate primary and secondary removal rates to agree with best
engineering judgement.
The calibration process began by entering actual observations of model input
data into FATE, which then predicted two removal rates and an effluent
concentration for each set of input data. Statistical distributions of the
model predictions and corresponding actual observations were subsequently
evaluated and residuals computed. The residuals were evaluated for statistical
distributions and dependencies on input parameters. Finally, the calibration
factors were estimated from statistical evaluations of the residuals and best
engineering judgemeent.
6.4.4 Calibration Model Runs
Actual observations of facility parameters were entered into a facility data
base that included the facility name, the pollutant observed, all facility input
parameters (see Table 6-4), influent concentration, and effluent concentration.
Compound input parameters, Bp and Bs, were stored in the FATE inorganic data
base. The model was then run with Bp and Bs set at iteratively determined
values.
The model output was formatted such that the model predictions were listed
alongside the facility name, pollutant observed, the facility input parameters,
and the actual observations of influent and effluent concentrations. The output
was subsequently imported into SYSTAT (Systat, Inc., 1989) for statistical
evaluation.
6.A.5 Statistical Evaluation
6.4.5.1 Method. The objectives of the statistical evaluation were to
demonstrate calibration of the FATE predicted effluent concentration with
measured effluent concentration and demonstrate that removal rates for each
clarifier agreed with best engineering judgement.
900513-mil
B6-19
-------
The first step in the calibration demonstration was the evaluation of the
distribution of the predicted and measured effluent concentrations. After the
evaluation was completed, the residual was defined and computed for each case.
The residual was evaluated for normality and the mean and variance subsequently
computed. Calibration was demonstrated when the mean of the residuals equaled
zero.
In some cases, measured effluent concentrations were reported as not detected.
For the purpose of calibration, these concentrations were assumed to equal half
the reported detection limit. A few cases reported measured .effluent
concentrations greater than measured influent concentrations. These cases were
rejected on the basis that they violated mass balances.
The agreement of removal rates with best engineering judgement was demonstrated
by analyzing the contribution of each removal mechanism to the total removal
rate. The contributions were defined as
fi -'ratei/ratetotai
f2 - rate2/ratetotai
Where f - fraction of total removal, and
ratei - removal in the primary clarifier
rate2 - removal in the secondary clarifier
ratetotai - ratei + rate2
The Bp and Bs factors for eight of the fourteen metals were initially set equal
to those determined by Patterson and Kodukula. Residuals and contributions were
computed for the first iteration. For the eight metals, the contributions
computed in the first iteration were assumed valid. Thus, the calibration of a
metal was considered complete when the mean of the residuals equaled zero and
the contributions equaled those of the first iteration. Based on the results of
the first eight metals, the remaining six metals were considered calibrated when
the residuals equaled zero, the primary removal contribution was 70%, and the
secondary removal contribution was 30%.
6.4.5.2 Results-Calibrated Model. The lognormal distribution adequately
characterized the measured and predicted effluent concentration data.
Probability plots of the measured and predicted effluent concentration data are
presented in Figures 6-6 and 6-7, respectively. The residuals were computed in
accordance with Equation (45). The normal distribution adquately characterized
the distribution of the residuals with a mean of -1.9 x 10"4 and a standard
deviation of 0.48. The mean was sufficiently close to zero given the standard
deviation of the residuals (coefficient of variation - 2,500). The probability
plot of the residuals is presented in Figure 6-8.
Boxplots of the residuals by compound are presented in Figure 6-9, while bar
Charts of the removal contributions by compound are presented in Figure 6-10.
The boxplots indicate that each of the fourteen metals is calibrated. The bar
chart indicates that primary clarifier removal is dominant, with contributions
ranging from 55 percent to 87 percent.
900513-mll
B6-20
-------
Figure 6-6
Probability Plot of Measured Effiuent Concentration
Inorganics
-4 -3 -2 -1
-6
B6-21
-------
Figure 6-7
Probability Plot of Predicted Effluent Concentration
Inorganics
Calibrated Model
CD
o -
-1 -
4)
U
I -
4-1
e
UJ
a
o
2 -4
Ul
-5 -
-4
-3 -2-10 1
Expected Value
B6-22
-------
Figure 6-8
Probability Plot of FATE Residuals
JO
a
I
•9
I
-1" -
-2
-4
Inorganics
Calibrated Model
-3 -2
-1 o 1
Expected Value
B6-23
-------
Figure 6-9
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Inorganics
Calibrated Model
I '
T3
"3
, o
i-,
-2
-3
-4
-6
I
6
* 95% Confidence Interval
._-______.*_
*
O
Afl Al A» B« Cd Cr Cu F« Hfl Mn HI Pb Sb Zn
Compound
B6-24
-------
Figure 6-10
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Clarifier
Inorganics
Calibrated Model
•a
o>
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
w
«9
"I 50
§ 40
o
5
0.
30 -
20 -
10 -
Ag Al A* B* Cd Cr Cu F» Hfl Mn Nl Pb Sb Zn
Secondary Clarifier
Primary Clarifier
B6-25
-------
The final calibration coefficients for each metal are listed in Table 6-5.
These factors were subsequently entered into the inorganics database.
Evaluation of the inorganic residual indicated a dependency existed between the
residual and each facility. The residual was evaluated against each of the
facility input parameters for correlation. Strong dependencies were not
demonstrated with the input parameters, although the residual was somewhat
dependent on solids concentrations. Unfortunately, parameters such as pH and pE
were not available for evaluation.
The calibrated model does not account for the dependence of the residuals on
facility parameters. Revising the model equations could not be justified in the
absence of pH and other facility parameters. Additionally, the random error of
the inorganics model is smaller in magnitude than that of the organics model,
indicating the inorganics model is more precise.
6.5 VALIDATION '
The purpose of model validation is to demonstrate that the calibrated model is
statistically valid for facilities not included in the calibration process. The
validation process evaluates the mean of the measured and predicted effluent
concentration for significanct differences. If significant differences are not
indicated, the model is considered valid for the additional facilities.
Data from three facilities not included in the calibration database were used
for model validation. Input parameters were stored in appropriate databases and
entered into FATE with the calibration factors established in Sections 6.3 and
6.4. The data distributions were evaluated to determine whether parametric
comparisons could be conducted.
6.5.1 Results - Organic Model
The lognormal distribution adequately characterized both measured and predicted
concentrations. The data was transformed to logarithmic concentrations and a z-
test was used to compare the means.
The z-test compares a computed z-statistic with critical z-values based on a
selected error rate. Assuming the error rate equals 0.10, the lower and upper
critical z-values are -1.645 and 1.645, respectively. The z-statistic is
computed from
Z -
-------
TABLE 6-5
Inorganics Model Calibration Factors
Compound
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Silver (Ag)
Zinc (Zn)
Bp
46.4
127
150
90
60
50
110
59
59
217
150
130
36
135
Bs
30.4
80
130
64
83
124
50
37
88
193
115
1,000
20
62
900606-mil
B6-27
-------
variance of log-transformed predicted values,
Nmeas ~ number of measured values, and
Nprod - number of predicted values.
The computed z-statistic was -0.144, which lies between the critical z-values.
Thus, the z-test indicates the means are not significantly different. The
result demonstrates that FATE's organic model is valid for the additional
facilities.
6.5.2 Results - Inorganic Model
The lognormal distribution adequately characterized both measured and predicted
concentrations. The data was transformed to logarithmic concentrations and a z-
test was used to compare the means.
The computed z-statistic was 1.006, which lies between the critical z-values.
Thus, the z-test indicates the means are not significantly different. The
result demonstrates that FATE's inorganic model is valid for the additional
facilities.
6.6 MODEL PRECISION
The calibration process minimized the differences between measured and predicted
effluent concentrations. Validation verified that the differences were
acceptable given the precision of the model. Because model validation is
sensitive to model precision, discussion of model preci'sion is essential to
understanding the ability of the model to produce accurate results.
6.6.1 Precision Evaluation Procedure
The standard deviation of the residuals is a measure of model precision because
it allows the user to estimate the probability that the model will predict an
effluent concentration within a certain range about the measured value. A small
deviation indicates a precise model since it indicates the model has a high
probability of producing a result close to the measured value. Conversely, a
large deviation indicates an imprecise model since it indicates the model has a
low probability of producing a result close to the measured value.
Thfe probability that a predicted value will fall within a specified interval
about the measured value is estimated by first computing a quantile of the
standard normal distribution, Zp.
900513-mil
B6-28
-------
Zp -
- E)/
-------
TABLE 6-6
ORGANIC MODEL PRECISION
Probability (P) that Predicted
Effluent Value Falls Within Interval
Interval of
Predicted Values
30%
46%
56%
63%
72%
80%
91%
96%
99%
Spred * 2 tO Spred X 2
Spred * 3 tO Spred X 3
Spred * 4 to Spred X 4
Spred ~^~ ^ **O £>pred X J -
Spred * 7 tO Spred X 7
Spred * 10 to Spred X 10
Spred + 20 tO Spred X 20
Spred * 40 tO Spred X 40
Spred + 80 to Spred X 80
2
3
4
5
7
10
20
40
80
900513T-mll
B6-30
-------
was a factor of 10 less than the measured effluent concentration
then the predicted percent removal is 99.9 percent.
(Spred - 0.001
6 .6 . 3 Precision Evaluation Results - Inorganic Model
Calibration of the inorganic model produced residuals with a mean of -0.0001911
and a standard deviation of 0.482. Values of Ep and P are presented in Table 6-
7.
The results show the inorganic model is more precise than the organics model;
the model Is expected to predict a value within an order of magnitude of the
measured result with a probability of 96 percent. The 99 percent probability
interval Is achieved with a factor of 20.
The greater precision of the inorganic model is substantially attributable to
the calibration of each metal individually. Since the organic model was not
calibrated by compound, more random error is inherently incorporated in the
model. Nevertheless, the inorganic model also lacks precision which affects the
percent removal computations. Assuming a measured percent removal of 99 percent
and the predicted effluent concentration was a factor of 4 greater than the
measured effluent concentration (Sprea - 0.04 Si), then the predicted removal is
only 96 percent. Conversely, if the predicted effluent concentration was a
factor of 4 less than the measured effluent concentration (Spred - 0.0025 Si)
then the predicted percent removal is 99.8 percent.
