MANAGEMENT OP
HAZARDOUS WASTE LEACHATE
by
Alan J. Shuckrow, Andrew P. Pajak,
and C. J. Touhill
Baker/TSA Division
Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.
Beaver, Pennsylvania 15009
Contract No. 68-03-2766
Project Officers
Stephen C. James
Dirk R. Brunner
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the the Municipal
Environmental Research 'Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does nbt constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
PREFACE
•••««» flfifev.. »
The land disposal of hazardous waste is subject to the
requirements of Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976. This Act requires that the treatment
storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes after November 19 '
1980 be carried out in accordance with a permit. The one '
exception to this rule is that facilities in existence as of
November 19, 1980 may continue operations until final
administrative disposition is made of the permit application
(providing that the facility complies with the Interim Status '
Standards for disposers of hazardous waste in 40 CFR Part
265). Owners or operators of new facilities must apply for
and receive a permit before beginning operation of such a
facility.
The Interim Status Standards (40 CFR Part 265) and some
of the administrative portions of the Permit Standards (40
CFR Part 264) were published by the Environmental Protection
Agency in the Federal Register on May 19, 1980. The
Environmental Protection Agency published interim final rules
in Part 264 for hazardous waste disposal facilities on July
db, 1902. These regulations consist primarily of two sets of
performance standards. One is a set of design and operating
standards separately tailored to each of the four types of
facilities covered by the regulations. The other (Subpart F)
is a single set of ground-water monitoring and response
requirements applicable to each of these facilities. The
permit official must review and evaluate permit applications
to determine whether the proposed objectives, design, and
operation of a land disposal facility will comply with all
applicable provisions of the regulations (40 CFR 264).
The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing two
types of documents for permit officials responsible for
hazardous waste landfills, surface impoundments, land treatment
facilities and piles: Draft RCRA Guidance Documents and
Technical Resource Documents. The draft RCRA guidance
documents present design and operating specifications which
the Agency believes comply with the requirements of Part 264
for the Design and Operating Requirements and the Closure and
Post-Closure Requirements contained in these regulations.
The Technical Resource Documents support the RCRA Guidance
Documents in certain areas (i.e., liners, leachate management,
closure, covers, water balance) by describing current
technologies and methods for evaluating the performance of the
applicant's design. The information and guidance presented
in these manuals constitute a suggested approach for review
and evaluation based on good engineering practices. There
may be alternative and equivalent methods for conducting the
review and evaluation. However, if the results of these
iii
-------
methods differ from those of the Environmental Protection
Agency method, they may have to be validated by the applicant.
In reviewing and evaluating the permit application, the
permit official must make all decisions in a well defined and
well documented manner. Once an initial decision is made to
Issue or deny the permit, the Subtitle C regulations (40 CPR
124.6, 124.7, and 124.8) require preparation of either a
statement of basis or fact sheet that discusses the reasons behind
the decision. The statement of basis or fact sheet then becomes
"part of the permit review process specified in 40 CPR 124.6 through
124.20.
These manuals are intended to assist the permit official
In arriving at a logical, well defined, and well documented
decision. Checklists and logic flow diagrams are provided
throughout the manuals to ensure that necessary factors are
considered in the decision process. Technical data are
presented to enable the permit official to identify proposed
designs that may require more detailed analysis because of a
deviation from suggested practices. The technical data are
not meant to provide rigid guidelines for arriving at a
decision. The references are cited throughout the manuals to
provide further guidance for the permit officials when necessary.
There was a previous version of this document dated
September 1980. The new version supplies the September 1980
version.
iv
-------
ABSTRACT
This document has been prepared to provide guidance for per-
mit officials and disposal site operators on available management
options for controlling, treating, and disposing of hazardous
waste leachates. It discusses considerations necessary to de-
velop sound management plans for leachate generated at surface
impoundments and landfills. Because hazardous waste leachate
management is an area where there is little past experience, this
manual draws heavily upon experience in other related areas.
The manual provides a logical thought process for arriving
at a reasonable treatment process train for given leachates.
Furthermore, sufficient factual information is provided so that
users can readily identify a few potential treatment alterna-
tives. Having identified such alternatives, users then are given
sufficient guidance so that final choices can be made.
The manual begins with a brief discussion of factors that
influence leachate generation. This is followed by a presenta-
tion of data on leachate characteristics at actual waste dis-
posal sites. Principal options for dealing with hazardous waste
leachate are identified. Subsequently, technology profiles are
developed for processes having potential application to leachate
treatment. Treatability data and information on by-products,
and costs supplement process descriptions and an assessment of
process applicability.
A key section enumerates factors which influence treatment
process selections and provides a suggested approach for system-
atically addressing each. Selected hypothetical and actual
leachate situations are used as examples for applying the
approach to the selection of appropriate treatment processes.
Other sections address monitoring, safety, contingency
plans/emergency provisions, equipment redundancy/backup, permits,
and surface runoff. Each of these topics are important consid-
erations necessary for effective management of hazardous waste
leachate.
v.
-------
CONTENTS
Preface » s • • • • • i .••;•-
Abstract i •. • v
Figures vi
Tables xii
Acknowledgment xiii
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. OVERVIEW OP LEACHATE GENERATION , 2-1
2.1 General Discussion 2-1
2.2 Factors Affecting Leachate Generation and
Characteristics « 2-2
2.2.1 Physical Influences 2-2
2.2.1.1 Liquid Characteristics 2-2
2.2.1.2 Solid Characteristics 2-2
2.2.1.3 Physical Transformations 2-3
2.2.2 'Chemical Influences — ... -. 2-3
2.2.2.1 Solubility 2-3
2.2.2.2 Chemical Transformations 2-4
2.2.3 Biological Influences 2-5
2. 3 References • 2-5
3. LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS 3-1
3.1 General Discussion 3-1
3.2 Leachate Characteristics at Actual Sites 3-3
3.3 Leachate Categorization 3-17
3.4 References 3-20
4. HAZARDOUS WASTE LEACHATE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS .... 4-1
4.1 General Discussion '.".... 4-1
4.2 Hazardous Waste Treatment 4-3
4.3 Disposal Site Managment .. 4-5
4.4 Leachate Management 4-9
4.4.1 Off-Site Treatment/Disposal Options .... 4-9-
VI
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
4.4.2. On-Site Treatment/Disposal 4-11
4.5 Summary 4-13
5. LEACHATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 5-r
5.1 General Discussion 5-1
5.2 Treatability of Leachate Constituents 5-2
5.3 Unit Process Application Potential 5-4
5.3.1 Biological Treatment 5-5
5.3.2 Carbon Adsorption 5-6
5.3.3 Catalysis 5-6
5.3.4 Chemical Oxidation 5-6
5.3.5 Chemical Reduction ... .. 5-7
5.3.6 Chemical Precipitation 5-7
5.3.7 Crystallization 5-8
5.3.8 Density Separation 5-8
5.3.9 Dialysis/Electrodialysis 5-9
5.3.10 Distillation 5-9
5.3.11 Evaporation 5-9
5.3.12 Filtration 5-9
5.3.13 Plocculation 5-10
5.3.14 Ion Exchange 5-10
5.3.15 Resin Adsorption 5-11
5.3.16 Reverse Osmosis 5-12
5.3.17 Solvent Extraction 5-13
5.3.18 Stripping 5-13
5.3.19 Ultrafiltration 5-13
5.3.20 Wet Oxidation 5-14
5.4 Evaluation of Unit Processes 5-14
5.5 By-Product Considerations 5-18
5.6 Treatment Process Costs 5-28
5. 7 References 5-31
6. LEACHATE TREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION 6-1
6.1 General Discussion 6-1
6.2 Performance Requirements 6-2
vii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
'6.3 Treatment Facility Staging 6-5
6.4 Treatment Process Selection Methodology 6-6
6.4.1 Disposal Site With Existing Leachate ... 6-9
6.4.2 Disposal Site Without Existing Leachate. 6-10
6.5 Considerations Relating To Process Train
Formulation 6-12
6.5.1 Biological Treatment 6-12
6.5.2 Carbon Adsorption 6-16
6.5.3 Chemical Precipitation/Coagulation 6-17
6.5.4 Density Separation 6-18
6.5.5 Filtration .• 6-18
6.5.6 Chemical Oxidation 6-18
6.5.7 Chemical Reduction 6-19
6.5.8 Ion Exchange 6-19
6.5.9 Membrane Processes 6-20
6.5.10 Stripping Processes 6-20
6 .5 .11 Wet Oxidation 6-20
6.6 Process Train Alternatives 6-20
6.6.1 Leachate Containing Organic Contaminants 6-21
6.6.1.1 Love Canal Experience 6-21
6.6.1.2 Ott/Story Site Study 6-26
6.6.1.3 Other Possibilities 6-31
6.6.2 Leachate Containing Inorganic
Contaminants 6-33
6.6.3 Leachate Containing Organic and
Inorganic Pollutants 6-39
6 .7 References 6-42
7. MONITORING 7-1
7.1 General Discussion 7-1
7.2 Monitoring Program Design 7-3
7.2.1 Parameters To Be Measured 7-3
7.2.2 Analytical Considerations 7-6
7.2.3 Sampling 7-6
Vlll
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
7.3
7.4
7.4.2
7.4.3
7.4.4
7.4.5
Leachate Characterization
7.3.1 Wastes Received
7.3.2 In-situ Monitoring
7.3.3 Collected Leachate
Treatment Effluent Monitoring
7.4.1 Sampling Locations
Parameters „
Data Analysis
Process Optimization
Safety Considerations
7.5 References
8. OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 Safety
Degree of Risk
Restricted Entry
Safety Rules
Supervision
Inspections
First Aid and Medical Assistance .......
Protective Equipment *...
Ventilation
Housekeeping
Contingency Plans/Emergency Provisions ........
8.2.1 Emergency Situations * . . . .
8.2.1.1 Natural Disasters
8.2.1.2 Accidents . . . .• ,• *. . .
Plan Development
8.2.2.1 Organizational Responsibilities
8.2.2.2 Plan Components
Fire Protection <.....
8.1.1
8.1.2
8.1.3
8.1.4
8.1.5
8.1.6
8.1.7
8.1.8
8.1.9
8.2
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.3.1 In-Plant Measures
8.2.3.2 Training
8.2.3.3 Hazards Identification
7-7
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-9
7-9
7-9
7-10
7-10
7-10
7-11
8-1
8-1
8-1
8-1
8-2
8-2
8-3
8-3
8-3
8-4
8-5
8-5
8-5
8-5
8-6
8-6
8-6
8-6
8-9
8-9
8-10
8-10
8.3 Equipment Redundancies/Backup f. 8-11
IX
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
8.3.1 General Discussion 8-11
8.3.2 Equipment 8-12
8.3.2.1 Control Systems 8-12
8.3.2.2 Tanks and Containers 8-12
8.3.2.3 Pipes and Transfer Lines ....... 8-12
8.3.2.4 Valves 8-12
8.3.2.5 Pumps 8-12
8.3.2.6 In-Plant Drainage 8-13
8.3.2.7 Electrical Filters 8-13
8.4 Permits 8-13
8.4.1 Consolidated Permit Regulations 8-13
8.4.2 Other Permits 8-14
8.5 Personnel Training 8-14
8.6 Surface Runoff 8-15
8.7 References 8-19
Appendices
A. Summary of Reported Water Contamination Problems ... A-l
B. -Alphabetical Listing of RCRA Pollutants B-l
C. Unit Process Summaries - Sanitary Landfill
Leachate Treatment C-l
D. Unit Process Summaries - Industrial Wastewater
Treatment * D-l
E. Treatability of Leachate Constituents E-l
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
3-1 Waste stream categorization matrix 3-19
4-1 Waste management options - effect on leachate
generation 4_2
6-1 Methodology to select leachate treatment process ... 6-8
6-2 Love Canal Permanent Treatment System schematic
flow diagram 6-22
6-3 Schematic of carbon sorption/biological process
train 6-32
6-4 Schematic of biological/carbon sorption process
train 6-34
6-5 Process train for leachate containing metals 6-36
6-6 Process train for leachate containing metals
including hexavalent chromium 6-37
6-7 Process train for leachate containing metals
including hexavalent chromium and cyanide 6-38
6-8 Process train for leachate containing metals and
ammonia and requiring TDS control 6-40
6-9 Schematic of biophysical process train 6-43
-------
TABLES
Number Page
3-1 Summary List of Contaminants Reported 3-4
3-2 List of Conventional- Pollutant. Concentrations
Reported at Six Sites 3-16
3-3 Characterization of Harzardous Leachate and
Groundwater From 43 Landfill Sites 3-17
4-1 Stabilization/Fixation Techniques 4-6
5-1 Treatment Process Applicability Matrix 5-16
5-2 Leachate Treatment Process By-Produce Streams 5-19
5-3 Residue Management Alternatives 5-29
6-1 Performance Data on Temporary Treatment System
at Love Canal 6-24
6-2 Ott/Story Groundwater Characterization 6-27
8-1 Suggested Guide for an Operation and Maintenance
Manual for Waste Treatment Facilities 8-16
xii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Mr. Stephen James, Mr. Dirk
Brunner, and Ms. Wendy Davis-Hoover of the U.S.-EPA MERL and
Mr. Les Otte of the U.S.-EPA Office of Solid Waste for their
able advice and assistance which facilitated assembly and re-
view of this document.
A critical review of the manuscript provided by Dr. Gary
F. Bennett of the University of Toledo was especially helpful.
Review comments by Mr. B.W. Mercer of Battelle-Northwest
also are gratefully acknowledged-
Special thanks go to Mrs. Ellen M. Stempkowski who was
responsible for typing and overseeing assembly of much of
this document.
Data contained in Appendices C and D were contributed
by Monsanto Research Corporation (MRC). An unpublished draft
document on leachate management prepared by MRC was consulted
prior to preparation of this document.
xin
-------
-ffl
•3.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Leachate generated by water percolating through a hazard-
ous waste disposal site could contain significant concentrations
of toxic chemicals. Proper leachate management is essential to
avoidance of contamination of surrounding soil, groundwaters,
and surface waters. Consequently, this document has been pre-
pared to provide guidance on available management options for
controlling, treating and disposing of hazardous waste leach-
ates.
Leachate management options include all of the decision
factors throughout the entire hazardous waste management process
which have an impact on the nature or generation potential of
leachate. Thus, consideration of leachate management options
could begin with the manufacturing process and extend through
the hazardous waste management chain to leachate treatment/
disposal. This management chain can be divided into four major
areas: (1) waste generation, (2) hazardous waste treatment
prior to disposal, (3) disposal site management, and (4) leach-
ate treatment/disposal. Because companion permit manuals and
technical resource documents address many of these aspects in
detail, the central focus of this document is on leachate man-
agement subsequent to leachate generation. When other aspects
of leachate management are mentioned, the reader is referred to
an appropriate source for details.
Hazardous waste leachate management is an area where little
past experience exists. Therefore, in preparing this document,
it has been necessary to draw heavily upon experience in related
areas. Certain pitfalls are inherent in such an approach and
thus, an effort has been made to alert the reader to areas of
uncertainty throughout this document.
A major factor that must be taken into consideration in
structuring the leachate management process is the need for
post-closure operation. Closure of the hazardous waste disposal
site probably will not mean terminating leachate management op-
erations. Rather, leachate collection and .disposal concerns
will continue subsequent to site closure. This could necessi-
tate long-term post-closure operation and financial commitments.
Site closure also could influence leachate composition and quan-
tity and, thus, treatment facility performance. Consequently,
1-1
-------
site closure ramifications merit considerable attention early
and throughout the process of managing leachate.
It is recognized that some users may not wish to read this
document in its entirety. Therefore, to the extent possible,
sections have been prepared to be self-standing. Nevertheless,
there is a necessary interrelationship among sections and a log-
ical progression as information from early sections is built
upon in later ones. An effort has been made to cross-reference
pertinent information.
There are seven subsequent sections of this document. Each
of these is listed below together with a brief description of
the contents of the section.
Section 2, Overview of Leachate Generation - This section
briefly describes factors that influence leachate genera-
tion with the emphasis placed upon factors affecting leach-
ate composition. It may be of interest to those wishing to
predict future leachate composition at new sites.
Section 3, Leachate Characteristics - This section examines
hazardous waste leachate characteristics. -Available data
on leachates, and contaminated ground and surface waters
are presented and discussed. Data presented give insight
into leachate characteristics at actual hazardous waste
disposal sites, and thus provide a basis -for selecting and
evaluating leachate treatment technologies.
Section 4, Hazardous Waste Leachate Management Options -
Four principal areas of hazardous waste leachate management
options (i.e. waste generation, hazardous waste treatment,
disposal site management, and leachate treatment/disposal)
are identified in this section. Primary emphasis was
placed upon the leachate treatment/disposal area wherein
leachate is processed to render it acceptable for discharge
or'ultimate disposal.
Section 5, Leachate Treatment Technologies - This section
provides treatability data on compounds identified at ac-
tual waste disposal sites. An initial assessment of the
potential applicability of twenty unit treatment processes
to leachate treatment also is made. Consideration is given
to treatment process by-products, and to capital and opera-
ting costs for selected technologies. Information in this
section can be used to combine individual unit processes to
form a treatment system appropriate for the type of leach-
ate encountered.
Section 6, Leachate Treatment Process Selection - This sec-
tion provides an understanding of factors which influence
treatment process selection. These factors are enumerated
1-2
-------
and an approach is suggested for systematically addressing
each. Finally, selected hypothetical and actual leachate
situations are used as examples for applying the approach
to selection of appropriate treatment processes.
Section 7, Monitoring - This section points out those con-
siderations which are important in the design of monitoring
program to support hazardous waste leachate management ef-
forts .
Section 8, Other Important Considerations - Subjects ad-
dressedin this section are safety,contingency plans/
emergency provisions, equipment redundancy/backup, permits,
and surface runoff. Some of the topics are discussed in
general terms, while others apply directly to leachate
treatment facilities. The intent is to identify consider-
ations which are necessary for the safe and effective
treatment of hazardous waste leachate.
This manual is not designed to be a prescriptive "cook
book". Sufficient past experience simply is not available to
permit such an approach. Thus, the reader is challenged to use
the extensive information presented herein in a manner requiring
considerable technical judgment. This is necessa'ry because of
the complexity of leachates likely to be encountered, and the
fact that compositions vary widely from site to site, and in
some cases, within given sites. On the other hand, the manual
does attempt to provide a logical thought process for arriving
at the most reasonable treatment process train for any leachate
likely to be generated. Furthermore, sufficient factual infor-
mation is provided so that the user can readily identify a few
potential treatment alternatives. Having identified such alter-
natives, the user then is given sufficient guidance so that
final choices can be made.
1-3
-------
ID
-------
SECTION 2
OVERVIEW OF LEACHATE GENERATION
2.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
As discussed in subsequent sections, leachate management is
highly dependent upon leachate characteristics. Leachate char-
acteristics, in turn, are dependent upon how the leachate is
generated. Because hazardous waste management under RCRA regu-
lations is in its early stages, there is a dearth of information
on leachate generation.
Ideally, leachate treatment alternatives should be evalu-
ated using actual leachate in treatability and pilot plant
studies. However, at the time of permitting new sites leachate
is unavailable. Methods to select appropriate treatment tech-
nologies in the absence of actual leachate for treatability
studies are described in Section 6.4. The methods described in
this section envision projecting leachate compositions using
data on the wastes expected to be disposed of, extrapolations
from analogous disposal experience, and from theoretical prin-
ciples. While a complete discussion of leachate generation from
a theoretical point of view is beyond the scope of this manual,
this section describes factors that influence leachate genera-
tion in general terms.
Emphasis in this section is placed upon factors affecting
leachate quality. A detailed description of methodologies for
estimating leachate volume is provided in a companion document
in this EPA hazardous waste series, "Hydrologic Simulation on
Solid Waste Disposal Sites", SW-868. Although intended to de-
scribe leachate for municipal landfills, a report by Phelps (1)
discussed theoretical aspects of the change of mass in fluid and
solid phases with respect to time. Phelps provided leaching
curves (concentration vs. time) to describe the effects of four
parameters on leachate concentrations: (1) ratio of column
depth to infiltration rate, (2) mass transfer rate constant, (3)
equilibrium constant, and (4) the initial amount of leachable
material per unit volume of column. Manual users are referred
to^this reference for a detailed discussion of the theoretical
principles of leachate generation, albeit for a municipal
landfill.
Freeze and Cherry (2) discussed leachate generated from
2-1
-------
land disposal of solid wastes, sewage disposal on land, agri-
cultural activities, petroleum leakage and spills, and radio-
active waste disposal. This reference also could be helpful in
estimating leachate compositions.
The remainder of this section is an enumeration of factors
which could be important in assessing leachate generation. For
details, the reader is again referred to the works by Phelps (1)
and Freeze and Cherry (2).
2.2 FACTORS AFFECTING LEACHATE GENERATION AND CHARACTERISTICS
Leachate will be generated as a result of the movement of
liquids by gravity through a disposal site. Similarly, leachate
will be generated as liquid contained within a disposal impound-
ment moves through soil beneath the' disposal area. Leachate
quality is dependent upon numerous factors. It is not the in-
tent to deal with such factors in detail here; rather the reader
is given a brief overview for purposes of identifying consider-
ations which should be explored at length elsewhere.
2.2.1 Physical Influences
2.2.1.1 Liquid Characteristics—
Liquid moving through the site can be comprised of precip-
itation falling upon the site, groundwater migrating through the
site, and the liquid fraction of disposed materials. The quan-
tity of liquid will be a major determinant of the rate at which
the leachate will be generated as well as the leachate composi-
tion. Liquid movement can be complicated by variations in den-
sity, viscosity, and miscibility. It is possible that the
liquid could be multi-phased, e.g., water, oil, and solvents
with the various phases moving through the solid medium at dif-
ferent rates.
2.2.1.2 Solid Characteristics—
For landfills, solid waste materials could comprise a sig-
nificant fraction of the medium through which the liquid passes.
Thus, it should not be assumed that soil alone is the solid
medium. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the solid wastes or
soil are homogeneous. Because of the expected solid mixture,
porosity and particle sizes are expected to be variable. This
will have an influence on liquid velocity and the time in which
the liquid is in contact with the solid.
t
Initially, liquid percolating through a landfill will be
absorbed by the solid material. When the absorptive (moisture-
holding) capacity is reached, i.e., when the solid is saturated,
then leachate quality is likely to be influenced by surface
leaching. After saturation, the length of the solid column will
be the major determinant of the time required for the liquid to
reach the leachate collection system.
2-2
-------
2.2.1.3 Physical Transformations—
The principal physical transformation expected in the
leaching process is plugging of pore spaces and the resultant
influence on chemical processes and leachate flow rates. If the
disposed wastes contain significant amounts of suspended solids,
then the in-place material will act as a filtering medium, and
percolation flow rates will decrease as the pore spaces become
clogged.
2.2.2 Chemical Influences
2.2.2.1 Solubility—
Solubility is one of the most important factors which in-
fluence leachate quality. Solubility is a function of the
chemical composition of the liquid phase, surface area contact
between the liquid phase and the solid medium, contact time, pH,
temperature, and chemical composition of solid material. Chem-
ical composition of the leachate determines dissolution and re-
action rates. For example, if the liquid phase approaches the
solubility product for certain compounds, then further leaching
will be limited and transfer rates from the solid to the liquid
will be low. Conversely, if the liquid phase is dilute, dis-
solution of the solid medium will be more rapid. If the solu-
bility product is exceeded, then chemical precipitation could
occur.
Size of solid particles has a direct influence upon leach-
ing. Smaller particles result in larger surface areas thus
permitting increased contact and corresponding increased leach-
ing by the liquid. Physical degradation due to aging and ero-
sion processes, which break solids into smaller pieces, in-
creases exposed surface area. In general, dissolution is
directly proportional to the surface contact area.
Porosity, defined as the volume of void spaces within a
solid matrix divided by the total unit volume, influences the
flow rate of liquid through the solid and thus, the contact time
between the liquid and solids. As contact time increases (where
there is lower porosity), dissolution increases up to the max-
imum soluble concentration of the constituents in the liquid.
Thus, longer contact times permit more complete chemical re-
actions between the liquid and solid, until eventually an equil-
ibrium concentration is reached.
pH is considered a significant variable affecting leachate
composition because of its effect on solubility and chemical
reactions occurring in the disposal site. In general, pH af-
fects solubility in two principal ways:
(1) alteration of simple solution equilibria, and
(2) direct participation in redox reactions.
2-3
-------
pH generally is a function of the type of waste disposed. Low-
molecular weight acids and carbon dioxide which result from an
aerobic digestion of organic material reduce the pH. Hazardous
wastes can contribute to pH change due to their own specific
characteristics or by the dissolution of waste materials into
leaching water. Changes in pH can influence the solubility of
the waste materials. For example, heavy metals, are solubilized
in acidic solution. Normally, the solubility product for metals
is lowest in mildly basic solution. Thus, acidic conditions
promote the leachability of metal ions, and markedly increase
the potential for appearance in the leachate collection system.
Soil admixtures also can influence solubility. Acid or
alkaline soils can influence.solubility either positively or
negatively. For example, acid soils tend to promote solubili-
zation of waste constituents, whereas higher pH in alkaline
soils likely will retard solubilization.
A disposal site has some capacity to tolerate acids or
bases before the pH of the system is markedly affected. If this
buffer capacity is high, the leachate composition is more stable
and predictable. Correspondingly, a low buffering capacity
makes the leachate composition more difficult to predict.
Temperature changes within the disposal site can occur due
to the temperature of materials added, redistribution of heat by
intruding extraneous water, and heat generated by waste decom-
position (biological and physical/chemical activity). Tempera-
ture is important because it influences reaction rates between
the liquid and solid medium. Moreover, it exerts an influence
biologically on microbial catalysis. Both solubility rates and
microbial activity increase as temperatures rise. Hence, during
warm months, leachate may contain higher concentrations of con-
taminants.
2.2.2*. 2 Chemical Transformations—
Chemical transformations occurring within the disposal site
could include adsorption, oxidation and reduction, and precipi-
tation. Most soils are known to have cation exchange capacity.
This capacity is variable dependent upon the type of soils. To
a lesser extent, some soils are known to sorb anions. While
this may be an important influence during initial stages of dis-
posal operations, it is expected that exchange capacity will be
exhausted at about the time the solid medium is saturated by the
liquid. Thereafter, exchange capacity will be at equilibrium
and will not be a consequential determinant of leachate com-
position.
Redox potential can influence chemical and biological re-
actions. In disposal sites dissolved oxygen concentrations will
decrease with depth. Thus, chemical constituents will be oxi-
dized in the upper zones where there is sufficient dissolved
2-4
-------
oxygen present, whereas reducing conditions may be expected in
the lower depths. Correspondingly, aerobic biological activity
will prevail in the upper zones giving way to anaerobic re-
actions as dissolved oxygen is depleted with depth.
Chemical reactions could occur in the disposal site depend-
ing upon the types of materials disposed. For example, neutral-
ization reactions could be evident, and metals could precipitate
in alkaline solution.
2.2.3 Biological Influences
Microorganisms solubilize and oxidize organic waste con-
stituents. Microbes not lethally affected by the waste product
may decompose both the toxic and nontoxic organic compounds into
organics that can be metabolized further.
The microbial population within the disposal site depends
upon waste composition, nutrients available, concentration of
toxic material, oxygen levels, temperature, pH, percent mois-
ture, and the initial population found in the waste liquid or
solids and any admixes such as soil. Aerobic microorganisms
•will give way to anaerobic species as oxygen is depleted. An-
aerobic microorganisms which then predominate may generate sig-
nificant amounts of gases such as methane, hydrogen sulfide, and
ammonia that can cause both odor problems and potential explo-
sion hazards.
Biological activity may change substantially over time and
may become more significant as a disposal site ages. Biological
processes could act to reduce the levels of organic compounds
which appear in leachate. This could impact the nature and dur-
ation of necessary post-closure leachate management measures.
2.3 REFERENCES
1. Phelps, D. Solid Waste Leaching Model, Draft Report.
University of British Columbia, Department of Civil
Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, p. 1-25.
2. Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry. Groundwater. Prentice
Hall. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979, 604 pp.
2-5
-------
4 '
SSf
-------
SECTION 3
LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS
3.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
In the previous section, factors which affect leachate
generation were described. This section takes the next step and
attempts to relate hazardous waste leachate generation with the
expected pollutant characteristics of such leachate. For pur-
poses of this manual, leachate is regarded as the liquid which
drains-from the aqueous portion of disposed materials to the
leachate collection system.
Presumably, safeguards will be engineered into the disposal
operation which minimize dilution of the leachate due to perco-
lation of precipitation, or runoff, or flow through of extra-
neous water sources such as groundwater. Moreover, the collec-
tion system will intercept the leachate before migration from
the site and dilution can occur. Thus, the leachate is en-
visioned as a concentrated solution of chemicals representative
of soluble or leachable materials contained in the disposal
site. Another possible type of leachate is that from existing
hazardous waste disposal sites which may have been constructed
prior to implementation of RCRA regulations, and presently
require upgrading and retrofitting. Leachate from such land-
fills might be more dilute because of infiltration of extraneous
water. Contaminated surface water which has contacted hazardous
waste is expected to be even more dilute.
The intent of this section is to examine leachate charac-
teristics from new and existing secured landfills and surface
impoundments which accept hazardous materials for disposal.
This is a difficult task because little data are available on
existing facilities. Consequently, it was decided to secure
whatever existing data were available on leachates, and contam-
inated ground and surface water problems associated with haz-
ardous waste disposal operations. The belief is that current
data will provide information on compounds disposed in the past
and to some extent on migration of these compounds. However,
the concentrations found probably will be lower than for newly
permitted facilities because future efforts will be made to
exclude the extraneous dilution water.
Notable deficiencies in the existing data base include:
3-1
-------
• Very little data on actual hazardous waste leachate
exist. Most available leachate composition data pertain
to sanitary landfills.
• Reported information is such that it often is difficult
to distinguish between leachate and contaminated
groundwater, wherein some dilution has occurred.
• Most available composition data on contamination
associated with hazardous waste disposal sites pertains
to surrounding ground and surface wastes.
• Composition is highly variable from site to site, at
different sampling locations within a given site, and at
a given location over a period of time. (Factors that
contribute to variability were addressed in Section 2.)
• Analytical testing is difficult and very costly in a
complex hazardous aqueous waste pollution matrix. These
factors serve to limit the data base. In addition,
analytical errors and interferences also may contribute
to some of the variability.
• Because of the analytical complexity and expense,
"complete" characterizations are nonexistent.
• Comparison of leachates is hindered because no definitive
listing of chemicals disposed could be developed on a
site-by-site basis.
• There is a general lack of information regarding the
physical characteristics of each site.
Thus, the existing data base is characterized primarily by its
incompleteness and variability.
Despite the above cited deficiencies, available information
does give insight into leachate characteristics at actual haz-
ardous waste disposal sites. Moreover, the available informa-
tion can be used to provide guidance on the selection and eval-
uation of leachate treatment technologies.
Rather than attempt to formulate "typical" leachate compo-
sitions, this section focuses on providing and summarizing-
available characterization data on leachates, and contarifl-nated
ground and surface waters associated with existing hazardous
waste disposal sites. The latter categories were included be-
cause they represent the preponderance of the data base and
because they provide information on the types of compounds which
have been associated with previous disposal operations.
In summary, while it is not possible to characterize
3-2
-------
leachates precisely, sufficient information does exist to permit
definition of a range of management alternatives for leachates
at secured landfill sites.
3.2
LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS AT ACTUAL SITES
Because concern for proper management of hazardous wastes
has intensified only recently, published leachate data most
frequently describe sanitary landfill leachate rather than haz-
ardous waste leachate. Data from sanitary landfills was not
used in this manual. Rather, this manual relies heavily on a
recent report (1) which contains published and unpublished data
on ongoing hazardous waste disposal site studies. Much of the
data contained in that report was obtained in conjunction with
recent efforts to determine the magnitude of the national haz-
ardous waste disposal problem. Most often the data reflected
contamination of surface and groundwater resources by migrating
leachate rather than representing the characteristics of concen-
trated leachate. It is believed that this type of data, while
not fully elucidating leachate composition for treatability
purposes, does provide insight into the types of compounds which
actually have been identified in association with hazardous
waste disposal operations.
Characterization data on leachates, and contaminated ground
and surface waters in the proximity of 30 sites containing haz-
ardous wastes was compiled. Because of the large amount of
data, this information is presented in Appendix A. There is a
wide variation from site to site in the detail and completeness
of the data contained in Appendix A since relatively few sites
have been well characterized. Nevertheless, this data compila-
tion represents the best information available at this time.
A summary of the data contained in Appendix A is presented
in Table 3-1 which lists specific pollutants identified at the
30 sites, the range of concentrations reported, and the fre-
quency with which the pollutants were found. Chemical contam-
inants are listed in alphabetical order with an indication of
the pollutant grouping and chemical classification of each
compound.
Users of this manual should note that data in Appendix A
and Table 3-1 include more contaminants than those dealt with by
RCRA concerns. Leachate treatment processes must deal with a
broader spectrum of compounds than those listed in RCRA as
acutely ^hazardous, hazardous, or toxic. That is, treatment
processes must be designed to deal with hazardous constituents
in the matrix in which they occur. Moreover, it is likely that
effluent from a leachate treatment process -will have to meet
requirements in addition to RCRA regulations (e.g., NPDES, pre-
treatment).
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY LIST OF CONTAMINANTS REPORTED
to
I
Contaminant
Acetone
m-acetonylanisol
Ag
Al
Aldrin
Alkalinity, as CaCOs
Aniline
Aroclor 1016/1242
Aroclor 1016/1242/1254
Aroclor 1242/1254/1260
Aroclor 1254
As
Ba
Be
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene hexachloride
Benzene methanol
Benzoic acid
Benzylamine or o-toluidine
Biphenyl napthalene
Bis (2ethylhexyl) phthalate
Bis (pentafluorophenyl)
phenylphosphine
B
BOD 5 -itt'
Bromodichloromethane
2-Butanol
Contaminant Concentration
Pollutant Classifi- Range No. of Sites
Group* cation** Reported*** Reported
T
H,
A, H,
s,
H, P,
H, P,
H, P,
H, P,
H,
H
H,
H, P,
S
H, P,
C
P
P
P, S
T
S
S
S
S
P
P
S, T
T
2
4
7
7
10
8
4
9
9
9
9
7
7
7
4
4
4
1
4
3
13
12
2
7
8
6
1
<0. 1-62 ,000
<3-1357
1-10
124
<2-<10
20.6-5400 mg/1
<6. 2-1900
110-1900
66 mg/1-1.8 g/1
0.56-7.7
70
0.011-<10,000 mg/1
0.1-2,000 mg/1
7
P-3,100 mg/1
<1. 1-7370
P
4,600 mg/1
<3-12,311
<10-471
P
53 mg/1
<38
624
42-10,900 mg/1
ND-35
550 mg/1
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
6
5
1
2
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
Contaminant Concentration
Pollutant Classifi- Range No. of Sites
Contaminant Group* cation** Reported*** Reported
2-Butoxyethanol
( 1-Butylheptyl ) benzene
( 1-Butylhexyl ) benzene
( 1-Butyloctyl ) benzene
o-sec-butylphenol
p-sec-butylphenol
p-2-oxo-n-butylphenol
Ci^ alkylcyclopentadiene
Cs substituted cyclopentadiene
Ca
Camphene
Camphor
Carbofuran S
Cd H, P
Chloraniline
o-chloraniline A, H
Chlorobenzaldehyde
Chlorobenzene H, P, S, T
Chlorobenzyl alcohol
Chloroform H, P, S, T
l-chloro-3-nitrobenzene
4-chloro-3-nitrobenzamide
p-chloronitrobenzene
Chloronitrotoluene
2-chloro-n-phenylbenzamide
2-chlorophenol H, P, T
p-chlorophenyl methyl
sulf ide
2
4
4
4
11
11
11
6
6
7
4
4
10
7
4
4
4
4
1
6
4
4
4
4
4
11
4
<2,168
<36
<36
<36
<3-83
<3-48
<3-1546
P
P
164-2500 mg/1
P
<1 0-7571
P
5^8200
<10-86
ND-12,000
P
4.6-4620
P
0.02-4550
<8-340
440-8700
460-940
ND-460
<38
<3-48
<10-68
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
6
1
2
1
5
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
CO
I
cr\
Contaminant
p-chlorophenylmethyl sulfone
p-chlorophenyl methyl
sulfoxide
Cl
CN
Co
COD
Color
Cyclohexane
Cr
Cu
DDT
Dibromochloromethane
Dibutyl phthalate
2-6-dichlorobenzamide
Dichlorobenzene
4, 4' -Dichlorobenzophenone
3, 3'-dichloro [1, -l1-
Diphenyl]-4, 4 ' -diamine
1 , 1-dichloroethane
1, 2-dichloroethane
trans-1, 2-dichloroethane
Dichloroethylene
1, 1-dichloroethylene
1, 2-dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Dichloropropene
Contaminant Concentration
Pollutant Classifi- Range No. of Sites
Group* cation** Reported*** Reported
S
A,
C
s,
H,
P
H, S,
P,
H, P,
H, P,
H, P,
H, P,
H,
H, P,
H, P,
H,
H, P,
, H,
H, P,
H
T
P
T
T
T
S
T
S, T
P
S
S, T
P
S, T
S
S
4
4
8
8
7
8
8
2
7
7
10
6
12
4
4
4
3
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
<10-40
<10-53
3.65-9920 mg/1
0.5-14,000
10-220
24.6-41,400 mg/1
50-4,000 color units
<0. 4-22.0
1-208,000
1-16,000
4.28-14.26
3.9
21.732 mg/1
890-30,000
<10-517
<38
<84-1600
<5-14,280
2.1-4500
25-8150
10,000
28-19,850
0.2
3.1-6570
<22
P
1
1
6
2
1
6
1
1
7
9
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
5
2
1
5
1
4
1
1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
CO
I
Contaminant Concentration
Pollutant Classifi- Range No. of Sites
Contaminant Group* cation** Reported*** Reported
-f
Dicyclopentadiene
Dieldrin A, H, P, S
1, 2-Diethylbenzene
Diisopropyl methylphosphonate
Dimethyl aniline
Dimethyl ether
1 , 4-Dimethy 1-2- ( 1-methy 1-
ethyl ) benzene
1 , 2-Dimethyl naphthalene
Dimethyl pentene
2, 3-Dimethyl-2-pentene
Dimethylphenol S
2, 4-Dinitrophenol H, P, S, T
Diphenyldiazine
Dipropyl phthalate
Endrin A, P, S
Ethanol
2-Ethoxyethanola
1-Ethoxypropane
m-ethylaniline
Ethyl benzene P, S
( 1-Ethyldecyl) benzene
l-ethyl-2, 4-dimethyl benzene
2-ethyl-l, 4-dimethyl benzene
2-ethyl-l, 3-dimethyl benzene
l-ethyl-3, 5-dimethyl benzene
4-ethyl-l, 2-dimethyl benzene
l-ethyl-2-isopropyl benzene
2
10
4
2
4
5
4
13
2
2
11
11
4
12
10
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
80-1200
<2-4 . 5
7971
400-3600
<10-6940
10-100 mg/1
11,913
<1,453
10-100 mg/1
<8.6
<3
10-99
<36
<3883
<2-9
56,400
3,300
87,000
<10-7640
3.0-10,115
<36
<1453.0
<1453.0
<1453.0
12,507.0
<1453.0
<1453.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
U)
I
oo
Contaminant
Contaminant Concentration
Pollutant Classifi- Range No
Group* cation*** Reported**
2-ethylhexanol
2-ethyl-4-methyl- 1-pentanol
( 1-Ethylnonyl ) benzene
( 1-Ethyloctyl ) benzene
1-ethylpropylphenol
l-ethyl-2, 4, 5-trimethyl benzene
5-ethyl-l, 2, 4-trimethyl benzene
F
Fe
Halogenated Organics
Hardness, ^as CaCoa
Heavy Organics
Heptachlor
3-heptanone
1-Heptyl-l, 2, 3, 4-tetra-
hydro-4-methyl-naphthalene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane :
alpha isomer
beta isomer
gamma isomer
delta isomer
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexane -,v
Hg t0r
Hydrocarbons
A,
H,
H,
H,
H,
H,
H,
H,
H,
A,
H,
P,
P,
P,
P,
P,
P,
P,
P,
P
H
P, S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S, T
1
1
4
4
11
4
4
7
7
8
8
8
10
2
12
4
6
2
2
2
2
6
2
7
8
ND-23,000
22,168.0
<36
<36
<3.0
<1453.0
<1453.0
140-1300
90-678,000
2-15,900
700-4650 mg/1
0.01-0.59 mg/1
. 573
ND-1300
<36
32-<100
<2 0-109
ND-600
ND-70
ND-600
ND-120
<100
10-100 mg/1
0.5-7.0
<36-42,760
. of Sites
Reported
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
2
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
Contaminant
Pollutant
Group*
Contaminant
Classifi-
cation**
Concentration
Range
Reported***
No. of Sites
Reported
CO
i
VD
p-isobutylamisol or
p-acetonylanisol
Isopropanol a
IsoprophyIphenol
K
Kepone H, S, T
Light Organics
Limonene
MBAS
Methanol T
1-(2-Methoxy-l-methyleth-
oxy)-2 propanol
l-Methoxy-2-propanol
2-Methyl-2-butanol
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylcyclopentanol
(1-Methyldecyl) benzene
Methylene chloride P
Methylethyl benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone H, T
Methyl isobutyl ketone T
l-Methyl-3-(1-methyl-
ethany1)-cyclohexane
l-Methyl-3-(1-methylethyl)-
benzene
1-Methy1-4-(1-methylethyl)-
benzene
Methyl naphthalene
4
1
11
7
10
8
4
8
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
2
4
2
2
2
4
4
13
<3-86 1
<100 1
3-8 1
6.830-961 mg/1 3
2000 1
1.0-1000 mg/1 1
P 1
240 1
42,400 1
<2168 1
66,000 1
87,000 1
<0.4-11 1
1.7-2.168 mg/1 2
<36 1
<0.3 mg/1-184 mg/1 3
<1453.0 1
53 mg/1 1
2-10 mg/1 2
<1453.0 1
<1453.0 1
<1453.0 1
<10-290 1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
Contaminant
Pollutant
Group*
Contaminant
Classifi-
cation**
Concentration
Range
Reported***
No. of Sites
Reported
w
>L
o
1-Methyl naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthalene
(1-Methylnonyl) benzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanol
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Methylphenol
1-Methy1-4-phenoxybenzene
(2-Methyl-l-propenyl) benzene
(1-Methylundecyl) benzene
Mn
Mo
Na
Naphthalene
Nemagon
NH3-N
NH.J-N
Ni
nicotinic acid
o-nitroaniline
p-nitroaniline
nitrobenzene
NO2-N
NO 3-N
o-nitrophenol
n-nitrosodiphenylamine
Octachlorocyclopentene
Oil and grease
H, P, S, T
H
A, H
A, H
H, P, S, T
P, S
A, H
13
13
4
1
1
11
4
4
4
7
7
7
7
13
10
8
8
7
4
4
4
4
8
8
11
3
6
8
<1453.0 1
<1453.0 1
<36 1
140 mg/1 1
110 mg/1 1
<8.0-210 1
<8.4 to 670 1
<1453.0 1
<36 1
25-453 mg/1 3
0.010-550 mg/1 4
100-240 3
4.6-1350 mg/1 5
<10 mg/1-18,698 2
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
u>
H
Contaminant Concentration
Pollutant Classifi- Range No. of Sites
Contaminant Group* cation** Reported*** Reported
Paraffins
Pb
Pentachlorophenol A,
( 1-Pentylheptyl) benzene
Perchloroethylene
Petroleum oil
PH
Phenanthrene or anthracene
Phenol H,
Phenols H,
Phthalate esters
Phthalates
Pinene
PCH '
Polynuclear aromatics
( 1-Propylheptyl ) benzene
(1-Propylnonyl) benzene
( 1-Propyloctyl ) benzene
Sb
Se
SO* ' ..'; •
soc
Specific Conductance ( mhos/cm)
SS
Styrene
Sulfide
TDS
Temperature
H, P
H, P, S
P, T
C
P
P, S. T
P, S, T
P
P
H, P
H, P
C
S
2
7
11
4
6
13
8
13
11
11
12
12
2
8
13
4
4
4
7
7
8
8
8
8
4
8
8
8
P
1-19,000
2400
<36
ND-8200
P
^3-7.9 (pH scale)
<10-670
<3-17,000
0.008-54.17
P
P
P
<10-2740
3400
36
36
36
2000
3-590
1.2-505 mg/1
4200 mg/1
80-2000
<3-1040 mg/1
P
<100
1455-15,700 mg/1
58-63° F
1
6
1
1
5
1
7
1
• 4 i
Tafip-
1
1
1
4 f
-L 'v' •
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
2
4
1
1
4
1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
CO
I
•H
to
Contaminant
1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloro-
ethane
Tetrachloroethene
1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloro-
ethene
Tetrachloromethane
1, 2, 3, 5-Tetramethyl
Pollutant
Group*
H, P, T
H, T
H, T
H, P, S, T
Contaminant
Classifi-
cation**
6
6
6
6
4
Concentration
Range
Reported***
<5-1590
<1-89,155
0. 6-560
<1-25,000
36,479
No. of Sites
Reported
1
3
1
3
1
benzene
1, 2, 4, 5-Tetramethyl
benzene
Thiobismethane
TKN
TOG
Toluene
Total Inorganic Carbon
Total P
Total Solids
Tribromomethane
1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Trichloroethane
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichloromethane
2, 4, 5-Trichlorophenol
Trichlorotoluenes
C
C
H, P, S, T
H, P, T
H, P
H, P, T
H, P, T
H, P, T
H, T
H, P, S, T
P, T
P, S
H, S, T
2
8
8
4
8
8
8
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
11
4
<1,453 1
<1.0-290 1
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
u>
OJ
Contaminant
Trimethylbenzene
1, 2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
1, 2, 4-Triraethylbenzene
1 , 3 , 5-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene
m-xylene
o-xylene
p-xylene
ND - not detected
Pollutant
Group*
H, P, T
S, T
S, T
S, T
S, T
Contaminant
Classifi-
cation**
4
4
4
4
6
4
4
4
4
Concentration
Range
Reported***
P
13.702 mg/1
11.239 mg/1
37.113 mg/1
140-32,500
P-5400
19.708 mg/1
1453
48.170 mg/1
No. of Sites
Reported
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
P - present, but not quantified
a - structure not validated
* — ("!r»dAe fnr Pnl 1 n-Hanf- flmt
by actual
ir^e
compound
C - Conventional pollutants (per Clean Water Act and Treatability Manual, Vol.