900513-mll
B6-31
-------
TABLE 6-7
INORGANIC MODEL PRECISION
Probability (P) that Predicted
Effluent Value Falls Within Interval
Interval of
Predicted Values
10EP
47%
68%
79%
86%
92%
96%
99%
+ 2 to Spred X 2
Spred "*" 3 to Spred x 3
Spred -5- 4 to Spred X 4
Spred * 5 to Spred X 5
Spred * 7 to Spred X 7
Spred * 10 tO Spred X 10
Spred * 20 to Spred X 20
2
3
4
5
7
10
20
900513T-mll
B6-32
-------
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The FATE model evaluates the fate of various organic and inorganic pollutants
discharged to conventional activated sludge POTWs. The model was designed to
assist POTW operators and feasibility study writers in evaluating the fate and
treatability of pollutants discharged to POTWs. Since organic and inorganic
compounds are removed by different physical and chemical processes in a POTW,
FATE consists of separate models for organic fate analysis and inorganic fate
analysis. The FATE organic and inorganic models were developed based on models
developed by Namkung and Rittman (1987) and Patterson and Kodukula (1984),
respectively. The organic model approach assumes significant removal of organic
compounds in only the primary clarifier(s) and aeration basin(s)/secondary
clarifier(s). Removal mechanisms are assumed to be only sorption in the primary
system and volatilization (by stripping), sorption, and biodegradation in the
secondary systems. The inorganics model relates total metals removal in a
wastestream to the organic volatile suspended solids removal in the primary and
secondary clarifiers.
Both the FATE organic and inorganic models were calibrated and validated using
analytical data collected from a USEPA study (USEPA, 1982) and a number of
operating conventional activated sludge treatment plants. All of the sources
provided observations of POTW influent and effluent concentrations which allowed
FATE to be calibrated for total removal. However, because observations of the
four organic removal mechanisms and inorganic removal rates in the primary and
secondary clarifiers were not available, calibration of the removal mechanisms
and rates was conducted using best engineering judgement.
Calibration of the organics model was demonstrated when, after adjusting
calibration factors, the mean of the computed residuals (measure of error
between predicted and measured effluent concentration) equaled zero and the
removal mechanism contributions agreed with best engineering judgement.
Analysis of the results indicated that the contributions of each removal
mechanism are generally consistent with best engineering judgement. The
organics model does, however, tend to slightly overpredict total removal for
compounds primarily removed by sorption and slightly underpredicts removal for
compounds primarily removed by volatilization and biodegradation. Validation of
the organics model was conducted using the z-test. The results demonstrated
that FATE's organic model is valid for the facilities used in the process.
Calibration of FATE's inorganic model was based on an empirical relationship
between removal of a specific metal and removal of VSS. The mean of the
residuals computed was found to be sufficiently close to zero and thus
demonstrated calibration. The results indicate that primary clarifier removal
is dominant. The results of validation of the inorganics model using the z-test
also demonstrated that FATE's inorganic model is valid for the facilities used
in the process.
Finally, the precision of each model was evaluated. The results indicated that
the organic model lacks precision; the model is only expected to predict an
effluent concentration within an order of magnitude of the measured result with
a. probability of 80 percent. The inorganic model was found to be more precise;
900513-rail
B7-1
-------
the model is expected to predict an effluent concentration within an order of
magnitude of the measured result with a probability of 96 percent.
The lower precision of the organic model is primarily due to the lack of
calibration on a compound-specific basis. Calibration by compound would have
reduced the error of the organic model by eliminating bias attributed to KQW and
reducing the bias associated with the large proportion of undetected effluent
concentrations. The inorganic model was more precise because it was calibrated
by compound.
In summary, FATE adequately predicts the fate of various organic and inorganic
compounds in conventional activated sludge POTWs. Although the models lack
precision, they can be used to predict a reasonable preliminary estimate of the
overall fate of the compounds in a POTW and to indicate the dominant removal
processes during treatment.
900513-mil
B7-2
-------
REFERENCES
Arbuckle, W.B., 1983. "Estimating Activity Coefficients for Use in Calculating
Environmental Parameters," Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. 17,
p. 537-542.
Barton, D.A., 1987. "Intermedia Transport of Organic Compounds in Biological
Wastewater Treatment Processes," Environmental Progress. Vol. 6, p. 246-
256.
Anthony, R.M., and L.H. Breimhurst, 1981. "Determining Maximum Influent
Concentrations of Priority Pollutants for Treatment Plants," Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 53, No. 10, p. 1457-1468.
Blackburn, J.W. , et al., 1985. "Organic Chemical Fate Prediction in Activated
Sludge Treatment Processes," EPA-600/2-85/102.
Blackburn, J. W., et al., 1987. "Prediction of Organic Chemical Fates in
Biological Treatment Systems," Environmental Progress. Vol. 6., No. 4, p.
217-223.
Clark, B., 1986. "A Predictive Fate Model for Organic Chemicals in a Water
Pollution Control Plant," Master's Thesis, Department of Chemical
Engineering, University of Toronto.
Dobbs, R.A. , L. Wang, and R. Govind, 1989. "Sorption of Toxic Organic Compounds
on Wastewater Solids: Correlation with Fundamental Properties,"
Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. 23, p. 1092-1097.
E.G. Jordan Co., 1990. "Draft Sensitivity Analysis, E.G. Jordan FATE Model and
University of Cincinnati Model".
Fu, J.K. , C. Brooks, and R. G. Luthy, 1986. "AROSOL, Aromatic Solute Solubility
in Solvent/Water Mixtures," Departments of Civil Engineering and Chemistry,
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Lovejoy, D., Wastewater Engineer, 1989. Personal communication, C-EE, Portland,
Maine.
Lyman, W. J., and D. H. Rosenblatt, 1982. Handbook of Chemical Property
Estimation Methods. Mc-Graw Hill Book Co., New York, New York.
Matter-Muller, C. et al., 1980. "Noribiological Elimination Mechanisms in a
Biological Sewage Treatment Plant, "Progress in Water Technology. Vol. 12,
p. 299-314.
Namkung, E., and B. E. Rittmann, 1987. "Estimating Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Publicly Owned Treatment Plant," Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation. Vol. 59, 670-678.
900513-mil
-------
Nelson, Peter 0., Ann K. Chung, and Mary C. Hudson, 1982. "Factors Affecting
Fate of Heavy Metals in the Activated Sludge Processf" Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 53, No. 8, p. 1323-1333.
Neufeld, Ronald D., Jorge Gutierrez, and Richard A. Novak, 1977. "A Kinetic
Model and Equilibrium Relationship for Heavy Metal Accumulation,11 Journal
of the Water Pollution Control Federation, p. 489-498.
Patterson, James W., and Prasad S. Kodukula, 1984. "Metals Distribution in
Activated Sludge Systems," Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation. Vol. 56, No. 5, p. 432-441.
Petrasek, A.C. et al., 1983. "Fate of Toxic Organic Compounds in Wastewater
Treatment Plants," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 55, p.
1286-1296.
Rittmann, B.E., D. Jackson, and S. L. Storck, 1988. "Potential for Treatment of
Hazardous Organic Chemicals with Biological Process," in Biotreatment
Systems. (Ed.) D. L. Wise, p. 15-64, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Russel, L.L., Cain, C. B., and Jenkins, D.I., 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; p. 871-883.
Tabak, H.H., S.A. Quave, C.I. Mashni, and E. F. Earth, 1981. "Biodegradability
Studies with Organic Priority Pollutants," Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation. Vol. 53, No. 10, p. 1503-1581.
USEPA, 1982. "Fate of Priority Toxic Pollutants in Publicly-Owned Treatment
Plants", USEPA/440/1-82/303, Washington, D.C.
USEPA, 1984. "Selected Background Documents for the Notice of Data Availability
for the BCT Methodology," USEPA 440/2-84-017, Washington, D.C.
«
USEPA, 1987a. "Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at POTWs," Office of
Water Enforcement and Permits, USEPA Contract No. 68-03-1821, September
1987.
USEPA, 1987b. "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 II,
Washington, D.C.
USEPA, 1989. "Resolution on Use of Mathematical Models by EPA for Regulatory
Assessment and Decision-Making," EPA-SAB-EEC-89-012, Washington, D.C.
Verschueren, K., 1977. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company.
900513-mil
-------
Viessman, W. Jr., and M. J. Hammer, 1985. Water Supply and Pollution Control.
4th Ed., Harper and Row Publishers, New York, New York.
Volskay, V.T. and Grady, C.P.L., 1988. "Toxicity of Selected RCRA Compounds to
Activated Sludge Microorganisms," Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, Vol. 60, No. 10, p. 1850-1856.
WPCF and ASCE, 1982. Wastewater Treatment Plant Design. Lancaster Press, Inc.,
Lancaster, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
900513-mil
-------
ATTACHMENT A
BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANT
ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES
900513-mll
-------
-------
CODE
A
B
C
D
E
F
SOURCE
BODs/COD ratios reported in Lyman, W.G., and D.H. Rosenblatt,
1982. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods.
McGraw Hill Book Co. , New York, New York.
COD rate of removal reported in Lyman, 1982.
USEPA, 1987b. "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 II,
Washington, D.C.
Table 5-1, Rules of Thumb for Biodegradability. Lyman,
1982.
Estimated based on compound functional group(s).
Estimated based on compound class.
900513-mll
-------
-------
Page No.
05/24/90
USEPA FATE MODEL
•BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANT
ESTIMATION SOURCES
COMPOUND
1,1'-Biphenyl-4,41-diamine, 3,3'-dimethoxy
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-D i chloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachtorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,3-Trimethoxybenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl ester
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester
1,2-D i bromoethane
1,2-D i chIorobenzene
1,2-D i chIoroethane
1,2-DichIoropropane
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
1,2-Ethanediamine, N,N-dimethyl-N'-2pyridinyl-N'-(2-
1,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane
1,3,5-Tr.ithiane
1,3-Benzenediamine, 4-methyl-
1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-(1-propenyl)-
1,3-Cyclopentadiene, 1,2,3,4,5,5-hexachloro-
1,3-Dichloro-2-propanol
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropane
ESTIMATED
BIOOEGRADATION
RATE CONSTANT
-3.000
-3.000
-3.000
-4.000
-3.000
-4.000
,-2.300
-4.000
-4.000
-4.000
-4.000
-4.000
-3.000
-3.000
-3.000
-3.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.300
-3.000
-3.000
-3.000
-2.000
-3.000
-2.300
-2.300
-2.000
-3.000
-2.000
-3.000
-3.000
-3.000
SOURCE
CODE
f
C
A,C
C
C
A,C
E
E
E
E
E
E •
E
E'
E
E
C
A,C
E
E
C
A,C
C
E
f
E
F
E
E
E
E
C
E
-------
Page No.
05/24/90
USEPA FATE MODEL
BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANT
ESTIMATION SOURCES
COMPOUND
1,3-DJnitrobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dioxanc
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1,5-Naphthalenediacnine
l-Bromo-2-chlorobenzene
1-Bromo-3-chlorobenzene
1-Chloro-3-nitrobenzene
1-Hethylfluorene
1-Hethytphenanthrene
1-Naphthytaim'ne
1-Phenylnaphthalene
1-Propene, 3-chloro-
17-alpha-19-Norpregna-1,3,5(10)-trien-20-yn-17-ol, 3-
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3,6-Trichtorophenol
2,3-Benzofluorene
2,3-Dichloroaniline
ft
2,3-Dichloronitrobenzene
2,4,5-T \ Weedone \ Acetic acid, 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy-
2,4,5-TP \ Silvex
2,4,5-Trich lore-phenol
2,4,6-Trichtorophenot
2,4-D \ Acetic acid, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-di-tert-Butyl-p-benzoquinone
2,6-dichloro-4-nitroaniline
2,7-Diroethytphenanthrene
ESTIMATED
BIODEGRADATION
RATE CONSTANT
-4.000
-3.000
-4.000
-2.300
-2.000
-2.300
-2.300
-3.000
-3.000
-3.000
-4.000
-3.000
-3.000
-3.300
-2.300
-2.000
-2.300
-3.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-1.000
-2.000
-1.000
-3.000
-2.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.300
-4.000
-2.300
SOURCE
CODE
B
C
A
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
B
E
E
F
E
E
/E
E
E
D
D
E
C
A,C,
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
-------
Page Uo.
05/24/90
USEPA FATE MODEL
BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANT
ESTIMATION SOURCES
COMPOUND
2-(Methylthio)benzothiazole
2-Butanone
2-Butenal
2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro (mixture of cis and trans)
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene =*•
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Hexanone
2-Isopropylnaphthalene
2-Methylbenzothioazole
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Nftroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-Phenylnaphthalene
2-Picoline
2-Propanone
2-Prppen-1-o1
2-Propenal
2-Propenenitrile
2-Propenenitrile, ^-methyl-
3,3'-Dichloro-4,4'-dianiinodiphenyl ether
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4,4'-DDD/Benzene,
1f1'-(2,2-dichloroethylidene>bis[4-chloro-
4,4'-DDE/Benzene,
1,1'-(dichloroethenlyidine)bis[4-chloro
4,4'-DDT/Benzene,
1,1'-<2,2,2-trichloroethylidene)bis[4-chloro
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
4,5-dimethyl phenanthrene
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-2-nitroamline
ESTIMATED
BIODEGRADATION
RATE CONSTANT
-2.000
-1.000
-2.300
-3.000
-3.000
-4.000
-2.300
-1.000
-2.000
-2.300
-2.300
-2.300
-4.000
-2.000
-3.000
-2.300
-1.300
-2.300
-2.300
-2.300
-3.000
-4.000
-3.000
-2.300
-4.000
-2.300
SOURCE
CODE
E
A,C
D
E
E
D
E
C
F
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
A
A
F
A,C
E
D
E
E
- E
E
-2.300
-2.300
-4.000
-2.300
-4.000
-4.000
-------
Page Ho.
05/24/90
USEPA FATE MODEL
BIOOEGRADATION RATE CONSTANT
ESTIMATION SOURCES ,
COMPOUND
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chlorophenytphenyl ether
4-Hcthyl-2-pentanone
4-Hftrophenol
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
6,9-Hethano-2,3,4-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Accnaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetamide, N-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-
Alachlor \ Hetachlor \ Lasso
Aldrin
Asroonium, (4-(p-(dimethylamino)-alpha-phenylbenzyli
An!line, 2,4,5-trimethyl-
Anthracene
Azinphos-ethyl \ Ethyl Guthion
Azinphos-methyt \ Guthion
Benz[jjaceanthrylene, 1,2-dihydro-3-methyl-
Bcnzanthrone
Benzcnamine
Benzenamine, 4-chloro-
Benzenamine, H,N-dimethyl-4-(pehnylazo)-
Benzene
Benzenethiol
Benzidine
Benzo(8)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzoic acid
Benzonitrile, 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxy-
Benzyl alcohol
ESTIMATED
BIOOEGRADATION
RATE CONSTANT
-1.000
-4.000
-3.000
-2.000
-4.000
-4.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.000
-3.000
-3.300
-2.000
-3.000
-2.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.300
-2.300
-1.300
-3.000
-4.000
-2.000
-3.000
-3.000
-3.000
-2.300
-2.300
-2.300
-2.300
-1.000
-3.000
-2.000
SOURCE
CODE
C
D
A
E
E
F
E
E
C
F
F
E
E
E
"E
D
D
E
E
A,B
B
E
A,C
F
F
E
E
E
E
E
A
F
D
-------
Page Uo.
05/24/90
USEPA FATE MODEL
BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANT
ESTIMATION SOURCES
COMPOUND
Biphenyl
Biphenyl, 4-nitro
BromodichIoromethane
Bromomethane
Busan 85
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Camphechlor
Captafol \ Difolatan
Captan
Carbamic acid, dimethyldithio-, sodium salt
Carbamic acid, methyldithio-, monopotassium salt
Carbazole
Carbon disulfide
Carbophenothion \ Trithion
Chlordane
Chlorfenvinphos \ Supona
1
Chloroacetonitrile
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate \ Ethyl-4,4'-dichlorobenzilate
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloropicrin
Chlorpyrifos \ Dursban
Chrysene
Coumaphos \ Co-Ral
Crotoxyphos \ Ciodrin
Cygon \ Dimethoate
DNBP \ Dinoseb \ 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
Demeton \ Systox
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
Dial late \ Avadex
ESTIMATED
BIODEGRADATION
RATE CONSTANT
-2.300
-3.000
-3.300
-3.000
-2.000
-1.000
-3.300
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-3.000
"" -2.000
-2.000
-4.000
-2.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.000
-3.000
-3.000
-3.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.300
-2.300
-2.000
-2.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.000
-4.000
-2.000
SOURCE
CODE
E
E
E
A,C
F
C
F
E
E
D
D
F
C
D
C
D
E
A,C
D
C
A,B,C
A,C
E
D
F
E
D
D
E
D
C
E
D
-------
Page No. 6
05/24/90
COMPOUND
Diazinon \ Spectracfde
Dibcnzo(o,h)anthracene
Dibenzotb.e] t1,4]dfoxfn, 2,3,7,
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiophene
Dibromoch loromethane
Dibronxxnethane
Dfchlone \ Phygon
Dichlocoiodomethane
Dichlorvos \ DDVP
Dicrotophos \ Bidrin
Dfeldrin
Dicthyl ether
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl sulfone
Dinex \ DN-111 \ 2-Cyclohexyl-4
Dioxathion
Diphenyl ether
Diphcny I online
Diphenyldisulfide
Disulfoton
EPN \ Santox
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrine ketone
Ethane, pentachloro-
Ethaneth i oami de
Ethanone, 1-phenyl
Ethion \ Bladan
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylenefaisdithiocarbamic acid.
USEPA FATE MODEL
BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANT
ESTIMATION SOURCES
ESTIMATED
BIODEGRADATION
RATE CONSTANT
-2.000
-3.000
8-tetrachloro- -4.000
-2.300
-2.300
-3.000
-3.000
-3.000
-3.300
-2.000
-2.000
-2.300
-4.000
-1.000
-3.000
,6-dinitrophenol -3.000
-2.000
-4.000
-3.300
-3.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-3.000
-3.000
-3.000
-2.300
-2.000
-2.300
-2.300
-1.300
salts and esters -2.000
SOURCE
CODE
D
E
E
E
E
E
A,C
E
E
D
D
E
D
C
E
E
D
D
E
E
D
D
C
D
D
E
E
E
D
E
D
A,C
D
-------
Page No.
05/24/90
USEPA FATE MODEL
BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANT
ESTIMATION SOURCES
ESTIMATED
COMPOUND
Ethyleneth i ourea
Famphur \ Famophos
Fensulfothion \ Desanit
Fenthion \ Baytex
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
HexachIorobenzene
HexachIorobutadiene
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Hexach L orodi benzofurans
HexachLoroethane •
Hexachloropropene
Hexamethylphosphoramide \ HMPA
Hexanoic acid
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Isodrin (Stereoisomer of Aldrin)
I sophorone
Kepone
Leptophos \ Phosvel
Lindane \ gamma-BHC \ Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma)
Longifolene
Malath ion \ Sumitox
Maneb \ Vancide
Methanesulfonic acid, ethyl ester
Methoxychlor
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl methanesulfonate
Methyl'parathion \ Parathion-methyl \ Metaphos
Methylene chloride
BIODEGRADATION \
RATE CONSTANT
-3.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.300
-2.000
-4.000
-4.000
-3.000
-3.000
-4.000
-4.000
-3.000
-3.000
-2.300
-2.000
-2.300
-3.000
-1.000
-2.000
-2.000
-4.000
-2.000
-2.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.300
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
SOURCE
CODE
E
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
C
E
E
C
E
F
D
F
D
A,C
E
E
E
D
E
F
D
D
D
C
A
D
D
A,C
-------
Page No.
05/24/90
COMPOUND
Hevinphos \ Phosdrin
Hirex \ Dechlorane
Honocrotophos \ Azodrin
H,H-Dimethylformaimde
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
H-Hitrosodiethylamine
H-Hitrosodimethylamine
H-Nitrosodiphenylamine
H-Hitrosomethylethylamine
H-Hitrosomethylphenylamine
H-Nitrosomorpholine
H-Hitrosopiperidine
Habara
Haled \ Dibrom
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Nitrofen \ TDK
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
PCNB \ Terraclor \ Quintozene
Parathion \ Parathion, ethyl
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Pentachlorodi benzofurans
Pentachlorophenol
Pentamethylbenzene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
USEPA FATE MODEL
BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANT
ESTIMATION SOURCES
ESTIMATED
BIODEGRADATION
RATE CONSTANT
-2.000
-4.000
-2.000
-1.300
-4.000
-4.000
-4.000
-4.000
-4.000
-4.000
-3.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-4.000
-3.300
-3.300
-3.300
-3.300
-3.300
-3.300
-3.300
-3.300
-2.000
-3.000
-4.000
-4.000
-2.000
-4.000
-2.300
-2.300
SOURCE
CODE
D
E
D
A
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
D
A,C
A,C
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C .
F
D
E
E
E
C
E
F
E
-------
Page No.