III)
P - Priority pollutants
A - RCRA list - Acute hazardous
H - RCRA list - Hazardous
T - RCRA list - Toxic
S - Section 311 compound
- (a blank indicates that the compound does not fall into one of the above
groups)
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
u>
I
** Codes for Contaminant Classification
1 - Alcohol
2 - Aliphatic
3 - Amine
4 - Aromatic - nonhalogenated and halogenated aromatic compounds
5 - Ether
6 - Halocarbon-halogenated aliphatic compounds
7 - Metal
8 - Miscellaneous - including selected priority pollutants, pH, BOD, TOC, COD,
chloride, sulfate, phosphate, and other parameters
generally used to characterize wastewaters.
9 - PCB
10 - Pesticide
11 - Phenol - including chloro- and nitro- phenols
12 - Phthalate
13 - Polynuclear Aromatic
*** Concentrations in yg/1 unless otherwise noted
-------
To the extent possible, Table 3-1 identifies pollutant
types as defined by: the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA), the Clean Water Act of 1977(CWA),
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), and
the Treatability Manual (2). Specifically, the pollutant groups
used are:
• conventional pollutants*
• priority pollutants
• Section 311 compounds
« RCRA list of acutely hazardous compounds [261.33 (e)3
» RCRA list of hazardous compounds (Appendix VIII)
« RCRA list of toxic compounds C261.33. (f)3
In order .to more easily identify RCRA compounds, the manual
user is referred to Appendix B. The appendix contains an alpha-
betical listing of the three categories of RCRA pollutants con-
tained in Subpart D of the Hazardous Waste and Consolidated
Permit Regulations (3), i.e., acutely hazardous, hazardous, and
toxic.
Table 3-1 serves several useful purposes:
9 It provides a quick reference of the various compounds
identified at problem sites in alphabetical order.
* It defines the pollutant group into which the compound
falls.
• It classifies the compounds according to twelve chemical
classes similar to those used for priority pollutants.
• It specifies the ranges of concentratons encountered at
actual hazardous waste disposal sites.
• It indicates frequency of occurrence at actual waste
sites previously investigated.
• It places the data in a framework useful for development
*conventional pollutants as used in the Treatability Manual
include BOD 5, COD, TOG, TSS, oil and grease, total phenol, total
phosphorus, TKN, and total organic chlorine. This differs from
the CWA (Section 301) list of BOD 5, TSS, fecal coliform, oil and
grease, and pH.
3-15
-------
of treatment alternatives.
Conventional pollutant concentration data for six of the
sites (5, 6, 10, 11, 22, and 23) listed in Appendix A are given
in Table 3-2. Data on most of the pollutants listed in Table
3-2 were available for only six sites. Isolated conventional
pollutant values from other sites were not included.
The conventional pollutant parameters listed in Table 3-2
are important because they usually have a significant influence
on the treatment process to be selected. The range, median and
arithmatic mean values contained in Table 3-2 provide insight
into the character of these wastes with respect to how they may
be treated. Although the data are limited, three to five values
can be useful to form at least a preliminary concept.
TABLE 3-2. LIST OP CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATIONS REPORTED AT SIX SITES
Pollutant
BOD
COD
TOG
Alkalinity
pH
TDS
SS
NH3-N
TKN
NO3-N
PO^-P
Range
42
24.6
10.9
20.6
6.3
320 (3)
<3
<0.01
0.65
<0.012
<0.01
- 10,900
- 18,600
- 4,300
- 5,400
7.9
- 15,700
- 1,000
- 1,000
984
<3.1-
<0.1
Median Arithmetic Number of
Value Mean Values (1)
2,000
7,100
1,160
228 <2)
6.9
1,830
163
130
5.5
0.025
0.04
4,380
7,794
1,350
1,950
6.9
6,460
342
377
248
<0.05
<0.05
3.
5
4
3
4
5
4
3
4
3
3
(l)Average values from specific sites.
(2)Estimated from inorganic carbon and pH.
(S)Estimated from conductivity (640 mmhos x 0.5).
3-16
-------
A survey of ground and surface water quality in the
vicinity of 43 industrial waste disposal sites (landfills and
impoundments) is summarized in Table 3-3. This summary is a
further indication of the type of pollutants found at hazardous
waste disposal sites. Note that these data, although less de-
tailed than those shown in Appendix A, also have widely variable
concentration ranges.
TABLE 3-3
CHARACTERIZATION OF HAZARDOUS LEACHATE AND GROUNDWATER
FROM 43 LANDFILL SITES (1)
Concentration Typical Cone. No. of Sites
Pollutant Range (mg/1) (mg/1) Where Detected
Light
Halogenated
Heavy
As
Ba
Cr
Co
Cu
CN
Pb
Hg
Mo
Ni
Se
Zn
Organics
Organics
Organics
0.03
OV01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.3
0.0005
0.15
0.02
0.01
0.1
1.0
0.002
0.01
- 5.8
- 3.8
'- 4.20
- 0.22
- 2.8
- 14
- 19
- 0.0008
-0.24
- 0.67
- 0.59
- 240
- 1000
-15.9
-0.59
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
—
0.
—
0.
0.
3.
80
0.
0.
2
25
02
03
04
008
0006
15
04
0
005
1
5
24
10
11
15
14
3
5
2
16
21
9
10
5
8
Original Source of Data:
Geraghty and Miller, Inc. The Prevalence of Subsurface
Migration of Hazardous Chemical Substances at Selected
Industrial Waste Land Disposal Sites. EPA/530/SW-634,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.
Even though the data base presented above has deficiencies,
it does provide guidance in formulating treatment alternatives
provided that data are used with caution, recognizing that
leachate from secured landfills may have higher concentrations.
3.3 LEACHATE CATEGORIZATION
In order to extend the usefulness of the existing data
3-17
-------
base, and to gain additional insight into the probable nature of
hazardous waste leachates, a categorization system was devised
to group site composition data contained in Appendix A according
to the concentration of inorganic and organic constituents. In
this way, treatment alternatives potentially could be visualized
better. Hence, a matrix illustrated in Figure 3-1, was prepared
to show the concentrations of inorganic and organic constituents
in "high", "medium", and "low" ranges. In general, the working
definitions of these terms are as follows:
Hazardous ,
Inorganic
Constituent
Hazardous
Organic
Constituent
High greater than 5 times
water quality
criteria*
Medium from 2 to 5 times
water quality
criteria*
Low less than water
quality criteria*
greater than 400 ug/1
from 5 to 400 ug/1
less than 5 Ug/1
In addition to the hazardous constituents, if another parameter
such as BOD or TOG was reported in significant amounts (BOD >20
mg/1 or TOC >10 mg/1), the waste stream was considered to fall
into the high organic category. Although this system is not
rigorous, it does permit a useful grouping of the actual waste
streams.
Inspection of the matrix reveals that most of the actual
waste streams fall into one of two categories: high organic-low
inorganic or low organic-high inorganic. Fewer sites fell into
categories where both inorganic and organic components were
significant. Taking into account the fact that most of the data
used to construct this matrix were derived from situations where
migration and dilution had occurred, it i"s reasonable to assume
that actual hazardous waste leachates will fall into the higher
concentration categories. Thus, this matrix suggests that most
leachate treatment situations will involve aqueous streams con-
taining primarily either inorganic or organic contaminants at
relatively high concentrations. Situations will arise, however,
where both organic and inorganic contaminants will be present in
*Water quality criteria derived from Quality Criteria for Water,
U.S. E.P.A., Washington, D.C., July, 1976.
3-18
-------
FIGURE 3-1
WASTE STREAM CATEGORIZATION MATRIX
0
R
G
A
N
I
C
s
C
0
N
C
E
N
T
R
A
T
I
0
N
H
I
G
H
M
E ' -• '
D
I
U
M ..
L
0
W
INORGANICS CONCENTRATION
HIGH
Sites 006
Oil
Site 002
Sites 004
012
014
015
016
018
MEDIUM
Site 010
LOW
Sites 001
002
003
005
021
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
030
Sites 008
009
013
3-19
-------
leachates. The exact nature of the leachate, of course, will be
dependent upon the materials disposed to any given site.
3.4 REFERENCES
1. Shuckrow, A. J., A. P. Pajak, and J. W. Osheka.
Concentration Technologies for Hazardous Aqueous Waste
Treatment. EPA-600/2-81-019, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1981.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Treatability
Manual, Volume I. Treatability Data and Volume III
Technologies for Control/Removal of Pollutants. EPA-
600/8-80-042a and EPA-600/8-80-042c, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., July, 1980.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
and Consolidated Permits Regulations.
Vol. 45, No. 98, May 19, 1980.
Hazardous Waste
Federal Register,
3-20
-------
SECTION 4
HAZARDOUS WASTE LEACHATE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
4.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
In the broadest sense, leachate management optio.ns include
all of the decision factors throughout the entire hazardous
waste management process which have an impact on the nature or
generation potential of leachate. Thus, consideration of
leachate management options could begin with the manufacturing
process and extend through the hazardous waste management chain
to leachate treatment/disposal operations. This concept is
illustrated in Figure 4-1 which divides the hazardous waste
management process into four elements: (!) waste generation, (2)
hazardous waste treatment, (3) disposal site management, and (4)
leachate treatment/disposal.
As indicated in Figure 4-1, hazardous waste generation can
be minimized by:
• substituting raw materials,
• modifying manufacturing processes to reduce waste gener-
ation and/or to use recycled materials,
• segregating hazardous and non-hazardous wastes,
• reclaiming constituents in the hazardous waste for reuse
or sale, and
• exchanging wastes with entities capable of using them in
their production process.
Detailed consideration of the above measures is beyond the scope
of this manual because source reduction is highly facility spe-
cific. Moreover, leachate management is only one of a number of
complex considerations which enter into decisions about changes
in the manufacturing process.
Therefore, this section deals with three leachate manage-
ment options:
4-1
-------
MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
AFFECTING LEACHATE GENERATION
WASTE
GENERATION
hazardous
waste
Jnon-hazardous
Ywaste
raw material substitution
process modification
waste volume reduction
waste recovery/reuse
waste exchange
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
TREATMENT
hazardous
waste
non-hazardous
YWS
vaste
waste blending or segregation
recovery
treatment
encapsulation
stabilization
residue/by-product destruction
DISPOSAL
SITE
MANAGEMENT
• site design to control
leachate generation
• segregation of wastes or leachates
that complicate treatment
• leachate collection
leachate
LEACHATE
TREATMENT/
DISPOSAL
off-site treatment/disposal
on-site treatment
- effluent discharge
— residue disposal
Figure 4-1.
Waste management options
generation.
- effect on leachate
4-2
-------
(1) Hazardous Waste Treatment - processing hazardous waste
prior to disposal to reduce or eliminate the hazardous
properties of the waste, or to reduce the potential
leachability of the waste;
(2) Disposal Site Management - managing the disposal site
to control the quantity of leachate generated, and/or
to effect the nature and treatability of the leachate;
(3) Leachate Treatment/Disposal - processing the leachate
to render it acceptable for discharge or ultimate dis-
posal.
Hence, leachate generation and its treatment/disposal is
influenced directly by precedent hazardous waste treatment and
disposal site options. In order to deal effectively with
leachate,. it is important that the reader have a thorough under-
standing of all the various options available. However, as a
practical matter, site operators may not have full control over
some of these options, and it is expected that leachate will be
generated at most sites.
Thus, the central focus of this section is upon leachate
management subsequent to leachate generation. Because companion
manuals in this series discuss facets of waste treatment and
disposal site management in detail, this manual provides only
brief descriptions of some options, referring the user to the
appropriate companion manuals for details. On the other hand,
information on leachate treatment/disposal options from this
section - forms the basis of the remainder of this report.
4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT
Treatment prior to disposal of hazardous waste can accom-
plish one or more of the following:
(1) detoxification of the entire waste stream;
(2) concentration of hazardous constituents in a reduced
volume waste stream which can be further treated, de-
toxified, destroyed, or reused;
(3) fixation of the waste in a matrix which will inhibit
leaching; and
(4) encapsulation of the waste to prevent leaching.
The treatment approach chosen in any given instance depends upon
numerous factors including waste characteristics, degree of
treatment necessary, and availabililty and cost of materials.
In addition, treatment may be undertaken at the 'point of gener-
ation of the waste or at a central waste treatment facility.
4-3
-------
Whereas treatment at the point of generation would involve an
approach highly specific to wastes generated at a given site, a
central hazardous waste treatment facility generally will
include several treatment operations to permit processing a
variety of wastes.
Decisions to treat or not to treat a hazardous waste prior
to disposal and how best to accomplish such treatment involve a
number of complex factors and are highly situation specific.
Moreover, the factors involved encompass broader concerns than
leachate management.
Companion resource documents in this EPA series describe
various aspects of hazardous waste treatment in detail. Perti-
nent documents include:
Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment;
Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Incineration;
Engineering Handbook for Hazardous Waste
Incineration;
Guide to the Disposal of Chemically Stabilized and
Solidified Wastes, SW-872; and
Hazardous Waste Land Treatment, SW-874.
The interested reader is referred to the above resource docu-
ments for in depth discussions of various hazardous waste*
treatment technologies. Briefly, the technologies which may be
employed to accomplish detoxification or concentration of a
hazardous constituent include:
Air stripping
Biological treatment
Carbon adsorption
Centrifugation
Dissolution
Distillation
Evaporaton
Filtration
Flocculation
Flotation
High gradient
magnetic separation
Incineration
Ion exchange
Liquid ion exchange
Liquid-1 iquid..
solvent extraction
Oxidation/Reduction
Precipitation
Resin adsorption
Reverse osmosis
Sedimentation
Steam stripping
Ultrafiltration
Wet oxidation
This list is not exhaustive. It also should be noted that the
technologies listed are unit processes which often are used as
components of a larger process train (treatment system). More-
over, these treatment techniques produce secondary waste streams
4-4
-------
which themselves require further treatment or disposal. Such
waste residues, sludges, or brines may or may not, be hazardous.
Of greatest concern to the user of this manual is the nature of
the secondary hazardous waste stream and its potential impact on
leachate generation.
Another pre-disposal treatment procedure can be used to
minimize the leachability of a waste. The goal of solidifica-
tion/fixation is to decrease the solubility and/or increase the
volume-to-surface area ratio of the hazardous waste, limiting
the mobility of a compound through the landfill or surface
impoundment. This is normally accomplished by chemically or
physically binding the waste to a fixing agent or by encapsu-
lating the waste. The technique does not actually detoxify the
waste; rather, it reduces the rate of release of toxic constit-
uents.
Six types of chemical stabilization methods are listed
below:
• silicate and cement based
• lime based
• self-cementing
• thermoplastic based
• organic polymer based
• vitrification '. - , : = '.-..,-...' . ?;
The advantages, disadvantages, and the most applicable waste
type for eaph stabilization technique are shown in Table 4-1.
Most of the listed methods are applicable primarily to inorganic
wastes.
Encapsulation involves combining the waste with a small
amount of a binder material, forming the mixture into a; suitable
shape, and then coating it with a jacket of material such as
polyethylene. The resulting product is very water resistant; it
is also virtually leach-free as long as the jacket is intact.
Encapsulation has not been demonstrated on a large scale.
4.3 DISPOSAL SITE MANAGEMENT
. Several opportunities exist to control or limit leachate .
formation at the hazardous waste landfill or impoundment. These
methods generally involve limiting water percolation into and
through the disposal site by means of liners, covers, and other
liquid diversion techniques. The reader is referred,to the fol-
lowing technical resource documents for detailed discussions of
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-1. STABILIZATION/FIXATION TECHNIQUES
TECHNOLOGY
STABILIZATION
PROCESS
APPLICABLE
WASTES
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Cement and silicate
based solidification/
fixation
Chemical fixation/
solidification
Lime based solidifica-
tion/fixation
Self-cementing tech-
niques
Chemical fixation/
solidification
Chemical fixation/
solidification
I
a\
Thermoplastic based
solidification/fix-
ation
Organic polymer pro-
cesses
Physical fixation
Physical fixation
Dry or wet
(generally
inorganic)
Dry or wet
(generally
inorganic)
Dry or wet
Dry (generally
Inorganic)
Dry or vet
(primarily
toxic
organics)
Employs inexpensive materials
Tolerant of diverse chemical
conditions
Very effective with heavy metal
wastes
Represents highly developed
technology
Employs inexpensive materials
Represents highly developed
technology
Addition of flyash allows dis-
posal of two waste products
in one process
Process requires few additives
Cement mixture sets very
quickly
Very effective in reducing
chemical migration
Leaching solutions have little
effect on products
Only a small amount of fix-
ative is required Co form
the polymer's matrix
Relatively low density of
product reduces transporta-
tion costs
Some organics detrimental to set-
ting of concrete
Uncoated cement/sludge Dlxtures
subject to degradation and leach-
ing under conditions of low pll
Increased weight and size of waste
Increase transport and landfilling
costs
Same as for cement and sllicated
based solidification/fixation
Some organics detrimental to set-
ting of concrete
Uncoated cement/sludge mixtures
subject to degradation and leach-
ing under conditions of low pll
Increased weight and size of waste
Increase transport and landfill-
ing costs
Requires expensive equipment and
skilled labor
Process restricted to wastes with a
high calcium sulfite/sulfate con-
tent
Requires expensive equipment and
skilled labor
Wet wastes reduce effectiveness
of process
Cannot be used with strong oxl-
dancs, dehydrated salts or thermo-
plastic solvents
Haste Is held very loosely In
the polymer
Low pH of catalysts tends to
make metals more soluble
Biodegradability of some poly-
mers may create landfilling
problems
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4-1 (continued)
Vitrification
Physical fixation
Dry
Encapsulation
Chemical containment Dry or wet
Vitrified material has an
extremely low leach race
Provides a high degree of
containment
Employs inexpensive materials
Product is very water resistant
Virtually leach-free as long as
the Inert jacket is intact
Life cycle cost Is competitive
or lower than other technologies
High temperatures may vaporize
some hazardous waste constitu-
ents before they are fixed
Requires large heat expenditure,
expensive equipment, and skilled
personnel
Costs prohibitive to all but high
level radioactive and extremely
toxic wastes
Leaching will commence if jacket
is damaged
Hot demonstrated on a large scale.
-------
these various techniques:
Evaluating Cover Systems for Solid and Hazardous Waste,
SW-867;
Hydrologic Simulation on Solid Waste Disposal Sites,
SW-868;
Landfill and Surface Impoundment Performance Evaluation,
SW-869;
Lining of Waste Impoundment and Disposal Facilities,
SW-870; and
Closure of Hazardous Waste Surface Impoundments, SW-
873.
Another disposal site management option which may impact
leachate composition is waste segregation prior to disposal.
That is, it may be desirable to dispose of certain types of
wastes in separate cells at the site or exclude others alto-
gether. Such an approach could be used to avoid combining
wastes which would.ultimately complicate leachate treatment.
Decisions regarding waste segregation, however, include factors
in addition to leachate management considerations and are, to a
large degree, site specific. Therefore, such evaluations must
be made on a case-by-case basis.
Regardless of measures adopted to limit leachate gener-
ation, a leachate is likely to be formed, especially in areas
where precipitation exceeds evaporation and/or at sites used for
disposal of liquid-containing hazardous wastes. Thus, leachate
collection and storage systems are an integral part of disposal
site management.
The need for and methods of leachate collection depend on
local conditions at the site. Leachate volume fluctuations make
collection and storage key factors in treating hazardous waste
leachate. The volume of leachate can vary significantly with
time because of rainfall and snowmelt conditions that may affect
the landfilled area. Effective collection allows for an equal-
izing and storage capability which will reduce overloading and
avoid possible reduction in subsequent treatment process effi-
ciency. Collection and storage may also allow for a reduction
in the necessary equipment cost by providing for periodic or
batch treatment of the leachate. This potentially could permit
a mobile unit to treat the leachate from several sites on^a ro-
tating basis, increasing treatment unit utilization and de-
creasing individual site cost.
The remainder of this manual focuses on managing leachate
subsequent to generation and collection.
4-8
-------
4.4 LEACHATE MANAGEMENT
Once leachate has been collected, numerous alternatives
exist for treatment and disposal. Treatment can be accomplished
either off-site or on-site. By using off-site treatment, dis-
posal from the landfill operator's perspective also is accom-
plished. In the case of on-site treatment, disposal options must
be examined in concert with treatment options because of the
different degrees of treatment which may be required. Typi-
cally, disposal can be accomplished bys
• discharge to receiving surface waters,
• discharge to publicly owned treatment works,
» shipment to a hazardous waste treatment facility,
« deep well injection, or
• land treatment.
In the remainder of this section, off-site treatment is
discussed briefly and important considerations are identified.
Then, an overview of on-site treatment is presented (available
treatment technologies are discussed in Section 5) and disposal
considerations are discussed.
4.4.1 Off-Site Treatment/Disposal Options
Off-site treatment/disposal of leachate for purposes of
this manual refers to treatment/disposal at a facility hot asso-
ciated with the landfill or surface impoundment operation. Pri-
mary off-site treatment/disposal alternatives include:
• publicly owned treatment works (POTW),
• hazardous waste treatment/disposal facilities, and
• industrial waste treatment facilities.
Technologies used at an off-site facililty can be any of
those listed in Section 5 of this manual. Other possible tech-
nologies include land treatment and deep well injection. The
former technology serves as both a treatment and disposal pro-
cess while the latter is a disposal mechanism.
Primary concerns of the owner of the leachate generating
facility need not be with the technologies employed at an ap-
proved off-site facility but rather with proper manifesting,
on-site storage, transportation, and pretreatment of the
leachate and the associated economics. The reader is reminded
that if the leachate is determined to be a hazardous waste, it
4-9
-------
must be managed the same as any other hazardous waste. This
means that if it is transported to another site for any purpose
(treatment/disposal) the hazardous waste manifest requirements
(under RCRA) must be satisfied.
Additionally, if the leachate generating facility col-
lects hazardous leachate in surface impoundments either for
storage prior to transport off the site or as part of the on-
site treatment process, the impoundment must comply with perti-
nent RCRA regulations. Additional information on impoundment
design and performance can be found in the following technical
resource documents:
• Lining of Waste Impoundment and Disposal Facilities,
SW-870,
• Landfill and Surface Impoundment Performance Evaluation,
SW-869, and
• Closure of Hazardous Waste Surface Impoundment, SW-873.
Numerous factors should be evaluated before selecting or
approving an off-site treatment/disposal option. Costs and
guarantees provided by the off-site facility will be major con-
siderations. However, other important factors (which may or may
not influence costs) also should be considered:
• availability and proximity of an approved off-site
facility;
• technologies employed at the off-site facility;
• need for pretreatment prior to shipment off site;
• duration of the required service;
• projected operating life of the off-site facility;
• regulatory agency limitations on the off-site facility
including air, water, and waste permits;
• capacities of the off-site facility;
• reliability of service which can be provided by the
off-site facility;
• quantity of hazardous leachate to be transported and
methods of transport;
• public attitudes or other constraints to shipment of the
hazardous leachate;
4-10
-------
• capability to establish on-site treatment including cap-
ital, land, and qualified personnel;
• disposal options if on-site treatment is feasible;
• expected variations in leachate quality during the life
of the disposal site including post-closure period; and
• ability of the off-site facility to accept varying qual-
ity leachates or availability of another facility to ac-
cept leachate should quality or quantity change due to
changes in disposal site practices or aging of the dis-
posal site.
For a number of reasons, it is expected that off-site treatment
will be feasible only in a limited number of cases. In most
instances, neither POTWs nor industrial waste treatment facil-
ities will be available at reasonable distances or will be tech-
nically capable of accepting hazardous leachate while still sat-
isfying their permit requirements. It also is unlikely that
such facilities will assume the potential liabilities associated
with accepting a hazardous leachate which is expected to vary in
composition and quantity. Therefore, stringent pretreatment re-
quirements probably would be imposed making on-site treatment a
necessity.
Leachate treatment at a central hazardous waste treatment
facility is likely to be technically feasible. Transportation
costs are expected to be a key factor in determining the via-
bility of this option, at least until more approved hazardous
waste treatment facilities become available.
4.4.2 On-Site Treatment/Disposal
On-site hazardous leachate treatment can be used to ac-
complish either pretreatment of the leachate with discharge to
another facility for additional treatment before disposal or
treatment complete enough to meet direct discharge limitations.
Pretreatment processes will be dictated by the capabilities of
the subsequent off-site facility. Objectives of pretreatment
could be to:
« equalize leachate quality and quantity fluctuations and
provide short term storage;
• adjust pH to within acceptable limits for discharge
to a POTW;
• reduce concentrations of toxic components to acceptable
levels for discharge to a POTW;
4-11
-------
• remove hazardous constituents so that a portion of the
leachate can be judged non-hazardous; the hazardous or
non-hazardous fraction could be shipped to off-site
treatment; or
• reduce the volume of leachate transported off-site.
Complete treatment, on the other hand, should produce an
effluent suitable for discharge to surface water or groundwater.
Thus, the major difference between complete on-site treatment
and pretreatment is likely to be the extent of the treatment.
That is, the treatment technologies are essentially the same,
but the extent of application will differ depending upon ef-
fluent objectives.
Potential leachate treatment technologies are discussed in
Section 5. Unfortunately, there has been very little actual
application of these technologies to hazardous waste leachate
treatment. However, experience with other applications can be
used to guide selection of leachate treatment schemes. Section
6 of this manual addresses the various decision factors involved
in selection of leachate treatment sequences.
Most leachate treatment processes will result in the pro-
duction of by-products such as sludges, air pollution control
residues, spent adsorption or ion exchange materials, or fouled
membranes which also require disposal. Because these materials
will contain hazardous constituents, they also must be dealt
with as hazardous wastes. One apparent alternative is on-site
disposal. Another is off-site disposal; however, manifest re-
quirements and transportation costs are disadvantages. Treat-
ment of the residue by dewatering, fixation, or other methods
prior to disposal will be influenced by disposal site require-
ments and residue handling procedures. Residue disposal con-
siderations may be the determining factor in selection of a
leachate management technique.
In addition to treatment technology, other considerations
important to design of an effective on-site leachate management
program include:
• sampling and monitoring of raw leachate composition and
quality of effluent and by-product streams,
• manifesting of hazardous leachate and residues shipped
off the site,
• personnel safety and training,
• routine maintenance,
• contingency plans and emergency provisions, and
4-12
-------
• equipment redundancies and back-up.
These items are discussed in further detail in Sections 7 and 8
of this manual.
One possible approach to on-site leachate management
which is not discussed subsequently is leachate recycling. This
approach involves the controlled collection and recirculation of
leachate through a landfill for the purpose of promoting rapid
landfill stabilization. The precise mode of operation of
leachate recycling is poorly understood since it has only re-
cently been investigated in sanitary landfill simulations.
Therefore, the state of development of this technique is judged
to be insufficient for it to merit further consideration as a
primary approach to hazardous waste leachate management at this
time. However, leachate recycling may have some merit as an
interim measure under certain circumstances as discussed in
Section 6.
4.5
SUMMARY
This section described various hazardous waste leachate
management options. Methods to minimize waste generation were
judged to be beyond the scope of this manual. Treatment of haz-
ardous wastes prior to emplacement influence leachate gener-
ation, but are dealt with in detail in other technical resource
documents. Likewise, disposal site management options are des-
cribed in detail elsewhere. Hence, the principal focus was upon
leachate management, i.e., treatment and disposal, which can be
performed either off-site or at the waste disposal site. Based
upon the findings of this section, on-site treatment/disposal is
the most likely option. Therefore, as indicated above, this
manual will emphasize the on-site treatment/disposal alterna-
tive .
4-13
-------
-------
SECTION 5
LEACHATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
5.. 1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
The objective of this section is to provide information on
technologies which have potential application to hazardous waste
leachate treatment. The section is organized to first present
information on the treatability of specific compounds which may
be present in leachate. This and other information then is used
to judge the potential applicability of the following twenty
unit treatment processes:
Biological Treatment
Carbon Adsorption
Catalysis
Chemical Oxidation
Chemical Reduction
Chemical Precipitation
Crystallization
Density Separation
Dialys is/Electrod ialys is
Distillation
Evaporation
Filtration
Flocculation
Ion Exchange
Resin Adsorption
Reverse Osmosis
Solvent Extraction
Stripping
Ultrafiltration
Wet Oxidation
These processes then are organized into categories based upon
application potential and operating experience. A matrix is
provided to aid identification of the most applicable processes
on the basis of leachate chemical composition.
Subsequently, attention is directed to by-products which
may be formed during leachate treatment. These include resid-
uals and gaseous emissions. Finally, capital and operating cost
information is given for selected technologies.
Because hazardous waste leachates vary widely in composi-
tion and often contain a diversity of constituents, it is likely
that process trains comprised of several unit treatment tech-
nologies will be needed to achieve high levels of treatment in
the most cost-.effeetive manner. Thus, the information contained
in this section can be used to formulate process trains from
individual unit processes each intended to fulfill a given task.
Section 6 of this manual addresses selection of a treatment
process for a given situation and presents example process
5-1
-------
trains for selected situations.
Although research (1,2) currently is underway to better
define performance and design criteria for hazardous waste
leachate treatment technologies, actual full scale treatment
process applications are few. Activated carbon adsorption and
chemical coagulation/precipitation are the only technologies
known to have been used in larger scale applications.
Experience with .sanitary landfill leachate treatment is
more extensive but'is still somewhat limited. On the other
hand, many technologies have been used to treat industrial pro-
cess wastewaters containing hazardous constituents. This indus-
trial experience has some applicability to leachate treatment
because of similarities in chemical constituents and discharge
goals. Thus, the •'treatment technologies considered in this
manual include those which have been applied to wastes in all
three of the above categories - - hazardous waste leachate, san-
itary landfill leachate, and industrial process wastewaters.
Information contained in this manual should enable the user
to identify treatment technologies which may be applicable in
given situations and to determine approximate levels of perfor-
mance. Conceptual design may be possible in some cases; how-
ever, because leachate composition will be variable and process
performance will be extremely wastewater specific, actual treat-
ability studies are recommended to screen potential processes
and develop design criteria - - if a leachate is available.
5.2 TREATABILITY OF LEACHATE CONSTITUENTS
A recent Environmental Protection Agency report (1) summa-
rized data on the treatability of over 500 compounds, many of
which are listed in Subtitle C, Section 3001 of RCRA. Although
the focus of the report is on concentration technologies and it
thus does not fully address all potential leachate treatment
options, much useful information is contained therein. There-
fore the summary treatability data contained in this report is
reproduced in Append.ix Table E-l. This information can be used
to guide one in the identification of potential hazardous waste
leachate treatment technologies. However, because this infor-
mation was derived from numerous studies, ranging from labora-
tory to full scale on wastewaters ranging from pure compounds to
industrial wastes and leachates, the reader is cautioned not to
directly apply these published data to a leachate treatment
situation.
Primary organization of Appendix Table E-l is by treatment
process. For each process, the treatability of individual chem-
ical compounds is given with the compounds arranged in alphabet-
ical order within chemical classifications. The following
treatment processes are included:
5-2
-------
Process
Process Code No.
Used in Table E-l
Biological
Coagulation/Precipitation
Reverse Osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Stripping
Solvent Extraction
Carbon Adsorption
Resin Adsorption
Miscellaneous Sorbents
I
II
III
IV
V
VII
IX
X
XII
The chemical classification system used is as .follows:
Chemical Classification
Alcohols
Aliphatics
Amines
Aromatics
Ethers
Halocarbons
Metals
PCBs
Pesticides
Phenols
Phthalates
Polynuclear Aromatics
Classification Code No
Used in Table E-l
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
I
J
K
L
M
In order to facilitate use of Appendix Table E-l, an index
has been prepared and is presented immediately before Table E-l.
This index lists compounds contained in Table E-l in alphabet-
ical order and indicates for each compound its pollutant group
(RCRA, Section 311, or Priority Pollutant), chemical classifi-
cation (alcohol, aliphatic, etc.), and the compound code number
used in Appendix Table E-l. This latter number can be used to
locate the compound in the main table.
In order to present the large quantity of information in a
concise manner, it was necessary to code some of the information
in Table E-l. The coding system is explained in footnotes at
the end, of the Appendix.
Many chemical compounds are known by several names. At-
tempts were made to use preferred or generic names according to
The Merck Index. However, in some cases it was necessary to use
the names which were used in the reference documents. Users of
Appendix E are advised to check for compounds under several po-
tential alphabetic listings.
5-3
-------
Once the compounds of concern in a leachate have been iden-
tified, the user can refer to Appendix E to learn which treat-
ment techniques have been applied to each hazardous constitutent
found in the leachate. These techniques then can be evaluated
for treatment feasibility, and a treatment scheme can be pro-
posed based on a combination of the treatment options for the
various constituents. For example, suppose a leachate sample is
analyzed and found to contain significant concentrations of
acrylonitrile and 2-chlorophenol. Table E-l shows that acti-
vated sludge is a common treatment technique with removal effi-
ciencies of over 90% for both compounds. Thus, activated sludge
is a potentially viable treatment option. However, the waste
type listed in the table also must be considered because direct
correlation to leachate may not be possible. In this example,
the acrylonitrile treatability study was done on an industrial
wastewater and the 2-chlorophenol waste type was not known.
Activated sludge should be considered an option for leachate
control but not installed until additional testing has been com-
pleted. The information in the table should be used as a guide-
line and not as a rule.
Additional information on the treatability of 203 specific
compounds is contained in the Treatability Manual, Volume I,
Treatability Data (4). As stated in that manual, pollutants
addressed were taken from the list of 297 compounds considered
in Section 311 of the Water Pollution Control Act. Selection
was based on a consideration of pollutant toxicity and stability
in an aqueous environment. For each pollutant three items are
presented:
• description of the pure species,
• industrial occurrence, and
• treatability/removability.
It should be noted that the Treatability Manual is oriented to-
ward .treatment of industrial wastewater rather than hazardous
waste leachate.
5.3 UNIT PROCESS APPLICATION POTENTIAL
As indicated in Section 5.1, twenty unit processes were
identified as possibly applicable to hazardous waste leachate
treatment. These unit processes were reviewed and assessed as
to their potential for the application of interest. Unit pro-
cess application potentials are discussed below. No attempt has
been made to provide information on the theory, design, or oper-
ation of the technologies. Descriptions of the technologies may
be found in standard texts and design manuals. References (1)
and (3) may be especially useful supplemental information
sources. Application data for several technologies to sanitary
5-4
-------
landfill leachate and industrial wastewater treatment are sum-
marized in Appendices C and D, respectively.