05/24/90
USEPA FATE MODEL
BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANT
ESTIMATION SOURCES
COMPOUND
Phenol
Phenol, 2-methyl-4,6-dinitro-
Phenothiazine
Phorate \ Thimet
Phosacetin
Phosmet \ Imidan
Phosphamidon \ Dimecron
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0,5-triethyl ester
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-methyl ester
Pronamide \ Kerb
Propane, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloro-
Pyrene
Pyridine
Resorcinol
Safrole
Squalene
Styrene
Sulfotepp \ Bladafum \ Tetraethyldithlopyrophosphate
Sulfurous acid, 2-chloroethyl-, 2-I4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)
TEPP \ Phosphoric acid, tetraethyl ester
Terbufos \ Counter
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Tetrachlorvinphos \ Gardona
Thianaphthene
Thiodan I
Thiodan II
Thioxanthe-9-one
Thiram \ Thiuram \ Arasan
Toluene
Total xylenes
ESTIMATED
BIODEGRADATION
RATE CONSTANT
-1.000
-2.000
-2.300
-2.000
-2.300
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-3.000
-2.300
-2.000
-1.000
-2.300
-3.000
-2.300
-2.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.000
-4.000
-4.000
-3.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.300
-3.300
-3.300
-3.000
-2.000
-1.300
-2.300
SOURCE
CODE
A,B,C
E
F
D
D
b
D
D
D
D
E
E
A,C
B
F
F
A
D
D,E
F
D
E
E
C,D
A,C
D
. E
F
F
F
F
A,C
E
-------
Page No. 10
05/24/90
COMPOUND
Tribromomethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorofon \ Dylox
Trfcresylphosphate \ TCP \ TOCP
Trifluralin \ Treflan
Trimethylphosphate
Triphenylene
Tripropylcneglycol methyl ether
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Zineb \ Dithane Z
Zinophos \ Thionazin
Ziram \ Cymate
[1,1'-Biphenyl]-4-amine
alpha-BHC
alpha-Terpineol
beta-BHC
beta-Haphthylamlne
bis(E-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
delta-BHC
m-Cresol
n-Decane
n-Docosane
n-Dodecane
n-Eicosane
n-Hcxacosane
n-Hexadecane
n-Octacosane
USEPA FATE MODEL
BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANT
ESTIMATION SOURCES
ESTIMATED
BIODEGRADATION
RATE CONSTANT
-3.000
-3.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.300
-3.000
-2.000
-3.000
-2.000
-2.300
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
-2.300
-2.000
-4.000
-4.000
-4.000
-4.000
-2.000
-3.000
-2.000
-1.000
-2.300
-2.300
-2.300
-2.300
-2.000
-2.300
-2.000
SOURCE
CODE
C
C,D
A.C
D
D
E
D
F
D
A,B
A,B
D
F
F
D
E
F
E
D
C
D
D
C
E
E
A
D
D
D'
D
D
D
D
-------
Page No.
05/24/90
COMPOUND
11
USEPA FATE MODEL
BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANT
ESTIMATION SOURCES
n-Octadecane
n-Tetracosane
n-Tetradecane
n-Triacontane
o + p xylene
o,p'-DDT
o-Anisidine
o-Cresol
o-Toluidine
o-Toluidine, 5-chloro-
p-Cresol
p-Cymene
p-Nitroaniline
trans-1,2-D i chloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
ESTIMATED
BIODEGRADATION
RATE CONSTANT
-2.300
-2.000
-2.300
-2.000
-2.300
-2.300
-2.300
-1.000
-3.000
-3.000
-1.000
-2.000
-4.000
-3.000
-3.000
-3.000
SOURCE
CODE
D
D
D
D
A
F
F
A
E
E
A
E
B
C.D
E
E
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT B
MODEL CALIBRATION PLOTS
900513-mll
-------
-------
Figure B-1
Probability Plot of Measured Effluent Concentration
-1 -
TO
3 -2 -
c
o
o
o
5= -4
*• ^
111
O)
•o
s-
CO
0
-6
-7
-4 -3 -2 -1 O 1
Expected Value
-------
Figure B-2
Probability Plot of Predicted Effluent Concentration
Uncalibrated Model
-4 -3 -2 -1
-------
Figure B-3
Probability Plot of Predicted Effluent Concentration
Calibrated Model
-1
D>
S
o
o
J -3
UJ
0>
_o
•o,
0
ol
UJ
-4 -
-6 -
-7
-4
-3 -2
-10 1
Expected Value
-------
Figure B-4
Probability Plot of FATE Residuals
Uncalibrated Model
6
.2
"eo
T3
«
lo
-2
-4
-4-3-2-10 1 2 3 4
Expected Value
-------
Figure B-5
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Aromatic Compounds
Uncalibrated Model
-95% Confidence Interval
M
5 °
ui
5 -,
-2
-3
-4
-5
1
T
T
1
1
1
T
100414 108883 71432
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-6
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Aromatic Compounds
Calibrated Model
1
I
i-
-3
-6 -
T
95% Confidence Interval
T
l
I
_L
T
100414 108883 71432
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-7
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Aromatic Compounds
Uncalibrated Model
•o
o
5
o
cc
»
(0
(0
o
o
o
0.
100
90
80 -
70 -
60 -
SO -
40 -
30 -
20 -
1O -
100414 108883 71432
Compound CAS Number
Biodegradation, Secondary Clarifier
Volatilization, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Primary Clarifier
-------
Figure B-8
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Aromatic Compounds
Calibrated Model
•a
§
o
o
cc
<0
CO
a
o
**
o
a.
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
4O -
3O -
2O -
10 -
100414 108883 71432
Compound CAS Number
Blodegradation, Secondary Clarlfler
Volatilization, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Primary Clarifier
-------
Figure B-9
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds
Uncalibrated Model
5 -
4 -95% Confidence Interval
3 -
1 1
2
"5
Ul
S-
-3
-4
-6
-6
\ \
*
*
I I I
J I
I I I I I I
I I I I
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-10
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds
Calibrated Model
1
in
S-
-2
-3
-4
-6
i i i i i i i i i i i i r
95% Confidence Interval
J I
I I I I I I I I
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-11
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds
Uncalibrated Model
•o
o
o
-------
Figure B-12
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds
Calibrated Model
TJ
§
O
O
(C
«
CO
(0
0
O
I
100
1O -
Compound CAS Number
Biodegradation, Secondary Clarifier
Volatilization, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Primary Clarifier
-------
Figure B-13
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Miscellaneous Volatile Organic Compounds
Uncalibrated Model
g* —
-95% Confidence Interval
TJ
0 0
DC
Ul
-2
-3
-4
-6
-6
_L
107131 67641
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-14
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Miscellaneous Volatile Organic Compounds
Calibrated Model
UI
-2
-3
-4
-6 -
-e
95% Confidence Interval
_L
107131 67641
Compound CAS Number
-------
FigureB-15
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Miscellaneous Volatile Organic Compounds
Uncalibrated Model
100
o
o
o
oc
(0
(0
O
O
<5
a.
90 -
SO
70
6O
50
40
30
2O
10
107131 67641
Compound CAS Number
Biodegradation, Secondary Clarifier
Volatilization, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Primary Clarifier
-------
Figure B-16
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Miscellaneous Volatile Organic Compounds
Calibrated Model
100
•a
©
o
E
o
cc
10
CO
(3
o
2
o
a
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
SO -
40 -
30 —
20 -
10 -
107131 67641
Compound CAS Number
Blodegradation, Secondary Clarifier
Volatilization, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Primary Clarifier
-------
Figure B-17
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Uncalibrated Model
5 -
-95% Confidence Interval
I '
ui
-2
-3
-6
1 I 1 I T
"I 1 1 T
I I I
I
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-18
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Calibrated Model
a
-§
"3
I-
-2
-3
-4 -
-5 -
-e
95% Confidence Interval
J L
I i i
JL -
J L
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-19
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Uncaiibrated Model
•o
o
5
o
cc
-------
Percent of Mass Removed
W W < CD
° ° 2. 5*
•3 -3 JJ. o-
o o j= <£>
J3 P S 3
5 w 5s »
5' o -3 5*
M O M 3
ft) */ —'
Q q § o
•S.o&|
~ B 3 8"
"• 3 o •<
? EJ O
s; 5*
-i tO O A 01 0) »J
3OOOOOOO
1
1
1
0) (0 C
o o c
1
TJ
(D
o
o
B
•o
o
c
a
O
>
to
S 3
cr
o
0)
(0
(0
-------
Figure B-21
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Uncalibrated Model
5 -
4 -95% Confidence Interval
•o
'. "55
-2
-3
-5
-e
11097691 53469219
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-22
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Calibrated Model
I'
2
«o
Ul
u. ~1
-2
95% Confide ice Inter\
-4 -
-5 -
11097691 53469219
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-23
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Uncalibrated Model
9
O
o
DC
(0
-------
Figure B-24
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Calibrated Model
•o
o
5
i
tc
a
i
o
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
SO -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
11097691 53469219
Compound CAS Number
Biodegradation, Secondary Clarifier
Volatilization, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Secondary Clarifier
Sorptlon, Primary Clarifier
-------
Figure B-25
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Pesticides
Uncalibrated Model
O
5
4
3
2
•o
"5
i-
-2
-3
-4
-5
_K
1 1 I'l.l
—95% Confidence Interval ~
— . -
T
_
T T
- -
— ' . —
- -
T • . '•„
1 1 I 1 1
309O02319846 50293 58899 60571 76448
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-26
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Pesticides
Calibrated Model
I '
•§
"53
1-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-6
95% Confidence Interval
T
I
I
I
50293 58899 60571 76448
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-27
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Pesticides
Uncalibrated Model
o
E
9
K
CO
«0
(0
e
o
o
e
a.
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
309002319846 50293 58899 60571 76448
Compound CAS Number
Biodegradation, Secondary Clarifier
Volatilization, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Primary Clarifier
-------
Figure B-28
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Pesticides
Calibrated Model
•a
9
§
o
cc
09
CO
(0
O
O
s
O.
100
90
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40
30 -
20 -
10
50293 58899 60571 76448
Compound CAS Number
Biodegradation, Secondary Clarifier
Volatilization, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Primary Clarifier
-------
Figure B-29
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Phthalates
Uncalibrated Model
6
5
3
2
"5
•o
"35
0 0
DC
111
s-
-2
-3
-4
-5
_ it
••--•• III 1 II
T
9o75rCoi Tlaenc© interval
r T [
1 1
iv^A-
I
^
— • , :•• . 1 ^ 1
'
; :
i ii i i . i i i i
V69
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-30
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Phthalates
Calibrated Model
ui
I-
-2
-3
T
"95% Confidence Interval
J
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-31
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Phthalates
Uncalibrated Model
•o
9
O
E
(D
OC
CO
O
u
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
6O -
5O -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
Compound CAS Number
Biodegradation, Secondary Clarifier
Volatilization, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Primary Clarifier
-------
Figure B-32
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Phthalates
Calibrated Model
o
0)
cc
(0
(0
(0
o
o
o
Q.
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
Compound CAS Number
Biodegradation, Secondary Clarifier
Volatilization, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Primary Clarifier
-------
Figure B-33
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Acid Extractable Semivolatile Compounds
Uncalibrated Model
o
5
4
2
CO «
•= 1
CO
^
s
UJ
-2
-3
-4
-6
it
1 I 1 1 1 I
— -
-95% Confidence Interval ~
T
rV T
~ i
t=^=i
_ . —
- . -
- —
- —
_ - -
i i i i i i
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-34
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Acid Extractable Semivolatile Compounds
Calibrated Model
•S
if -1
-2
-3
-5 -
-6
"95% Confidence Interval
Compound CAS Number
-------
Percent of Mass Removed
W W < CD
° ° 2. 5'
•0 -0 B) Q.
££ ~ ~ *
O O JT S3
•5 «i N 7;
- - fi) W
•o w 5- &
2i 0) 3 n
§0-0
'.Hi!
» - o- g o
a §
-i Qi
O
0*
_i M « A Ol 0) S 09 (0 C
3 O O O O O O O O O C
j
1
1
|o&
* 5Q>
$ 3
tr
*
&
o
a
(D
t
O
(D
3
(0
30
<0 Tl
m
D)
O
3T
(D
O
fi)
3
25'
-------
Figure B-36
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Acid Extractable Semivolatile Compounds
Calibrated Model
10O
90 -
80 -
70 -
•o
s
o
E 6O
9
cc
(0
«9
1 50
| 40
o
30 -
20 -
10 -
Compound CAS Number
Blodegradation, Secondary Clarifler
Volatilization, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Primary Clarifier
-------
Figure B-37
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Base Extractable Semivolatile Compounds
Uncalibrated Model
-95% Confidence Interval
CO
2
to
UJ
-3
-.6
T
T
106467 122667 606202 91587
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-38
Boxplots of FATE Residuals by Compound
Base Extractable Semivolatile Compounds
Calibrated Model
Ul
-2
-3
-4
-5
95% Confidence Interval
106467 122667 606202 91587
Compound CAS Number
-------
Figure B-39
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Base Extractable Semivolatile Compounds
Uncalibrated Model
100
90 -
o
o
(0
M
aj
o
u
o
0.
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
106467 122667 6O6202 91587
^
Compound CAS Number
Biodegradation, Secondary Clarifler
Volatilization, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Primary Clarifier
-------
Figure B-40
Percent of Mass Removed by Each Mechanism
Base Extractable Semivolatile Compounds
Calibrated Model
100
5
ra
§
I
90 -
80 -
70
60 -
50 -
40
30 -
20 -
10 -
106467 122667 606202 91587
Compound CAS Number
Blodegradatlon, Secondary Clarifier
Volatilization, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Secondary Clarifier
Sorption, Primary Clarifier
-------
APPENDIX C
Inorganic/Organic Compound List
-------
-------
Fate And Treatability Estimator
for Conventional Activated Sludge
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Version 2.00
06/18/90
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
Portland, Maine
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Technology Division, Washington, DC
ORGANIC DATABASE LISTING
Henry's Law
Constant
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
biodegradation
rate constant
atm-m3/mole m3h20/m3octanol
1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane
3.81E-4 (M) 3.04 (M)
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1.44E-2 (M) 2.49 (M) :
1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane
3.80E-4 (M) 2.39 (M)
1,1,2 -Tr ichloroethane
1.17E-3 (M) 2.47 (M)
1, 1-Dichloroethane
4.26E-3 (M) 1.79 (M)
1, 1-Dichloroethene
3.40E-2 (M) 1.84 (M)
Isodrin (Stereoisomer of Aldrin)
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
1,2,3,4,6,7, 8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
1,2,3,4,7, 8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
1,2,3,6,7, 8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
1,2,3,7,8, 9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
1,2,3,7, 8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
O.OOEO (D), 0.00 (U)
1, 2 , 3-Trichlorobenzene
4.77E-3 (E) 4.42 (E)
1,2, 3-Trichloropropane
4.06E-4 (E) 2.01 (M)
1 , 2 , 3-Trimethoxybenzene
3.39E-7 (E) 2.62 (E)
m:
-3
-3
-4
-3
-4
-2
-2
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-3
-3
-3
3/gV
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.30
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
rSS.d
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
.(E)
(E)
CASNO
630206
71556
79345
79005
75343
75354
465736
37871004
1030
57653857
19408743
40321764
87616
96184
634366
C-l
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page 2
Henry's Law
Constant
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
biodegradation
rate constant
atm-m3/mole m3h20/m3octanol
1, 2 , 4 , 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
9.87E-3 (E) 4.67 (M)
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
2.30E-3 (M) 4.28 (M)
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl ester
2.80E-7 (M) 5.60 (M)
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester
2.10E-7 (M) 2.12 (M)
1, 2-Dibromoethane
6.73E-4 (M) 1.76 (M)
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
1.93E-3 (M) 3.60 (M)
1, 2-Dichloroethane
9.78E-4 (M) 1.53 (M)
1,2 -Dichloropr opane
2.31E-3 (M) 2.00 (M)
1, 2-Diphenylhydrazine
3.42E-9 (M) 2.90 (M)
1 , 2-Ethanediamine , N, N-dimethyl-N ' -2pyridinyl-N ' -
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
1, 2 : 3 , 4-Diepoxybutane
3.54E-8 (E) -1.80 (U)
Hirex \ Dechlorane
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Kepone
O.OOEO (U) 2.00 (M)
1,3, 5-Trithiane
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
1,3-Benzenediaxnine, 4-methyl-
1.28E-10 (M) 0.35 (M)
1,3-Benzodioxole, S-(l-propenyl) -
3.25E-12 (M) 2.66 (M)
1, 3-Cyclopentadiene, 1,2,3,4,5, 5-hexachloro-
1.37E-2 (M) 5.04 (M)
1, 3-Dichloro-2-propanol
7.84E-7 (E) 1.04 (E)
1, 3-Dichlorobenzene
3.59E-3 (M) 3.56 (M)
m3
-3.
-3.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-3.
"""•3 •
-3.
-2.
(2-
-2.
-4.
-4.
-2.
-2.
-3.
-2.
-3.
-3.
/g^
00
00
00
00
30
00
00
00
00
00
30
00
00
30
00
00
00
00
00
rss.d
(E)
(E) ,
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
CASNO
95943
120821
84742
131113
106934
95501
107062
78875
122667
91805
1464535
2385855
143500
291214
95807
120581
77474
96231
541731
C-2
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page 3
Henry's Law
Constant
atm-m3/mole
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
biodegradation
rate constant
1,3-Dichloropropane
9.80E-4 (M)
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
1.95E-7 (E)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2.89E-3 (M)
1,4-Dioxane
1.07E-5 (M)
1,4-Naphthoquinone
2.31E-5 (U)
Dichlone \ Phygon
O.OOEO (U)
Endrin
5.00E-7 (M)
Aldrin
1.60E-5 (M)
1,5-Naphthalenediamine
O.OOEO (U)
l-Bromo-2-chlorobenzene
O.OOEO (U)
l-Bromo-3-chlorobenzene
O.OOEO (U)
l-Chloro-3-nitrobenzene
0,OOEO (U)
1-Methylfluorene
O.OOEO (U)
1-Methylphenanthrene
O.OOEO (U)
1-Naphthy1amine
5.21E-9 (M)
1-Phenylnaphthalene
O.OOEO (U)
1-Propene, 3-chloro-
9.15E-3 (M)
17-alpha-19-Norpregna-l,3,
O.OOEO (U)
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
4.53E-6 (U)
:0/m3o
1.97
1.62
3.60
0.01
1.78
0.00
5.60
5.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.44
0.00
0.00
2.07
0.00
1.71
5(10)
0.00
ictanol
(E)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(U)
(M)
(M)
(U)
(U)
(U)
(U)
(U)
(U)
(M)
(U)
(E)
-trien-20-yn-17-ol
(U)
m3/gVSS.d
-3.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
, 3-
-3.30 (E)
CASNO
142289
99650
106467
123911
130154
117806
72208
309002
2243621
694804
108372
121733
1730376
832699
134327
605027
107051
72333
58902
4.10 (M)
-2.30 (E)
C-3
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page 4
Henry's Law
Constant
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
biodegradation
rate constant
atm-m3/mole m3h20/m3octanol
2,3, 6-Trichlorophenol
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
2 , 3-Benzof luorene
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
2 , 3-Dichloroaniline
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
2 , 3-Dichloronitrobenzene
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol
2.18E-4 (M) 3.72 (M)
m3/gVSS . d
-2.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
2,4,5-T \ Weedone \ Acetic acid, 2 , 4 , 5-trichlorophenoxy-
7.80E-9 (U) 2.34 (U) -2.00 (E)
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
4.00E-6 (M) 3.87 (M)
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2.75E-6 (M) 2.90 (M)
2,4-D \ Acetic acid, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy) -
1.88E-4 (M) 2.81 (M)
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
2.52E-6 (M) 2.50 (M)
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
6.45E-10 (M) * 1.53 (M)
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
5.09E-6 (M) 2.01 (M)
Heptachlor epoxide
4.39E-4 (M) 2.70 (M)
2 , 6-Dichlorophenol
4.80E-6 (U) 0.00 (U)
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
3.27E-6 (M) 2.05 (M)
2 , 6-di-tert-Butyl-p-benzoquinone
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
2 , 6-dichloro-4-nitroaniline
6.54E-3 (U) 0.00 (U)
2 , 7-Dimethylphenanthrene
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Dieldrin
4.58E-7 (M) 3.50 (M)
C-4
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-1.00 (E)
-1.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
CASNO
933755
243174
608275
3209221
95954
93765
88062
120832
94757
105679
51285
121142
1024573
87650
606202
719222
99309
1576698
60571
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page
Henry's Law
Constant
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
biodegradation
rate constant
atm-m3/mole
m3h2 0/m3octanol
2- (Methylthio) benzothiazole
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
2-Butanone
2.74E-5 (M)
2-Butenal
1.40E-5 (M)
2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro
1.15E-4 (E)
2-Chloro-l, 3 -butadiene
1.19E-2 (E)
Alachlor \ Metachlor \
3.40E-7 (U)
0.26 (M)
1.08 (E)
(mixture of cis and trans)
2.04 (E)
2.06 (E)
Lasso
2.32 (U)
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
2.16E-5 (M) 1.28 (M)
2-Chloronaphthalene
3.15E-4 (M)
2 -Chlorophenol
4.70E-6 (M)
2-Hexanone
1.24E-5 (M)
2 -Isopropy Inaphthalene
O.OOEO (U)
2-Methylbenzothioazole
O.OOEO (U)
2 -Methy Inaphthalene
4.14E-4 (E)
2 -Nitroanil ine
6.28E-9 (E)
2-Nitrophenol
1.44E-5 (M)
2 -Pheny Inaphthalene
O.OOEO (U)
2-Picoline
2.40E-5 (M)
2-Propanone
6.80E-6 (M)
2-Propen-l-ol
3.69E-6 (M)
4.12 (M)
2.17 (M)
1.38 (M)
0.00 (U)
0.00 (U)
3.86 (M)
1.83 (E)
1.76 (M)
0.00 (U)
1.20 (M)
-0.24 (M)
-0.22 (M)
m3/gVSS . d
-2.00 (E)
-1.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.30 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-1.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-1.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
CASNO
615225
78933
4170303
764410
126998
15972608
110758
91587
95578
591786
2027170
120752
91576
88744
88755
612942
109068
67641
107186
C-5
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page
Henry's Law
Constant
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
biodegradation
rate constant
atm-m3/mole m3h20/m3octanol
2-Propenal
6.79E-5 (M) -0.10 (M)
2-Propenenitrile
8.84E-5 (M) 0.25 (M)
2-Propenenitrile, 2-methyl-
3.92E-1 (U) 0.00 (U)
3,3" -Dichloro-4 , 4 ' -diaminodiphenyl ether
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
8.33E-7 (M) 3.50 (M)
3 , 6-Dimethylphenanthrene
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
3-Nitroaniline
1.54E-9 (E) 1.83 (M)
m3/gVSS.d
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-4.00 (E)
4/4'-DDD/Benzene, l,l'-(2/2-dichloroethylidene)bis [4-chloro- .