5.3.1 Biological Treatment
Biological processes are, in general, the most cost-effec-
tive techniques for treating aqueous waste streams containing
organic constituents. They have been applied successfully at
full scale to a wide variety of industrial wastes and sanitary
landfill, although there are no known full scale hazardous waste
treatment facilities. Environmental impacts associated with
biological processes are limited. Probably of greatest concern
in this regard is the potential release of volatile organic com-
pounds to the atmosphere as a result of aeration.
Hazardous waste leachates may contain organic compounds
which are not readily biodegradable. Therefore, it may be nec-
essary to acclimate a biological system to the waste to be
treated prior to routine operation of the process. Moreover,
leachates may contain compounds which are refractory and/or
toxic to biological systems. The presence of such compounds at
high concentrations may preclude use of biological treatment_or
may necessitate use of another treatment process in conjunction
with biological treatment.
For biological processes to function, several operational
requirements must be satisfied. Most notable, near neutral pH
must be'maintained and nutrient requirements (carbon, nitrogen,
and phosphorus as well as trace elements) must be satisfied.
Moreover, sudden changes in loading (both concentration and
flow) must be avoided.
Of the biological treatment options, the activated sludge
process, in one of its modifications, appears to have the great-
est potential for leachate treatment because it can be con-
trolled to the greatest extent and best lends itself to the de-
velopment of an acclimated culture. However, anaerobic filtra-
tion or anaerobic lagoons because of ease of operation, minimal
sludge production, and energy efficiencies merit consideration
in some situations. Thus, biological treatment is judged to be a
viable technology which should be considered for treatment of
hazardous waste leachates containing organic constituents.
-3E • '
5-5
-------
5.3.2 Carbon Adsorption - ~"
Activated carbon adsorption is a well developed technology
which has a wide range of potential waste treatment applica-
tions. It is especially well suited for the removal of mixed
organic contaminants from aqueous wastes. Numerous examples of
full scale waste treatment applications exist. These include
treatment of a variety of industrial wastewaters, cleanup of
spilled hazardous materials, and treatment of leachates and
ground and surface waters contaminated by hazardous wastes.
No serious environmental impacts are associated with carbon
systems employing regeneration. If regeneration is not carried
out/ impacts could result from the disposal of carbon contami-
nated with hazardous materials.
Energy requirements for systems employing thermal reacti-
vation are significant - approximately 14,000-18,600 kJ/kg of
carbon (6,000-8,000 Btu per pound).
Unit costs for carbon adsorption can vary widely depending
upon the waste to be treated, the adsorption system, and the
regeneration technique. However, it has been shown to be an
economical approach in numerous instances.
Carbon adsorption must be considered a viable candidate for
treatment of hazardous leachates containing organic contam-
inants. Granular activated carbon is the most well developed
approach and may be used to provide complete treatment, pre-
treatment, or effluent polishing. Combined biological-carbon
sys.tems also appear promising for leachate treatment.
5.3.3 Catalysis
Several potential applications of catalysis to waste treat-
ment have been identified but commercial practicality has not
been demonstrated.
Catalysts generally are very selective and, while poten-
tially applicable to destruction or detoxification of a given
component of a complex waste stream, do not have broad spectrum
applicability.
5.3.4 Chemical Oxidation
Relatively poor removals of most organics are effected by
chemical oxidation; although, chemical transformations may occur
which could facilitate treatment by other processes. Inorganics
often can be transferred to a valence state which is less toxic
5-6
-------
or which facilitates precipitation. Most chemical oxidation
technologies (including ozone) are fairly well developed and
have been demonstrated successfully at full scale on several
industrial wastewaters and at laboratory scale on numerous
organic compounds representing several chemical classifications.
Applications, however, have been generally on dilute waste
streams.
Ozonation, especially, is judged to have potential for
aqueous hazardous waste treatment. It can serve as a pretreat-
ment process prior to biological treatment; it also can be used
alone or in concert with UV irradiation as the primary treat-
ment process. Combination of ozonation and granular activated
carbon has yielded mixed results; it appears that wastewater
composition greatly influences the performance of this process
train.
Oxidation using ozone or hydrogen peroxide does not
result in the formation of chlorinated organics which may be
a problem when using alkaline chlorination. Residual ozone
in the effluent decomposes but off-gases containing residual
ozone should be passed through activated carbon to decompose
the ozone.
5.3.5 Chemical Reduction
As with chemical oxidation, reduction is an effective
means of removing inorganic compounds or reducing their toxic-
ity. However, because compounds are concentrated in a pre-
cipitated sludge, this residue may require careful management.
Introduction of foreign ions into the waste is a real or
potential disadvantage with many of the reducing agents. A
major application for chemical reduction would be reduction
of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium using sulfur
dioxide, sulfite salts, or ferrous sulfate. Precipitation of
trivalent chromium as Cr(OH)3 with lime or sodium carbonate
usually follows reduction.
The process has little potential for organic waste streams.
5.3.6 Chemical Precipitation
Precipitation processes have been in full scale operation
for-many years. The technique can be applied to almost any
liquid waste stream containing a precipitable hazardous constit-
uent. Required equipment is commercially available. Associated
costs are relatively low and thus, precipitation can be applied
to relatively large volumes of liquid wastes. Energy consump-
tion also is relatively low.
5-7
-------
Precipitation processes result in the production of a wet
sludge which may be considered hazardous and must be further
processed prior to ultimate disposal. In some instances, the
potential for material recovery from this sludge exists. How-
ever, very often, non-target materials are precipitated together
with the material of interest thus complicating or eliminating
the feasibility of material recovery.
Usually, simple treatability studies must be carried out
prior to applying the process to a waste stream to determine the
chemical of choice, the degree of removal, and the required
chemical dose.
In most instances, precipitation is considered to be the
technique of choice for removal of metals (arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, fluoride, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel)
and certain anionic species (phosphates, sulfates, fluorides)
from aqueous hazardous wastes.
5.3.7 Crystallization
The inability of the crystallization process to respond to
changing wastewater characteristics and its operational complex-
ity are primary reasons why this process has not been reduced to
practice. There is no ongoing research and past efforts to
treat a variety of industrial wastewaters and sludges have had
limited success. This process is judged to have little poten-
tial for the application of interest.
5.3.8 Density Separation
Density separation, as discussed herein, includes sedimen-
tation and flotation because they are the most commonly used
techniques for solids/liquids separation in wastewater treat-
ment.
Sedimentation processes have been in use for many years,
are easy to operate, are low-cost, and consume little energy.
Required equipment is relatively simple and commercially avail-
able. The process can be applied to almost any liquid waste
stream containing settleable material. It is considered to have
high potential for leachate treatment. However, it is an ancil-
lary process which will be utilized primarily in conjunction
with some other technique such as chemical precipitation. Al-
ternatively, it may be used as a pretreatment technique p&ior to
another process such as carbon or resin adsorption. ~
Flotation is a proven solids/liquids separation technique
for certain industrial applications. It is characterized by
higher operating costs and more skilled maintenance requirements
than gravity sedimentation. Power requirements also are higher.
5-8
-------
This technique is judged to be potentially applicable but prob-
ably only in situations where the leachate contains high concen-
trations of oil and grease.
5.3.9 Dialysis/Electrodialysis
Neither dialysis nor electrodialysis have been judged to
have much applicability to hazardous waste leachate treatment.
Being most applicable for the removal of inorganic salts, they
are not well suited to mixed constituent waste streams. Both
rely heavily on recovery and reuse of at least one product
stream to offset costs. Other problems include membrane plug-
ging and deterioration and production of two output streams
neither of which can be discharged directly.
5.3.10 Distillation
Distillation is judged to have limited applicability to
treatment of complex hazardous waste leachate because of its
high cost and energy requirements. Should the leachate consist
primarily of organic solvents and halogenated organics distilla-
tion may be technically feasible although costly unless recovery
is practiced.
5.3.11 Evaporation
Evaporation is not expected to have broad application to the
treatment of hazardous waste leachate containing moderately
volatile organic constituents (BP 100°C~300°C). These organics
cannot be easily separated in a pretreatment stripper and will
appear in the condensate from the evaporator to some extent
depending on their volatility. Therefore, good clean separation
of these organics is not possible without post-treatment of the
condensate.
Other major disadvantages of evaporation are high capital
and operating costs, and high energy requirements. This process
is more adaptable to wastewaters with high concentrations of
organic pollutants than to dilute wastewaters.
5.3.12 Filtration
Both granular and flexible media filtration are well de-
velopedflprocesses currently being used in a wide variety of
applications. A wide spectrum of filtration systems are commer-
cially available. The economics of filtration are reasonable
for many applications. Energy requirements are relatively low
and operational parameters are well defined. Therefore, filtra-
tion is judged to be a good candidate for leachate treatment.
However, it is not a primary treatment process but rather will
be used to support other processes either as a polishing step
5-9
-------
(granular media) subsequent to precipitation and sedimentation
or as a dewatering process (flexible media) for sludges gener-
ated in other processes.
5.3.13 Flocculation
Flocculation must be carried out in conjunction with a
solid/liquid separation process, usually sedimentation. Often,
flocculation is preceded by precipitation.
It is a relatively simple process to operate and has been
used for many years to improve particle sedimentation. Neces-
sary equipment is commercially available. Both costs and energy
consumption are relatively low. The process can be applied to
almost any aqueous waste stream containing precipitable and/or
suspended material.
Flocculation followed by sedimentation is judged to be a
viable candidate process for hazardous waste leachate treatment,
particularly_where suspended solids and/or heavy metal removal
is an objective. It may be used in conjunction with sedimenta-
tion as a pretreatment step prior to a subsequent process such
as activated carbon adsorption.
In most instances, the applicability of the technique, the
flocculating chemicals to be used, and the chemical dose can be
determined based upon experience and simple laboratory treat-
abililty tests.
5.3.14 Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is a proven process with a long history of
use. It will remove dissolved salts, primarily inorganics, from
aqueous solutions. For many applications, particularly where
product recovery is possible, ion exchange is a relatively eco-
nomical process. Also, it is characterized by low energy re-
quirements.
Ion exchange is judged to have some potential for leachate
treatment in situations where it is necessary to remove dis-
solved inorganic species. However, other competing processes -
precipitation, flocculation, and sedimentation - are more
broadly applicable to mixed waste streams containing suspended
solids, and a spectrum of organic and inorganic species. These
competing processes also usually are more economical. Moreover,
the upper concentration limit for the exchangeable ions for ef-
ficient operation is generally 2,500 mg/1, expressed as calcium
carbonate (or 0.05 equivalents/1). This upper limit is due pri-
marily to the time requirements of the operation cycle. A high
concentration of exchangeable ion results in rapid exhaustion
during the service cycle, with the result that regeneration re-
quirements, both for equipment and of the percentage of resin
5-10
-------
inventory undergoing regeneration at any time, become inordin-
ately high. There also is an upper concentration limit (around
10,000-20,000 mg/1), which is governed by the properties of the
ion exchangers themselves, in that the selectivity (preference
for one ion over another) begins to decrease as the total con-
centration of dissolved salts (ionic strength) increases.
Synthetic resins can be damaged by oxidizing agents and
heat. In addition, the stream to be treated should contain no
suspended matter or other materials that will foul the resin or
that cannot be removed by the backwash operation. Some organic
compounds, particularly aromatics, will be irreversibly adsorbed
by the resins, and this will result in a decreased capacity, as
for example in the case of electroplating bath additives.
Thus, the use of ion exchange probably would be limited to
situations where a polishing step was required to remove an in-
organic constituent which could not be reduced to satisfactory
levels by preceding treatment processes or in specialized situ-
ations for removal of an inorganic constituent. Therefore,
while ion exchange is believed to have some potential it is not
a process which should normally receive primary consideration.
5.3.15 Resin Adsorption
Laboratory studies of resin adsorption have shown that
phthalate esters, aldehydes and ketones, alcohols, chlorinated
aromatics, aromatics, esters, amines, chlorinated alkanes and
alkenes, and pesticides are adsorbable. Resins adsorbed certain
amines and aromatics better than activated carbon did.
Resin adsorption has greatest applicability:
• when color due to organic molecules must be removed;
© when solute recovery is practical or thermal regenera-
tion is not practical;
• where selective adsorption is desired;
« where low leakages are required; or
• where wastewaters contain high levels of dissolved in-
^ organics.
- Sv"
Polymeric adsorbents are nonpolar with an affinity for nonpolar
solutes in polar solvents or of intermediate polarity capable of
sorbing nonpolar solutes from polar solvents and polar solutes
from nonpolar solvents. Carbonaceous resins have a chemical
composition which is intermediate between polymeric adsorbents
and activated carbon and are available in a range of surface
polarities.
5-11
-------
Because of selectivity, rapid adsorption kinetics, and
chemical regenerability, resin adsorption has a wide range of
potential applications for organic waste streams. The primary
disadvantage is high initial cost; although, this may be offset
if recovery of the solute is practical. Costs for resins re-
cently have been quoted to be $11-33 per kg ($5-15 per pound,
1980 dollars). While not economically competitive with carbon
for high volume, high concentration, mixed constituent wastes,
benefits may be gained by sequential resin and carbon adsorp-
tion.
Energy requirements are heavily dependent upon whether
solute recovery from the solvent wash is practiced. Without
solute recovery, energy costs account for 5% of operating costs;
however, with solute recovery using distillation, energy costs
could account for 50% of operating costs but solvent costs are
markedly reduced.
As with activated carbon, the only major environmental im-
pacts relate to the regeneration process. If not reused, spent
regenerant requires disposal, frequently by incineration or land
disposal.
Resin sorption is judged to be a potentially viable candi-
date for treatment of hazardous waste leachates. The technol-
ogy, however, has not been as well defined as carbon adsorption.
5.3.16 Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis is a relatively new process which has been
reduced to practice for some industrial wastewater treatment
applications such as inorganic salt removal from rinse waters.
Energy requirements for commercially available systems are ap-
proximately 7.6 x 10 - 9.5 x 10 J/m of product water (8-10
kwh/l=000 gal). Reverse osmosis is a relatively costly process
but it is capable of producing high purity water. The principal
application is to concentration of dilute solutions of inorganic
and some organic solutes. Problems associated with RO include
concentration polarization (decreased water production with time
per unit area of membrane), the need for pretreatment to remove
solids (colloidal and suspended), the need for dechlorination
when using polyamide membranes, and membrane fouling due to
precipitation of insoluble salts. pH control is important.
The state of development is such that it necessitates ex-
tensive bench and pilot scale testing prior to almost any po-
tential application to ascertain feasibility. Thus, reverse
osmosis is judged to have limited potential for leachate treat-
ment. Its use probably would be limited to polishing operations
subsequent to other more conventional processes or to concentra-
5-12
-------
ting pollutants (multicharged cations and anions and moderate
and high molecular weight organics). into a stream which would be
processed further.
5.3.17 Solvent Extraction
Solvent extraction is judged to have minimal potential for
leachate treatment. Broad spectrum sorbents such as activated
carbon are expected to be more effective in treating waste
streams containing a diversity of organic compounds. Carbon
adsorption also will be more economical unless a valuable prod-
uct can be recovered which is unlikely in most leachate treat-
ment situations.
5.3.18 Stripping
Air stripping is judged to have potential for leachate
treatment primarily when ammonia removal is desired and then
only when the concentrations of other volatile compounds are low
enough to avoid unacceptable environmental impacts by the air
emissions. The process would be difficult to optimize for
leachate containing a spectrum of volatile and non-volatile com-
pounds. Air stripping does have appeal as a pretreatment prior
to another process such as adsorption to extend the life of the
sorbent by removing sorbable organic constituents. However/ air
pollution control requirements are likely to be severe thus
making the economics less attractive. Some air stripping of
volatile components will occur during the course of any treat-
ment process and may result in safety hazards or air quality
problems. These problems are expected to be most severe from
biological treatment processes using aeration devices.
Steam stripping has merit for wastes containing high concen-
trations of highly volatile compounds. It is a proven process
for some applications but will require laboratory and bench
scale investigations prior to application to leachates contain-
ing multiple organic compounds. Both energy requirements and
costs are relatively high. By-product recovery to offset costs
is unlikely. Steam stripping is judged to have greatest poten-
tial as a pretreatment step' to reduce the load of volatile com-
pounds to a subsequent treatment process. Organics concentrated
in the overhead condensate stream also would require further
treatment, possibly by wet oxidation.
5.3.19^'' Ultrafiltration
7!
Ultrafiltration is a commercially used process with several
industrial applications generally involving product recovery or
production of highly purified solvent. It is characterized by
high capital and operating costs with membrane replacement being
a major factor. Energy costs could run as high as 30% of direct
operating costs.
5-13
-------
Ultrafiltration is judged to have limited potential for
treating a complex leachate. Its use probably would be limited
to relatively low volume leachate streams containing substantial
quantities of high molecular weight (7,500 to 500,000) solutes
such as oils. Concentrated organics would require further
treatment possibly by wet oxidation or off-site incineration.
Pilot testing is a prerequisite to use. •-,.
5.3.20 Wet Oxidation
Laboratory studies indicate that the process may have poten-
tial for treatment of high strength leachates or those contain-
ing toxic organics, especially those waste streams too dilute
for incineration but too refractory for chemical or biological
oxidation. The process has been applied at pilot and full scale
on numerous sludges and non-hazardous wastes. In laboratory
studies substantial destruction of several organic priority
pollutants was achieved.
Claimed advantages of the process are that the degree of
oxidation can sometimes be controlled by varying operating con-
ditions and that supplemental energy requirements can be mini-
mized in some situations. However, the process involves rela-
tively high capital and operating costs and requires skilled
operating labor.
At this time, the process should be considered as poten-
tially suitable for hazardous waste leachate treatment. The
area of greatest potential applicability appears to be treating
concentrated organic streams generated by processes such as
steam stripping, Ultrafiltration, or reverse osmosis; still bot-
toms; biological treatment process waste sludges; and regenera-
tion of powdered activated carbon used in bio-physical proc-
esses. Extensive site-specific treatability studies would be
required to determine efficiencies, to develop design criteria,
and to provide cost data to enable comparison with alternative
technologies.
5.4 EVALUATION OF UNIT PROCESSES
In Section 5.3 of this manual candidate hazardous waste
leachate treatment technologies were discussed and an assessment
was presented of the potential applicability to leachate treat-
ment. For the reasons discussed in Section 5.3, certain unit
processes are judged to have minimal applicability to hlzardous
waste leachate treatment and thus, are not given further consid-
eration herein. The remaining unit processes generally fall
into one of two categories.
Processes placed in Category 1 are those judged to have the
broadest potential range of leachate treatment,applications.
Moreover, processes in this category are those for which exten-
5-14
-------
sive full scale operating experience exists, albeit for other
applications.
Although Category 2 processes are judged to be potentially
viable hazardous waste leachate technologies, either the poten-
tial applications are limited to more specialized treatment
problems or less full scale experience exists. Category 1 and 2
processes are listed below together with the major area of ap-
plication for the process.
Category 1. More experience, broad application range
biological treatment - soluble biodegradable organics
and nutrients
chemical precipitation - soluble metals
carbon adsorption - soluble organics, especially toxics
and refractories
density separation - wastewater suspended solids, chem-
ical precipitates, oily materials
filtration - suspended solids and precipitates
Category 2. Less full scale exper;ieneei, 1 im.jted
application
chemical oxidation - cyanide and organics
chemical reduction - hexavalent chromium
ion exchange - inorganics, especially fluoride and total
dissolved solids
membranes (RO) - total dissolved solids
stripping (air) - ammonia nitrogen
wet oxidation - high strength or toxic organic aqueous
streams
The-approximate ability of Category 1 and 2 processes to
treat compounds in the chemical classifications identified in
Sectign 5.2 is summarized in Table 5-1. This table presents a
brief overview which can be used to assist in the formulation of
alternative process trains for leachates containing compounds
from these chemical classifications.
Appendix E, which contains more detailed information on the
treatability of specific compounds by many of these unit proc-
esses, also should be consulted during formulation of the proc-
5-15
-------
TABLE 5-1. TREATMENT PROCESS APPLICABILITY MATRIX
Chemical
Classification
1. Alcohols
2. Aliphatics
3 . Amines
4. Aromatics
5. Ethers
6 . Halocarbons
7. Metals
8. Miscellaneous:
Ammonia
Cyanide
TDS
9. PCB
10. Pesticides
11. Phenols
12. Phthalates
13 . Polynuclear
Aromatics
d 4->
O C
tT* £s
O 4-J
rH fl
O <0
"« EH
E
V
V
V
G
P
P,F
G,E
F,G
N
N
N,P
G
G
N,P
|
4J
G Oi
O M
A 0
M 01
O fa;
V
V
V
G,E
V
G,E
N,P
N
N
N
E
E
E
E
G,E
G
0
•H
4->
i-l 4-)
(d *H
O CM
-H -H
(J) d)
6 £
F
E
N
N
N
G
R
Chemical
Oxidation
|
d) IT!
fi G
•H -H
rH M C
(fl O O
J
•H 0
A V
0 «
N
>N
N
N
N
N
G
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0)
0^
G
ftf
pC
0 X
H H
E
G
E
0) w
W -H
M W
> i
0) en
05 O
V
V
V
E
E
E
V
Co
PI
C
•H
ft
ft
•rl
4J
en
N
G
N
N
rtr* -f* i i
G
O
•H
4J
n3
T3
4-1 -H
0) X
£ O
N
r\Ti£ac~J ^
5-16
-------
Table 5-1 (continued)
Key for Symbols:
E - Excellent performance likely
G - Good performance likely
F - Fair performance likely
P - Poor performance likely
R - Reported to be removed
N - Not Applicable
V - Variable performance reported for different com-
pounds in the class
A blank indicates that no data are available to judge
performance; it does not necessarily indicate that the
process is not applicable
Note: Use of two symbols indicates differing reports of per-
formance for different compounds in the class.
Source: Shuckrow, A. J., A. P. Pajak, and J. W. Osheka.
Concentration Technologies For Hazardous Aqueous Waste
Treatment. EPA-600/2-81-019. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, February, 1981.
5-17
-------
ess train. Because much of the data used to prepare Table 5-1
and Appendix E are from laboratory scale studies using various
wastewaters ranging from solutions of pure compounds to indus-
trial wastewaters, extrapolation from these studies to full
scale leachate treatment operations is risky. Preferably the
basis for process design, at a minimum, should rely on labora-
tory scale treatability studies using the actual leachate or a
closely similar wastewater. Although all compounds in these
chemical classes are not labeled as toxic or hazardous; it is
expected that many of them will be present in hazardous waste
leachates. Thus, treatment processes must be designed to accom-
modate those compounds as well because they will impact overall
treatment process performance and often will be limited in per-
missible discharge amount by NPDES permits.'
As a prelude to formulating treatment trains capable of
addressing the complex chemical matrix of hazardous waste leach-
ate, details relating to process configurations, applications,
design concerns, and pre- and post-treatment requirements of
Category 1 and 2 unit processes are discussed in Section 6.5.
In Section 6.6, unit processes are arranged into example process
trains for several selected leachate situations.
5.5 BY-PRODUCT CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to a treated effluent, most leachate treatment
processes will generate sludges, brines, gaseous emissions, or
other by-product streams which often will contain hazardous con-
stituents and thus, must be managed as hazardous waste. Methods
for treatment and ultimate disposal are the same as those for
hazardo-us wastes except that options probably will be more lim-
ited because of the expected mixed composition of hazardous
waste leachate treatment by-product streams.
The objectives of this subsection are to identify by-prod-
ucts generated by the treatment processes described in Section
5.3, to identify alternative management methods, and to list
factors affecting selection of a management method.
Table 5-2 lists by-products expected from the treatment
processes described in Section 5.3. For purposes of this man-
ual, the by-product streams have been divided into two cate-
gories: residuals (e.g., brines, concentrates, sludges, and dis-
carded materials) and gaseous emissions. • o;
'&.
"3jl
Methods for dealing with these two classifications are sub-
stantially different. Residues may be managed using most of the
techniques available for hazardous wastes; thus, on or off-site
measures may be employed. For gaseous emissions there are three
basic control measures. One is to attempt to control or treat
the emission using air pollution control technologies, e.g.,
scrubbers, precipitators, chemical or thermal oxidation, or gas
5-18
-------
TABLE 5-2 LEACHATE TREATMENT PROCESS BY-PRODUCT STREAMS
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
en
I
H
Biological
treatment
Aerobic
1. activated
sludge
2. lagoons
3. trickling
filter
Excess biological sludge must
be removed - amount of
sludge varies with the pro-
cess configuration.
Settled solids will accumulate
on lagoon bottom, clean-out
frequency depends on perfor-
mance requirements and lagoon
capacity.
Excess biological sludge must
be removed - plastic and high
rate filters generate more
sludge than low rate filters.
Stripping of volatile com-
pounds during aeration
process - use of pure oxy-
gen process may reduce air
emissions.
Stripping of volatile com-
pounds if mechanical or
diffused aeration is used.
The most volatile compounds
may be stripped at the point
of waste application; if
improperly operated, odor
problems may occur.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2 (continued)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
B. Anaerobic
1. filters
t
N>
o
2. lagoons
Some anoxic residue may be
generated; less sludge than
aerobic process.
Settled sludge will accumulate
in lagoon; need for clean-out
depends on lagoon performance
and capacity.
II.
A.
Carbon adsorption
Granular
carbon
Spent carbon - may be regener-
ated and reused; performance
may decline with continued
reuse and blow-down of some
portion of the spent carbon
may be required.
Properly operating system will
generate gas composed of
methane, carbon dioxide and
water vapor; highly
volatile compounds also may
be present.
May create odor problem - some
opportunity for stripping of
volatile compounds.
Emission problems generally
associated with spent carbon
handling and regeneration
operations.
3C
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2 (continued)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
B. Powdered
carbon (PAC)
Ui
i
N)
H
III. Catalysis
IV. Chemical
oxidation
When used with activated sludge Same as for the activated
process a residue containing sludge process.
excess biological sludge and
PAC results - may be regener-
ated thermally or by wet oxi-
dation with some wasting to
prevent build-up of inerts.
If not regenerated, sludge
disposal is necessary.
Depends on the process in which the catalyst is used.
Small amount of residue may be
formed during the oxidation
process. Residue likely to
be less hazardous than raw
waste.
Use of chlorine may result in
formation of chlorinated
organics in liquid product
stream. Ozone and hydrogen
peroxide add no harmful
species to the effluent.
During the rapid mix phase
stripping may occur or gas-
eous reaction products could
be released.
Gaseous chlorine and ozone are
toxic; however, these should
not escape from the system
in appreciable quantity.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2 (continued)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
V.
VI.
ui
I
to
to
VII.
VIII.
Chemical
precipitation
Chemical
reduction
Crystalliza-
tion
Density
separation
,tSF'.
Relatively large amounts of
inorganic sludge will be
generated by lime, ferric
chloride, and alum coagu-
lants. Polymer addition
would increase sludge amounts,
As with chemical oxidation,
small amounts of residue may
be formed. Some metal ions
or sulfate from the reducing
agents may carry over in the
liquid effluent.
Brines high in organics or
inorganics will be formed.
Either a sludge or a floating
scum is produced by these
processes. The quantity
produced depends on the sus-
pended solids content of the
raw wastewater and the use of
coagulant chemicals.
Stripping may occur during the
rapid mix or flocculation
phases.
Emissions may occur during
rapid mixing.
Emissions could include lost
refrigerant, non-condensable
compounds, and water vapor.
Gravity separation is not
likely to generate emis-
sions. Dissolved air flo-
tation may cause stripping
of volatile compounds.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2 (continued)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
IX. Distillation
Ul
K)
U)
X. Dialysis/
Electrodialysis
XI. Evaporation
XII. Filtration
(granular media
for aqueous
waste)
Still bottoms consisting of
tars and sludges will be
laden with nonvolatile
organics. Condensed over-
head stream also could
contain volatile organics.
No solid residue is formed;
however, the original pollu-
tants will be present in
different concentrations in
the two product streams.
Similar to distillation with
evaporator liquor laden with
less volatile organics and
condensed vapor rich in
volatile compounds.
In the case of granular media
filters, the major residue
is suspended solids trapped
by the filter and removed by
backwashing.
No emissions if the overhead
stream is condensed trapping
volatiles in a liquid phase.
Venting of gases produced at
electrodialysis electrodes
causes emissions.
Evaporation vapors could con-
tain volatile compounds;
these can be condensed and
trapped in liquid phase.
Emissions generally should not
be a problem. If anaerobic
conditions are allowed to
occur in granular media
filter, anoxic odors could
occur. Durl'ng backwashing,
turbulence may induce some
stripping of volatiles.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2 (continued)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
XIII. Flocculation
XIV. Ion exchange
See discussion of chemical precipitation.
01
i
to
XV. Resin
adsorption
Residuals include the:
1. concentrated regenerant
stream.
2. spent ion exchange mater-
ials.
Unless spent exchange materials
are regenerated both types of
residues could contain the
original hazardous pollutants.
One residue will be spent
resin which can no longer
be used effectively.
Another will be solutes
extracted from the sorbent.
These solutes may be separ-
ated from the regenerant
solvent or discarded with the
used regenerant solution.
Waters used to rinse regenerant
solution from resin also
require attention.
Emissions should not occur.
Emission problems generally
associated with spent resin
handling or regeneration
operations.
Steam regeneration and distil-
lation of solvents used for
solvent regeneration are
principal emission sources.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2 (continued)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
XVI.
Reverse
osmosis
i
to
Ul
XVII. Solvent
extraction
XVIII. Stripping
A. Air
The primary residual will be a
brine stream containing the
concentrated pollutants.
Other residues include solu-
tions which may be used to
wash or maintain the membranes
and degraded or fouled mem-
branes. These all could con-
tain the original pollutants.
No solid residuals are gener-
ated by the process. Spent
solvent, solvent containing
the solutes, or solutes alone
will have to be disposed of
at some time during process
operation.
Emissions should not occur.
No solid residue is generated
unless chemicals are added
to adjust operating condi-
tions. Use of lime can
result in substantial quanti-
ties of sludge..
Gaseous emissions from the
extraction process should be
minimal. However, processes
to remove solute from sol-
vent or recover solvent from
the treated water could pro-
duce emissions of either
volatile solutes or volatile
solvent since these proce-
dures usually employ strip-
ping or distillation.
Volatile compounds will be
contained in stripper
emission by design.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2 (continued)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
B.
Steam
No solid residues are formed;
however, stripper bottoms
will contain concentrated
non-volatile organics and
cannot be discharged
directly.
No emissions occur if stripped
volatile compounds are
trapped in the condensed
overhead stream.
XIX. Ultrafiltration Same as reported for reverse osmosis.
Ul
i
10
XX. Wet oxidation
Residues are not generated by
the process, but solids
present in the raw wastewater
could remain after treatment.
These solids are likely to be
more inert than those origin-
ally present.
Vapors may be released when
the high pressure and tem-
perature operating condi-
tions are removed and the
waste is exposed to atmos-
pheric conditions.
-------
phase adsorbents. These measures may control the emission, but
in many cases generate by-product waste streams.
A second approach is to use a process which does not gener-
ate an air emission or which generates an emission of less mag-
nitude or severity. For example, gravity sedimentation is less
likely to strip volatile compounds than dissolved air flotation;
the same applies for trickling filtration versus diffused aera-
tion activated sludge. Process selection, however, also depends
upon leachate quality, treatment goals, and capabilities of the
individual unit processes in the process train.
The third alternative which may be possible in some instan-
ces is a "do nothing" approach which allows emissions provided
that concentrations of specific pollutants in the gaseous emis-
sions are within acceptable limits (for many hazardous or toxic
pollutants such limits have not been defined). Ensuring ade-
quate dilution of the emission may be a factor in this approach.
As previously stated, residues can be managed in the same
manner as other liquid and solid hazardous wastes. That is, the
following disposal techniques may be used:
"• hazardous waste landfill,
• hazardous waste treatment facility,
• hazardous waste incinerator,
• deep well injection, or
• land application.
Whether the residue has to be processed before disposal depends
upon the residue characteristics, the disposal option, and eco-
nomics of the situation. For example, if the leachate treatment
facility is located at a hazardous waste landfill, it may be
possible to pump or otherwise convey a sludge to the landfill in
the form it is generated and thus avoid the costs of dewatering
or chemical stabilization. However, this decision is very site
specific and it is not possible to recommend a specific manage-
ment technique for every residue listed in Table 5-2. It is
possible to group the residues in Table 5-2 into the .following
broad categories, subsequently to identify alternative manage-
ment approaches for each category. r
Residue Category
1. Liquids (brines)
Examples
Inorganic aqueous streams: con-
centrates from membrane separa-
tion processes, ion exchange
regenerant streams
5-27
-------
3. Sludges (inorganic)
4. Sludges (organic)
2. Liquids (organic Condensates from stripping, dis-
laden) tillation, and evaporation
operations; spent solvents from
extraction and regeneration pro-
cesses; concentrate from
ultrafiltration
Precipitates from chemical
oxidation, reduction and
precipitation processes;
. backwash from granular
media filtration processes;
spent ion exchange resins
Excess biological treatment
sludges, still bottoms from
distillation and evaporation
processes, spent adsorbents
such as granular and powdered
active carbon and resins
which cannot be regenerat-
ed, scum from dissolved air
flotation (may also be in-
organic in nature)
Ion exchange resins, acti-
vated carbon, adsorption
resins
Discarded or fouled mem-
branes, contaminated pack-
ings from column opera-
tions
Processing and disposal alternatives for each of these catego-
ries are shown in Table 5-3. Engineering judgment was used to
attempt to differentiate in this table between a primary or pre-
ferred approach (designated with a P)'and other approaches which
should be considered (designated S). Blanks indicate that the
alternative probably does not apply to the residue category;
however, there may be exceptions.
Factors to be considered when selecting a residue management
alternative are the same as those considered when evaluating on
or off-site leachate treatment and disposal alternatives as dis-
cussed in Section 4.<
5.6 TREATMENT PROCESS COSTS
Although many of the unit processes described in Section 5.3
have potential application to treatment of hazardous waste
leachate, most of them have never been used for this purpose.
5-28
5. Reusable materials
6. Other
-------
TABLE 5-3. RESIDUE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Disposal
Alternative
Landfill
Incinerate
Deep well
inj ection
Land
Treatment
Hazardous Waste
Treatment Facil-
ity
Reuse
Alternatives
for Process-
,ing Before ;
THspnsal
None
Dewater
Stabilize
None
Dewater
None
None
Dewater
None
Dewater
Regenerate
CO
a
3
£
p
; S
P
P
P
S
RESIDUE CATEGORY
CO
o cu
o co
•H -a
fi -H
(8
CU
CO
1
P
M
a)
J3
4J
0
p
p
P - Primary or preferred approach
S - Approach which should be considered
Blank indicates alternative probably not applicable to,residue category
5-29
-------
Therefore, no historical cost data exist on the use of these
processes for hazardous waste leachate treatment. Consequently,
one must rely on information based upon municipal and industrial
water and wastewater treatment experience to develop cost esti-
mates. Such information, however, should not be applied direct-
ly in developing cost estimates for hazardous waste leachate
treatment. Nevertheless, it reflects the best available infor-
mation and with care can be used to make approximate cost com-
parisons among leachate treatment alternatives. Municipal and
industrial treatment cost data should not be used to prepare ab-
solute site specific cost estimates for any particular process.
Once a process has been selected and operating conditions de-
fined, detailed cost estimates should be prepared using standard
engineering practices.
_Before preparing cost estimates for purposes of making com-
parisons, the user should be aware of the following constraints
to applying available municipal and industrial treatment cost
data to leachate situations:
1. Cost data for many processes are presented as a
function of flow rate with flow rates typically 3
ranging from 0.1 or 1.0 to 100 MGD (378 to 378,000 m
/d). Leachate flow rates are expected to be legs
than 0.1 MGD in most cases. Consequently, extrapola-
tion must be made to the correct size range. The
reader is cautioned that a good understanding of the
assumptions, formulae, constants, and exponentials
used to prepare the original cost curves is necessary
prior to making such extrapolations.
2. Costs for many processes have been derived from
treatment of wastewater matrices less complicated
than hazardous waste leachate and containing conven-
tional rather than hazardous, toxic, or priority
pollutants. Consequently, the levels of treatment
provided may be adequate only for the conventional
pollutants. For example, ozonation for municipal
wastewater disinfection requires smaller ozone doses
and consequently smaller ozone generators and lower
capital costs than for oxidation of certain organic
compounds. Also, phenomena like competitive ad-
sorption may not have been recognized and taken into
account in sizing an adsorption process to handle a
given flow rate.
jt
3. Costs may be presented as a function of loading
of a certain wastewater constituent, e.g., BOD or
COD. These may not be meaningful parameters to size
and cost a hazardous waste leachate treatment
process.
5-30
-------
With these cautions in mind, the reader is referred to. the
following references for cost information which could be of as-
sistance in evaluating leachate treatment alternatives:
• Treatability Manual, Volume IV, Cost Estimating (5)
• Estimating Water Treatment Costs, Volume 3, Cost Curves
Applicable to 2500 gpd to 1 mgd Treatment Plants (6)
These documents contain capital, and operation and maintenance
cost data on municipal and industrial applications of many of
the unit processes described in Section 5.3 as well as ancil-
lary processes such as pumping, pretreatment, and sludge han-
dling. It is expected that for some processes, the capital cost
curves would be more usable than operation and maintenance (O&M)
cost data. This is because O&M cost components such as chemi-
cals, materials, power, and even labor are more likely to be
influenced by wastewater composition and treatment goals. A
good example is granular carbon adsorption where contactor size
and ancillary equipment is relatively independent of wastewater
characteristics but the amount of carbon used is directly depen-
dent on wastewater composition and treatment objectives. Ozon-
ation, however, provides an exception to this generalization
because even though the ozone dosage requirement is directly
dependent on wastewater composition and treatment goals it also
influences capital costs for ozone generators. Such relation-
ships should be kept in mind when using the referenced cost data
to compare leachate treatment alternatives.
In general, it is believed that leachate treatment costs
will be higher than for comparable municipal and industrial
processes.
5.7 REFERENCES
1. Shuckrow, A. J., A. P. Pajak, and J. W. Osheka. Concen-
tration Technologies For Hazardous Aqueous Waste Treatment.
EPA Contract No. 68-03-2766. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1980. 343 pp.
2. Baillod, G. R., R. A. Lamparter, and D. G. Leddy. Wet
Oxidation of Toxic Organic Substances. Michigan Techno-
logical University, College of Engineering, Houghton,
Michigan.
3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Treatability
Manual, Volume III, Technologies for Control/Removal of
Pollutants. EPA-600/8-80-042 C, U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, D. C., 1980.
5-31
-------
I. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Treatability Man-
ual, Volume I, Treatability Data. EPA-600/8-80-042' a, U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.,
1980.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Treatability Manual,
Volume IV, Cost Estimating. EPA-600/8-80-042d, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,, Washington, D.C., 1980.
6. Hansen, S. P., R. C. Gumerman, and R. L. Gulp. Estimating
Water Treatment Costs, Volume 3, Cost Curves Applicable to
2500 gpd to 1 mgd Treatment Plants. EPA - 600/2-79-162c,
U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1979. 196 pp.
5-32
-------
SECTION 6
LEACHATE TREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION
6.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
Selection of a leachate treatment process is not a simple
task, especially in view of the fact that there is little past
experience in the area of hazardous waste leachate treatment and
if the facility is not yet in operation, the quality and quan-
tity of the leachate to be treated must be estimated. Numerous
factors must be weighed and tradeoffs made in the course of se-
lecting a leachate treatment process. Important factors which
must be considered include:
1. leachate characteristics;
2. discharge alternatives;
3. treatment objectives (performance requirements);
4. nature of disposal site operation and resulting
impact on leachate;
5. costs of various alternatives;
6. status of the disposal facility (new or existing);
and
7. post-closure care considerations.
The intent of this section is to provide the reader with an un-
derstanding of how each of the above factors influences treat-
ment process selection. Moreover, an approach which can be fol-
lowed to systematically address each factor is suggested. Fi-
nally, selected hypothetical and actual leachate situations are
used to provide examples of use of this approach to select
treatment processes.
Requirements for hazardous waste leachate treatment are ex-
pected to apply to both new and existing disposal sites. How-
ever, approaches to selection of leachate treatment systems for
these two situations probably will differ. Each situation is
addressed subsequently in this section.
6-1
-------
Although post-closure care considerations have not been
dealt with explicitly in this section, such considerations
should be taken into account in final treatment process selec-
tion. That is, the resources necessary to maintain treatment
system operations subsequent to site closure must be factored
into the treatment system selection process and into the long
term financial planning for the site. In addition to resource,
considerations, post-closure concerns which may impact treatment
system selection relate to changes in flow and composition of
leachate as a result of site closure.
6.2 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
As noted in Section 4.4, there are several options for
treatment of leachate and disposal of treated effluents
1. complete treatment with direct discharge to sur-
face waters;
2. complete treatment with discharge to groundwater;
or
3. pretreatment with discharge to a POTW or other fa-
cility for additional treatment.
Obviously, the required degree of treatment differs among
the options. For option 3, the nature and capabilities of sub-
sequent treatment will dictate the required degree of pretreat-
ment. Currently, pretreatment standards for discharge to POTWs
exist for some substances in many municipalities. Moreover,
regulations require development of new pretreatment standards
for most POTWs for substances such as metals, phenol, and cya-
nide. That is, limits exist but are being upgraded. Therefore,
leachate treatment system performance requirements will be de-
fined, at least in part, by local pretreatment requirements.
Pretreatment requirements for discharge to treatment' systems
other than POTWs will be dictated by the nature of the down-
stream system and thus will be highly site specific. Therefore,
leachate treatment system performance requirements would have to
be developed on a case-by-case basis. In any event, pretreat-
ment would represent a simplified case of complete treatment.
That is, the technologies would be the same but the required de-
gree of treatment would be less.
Options 1 and 2 also may differ in the degree of treat-
ment required. However, at this time there are no guidelines
which establish discharge limitations or acceptable ground or
surface water concentrations for most of the pollutants identi-
fied in Sections 261.33(e), 261.33(f) and Appendix VIII of RCRA
or Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. Consequently, specific
limitations cannot be used to derive the required levels of per-
6-2
-------
formance. Moreover, it is likely that leachate treatment system
performance objectives will encompass concerns broader than RCRA
alone, e.g., NPDES.
Definition of treatment system performance objectives is
vital to selection of an appropriate treatment technology.
Therefore, several possible approaches to establishing perfor-
mance objectives are discussed below. These approaches are not
intended to have any regulatory significance, but could be used
in some combination to guide selection of treatment system goals
until more comprehensive guidelines are developed.
In the case of surface water discharges, stream water qual-
ity standards, including specific pollutant water quality cri-
teria, must be considered when defining the required level of
treatment. Water quality criteria have been developed by states
for numerous conventional and non-conventional pollutants.
State standards vary and the pertinent agency must be contacted
to obtain standards for the stream of concern. Some multiple of
published water quality criteria could be used to establish
treatment objectives. The multiple should be established on the
basis of receiving stream flow taking dilution into account.
Although water quality standards do not exist for many of
the compounds likely to be of concern in hazardous waste leach-
ate, recommended water quality criteria for 64 of the 65 prior-
ity pollutants recently have been published by the Environmental
Protection Agency(l). However, because criteria for these pol-
lutants still must be developed and adopted by the states, uni-
form treatment requirements even for these 64 pollutants do not
exist.
Published industrial effluent limitation guidelines also
can be useful in formulating hazardous waste leachate treatment
goals. Specific numerical effluent criteria have been estab-
lished for some constituents in certain industrial waste cate-
gories based upon state-of-the-art technology capabilities.
Criteria generally are available from this source on pH, BOD,
COD, SS, oil and grease, phenol, cyanide, and several heavy met-
als.
Primary drinking water standards also can be used as a ref-
erence point in setting leachate treatment objectives. Once
again, a multiplier could be applied to these water quality
based criteria to establish effluent objectiyes.' This source
may prove useful for certain metals and several pesticides.
Discharges to groundwater can take the form of land appli-
cation, seepage pits, or disposal wells. At this time no uni-
form approach has been applied to define the required degree of
treatment before groundwater discharge. With adoption of a na-
tional groundwater protection strategy, criteria to protect
6-3
-------
pA
EPA
a - A ^tegy has been proposed by
2) but adoption and implementation by the states still is
In ^ draft ^tegy ' the following ?hrle classifi-
of groundwater resources are identified:
• first class - serves a highly valuable human use or
ecological function warranting the most stringent pro-
tection controls,
• second class - must be protected to insure use as a
drinking water source, and
third class - limited or defined contamination would
be allowed for some types of contaminants.
Of4.this ftrategy most probabl will influence
treatment requirements as well as hazardous waste dis
ulty siting it is possible that the recently pro-
posed water quality criteria for 64 of the priority pollutants
also could be related to groundwater quality using the "proteS
tion of human health" criteria. However, it should bJ noted
that for many of these 64 pollutants three criteria are given
n°
4
5
1. existing surface water quality standards prepared
by the individual state agencies,
2. water quality criteria for 64 priority pollutants
recently proposed by EPA (1),
3. industrial wastewater effluent guideline documents
which define state-of-the-art performance levels
tor various technologies and wastewater constit-
uents,
interim primary drinking water standards, and
^roundwater protection strategy issued by
However, in attempting to use these various sources for this
t^n?;j' °^S ™ust^e taken to understand the intent of the par-
lirh nL, criteria/standard and the basis for its development.
trSatmen? aoJl ^ 1S CrUCial t0 the deriv^ion of reasonable
treatment goals from sources originally developed for other pur-
OSG "
6-4
-------
6.3 TREATMENT FACILITY STAGING
During the life of a disposal operation and even after clo-
sure, the flow and composition of leachate from the site are
likely to change. These changes can occur because of:
1. changes in hazardous wastes being disposed of at
the site;
2. on-going physical, chemical, and biological reac-
tions within the disposal site; and
3. ultimate sealing of the site at the time of clo-
sure which further reduces entry of extraneous
water.
Thus, the leachate treatment facility must be capable of
responding to these, changes. This can be done either by prepar-
ing an initial design which includes processes capable of re-
sponding to all envisioned changes or by staging. Staging would
involve a design which facilitates adding or deleting new treat-
ment processes or changing capacity of existing processes as fu-
ture conditions warrant.
From both technical and economic perspectives, staging war-
rants detailed consideration during both disposal facility and
leachate treatment facility design. A major advantage of stag-
ing would be optimum utilization of the technologies judged to
be most applicable to the leachates produced at different phases
in the life of the disposal site. A major disadvantage, how-
ever, is the need to anticipate when a change will occur and to
respond as necessary. In some cases it may not be sufficient to
recognize that a change has occurred and then modify the leach-
ate treatment process after the fact.
An evaluation of the need to modify the leachate treatment
process could be triggered by either:
1. the results from routine monitoring of leachate
characteristics and leachate treatment process
performance, or
2. the decision to accept a different hazardous waste
at the disposal facility.
> CJ *
If a change is needed in unit processes, process size, or opera-
tional procedures, this can be determined based upon the ex-
pected magnitude and duration of change in the leachate.
In the case of a new disposal operation where a leachate
has not yet been generated and treatability studies cannot be
conducted using actual leachate samples, the initial leachate
6-5
-------
treatment facility will have to be designed from leachate quan-
tity and composition projections made on the basis of types of
wastes to be handled, and site construction and operational
procedures. However, because performance of the leachate treat-
ment system can, at best, only be estimated on the basis of
available data, the system should be designed and constructed in
such a way that processes can be added or deleted as necessary
to respond to leachate characteristics and to meet performance
requirements.
One aspect of staging which should be considered for new
facilities is interim storage and/or leachate recycle to the
disposal site. The feasibility of these approaches will be
highly site specific and in most cases can only be considered as
interim. However,, if some combination of storage and recycle is
feasible early in the life of the disposal site operation, this
approach may provide sufficient time for the conduct of treata-
bility studies with the actual leachate. Consequently, treat-
ment process design could be accomplished on a firmer basis.
Use of this approach, however, must be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis.
The use of mobile or temporary treatment facilities early
in the life of a disposal site prior to construction of a per-
manent facility also could be considered.
6.4 TREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION METHODOLOGY
It is not possible to provide a prescriptive, step-by-step
guide for selection of a hazardous waste leachate treatment
technology. This is because site specific factors will have a
significant impact on the selection procedure. Moreover, haz-
ardous waste leachate treatment is an emerging area still in its
infancy. Therefore, this section addresses factors which should
be considered and suggests a'generalized methodology which can
be applied to selection of a leachate treatment process. Cau-
tions and recommendations pertaining to various steps in the
methodology also are provided.
If possible, selection of a process to treat hazardous
waste leachate should be based upon treatability studies (labo-
ratory or pilot scale) using the actual leachate. This is rec-
ommended for several reasons:
1.
Published hazardous waste leachate treatment per-
formance data are rare. In the absence of treata-
bility studies, inferences must be drawn from
other laboratory experimental studies, and indus-
trial and municipal water and wastewater treatment
experience.
6-6
-------
2. Lacking previous experience and/or treatability
data, there is no guarantee that high levels of
treatment can be achieved.
3. It is likely that a combination of several unit
processes will be needed to deal with the complex
leachate matrix. Arriving at the optimum system
is unlikely without treatability studies.
4. The complex leachate matrix may not behave like
other wastewaters thus affecting design and opera-
ting criteria (e.g., chemical dosage require-
ments), and invalidating extrapolations from other
experiences.
5. Capital investment, and especially operation and
maintenance costs are likely to be greater_per
unit volume treated than for municipal or indus-
trial wastewater. However, costs will be diffi-
cult to estimate without treatment experience.
Investment in a costly, unproven system that may
not meet the required treatment objectives is im-
prudent.
In spite of these considerations, at new disposal sites or ex-
isting sites where leachate has not appeared or its quality is
expected to change greatly, treatability studies may not be pos-
sible. Thus, a more theoretical approach (at least to concep-
tual design of a treatment system) with greater dependency on
published data must be taken.
A general methodology which can be used for selection of a
leachate treatment process is shown in Figure 6-1. This method-
ology revolves around the question of existence of a leachate.
The left side of the flow chart applies to cases where a leach-
ate exists and can reasonably be used in treatability studies.
The right side addresses the case where leachate treatability
studies cannot be conducted. This suggested methodology is dis-
cussed subsequently.
Aside from the availability of leachate for use in treata-
bility studies, several key questions must be answered as part
of the leachate treatment technology selection process. Among
these are:
. ?
1. Does the leachate need to be considered a hazard-
ous waste?
2. What are the treated effluent discharge options
and the corresponding performance or discharge
limitations?
6-7
-------
yes
does a
leachate
exist?
no
based on leachate quality,
select applicable technologies
from published data
define expected leachate
quality from theoretical
proie.c_tfons or leachate
generation studies
conduct treability studies,
evaluate results,
develop costs,
select process
select applicable technologies
based on published data
conduct pilot scale studies,
make cost estimates,.
optimize propels
evaluate processes,
develop costs,
select process
design treatment facility
design treatment facility
Figure 6-1. Methodology to select leachate treatment process.
6-8
-------
3. What pollutants are present in the leachate and at
what concentrations?
4. Are toxic or refractory compounds present?
5. What is the leachate flow rate; how will it vary
with time (diurnal, seasonal, long term)?
6. Are there any other aqueous wastes generated at
the site and should they be combined with the
leachate for treatment?
7. Will the leachate quality or quantity change
(could be a function of disposal site operation)
and does the leachate treatment process need to be
able to respond to such changes and in what time-
frame?
8. How much land is available for the leachate treat-
ment facility and are there any special con-
straints to construction? •
9. Should ieachates from different areas of the dis-
posal site be combined or segregated for treat-
ment? (Note that this will affect site and leach-
ate collection system design.)
10. How will leachate treatment residues be managed?
11. What is required to support the leachate,treatment
operation, e.g., analytical testing, operations
personnel?
12. Will spilled material get into the leachate treat-
ment system?
13. What skills and resources will be needed for post-
closure operation?
The leachate treatment system design process must address all
these issues.
6.4.1 Disposal Site with Existing Leachate •
Where a leachate exists, a three-tiered selection method-
ology process is shown in Figure 6-1. Initially, published in-
formation (e.g., discussions given in Section 5.3 and 5.4, and
the treatability data given in Section 5.2 and Appendix E)
should be used to identify processes that have been reported to
be capable of treating the types of constituents present in the
leachate. The objective should be to focus subsequent efforts
on the most promising processes.
6-9
-------
At the second level, these processes should be studied at
laboratory scale individually- and, if necessary, in combina-
tions. Experimental studies will further screen out unsuccess-
ful processes, identify viable combinations, enable development
of "first cut" design criteria, identify by-products of concern,
and facilitate cost projections. Depending upon the results of
this step and the reliability of laboratory scale data, a pilot
scale program may be warranted to develop detailed design infor-
mation. The possibility of designing the pilot scale system to
serve as the first stage of the full scale system should be giv-
en consideration.
The time required and costs associated with conduct of this
three-tiered program will depend upon the number of processes
examined, the ease with which the leachate can be treated, and
the intensity of the effort. Physical and chemical processes
generally can be studied in less time than biological processes
because of acclimation or stabilization requirements usually
associated with the latter process type. Other considerations
in designing and conducting treatability studies include:
• obtaining representative leachate samples;
• quantities of leachate required;
• methods for collecting, handling, and transporting
leachate to avoid or minimize changes which would in-
troduce experimental error or endanger personnel,
e.g., volatilization of leachate constituents;
• use of batch and continuous flow treatment processes;
• parameters used to monitor process performance because
of both the considerable costs which could be incurred
by analytical testing and the need for rapid data
turn-around to enable timely judgments; and
• disposal of wastes (liquids, residues, gaseous emis-
sions) generated in the treatability studies.
6.4.2 Disposal Site Without Existing Leachate
If a leachate does not exist or if its composition is ex-
pected to change ..greatly, the first major step is to determine
what the leachate'^composition is expected to be. Because dis-
posal site design and permit acquisition requires knowledge of
what wastes will be handled at the site, incoming waste composi-
tion data probably will be available. However, it still will be
necessary to project which waste consituents may appear in the
leachate and at what concentrations. Moreover, because treat-
ment facility design probably will be based on a worst case
rather than average or optimum condition, a projection of the
6-10
-------
worst condition must be made based upon anticipated chemical re-
actions, physical constants for the waste constituents, a water
balance for the site, and water and pollutant migration rate in-
formation.
For a landfill disposal operation, a second approach for
determining leachate characteristics would be to simulate leach-
ate generation. Various simulation techniques are available de-
pending on the desired degree of correlation with the actual
site. However, a one-for-one correlation is unlikely and cost
increases as correlation improves. Leachate generation tests
could range from "extraction procedure" type tests to larger
scale lysimeter studies to measure percolation and constituents
removed in the drainage. Generation tests could be conducted
using individual raw wastes or they could be conducted under
conditions better representing site operation by mixing, segre-
gating, stabilizing, compacting, or sealing the wastes as they
would be at the site. The major benefit of the larger scale,
more time-consuming lysimeter test may not be the development of
leachate composition data but the generation of enough leachate
to enable conduct of small scale treatability studies. However,
before adopting such an approach, one should be assured that
good correlation with actual site conditions can be achieved.
Otherwise, treatability study data may be little more useful
than published data and should be used with a similar amount of
caution.
In that regard, published data can be used with caution to
gain insight into the types of compounds likely to migrate and
appear in leachate and to a lesser extent, concentration ranges.
The data contained in Appendix. A and summarized in Table 3-1
could serve as a starting point. As more data on hazardous
waste leachate composition become available, the utility of mak-
ing projections based upon experience at other sites may be im-
proved .
In the future, mathematical modeling, may be a viable al-
ternative for projecting leachate characteristics. However,
selection of input values which correlate with site conditions
will be difficult.
Once leachate characteristics are projected, promising
technologies should be identified on the basis of published data
(similar to the first step or the left side of sFigure 6-1). De-
tailed "desk-top" analyses then can be conducted to evaluate and
select the process. These analyses could be- aided by companies
marketing pertinent technologies if unpublished in-house experi-
ences are provided to supplement available data.
In cases where treatment process design is based on the
"desk-top" approach, consideration should be given to contin-
gency plans for leachate treatment and disposal in the event
6-11
-------
that^the original design does not perform as required. The
feasibility of adopting an interim measure such as leachate
storage and/or recycle until the design can be confirmed 'by ac-
tual treatability studies as discussed earlier in this section
also should be considered.
6.5 CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO PROCESS TRAIN FORMULATION
Details relating to process configurations, applications,
design concerns, and pre- and post-treatment requirements to
assure proper performance are discussed below for those proc-
esses identified in Section 5.4 as being most applicable for
leachate treatment. These considerations should be taken into
account when arranging unit processes into treatment trains.
6.5.1 Biological Treatment
Biological treatment is expected to offer the most cost-
effective approach to removal of organic matter, particularly
biodegradable substances which are not amenable to sorption
processes. The major problem associated with biological treat-
ment is the potential presence of toxic organics and heavy met-
als which may interfere with metabolic processes and render this
treatment approach ineffective. There are several categories of
biological treatment processes including variations within these
categories which overcome toxicity problems to some extent. In
addition, pretreatment or the addition of powdered activated
carbon often can be applied successfully to overcome toxicity
problems. For example, toxic heavy metals may be reduced below
inhibiting concentrations by chemical precipitation using lime,
alum,fOr iron salts, prior to biological treatment. Carbon
sorption either by packed bed pretreatment or PAC addition to
the biological treatment unit can be quite effective in dealing
with organic toxic substances. Nutrient addition (e.g., phos-
phorus and/or nitrogen) probably will be required in many in-
stances to support biological growth. Neutralization also may
be required if the pH is substantially different from 7.
Biological treatments which can be used include aerobic
processes such as activated sludge, trickling filters and aer-
ated lagoons; and anaerobic processes such as lagoons and anaer-
obic filters. Each is discussed below.
Of the varipus activated sludge processes, completely
mixed, extended aeration, and contact stabilization are used
most often. The completely mixed configurations are more toler-
ant of toxic substances than plug flow schemes. The impact of
toxic substances in the wastewater is reduced because complete
mixing in the aeration unit reduces the concentration of the
toxic compound by dilution and distributes the load to a greater
quantity of biomass. Non-biodegradable substances may pose more
6-12
-------
of a problem than biodegradable toxics especially if sorbed by
the biological sludge where they may concentrate over a period
of time and interfere with cell metabolism.
Sludge produced in biological waste treatment may be a haz-
ardous waste itself due to the sorption and concentration of
toxic substances contained in the wastewater. The quantity of
biological sludge produced normally is governed by hydraulic de-
tention time and sludge age. The conventional approach focuses
on maximum sludge production consistent with the desired efflu-
ent quality.
On the other hand, extended aeration minimizes sludge pro-
duction through use of long hydraulic detention times. Extended
aeration typically is used in small operations since the small
sludge handling requirements minimize'the amount of manpower
needed for operation (manpower costs are more significant than
aeration costs for small units).
An additional potential problem associated with aerated
systems is the stripping of volatile compounds. While this may
serve as a removal mechanism, air pollution and personnel safety
problems also may arise. Methods to control these emissions are
limited. Aside from using a process where stripping is less
likely (e.g., trickling filters or an anaerobic process), gas
phase adsorption may be possible using carbon or resin, al-
though this has not been studied extensively. Adsorption would
require collection of off-gas and, thus, could be more easily
adapted to a pure oxygen process. Chemical oxidation of emis-
sions before release also may be feasible. Prior to pursuing
emission control, the potential problem magnitude should be
evaluated thoroughly.
It is doubtful that activated sludge treatment alone will
suffice to meet discharge objectives in all instances. Pre-
treatment is expected to be needed to remove toxic materials^
which would interfere with optimum performance of the biological
system. Post-treatment normally serves to polish the effluent
by removing suspended solids and refractory substances. These
latter substances generally are expected to be in much lower
concentrations than biodegradable substances. Listed below are
potentially useful pretreatment steps:
1. Addition of lime, alum, or iron salts to precipi-
tate heavy metals. f~
2. Carbon sorption which may either be accomplished
through PAC addition with or without chemical coag-
ulation or by packed beds of granular carbon. The
objective is reduction of chemicals toxic to bio-
logical treatment; therefore, large throughputs for
6-13
-------
4.
5.
packed beds or small PAC additions may be all that
is required to achieve this reduction if the toxic
materials are strongly sorbed by the carbon.
Ultrafiltration or reverse osmosis are potential
pretreatment candidates. These would be used to
remove large molecular species which typically in-
clude the toxic and refractory species while
smaller species which are generally biodegradable
(e.g., ethanol, acetone) carry through and are re-
moved in the biological unit.
Aeration, sedimentation and filtration may also be
useful in some instances. For example, ferrous
iron may be oxidized and precipitated to scavenge
other heavy metals. Sedimentation with or without
filtration could then remove the precipitated fer-
ric hydroxide and reduce toxic heavy metals to ac-
ceptable levels.
Chemical oxidation, with ozone for example, may
serve to detoxify certain materials; however, ozone
consumption may be high due to oxidation of mate-
rials which are more appropriately biodegraded at
much less cost. Alkaline chlorination may be used
to oxidize cyanides if present in relatively dilute
concentration.
Wet air oxidation also may detoxify some organic
substances but is expected to be a costly pretreat-
ment step.
Ion exchange can remove toxic metal ions but is
probably more expensive than chemical precipita-
tion.
Electrochemical treatment may be useful in some in-
stances, e.g., it may be preferable to chlorination
for reduction of high cyanide concentrations.
9. A.P.I, separator and/or air flotation may be used
to remove oil and grease.
Candidate post-treatment steps include:
1. Carbon^sorption has strong potential when teamed
with biological. Biological treatment can substan-
tially reduce the load to a carbon column and
thereby minimize the cost.
6.
7.
8.
6-14
-------
2. Chemical coagulation - sedimentation - filtration
would be useful for removing residual heavy metals.
Some PAC addition may also be performed to clean up
low residuals of toxic organics.
Other steps, such as ion exchange and membrane processes may be
considered processes for inorganic ion or total dissolved solids
removal.
Trickling filters will not produce as high a quality efflu-
ent as activated sludge, but may be less troublesome from an op-
erational standpoint and are less likely to cause'stripping of
volatile compounds. Pre- and post-treatment comments for the
activated sludge treatment process also apply to trickling fil-
ters.
Aerobic lagoons may be an effective process for treating
the organic fraction of a leachate stream. Their large size
provides dilution and buffering of load fluctuations. Capital
costs and operation and maintenance requirements are less than
for activated sludge but land requirements are greater and oper-
ational controls are less flexible. If lagoons are aerated by
mechanical means, stripping of volatile compounds could be a
problem.
Sludge removal may necessitate shut down of lagoon opera-
tion, however, clean-out will be determined by leachate compo-
sition and lagoon design and could be very infrequent (at in-
tervals of several years). Effluents probably will need to be
polished to accomplish the high levels of performance expected
to be required. Consequently, pre- and post-treatment processes
discussed for activated sludge generally apply to aerobic la-
goons .
The two anaerobic processes described in Section 5.2 great-
ly differ in their configuration and operation. Both, however,
may have advantages over aerobic treatment because of less
stripping and sludge production. Methane produced could be used
as fuel. Anaerobic lagoons also are easier to operate and have
lower capital, and operation and maintenance costs. The diffi-
culty of anaerobic filter operation may be comparable to acti-
vated sludge. For upflow anaerobic filters, pre-treatment for
suspended solids removal may be needed to minimize filter plug-
ging. A lower quality effluent will be produced by anaerobic
processes necessitating post-treatment with the considerations
discussed for activated sludge applying.
Successful application of anaerobic treatment followed by
aerobic treatment for gross and specific organics removal has
been reported at bench scale. Successful anaerobic treatment of
municipal landfill leachate also has been reported at bench
scale.
6-15
-------
6.5.2 Carbon Adsorption
Activated carbon sorption in packed beds is considered to
be a prime candidate for leachate treatment. However, it is an-
ticipated that activated carbon will be used in conjunction with
other processes since it is quite expensive to treat moderate to
high TOC loads with carbon alone. Furthermore, carbon is not
effective for removing many highly soluble low-molecular weight
organics. Although most of the low-molecular weight organics
are not highly toxic, they will contribute substantially to the
COD and BOD of the effluent.
Carbon sorption is best suited for removal of refractory
organics following biological treatment. These organics•gener-
ally are adsorbed most strongly by the carbon and at the low
concentrations typically found, the carbon sorption cycle can be
lengthened. Consequently, the cost of carbon replacement or re-
generation is lowered.
There may be cases where carbon adsorption will be used be-
fore biological treatment to protect the biological process from
toxics. In these cases complete treatment by the carbon process
is not required and organics can be allowed to "leak" from the
carbon. Treatability studies, however, are necessary to define
leakage levels tolerable by the downstream biological process.
Powdered activated carbon added directly to the activated
sludge biological system also is considered to be a potential
leachate treatment process where refractory or toxic organics
may inhibit biological activity. To assure adequate removal of
carbon from the effluent, post-treatment using granular media
filtration may be necessary.
If granular carbon usage is low, it is unlikely that on-
site thermal regeneration of activated carbon will be performed.
Instead, commercial replacement services probably would be used.
For powdered activated carbon (PAC) the. quantity used also would
dictate the decision between one time use of the PAC or regener-
ation.
Alternative pretreatment steps for the sorption process in-
clude the following:
1. Biological treatment (discussed earlier);
2. Solids removed by filtration;
3. Chemical precipitation/coagulation for suspended
solids and heavy metals removal followed by sedi-
mentation alone or filtration alone, or a combina-
tion of sedimentation and filtration;
6-16
-------
5,
6,
Aeration followed by sedimentation/filtration for
oxidation and precipitation of dissolved iron which
removes heavy metals as well as suspended solids.
Aeration also may remove volatile organics to re-
lieve loading on activated carbon (however, emis-
sions constraints must be considered);
Ozonation to render organics more sorbable by car-
bon ; and
Oil removal.
Processes such as ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis do not
complement sorptipn and are not considered good pretreatment
candidates. Ion exchange possibly may serve to remove ionic
substances such as heavy metals, organic acids, amines, or cya-
nide; but it is likely that alternative processes will be less
expensive.
Post-treatment processes which may be useful include the
following:
1. Precipitation - scavenging for removal of residual
heavy metals.
2. Biological - for removing biodegradable residuals.
3. Filtration - to provide complete removal of PAG
from the treated effluent.
6.5.3 Chemical Precipitation/Coagulation
The term chemical precipitation as used here includes the
processes of chemical addition, precipitation and flocculation.
Post-treatment will include sedimentation or flotation in cases
of oily materials. Granular media filtration also may be in-
cluded for better removal of precipitates.
Typically, precipitation is used for removal of particulate
matter and inorganic ions, primarily heavy metals. It is ac-
complished by adding alum, lime, iron salts (ferric chloride,
ferrous sulfate), or hydrogen or sodium sulfide. Organic poly-
electrolytes also are used as flocculants or to aid floc-
culation.
A primary variable in determining chemical doses and re-
moval efficiencies is pH because of its effect on pollutant sol-
ubility in the wastewater matrix. Although removals equal to
solubility limits are theoretically possible, the formation of
organometallic complexes and the incomplete removal of precipi-
tated particles limits actual removal efficiencies.
6-17
-------
When organics are present, post-treatment for organics re-
moval will be required. This could take several forms including
biological, sorption, or stripping. Reports indicate, however,
that coagulation followed by efficient solids removal, e.g.,
mixed media filtration can provide moderate removals (30-60%) of
numerous organic compounds; even when these compounds are
present at the low milligram or microgram per liter levels.
Provisions also are required to manage sludges generated by the
coagulation process.
For some metals, e.g., hexavalent chromium, precipitation
must be preceded by a chemical reduction process. For iron,
manganese and some other metals pretreatment using chemical oxi-
dation may be required.
6.5.4 Density Separation
Sedimentation is likely to be needed for pre- or post-
treatment in concert with many of the applicable unit processes.
Flotation may be used with or without chemical coagulation for
leachates containing oily materials.
6.5.5 Filtration
Granular media filtration also is likely to be used for
pre- or post-treatment in concert with many of the applicable
unit processes.
6.5.6 Chemical Oxidation
Two potential applications of chemical oxidation processes
to leachate treatment are cyanide destruction and oxidation of
organics. Oxidation of metals is considered of secondary impor-
tance because most metals are more effectively removed by chemi-
cal precipitation or ion exchange. For cyanide destruction,
when cyanide concentration is low and complexation with metals
is possible, alkaline chlorination or ozonation may be most ap-
plicable. Ozonation produces-no harmful residuals (the nature
of intermediate products must be assessed individually) and also
may oxidize organics present in the leachate. A major disadvan-
tage of alkaline chlorination is the potential for formation of
chlorinated organics.
The alkaline chlorination process may include two stage
chlorination or a second step of acid hydrolysis. Both require
close pH control. Pretreatment for metals removal by chemical
precipitation, may be practiced. Post-treatment (biological or
carbon adsorption) for removal of organics may be required when
treating leachate.
6-18
-------
The ozonation process may include chemical coagulation for
metals removal and sedimentation or filtration for suspended_
solids or precipitate removal. Ozone is not selective and will
oxidize cyanide and organics present in the leachate. The de-
gree of oxidation will determine post-treatment requirement.
Biological treatment and possibly carbon adsorption may be nec-
essary.
6.5.7 Chemical Reduction
The major leachate treatment application of chemical reduc-
tion appears to be reduction of hexavalent chromium to trivalent
chromium using sulfur dioxide, sulfite salts, or ferrous sulfate
as reducing agents. For removal of the soluble trivalent chro-
mium, chemical precipitation with lime or sodium carbonate is
used. This precipitation step also may remove other metals
present in the leachate.
If cyanide is present chemical oxidation may be a required
post-treatment. If organics are present in the leachate, bio-
logical or carbon adsorption also may be required post-treatment
steps.
Site conditions will influence the valence state of chro-
mium in a leachate. Analytical determinations are necessary to
identify the form of chromium in the leachate.
6.5.8 Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is an effective but costly method for metallic
ion removal. Consequently, the process application probably
will be limited to selected situations. For purposes of leach-
ate treatment, a major application could be fluoride removal us-
ing activated alumina adsorption. As stated in Section 5.2, ad-
sorption rather than ion exchange is the removal mechanism; how-
ever, the process is operated similarly to ion exchange proc-
esses. Pre-treatment steps could include sedimentation or fil-
tration to remove suspended solids, or .chemical precipitation to
remove metals, or both. Because the process is more suited for
inorganic ion removal, treatment for organics removal may be re-
quired. Treatment and disposal of regenerant and neutralization
streams used to regenerate the activated alumina also must be
considered.
Total dissolved solids removal is another potential appli-
cation for ion exchange when non-precipitable dissolved solids
are present and TDS levels are generally less than 5000 mg/1.
In this case, the process would be used for effluent polishing.
Brines or sludges resulting from regeneration require careful
management.
6-19
-------
6.5.9 Membrane Processes
In cases where total dissolved solids (TDS) removal is re-
quired and TDS concentration ranges from 5,000 to 50,000 mg/1
reverse osmosis could be used for effluent polishing. Concur-
rent removal of some refractory organics also may be accomp-
lished. When used to treat effluents with high TDS levels the
concentrate stream could become very voluminous and would re-
quire additional management considerations.
6.5.10 Stripping Processes
Stripping processes will have limited application in leach-
ate treatment. This is because of air emissions problems re-
lated to air stripping and additional treatment requirements for
overhead condensate and stripper bottoms in the case of steam
stripping. One possible application of air stripping would be
to remove ammonia nitrogen (when biological treatment is not ef-
fective) if emissions would not constitute an air pollution
problem.
If air stripping is used, chemical precipitation and sedi-
mentation may be used for pretreatment to accomplish metals re-
moval, to take advantage of alkaline pH conditions, and for re-
duced solids loading to the stripper. If additional alkalinity
is necessary, chemicals should be selected with sludge produc-
tion and disposal considerations in mind.
6.5.11 Wet Oxidation
Only limited application of wet oxidation is envisioned at
this time because of a lack of process experience. Where leach-
ates are composed primarily of high concentrations of toxic or
refractory organics but are too dilute for incineration to be
cost-effective, wet oxidation could be considered. Site specif-
ic treatability studies should be conducted before selecting the
process. Pretreatment requirements probably will be minimal;
post-treatment requirements will depend on the degree of oxida-
tion achieved.
Wet oxidation as a regeneration technique for powdered ac-
tivated carbon used in leachate treatment does appear to be a
promising potential application.
6.6 PROCESS TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
>r-
Since hazardous waste leachates are expected to vary widely
in composition and will often contain a variety of constituents,
in general, no single unit process will be capable of providing
the necessary treatment. Rather, the incorporation of individ-
ual unit processes into process trains will be necessary to
achieve high levels of treatment in a cost-effective manner.
6-20
-------
The most promising unit processes were identified in Section 6.5
Thus, the next step in selecting a leachate treatment system is
to formulate process trains which combine unit process technolo-
gies in a fashion which optimizes solution of a particular
leachate treatment problem.
The formulation of process trains is addressed subsequently
in this section for three general types of, hazardous waste
leachates depending upon the type of contaminants to be treated:
organic, inorganic, or combination of organic and inorganic.
These are believed to be typical of the types of leachate treat-
ment situations which will be encountered at most hazardous
waste disposal sites. Example treatment systems are described
for each of the leachate types. These systems were selected^to
apply to a broad range of contaminants which may be present in
leachates and should be capable of achieving high levels of
treatment. However, other arrangements of unit processes are_
possible and may be preferable in some cases as dictated by site
specific conditions. Process trains presented herein are be-
lieved to have broad applicability but must be evaluated in
light of a specific leachate treatment problem.
Descriptions of process trains and operating conditions are
presented in differing levels of detail depending on the appli-
cability and reliability of available data. In many cases, the
generic type of process (e.g., biological treatment) is illus-
trated in the process train rather than a specific process
(e.g., activated sludge, trickling filter, aerated lagoon) be-
cause site specific conditions will control the choice of the
'specific unit process.
Because of the paucity of data on hazardous waste leachate
composition and general lack of experience with leachate treat-
ment, the examples given below were derived from a range of
sources: actual leachate with a full scale process train imple-
mented, contaminated groundwater similar in composition to
leachate and proposed alternative process trains, and postulated
leachates and alternative process trains. The user can compare
these situations to the particular case at hand and make judg-
ments about possible treatment approaches.
6.6.1 Leachate Containing Organic Contaminants
6.6.1.1 Love Canal Experience-
Experience in the treatment of actual highistrength organ-
ics-containing leachate has been reported by McDougall, et al.
(3,4). They report on the temporary and permanent process
trains used to treat leachate from the Love Canal. The proc-
esses selected for the permanent facility are listed below and
the flow chart is illustrated in Figure 6-2:
6-21
-------
a\
I
to
to
leachate
STORAGE
TANK
sludge to
off-site
disposal
i— caustic
addition
CLARIFIER
<.. v /
\__y
sludge
SLUDGE
STORAGE
TANK
BAG FILTERS
V
FILTER FEED
TANK
GRANULAR
ACTIVATED
CARBON
effluent
to POTW
spent GAC
Figure 6-2. Love Canal Permanent Treatment System schematic flow diagram.(3)
-------
• raw leachate holding tank
• neutralization with caustic followed by clarification
• in-line storage tank
• in-line bag filters
• carbon adsorption (2 beds in series)
The leachate treatment facility discharges to the city sewer
system which conveys the treated leachate to a physical-chemical
municipal sewage treatment plant.
Performance data collected during operation of a temporary
system which was similar to the permanent treatment system ex-
cept that granular media filters were used instead of bag fil-
ters are shown in Table 6-1.
Cost for permanent treatment has been reported to be
$9.80/m3 (3.74/gal) which includes amortized carbon system capi-
tal/ replacement carbon, and equipment maintenance.
The following considerations or actions taken during devel-
opment of the Love Canal leachate treatment system are illustra-
tive of factors which should be taken into account when select-
ing a leachate treatment technology in any situation.
1. Love Canal was judged to be a public health hazard
and immediate emergency actions were required.
This limited the time which could be devoted to
evaluating alternative approaches.
2. A leachate existed which could be used for treata-
bility studies.These studies focused primarily on
priority (organic) pollutant removals.
3. A physical-chemical POTW was in close proximity.
This provided not only a discharge option but also
additional treatment and dilution thus serving as a
buffering device should the leachate treatment sys-
tem ultimately selected fail to meet performance
requirements.
4. Discharge to a POTW allowed for performance re-
quirements likely to be less stringent than for di-
rect discharge to surface waters.
5. Regular monitoring was practiced and the system was
constructed so that system modifications could be
made as needed at a future time.
6-23
-------
TABLE 6-1 PERFORMANCE DATA ON TEMPORARY TREATMENT
SYSTEM AT LOVE CANAL (3)
Pollutant
Raw Leachate
(ng/D
Carbon System
Effluent ( tig/1)
2,4, 6-tr ichlorophenol
2, 4-dichlorophenol
Phenol
1, 2, 3-trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
2-chloronaphthalene
1 , 2-dichlorobenzene
1,3&1,4-
dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutad iene
Anthracene and
phenanthrene
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1, 2-dichloroe thane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1-dichloroe thane
If If 2-trichloroe thane
1,1,2,2-
te trachloroe thane
Chloroform
1 , 1-dichloroe thy Iene
1,2- trans
dichloroethylene
1, 2-dichloropropane
Ethylbenzene
Me thy Iene chloride
Methyl chloride
Chlorod ibr omome thane
Te trachloroe thy Iene
Toulene
Trichloroe thy Iene
TOC
85
5,100
2,400
870
110
510
1,300
960
1,500
29
28,000
61,000
50,000
52
23
66
780
80,000
44,000
16
3,200
130
590
140
370
29
44,000
25,000
5,000
% 1,000 mg/1
< 10
, N.D.
< 10
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
< 10
< 10
12
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
< 10
< 10
< 10
N.D.
< 10
N.D.
< 10
46
N.D.
N.D.
12
< 10
N.D.
'v 30 mg/1
N.D. - not detected
6-24
-------
Results of limited treatability and feasibility study
efforts prior to treatment system selection are summarized
below:
1. A mobile treatment unit equipped for pH adjustment,
clarification, sand filtration, and carbon adsorp-
tion was operated at the site and produced effluent
which was found to be acceptable for discharge (3).
2. Because granular activated carbon was believed to
be the best available technology for priority pol-
lutant removal from the leachate, carbon isotherm,
dynamic column, and carbon reactivation studies
were undertaken (4). Isotherms indicated that the
treatment objective of 300 mg/1 TOC could be met
with reasonable carbon usage. Dynamic column stud-
ies indicated that the 300 mg/1 TOC limit could be
achieved; that only one organic compound, methanol,
was found in the effluent in the mg/1 range; that
no traces of several priority pollutants were found
in the effluent; and that pretreatment would be
required to provide separation of oily, liquid, and
sludge phases in the raw leachate. Carbon reacti-
vation studies indicated that high temperature re-
activation could restore most of the carbon adsorp-
tive capacity, and that the reactivation furnace
and afterburner could be operated to provide total
destruction of the organics.
3. Biological treatability studies were conducted in
small scale reactors (5). Leachate was diluted
with nutrient supplemented tap water or sewage in
these studies. Results indicated that biodegrada-
tion was possible at 1:5 dilution with either tap
water or sewage provided that nutrients were added
and pH was controlled. Since the oxygen demand was
high and there was a possibility that off-gases
might contain undesirable compounds, a closed
pure-oxygen system with scrubbing or carbon adsorp-
tion of off-gases was thought to be promising (5).
These initial studies also concluded that carbon
adsorption treatment of raw leachate was impracti-
cal because of the high carbon doses required and
that pretreatment with activated^sludge with carbon
polishing might be reasonable. Leachate quality,
however, was found to change substantially from
that used in these early tests.
6-25
-------
The results of these treatability studies and the per-
formance data presented in Table 6-1 illustrate the treatability
of this leachate. A comparison of these results with treatabil-
ity information for carbon adsorption in Appendix E leads to the
following observations:
1. treatability information for 25 of the 31 compounds
listed in Table 6-1 is given in Appendix E, and
2. the treatability information for these compounds
very closely corresponds to the performance indi-
cated in Table 6-1.
While the data in Appendix E do not always indicate the best
level attainable in an effluent, they do indicate which com-
pounds are treatable and provide an estimate of process perfor-
mance. This demonstrates the usefulness of Appendix E data in
aiding initial screenings of technologies especially for those
with greater application experiences.