7.96E-6 (M) 6.20 (M) -2.30 (E)
4,4' -DDE/Benzene, 1,1'- (dichloroethenlyidine) bis
6.80E-5 (M) 7.00 (M)
[4-chloro
-2.30 (E)
4,4' -DDT/Benzene, 1, 1 ' - (2 , 2 , 2-trichloroethylidene) bis [4-chloro
5.13E-4 (M) 6.19 (M) -2.30 (E)
4,4* -Methylenebis (2-chloroaniline)
4.06E-11 (E) 3.94 (E)
4 , 5-dimethyl phenanthrene
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Chlordane
9.63E-6 (M) 3.32 (M)
Heptachlor
8.19E-4 (M) 4.40 (M)
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
O.OOEO (U) 4.28 (M)
4 -Chloro-2 -nitroaniline
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
4-Chloro-3 -methylphenol
2.50E-6 (M) 3.13 (M)
4-Chlorophenylphenyl ether
1.02E-2 (U) 4.08 (M)
Captafol \ Difolatan
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
-4.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-1.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
CASNO
107028
107131
126987
2843486
91941
1576676
99092
72548
72559
50293
101144
203645
57749
76448
i
101553
89634
59507
7005723
2425061
C-6
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page 7
Henry's Law
Constant
log octanoI/water
partition coefficient
biodegradation
rate constant
atm-m3/mole m3h20/m3octanol
Captan
4.70E-5 (M) 2.35 (M)
4 -Methy 1 - 2 -pent anone
1.17E-4 (M) 1.62 (E)
4-Nitrophenol
3.31E-8 (M) 1.91 (M)
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
7.61E-3 (U) 0.00 (U)
7 , 12-Dimethylbenz (a) anthracene
2.73E-10 (U) 6.94 (M)
Acenaphthene
9.20E-5 (M) 4.33 (M)
Acenaphthylene
1.48E-3 (M) 3.70 (M)
Acet amide, N-(4-ethoxyphenyl) -
2.23E-7 (U) 0.00 (U)
m3/gVSS . d
-2.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
Ammonium, (4- (p- (dimethylamino) -alpha-phenylbenzyli
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U) -3.00 (E)
Aniline, 2 , 4 , 5-trimethyl-
4.06E-6 (E) 3.39 (E)
Anthracene
1.02E-3 (M) 4.45 (M)
Benz [ j ] aceanthry lene, 1 , 2-dihydro-3-methyl-
1.34E-4 (U) 7.11 (U)
Pronamide \ Kerb
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Benz anthr one
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Benzenamine
1.10E-6 (M) 0.98 (M)
Benzenamine, 4-chloro-
6.55E-7 (E) 1.83 (M)
Benzenamine, N, N-dimethyl-4- (pehnylazo) -
7.19E-9 (M) 3.72 (M)
Benzene
5.50E-3 (M) ,2.13 (M)
Methoxy chl or
1.58E-5 (E) 4.83 (M)
-2.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-1.30 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
CASNO
133062
108101
100027
99558
57976
83329
208968
624.42
569642
137177
120127
56495
23950585
82053
62533
106478
60117
71432
72435
C-7
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page 8
Henry's Law
Constant
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
b iodegradat ion
rate constant
atm-ia3/mole m3
Chlorobenzilate \ Ethyl-4
7.24E-8 (E)
Benzenethiol
O.OOEO (U)
Benzidine
3.03E-7 (M)
Benzo (a) anthracene
1.16E-6 (M)
Benzo (a) pyrerie
1.55E-6 (M)
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
1.19E-5 (M)
Benzo (ghi) perylene
5.34E-8 (M)
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
3.94E-5 (M)
Benzoic acid
1.82E-8 (M)
h2 0/m3 oct ano 1
, 4 ' -dichlorobenzilate
4.36 (E)
2.52 (M)
1.30 (M)
5.61 (M)
6.04 (M)
6.06 (M)
6.51 (M)
6.06 (M)
1.19 (E)
Benzonitrile, 3 , 5-dibromo-4-hydroxy-
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Benzyl alcohol
6.10E-7 (M)
Biphenyl
1.01E-1 (M)
Biphenyl, 4-nitro
3.54E-6 (E)
Bromodichloromethane
2.12E-3 (M)
Bromomethane
1.06E-1 (M)
Butyl benzyl phthalate
l.OOE-6 (M)
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic
O.OOEO (U)
Diallate \ Avadex
1.65E-4 (M)
Carbazole
4.40E-4 (U)
1.10 (M)
4.04 (M)
3.77 (E)
1.88 (M)
1.10 (M)
4.80 (M)
acid, salts and esters
0.00 (U)
0.73 (M)
3.29 (M)
C-8
m3/gVSS.d
-2.00, (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-1.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.30 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-1.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
CASNO
510156
108985
92875
56553
50328
205992
191242
207089
65850
1689845
100516
92524
92933
75274
74839
85687
111546
2303164
86748
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page 9
Henry's Law
Constant
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
biodegradation
rate constant
atm-m3/mole m3h20/m3octanol
Carbon disulfide
1.20E-2 (M)
Chloroacetonitrile
O.OOEO (U)
Chlorobenzene
3.72E-3 (M)
Chloroethane
1.48E-2 (M)
Chloroform
3.39E-3 (M)
Chloromethane
4.40E-2 (M)
Chloropicrin
O.OOEO (U)
Chrysene
1.05E-6 (M)
Coumaphos \ Co-Ral
3.20E-8 (M)
Crotoxyphos \ Ciodrin
O.OOEO (U)
Mevinphos \ Phosdrin
O.OOEO (U)
2.00 (M)
0.00 (U)
2.84 (M)
1.54 (M)
1.97 (M)
0.95 (M)
2.44 (U)
5.61 (M) ./
0.00 (U)
0.00 (U)
0.54 (U)
Lindane \ gamma-BHC \ Hexachlorocyclohexane
7.85E-6 (M) 3.90 (M)
alpha-BHC
5.87E-6 (M)
delta-BHC
2.07E-7 (M)
beta-BHC
4.47E-7 (M)
Di-n-octyl phthalate
3.00E-7 (M)
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
6.92E-6 (M)
Dibenz o ( a , h ) anthracene
7.33E-8 (M)
Dibenzo[b,e] [l,4]dioxin,
3.60E-3 (M)
3.90 (M)
4.10 (M)
3.90 (M)
9.20 (M)
1.50 (M)
6.80 (M)
m3/gVSS . d
-2.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
(gamma)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
2,3,7, 8-tetrachloro-
6.72 (M) -4.00 (E)
CASNO
75150
107142
108907
75003
67663
74873
76062
218019
56724
7700176
7786347
58899
319846
319868
,,319857
117840
621647
53703
1746016
C-9
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page ij
Henry's Law
Constant
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
biodegradation
rate constant
atm-m3/mole
Dibenzofuran
1.26E-5 (E)
Dibenzothiophene
O.OOEO (U)
Dibromochloromethane
0-.78E-3 (M)
Dibromomethane
9.98E-4 (M)
Dichloroiodomethane
O.OOEO (U)
Diethyl ether
1.72E-3 (E)
Diethyl phthalate
1.14E-6 (M)
Dimethyl sulfone
O.OOEO (U)
Diphenyl ether
2.24E-3 (M)
Diphenylamine
1.47E-7 (M)
Diphenyldisulfide
O.OOEO (U)
m3 h2 0/m3 octanol
4.31 (M)
0.00 (U)
2.09 (M)
1.53 (E)
0.00 (U)
0.89 (M)
2.50 (M)
0.00 (U)
4.20 (M)
3.60 (M)
0.00 (U)
m3/gVSS . d
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.30 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-1.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-3.30 (E)
-3.00 (E)
6 , 9~Methano-2 , 3 , 4-benzodioxathiepin, 6 , 7
O.OOEO (U)
Thiodan I
O.OOEO (U)
Thiodan II
O.OOEO (U)
Endrin aldehyde
O.OOEO (U)
Endrine ketone
O.OOEO (U)
Ethane, pentachloro-
2.17E-3 (M)
Ethanethioamide
O.OOEO (U)
Ethanone, 1-phenyl
3.30E-7 (M)
3.66 (M)
3.55 (M)
3.62 (E)
5.60 (E)
0.00 (U)
3.67 (M)
-0.46 (M)
1.58 (M)
C-10
-4.00 (E)
-3.30 (E)
-3.30 (E)
-2.. 00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
CASNO
132649
132650
124481
74953
0015
60297
84662
67710
101848
122394
882337
1031078
959988
3321365
7421934
5349470
76017
62555
98862
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page 11
Henry's Law
Constant
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
biodegradation
rate constant
atm-m3/mole m3h20/m3octanol
Nitrofen \ TOK
O.OOEO (U)
Ethyl cyanide
3.12E-5 (E)
Ethyl methacrylate
O.OOEO (U)
Ethylbenzene
6.44E-3 (M)
Nabam
O.OOEO (U)
Maneb \ Vancide
O.OOEO (U)
Zineb \ Dithane Z
O.OOEO (U)
Ethylenethiourea
3.08E-10 (E)
Fluoranthene
6.46E-6 (M)
Fluorene
6.42E-5 (M)
Hexachlorobenzene
6.81E-4 (M)
Hexachl or obutadiene
1.03E-2 (M)
0.00 (U)
0.87 (E)
0.00 (U)
3.15 (M)
1.92 (M)
0.00 (U)
0.00 (U)
-0.66 (M)
4.90 (M)
4 . 18 (M)
5.23 (M)
4.78 (M)
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Hexachl or odibenz o f urans
O.OOEO (U)
Hexachloroethane
2.49E-3 (M)
Hexachloropropene
O.OOEO (U)
Hexanoic acid
1.04E-6 (E)
Indeno (1,2,3 -cd) pyrene
6.86E-8 (M)
lodomethane
5.34E-3 (M)
0.00 (U)
4.62 (M)
0.00 (U)
1.90 (M)
6.50 (M)
1.69 (M)
m3/gVSS . d
-4.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-1.30 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-4.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-3.00 (E)
CASNO
1836755
107120
97632
100414
142596
12427382
12122677
96457
20644O
86737
118741
87683
1200
1201
67721
1888717
142621
193395
74884
C-ll
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page 12
Henry's Law
Constant
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
biodegradation
rate constant
atm-mS/mole m3h20/m3octanol
Isobutyl alcohol
1.03E-5 (M)
Xsophorone
5.80E-6 (M)
Longifolene
O.OOEO (U)
0
1
0
.61
.70
.00
(M)
(M)
(U)
Methanesul fonic acid, ethyl ester
9.12E-8 (M) 0.21 (M)
Methyl methacrylate
2.43E-1 (M)
Methyl methanesul f onate
O.OOEO (U)
Methylene chloride
2.03E-3 (M)
N , N-Dimethy 1 f ormamide
3.55E-7 (E)
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
5.21E-6 (E)
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
1.20E-6 (E)
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
7.90E-7 (M)
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
5.00E-6 (E)
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
O.OOEO (U)
0
0
1
-1
1
0
0
2
0
N-Nitrosomethylphenylamine
O.OOEO (U) 0
N-Nitrosomorpholine
4.18E-8 (E)
N-Nitrosopiperidine
1.11E-8 (M)
Naphthalene
4.80E-4 (M)
Nitrobenzene
1.30E-5 (M)
Phosphorodithioic acid, O
O.OOEO (U)
-4
-0
3
1
,0,
0
.79
.00
.30
.01
.92
.48
.68
.57
.00
.00
.40
.49
.34
.85
(M)
(U)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(U)
(U)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
S-triethyl ester
.00 (U)
m3/gVSS . d
-1
-2
-3
-2
-2
-2
«»o
-1
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-3
-3
-2
-2
-2
.00
.00
.00
*00
.00
.00
.00
.30
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
CASNO
78831
78591
475207
62500
80626
66273 .