The Love Canal experience illustrates a case where acti-
vated carbon treatment is an effective and relatively cost-ef-
fective method for removing organic contaminates from a haz-
ardous waste leachate.This approach may or may not have been
the optimum choice but the emergency nature of the situation did
not permit lengthy process optimization studies. Since the Love
Canal leachate treatment system is an operating facility, addi-
tional experience should better define the effectiveness and
costs associated with this approach.
6.6.1.2 Ott/Story Site Study—
On-going efforts to evaluate technologies for treating
groundwater contaminated by a variety of toxic and hazardous or-
ganic compounds have been reported in several references
(6,7,8/9). This experience is highlighted for several reasons
even though the subject wastewater is groundwater rather than
leachate:
1. Many of the compounds are the same as would be ex-
pected to occur in leachate.
2. Treatability studies have been conducted using
groundw-ater obtained from the most concentrated
part of the contamination plume. Therefore, con-
taminant concentrations may approach those of
leacfrate.
3. Groundwater quality data indicate compounds which
are likely to migrate.
6-26
-------
4. The compounds present include toxic and hazardous
pollutants as well as other organics. Thus, treat-
ability results reflect the effects of the non-tox-
ic, non-hazardous organics in the matrix.
5. Numerous technologies are being screened in the
laboratory using actual wastewater.
6. The site is subject to on-going remedial action
work so that further information is likely to be-
come available.
Table 6-2 presents a summary of raw groundwater composition
data as represented by composite samples from two wells in the
contaminant plume which are being used in the treatability
studies. Groundwater samples from other wells in the problem
area differ widely in composition from those presented here.
TABLE 6-2 OTT/STORY GROUNDWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Parameter
pH
COD
TOG
NH -N
Organic N
Chloride
Conductivity
TDS
Volatile Organics:
Vinyl chloride*
Methylene chloride*
1,1-Dichloroethylene*
1,1-Dichloroethane*
1,2-Dichloroethane*
Benzene*
1,1,2-Trichloroethane*
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane*
Toluene*
Ethyl benzene*
Chlorobenzene*
Trichlorofluoromethane*
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Composition Range**
10 - 12
5400 mg/1
600 - 1500 mg/1
64 mg/1
110 mg/1
3800 mg/1
18,060 mhos/cm
12,000 mg/1
140 - 32,500
<5 - 6570
60 - 19,850
<5 - 14,280
0.350 - 111 mg/1
6 - 7800
<5 - 790
<5 - 1590
<5 -5850 '
<5 - 47,0
<5 - 140
<5 - 18
1400
40
110
(continued)
6-27
-------
TABLE 6-2 (continued)
Parameter
Acid Extractable Organics:
o-Chlorophenol*
Phenol*
o-sec-Butylphenol***
p-Isobutylanisol*** or
p-Ace tonylani sol***
p-sec-Butylphenol***
p-2-oxo-n-Butylphenol
m-Acetonylanisol***
IsopropyIphenol***
1-EthyIpropyIphenol
DimethyIphenol*
Benzoic acid
MethyIphenol
Me thyle thyIphenol
MethylprophyIphenol
3,4-D-Methylphenol
Base Extractable Organics:
Dichlorobenzene*
Dime thy Ian iline
m-EthyIaniline
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene*
Naphthalene*
Methylnapthalene
Camphor
Chloroaniline
Benzylamine or o-Toluidine
Phenanthrene* or
Anthracene*
MethyIaniline
Composition Range**
<3 - 20
<3 - 33
X3 - 83 ,
<3 - - 86
• <3 - 48
<3 - 1357
<3 - 1546
<3 - 8
<3
<3
<3 - 12,311
40
20
210
:160
- 172
- 17,000
- 7640 ,
- 28
- 66
- 290
- 7571
- 86
- 471
- 670
310
* - A priority pollutant
** — All concentrations in yg/1 except as noted
*** _ structure not validated by actual compound
Because the contamination problem is solely organic in na-
ture, the following processes individually and in combination
have been selected for screening:
• biological treatment - activated sludge, trickling fil-
ter, anaerobic filter;
6-28
-------
• chemical precipitation;
• granular and powdered activated carbon adsorption;
resin adsorption; ,
• air and steam stripping; and
• ozonation.
Results of completed studies are summarized below:
1. Chemical coagulation of raw groundwater does not
achieve significant removal of organics as measured
by TOC reduction. It also does not appear to be
necessary in order to maintain flow through down-
flow packed bed granular activated carbon (GAG)
columns.
2. An aerobic biomass could not be acclimated to treat
raw groundwater. Biological treatment provided
about 60% TOG reduction; however, stripping due to
aeration appeared to account for about two-thirds
of what was accomplished in the biological treat-
ment process.
3. Addition of trace elements and nutrients did not
aid acclimation to raw groundwater.
4. Addition of powdered activated carbon to the aera-
tion chamber at concentrations of about 10,000 mg/1
neither aided acclimation to raw groundwater nor
improved TOC removal or mixed liquor appearance.
5. Batch adsorption studies for four different carbons
and three resins indicated that no sorbent was able
to reduce residual TOC to less than 230 mg/1.
6. Granular activated carbon (GAG) employed in contin-
uous flow small columns was not capable of sustain-
ing high levels of TOC removal. TOC removal de-
clined to <50% after processing <5 bed volumes
(BV). Within 100-160 BV TOC removal declined to
10% to 15% and remained at this level for up to 200
BV.
7. GAC adsorption was capable of sustaining high lev-
els of organic priority pollutant removals even
when TOC removal had declined to 35% and effluent
TOC levels were approximately 600 mg/1. In both
batch and continuous flow adsorption studies, some
volatile priority pollutants were detected in the
6-29
-------
effluent. None of the acid or base-neutral ex-
tractable organic priority pollutants detected in
the raw groundwater were found in GAG effluent
after processing up to 71 BV of groundwater.
8. Continuous flow, small column, resin adsorption
studies .demonstrated TOC breakthrough characteris-
tics similar to those for GAG adsorption. However,
TOC breakthrough occurred more rapidly with resin
than with carbon.
9. GAG pretreatment of raw groundwater enabled devel-
opment of a culture of aerobic organisms capable of
further treating GAG effluent. In excess of 95%
TOC removal was achieved by this process during the
period which GAG removal of TOC exceeded 30%. Af-
ter this initial period, process train performance
declined as GAG performance declined.
10. Several organic priority pollutants were detected
in off-gas from activated sludge reactors; these
included methylene chloride, 1,2-dichloroethane,
benzene, tetrachloroethylene, and toluene. No or-
ganic priority pollutants were detected in an acti-
vated sludge biomass sample.
11. Anaerobic treatment (upflow anaerobic filter, UAF)
of GAG pretreated groundwater was possible. UAF
performance appeared to decline as GAG performance
declined. Overall the GAC/UAF process train per-
formed more poorly than the GAC/activated sludge
process train.
Based upon these results, one can make several observations:
1. The removal of priority pollutants by the granular
activated carbon and the air stripping unit proc-
esses generally corresponds with other published
information including that contained in Appendix E.
2. A considerable fraction of the TOC is made up of
non-priority organic compounds. This fraction of
the TOC is more difficult to remove than the prior-
ity pollutants.
3. The ineed for removal of the TOC attributed to the
. non-priority pollutants needs to be closely
assessed. A limited number of static bioassay
tests with Daphnia Magna or carbon treated ground-
water suggest significant residual toxicity;
6-30
-------
whether this is attributable to the compounds pres-
ent or to low dissolved oxygen levels needs to be
determined.
Results of the treatability studies to date suggest that a
process train consisting of granular activated carbon followed by
aerobic biological treatment is the most feasible approach to
treatment of this groundwater.
This process train which, in general, is applicable to high
TOG wastewaters in situations where waste stream components may
be toxic to biological cultures is illustrated in Figure 6-3.
The rationale is to utilize the activated carbon to protect the
biological system from toxicity problems. Therefore, the carbon
could be allowed to "leak" relatively high concentrations of TOG
(organics) rather than be operated to achieve maximum reduction
of organic compounds. Allowable leakage would be based upon
determination of the point at which the carbon treated effluent
becomes toxic to the subsequent biological process. Thus, the
selection of the allowable TOG or organics leakage (i.e., break-
through) from the carbon contactors is crucial to the perfor-
mance and cost effectiveness of this process train. Higher or-
ganic loads handled by the biological system result in greater
service life of the granular carbon and consequently, lower
costs related to the carbon treatment phase.
The flowsheet depicted in Figure 6-3 includes a chemical
coagulation step (including settling and filtration). Although
not necessary in the groundwater treatment situation discussed
above, these processes could be used in situations where soluble
inorganics removal or particulate removal to minimize head
losses and frequent backwashing in carbon contact columns may be
necessary.
Several disadvantages may be associated with the treatment
system given in Figure 6-3 as illustrated by the above ground-
water treatment case:
1. Substantial carbon utilization rates to maintain ef-
fluent TOG levels below 100 mg/1; and
2. Stripping of volatile compounds in activated sludge
off-gases.
Other factors which must be considered in evaluating this
approach include carbon regeneration feasibility and sludge dis-
posal alternatives.
6.6.1.3 Other Possibilities—
Several other potentially effective process trains for
treatment of leachates containing primarily organic contaminants
6-31
-------
cr>
I
U)
NJ
pH adjustment
_y
chemicals
COAGULATION
influent A
backwash
I
effluent F
< - 1
I ___ I
FILTRATION
(optional)
SETTLING
sludge
backwash
SETTLING
FILTRATION
A
off gases
\ i sludge
A
BIOLOGICAL
waste sludge
GRANULAR
ACTIVATED
CARBON
spent GAC
Figure 6-3. Schematic of carbon sorption/biological process train.
-------
have been postulated elsewhere (9). One of these, believed to
have high potential, is depicted in Figure 6-4 which illustrates
a sequence of biological treatment followed by granular carbon
sorption. This process train is applicable to treatment of
wastewaters high in TOG, low in toxic (to a biomass) organics,
and containing refractory organics. Chemical coagulation and pH
adjustment are provided for heavy metals removal and protection
of the subsequent biological system. Thi"s'"may not be necessary
if heavy metal concentrations are below toxicity thresholds and
if the moderate removal efficiencies typical of activated sludge
are sufficient. Biological treatment such as activated sludge,
or anaerobic filters is included to reduce BOD as well as biode-
gradable toxic organics. This reduces the organic load to sub-
sequent sorption processes. To prevent rapid head losses caused
by accumulation of solids in the sorption columns, clarification
and multi-media filtration are provided. The intent is to re-
duce suspended solids to 25-50 mg/1. Granular carbon adsorption
is included to remove refractory organic residuals and toxic
organics. Activated carbon rather than polymeric or; carbon-
aceous resins has been suggested because more full scale experi-
ence exists and performance as well as design and operating cri-
teria have been reported. This process train is expected to be
highly effective and relatively economical when compared to
other alternatives. Its success, however, is dependent on bio-
logical system performance. Moreover, the presence of high con-
centrations of volatile organic constituents may create a poten-
tial air contamination problem. Three by-product wastes are
produced: chemical sludge, biological sludge, and spent carbon.
Spent carbon can be regenerated but the sludge must be disposed.
6.6.2 Leachate Containing Inorganic Contaminants
Disposal sites or segregated portions of sites handling
solely inorganic hazardous wastes, e.g., wastes from the metals
plating and finishing industry, are likely to generate leachates
of predominantly inorganic nature. The most probable approach
to treatment of this type of leachate would be chemical precip-
itation followed by sedimentation and possibly filtration, as
well. However, it may be necessary to modify/supplement this
approach if any of the following conditions pertain:
1. hexavalent chromium present - addition of chemical
reduction process, !
%i
2. cyanide present - addition of alkaline' chlorination or
ozonation,
3. total dissolved solids control required - addition of
ion exchange if TDS level is less than about 5,000
rag/1 or reverse osmosis if TDS level is about 5,000 to
50,000 mg/1, or
6-33
-------
I
to
pH adjustment
V
chemicals
COAGULATION SETTLING
0 influent A
backwash
GRANULAR
ACTIVATED
CARBON
vslud
sludge
FILTRATION
>spent GAC
effluent
/Noff
gases
BIOLOGICAL
SETTLING
A
\i sludge
Y waste sludge
Figure 6-4. Schematic of biological/carbon sorption process train.
-------
4. ammonia present - addition of air stripping or ion
exchange.
Several examples of leachates containing only inorganic con-
taminants are discussed subsequently to illustrate process
trains responsive to the above conditions. Cases discussed are
as follows:
1. heavy metals only (Figure 6-5);
2. heavy metals including hexavalent chromium (Figure 6-
6);
3. heavy metals including hexavalent chromium and cyanide
(Figure 6-7); and
4. heavy metals, ammonia, and TDS control (Figure 6-8).
Figure 6-5 illustrates a process train for treating leach-
ates containing several heavy metals. The treatment system in-
cludes chemical precipitation using lime or ferric chloride.
Depending upon the metals present, the pH should be adjusted to
8.0 - 9.5. Flocculation could be aided by polymer addition for
more efficient precipitate removal in the subsequent sedimenta-
tion step. Polishing with granular media filtration also could
be provided for better solids removal.
Figure 6-6 is a treatment process schematic for leachate
containing heavy metals including hexavalent chromium. The
first step in the process is chemical reduction at an acidic pH
(pH reduced to 3.0 or less with sulfuric acid) to reduce hexa-
valent chromium to the trivalent state. Sulfur dioxide is used
as the reducing agent; although sodium bisulfite or metabi-
sulfite can be used. Following reduction, the pH is raised to
pH 8.0 to 9.5 using lime or sodium hydroxide. This results in
the precipitation of trivalent chromium as well as other metals.
The remainder of the process train is as shown in Figure 6-5.
Figure 6-7 is a process schematic illustrating the treat-
ment of a hazardous waste leachate containing cyanide and heavy
metals including hexavalent chromium. Alkaline chlorination
(with NaOCL or C12 gas) at pH 9.0 to 10.5 for cyanide oxidation
is provided first. Complete cyanide oxidation requires close pH
control and an excess of chlorine. Reaction time and chlorine
requirements depend greatly on operating pH. Ozone oxidation is
a potential alternative to alkaline chlorination particularly
for leachates containing organic compounds which might be con-
verted to chlorinated forms.
Chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium to the trivalent
state is accomplished next. For this step pH must be decreased
to less than pH 3 using sulfuric acid. Sulfur dioxide is added
6-35
-------
. chemical addition: .lime, FeCI3, NaOH
pH adjustment: 8.0-9.5
a\
I
cr>
leachate v
XIV
1
1
1
|
j- polymer
CHEMICAL | (optional)
PRECIPITATION •
1
/ _L/
FLOCCUL/
1
GRANULAR MEDIA
FILTRATION
f (optional)
SEDIMENTATION r - n effluent
\
\TION
\
I
I backwash
r LTJ
sludge |
1
1
- — _ _ _J
Figure 6-5. Process train for leachate containing metals.
-------
leachate v v
so
lima, NaOH
pH adjustment
Po|ymer (optional)
/
GRANULAR MEDIA
FILTRATION
(optional)
SEDIMENTATION | 1
CHEMICAL CHEMICAL FLOCCULATION
REDUCTION PRECIPITATION
J) (pH 8.0-9.5)
Y/~
sludge
r
I
j effluent
l_ _ _ _
backwash
Figure 6-6. Process train for leachate containing metals including hexavalent chromium.
-------
U>
CO
r- NaOH or Ca(OH)4
C02 ,NZ
A
leachate
r SO,
[TfJ
-NaOHor lime
RU
I
.polymer (optional)
GRANULAR MEDIA
FILTRATION
/ (optional)
SEDIMENTATION | 1
V
ALKALINE CHEMICAL CHEMICAL FLOCCULATION
CHLORINATION REDUCTION PRECIPITATION
(pH 9.0-10.5) (pH^2.3) (pH 8.0-9.5)
V/
T
effluent
sludge
L
backwash
Figure 6-7,
Process train for leachate containing metals includina
hexavalent chromium and cyanide.
-------
as the reducing agent. Care must be taken to assure complete
cyanide removal prior to this process because acid conditions
permit generation of toxic hydrogen cyanide gas. Following re-
duction, pH is raised to pH 8.0 to 9.5 for precipitation of
trivalent chromium and other metals. The remainder of the proc-
ess train is as shown in Figure 6-5.
Several alternatives for treating leachates containing met-
als and ammonia and also requiring TDS control are illustrated
in Figure 6-8. The first phase of the process train addresses
removal of heavy metals using chemical precipitation as depicted
in Figure 6-5.
Two alternatives for subsequent ammonia removal then are
presented. Alternative 1 involves selective ion exchange using
clinoptilolite, (a natural zeolite). For removing ammonia con-
centrated in the regenerant stream, air stripping can be used
and the lime slurry regenerant can be reused. Alternative_2
uses an air stripping tower operated under alkaline conditions;
pH adjustment can be accomplished using sodium hydroxide or
lime. Use of the latter, however, can generate large volumes of
sludge.
The last phase of the process train in Figure 6-8 provides
for TDS control using either ion exchange or reverse osmosis.
Ion exchange resins would include cationic and anionic species;
whether strong-acid or base, or weak-acid or base are used de-
pends on the ions to be exchanged.
Each of the treatment systems discussed above produces
chemical sludges which may have to be handled as hazardous
wastes. Disposal of these residues is discussed in Section 5.4.
The primary disposal alternative is to landfill, preferably
without dewatering or stabilization. However, site specifics
and subsequent resolubilization concerns will influence this
decision.
The foregoing cases and example process trains do not en-
compass every conceivable leachate treatment situation involving
hazardous waste leachates containing only inorganic contami-
nants. However, the examples are applicable to a broad range of
leachate concerns and are illustrative of the approach to formu-
lation of conceptual process flowsheets.
6.6.3 Leachate Containing Organic and Inorganfc Pollutants
Hazardous waste leachate is expected frequently to be more
complex than the previous cases and may contain both inorganic
and organic contaminants. Treatment of this leachate will
involve some combination of the treatment processes discussed in
Sections 6.6.1 and 6.6.2. Because possible leachate composition
variations are numerous, it is not feasible to illustrate the
6-3S
-------
a\
I
laachate .
METALS REMOVAL
(aae Figure 6-6)
chemical precfcttatton
(pH 6.0-8.5)
flocculalton
aedlmentatlon
granular media
filtration (optional)
recovered regoneront
regeoeration
vrtttNBOH
|ON
EXCHANGE
(clinoptltoltte)
aqueous ammortiti
alternative 1
alternative 2
|_NaOH or (me
(pH 10.8-11.6)
eolation
air strapping
AIR STRIP
sludge
LsL
fonHodon rogeflorftnto
A
regenerants
1
ION EXCHANGE
altemalKro 1
alternative 2
REVERSE OSMOSIS
I brine
effluent
U-METALS REMOVAL PHASE 4$-
AMMONIA REMOVAL PHASE
»K-
TDS CONTROL PHASE
—H
Figure 6-8. Process train for leachate containing metals and ammonia
and requiring TDS control.
-------
myriad of potential treatment process trains. Instead, an over-
view of important considerations is presented based upon infor-
mation provided throughout this manual.
In general, when both inorganic and organic contaminants
are present, the inorganics generally should be removed first to
minimize effects on subsequent processes. Examples of such
effects include metal toxicity to biological processes and cor-
rosion, scaling, and inerts accumulation during carbon regenera-
tion. Information on.metals toxicity to biological processes is
included in Appendix E and in a report by Pajak, et al. (10).
The processes most suitable for inorganics removal are dis-
cussed in Section. 6.6.2 and are illustrated in Figures 6-5, 6-6,
6-7, and 6-8. These processes include chemical precipitation,
chemical oxidation and reduction, neutralization, filtration,
and sedimentation. In addition to providing inorganics removal,
chemical precipitation and oxidation processes also could effect
some pretreatment of organic compounds. This is especially true
for chemical oxidation with ozone or hydrogen peroxide and is a
factor which must be considered when chemical dosage require-
ments are determined. Handling of residues generated by these
processes is discussed in Sections 5.4 and 6.6.2.
The two leading processes for treating organics are biolog-
ical treatment and activated carbon adsorption. Whether these
processes should be used separately or in combination depends
upon leachate characteristics. If the organics consist solely
of biodegradable compounds, then biological treatment alone
would suffice; although a subsequent solids removal polishing
step could be necessary in some situations.
A leachate containing degradable organics only is not
expected to occur frequently; consequently, the two processes
most frequently will be used in series. They may be arranged
with the biological process preceding granular activated carbon
(GAG) to remove degradable organics and reduce the organic load
to the GAG process which then is used for refractory organics
removal and polishing. To. avoid GAG column plugging a sedimen-
tation or filtration step should be located between the biolog-
ical process and GAG. This treatment sequence could be applied
when organics content is high and refractory but not when toxic
organics are present.
A second arrangement would be to have GAG preceding biolog-
ical treatment. This sequence would be used a/hen toxic organics
would interfere with the biological process. The GAG could be
operated to leak the maximum concentration of organics that the
biological system could tolerate and still meet performance
requirements. This results in a longer sorption cycle for the
carbon.
6-41
-------
Approaches to treatment of the organic component of leach-
ates have been discussed in Section 6.6.1 and process train
schematics given in Figures 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4. One additional
process train which merits consideration is shown schematically
in Figure 6-9. This biophysical treatment approach combines
simultaneous biological (activated sludge) and powdered acti-
vated carbon treatments in the biological process reactor. This
approach is simpler than the previously described sequential
carbon-biological treatments and has the potential of achieving
comparable effluent quality. Potential advantages include the
use of less costly carbon (powdered vs. granular) and minimiza-
tion of physical facilities required. Spent carbon-biological
sludge can be regenerated or dewatered and disposed directly.
However, if the latter approach is considered, it is necessary
to include cost for disposal of toxics-laden carbon when making
economic comparisons.
Most of the considerations necessary for development of a
process train for treatment of leachates containing both organic
and inorganic contaminants have been previously discussed in
Sections 6.6.2 and 6.6.3. The components discussed in these
previous sections must be assembled in a manner so as to opti-
mize the treatment process train for the leachate at hand.
Probably the most important aspect is proper sequencing of unit
processes to achieve an optimum result for a given situation.
Careful attention should be paid to proper interfacing of com-
ponents discussed in Sections 6.6.2 and 6.6.3 (e.g., pH control
may be necessary from one treatment component to the next).
With these cautions in mind, the reader is referred to these
earlier sections to derive a basis for formulating conceptual
process trains for mixed (organic and inorganic) component
leachates.
6.7. REFERENCES
1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality
Criteria Documents Availability. Federal Register,45
(231): 79318-79379. U. S; Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. November 28, 1980.
2. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Ground
Water Protection Strategy. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. November 18, 1980.
3. McDougall, W. J., S. D. Cifrulak, R. A. Fusco, and R. P.
O'Brien. Treatment of Chemical Leachate at the Love Canal
Landfill -Site. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Mid-Atlantic
Industrial Waste Conference, Bucknell University, Lewis-
burg, Pennsylvania, 1980. pp 69-75.
6-42
-------
I
*>
co
influent yw
pH adjustment
chemicals
COAGULATION
(_ Backwash
"1
effluent
powdered activated
carbon
SETTLING
I I
FILTRATION
(optional)
v
sludge
_y
f
off gases
BIOLOGICAL
SETTLING
V
sludge
V
waste sludge
Figure 6-9. Schematic of biophysical process train.
-------
4. McDougall, W. J., R. A. Fusco, and R. P. O'Brien. Con-
tainment and Treatment of the Love Canal Landfill Leachate.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 52(12):
2914-2924, 1980.
5. Earth, E. F. and J. M. Cohen. Evaluation of Treatability
of Industrial Landfill Leachate. Unpublished Report. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. Novem-
ber 30, 1978.
6. Pajak, A. P., A. J. Shuckrow, J. W. Osheka, and S. C.
James. Concentration of Hazardous Constituents of Contami-
nated Groundwater. Proceedings of the Twelfth Mid-Atlantic
Industrial Waste Conference, Bucknell University, Lewis-
burg, Pennsylvania. July, 1980. pp 82-87.
7. Shuckrow, A. J., A. P. Pajak, and J. W. Osheka. Concen-
tration Technologies for Hazardous Aqueous Waste Treatment.
EPA-600/2-81-019, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. February, 1981.
8. Pajak, A. P., A. J. Shuckrow, J. W. Osheka, and S. C.
James. Assessment of Technologies for Contaminated Ground-
water Treatment. Proceedings of the Industrial Waste
Symposia, 53rd. Annual WPCF Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada.
September, 1980.
9. Shuckrow, A. J., A. P. Pajak, J.W. Osheka, and S. C. James.
Bench Scale Assessment of Technologies for Contaminated
Groundwater Treatment. Proceedings of National Conference
on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,
Washington, D.C. October, 1980. pp 184-191.
10. Pajak, A. P., E. J. Martin, G. A. Brinsko, and F. J. Erny.
Effect of Hazardous Material Spills on Biological Treatment
Process. EPA-600/2-77-239, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 202 pp.
'•(71
6-44
-------
SECTION 7
MONITORING
7.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
This section is intended to point out considerations Which
are important in the design of a monitoring program to support
hazardous waste leachate management efforts. It is not intended
to be a rigorous exposition of how monitoring should be accom-
plished nor does it address aspects of monitoring which are,not
directly related to leachate management. Numerous, analytical
standards and texts which detail many of the specific aspects
are available to guide development procedures. Moreover^ the
user should recognize that leachate monitoring, -as discussed?:.
herein, probably will be carried out as one element in an over-
all disposal site monitoring program which will encompass addi-
tional considerations and objectives.
Leachate monitoring is needed to characterize aqueous,
wastes which result from disposal of hazardous materials at. .per-
mitted sites, to develop data necessary for design and operation
of leachate treatment facilities, to evaluate the effectiveness
of leachate treatment systems, to assure compliance with dis-
charge permits, and to assure personnel safety in leachate
handling and treatment operations.
A leachate monitoring program in the broadest sense could
encompass the following objectives:
1) Define materials placed within the disposal site,
2) Determine the types of compounds in the leachate and
their concentration ranges,
3) Determine the variation of concentrations as a function
of time,
4) Determine the factors which influence movement and
concentrations,
5) Determine the rate and direction of migration,
6) Establish leachate treatment process alternatives,
7-1
-------
7) Establish leachate treatment process operating ranges,
8) Monitor leachate treatment process effectiveness,
9) Monitor leachate containment effectiveness,
10) Assure safety in leachate handling and processing
operations, and
11)
Determine conformance to or accuracy of a leachate
forecasting procedure.
The above xtems are not of equal concern in the current context
Moreover, some encompass aspects of disposal site management
which are broader than leachate management alone. The relative
importance and potential usefulness of these objectives from a
leachate management viewpoint are discussed subsequently in this
section. ^ * t.nxs
Monitoring can be carried out at several locations in the
leachate management system:
1) Wastes received for disposal,
2) In-situ monitoring for off-gas generation and leachate
formation,
3) Collected leachate,
4) Leachate treatment system,
5) Treatment system effluent and residues, and
6) Areas of potential safety hazards.
Reasons for monitoring at the locations noted above, and the
types of information needed are described later in Uiis section.
Monitoring data are expected to be used for a variety of
purposes. Data obtained on incoming wastes will permit hazard-
ous waste disposal site operators to decide whethe? or not to
accept the wastes it also will provide an inventory of mate-
rials . Given such an inventory, the site operator can have a
basis for predicting the range of compounds likely to be en-
countered in resultant leachate. Concentrations of certain con-
taminants in the leachate might be able to be estimated based
upon the amount and type of materials disposed. This aspect is
important at new sites prior to the time of leachate generation
Moreover, such information can provide a basis for LiJiJl
> 1-adhat.
7-2
-------
In-situ monitoring data can be used to determine how the
leachate is formed and how it moves through the disposal site.
Furthermore, it may be possible to use in-situ data to char-
acterize the types and concentrations of compounds in the
leachate collection system. Monitoring collected leachate is
one of the most important aspects of leachate monitoring. The
information gained provides a baseline forr treatment system in-
fluent characterization; thus facilitating decisions regarding
treatability (or necessary treatability studies) and optimum
treatment/disposal operating ranges.
Other important monitoring data obtained will be that from
treatment process operations. Such data are necessary to assure
proper functioning of treatment system components, to establish
treatment system effectiveness, and to assure compliance with
discharge permit requirements.
Manual users are reminded that the discussion of monitoring
herein emphasizes leachate. While other aspects are important
in overall disposal site management, e.g. monitoring of the
surrounding environs, other technical resource documents are
expected to deal with these topics in greater detail.
7.2 MONITORING PROGRAM DESIGN
To a large extent, design of a leachate monitoring program
will be highly site specific. However, there are certain gen-
eral elements which will be common to all monitoring programs.
The following discussion addresses these general considerations.
Although it is recognized that monitoring of some gaseous and
solid materials may be involved in the program, the primary
focus herein is on liquid streams.
7.2.1 Parameters To Be Measured
Selection of parameters to be measured is the initial step
in development of a monitoring program. Analytical costs can be
significant. Therefore, a major objective should be to minimize
the number and types of analysis performed while still gener-
ating data sufficient to satisfy the objectives of the moni-
toring program.
Substances of potential concern in hazardous waste leachate
include: jx
_r
1) soluble, oxygen demanding organics;
2) soluble substances that cause tastes and odors in water
supplies;
3) color and turbidity;
7-3
-------
4) nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon;
5) toxic organic and inorganic substances;
6) refractory materials;
7) oil, grease, and immiscible liquids;
8) acids and alkalis;
9) substances resulting in atmospheric odors;
10) suspended solids; and
11) dissolved solids.
Monitoring for purposes of leachate characterization should
be sufficient to provide data adequate to facilitate decisions
on^the best approaches to leachate treatment/disposal. Re-
quirements for monitoring of effluents from treatment operations
prior to discharge must be rigorous enough to permit assessment
of the quality of the discharge so as to assure a minimum of
environmental degradation and compliance with governmental reg-
ulations .
The selection of parameters for other monitoring objectives
need only be rigorous enough to assure that effluent quality can
be^maintained within discharge permit specifications. It is in
this latter area that the opportunity exists to use relatively
inexpensive analyses, and indicator and surrogate parameters to
obtain quick and accurate information which can be used to con-
trol treatment processes and disposal site operations. For ex-
ample, TOG (total organic carbon) provides a rapid, relatively
inexpensive measure of gross organic content of an aqueous
stream. Such a measurement may be sufficient for many purposes
as opposed to more expensive organic compound identification
measures.
Parameters which should be considered for inclusion in haz-
ardous waste leachate monitoring program are as follows:
1. temperature;
-.2. electrical conductivity;
3. turbidity;
4. settleable solids;
5. suspended solids;
6. total dissolved solids;
7-4
-------
7. volatile solids;
8. oils, greases and immiscible liquids;
9. odor;
10. pH;
11. Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP);
12. acidity;
13. alkalinity;
14. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD);
15. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD);
16. Total Organic Carbon (TOG);
17. specific organic compounds;
18. heavy metals;
19. other specific inorganic compounds;
20. nitrogen and phosphorus compounds;
21. dissolved oxygen;
22. volatile organic acids;
23. flow; and
24. toxicity.
Selection of a particular parameter set will be dependent upon
monitoring objectives as well as upon factors specific to a
given site and leachate management program. Different parameter
sets might be chosen to support leachate characterization ef-
forts than for purposes of treatment process operation or for
effluent discharge monitoring. As an example, TOC measurements
may be more reasonable than BOD measurements for hazardous waste
leachate characterization and process control purposes since the
TOC measurement is rapid and the leachate may be toxic to the
organisms necessary to conduct of t'he BOD test. On the other
hand, the BOD test would provide more information on the biode-
gradability of the leachate. Thus, parameters must be chosen
judiciously for the specific purpose and situation.
Additional information on monitoring parameters can be
found in tests and handbooks (1, 2).
7-5
-------
7.2.2 Analytical Considerations
Good analytical procedures are vital to an effective mon-
itoring program. Basic references for wastewater analytical
procedures are contained in the EPA Methods for Analysis of
Water and Wastes (3), Standard Methods (4), ASTM Standards (5),
the EPA Handbook for Analytical Quality Control (6) and other
EPA guidance documents (7, 8, 9). The reader is referred to
these basic reference works for details since a thorough dis-
cussion of analytical procedures is beyond the scope of this
document. • •>
Often, there is a choice among several standard methods for
measurement of a particular parameter. Among the factors to be
considered in selection of an analytical method are:
• sensitivity, precision and accuracy required;
• interferences;
• number of samples to be analyzed;
• quantity of sample available;
• other determinations to be made on the sample;
• analytical turn-around time; and
• analytical costs.
Since leachate is a complex system of variable composition,
there is high potential for numerous interferences in many of
the chemical and biological determinations. This aspect should
be given particular attention when selecting an analytical
method.
7.2.3 Sampling
Proper sampling is critical to any monitoring program since
the validity of analytical results relies upon the validity of
the samples analyzed. In order to assure valid samples, atten-
tion must be paid to obtaining samples which are truly repre-
sentative of the waste stream. Moreover, proper sampling tech-
niques must be employed. Finally, the integrity of the sample
must be maintained from the time of sampling to the time of
testing. This time interval should be kept to a minimum; even
then certain types of samples must be preserved through addition
of chemical agents or refrigeration.
Methods and equipment used for sampling will vary with the
waste stream and the sampling purpose. The reader is referred
to the following sources for sampling protocols: Samplers and
7-6
-------
Sampling Procedures for Hazardous Waste Streams (10) and Test
Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods (11). Other sources (4,5) also provide useful infor-
mation on sampling. Ideally, leachate samples should be ana-
lyzed immediately after collection for maximum reliability of
the analytical results. Leachates are such complex mixtures
that it is difficult to predict precisely the physical, biolog-
ical, and chemical changes that occur in the samples with time.
After sample collection, pH may change significantly in a matter
of minutes, sulfides and cyanides may be oxidized or evolve as
gases; and hexavalent chromium may slowly be reduced to the
trivalent state. Certain cations may be partly lost as a result
of adsorption to the walls of .sample containers. Microorganism
growth also may cause changes, and volatile compounds may be
lost rapidly.
In many cases, the undesirable changes described above may
be minimized by refrigeration of samples at 4° C, or by the
addition of preservatives. Refrigeration may deter the evolu-
tion of volatile components and acid gases such as hydrogen
sulfide and hydrogen cyanide, but some salts precipitated at the
lower temperature may not redissolve when warmed for analysis,
thus causing error in determining the actual concentrations of
dissolved sample constituents. Preservatives may retard bio-
chemical changes; other additives may convert some constituents
to stable hydroxides, salts, or compounds. Compounds may be
converted to other forms (such as the products of nitration,
sulfonation, and oxidation of organic components). Upon sub-
sequent analyses, the results may -not reflect the original
identity of the components.
Thus, both advantages and disadvantages are associated with
the refrigeration and/or addition of preservatives or additives
to waste samples. Various methods of preservation for specific
tests on selected constituents are given elsewhere (4>10). When
more than one specific test is to be run on a sample, it may be
necessary to divide the sample and preserve each subsample by a
different method.
Adequate record keeping and use of proper sample containers
also are important aspects of a good sampling program. As a
general rule, a detailed sampling plan should be developed prior
to any sampling operations.
4* -j
7.3 LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION
7.3.1 Wastes Received
RCRA regulations require an owner/operator to obtain a de-
tailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample
of a waste before placement into a disposal site. Moreover, the
facility operator is required to maintain a record of the quan-
7-7
-------
tity and. location of each hazardous waste placed in the disposal
site.
Prom a leachate management point of view, this type of data
may be useful in predicting future leachate composition at new
sites. However, it may be several years before a leachate is
collected. Therefore records maintenance is important.
Formalized procedures should be used to file manifests and
analytical results. It may be useful to keep running inven-
tories according to specific compound types, and total quanti-
ties disposed for each. In this way, predictions of leachate
generation would be facilitated.
7.3.2 In-situ Monitoring
There are a number of questions which can be answered using
in-situ monitoring: 1) what mechanisms are involved in waste
modification as the leachate migrates through the disposal site
and previously disposed materials; 2) at what rate and in which
direction does the leachate move; 3) how do compounds and their
concentrations vary with depth and time; 4) are any off-gases
evolved; and 5) what factors influence movement and concentra-
tions?
In-situ monitoring could be incorporated within the leach-
ate collection system. Sampling points should be designed to
provide a representative picture of waste movement and degrada-
tion throughout the site. If the site is compartmentalized,
then the monitoring should be representative for each cell or
separate disposal area.
Emrich and Beck (12) have discussed methods used to eval-
uate closure and monitoring plans for a hazardous waste disposal
site. Some of these methods may be useful in conjunction with
in-situ monitoring. Suction lysimeters and pan lysimeters were
used to determine moisture movement. With some modification,
these methods might be adaptable to in-situ monitoring.
7.3.3 Collected Leachate
The leachate collection system will be a key monitoring
location. Because leachate composition is expected to vary with
time in terms of types and concentration of compounds, analyses
of collected leachate will serve to define the unit operations
used for treatment and their operating ranges. Hence, collected
leachate characterizations are expected to be useful in making
treatability assessments of process alternatives and in defining.
specific unit operations and their operating ranges.
Collected leachate characterizations also provide a base-
line for evaluating treatment effectiveness. Coupled with
7-8
-------
effluent analyses, this would provide an assessment of removal
efficiencies for individual unit operations as well as the over-
all treatment chain.
7.4 TREATMENT EFFLUENT MONITORING
7.4.1 Sampling Locations ; ':-
Sampling and analysis of collected leachate serves as the
measure of leachate treatment plant influent. Where there are
several monitoring points in the leachate collection system be-
cause of the size of the disposal site, or because of compart-
mentalization, the point closest to the treatment plant should
be used. In this way, aggregated flow and composition will be
most representative of the influent baseline.
Previous sections have noted that leachate probably is not
amenable to treatment by a single unit process. Instead, treat-
ment probably will include several unit operations. Individual
unit operations should be monitored separately to facilitate
optimized operation. For example, granular activated carbon
adsorption may be used prior to biological treatment in order to
remove toxic constituents which could impair biological treat-
ment effectiveness. Hence, it would be necessary to monitor
carbon-treated effluent to prevent biological upset. Therefore,
monitoring at each major point in the treatment chain is
strongly suggested. Moreover, the analytical techniques selec-
ted for such monitoring should have rapid turn-around times to
enable timely process control decisions.
7.4.2 Parameters
Experience shows that it is infeasible to analyze all pa-
rameters of concern at frequent intervals. Rigorous analysis of
complex organic and inorganic constituents simply is too costly
to sustain at frequent intervals. As a result, an attempt
should be made to identify surrogate measurements or indicator
parameters which can be used inexpensively to gage treatment
effectiveness. For organic constituents, such a surrogate pa-
rameter could be total organic carbon (TOG). Another less well
developed method could be thin layer chromatography (TLC). Sim-
ilarly, for inorganic constituents selected indicator metals
could be analyzed using common spectrophotometric techniques.
: ±«
It is recommended that such surrogates or i-ndicators be
identified using inventory information to predict likely com-
pounds which are expected to appear in the collected leachate.
Further refinements potentially could be made in conjunction
with treatability studies if they are anticipated.
It also may be possible to use biological toxicity tests to
determine process effectiveness. Procedures are evolving which
7-9
-------
offer potential for evaluating residual toxicity subsequent to
individual treatment operations. Although such procedures do
not measure specific parameters or surrogates directly, judg-
ments can be made regarding treatment capabilities by inference.
^Thus, indicators and surrogate parameters permit cost-ef-
fective process control. However, more costly analysis using
rigorous and sophisticated analytical methods will be required
periodically for process refinement, and for detailed assessment
of overall treatment effectiveness. The rigorous analytical
techniques could .include gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS), atomic absorption (AA), x-ray fluorescence (XRF), or
other refined methods.
The frequency of the more sophisticated analytical methods
will be dependent upon the types and concentrations of compounds
in the leachate, their amenability to removal, mode of dis-
charge, flow rates, and concentration and flow variability.
Costs also will be an important determinant. Rigorous analyses
also should be used to monitor any significant changes either in
unit operations employed or for changes in operating procedures.
Once equilibrium operation is achieved, it may be appropriate to
schedule rigorous analysis at regular intervals.
7.4.3 Data Analysis
Detailed performance records should be maintained for unit
and overall treatment operations. A thoughtful protocol should
be developed in advance of treatment plant start-up. Where nec-
essary, sufficient data should be obtained to define key process
control parameters. In some cases, statistical correlations
could be used to insure that process interactions are appro-
priate. For example, it might be possible to identify TOG
levels which are required for downstream operations to function
optimally.
7.4.4 Process Optimization
Because leachate is characterized by expected variability
in flow,_types of compounds, and concentrations, process optim-
ization is envisioned as an ongoing task. Detailed analysis
using sophisticated measurement techniques will be used for this
purpose. As mentioned earlier, process refinement is one of the
principal functions of detailed analyses. Attempts should be
made to verify thie correlation of surrogate parameters with de-
tailed actual parameter measurements. In this way, process op-
timization need not wait until detailed analyses are made.
7.4.5 Safety Considerations
Site operators must be aware that the function of many
treatment unit operations is to concentrate hazardous leachate
7-10
-------
constituents. Therefore, detailed safety considerations are
essential. Moreover, in-plant monitoring should be provided to
discover the existence or evolution of hazardous materials. For
example, it is possible that volatile organics will be stripped
from biological treatment systems, or that gassing can occur
within granular carbon columns. Hence, in-plant monitoring sys-
tems should be installed, and employees thoroughly trained for
emergencies. These plans should be in—place-well before initi-
ation of treatment operations.
7.5 REFERENCES
1. Sawyer, C.N. and P.L. McCarty. Chemistry For Sanitary
Engineers. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, New York,'1967.
518 pp.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Handbook for
Monitoring Industrial Wastewater. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Technology Transfer, Nashville,
Tennessee, 1973.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for Analysis
of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979.
4. American Public Health Association, American Water Works
Association and Water Pollution Control Federation.
Standard Methods For the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 15th Edition. Washington, DC. 1193 pp.
5. American Society For Testing and Materials. 1980 Annual
Book Of ASTM Standards, Part 31, Water. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, 1980. 1401 pp.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Handbook for
Analytical Quality Control In Water and Wastewater
Laboratories'. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Technology Transfer, Cincinnati/ Ohio, 1972.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste and
Consolidated Permit Regulations, Federal Register, Volume
45, No. 98, May 19, 1980.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines
Division. Sampling and Analysis Procedures*Fbr Screening
of Industrial Effluents For Priority Pollutants. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March
1977, revised April 1977.
9. Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures For the Analysis of
Pollutants: Proposed Regulations. Federal Register,
Volume 44, No. 233, pp. 69464-69575. December 3, 1979.
7-11
-------
10. deVera, E.R., B.P. Simmons, R.D. Stephens, and D.L. Storm.
Samplers and Sampling Procedures For Hazardous Waste
Streams. EPA-600/2-80-018, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1980.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods. SW-846. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
12. Emrich, G.H. and W.W. Beck, Jr. Top-Sealing to Minimize
Leachate Generation Case Study of the Windham, Connecticut
Landfill. In: Proceedings of U.S. EPA National Conference
on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,
Washington, DC, October 1980. pp. 135-140.
7-12
-------
SECTION 8 "*J>ot:;. ...
;^:t»H ,•:,
OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
8.1
SAFETY
Hazardous waste leachate management operations will vary
widely in complexity. Moreover, the compounds and associated
hazards will differ from site to site. The following discussion
outlines safety considerations which apply to the general case.
The purpose is to provide guidance to the leachate manager in
development of a safety program for a particular site.
8.1.1 Degree of Risk
Safety considerations will vary dependent upon the degree
of risk involved for plant personnel. Handling of hazardous
materials is inherently dangerous; however, some areas and
functions may constitute a higher degree of risk than others.
For example, sampling in an area where volatile organics may be
evolved is more dangerous than working in a treatment plant
control room. Similarly, handling residues may be more danger-
ous than handling raw leachate, simply because the hazardous
materials are more concentrated in the residues.
Therefore, it is necessary to identify safety procedures
and protective measures commensurate with the risk involved.
Prior to facility start-up, a thoughtful assessment of risks
should be made for each work area and job function. Because it
would be confusing and burdensome for workers to adjust for each
and every work situation, safety procedures should be devised
for general levels of risk. A major chemical manufacturer uses
a classification system to categorize risk levels. This system
is described by Morton (1).
Procedures should be established for reviewing and reclas-
sifying degrees of risk based upon plant experience, and infor-
mation secured through the literature.
8.1.2 Restricted Entry
The entire disposal site area should be fenced and posted.
Entry should be granted only to authorized personnel. Security
patrols could be used at night to prevent intruders from gaining
access and to check all work stations at regular intervals.
8-1
-------
Arrangements should be made between plant security and local
police and fire departments to provide rapid backup in the event
of emergencies.
Within the restricted plant area, entry to dangerous areas
should be limited to those personnel directly related to spe-
cific operations. For example, office workers need not be
granted entry into processing areas.
Specified clean areas could be provided within the plant
and safeguards taken to insure that the clean areas remain un-
contaminated. Generally, clean areas will include office and
administrative areas, lunchrooms, lounges, and restrooms for
non-operating personnel. Access to the clean areas should be
through a changeroom. Moreover, operating employees should be
encouraged to shower before leaving plant premises.
8.1.3 Safety Rules
It is important that safety rules be communicated to all
employees, and adherence to these rules be strictly enforced.
Morton (1) has presented a comprehensive list of general plant
safety rules which is directly applicable to hazardous waste
management facilities.
All employees should be trained in safety with more de-
tailed instruction given to those in processing operations.
Safety meetings at regular intervals are recommended. These
meetings should be designed for small groups and emphasize spe-
cific operating problems.
Certain plants which handle hazardous materials have min-
imum age limitations for employees. In some cases, individuals
younger than 18 years old are not permitted on the site.
Some plants do not allow employees to work alone in
processing areas. Backup personnel should be available at all
times for emergency evacuation of work stations.
Two key rules applied at hazardous waste management facil-
ities are: 1) all employees must remove protective clothing and
wash thoroughly before breaks and lunch, and 2) illness must be
communicated to;: supervision immediately, even after normal work-
ing hours.
8.1.4 Supervision
Effective supervision is crucial to worker safety. Super-
visors must be firm and consistent in their enforcement of safe-
ty procedures. No workers should be without supervision for
more than two hours. Management should hold plant supervisors
8-2
-------
accountable for plant safety and security. Furthermore, super-
visors should be well trained for all contingencies.
8.1.5 Inspections
Designated personnel should conduct safety inspections at
regular intervals. Formalized checklists should be used, and
fixed procedures should be in place to rectify deficiencies
within 24 hours. In the event a deficiency poses an imminent
danger, work functions in the area should be terminated and the
area cordoned off until the deficiency is corrected.
8.1.6 First Aid and Medical Assistance
Employees who work in processing areas should have a base-
line medical examination upon hiring, and should have periodic
examinations at regularly scheduled intervals. Workers at pes-
ticide handling facilities often have a cholinesterase baseline
level established in conjunction with their initial examination.
Selected plant personnel should be trained in first aid
procedures related to the types of risks to which the employees
are exposed. First aid treatment should be available at all
times.
Medical assistance also should be available both ,on an
emergency basis and for chronic problems. Medical personnel
should be contacted in advance of problems to be informed about
the types of materials to which employees may be exposed. More-
over, they should be given information on the 'behavior and
nature of materials. Emergency plans should be worked out in
detail prior to plant startup, if possible.
8.1.7 Protective Equipment
Processing and laboratory areas should be equipped with
emergency showers and eyewashers. These should be tied to an
alarm system so that co-workers can come to the aid of poten-
tially contaminated workers. Face-shields, safety shoes, safety
glasses, gloves, aprons, coveralls, hard hats, and shoe covers
should be provided to workers whose jobs require varying degrees
of protection.
Full suit protection should be provided for particularly
hazardous tasks, and for emergency evacuation operations. Res-
piratory protective devices usually are used in conjunction with
situations requiring full suit protection. There are three
basic types of respiratory protective devices: 1) air-purifying
respirators, 2) supplied-air respirators, and 3) self-contained
breathing apparatus. The type used is dependent upon the degree
of hazard involved.
8-3
-------
Acid suits consisting of a rubber coat, rubber pants, acid
gloves, rubber boots up under the pants, and a rubber acid hood
should be available in the event of line breaks or leaks under
pressure. Similarly, such equipment may be used for repair
operations.
All protective clothing and equipment must remain on-site.'
It should be decontaminated before reuse. Reusable clothing is"
more durable and is preferred. Appropriate washing procedures
should be used to insure complete decontamination.
Protective equipment should be accessible in all work
areas where contamination may be encountered so as to permit
safe exit in an emergency.
8.1.8 Ventilation
Adequate ventilation of work spaces is required to prevent
harmful exposure to toxic materials. Morton (1) stated that ex-
posures are related to threshold limit values (TLV) based upon a
time-weighed concentration for a normal workday. The TLV is the
level at which workers can be exposed daily without harmful ef-
fect. Furthermore, a "ceiling" value is established which
should not be exceeded under any circumstances. Although expo-
sures above the TLV up to the ceiling value are undesirable,
they can be permitted as long as an overall time-weighed average
(usually for an eight-hour day) is not exceeded.
Ventilating system design should account for work areas
where there might be accumulation of volatile organics or haz-
ardous dust. Air exchange rates will be based upon industrial
hygiene ventilation parameters.
Monitoring to assure that there is satisfactory ventila-
tion can be performed using a number of sampling instruments.
Weiby and Dickinson (2) described the major factors in specify-
ing instruments for monitoring work areas as instrument speci-
ficity, operational range, accuracy, response time, and special
features. In a companion article, Herrick (3) discussed the
following topics: portable instruments, electrolytic cell detec-
tors, flame ionization detectors, catalytic cell detectors, and
signaling alarms. The reader is encouraged to consult these
references for detailed consideration of work area monitoring.
in> :':
Because toxic fumes may be evolved in some sample handling
and analytical procedures, hoods should be provided in labora-
tory areas. In certain cases, air cleaning equipment may be
necessary for air exhausted from the hood.
8-4
-------
8.1.9 Housekeeping
Good housekeeping is an adjunct to any safety program.
For the leachate treatment facility, it is especially important
to keep work areas clean and free from obstructions. Spills
should be cleaned up immediately, and resultant residues dis-
posed safely. Exposed areas and walkways should be kept ice-
free1 to reduce possibilities for falls.
8.2 CONTINGENCY PLANS/EMERGENCY PROVISIONS
Much of the following discussion is not limited to
leachate management alone but applies to hazardous waste manage-
ment operations in general. The intent of the discussion 'is to
provide the leachate manager with information sufficient to
enable development of contingency/emergency plans tailored to a
given site operation. Part VII of the Hazardous Waste and Con-
solidated Permit Regulations also contains useful guidance in-
formation on contingency/emergency plans.
8.2.1 Emergency Situations
8.2.1.1 Natural Disasters—
Development of contingency plans for natural disasters is
substantially different than for accidents. Accidents require
action to address an incident which already has occurred, where-
as planning for natural disasters usually is designed to prevent
problems. Developments in predictive meteorology and hydrology
permit advanced warning of hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods.
However, sometimes the warning period is limited. On the other
hand, earthquake planning involves other kinds of considera-
tions .
The thrust of contingency planning for natural disasters
is to shut down plant operations, prevent escape of contamina-
tion to the environment, and safeguard plant equipment. Pre-
ventive measures can be designed into the plant. For example,
berms and dikes can be built to prevent inundation of water from
flooding. Moreover, these measures can be designed to mitigate
events based upon historical data, e.g., 100-year floods. Sim-
ilarly, structures can be designed to mitigate damage from
earthquakes. State of California building codes have been de-
vised to guide those who build in high risk areas.
,..iJ5f?
Plan development should include natural disaster consider-
ations for areas known to be subject to possible problems. Site
operators should devise procedures for determining when such
risks exist by designating specific responsibilities for com-
munication with the National Weather Service, the U. S. Geolog-
ical Survey, or other agencies having early warning systems.
8-5
-------
Furthermore, clear decision responsibility for determining when
to shut down and take protective measures should be in place.
In the event that preventive measures are unable to handle
the event because of its magnitude, i.e., a tornado "direct hit"
or a flood beyond design criteria, emergency actions similar to
those formulated for accidents should be planned for.
8.2.1.2 Accidents—
Accidents include fires, explosions, leaks, and spills.
Although bomb threats can be handled by shutdown and subsequent
searches, actual sabotage will have to be dealt with in the same
manner as accidents.
Because of the dangers inherent in fires and explosions, a
separate subsection of this manual will be devoted to fire pro-
tection. Spills and leaks will be discussed within the context
of contingency planning.
8.2.2 Plan Development
8.2.2.1 Organizational Responsibilities—
The most important aspect of an effective contingency plan
is clear definition of responsibilities for execution. Plant
management must be fully involved, and it is highly desirable to
have a company officer be responsible for insuring plan execu-
tion. The chain of command should be specified in advance,
along with delegation of authority and backups where needed. A
job description for each responsible party should be incorpor-
ated in the plan.
8.2.2.2 Plan Components—
In addition to in-house contingency plans, it is expected
that hazardous waste disposal sites will be required to file a
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) with
their state water pollution control agency. Components of a
typical plan include:
• responsible officials names, addresses, telephone num-
bers;
• facility location and site map; if.o
• potential spill dangers, pathways, remedial measures;
• past spill frequency;
• sources of assistance (e.g. emergency fire, cleanup con-
tractors );
8-6
-------
• legally required reporting requirements (names, tele-
phone numbers);
• schedule for installing mitigating devices;
• materials inventory; and
• inspection procedures.
Further descriptions of contingency plan components follow.
8.2.2.2.1 Implementation Manual—Because rapid action and thor-
oughness is essential in emergencies, a detailed implementation
manual should be prepared to cover all expected contingencies.
However, it must contain some degree of flexibility because the
unexpected will normally occur. Steps for response should be
written down and understood by all who are expected to partic-
ipate. Not only should all the components of the plan be
listed, but also the sequence of actions to be executed. The
information which follows generally is arranged in the order of
execution. Furthermore, once the manual is prepared, it should
be reviewed and updated at regular intervals.
8.2.2.2.2 Alarm Systems—The first step in plan execution is An
alarm system to indicate that an emergency has occurred. The
primary purpose of the alarm system is to enable rapid evacu-
ation of affected areas. A secondary but equally important pur-
pose is to initiate the emergency response plan.
8.2.2.2.3 Communications Network—When an alarm signals an
emergency condition, on-site personnel should begin response
actions, and all appropriate contacts for assistance made. The
responsible company official should be notified first. It is
suggested that a telephone "tree" be activated so that all en-
tities and agencies be notified as quickly as possible. The
priority of notification will be dependent upon the nature of
the emergency. For example, if a fire or explosion is involved,
the local fire department and medical assistance teams should be
called first. A log of telephone calls made and actions taken
should be maintained. This log should be signed and witnessed.
The contact list should be part of the manual and should
include: plant management and supervision; fire, medical, and
police personnel; local, state, and federal governments; and
surrounding population if evacuation is envisioned. Manuals
should specify the person to be called and their telephone num-
bers . Alternate names and numbers should be provided in the
event the primary contact cannot be reached.
8.2.2.2.4 Execution Checklist—During the period when plant
management is on the way to the scene, fire and medical assis-
tance is enroute, and contacts are being made, on-scene person-
8-7
-------
nel should be executing the contingency plan using a prepared
checklist of actions. The checklist is part of the emergency
implementation manual discussed above.
8.2.2.2.5 Personal Injury—The first priority of the plan is to
attend to those injured in the incident. Next in priority is to
prevent further injuries from occurring. Injured persons should
be removed from contaminated areas and administered first aid
until medical assistance arrives.
8.2.2.2.6 Information Assistance—There are a number of excel-
lent information sources which can be used to assist in acci-
dents involving hazardous materials. The Chemical Transporta-
tion Emergency Center (CHEMTREC) can provide help in determining
the nature of hazards involved, and in providing expert assis-
tance on how to manage the situation. The CHEMTREC emergency
number is (800) 424-9300. It is operational 24 hours a day.
The_National Poison Control Center (telephone (502) 589-8222) is
available to provide help where there is personnel exposure to
toxic materials.
EPA operates OHM-TADS (Oil and Hazardous Materials Tech-
nical Assistance Data System) which is a potential source of
useful information on the materials involved'. A similar system
of the U. S. Coast Guard is CHRIS (Chemical Hazard Response
Information System). It too can provide data on the materials
involved. Both of the systems can be accessed in emergencies
through the National Response Center, telephone (800) 424-8802.
The National Fire Protection Association handbook en-
titled, "Fire Protection Guide on Hazardous Materials" is a
valuable resource to have on-site to guide fire protection ac-
tivities. "Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials" by N.
I. Sax (5th ed., 1979, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.) also is a very
valuable resource. Long a standard in the field of industrial
hygiene, this excellent book is extremely useful in dealing with
hazardous materials because it is a single, quick, up-to-date,
concise hazard analysis informative guide to nearly 13,000 com-
mon industrial and laboratory chemicals.
Most of the above information resources were devised for
response to transportation accidents where the compounds in-
volved are not known in advance. Because the hazardous waste
disposal site will have knowledge of what materials are ac-
cepted, and presumably an inventory of these materials, ijt
should be possible to utilize information sources in advance of
an emergency, and include response and toxicity data in the
implementation manual for each chemical handled. Every effort
should be made to do so.
8.2.2.2.7 Plant Shutdown—Early warning of possible natural
disasters (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods), will dic-
8-8
-------
tate plant shutdown procedures. Time allowed for execution of
shutdown orders will be specified by emergency warning agencies.
For an accident situation, only certain portions of the
plant _ might be shut down if the emergency is contained within a
restricted area. The decision of whether to shut down, and how
much of the plant is affected is the responsibility of the plant
management in charge of plan execution.
8.2.2.2.3 Press and. Media Contact List—An emergency at a haz-
ardous Disposal site is certain to generate public apprehension.
The plan should provide for .press conferences and debrief ings.
After the emergency is under control, a company official should
contact a list of news media personnel to provide a statement of
tne nature of the emergency, the actions taken, and current
status. ^The purpose should be to give factual information so
that misinformation will not mislead concerned citizens in the
plant locale.
8-2:2:2!9 Incident Documentation— The incident should be docu-
mented fully for several purposes. Documentation will permit
post- facto review of whether the plan was executed as expected.
Also, it can be used to correct problems and thus avoid similar
8.2.3 Fire Protection
8.2.3.1 In-Plant Measures —
1 Fire Extinguishers— Fire extinguishers should be
hlV*??*910 P01"tS throu9hout the P^nt. Extinguishers
should be readily accessible, and plant personnel should be
trained in their use. The type of extinguisher used is depen-
dent upon the likely kinds of fires that may be encountered.
For example, dry chemical and carbon dioxide extinguishers usu-
•J£ are ?referred in laboratory areas where water may react
with burning chemicals.
8.2.3.1.2 Sprinkler Systems— Sprinkler systems should be in-
stalled in compliance with local and state building and fire
??one£?i£n T^8' *fstfn
-------
8.2.3.1.3 Use of Plant Security Personnel—Plant security per-
sonnel likely will be on the scene of a fire shortly after dis-
covery. They should be trained to deal with the fire on a
"first response" basis, and should be responsible for notifying
trained in-plant fire fighters and the local fire department.
8.2.3.2 Training—
8.2.3.2.1 Local Fire Department—Plant operating and management
personnel should meet with the local fire department to inform
them of the types of materials on site and to give them infor-
mation on the hazards which.may be involved with such materials
in the event of fire (including an explosion). It would be a
good idea to have fire department officials visit the plant to
familiarize them with its layout, the location of high risks
areas, and to inspect fire protection capabilities on-site.
The local fire department could conduct training exercises
using some of the actual materials which potentially could be
involved. Furthermore, selected plant personnel could partic-
ipate in these exercises preparatory to the formation of an
emergency squad composed of fire department personnel and a few
selected plant employees.
8.2.3.2.2 Emergency Squad—Based upon potential fire hazards
which are evident at the disposal site, it is good practice to
form an emergency squad trained for the specific purpose of
dealing with known and anticipated hazardous materials. Often
the emergency squad is comprised of a select crew from the local
fire department and several well-trained plant employees. The
reason for including plant employees is so they can begin emer-
gency operations immediately, prepare for the arrival of the
local fire department, and guide the fire fighting effort be-
cause of their intimate knowledge of the plant.
In addition to normal fire fighting, the emergency squad
is responsible for rescue operations, evacuation of injured or
threatened personnel, and escalation decisions in the event of
broad involvement in the disposal site. This group should re-
ceive specialized training in advance (e.g., use of self con-
tained breathing apparatus, boom deployment).
8.2.3.3 Hazards Identification—
The National Fire Protection Assocation (4) has devised a
system for identifying the inherent hazards of certain chemicals
and the order of severity of these hazards under emergency con-
ditions such as spills, leaks, and fires. A section of the NFPA
manual, "Fire Protection Guide on Hazardous Materials", provides
hazardous chemicals data. There are four categories of data
provided: health, flammability, reactivity, and other unusual
conditions. For the first three categories, a numbering system
8-10
-------
has been devised to inform fire fighting personnel about protec-
ting themselves and how to fight fires where the hazard exists.
In the fourth category, special considerations are indicated.
For example, fire fighters are alerted to possible hazards where
there may be unusual reactivity with water and oxidizing chem-
icals are noted. It would be beneficial to identify the mate-
rials potentially involved in advance so that fire protection
measures can be incorporated within the contingency plan and the
implementations manual. Moreover, emergency squad training can
proceed using identified materials.
8.3 EQUIPMENT ElEDUNDANC I ES/BACKUP
8.3.1 General Discussion
Because a leachate treatment plant will use unit opera-
tions similar to those employed at municipal and industrial^
wastewater treatment plants, certain reliability considerations
also are similar. EPA has issued minimum standards of reliabil-
ity for mechanical, electric, and fluid systems and components
which may be applicable for leachate treatment plants (5). Man-
ual users are referred to these criteria for details.
There is a question, however, of whether the need for
redundancy is as great for hazardous waste leachate treatment
systems as for municipal and industrial systems. In the latter
cases, it is difficult to shut-off or divert flow during emer-
gencies, shutdowns, or repair. Frequently, considerable flows
are involved, and the option of storage is economically in-
feasible. On the other hand, leachate flows generally will be
low. As a result, storage possibly could be a cost-effective
substitute for certain redundant and backup systems. Therefore,
during leachate treatment plant design, costs of redundant and
backup systems should be balanced against costs for building
storage for raw leachate. Further considered in design should
be: estimated volume of incoming wastes, estimated flow of
leachate, projected time periods for outages or emergencies,
tankage costs, and redundant system costs.
In general, there are two locations at which storage might
be required: collected leachate, and treated leachate. Some
storage might be designed into the plant for purposes of equal-
izing flows in any case. Because concentrations of materials
will be different at each location,separate storage would be
required.
Nevertheless, attention should be given to important
equipment considerations related to redundant and backup condi-
tions. Discussion on these items is found in the subsequent
subsection.
8-11
-------
8.3.2 Equipment
8.3.2.1 Control Systems—
The plant control room should have redundant emergency
alarms. Frequent practice is to couple display warning lights
with an annunciator sound alarm. All electrical controls should
have manual overrides. Electric failure backup systems will be
discussed separately.
8.3.2.2 Tanks and Containers—
Tanks should be fitted with gravity overflow oiping in the
event that pumps fail to shut off. Tank areas should be on con-
crete pads, if possible, with curbs and walls sufficient in
height to contain leaks, spills, or tank failures. Addition-
ally, spare tanks should be used to empty the curbed area if
other storage is unavailable.
All containers in processing areas should have plugs in
place when not being used.
8.3.2.3 Pipes and Transfer Lines—
For pipes that convey hazardous materials, failsafe trans-
fer lines should be used. Such failsafe systems measure in-
coming flow and discharge flow. Assuming no intervening taps,
the two flows are compared. A difference noted will trip an
alarm. Differences of greater than 0.5 percent commonly are
used to indicate a leak.
Pipes should be color-coded to avoid cross connections,
and to permit easy location.
8.3.2.4 Valves—
Pressure relief valves should be used wherever necessary.
All valves should be located as close as possible to the source
in the event they must be operated during an emergency. How-
ever, the valves should be accessible if an emergency occurs
Emergency shut-off valves should be placed on all gravity trans-
fer lines.
8.3.2.5 Pumps—
m-u- ^ is good Practice to locate pumps outside if oossible.
This reduces the possibility of being rendered inoperable due to
fires or explosions. It is required in areas where there may be
a build-up of potentially explosive gases.
Back-up pumps may be desirable where needed to move
leachate to storage during emergencies. Portable pumps are
8-12
-------
desirable to have on hand in emergencies.
8.3.2.6 .In-Plant Drainage—
Leaks and spillage from equipment should be collected
within the plant and returned to the appropriate unit process.
Typically, leaks and spillage can be controlled by dikes, berms,
and curbs.
8.3.2.7 Electrical Failures—
Emergency lights on battery packs are recommended for all
plant areas. Operators should judge the potential damage re-
sulting from an extended electrical outage. It may be cost-
effective to install an emergency back-up generator dependent
upon the number of critical functions involved.
8.3.2.8 Maintenance and Repair—
Wherever possible, preventive maintenance should be sched-
uled so that redundancy and back-up are unnecessary. This can
be done during scheduled shutdown. If major repairs can be de-
ferred, they also should be performed at that time, i.e., during
scheduled shutdowns.
8.4 PERMITS
8.4.1 Consolidated Permit Regulations
In conjunction with issuance of final rules for the fed-
eral hazardous waste management program .(Federal Register, May
19, 1980), the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency established
rules for a consolidated permit program. The rules governed
programs authorized by the following legislation: Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Underground Injection Control
(UIC) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under the Clean
Water Act (CWA), State dredge and fill (404) provisions of the
CWA, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration under the Clean
Air Act (CAA). There are three primary purposes of these rules:
"1. To consolidate program requirements for the RCRA
and UIC programs with those already established for the
NPDES program.
"2. To establish requirements for state programs under
the RCRA, UIC, and Section 404 programs.
"3. To consolidate permit issuance procedures for EPA-
issued Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits
under the Clean Air Act with those for the RCRA, .UIC,
and NPDES programs."
8-13
-------
The rules are complex and require substantial effort in
order to enable complete and thorough preparation of permits.
Manual users are urged to consult documents intended by EPA to
clarify and define' permit application requirements.
Responsibilities for state program requirements also are
specified by the EPA rules and regulations. Although flexibil-
ity is allowed in how states implement these requirements, and v
they are free to impose more stringent controls, EPA^has spec-
ified minimum requirements consistent with RCRA provisions.
Permit officials and site operators should recognize that
certain aspects of the consolidated permits are ill-defined
relative to hazardous waste leachate treatment. NPDES require-
ments for direct discharge of treated leachate to receiving
waters need to be defined in greater detail. Furthermore, if
treated leachate is to be discharged into a POTW system, no
guidance has been provided relative to pretreatment require-
ments. There is a crucial need for defining such requirements
in greater detail. As a point of departure, permit officials
might deal with leachate treatment plant effluent in a manner
similar to that for the chemical manufacturing industry, both
organic and inorganic segments. Also, many cities are now in
the process of developing pretreatment requirements for dis-
charge of heavy metals, cyanide, phenols and other toxic com-
pounds into POTWs.
8.4.2 Other Permits
There are several other areas which manual users should
consider in assuring that site operations conform with govern-
mental plans and regulations. Water quality aspects should be
factored into areawide waste treatment management plans (section
208), and facility planning efforts (Step I). This is espe-
cially important where direct discharge or discharge to POTWs is
envisioned. Other areas of concern are zoning requirements and
local building permits.
8.5 PERSONNEL TRAINING
Training is envisioned for personnel engaged in the fol-
lowing four functional areas of leachate treatment facilities:
operations and maintenance, safety, emergency response, and
security. Training related to safety and emergency response has
been discussed earlier in this section, and as a result, will
not be repeated here.
The basis for operations and maintenance training should
be a well-conceived O&M manual. During training, personnel
should be acquainted with key operating parameters, acceptable
8-14
-------
operating ranges, problem diagnosis, troubleshooting, repair
procedures, preventive maintenance, and shutdown procedures. An
example of a suggested guide for development of an O&M manual
for conventional waste treatment facilities is shown in Table
8-1. Obviously, a manual for a leachate treatment plant would
have to be modified to reflect the processes used, and incor-
porate provisions germane to the handling of hazardous mate-
rials. The table does, however, provide a good starting point
for structuring an O&M manual.
Security personnel should be trained not only to prevent
unauthorized entry into the plant, but also in first aid, emer-
gency communications and first response measures, essentials of
spill containment, and some fire fighting as appropriate.
Training should be conducted upon hiring, and should be
updated at regular intervals. Consideration should be given to
sending key personnel to formal off-site training courses and
seminars.
8.6 SURFACE RUNOFF
Disposal sites should be designed so that stormwater is
diverted away from and around the site. This can be accom-
plished through grading and the use of berms and dikes. Hence,
this subsection addresses only the fate of precipitation falling
directly within the disposal site. Four options exist for deal-
ing with stormwater runoff, dependent upon the degree of contam-
ination: 1) route uncontaminated flow to a holding or storage
pond from which discharges can be made to surface water courses;
2) route mildly contaminated runoff to the same holding or stor-
age area, and treat prior to discharge; 3) route contaminated
runoff to the leachate treatment plant; and 4) place heavily
contaminated runoff into the disposal area, or containerize and
ship off-site for appropriate disposal.
Work areas likely to be contaminated, e.g. loading docks,
waste transfer areas, storage tank areas, should be paved and
curbed to collect contaminated spillage. These curbed areas
should be able to be drained by gravity. Drainage valves should
remain closed until the areas are drained either to the holding
ponds (when spillage has not occurred), or to treatment and dis-
posal areas (when there is evidence of leaks or spillage).
iW
8-15
-------
TABLE 8-1
SUGGESTED GUIDE FOR AN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
FOR WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES (5)
I. INTRODUCTION
A.
B.
C.
D.
Operation and Managerial Responsibility
Description of Plant Type and Flow Pattern
Percent Efficiency Expected and How Plant Should
Operate
Principal Design Criteria
II. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
(Function, relation to other plant units, schematic
diagrams)
A. Pumping
B. Screening and Comminution
C. Grit Removal
D. Sedimentation (Primary)
E. Aeration and Reaeration
F. Sedimentation (Secondary)
G. Trickling Filters
H. Sand Filters
I. Sludge Digestion
J. Sludge Conditioning
K. Sludge Disposal
L. Gas Control and Use
M. Disinfection
N. By-Pass Controls and Excess Flow Treatment Facilities
O. Waste Stabilization Lagoons
P. Other
DETAILED OPERATION AND CONTROLS
(Routine, alternate, emergency, description of various
controls, recommended settings, reference to schematic
diagrams, failsafe features) • °~
A. Manual
B. Automatic
C. Physical
D. Chemical
(continued)
8-16
-------
TABLE 8-1 (continued)
E. Biological (including Bacteriological)
F. Industrial Wastes Monitoring
G. Safety Features
H. Problems, Causes, and Cures
IV. LABORATORY CONTROLS
(What and why tests are made, interpretation of results,
and how samples are obtained)
A. For Each Process Description Given Above
1. Sampling
2. Flow Controls
3. Analysis
B. Monitoring of Effluent and Receiving Waters
C. Water Quality Standards
V. RECORDS
(Importance of records, graphing test results, example
and sample forms)
A. Process Operations
B. Laboratory
C. Reports to be Submitted to State Agencies
D. Maintenance
E. Operating Costs
VI. MAINTENANCE
(Schedule—daily, weekly, monthly, etc., reference to
pages in manufacturers' manuals) . .
A. Manufacturers' Recommendations
B. Preventive Maintenance Summary Schedule
C-* Special Tools and Equipment
D. Housekeeping Schedule
VII
SAFETY
A. Sewers
B. Electrical Equipment
C. Mechanical Equipment
(continued)
8-17
-------
TABLE 8-1 (continued)
D. Explosion and Fire Hazards
E. Health Hazards
P. Chlorine Handling
G. Aeration Tank Hazards
H. Recommended Safety Equipment
VIII. UTILITIES
(Source, reliability, cost)
A. Electrical
B. Gas
C. Water
D. Heat
IX. PERSONNEL
(Detail of job requirements, task plan estimating man-
hours per month and year)
A. Manpower Requirements
B. Qualifications and Background
C. Certifications
D. Administration and Supervision
E. Laboratory
X. APPENDIX
A. Schematics
B. Valve Indices
C. Sample Forms
D. Chemicals Used in Plant
E. Chemicals Used in Laboratory
F. Water Quality Standards
G. Detailed Design Criteria
H. Equipment Suppliers
I. Suppliers' Manuals
(may be bound separately)
8-18
-------
8.7 REFERENCES
1. Morton, W. I. Safety Techniques for Workers Handling Haz-
ardous Materials. Chemical Engineering, 83(22):127-132,
1976.
2. Weiby, P., and K. R. Dickinson. Monitoring Work Areas for
Explosive and Toxic Hazards. Chemical Engineering, 83(22);
139-145, 1976
3. Herrick, L. K. Jr. Instrumentation for Monitoring Toxic
and Flammable Work Areas. Chemical Engineering, 83(22):
147-152, 1976.
4. National Fire Protection Association. Fire Protection
Guide on Hazardous Materials, Sixth Edition. Boston, MA,
1975.
5. Federal Water Quality Administration. Federal Guidelines •
Design Operation and Maintenance of Waste Water Treatment
Facilities. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
DC, September 1970.
8-19
-------
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF REPORTED WATER CONTAMINATION
PROBLEMS (at Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites)
Appendix Table A-l contains data on identified hazardous
waste problems arid to the extent possible data on waste composi-
tion. A reference list which indicates data sources and pertains
only to this table follows the main body of the table.
Problem sites are identified by a code number in Table A-l.
The code numbers and associated problem sites are listed below.
Site Number
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
Site Description
Helevia Landfill adjacent to West Omerod water supply
(near Allentown, PA)
Haverford, PA
Centre County, PA (near State College, PA)
Stringfellow Landfill, Riverside, CA
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City, CO
Geological Reclamation Operations and Waste Systems,
Inc. (GROWS) landfill, Falls Township,' PA
Wade Site, Chester, PA
Bridgeport Quarry, Montgomery County, PA
Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL
Love Canal, Niagara Falls, NY
LaBounty Dump Site, Charles City, IA
Saco Landfill, Saco, ME
Whitehouse, FL
near Myerstown, PA
Undisclosed
'Necco Park, Niagara Falls, NY
FMC, Middleport, NY
Frontier Chemical Waste Process Inc., Pendleton, NY
102nd Street, Niagara Falls, NY
Pfohl Brothers, Buffalo, NY
Reilly Tar & Chemical Co., St. Louis Park, MN
Windham Landfill, Windham, CT
LiPari Landfill, Gloucester County, NJ
Kin-Buc Landfill, Middlesex County, NJ
South Brunswick, NJ
Ott/Story site, Muskegon County, MI
Hooker Chemical Co., Montague, MI
A-l
-------
Site Number
Site Description
028 Mayer Landfill, Springfield Township, PA
029 Chemcentral-Detroit, Detroit, MI
030 Bofors-Lakeway, Muskegon, MI
A-2
-------
TABLE A-l
SUMMARY OP REPORTED WATER CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS
CONTAMINANT
CLASSI-FICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Halocarbons
001
Between 1968 and 1969 landfill accepted various liquid in-
dustrial wastes at rate of 3,000 gal/wk; about 25 to 30%
trichloroethylene (TCE)*. Materials percolated from ex-
cavated basin which now is under 50 to 60 ft of fill.
Other wastes included ethyl acetate and phenols.
TCE* in ground water within plume - 191 to 260 mg/1
TCE* in ground water, \ mi downgradient of site - 15 to
20 mg/1
Phenols
002
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)* laden oil was deep well injected
and later appeared in ground water and streams. EPA car-
bon trailer used to treat limited amount of contaminated
ground water.
PCP* in ground water a few hundred feet down gradient of
injection point - 2.4 mg/1
2,3
Pesticides
003
Industrial waste containing Repone and Mirex both spray ir-
rigated and "Chemfixed" and placed in impoundments. Fixing
held metals but permitted release of pesticides.
Kepone in stream - 2 mg/1
Metals
Pesticides
Misc.
004
Sitevincluded impoundments for liquid industrial wastes and
storage of solid industrial wastes. Acids, plating wastes,
and DDT were major materials disposed of although wide
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Metals
Pesticides
Misc. (continued)
Aliphatics
Halocarbons
Pesticides
Polynuclear
Aroma tics
Metals
(J:-!
.iJ,
— -
SITE
CODE
005
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
variety of materials went to site. Leachate known to exist.
Soil and down stream surface water affected; area of ground-
water contamination plume unknown.
Surface water quality downstream of site (range) :
Cd* - 4.8 - 8.2 mg/1
Cr* - 52 - 205 mg/1
Cu* - 7-16 mg/1
Mn - 340 - 550 mg/1
Ni* - 28-48 mg/1
Zn* - 77 - 115 mg/1
pH - ^3
Groundwater contamination resulting from the impoundment of
demilitized warfare agents and wastes from chemical produc-
tion facility. Efforts underway to, treat contaminated
groundwater .
Quality of contaminated groundwater (range) :
aldrin* - <2 yg/1
dieldrin* - <2 - 4.5 yg/1
dicyclopentadiene - 80 - 1,200 pg/1
diisopropylmethylphosphonate - 400 - 3,600 yg/1
p-chlorophenylmethyl-sulfide - <10 - 68 yg/1
p-chlorophenylmethyl-sulfoxide - <10 - 53 yg/1
p-chlorophenylmethyl-sulfone - <10 - 40 yg/1
endrin* - <2 - 9 yg/1
Nemagon - <1 - 8 yg/1
The following are averages (all as mg/1) ;
Al - 0.124 Ba - 0.1 Be* - 0.007
As* - 0.011 Bo - 0.624 Ca - 164
REFERENCE
6
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Aliphatics
Halocarbons
Pesticides
Polynuclear
Aromatics
Metal's (continued)
Metals
Misc.
1
SITE
CODE
006
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Co - 0.1 Se* - 0.003 POi^-P - <0.010
Cr* - 0.012 Na - 378 TOC - 10.9
Cu* - 0.001 Zn* - 0.024 Total inorganic
Fe - 0.090 Hg* - 0.0002 carbon - 71
Pb* - 0.001 TKN - 2.22 S04 - 505
Mg - 49.4 NO2-N - <0.010 Cl - 420
Mn - 1.04 NO3-N - <0.012 pH - 7.6
Mo - 0.114 NH3-N - <0.010 COD - 24.6
Ni* - 0.032 Total P - 1.39 SS - 10.4
K - 6.83 TDS - 1830
Landfill accepts municipal and industrial residues; leach-
ate with following average quality is produced (mg/1) :
BOD - 10,900 TKN - 984
COD - 18,600 SOi, - 462
SS - 1,040 Cl - 4,240
TDS - 13,000 Na - 1,350
pH - 6.85 K - 961
Alkalinity, Cd* - 0.086
as CaCO3 - 5,400 Cr* - 0.28
Hardness, Fe - 312
as CaC03 - 4,650 Ni* r 1-55
Ca - 818 Pb* - 0.67
Mg - 453 Zn* - 21
PO. - 2.74 Hg* - 0.007
NH3-N - 1000
REFERENCE
7
(continued)
>
U1
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Aromatics
Phenols
Phthalates
Polynuclear Aromatics
Amines
Misc .
Halocarbons
. j1/
SITE
CODE
007
008
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Hazardous wastes stored in drums and tanks on site. Follow-
ing contaminants were found in soil and puddles of liquid at
site:
1,4-dichlorobenzene*
1 , 2-dichlorobenzene*
1,2, 4-trichlorobenzene*
tetrachlorobenzene isomer
dibutylphthalate*
methylnaphthalene isomer
methyoxyphenol isomer
isophorone*
naphthalene*
d ipheny lami ne *
dimethylnaphthalene isomer
l-chloro-3-nitrobenzene
fluoranthene*
phenanthrene*
3-ethyltoluene
1,3, 5-trimethylbenzene
1,2, 4- trimethylbenzene
1,2, 3-trimethylbenzene
Following contaminants were detected in groundwater possibly
due to migration from upgradient impoundment disposal site:
1,1,1-trichloroethane* - 1.6 - 2.8 pg/1
trichloroethene - 6.9 - 16 wg/1
dichloropropene* - detected, not quantified
REFERENCE
8
9
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Pesticides
Aromatics
Halocarbons
Metals
Misc.
Phenols
SITE
CODE
009
010
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Isomers of DDT present in surface waters downstream of pesti-
cide production facility. Efforts underway to treat surface
waters.