75092
68122
924163
55185
62759
86306
10595956
614006
59892
100754
91203
98953
126681
C-12
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page 13
Henry's Law
Constant
atm-m3/mo1e
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
m3 h2 0/m3 octano1
biodegradation
rate constant
Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-diethyl S-methyl ester
O.OOEO (U)
Zinophos \ Thionazin
O.OOEO (U)
PCB-1016
l.SOE-,4 (M)
PCB-1221
3.24E-4 (M)
PCB-1232
8.64E-4 (M)
PCB-1242
5.70E-4 (M)
PCB-1248
3.50E-3 (M)
PCB-1254
2.80E-3 (M)
PCB-1260
7.10E-3 (M)
Pentachlorobenzene
7.30E-3 (M)
0.00 (U)
0.00 (U)
4.38 (M)
4.08 (M)
4.54 (M)
4.11 (M)
5.60 (M)
6.04 (M)
7.15 (M)
5.19 (M)
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Pentachlorodibenzofurans
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
PCNB \ Terraclor \ Quintozene
6.18E-4 (M) ~ "
Pentachlorophenol
2.80E-6 (M)
Pentamethylbenzene
O.OOEO (U)
Perylene
O.OOEO (U)
Phenanthrene
1.59E-4 (M)
Phenol
4.54E-7 (M)
5.45 (M)
5.04 (M)
0.00 (U)
6.50 (M)
4.46 (M)
1.48 (M)
DNBP \ Dinoseb \ 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
1.20E-3 (M) 2.09 (M)
m3/gVSS . d
-2.00
-2.30
-3.30
-3.30
-3.30
-3.30
-3.30
-3.30
-3.30
-3.00
-4.00
-4.00
-3.30
-2.00
-4.00
-2.30
-2.30
-1.00
-3.00
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
CASNO
3288582
297972
12674112
11104282
11141165
53469219
12672296
11097691
11096825
608935
1289
1290
82688
87865
700129
198550
85018
108952
88857
C-13
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page 14
Henry's Law
Constant
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
biodegradation
rate constant
atm-mS/mole m3h20/m3octanol
Dinex \ DN-111 \ 2-Cyclohexyl-4 , 6-dinitrophenol
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Phenol , 2-methyl-4 , 6-dinitro-
4.49E-5 (M) 2.70 (M)
Phenothiazine
1.99E-2 (U) 0.00 (U)
Phosacetin
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Trichlorofon \ Dylox
1.71E-11 (M) 2.29 (M)
Naled \ Dibrom
O.OOEO (U) 1.38 (U)
Dichlorvos \ DDVP
3.50E-7 (M) 1-47 (M)
Tetrachlorvinphos \ Gardona
1.84E-9 (E) 3.53 (M)
Chlorfenvinphos \ Supona
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Dicrotophos \ Bidrin
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Monocrotophos \ Azodrin
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
t
Phosphamidon \ Dimecron
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Tricresylphosphate \ TCP \ TOCP
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Trimethylphosphate
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Hexamethylphosphoramide \ HMPA
1.51E-8 (E) 0.03 (M)
Demeton \ Systox
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Diazinon \ Spectracide
1.40E-6 (M) 2.76 (U)
Chlorpyrifos \ Dursban
4.10E-6 (M) 5.11 (M)
Fensulfothion \ Desan.it
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
m3/gVSS.d
-3.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.00 (E)
CASNO
131895
534521
92842
4104147
52686
300765
62737
961115
470906
141662
6923224
13171216
78308
512561
680319
8065483
333415
2921882
115902
C-14
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page 15
Henry's Law
Constant
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
biodegradation
rate constant
atm-m3/mole
Phorate \ Thimet
4.37E-7 (U)
Disulfoton
2.50E-6 (M)
Azinphos-ethyl \ Ethyl
O.OOEO (U)
Terbufos \ Counter
O.OOEO (U)
m3h2 0/m3 octanol m3/gVSS . d
-2.49
3.26
Guthion
0.00
0.00
Azinphos -methyl \ Guthion
3.80E-6 (M) 0.00
Phosmet \ Imidan
O.OOEO (U)
Cygon \ Dimethoate
9.17E-7 (U)
Fenthion \ Baytex
2.00E-7 (U)
Ethion \ Bladan
O.OOEO (U)
Dioxathion
O.OOEO (U)
2.83
2.71
2.68
0.00
0.00
Carbophenothion \ Trithion
O.OOEO (U) 0.00
Parathion \ Parathion ,
6.10E-7 (M)
ethyl
3.81
(U)
(U)
(U)
(U)
(U)
(M)
~(M)
(U)
(U)
(U)
(U)
(M)
Methyl parathion \ Parathion-methyl \ Metaphos
5.59E-8 (M) 1.91 (M)
Famphur \ Famophos
O.OOEO (U)
Leptophos \ Phosvel
2.66E-6 (U)
EPN \ Santox
O.OOEO (U)
Busan 85
O.OOEO (U)
0.00
6.31
0.00
0.00
(U)
(M)
(U)
(U)
Carbamic acid, methyldithio- , monopotassium salt
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Propane, 1 , 2-dibromo-3-chloro-
3.11E-4 (M) 2.29
(M)
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-3.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
CASNO
298022
298044
2642719
13071799
86500
732116
60515
55389
563122
78342
786196
56382
298000
52857
21609905
2104645
128030
137417
96128
C-15
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT'
Page
Henry's Law
Constant
atm-m3/mole
2,4,5-TP \ Silvex
O.OOEO (U)
Pyrene
5.04E-6 (M)
Pyridine
7.00E-9 (M)
Resorcinol
l.OOE-13 (M)
Safrole
1.29E-7 (M)
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
m3h20/m3octanol
0.00 (U).
4.88 (M)
0.66 (M)
0.80 (M)
2.53 (M)
biodegradation
rate constant
Carbataic acid, dimethyldithio-, sodium salt
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Squalene
O.OOEO (U)
Styrene
9.70E-3 (M)
Malathion \ Sumitox
3.75E-7 (E)
0.00 (U)
2.95 (M)
2.89 (M)
Sulfurous acid, 2-chloroethyl-, 2-[4-(l,l-dimethylethyl)
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U) " "
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
O.OOEO (U) 6.20 (M)
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Tetrachloroethene
2.59E-2 (M)
Tetrachloromethane
2.41E-2 (M)
2.60 (M)
2.64 (M)
TEPP \ Phosphoric acid, tetraethyl ester
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Thianaphthene
O.OOEO (U)
3.10 (U)
Thiram \ Thiuram \ Arasan
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Sulfotepp \ Bladafum \ Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
O.OOEO (U) 0.00 (U)
Thioxanthe-9-one
O.OOEO (U)
m3,
-2.
-2.
-2.
-1.
-2.
-2.
-3.
-2.
"""di •
Leth
-3.
-4.
-4.
-3-
-3.
-2.
-2.
-2.
ate
-2.
/gV
00
30
00
00
30
00
00
30
00
yi)
00
00
00
00
00
00
30
00
,00
SS.d
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
CASNO 1
93721
129000
110861
108463
94597
128041
7683643
100425
121755
140578
j
1331
1332
127184
56235
107493
95158
137268
368924
492228
0.00 (U)
-3.00 (E)
C-16
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page 17
Henry's Law
Constant
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
b iodegradation
rate constant
arm-mj/moie m3h2
Toluene
6.70E-3 (M)
Total xylenes
5.10E-3 (M)
Camphechlor
4.89E-3 (M)
Tribromomethane
5.52E-4 (M)
Trichloroethene
9.10E-3 (M)
Trichlorofluoromethane
5.80E-2 (M)
Triphenylene
O.OOEO (U)
Tripropyleneglycol methyl e
O.OOEO (U)
Vinyl acetate
6.20E-4 (M)
Vinyl chloride
8.19E-2 (M)
Ziram \ Cymate
O.OOEO (U)
[1,1' -Bipheny 1 ] -4 -amine
1.59E-8 (M)
alpha-Terpineol
1.35E-5 (E)
beta-Naphthylamine
8.23E-8 (M)
bis (2 -Chloroethoxy) methane
2.70E-7 (M)
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
1.30E-5 (M)
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ethe
1.13E-4 (M)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
3.00E-7 (M)
cis-l, 3-Dichloropropene
3.55E-3 (M)
:0
2
3
3
2
2
2
0
t
0
0
1
0
2
2
2
1
1
r
2
8
1
/m3c
.73
.55
.30
.40
.38
.53
.00
her
.00
.73
.38
.00
.78
.90
.07
.26
.46
.10
.70
.98
actanol
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(U)
(U)
(M)
(M)
(U)
(M)
(E)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
m3
-1.
-2.
-3.
-3.
*""O •
-3.
-2.
-3.
-2.
-3.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-4.
-4.
-4.
-4.
-2.