DDT* - ranged from 4.28 to 14.26 pg/1 with average of
11.36 pg/1 (over 3 months in 1979)
Following contaminants were detected leaching from an inac-
tive disposal site used by a chemical producer (concentra-
tions in mg/1, except as noted) :
pH - 5.6 - 6.9 Na - 1000
TOG - 1800 - 4300 Ca - 2500
SOC - 4200 Cl - 9500
COD - 5900 - 11,500 Fe - 31 - 330
Oil & Grease - 90 Hg* - <0.0005 - <0.001
SS - 200 - 430 Pb* - 0.3 - 0.4
TDS - 15,700 Sb* - 2 yg/1**
SO? - 240 As* - 130 pg/1**
S~ - <0.1 Cd* - 11 yg/1**
Total P as P<0.1 - 3.2 Cr* - 270 pg/1**
P04 as P - <0.1 Cu* - 540 \ig/l**
TKN - 5.4 Ni* - 240 yg/1**
NH4-N - 0.65 Se* - 9 ng/1**
NO3-N - <0.1 Ag* - 1 pg/1**
N02~N - <0.1 Zn* - 480 vg/l**
Cn* - <0.01
hexachlorobutadiene* . - 109 pg/1**
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene* - 23 pg/1**
aldrin* - 23 pg/1**
heptachlor* - <10 pg/1**
REFERENCE
10
12
22
27
28
(continued)
-J
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Aromatics
Halocarbons
Metals
Misc.
Phenols (continued)
Of
-,L
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
phenol* - 30 pg/1**
phenols (total)* - 4.5**
2, 4-dichlorophenols* - 10 pg/1**
methyl chloride* - 180 pg/1**
1, 1-dichloroethylene - 28 pg/1
chloroform* - ND - 4550 pg/1
trichloroethylene* - ND - 760 pg/1
dibromochloromethane* - ND - 35 ug/1
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene - ND - 1000 pg/1
chlorobenzene* - 1200 pg/1**
methanol - 42.4**
ethanol - 56.4**
acetone - 50.3**
isopropyl alcohol - <0.1**
benzene* - ND - 3300 pg/1
toluene* - ND - 31,000 pg/1
1,1,1-trichloroethane* - ND - 225 pg/1
carbon tetrachloride* - 92 pg/1**
hexachlorocyclohexane
alpha isomer - ND - 600 pg/1
beta isomer - ND - 700 pg/1
gamma isomer - ND - 600 pg/1
delta isomer - ND - 120 pg/1
** denotes concentration following flow equalization and
sand filtration processes and prior to granular carbon
adsorption
REFERENCE
(continued)
00
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Metals
Aromatics
Halocarbons
Misc.
Phenols
Polynuclear Aromatics
SITE
CODE
Oil
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
roundwater reported to be contaminated by migration of pol-
utants from municipal landfill utilized by pharmaceutical
manufacturer for disposal of production residues. Following
data represents groundwater quality at well located between
landfill and river which is downgradient. Other wells in
area and downstream also report contamination (concentrations
in ng/1, except as noted) :
BOD - 2000 mg/1 AS* - 590 mg/1
COD - 7100 mg/1 Ba - 0.60 mg/1
TOG - 2300 mg/1 Cu* - 0.02 mg/1
TSS - <3 mg/1 Hg* - 0.0048 mg/1
Total Phenols - 18 mg/1 Zn* - 0.17 mg/1
NH-N - 130 mg/1
Volatile Organics: range average
benzene* 150 - 230 190
chlorobenzene* 4.6-7.0 5.5
1, 2-dichloroethene* 270 - 330 310
trans-1, 2-dichloroethene* 25 - 31 28
dichloromethane* 29 - 130 82
ethyl benzene* 3.0-5.2 3.9
toluene* 24- 34 28
1,1, 1-trichloroethane* 4.2-5.6 5.0
1,1.2-trichloroethane* 390 - 870 600
trichloromethane* 90 - 320 250
trichloroethane* 39 - 48 43
tetrachloroethylene* - 23
Neutral Extractible Organics:
aniline 140 - 870 410
REFERENCE
13
14
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
H
O
Metals
Aromatics
Halocarbons
Misc.
Phenols
Polynuclear Aromatics
(continued)
Neutral Extractible Organics (continued):
range
o-chloroaniline ND - 360
p-chloronitrobenzene 460 - 940
chloronitrotoluene ND - 460
4-chloro-3-nitrobenzanu.de 440 - 8700
2,6-dichlorobenzamine 890 - 30,000
2-ethylhexanal ND - 4500
2-ethylhexanol 19,000 - 23,000
3-heptanone ND - 1300
phenol* 12,000 - 17,000
o-nitroaniline 170,000 - 180,000
p-nitroaniline 32,000 - 47,000
nitrobenzene* ND - 740
o-nitrophenol* 8,600 - 12,000
2-chlorophenol* : -
2,4-dinitrophenol*
n-nitrosodiphenylamine*
as diphenylamine
1,1-dichloroethylene*
average
140
720
120
4200
8800
2600
22,000
640
14,000
180,000
37,000
250
11,000
3
99
190
P
Metals
Misc.
012
Following contaminants detected in groundwater at well near
tannery sludge disposal area:
Cr* - 1 mg/1 average; 5 mg/1 maximum
Zn* - 2.77 mg/1 average; 4.9 mg/1 maximum
pH - 6.35 average; 6.0 minimum
15
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
PCB's
013
Impoundments containing PCB contaminated oil and water were
dewatered to eliminate threat of stream and groundwater pol-
lution. Influent to powdered activated carbon treatment
facility contained:
Aroclor 1242*
Aroclor 1254*
Aroclor 1260*
ranged from 0.56 to 7.7 yg/1
16
Metal
014
Groundwater contamination resulted from land disposal of
arsenic compounds by pharmaceutical manufacturer. Prior to
installation of groundwater purging and treatment system,
arsenic* concentrations were 10,000 mg/1; after several yean
of purging concentrations of ,10-30 mg/1 remain.
17
Metal
015
Waste aresenic was disposed of in dump. Arsenic* concentra-
tions found in groundwater were 175 mg/1.
17
Metals
016
Following contaminants found in groundwater near inactive
chemical waste disposal site:
Ba - 2000 mg/1
Other inorganics and organics anticipated to be present
18
Metals
Pesticides
017
Arsenic* and Carbofuran found in surface runoff and in
lagoon used by chemical manufacturer.
18
(continued
-------
TABLE &-1 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Metals
Misc.
018
Following contaminants found in impoundment used by chemical
waste processor (cone, in mg/1):
Cd* - 1
Cu* - 9
Fe - 60
Ni* - 3
Zn* - 1
pH - 3
NH3-N - 30
18
Metals
Aromatics
019
Mercury* and benzene hexachloride believed to be in ground-
water in vicinity of chemical manufacturing and waste dispos-
al operations.
to
18
Aromatics
020
Chlorinated benzenes found in leachate and groundwater in
vicinity of waste disposal operation used by several chemical
producers.
18
Phenol
Polynuclear Aromatics
021
Following contaminants found in shallow groundwater in
vicinity of chemical production facility:
phenol* - 50 yg/1
polynuclear aromatics - 3400 ng/1
19
Metals
Misc.
022
Following range of contaminants were found in ground and sur-
face waters (ponds) in vicinity of municipal landfill which
also accepted industrial wastes (cone, in mg/1):
Pollutant
Alkalinity
pH
3 worst case
wells
20.6 - 300
6.27 - 6.5
2 worst case
surface waters
81 - 156
6.22 - 6.3
20
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Metals
Misc. (continued)
Metals
Phenols
Misc.
SITE
CODE
023
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
3 worst case 2 worst case
Pollutant wells surface waters
TS 840 - 1730 159 - 258
TOG 12 - 39 20.4 - 33.5
TKN <1 - 8.7 6.05
Cl 31.0 - 125 3.65 - 7.48
Na - mixed/settled3 4.6 - 34.1/26.9 21.5 / NR
Mn - mixed/settled3 0.41 - 4.16/3.70 1.03 / NR
Fe - mixed/settled3 21.1 - 196/162 3.38 / NR
Zn*- mixed/settled9 0.32 - 0.54/0.21 0.07 / NR
Cu*-mixed/settleda 0.082 - 0.365/0.076 0.006 / NR
Pb*-mixed/settledS 0.196 - 0.393/0.271 0.003 / NR
Cr*-mixed/settleda 0.123 - 0.55/0.28 <0.001 / NR
Specific conductance 80 - 1200 NR
a - results reported for mixed sample and supernatant
from settled sample
NR - not reported
Following contaminants were detected in groundwater down-
gradient of landfill which accepted large quantities of
pharmaceutical wastes. Data represents quality range at 3
poorest quality wells over 2 yr time span. (cone, as mg/1) :
pH -. 6.0-7.9 Cl . 40 - 1500
specific conductance 180 - 2000 F 0.14 - 1.3_
temperature (°F) 58-63 - TDS 1455
color 50 - 4000 NO3-N 0.01 - 0.04
sulfate 1.2 -"25 POi,-P 0.04
total hardness 700 - 1700 Fe 0.21 - 678
Ca . v , 18Q - 280 K 4.9-30
Mg 25 - 250 Mn 0.01 - 1.0
REFERENCE
21
(continued)
U)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Metals
Phenols
Misc. (continued)
Aromatics
Halocarbons
PCB's
Polynuclear Aromatics
Phthalates
.«*'..-/-;
SITE
CODE
024
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER
Na 13 - 130 CN*
Se * 0.01 - 0.02 Pb*
COD 168 - 9920 Cu*
BOD5 42 - 4040 Hg*
MBAS 0.24 Zn*
Phenols* 0.008 - 54.17^ Ag*
QUALITY
0.005
0.10
0.10 - 0.71
0.0005
0.36 - 26.8
0.01
Following range of contaminants were detected in leachate
from landfill accepting major proportions of chemical produc-
tion wastes (cone, in |ag/l, except as noted)
Aroclor 1254*
Aroclor 1016*/1242*
Aroclor 1016*/1242*/1254*
benzene*
biphenyl napthalene
chlorobenzenes*
camphene
Ci, alkyl cyclopentadiene
GS substituted cyclopentadiene
dichlorobenzene*
dichloroethane*
dichloroethylene
limonene
methyl chloride*
methyl napthalene
parafins
petroleum oil
phthalates
phthalate esters
pinene
:
70
110 to 1900
66 to 1.8 g/1
P to 1930
P
P to 4620
P
P
P
P to 517
180
P
P
3.1
P
P
P
P
P
P
REFERENCE
23
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Aroma tics
Halocarbons
PCB ' s
Polynuclear Aromatics
Phthalates
(continued)
Halocarbons
Misc.
Halocarbons
Aromatics
Phenols
Polynuclear Aromatics
SITE
CODE
025
026
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
styrene P
tetrachloroethylene* P to 590
toluene* P to 16,200
trichloroethane* P to 490
trichloroethylene* P to 7700
trimethylbenzenes P
MIBK 2000
xylene P to 3300
Following contaminants were detected in groundwater in vicin-
ity of municipal landfill due to "industrial waste seepage
from landfill" (cone, in yg/1) :
1,1,1-trichloroethane* 532
tetrachloroethylene* 187
1,1-dichloroe thane* 2.3
1 , 2-dichloroethylene* 0 . 2
chloroform* 1.1
1, 2-dichloroethane* 2.1
dibromochloromethane* 3.9
bromoform* 0.2
TOC 500
Ground and surface waters were polluted by migration of con-
taminants from waste disposal lagoons and direct discharge
practices attributed to chemical production facility. Fol-
lowing data describe groundwater quality range at four wells
located within the groundwater contamination plums (cone, in
:ng/D =
REFERENCE
24
25
(continued)
H
Ul
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Halocarbons
Aromatics
Phenols
Polynuclear Aromatics
(continued)
SITE
CODE
Volatile Organics:
vinyl chloride*
methylene chloride
1,1-dichloroethylene*
1,1-dichlorethane*
1,2-dichlorethane*
benzene*
1,1,2-trichloroethane*
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane*
toluene*
! ethylbenzene*
chlorobenzene*
trichlorofluoromethane*
Acid Extractable Organics:
o-chlorophenol*
phenol*
o-sec-butylphenol
p-isobutylanisol
or p-acetonylanisol
p-sec-but'ylphenolb
p-2-oxo-n-butylphenol
m-acetonylanisolb
isoprophylphenolb
1-e thylpropylphenol
dimethylphenol*
benzoic acid
Base Extractible Organics:
dichlorobenzene*
dimethylaniline
ATER QUALITY
140 to 32,500
<5 to 6570
220 to 19,850
<5 to 14,280
350 to 8150
6 to 7370
<5 to 790
<5 to 1590
<5 to 5850
<5 to 470
<5 to 78
<5 to 18
<3 to 20
<3 to 33
<3 to 83
<3 to 86
<3 to 48 ;
<3 to 1357
<3 to 1546
<3 to 8
<3
<3
<3 to 12,311
<10 to 172
<10 to 6940
REFERENCE
(continued)
-------
TABLE
(continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Halocarbons
Aromatics
Phenols
Polynuclear Aromatics
(continued)
Halocarbons
Aromatics .
Misc.
SITE
CODE
027
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Base Extractible Organics (continued) :
m-ethylaniline <10 to 7640
1, 2,4-trichlorobenzene* <10 to 28
napthalene* <10 to 66
methylnapthalene <10 to 290
camphor <10 to 7571
chloroaniline <10 to 86
benzylamine or o-toluidine <10 to 471
phenanthrene * or anthracene* <10 to 670
b - structure not validated by actual compound
Groundwater pollution caused by the production, disposal, and
storage of chemicals and waste residues in vicinity of chem-
ical production facility (cone, in yg/1, except as noted) :
chloride 5.5 to 8000 mg/1
tetrachlorome thane* <1 to 25,000
trichlorome thane* <1 to <10,000
trichloroethene <3 to 10,000
tetrachloroethene <1 to > 50, 000
hexachlorobutadiene* (C46) <20
hexachlorocyclopentadiene* ((-56) <100
octachlorocyclopentene (^58) <100-
hexachlorobenzene* ( 66) <100
REFERENCE
26
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Alcohols
Aliphatics
Aromatics
Ethers
Halocarbons
Alcohols
Aliphatics
Aromatics
Halocarbons
Phthalates
Polynuclear aromatics
yf.r r ," ..••
SITE
CODE
028
' 029
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Following range of contamiants were found in groundwater at
a landfill (cone, in mg/1) :
methylene chloride* 184
1,1,1-trichloroethane* 35
trichloroethene 84
toluene* 43
tetrachloroethene 0.850
benzaldehyde 3 , 100
benzene methanol 4,600
trichlorotoluene 3,300
Also believed to contain MIBK, hexane, dimethyl ether, and
dime thy Ipentene, approximately 10-100 mg/1 of each.
Groundwater quality in vicinity of facility which receives
solvents and chemicals in bulk and repackages for distribu-
tion (cone, in mg/1) :
l-methyl-3- (1-methylethanyl) cyclohexene < 1.453
o-xylene < 1.453
p-xylene 48.170
m-xylene 19.708
methylethylbenzene < 1.453
l,4-dimethyl-2-(l-methylethyl) benzene 11.913
1,2-diethylbenzene 7.971
l-ethyl-2, 4-dimethylbenzene < 1.453
2-ethyl-l, 4-dimethylbenzene < 1.453
2-ethyl-l, 3-dimethylbenzene < 1.453
l-ethyl-3 , 5-dimethylbenzene 12 . 507
1,2,3, 5-tetramethylbenzene 36. 479
1,2,4,5-tetramethylbenze.ne < 1.453
REFERENCE
11
29
(continued)
00
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
ILASSIFICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Alcohols
Aliphatics
Aromatics
Halocarbons
Phthalates
Polynuclear aromatics
(continued)
Volatiles
(2-methyl-l-propenyl) benzene
4-ethyl-l,2-dimethylbenzene
l-methyl-3-(1-methylethyl) benzene
l-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl) benzene
naphthalene*
l-ethyl-2,4,5-trimethylbenzene
5-ethyl-l,2,4-trimethylbenzene
l-ethyl-2-isopropylbenzene
1-methyInaphthalene
2-methylnaphthalene
1,2-dimethylnaphthalene
ethylbenzene
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene
2-butoxyethanol
1-(2-methoxy-l-methylethoxy)-2-propanol
2-ethyl-4-methyl-l-pentanol
2-methylcyclopentanol
4-methyl-2-pentanol
tetrachloroethene
dipropyl phthalate
dibutyl phthalate*
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate*
hydrocarbons (4-total)
methylene chloride*
acetone
2-butanol
dichloroethylene*
methyl ethyl ketone
< 1.453
< 1.453
< 1.453
< 1.453
18.698
< 1.453
< 1.453
< 1.453
< 1.453
8.067
< 1.453
10.115
11.239
37.113
13.702
< 2.168
< 2.168
< 2.168
< 2.168
< 2.168
89.155
< 3.883
21.732
52.995
42.760
21
62
550
10
53
(continued
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
•CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Alcohols
Aliphatics
Aromatics
Halocarbons
Phthalates
Polynuclear aromatic
(continued
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
1-1-1-trichloroethane*
1-ethoxypropane
2-methyl-2-butanol
l-methoxy-2-propanol
2-ethoxy-ethanol
4-methyl-2-pentanone
2-methylcyclopentanol
4-methyl-2-pentanol
tetrachloroethylene*
toluene*
TOC
COD
Lower portion
of Aquifer
24 - 8700
39 - 41,400
590
87
58
66
3.3
110
1.7
140
8.2
100
Upper portion
of Aquifer
73 - 2200
960 - 16,300
REFERENCE
Aliphatics
Aromatics
Halocarbons
Phenols
Polynuclear aromatic!
030
Iroundwater contamination due to leaching from unlined and
inadequately lined disposal lagoons and soil contamination
by process wastewater conveyance system (cone, in yg/1):
Nonvolatiles
aniline
2-chloroaniline
l-methyl-4-phenoxybenzene
3,3-dichloro-(1-1'-diphenyl)-
4,4'-diamine
l-chloro-3-nitrobenzene
2 methylphenol
bis(pentafluorophenyl) phenyl-
phosphine
4,4-' -diehlorobenzophenone
(1-butylhexyl)benzene
<6.2 to 1900
<9.9 to 12,000
<8.4 to 670
<8.4 to 1600
<8.0 to 340
<8.0 to 210
<38
<38
<36
30
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Aliphatics
Aromatic s
Halocarbons
Phenols
Polynuclear aromatics
(continued)
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
(1-propylheptyl) benzene <36
(1-ethyloctyl) benzene <36
(1-methylriomyl) benzene <36
diphenyldiazene <36
(1-butylheptyl) benzene <36
(1-propyloctyl) benzene <36
(1-ethylnonyl) benzene <36
(1-methyldecyl) benzene <36
(1-pentylheptyl) benzene <36
(1-butyloctyl) benzene <36
(1-propylnonyl) benzene <36
(1-ethyldecyl) benzene <36
(1-methylundecyl) benzene <36
1-heptyl-l, 2, 3,4-tetrahydro-
4-methyl-naphthalene <36
hydrocarbons <36
2-chloro-n-phenylbenzamide <38
Volatiles
methylene chloride* <0.3 to 18
acetone <0.1 to 470
thiobisme thane <1.0 to 290
1,1-dichloroethane* <2.0 to 12,000
l,l-dichloroethy$.ene* <110
chloroform* <17
1,2-dichloroethane* 2.1 to 4500
carbon tetrachloride* <70.0
1,2-dichloropropane* <22
trichloroethylene* <1.3 to 55
1 , 1 , 2 , 2-tetrachloroethene 0.6 to 560
toluene* <0.4 to 2200
xylene (2 isomers) <0.4 to 5400
REFERENCE
(continued)
to
-------
TABLE
(continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Aliphatics
Aromatic s
Halocarbons
Phenols
Polynuclear aromatics
(continued)
SITE
CODE
PROBL
eye]
meth
2,3-
chic
ethy
ben2
methylcyclopentane
2,3-dimethyl-2-pentene
fo
to
* - A priority pollutant
ND - Not Detected
P - Present
TER QUALITY
<0.4 to 22
<0.4 to 11
<8.6
<0.6 to 3100
<1.1 to 5400
REFERENCE
-------
TABLE A-2. REFERENCES LISTED IN TABLE A-l
1. Personal Communication. Mr. Leon Oberdick, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, Reading, PA.
June 21, 1979.
2. Personal Communication. Mr. John Osgood, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA.
June 19, 1979.
3. Personal Communication. Mr. Thomas Massey. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA. May 17, 1979.
4. Personal Communication. Mr. Carlyle Westlund, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA.
June 19, 1979.
5. Hatayama, H.K., Simmons, B.P., and R.D. Stephens. The
Stringfellow Industrial Waste Disposal Site: A Technical
Assessment of Environmental Impact. California Department
of Health Services, Berkeley, CA. March 1979.
6. Buhts, R.E., Malone, P.G., and D.W. Thompson. Evaluation of
Ultraviolet/Ozone Treatment of Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA)
Groundwater (Treatability Study). Technical Report Y-78-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MI. January 1978.
7. Steiner, R.L., Keenan, J.D., and A.A. Fungaroli. Demon-
strating Leachate Treatment: Report on a Full-Scale
Operating Plant. SW-758, US EPA, Office of Water and Waste
Management, Washington, DC. May 1979.
8. US EPA, National Enforcement Investigations Center. Partial
Listing of Compounds in ABM-Wade Disposal Site Samples.
Unpublished Memorandum to US EPA Region III Enforcement
Division, Philadelphia, PA. April 25, 1979.
9. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Results
of DER Samples of Bridgeport Quarry Taken on April 23, 1979.
Unpublished Data. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, Norristown, PA. April 23, 1979.
10. Personal Communication. Mr. F.A. Jones, Jr. Redstone
Arsenal Carbon Treatment Plant. Unpublished Data. Depart-
ment of the Army, US Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. July 2, 1979.
A-23
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued)
11. Personal Communication. Ms. Marilyn A. Hewitt. Water Quality
Report, Special Analyses Concerning Mayer Landfill, Springfield
Township, PA. September 28, 1980. Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, Norristown, PA. December 26, 1980.
12. Earth, E.F,. and J.M. Cohen. Evaluation of Treatability of
Industrial Landfill Leachate. Unpublished Report.
US Environmental Protection-Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
November 30, 1978.
13. Dahl, T.O. NPDES Compliance Monitoring and Water/Waste
Characterization Salsbury Laboratories/Charles City, Iowa.
EPA 330/2-78-019, US Environmental Protection Agency,
National Enforcement Investigations Center, Denver, CO.
November 1978.
14. US Environmental Protection Agency. Report of Investigation
Salsbury Laboratories, Charles City, Iowa. US Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Region VII Surveillance and Analyses
Division, Kansas City, MO. February 1979.
15. Atwell, J.S. Identifying and Correcting Groundwater Con-
tamination at a Land Disposal Site. In: Proceedings of
the Fourth National Congress Waste Management Technology
and Resource and Energy Recovery, Atlanta, GA.
November 1975. pp. 278-301.
16. Stroud, F.B., Wilkerson, R.T», and A. Smith. Treatment and
Stabilization of PCS Contaminated Water and Waste Oil: A
Case Study. In: Proceedings of 1978 National Conference
on Control of Hazardous Material Spills, Miami Beach, FL.
April 1978. pp. 135-144.
17. Stover, E.L. and A.A. Metry. Hazardous Solid Waste Manage-
ment Report. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, Division of Solid Waste Management, Harrisburg,
PA. November 1976.
18. Interagency Task Force on Hazardous Wastes. Draft Report
on Hazardous Waste Disposal in Erie and Niagara Counties,
New York. SW-Pll (3/79). Interagency Task Force on
Hazardous Wastes, Albany, NY. March 1979.
19. Personal Communication. Mr. Steven Lees, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. August 2, 1979.
20. Beck, W.W. Jr., Evaluation of Chemical Analyses Windham
Landfill, Windham, Connecticut. Letter to Mr. Donald E.
Sanning. US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,OH.
January 26, 1978.
21. Personal Communication. Mr. Steven Lees. Compilation of
Data Related to LiPari Landfill. US Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, OH.. August 2, 1979.
A-24
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued)
22. Personal Communication. Mr. Steven Lees. Compilation of
Love Canal Leachate Data. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH. August 2, 1979.
23. Brezenski, F.T. Laboratory Results - Kin Buc Landfill.
Unpublished Data in Memorandum to R.D. Spear, Chief
Surveillance and Monitoring Branch. US Environmental
Protection Agency. January 24, 1978.
24. Isacoff, E.G. and J.A. Bittner. Resin Adsorbent Takes on
Chlororganics from We'll Water. Water and Sewage Works,
126 (8): 41-42, 1979.
25. Sturino, E. Analytical Results: Samples from Story
Chemicals, Data Set Others 336. Unpublished Data.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Central
Regional Laboratory, Chicago, IL. May 1978.
26. Personal Communication. Mr. Andrew W. Hogarth. Unpub-
lished Data: Report of Sampling, Hooker Chemical Corp.
Monitoring Wells, Montague, Michigan. December 1978.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.
August 7, 1979.
27. O'Brien, R.P. City of Niagara Falls, New York, Love Canal
Project. Unpublished Report. Calgon Corp., Calgon
Environmental Systems Division, Pittsburgh, PA.
28. Recra Research Inc. Priority Pollutant Analyses Prepared
for Newco Chemical Waste Systems, Inc. Unpublished Report.
Recra Research Inc., Tonawanda, NY. April 16, 1979.
29. Personal Communeiation. Ms. Deborah Mulcahey. Unpublished
Data: Analytical Results of Data Set - EDO 489, Collected
at Bofors-Lakeway, Inc., Muskegon, Michigan by U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Region V, February 12, 1980.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan.
December 18, 1980.
30. Personal Communication. Ms. Deborah Mulcahey. Compilation
of Data related to Chemcentral-Detroit. Michigan Department
of Natural Resources. December 18, 1980.
A-25
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF RCRA POLLUTANTS
The Hazardous Waste and Consolidated Permit Regulations
which appeared in the May 19, 1980 Federal Register contain
three lists of hazardous wastes: (1) acute hazardous {Sec.
261.33(e)}, (2) hazardous {Appendix VII}, and (3) Toxic {Sec.
261.33(f)}. These three lists are consolidated into one alpha-
betical listing in this appendix to facilitate location of a
compound. The RCRA category (1,2, or 3) above is indicated for
each compound. Multiple entries for a compound indicate that
the compound appears in more than one category.
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l. LIST OF RCRA POLLUTANTS
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Acetalaldehyde H, T
(Acetato)pTienylmercury H
Acetone T
Acetonitrile H, T
3-(alpha-AcetonyIbenzyl)- H, A
4-hydroxycoumarin and
salts
Acetophenone T
2 Acetylaminofluorene H, T
Acetyl Chloride H, T
l-Acetyl-2-thiourea A, H
Acrolein A, H
Acrylamide H, T
Acetylene tetrachloride T
Acetylenetrichloride T
Acrylic acid T
Acrylonitrile H, T
AEROTHENE TT T
Aflatotoxins H
Agarin A .
Agrosan GN 5 A .
Aldicarb A
Aldifen A
Aldrin A, H
Algimycin A
Allyl alcohol A, H
Aluminum phosphide A, H
ALVIT A
4-Aminobiphenyl H
6-Amino-l,la,2,8,8a, H, T
8b-hexahydro-8-(hydroxy-
methyl)-8a-methoxy-5-
(methylcarbamate azirino
(2',3':3,4) pyrrolo
(1,2-a)indole-4,7-
doine(ester)
(Mitomycin C)
Aminoethylene A
5-(Aminomethyl)-3- H, A
isoxazolol
4-Aminopyridine A, H
Amitrole H, T
Ammonium metavanadate A
Ammonium picrate A
Aniline T
Antimony and Compounds,
N'.O.S.1 H
ANTIMUCIN WDR A
ANTURAT A
AQUATHOL A
Aramite H
ARETIT A
Arsenic and compounds, H
N.O.S.
Arsenic acid A, H
Arsenic pentoxide A, H
Arsenic trioxide A, H
Asbestos T
Athrombin A
Auramine H, T
AVITROL A
Azaserine H, T
Aziridene A
AZOFOS A
Azophos A
BANTU A
Barium and compounds, H
N.O.S.
Barium cyanide A, H
BASENITE A
BCME A
Benz[c]acridine H, T
Benz[a]anthracene H
Benzal chloride T
Benzene H, T
Benzenearsonic acid H
Benzenesulfonyl ch^pride T
Benzenethiol A, H
.Benzidine r H, T
1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3- T
one/, 1,1-dioxide
Benzo[a]anthracene H, T
(continued)
B-2
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Compound
RCRA,
Pollutant
Group
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Benzo[b]fluoranthene H
Benzo[j]fluoranthene H
Benzo[a]pyrene ': H, T
Benzoepin (Endosulfan) A
Benzotrichloride H, T
Benzyl chloride H
Beryllium and compounds H
N.O.S.
Beryllium dust A
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) ' H, T
methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether H T
N,N-Bis(2-chloroethyl)- H T
2-naphthylamine
Bis(2-chloroisbpropyl) H, T
ether ;
Bis(chloromethyl) ether A, H
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) H, T
phthalate
BLADAN-M A
Bromoacetone A, H
Bromomethane H, T
4-Bromophenyl phenyl H, T
ether.
Brucine A, H
2-Brutanone peroxide A, H
BUFEN A
Butaphene A
n-Butyl alcohol ' T
Butyl benzyl phthalate H
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dini- A, H
tro-phenol (DNBP)>
Cadmium and compounds, H
N.O.S.
Calcium chromate ' H, T
Calcium-cyanide ....-- A, H
CALDON A
Carbolic acid T
Carbon disulfide A, H
Carbon tetrachloride • ~ T
Carbonyl fluoride ..--..' T
CERESAN A
CERESAN UNIVERSAL A
CHEMOX GENERAL A
CHEMOX P.E. A
CHEM-TOL ,' . A
Chloral T
Chlorambucil H/ T
Chlordane ... ,T
Chlordane (alpha and H
gamma isomers)
Chlorinated benzenes, H
N.O.S.
Chlorinated ethane, ' H
N.O.S.
Chlorinated naphtha- H
lene, N.O.S.
Chlorinated phenol, H
N.O.S.
Chloroacetaldehyde A, H
Chloroalkyl ethers H
p-Chloroaniline A, H
Chlorobenzene H, T
Chlorobenzilate H, T
l-(p-Chlorobenzoyl)-5- A, H
methoxy-2-methylindole-
3-acetic acid
p-Chloro-m-cresbl ,H, T
Chlorodibromomethane T
l-Chloro-2,3-epoxy- :H
butane
l-Chloro-2,3-epoxyprd- T
pane
CHLOROETHENE NU T
Chloroethyl* vinyl ether T
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ; : H
ether ";
Chloroethene T T
Chloroform ' H, T
Chloromethane H/ T
Chloromethyl methyl ' H/ T
• ether '
(continued)
B-3
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
1-(o-Chlorophenyl)
thiourea
3-Chloroprop ionitrile
alpha-Chlorotoluene
Chlorotoluene, N.O.S.
4-Chloro-o-toluidine
hydrochloride
Chromium and compounds,
N.O.S.
Chrysene
C.I. 23060
Citrus red No.2
Copper cyanide
Creosote
Cresols
CRETOX
Coumadin
Coumafen
Cresylic acid
Crotonaldehyde
Cumene
Cyanides (soluble salts
and complexes), N.O.S.
Cyanogen
Cyanogen bromide
Cyanogen chloride
Cyanome thane
Cycasin
Cyclodan
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanone
2-Cyclohexyl-4 6-dini-
trophenol
Cyclophosphamide
D-CON
Daunomycin
DETHMOR
DETHNEL
DDD
H, T DDE
H, T DDT
A, H DFP
Diallate
A, H Dibenz[a,h]acridine
A, H Dibenz[a,j]acridine
H Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
T (Dibenzo[a,h]anthra-
cene)
H 7H-Dibenzo[c,g]
carbazole
H T Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene
T Dibenzo[a,hjpyrene
H Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene
A, H Dibromochloromethane
H, T l,2-Dibromo-3-chloro-
T propane
A 1,2-Dibromoethane
A Dibromomethane
A Di-n-butyl-phthalate
T Dichlorobenzene, N.O.S.
H T 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
T 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
A, H 1/4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
A, H l,4-Dichloro-2-butene
A, H 3,3t-pichloro-4,4I-
A, H diaminobiphenyl
T Dichlorodifluoromethane
H 1,1-Dichloroethane
A 1,2-Dichloroethane
T trans-1,2-Dichloroethane
T Dichloroethylene, N.O.S.
A, H 1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-trans-dichloro-
Hf T ethylene „
A Dichloromethane f
H, T Dichloromethylbenzene
A 2 4-Dichlorophenol
A 2 6-Dichlorophenol
H, T
H
H, T
A
H, T
H
H
H. T
H
H
H
H, T
T
H, T
H, T
H, T
H, T
H
T
T
T
H, T
T
T
T
H T
H, T
H
H
H, T
T
H, T
T
H, T
H, T
(continued)
B-4
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
2 ,4-Dichlorophenoxy-
acetic acid.
Dichlorophenylarsine
Dichloropropane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Dichloropropanol, N.0.S.
Dichloropropene , N.0.S.
1,3-Dichloropropene
Dicyanogen
Dieldrin
DIELDREX
Diepoxybutane
Diethylarsine
0,0-Diethyl-S-[2-(ethyl-
thio) ethyl]ester of
phosphothioic acid
1,2-Diethylhydrazine
0,0-Diethyl-S-methyl-
ester phosphorodithioic
acid
Of 0-Diethylphosphoric
acid, 0-p-nitrophenyl
ester
Diethyl phthalate
0,0-Diethyl-0-(2-pyra-
zinyDphosphorothioate
0,0-Diethyl phosphoric
acid, 0-p-nitrophenyl
ester
Diethyl stilbestrol
Dihydrosafrole
3, 4-Dihydrdxy-alpha-
(methylamino)-methyl
benzyl^alcohol
Di-isopropylfluorophos-
phate (DFP)
DIMETATE (Dimethoate)
A, H
A, H
H
H, T
H
H
H, T
A
A, H
A
H, T
A, H
A, H
H, T
H, T
H
H, T
A, H
H, T
H, T
A, H
A, H
A
1,4:5 8-Dimethanonaph- A
thalene, 1,2,3,4,
10,10-Hexachloro-l,4 ,
4a ,5 ,8 ,8a-hexahydro
endo, endo
Dimethaoate A/ H
3 ,3-Dimethoxybenzidine H, T
Dimethylamine T
p-Dimethylaminoazoben- H, T
zene
7,12-Dimethylbenz[a] H, T
anthracene
3,3-Dimethylbenzidine H, T
alpha, alpha-Dimethyl- T
benzylhydroperoxide
Dimethylcarbamoyl H, T
chloride
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine H, T
1,2-Dimethylhydrazine H, T
3,3-Dimethyl-l-(methyl- A, H
thio)-2-butanone-0-
[(methylamino)carbonyl]
oxime
DimethyInitrosoamine H, T
alpha, alpha-Dimethyl- A, H
ph ene thy1amine
2,4-Dimethylphenol H, T
Dimethyl phthalate H, T
Dimethyl sulfate H, T
Dinitrobenzene, N.O.S. H
Dinitrocyclohexyl- A
phenol
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol A, H
and salts
-2,4-Dinitrophenol A, H, T
2,4-Dinitrotoluene H, T
2,6-Dinitrotoluene H, T
Di-n-octylphthalate H, T
DINOSEB A
(continued)
B-5
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
DINOSEBE A
1,4 Dioxane . H, 1
1 /2-Diphenylhydrazine H , T
Dipropylamine T
Di-n-propylnitrosamine H, T
Disulfoton A, H
2,4 Dithiobiuret A. H
DNBP A
DOLCO MOUSE CEREAL A
DOW GENERAL A
DOW GENERAL WEED KILLER A
DOW SELECTIVE WEED A
KILLER
DOWICIDE G A
DYANICIDE A
EASTERN STATES SUOCIDE A
ELGETOL A
EBDC T
Endosulfan A, H
Endrin A
Endrin and metabolites H
Epichlorohydrin H
Ep in ephr ine A
1r4-Epoxybutane T
Ethyl acetate T
Ethyl acrylate T
Ethyl cyanide A, H
Ethylenebisdithiocar- H, T
bamate (EBDC)
Ethylenediamine A, H
Ethyleneimine . A, H
Ethylene oxide H, T
Ethylene thiourea H, T
Ethyl ether T
Ethylmethacrylate T
Ethylmethanesulfonate H , T
Ethylnitrile T
FASCO FASCRAT POWDER A
FEMMA A
Ferric cyanide A
Firemaster T23P T
Fluoranthene H, T
Fluorine A/ H
2-Fluoroacetamide A, H
Fluoroacetic acid, A, H
sodium salt
Fluorotrichloromethane T
Formaldehyde H, T
FOLODOL-80 A
FOLODOL-M A
Formic acid T
FOSFERNOM A
FRATOL A
Fulminate of mercury A
FUNGITOX OR A
Furan T
Furfural T
FUSSOF A
GALLOTOX A
GEARPHOS A
GERUTOX A
Glycidylaldehyde H, T
Halomethane , N.O.S. H
Heptachlor A H
Heptachlor epoxide H
(alpha , beta., and gamma
isomers)
Hexachlorobenzene H , T
Hexachlorobutadiene H , T
Hexachlorocyclohexane H , T
(all isomers)
Hexachlorocyclopenta- H,,T
diene
Hexachloroethane H , T
1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexa- ,. ~: A/ H
chloro-1,4 ,4a,5/8 , ,:.:
8a-hexahydro-l ,4: 5 ,8-:v
endo , endo-dimethanona-
phthalene *
Hexachlorophene T
(continued)
B-6
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
1,4,5,6,7,7-Hexa- A
chloro-cyclic-5-nor-
bornene-2, 3-dimethanol
sulfite
Hexachloropropene. A, H
Hexaethyl tetraphosphate A, H
HOSTAQUICK or HOSTAQUIK A
Hydrazine H, T
Hydrazomethane A
Hydrocyanic acid A, H
Hydrofluoric acid T
Hydrogen sulfide H , T
Hydroxybenzene T
Hydroxydimethyl arsine T
oxide
ILLOXOL A
4 ,4-(Imidocarbonyl) T
bis(N, N-dimethyl)
aniline
Ideno (If2,3-c,d) H, T
pyrene
INDOCI A
Indomethacin A
INSECTOPHENE A
Iodomethane H, T
Iron Dextran T
Isobutyl alcohol T
Isocyanic acid methyl A, H
ester
Isodrin A
Isosafrole H/ T
Kepone H, T
KILOSEB A
KOP-THIODAN A
KWIK-KIL p A
KWIKSAN" A
KUMADER A
Lasiocarpine H/ T
Lead and Compounds / H
N.O.S.
Lead acetate
Lead phosphate . H, T
Lead subacetate H, T
LEYTOSAN ' , A
LIQUIPHENE A
Maleic anhydride . H, T
Maleic hydrazide .' > , T
Malononitrile • H, T
MALIK
MAREVAN
MAR-FRIN A
MARTIN'D MAR-FRIN A
MAVERAN A
MEGATOX A
MEK Peroxide T
Melphalan H, T
Mercury and Compounds, H
N.O.S.
Mercury T
Mercury fulminate A
MERSOLITE A
METACID 50 A
MATAFOS A
METAPHOR A
METAPHOS A
METASOL 30 A
Methacronylonitrile • T
Methanethiol : T
Methanol T
Methapyrilene • H, T
Methomyl • A, H
2-Methylaziridine A, H
Methyl chlorocarbonate T
Methyl chloroform T
3-Methylcholanthrene H, T
Methyl chloroformate T
METHYL-E 605 A
4, 4-Methylene-bis-(2- H, T
' chloroaniline),
Methyl ethyl ketone H, T
[MEK]
(continued)
B-7
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Methyl ethyl ketone ; T
peroxide
Methyl hydrazine A, H
Methyl iodide T
Methyl isobutyl ketore T
Methyl isocyanate A
2-Methyllactonitrile A, H
Methyl methacrylate H, T
Methyl methanesulfonate H
2-Methyl-2-(methylthio) A, H
propionaldehyde-o-
(me thy1c arb ony1) oxime
N-Methyl-N-nitro-N- H, T
nitrosoguanidine
METHYL NIRON A
Methyl parathion A , H
Methylthiouracil H , T
METRON . A
Mitomycin C T
MOLE DEATH A
MOUSE-NOTS A
MOUSE-RID A
MOUSE-TOX A
MUSCIMOL A
Mustard gas H
Naphthalene H , T
1,4-Naphthoquinone H7 T
1-Naphthylamine H, T
2-Naphthylamine H, T
l-Naphthyl-2-thiourea A, H
Nickel and compounds, H
N.O.S.