-3.
i/g^
30
30
30
00
00
00
30
00
00
00
00
00
30
00
00
00
00
00
00
7SS.d
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
CASNO
108883
1330207
8001352
75252
79016
75694
217594
20324338
108054
75014
137304
92671
98555
91598
111911
111444
108601
117817
10061015
C-17
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Page 18
Henry's Law
Constant
atm-m3/mole
H-Cresol
1.09E-7 (E)
n-Decane
7.68E-2 (E)
n-Docosane
O.OOEO (U)
n-Dodecane
8.27E-2 (E)
n-Eicosane
O.OOEO (U)
n-Hexacosane
O.OOEO (U)
n-Hexadecane
9.90E-2 (E)
n-Octacosane
O.OOEO (U)
n-Octadecane
1.38E-1 (E)
n-Tetracosane
O.OOEO (U)
n-Tetradecane
7.12E-2 (E)
n-Triacontane
O.OOEO (U)
o + p xylene
5.26E-3 (M)
o,p'-DDT
O.OOEO (U)
o-Anisidine
1.38E-6 (E)
o-Cresol
1.20E-6 (M)
o-Toluidine
2.72E-6 (E)
o-Toluidine, 5-chloro-
O.OOEO (U)
p-Cresol
7.78E-7 (M)
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
m3h20/m3octanol
1.96 (M)
4.46 (E)
9.68 (E)
5.33 (E)
8.81 (E)
0.00 (U)
7.07 (E)
12.29 (E)
7.94 (E)
10.55 (E)
6.20 (E)
0.00 (U)
3.13 (U)
6.19 (M)
0.95 (M)
1.95 (M)
1.32 (M)
0.00 (U)
1.94 (M)
biodegradation
rate constant
m3/gVSS . d
-1.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.00 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-2.30 (E)
-1.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-3.00 (E)
-1.00 (E)
CASNO
108394
124185
629970
112403
112958
630013
544763
630024
593453
646311
629594
638686
1952
789026
90040
95487
95534
95794
106445
C-18
-------
EPA FATE MODEL REPORT
Henry's Law
Constant
atm-m3/mole
log octanol/water
partition coefficient
m3h20/m3octanol
biodegradation
rate constant,
m3/gVSS.d
Page 19
CASNO
p-Cymene
O.OOEO (U)
p-Nitroaniline
l.OOE-6 (M)
Trifluralin \ Treflan
2.64E-5 (E)
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
6.60E-3 (M)
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
3.55E-3 (M)
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
2.65E-4 (E)
l.OOE-11 (M)
4.10
1.39
5.38
0.48
1.98
t
2.38
3,3'
1.46
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(E)
-dimethoxy
(M)
-2.
-4.
-3.
-3.
-3.
-3.
-3.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
99876
100016
1582098
156605
10061026
110576
119904
NOTES:
1.
2.
Compound parameters are categorized by their source. Qualifiers are-
M - a measured value taken from the literature
E - a value estimated using an accepted method
U - The value is unavailable an must be supplied by the user.
S - Biodegradation rate constant has been simulated
Choose from Main Menu for list of model assumption
C-19
-------
Fate And Treatability Estimator
for Conventional Activated Sludge
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Version 2.00
06/18/90
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
Port1and, Maine
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Technology Division, Washington, DC
INORGANICS DATABASE LISTING
Antimony
Barium
Aluminum
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Arsenic
cadmium
Primary
Coeff .
127.00
90.00
46.40
50.00
110.00
59.00
59.00
217.00
150.00
130.00
36.00
135.00
130.00
60.00
Secondary
Coeff.
80.00
64.00
30.40
124.00
50.00
37.00
88.00
193.00
115.00
1000.00
20.00
62.00
130.00
83.00
CASNO
7440360
7440393
7429905
7440473
7440508
7439896
7439921
7439965
7439976
7440020
7440224
7440666
7440382
7440439
C-20
-------
APPENDIX D
SYSTEM DATABASE DESCRIPTION
The FATE model is composed of four databases: the Facility, Organic, Inorganic, and Unit
Conversion databases. This appendix describes the components of each database, and how the
FATE model uses each database for its functions.
The Facility Database is used to store specific operating plant parameters for the three default
POTWs - 'SMALL,' 'MEDIUM,' and 'LARGE.' It also has capacity to store operating data for
any POTW the user wishes FATE to estimate. Table 1 lists and describes each parameter contained
in the Facility Database.
The Organics Database lists all organic compounds used by FATE, their CAS numbers and class,
and their respective chemical constants (e.g., Henry's Law Constant, octanol/water partition
coefficient, and Biodegradation rate constant.) The influent concentration of the organic compound
of concern is also stored in the Organics Database, as is concentration values where, at that particular
concentration, inhibition effects are present. Table 2 lists all parameters contained in the Organics
Database.
The Inorganics Database lists the inorganic compounds for which FATE will run, their correspond-
ing CAS numbers, and coefficients used to predict the fate of the inorganic compound. The influent
concentration of the compound of concern is also stored in the Inorganics Database. Table 3
describes each parameter contained in the Inorganics Database.
For the Unit Conversion Database, standard units for FATE facility parameters were established
from a poll of actual POTWs which determined the most common units POTWs use in their record
keeping. FATE therefore has the capacity to convert facility parameters, which appear in the lower
left of the FATE screen, from one unit to another. If a facility does not record its operating
parameters in the standard units which appear on the screen, FATE will allow input of the values
in alternate units and subsequently convert them to standard FATE units. Table 4 lists and describes
the standard units used in FATE, alternate units FATE is capable of converting for each specific
parameter, and the numerical conversion factor.
D-l
-------
APPENDIX D
Variable Name
FCSEL
FCFCL
FCSTD
FCQ
FCQP
FCXP
FCV
FCXL
FCG
FCQW
FCXV
Table 1 - Facility Database
Description
If FCSEL equals '#,' the facility
has been selected for a FATE
model run
Name of Facility
Record Type ('*' indicates
default facility)
Plant Flow Rate
Primary Sludge Flow Rate
Primary Sludge Concentration
Total Volume of Aeration Basins
Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate to
Aeration Basin
Wasted Sludge Row Rate
Wasted Sludge Concentration
Unit
NA
NA
NA
MOD
gal
mg/1
cu.ft/d
D-2
-------
Table 2 - Organics Database
APPENDIX D
Variable Name
COSEL
COCMP
COCASNO
COSTD
COHC
COHCE
COHTYPE
COLKOW
COLTYPE'
COK
COKTYPE
COSI
COCLASS
COI
COINTYPE
Description
If COSEL equals '#,' then the organic compound
has been selected for the FATE model
Regulatory organic compound name
CAS number of the organic compound
If COSTD equals '*', then the compound CAS
number and chemical constants are default values
Henry's Law Constant of the organic compound
Henry's Law Constant Exponent
Henry's Law Constant type (COHTYPE may
equal 'M' - Measured, '£' - Estimated, or 'U' -
Unavailable)
Log octanol/water partition coefficient of the or-
ganic compound
Log octanol/water partition coefficient type (COL-
TYPE may equal 'M,' '£,' or 'U' as described
previously)
Biodegradation rate constant of the organic com-
pound
Biodegradation rate constant type (COKTYPE
equals '£;' all rate constants were estimated)
Influent concentration of organic compound
Class of the compound:
DIO - Dioxin
PC - Pesticide (Carbamate)
PH - Pesticide (Herbicide)
POH - Pesticide (Organo halide)
POP - Pesticide (Organo phosphorous)
SVA - Semi-volatile (Acid)
SVB - Semi-volatile (Base)
SVN - Semi-volatile (Neutral)
VOL - Volatile
Inhibition concentration
Scale at which inhibition concentration was
measured (U-Unknown, B-Benchtop, P-Pilot
plant, F-Full scale, NA-Not available)
Unit
NA
NA
NA
NA
atm - m /mole
NA
NA
•3 o
m H2O/m octanol
mg/1
NA
mg/1
NA
D-3
-------
APPENDIX D
Variable Name
CISEL
CICMP
CICASNO
CISTD
CIRW
CIML
CISI
Table 3 - Inorganics Database
Description
If CISEL equals '#,' then the
inorganic compound has been
selected for the FATE model
Regulatory inorganic
compound name
Inorganic compound CAS
number
If CISTD equals '*,' then the
compound name and CAS
number are EPA standards
Constant for the inorganic in
the primary system1
Constant for inorganic in the
secondary system
Influent concentration of the
inorganic compound
Unit
NA
NA
NA
NA*
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
D-4
-------
APPENDIX D
Table 4 - Unit Conversion Database
Facility Parameter
Plant flow (Q)
Primary sludge flow (Qp)
Primary sludge cone. (Xp)
Aeration basins volume (V)
MLSS (Xi)
FATE Default Unit
MOD
EPd
gal
mg/1
Other Units
CU.M/D
L/D
GPD
GPM
MOD
L/D
LB/GAL
LB/CU.M
G/CU.M
UG/L
PPB
MG/L
PPM
L
CU.FT
CU.M
MGAL
LB/GAL
LB/CU.M
PPM
UG/L
PPB
Gas flow rate (G.)
Waste sludge flow rate (Qw)
Waste sludge cone. (Xv)
cf/d
G/CU.M
L/D
CU.FT/HR
CU.M/HR
CU.M/D
CFM
GPM
MOD
L/D
UG/L
MG/L
PPB
LB/CU.M
LB/GAL
G/CU.M
PPM
D-5
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
FATE MODEL MAP OF CURSOR KEY MOVEMENTS
-------
-------
FUNCTION
FATE MODEL KEY MOVEMENTS
KEY(S)
COMMENTS
CURSOR MOVEMENT
UP
DOWN
LEFT
RIGHT
SELEC1
FACILITY
COMPOUND
RUN
"RUN
PRINT
SINGLE COMPOUND REPORT
MULTIPLE COMPOUND REPORT
FACILITY DATABASE
COMPOUND DATABASE
HELP
UNMARK SELECTEDRECORDS
GROUP MARKS
GO TO (LETTER OR NUMBER)
CAS # SEARCH
SYSTEM UTILITIES
GO TO DOS
REMOVE BLANK OR
MARK-FOR-OELETION RECORDS
REBUILD INDEXES OF DATABASES
EDITING
EDIT
COPY
ADD
DELETE
I
< SPACE BAR >
< SPACE BAR >
/R
- /PS
/PM
/PF
/PC
(LETTER OR NUMBER)
/S
/UM
/UR
' # " APPEARS TO LEFT OF NAME
' #' APPEARS TO LEFT OF NAME
ORGANIC AND
INORGANIC DATABASES OBTAINED
MAY VIEW ALL SELECTED
RECORDS AT ONCE
FOR ORGANIC/INORGANIC
DATABASES ONLY
TYPE' EXIT * TO RETURN TO FATE
NOT VALID FOR »** RECORDS
TO DELETE FROM
DATABASE FOLLOW WITH / UM
6098-81
-------
-------
INDEX
#
Add
Backup
CAS #
Continue
Copy
Delete
Edit
Facility
Group
Help
Maintenance
Menu Mode
Print
Quit
Rebuild
Run
Selection Mode
System
Unit
Unit Conversion
Unmark
Utilities
5,7-8,11- 12, 14
5,8,11,14
3, 16, 17
8, 12, 15
6, 15, 17
8, 13, 14
13 - 14, 16
6, 11, 13, 14 "
5
15
13-14
14,16
9,11,14-15,18,20
9, 15 - 16, 18, 19, 20
15,17
16
4-5,9,11,15-16,18
11-12,15,18
15 -17
13 -14
6,13
12, 15
14-16
-------
------- |