Nickel carbonyl A , H
Nickel cyanide A, H
Nicotine and salts A,' H
Nitric oxide A, H
p-Nitroaniline A, H
Nitrobenzene H, T
Nitrobenzol T
Nitrogen dioxide A, H
Nitrogen mustard and H
hydrochloride salt
Nitrogen mustard N-oxide H
and hydrochloride salt
Nitrogen perioxide A , H
Nitrogen tetroxide A / H
Nitroglycerine A , H
4-Nitrophenol H , T
2-Nitropropane T
4-Nitroquinoline-l-oxide H
Nitrosamine, N.O.S. H
N-Nitrosodi-N-butylamine H, T
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine H, T
N-Nitrosodiethylamine H, T
N-Nitrosodimethylamine A, H
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine A, H
N-Nitrosodi-N-propyla- H, T
mine
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea H, T
N-Nitrosomethylethyla- H
mine
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea H, T
N-Nitroso-N-methyl- H, T
urethane
N-Nitrosomethylvinyla- A, H
mine
N-Nitrosomorpholine H
N-Nitrosohornicotine H
N-Nitrosopiperidine H, T
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine H, T
N-Nitrososarcosine H
5-Nitro-o-toluidine H, T
NYLMERATE A
OCTALOX A
Octamethylpyrophos- A, H
phoramide
OCTAN -4 A
Oleyl alcohol condensed A, H
with 2 moles ethylene
oxide
OMPA A
(continued)
B-8
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
OMPACIDE
OMPAX
Osmium tetroxide
7-Oxabicyclo[2.2.1]
heptane-2 / 3-dicarbox-
ylic acid
PANIVARFIN
PANORAM
PANTHERINE
PANWARFIN
Paraldehyde
Parathion
PCNB
PCP
PENNCAP-M
PENOXYL CARBON N
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
(PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenate
1,3-Pentadiene
PENTAKILL
PENTASOL
PENWAR
PERMIGIDE
PERMAGUARD
PERMATOX
PERMITE
PERTOX
Perc
Perchloroethylene
PESTOX
Phenacetin
PHENMAD
Phenol
PHENOTAN
Phenyl dichloroarsine
Phenyl mercaptan
Phenylmercury acetate
A
A
A, H
A, H
A
A
A
A
T
A, H
T
A
A
A
H, T
H, T
H, T
A, H
A
T
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
T
T
A
H, T
A
H, T
A
A, H
A
A, H
N-Phenylthiourea A, H
PHILIPS 1861 . A
PHIX A
Phorate A
Phosgene A, H
Phosphine A, H
Phosphorothioic acid, A, H
0 /0-dimethyl ester ,
0-ester with N ,
N-dimethyl benezene
sulfonamide
Phosphorothioic acid 0, A
0-dimethyl-'O- (p-nitro-
phenyl) ester
Phosphorous sulfide T
Phthalic acid esters , H
N.O.S.
Phthalic anhydride H, T
2-Picoline T
PIED PIPER MOUSE SEED A
Polychlorinated bi- H
phenyl, N.O.S.
Potassium cyanide A, H
Potassium silver cyanide A, H
PREMERGE A
Pronamide H, T
1/2-Propanediol A, H
1/3-Propane sultone H, T
Propargyl alcohol A
Propionitrile A7 H
n-Propylamine T
Propylthiouracil H
2-Propyn-l-ol A, H
PROTHROMADIN A
Pyridine H, T
QUICKSAM A
Quinones T
QUINTOX A
RAT AND MICE BAIT A
RAT-A-WAY A
RAT-B-GON A
(continued)
B-9
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
RAT-0-CIDE #2 A
RAT-GUARD A
RAT-KILL A
RAT-MIX A
RATS-NO-MORE A
RAT-OLA A
RATOREX A
RATTUNAL A
RAT-TROL A
RO-DETH A
RO-DEX A
ROSEX A
ROUGH AND READY MOUSE A
MIX
Reserpine H7 T
Resorcinol T
Saccharin H, T
Safrole H, T
SANASEED A
SANTOBRITE A
SANTOPHEN A
SANTOPHEN 20 A
SCHRADAN A
Selenious acid H, T
Selenium and compounds , H
N.O.S.
Selenium sulfide H, T
Selenourea A, H
Silver and compounds, H
N.O.S.
Silver cyanide A , H
Silvex T
SMITE A
SPARIC A
SPOR-KIL A
SPRAY-TROL BRAND RODEN- A
TROL
SPURGE A
Sodium azide A
Sodium coumadin A
Sqdium cyanide A , H
Sodium fluoracetate 'A
SODIUM WARFARIN A
SOLFARIN A
SOLFOBLACK BB A
SOLFOBLACK SB A
Streptozotocin H, T
Strontium sulfide A, H
Strychnine and salts A H
SUBTEX A
SYSTAM A
2 A ,5-T T
TAG FUNGICIDE A
TEKWAISA A
TEMIC A
TEMIK A
TERM-I-TROL A
1 ,2 ,4 ,5-Tetrachloro- H , T
benzene
2 ,3 ,7 ,8-Tetrachloro- H
dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
Tetrachloroethane H
N.O.S.
1,1 ,1 ,2-Tetrachloro- H
ethane
1 ,1 ,2 ,2-Tetrachloro H , T
ethane
Tetrachloroethene H, T
Tetrachloroethylene H, T
Tetrachloromethane H , T
2,3 ,4,6-Tetrachloro- H, T
phenol
TetraethyIdithiopyro- A, H
phosphate
Tetraethyl lead A, H
Tetraethylpyrophosphate A, H
Tetrahydrofuran T
Tetranitromethane A
Tetraphosphoric a<5id, A
hexaethyl ester u;
TETROSULFUR BLACK PB~ A
TETROSULPHUR PER A
(continued)
B-10
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Thallium and compounds ,
N.Q.S.
Thallic oxide
Thallium acetate
Thallium carbonate
Thallium nitrate
Thallium peroxide
Thallium selenite
Thallium sulfate
THIFOR
THIMUL
Thiocetamide
THIODAN
THIOFOR
THIOMUL
THIONEX
THIOPHENIT
Thiosemicarbazide
Thiosulfan tionel
Thiourea
Thiuram
THOMPSON'S WOOD FIX
TIOVEL
Toluene
Toluenediamine
o-Toluidine hydrochloride
Toluene diisocyanate
Tolylene diisocyanate
Toxaphene
2,4,5-TP
Tribromome thane
1,2 ,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichloromethanethiol
2,4,5-Trichlbrophenol
2,4,6-Trichlor'ophenol
H
A, H
H, T
H, T
H, T
A
A, H
A, H
A
A
H, T
A
A
A
A
A
A, H
A
H, T
A, H
A
A
H, T
H, T
H, T
T
H
H, T
T
H'T
H
H, T
H T
H, T
H, T
T
A, H
H, T
H, T
2,4,5-Trichloro- H, T
phenoxyacetic acid
2,4,5-Trichloro- H
phenoxypropionic acid
2,4,5-Trichloro- , T
phenoxypropionic acid
alpha, alpha, alpha-
Trichlorotoluene
Trichloropropane, N.O.S. H
TRI-CLENE T
0,0,0-Triethyl phos- H
phorothioate
Trinitrobenzene H, T
Tris(l-azridinyl) H
phosphine sulfide
Tris(2,3-dibromo- H, T
propyl) phosphate
Trypan blue H, T
TWIN LIGHT RAT AWAY .A
Uracil mustard H, T
Urethane H, T
USAF-RH-8 A
USAF EK-4890 A
Vanadic acid , ammonium A , H
salt
Vanadium pentoxide A
Vanadium pentoxide H
(dust)
Vinyl chloride H , T
VOFATOX A
WANADU A
WARCOUMIN A
WARFARIN SODIUM A
WARFICIDE A
WOFOTOX A.
Xylene T
YANOCK A
YASOKNOCK A
ZIARNIK A
Zinc cyanide A, H
Zinc phospide A ., H
ZOOCOUMARIN A
B-ll
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
1. The abbreviation N.O.S. signifies those members of the general
class "not otherwise specified" by name in this listing.
a. RCRA Pollutant Groups:
A. Acute hazardous
[Sec. 261.33 (e)]
H. Hazardous
[Appendix VIII]
T. Toxic
[Sec. 261.33 (f)]
B-12
-------
APPENDIX C
UNIT PROCESS SUMMARIES -
SANITARY LANDFILL LEACHATE TREATMENT
Appendix C contains summaries of the treatment of sanitary
landfill leachate by the following processes:
• chemical oxidation
• chemical precipitation
• ion exchange
• reverse osmosis
Several applications using different oxidizing agents, coagu-
lants, and exchange resins are presented. These results should
not be related directly to hazardous waste leachate treatment.
However, they do provide an indication of treatment effectiveness
and represent another reference point which can be used in treat-
ment process formulation. Tables C-l through C-24 were prepared
by Monsanto Research Corporation for use in this manual.
C-l
-------
TABLE C-l. CHLORINE AND SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [1]
Parameter
Dosage C12
Dosage NaClO
COD
Parameter
Dosage C12
Dosage NaClO
COD
Note: Blanks
Concentration,
mo/La
Influent
0
0
330
Effluent
65.5
3,430
220
Concentration,
Influent
0
0
270
Effluent
47.6
2,500
120
indicate parameter not
Cook and
Percent
removal
33
Cook and
Percent
removal
56
determined
Foree
Concentration,
moYLa
Influent
0
0
320
Foree
Effluent
566
2,970
260
Concentration,
ma/La
Influent
0
0
290
f
Effluent
310
1,630
90
Percent
removal
19
Percent
removal
69
Chlorine dosages provided by liquid chlorine bleach.
Except dosage C12 in mL/L.
02
-------
TABLE 02. CHLORINE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [2,3]
Parameter
Dosage
COD
pH initial
pH final
TS
Chloride
Iron
Parameter
Dosage
COD
pH initial
pH final
TS
Chloride
Iron
Chian and DeWalle HO, et ai. t.
Concentration. mq/La Percent Concentration. mg/L Percent
Inflwn* KffiiMnt removal Influent Effluent removal
0
4,800
Concen-
tration,
mq/L
Effluent
800
286
2.0
7.6
3,060
1,220
ND
2,000
3,740 22
Ho, et
Concen-
tratign,
Percent mg/L
removal Effluent
1,200
16 257
1.75
-J 4,200
-D 1,900
>99 ND
0
341
7.0
7n
.U
482
98.6
3.7
al.
Percent
removal
25
b
"b
>99
400
297
2.2
7 0
1,960
768
0.2
Concen-
tration,
mg/L
Effluent
1,540
' 316
1.6
7 n
5,142
2,280
ND
13
b
~b
95
Percent
removal
7.3
b
"b
>99
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
TABLE 03. CHLORINE AND CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [2]
Parameter
Dosage C12
Dosage Ca (C10)2
COD
Chian and DeWalle
Concentration,
mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
0
0 1,000
139 139 0
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
03
-------
TABLE C-4. CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [3 ]
Concentration ,
rag/La
Parameter
Dosage
COD
pH initial
pH final
TS
Iron
Parameter
Dosage
COD
pH initial
pH final
TS
Iron
Influent
0
1,463
7.8
7.0
1,748
35
Concen-
tration,
mg/La
Effluent
8,000
762
9.0
7.0
9,274
-vQ
Effluent
1,000
1,420
8.0
7.0
2,478
*Q
Percent
removal
48
_b
>99
Percent
removal
3.1
_b
>99
Ho, et
Concen-
tration,
mg/La
Effluent
12,000
908
9.9
7.0
13,910
M)
Concen-
tration,
mg/La
Effluent
2,000
1,420
7.95
7.0
3,268
*Q
al.
Percent
removal
38
_b
>99
Percent
removal
3.1
_b
>99
Concen-
tration,
mg/La
Effluent
15,000
1,000
10.2
7.0
16,700
M3
Concen-
tration,
mg/L
Effluent
4,000
1,126
8.15
7.0
5,392
-\»Q
Percent
removal
32
_b
>99
Percent
removal
23
^b
>99
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
Except' for pH in pH units and hardness in mg/L CaC03.
Negative percent removal.
C-4
-------
TABLE C-5. POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [3]
9
Ui
Concentration,
mq/La
Parameter
Dosage
COO
pH
TS
Alkalinity
Chloride
Iron
Influent
0
10.900
5.7
7,040
2.070
SS7
290
Effluent
10
10.820
5.7
7,000
2,065
557
280
Percent
removal
0.73
0.57
0.24
0
3.4
Concen-
tration.
Effluent
25
10,700
5.8
7.000
2,065
557
220
Ho,
Percent
removal
1.8
0.57
0.24
0
24
et al.
Concen-
tration,
mgyia
Effluent
50
10,350
5.8
6.900
2,065
557
180
Percent
removal
5.0
2.0
0.24
0
38
Concen-
tration,
mo/ta
Effluent
100
10,320
5.8
6,800
2.062
557
76
Percent
removal
5.3
3.4
0.39
0
74
Concen-
tration,
mq/La
Effluent
500
9,800
5.8
6,700
2.060
560
3
Percent
removal
10
4.8
0.48b
99
Ho, et al.
Parameter
Dosage
COD
pH
Alkalinity
Chlorine
Iron
Concen-
tration,
mq/L8
Effluent
1,000
9,700
5.8
Percent
removal
11
Concen-
tration.
ma/La
Effluent
2,500
9.600
5.8
Percent
removal
12
Concen-
tration,
mil
Effluent
5,000
9,350
5.8
Percent
removal
14
Concen-
tration,
•Kf/L
Effluent
7,500
9.100
5.8
Percent
removal
„ 17
Concen-
tration.
mg/La
Effluent
10,000
8.860
5.8
Percent
removal
19
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
a£xcept for pH in pH units and total hardness and alkalinity in ag/L CaC03.
Negative percent removal.
-------
TABLE C-6. OZONE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [2, 3]
?
Parameter
Dosage
COD
TOC
pH initial
pH final
TDS
Chloride
Iron
Contact tine
Ho,
Concentration,
Influent Effluent
0 7.700
7.190 6,790
7.4 7.4
7.5 7.8
11,730 11,330
3,640 3.640
40 8
0 1
et al
Percent
reuoval
5.6
3.4
0
80
Chian and
Parameter
Dosage
COD
TOC
pH initial
pH final
TDS
Chloride
Iron
Contact time
Concentration,
ma/1*76
Influent Effluent
0 600
1,250 788
0 3
Percent
removal
37
Concen-
tration,
7,700
4,500
7.4
7.5
11,280
3,640
2
4
DeWalle '
Percent
removal
37
3.8
0
95
Concentration,
Influent
0
627
250
0
Effluent
400
326
130
3
Chian and DeWalle
Concentration,
rag/L8
Influent Effluent
0 34"
139 108
0 4
Percent
removal
48
48
Percent
removal
22
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
Except for contact time in hours.
Ozonation of anaerobic filter effluent.
Ozonation of aerated lagoon effluent.
-------
TABLE C-7- LIME TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE D. , 2, 3, 4]
Cook
and Force
Concentration,
md/L Percent
Parameter
Dotage
COD
PH
we
ISS
vss
DS
BOD
Orthophosphorous
Alkalinity
Chlorine
Iroa
Influent
0
17,000
11.0
545
Effluent removal
2.760
14.900 13
10.8
79 86
0
Concentration,
Influent
0
10,300
6.25
2,220
502
325
Effluent
870
10,600
9.0
,
2,700
530
3
Ho,
Percent
removal
1.9
™W
0
99
, et al.
Effluent Effluent
concen- concen-
tration. Percent t rat ion. Percent
ma/I, removal ma/L removal
1,020 1,150
10,400 3.7 9,970 7.7
9.5 10.0
K w
3,020 -° 3,080 -°
555 -b 553 -"
1 >99 0.5 >99
Ho, et »1.
Parameter
Dosage
COD
pH
TOC
TSS
IS
VSS
DS
BOD
Orthophosphorous
Alkalinity
Chloride
Iron
Parameter
Dosage
COD
PH
TOC
TSS
TS
VSS
DS
300
Orthophosphorous
Alkalinity
Chloride
Iron
Effluent
concen-
tration,
»g/La
1,280
10,300
10.5
6,800
3.200
569
0.5
Effluent
concen-
tration,
ac/L
2,700
515
11.0
4,876
2,150
TO
Effluent
coneen-
Percent t rat ion,
removal an/I
1,390
4.6 10,700
11.0
1.7 6,930
U
% 3-290
-" 572
>99 0.5
Ho
Percent
removal
0.93
Jj
_b
— v
^O
>99
, et al.
J
Concentration."
Percent «g/L
removal Influent
0
7.7 366
8.95
21 4,376
17 1,730
>99 15.0
Effluent
470
366
10.0
4,130
1,600
TO
Effluent
concen-
tration,
mcj/L*
1.600
10,000
11.5
7,540
3,340
593
0.5
Percent
removal
0
3.2
7.5
>99
Percent
removal
6.5
J>
_b
_b
>99
Effluent
concen-
tration,
a«j/L
1,400
260
11.5
3,690
1,670
ND
Effluent
concen- Concentration,
tration. Percent mo/L Percent
mq/L removal Influent Effluent removal
1,340 0 1,060 .
10,420 3.5 558 563 -
1 12.0 7.75 . 9,0
7,470 -b 6,188 5,340 14
3,920 <
609 - 2,580 2,240 13
0.5 >99 20.0 1.7 92
Percent
29 - ' :
15
3.S ' -.- -'
>99
(continued)
C-7
-------
TABLE C-7 (continued)
Chian and OaHalle
Parameter
Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent
concen- concen- concen- concen- concen-
tration. Percent tration. Percent tration. Percent tration. Percent tration. Percent
nq/L removal mq/L removal aq/L removal mq/L removal mq/L removal
Dosage
COD
PH
TOC
TSS
TS
733
DS
BOD
Orthophotphorous
Alkalinity
Chlorine
Iron
1,000
8.5
708
1,800
8. 9
760
2,000
9.0
760
4,000
9.a
690
4.2
5,000
10. S
660
3.3
Chian and DeWalle
Paraaeter
Effluent
concen-
tration,
rnq/l.*
Effluent
concen—
Percent tration,
reaovel aq/I,
Effluent
concen-.
Percent tration,
removal mq/L
Effluent
concen-
Percent tration. Percent
removal aw/L removal
Dotage
COD
PH
WC
TSS
TS
VSS
05
BOD
orthophoaphoroua
Alkalinity
Chlorine
Iron
6,000
11.3
630
13
7,000
12.2
630
13
7,500
12.2
630
13
3,000
12.2
600
17
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
NO - not detected.
*Bxcapt for pH in pH units and alkalinity in mc/l CaCO3.
Negative percent removal.
treatnent of anaerobic digestor effluent.
treataant of anaerobic digestor effluent polished by aerated lagoon.
*LiM treataent of anaerobic filter effluent.
C-8
-------
TABLE C-8. LIME, FERRIC CHLORIDE, AND FERROSULFIDE
TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [1]
Cook and Foree
Parameter
Concentration,
mg/La Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Dosage lime 0 1,640
Dosage FeCl3 0 1,000
Dosage Fe2(So4)3 0 1,450
COD 17,000 15,100
pH initial 8.0
pH final 6.2
TSS 544 150
VSS 75
11
72
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
aExcept pH in pH units.
TABLE C-9. LIME AND POLYMER TREATMENT
OF RAW LEACHATE [1]
Cook and Foree
Parameter
Concentration,
mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Dosage lime 0 1,000
COD 17,000 15,100
pH initial 3.0
pH final 7.2
TSS 544 156
VSS 77
Orthophosphorus 0 . 23
71
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
aExcept pH in pH units.
C-9
-------
TABLE C-10. LIME AND ALUM TREATMENT
OF RAW LEACHATE [2,3]
Ho
, et al.
Concentration ,
Parameter
Dosage lime
Dosage alum
COD
pH initial
pH final
TSS
VSS
Orthophosphorus
mg/L
Influent l «
0
0
17,000
544
a
, Effluent
"—1,640
600
14,800
8.0
6.S
111
71
0.072
Chian and DeWalle
Concentration,
Percent mg/L
removal Influent Effluent
4,800 2,280
•'
80
Percent
removal
40
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
Except pH in pH units.
TABLE Oil. LIME AND AERATION TREATMENT
OF RAW LEACHATE [2]
Chian and DeWalle
Concentration,
mg/La Percent
Parameter Influent Effluent removal
Dosage
COD
0
1,240
1,140
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not
determined.
Except for dosage, in mL saturated lime/L.
010
-------
TABLE C-12. LIME AND OZONE TREATMENT OF .RAW LEACHATE [5 ]
Parameter
Dosage lime
Dosage ozone
COD
pH
TOG
TSS
TDS
Aluminum
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Phosphorous
Potassium
Silicon
Sodium
Zinc
Concentration ,
mg/La
Influent Effluent
0 1,200
0 98
14,000 9,210
5.3
5,200
6,992
0.40
570
1.14
2.10
0.39
47
10.1
0.165
156
36.3
ISO
12.5
Bjorkman and Mavinic
Effluent
cone en-
Percent tratign, Percent
removal rag/L removal
2,350
247
34
3
0.017 96
0.66 99
trace
114 27
0.003 >99
Effluent
concen-
tration,
mg/La
2,900
108
2,740
0.036
0.010
Percent
removal
47
>99
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
aExcept for pH in pH units
C-ll
-------
TABLE C-13. ALUM TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [3,6]
Concentration,
wj/L*
Parameter Influent Effluent
Dosage 0 10
COD 8.920 B.730
pH initial 7.1
pH final 7.1
IS 12.300 12.300
Chloride 2,720 2,720
Iron 85 00
Note: Blank* indicate parameter
'Except for pH in pU unit..
Percent
removal
2.1
0
0
5.9
Effluent
concen-
tration. Percent
mg/L removal
SO
8,400 5.8
7.0
7.1
12,800 -"
2,720 0
42 51
, et al.
Effluent
concen-
tration,
mq/L*
100
9,100
6.9
7.1
12,000
2,720
34
Effluent
concen-
Parcent tration,
removal mq/L
b S0°
8,720
6.4
7.1
2.4 12,400
0 2,720
60 5
Wan Pleet. et al.
Effluent
concen- Concentration.
Percent tration. Percent mo/L Percent
removal mq/L removal Inflm-nt gffl.t1.nt ri-moval
1,000 o 2,700
2.2 8,620 3.4 2.QOO 1,370 31
6.0 6.3-7.0
h '•! u
- 13,100 -b 27
0 2,720 0
94 3 96
not determined. ' —
Negative percent removal.
to
-------
TABLE C-14. ALUM AND AERATION TREATMENT
OF RAW LEACHATE [2]
Chian and DeWalle
Concentration,
mg/L Percent
Parameter Influent Effluent removal
Dosage
COD
0
1,234
ISO
1,110
11
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not
determined.
TABLE C-15. SODIUM HYDROXIDE TREATMENT
OF RAW LEACHATE [1]
Cook and Foree
Parameter
Dosage
COD
pH initial
pH final
TSS
vss
Orthophosphorus
Concentration,
ma/La
Influent Effluent
0 2,660
17,000 15,400
11.0
10.7
544 53
36
0.024
Percent
removal
9.4
39
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
Except pH in pH units.
C-13
-------
TABLE C-16. SODIUM SULFIDE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [3j
Concentration,
ng/L Percent
Parameter Influent Effluent removal
Dosage
COD 10
pH final
TS 7
Alkalinity 2
Chloride
Iron
Note: Blanks
0
10
,620 10.220
6
,200
,242
509
315
indicate
6
7,300
2,270
509
315
parameter
3.8
-§.
0
0
Effluent
concen-
tration
mg/ta
25
10,020
6
7.300
2,340
515
315
Ho, et al.
Effluent
concen-
Percent t rat ion Percent
removal ng/L removal
50 .
5.6 10,650 -
b 6 b
-h 7'300 "b
-? 2,360 -b
- 507 0.39
0 315 0
Effluent
concen-
tration
mg/L*
100
10,200
6.1
7,300
2,400
505
315
Percent
removal
4.0
b
-
0.79
0
Effluent
concen-
tratiog
500
10,170
6.3
7,500
2,440
509
270
Percent
renoval
4.2
b
"b
0
14
Effluent
concen-
tration
1,000
10,600
6.4
7,900
2,600
510
70
Percent
removal
0.19
b
b
"b
78
not determined.
Except pH in pll units and alkalinity in tag/L CaC03
Negative percent removal
TABLE C-17. FERRIC CHLORIDE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [3 1
Ho et al.
Concentration,
mg/La
Parameter
Dosage
COD
pH initial
pH final
TS
Chlorine
Iron
Influent
0
9,260
7.0
6
12,000
2,880
84
Effluent
100
8,100
6.8
6
11,900
2,880
66
Percent
renoval
13
0.83
0
21
Effluent
concen-
tration,
mg/I°
500
8,360
6.25
6
11,600
2,880
38
Percent
renoval
9.7
3.3
0
55
Effluent
concen-
tration,
ng/La
1,000
8,700
5.85
6
11,700
3,040
32
Percent
removal
6.0
2.5
62
Effluent
concen-
tration,
«g/La
1,000
8,370
5.88
5
11,200
3,640
59
Percent
removal
9.6
6.7b
30
Effluent
concen-
tration,
mg/LS
1,000
7.750
5.85
7
12,500
3,040
2
Percent
removal
16
"b
98
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
aExcept pH in pH units.
-------
TABLE C-18. FERROSULFATE TREATMENT OF
RAW LEACHATE [2] -.
Chian and DeWalle
Concentration,
mq/L
Percent
Parameter
Dosage
COD
Influent
0
4,800
Effluent
2,500
4,100
; removal
13
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not
determined.
TABLE C-19. IRON AND AERATION TREATMENT
OF RAW LEACHATE [2]
Chian and DeWalle
Concentration,
mg/L Percent
Parameter Influent Effluent removal
Dosage
COD
0
139
1,000
139
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not
determined.
C-15
-------
TABLE C-20. ANION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [4]
Chian and DeWalle
Parameter
COD
pH initial
pH final
TOG
Resin type
COD
pH initial
pH final
TOG
Resin type
Concen-
tration,
ma/La
8.8
8.9
A-7
Concen-
tration,
ma/La
8.3
8.8
IRA-938
Percent
removal
6
6
Chian
Percent
removal
59
43
Concen-
tration,
mcr/La
6.2
6.3
A-7
and DeWalle
Concen-
tration,
ma/L
8
8
Concen-
Percent tration,
removal mq/L
37
6.2
7.4
42
A-7
Percent
removal
41
.8
.8
26
Percent
removal
48
43
XE-279HP
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
Except pH, in pH units, and resin type.
0-16
-------
TABLE C-21. CATION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE
Concentration
mg/L
Parameter
Dosage
COD
pH
TDS
Acidity
Alkalinity
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Influent
0
185
8.1
1,040
0
560
29
ia.a
100
260
Effluent
1,300
166
7.6
944
105
500
20
9.2
93
262
Percent
removal
10
9.2.
-
11
31
51
7.
_b
Effluent
concen-
tration,
mg/L*
2.000
166
7.3
838
120
430
7.4
4.5
86
240
Poland
Percent
removal
10
19
•-
23
74
76
14
7.7
and Kang
Effluent
concen-
tration,
mg/La
5.000
6.9
734
210
130
4.9
0.2
32
130
Percent
removal
29.
-
77
83
79
68
50
Effluent
concen-
tration.
mg/La
10,000
150
2.9
400
4.4
0.1
8.8
40
Percent
removal
19
b
as
99
91
85
Effluent
concen-
tration.
25,000
166
2.5
470
1.0
2.6
15.0
Percent
removal
10
b
97
97
94
Mote: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
a
Except pH in pH units and alkalinity and acidity in mg/L CaC03.
Negative percent removal.
-------
00
TABLE C-22. MIXED RESIN ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [7)
Pohland and Kana
Concentration,
«q/L*
Paraneter
Dosage
COD
PH
TDS
Alkalinity
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Chloride
Sulfate
Nitrate
Total phosphate
Influent
0
120
a. s
926
520
13.2
12.6
65
198
130
4.0
0.4
0.1
Effluent
1,300
68
8.1
728
450
6.6
6.0
61
178
105
nil
nil
Percent
removal
43
21
13
50
52
6.1
10
19
>99
>99
Effluent
concen-
tration, Percent
mg/L removal
2,000
7.7
613
260
2.5
1.1
58
142
95
nil
34
50
81
91
11
28
27
>99
Effluent
concen-
tration,
ng/La
5,000
50
7.5
336
100
0
0.08
20
46
62
nil
Percent
removal
58
64
81
100
>99
69
77
52
>99
Effluent
concen-
tration,
mg/l
10,000
5.0
118
<5
1.2
0.05
0
0.35
5
nil
nil
Percent
removal
87
>99
91
>99
100
>99
96
>99
>99
Effluent
concen-
tration,
25,000
5.5
82
<5
0
0.05
0
0.35
<5
nil
Percent
removal
91
>99
100
>99
100
>95
>96
>99
a_ . ~~ • — •
Except for pH in pH units and alkalinity in mg/L CaC03.
-------
TABLE C-23. MIXED RESIN ION EXCHANGE AND CARBON TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE (7]
Concentration,
»a/La
Parameter
Dosage
COD initial
COD final
pH initial
pH final
TDS initial
TDS final
Calcium initial
Calcium final
Magnesium initial
Magnesium final
Potassium initial
Potassium
Sodium
Sodium
Sulfate initial
Sulfate
Influent
0
180
8.1
1.100
18.0
16.8
104
170
0
Effluent
1.300
125
0
8.2
8.6
912
898
15.0
11.4
9.0
8.4
96
104
165
195
76
Concen-
tration,
Percent raq/L
removal Effluent
2.000
115
100 0
7.8
8.4
864
1.5 362
8.7
24 5.1
4.5
6.7 3.1
b fl4
-b 86
b l55
-b 185
80
Concen-
tration,
Percent raq/L
removal Effluent
5,000
100
7.5
8.1
576
0.23 508
1.8
41 1.0
0.7
31 0.4
b 42
-D 46
105
- 120
80
Concen-
tration,
Percent rag/L Percent
removal Effluent removal
10,000
5-7.3
0 100
4.9
7.1
146
12 164
0.6
44 0.6 0
°-1 b
43 0.3
•_ °-4 u
b b
- 8.0
. 3.3 .
b b
- 31
72
Concen-
tration,
mg/L*
Effluent
25,000
49.2
0
4.9
6.7
64
297
0.6
0.8
0
0.34
0
6.7
1.1
30
80
Percent
removal
100
b
b
_b
b
b
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
aExcept for pH in pH units.
Negative percent removal.
-------
TABLE C-24. REVERSE OSMOSIS TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [4]
Parameter
Concentration,
BO/I*
influent Effluent
Ch:
Effluent
concen-
Percent tration, Percei
removal mq/L renaw
COD Jt
pli .«it 5.5 a 0
TOC 12,900 3,880 70 1,040 92
Membrane type Cellulose " Cellulose "
Pr.c „ acetate acetate
FiruTre l°°5 *»
Permeate yield 50 JQ
li> Parameter ,
0
COD
pH
TOC
TDS
Hembrane type
Pressure
Flux
Permeate yield
Parameter
COD
pH
TOC
TDS
Hembrane type
Pressure
Flux
Permeate yield
Concentration,
»a/l*
Influent Effluent
53,300 23,500
5.5
18,500 8,120
Cellulose
acetate
600
3.7
50
Concentration,
ng/L*
Influent Effluent
5.5
12,900 1,940
NS-100
600
7
50
Effluent
concen-
— removal pg/L removal
56 5,870 89
8.0
56 2,030 89
35 99
600
3.9
50
Effluent
concen-
Percent tration. Percent
removal og/L renoval
8.0
85 906 93
98 99
NS-100
600
7.3
50
Ian and DeWalle
Effluent Effluent
concen- concen-
it tratijn. Percent tration. Percent
>1 mg/L removal nmf* — .-...„„. i
3,240 75
Cellulose
8.0
906 93
99
Cellulose
acetate
1,500
10
50
Effluent Effluent
concen- concen-
tratign, Percent tration. Percent
Mg/I< removal na/l. r»ni/\irmi
5. 5
7,570 59
87
Cellulose
acetate
1,500
6.2
50
Effluent
concen-
tration. Percent
5.5
1,550 88
99
NS-100
1,500
11
50
8.0
7,330 60
99
Cellulose
acetate
1,500
7.1
50
Effluent
concen-
tratign. Percent
mg/L removal
8.0
777 94
99
NS-100
1,500
12.5
50
Concentration,0
Influent Effluent removal
536 27 95
Cellulose
acetate
50
Concentration,
•g/L Parent
Influent Effluent r«mnual
900 18 98
DuPont
B-9
77
(continued)
-------
TABLE c-24 (continued)
9
to
H
Parameter
COD
pH
toe
TDS
Membrane type
Pressure
Flux
Permeate yield
Parameter
COD
pH
TOC
TDS
Membrane type
Pressure
Flux
Permeate yield
Concentration,
mg/L*
Influent Effluent
a. a
48.2 6.5
6,200 270
NS-100
600
12.5
50
Concentration,
Influent Effluent
a. a
143 8.2
6,250 310
NS-100
600
Chian and DeHalle
Concentration.
Percent mg/L Percent
removal Influent Effluent removal
5.5
87 133 4.7 96
96 6,200 267 96
NS-100
600
12.0
48
Chian and DeHalle
Concentration,
Percent mg/L Percent
removal Influent Effluent removal
8.8
94 214 10.7 95
95 6,200 390 94
NS-100
600
— . . —
Concentration,6
mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
a. a
119 7.3 94
6,260 294 95
NS-100
600
Effluent
concen-
tration. Percent
ng/L removal
16.6 92
550 91
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
'Except for pH in pH units, membrane type, pressure in psig. flux in gal/day/ft*, and permeate yield in percent.
bReverse osmosis of anaerobic filter effluent.
cReverse osmosis of aerated lagoon effluent.
^Reverse osmosis of activated carbon effluent.
eReverse osmosis of ion exchange effluent.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Cook, E.N., and E.G. Foree. Aerobic Biostabilization of
Sanitary Landfill Leachate. Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, 46(2):380-382, 1974.
2. Chian, E.S.K., and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of Leachate
Treatment, Volume I, Characterization of Leachate.
EPA-600/2-77-186a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. 1977. 210 pp.
3. HO, S., Boyle, W.D., and R.K. Ham. Chemical Treatment of
Leachates From Sanitary Landfills. Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 46(7):1776-1791, 1974.
4. Chian, E.S.K.,•and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of Leachate
Treatment, Volume II, Biological and Physical-chemical
Processes. EPA-600/2-77-186b, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1977. 245 pp.
5. Bjorkmar, V.B., and D.S. Mavinic. Physiochemical Treatment
of a High Strength Leachate. In: Proceedings of the 32nd
Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, West Lafayette,
Indiana, 1977.
6. Van Fleet, S.R., Judkins, J.F., and F.J. Molz. Discussion,
Aerobic Biostabilization of Sanitary Landfill Leachate.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation,
46(11):2611-2612, 1974.
7. Pohland, F.G., and S.J. Kang. Sanitary Landfill Stabiliza-
tion with Leachate Recycle and Residual Treatment. AIChE
Symposium Series, Water-1974, II. Municipal Wastewater
Treatment, 71(45):308-318, 1975.
C-22
-------
APPENDIX D
UNIT PROCESS SUMMARIES: -
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Appendix D contains summaries of the treatment of industrial
wastewaters by the following processes: •
• biological treatment - activated sludge, aerated
lagoon, trickling filter, facultative lagoon,
anaerobic lagoon
• activated carbon adsorption - granular and powdered
• chemical oxidation
• chemical precipitation
• ion exchange
• reverse osmosis
Several oxidizing agents and coagulants are reported. These re-
sults should not be related directly to hazardous waste leachate
treatment. However, they do provide an indication of treatment
effectiveness and represent another reference point which can be
used in treatment process formulation.
Tables D-l through D-19 were prepared by Monsanto Research
Corporation for this manual using Volume III of the Treatability
Manual (1) .
D-l
-------
TABLE D-l. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE [1]
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODS
COD
TOG
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
TKN
Total phosphorus
Tosic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Bis(chloromethyl) ether
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
4-Broraophenyl phenyl ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-fautyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzidine
1 , 2-Dipheny Ihydrazine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
2-Chlorophenol —
2,4-Dichlorophenol """"
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Number
of data
points
92
84
14
74
7
31
6
27
IS
3
17
34
37
24
26
9
32
1
17
1
36
1
1
1
33
1
9
17
9
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
15
Effluent
concentration
Maximum Median
4,640
7,420
1,700
4,050
303
500
322
46.3
670
160
13
20,000
170
33,000
160
1.6
400
95
150,000
1,300
53
69
200
1.6
19
10
<10
<10
3,100
49
425
230
233
25
0.023
174
3.46
3.5
13
4
23
30
23
61
0.7
40
33
130
13
3.6
<0.03
<0.03
9
<0.4
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum
>99
96
95
96
>98
>99
63
97
90
96
>99
99
>99
>90
99
>97
92
>96
92
>99
>99
>99
>99
92
>50
>95
>99
Median
91
67
69
25
92
64
44
27
15
39
0
43
56
oa
50
>29
7
20
27
>84
>99
>99
oa
>98
(continued)
D-2
-------
TABLE Q-l (continued)
Pollutant
Number
of data
points
Effluent
concentration
Maximum
Median
Removal
efficiency^,
%
Maximum Median
Toxic pollutants, jag/L (continued):
Phenol
2 , 4 , 6-Trichlorophenol
g-Chloro-m-cresol
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorofaenzene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 , 2 , 3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Broraoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Dichlorobromome thane
1 , 1-Dichloroe thane
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3-Dichloropropane
Methylene chloride
1,1,2, 2-Te trachlor oe thane
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroe thane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluororae thane
Heptachlor
Isophorone
30
10
4
9
6
12
3
1
24
4
31
11
10
7
1
2
1
26
5
1
1
2
16
2
2
2
1
5
2
11
6
1
12
5
1
2
440
4,300
<10
37,000
26
69
21
3,000
0.8
1,400
920
99
98
>98
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>97
>99
>99
>99
>98
>99
78
>99
>99
>0
>18
>82
99
>44
>99
>99
>99
96
"ao- >0
99
0
>49
>96
>99
>99
95
>95
>49
18
>99
>99
83
>99
0
>2
a
0
a
0
>85
>98
a
oa
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
aActual data indicate negative removal.
D-3
-------
TABLE D-2 INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR AERATED LAGOONS [1 ]
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, rag/L:
BODS
COD
TOG
TSS
Oil and grease
TKN
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, (jg/L:
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Bis (2-chloroethoxy )methane
Bis (2-chloroisop ropy 1) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-outyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Benzidine
1 , 2-Diphenylhydrazine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
Benzene
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
2 , 4-Dinitro toluene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Number
of data
points
16
10
4
13
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
5
2
2
1
3
1
2
4
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
i
i
i
2
1
1
Effluent
concentration
Maximum
869
1,610
573
3
105
0.018
1,100
110
ISO
30
40
<20
510
28
24
<10
<10a
Median
90
591
126
155
16
26
32
<80
99
>99
99
99
79
>99
99
94
91
93
50
>.8Q
>99
96
>99
>95
>94
Median
77.5
63
46
24
91
36
0
61
>7S
25
(continued)
D-4
-------
TABLE D-2 (continued)
Pollutant
Toluene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo (b ) f luor anthene
-Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroe thane
Isophorone
Note: Blanks indicate data not
Number Effluent
of data concentration
points Maximum Median
3 <10a <10a
1
1
1
1
1
1
^ b
2 <10
1
3 1,000 <10a
1
3 1,000 130
1
1
1
applicable.
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum Median
>95 >95
>58
>57 >50
97 97
^ot detected, assumed to be <10 ug/L.
Below detection limit, assumed
TABLE D-3. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Benzene
Other pollutants, ug/L:
Acetaldehyde
Acetic acid
Butyric acid
Propionic acid
to be <10 ug/L.
TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR ANAEROBIC LAGOONS [1]
Number Effluent
of data concentration
points Maximum Median
5 2,750 438
4 5,910 2,300
1
3 40 35
3 2,600 2,300
2 330
2 500
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum Median
90 65
47 34.5
67a ^a
^a ^
_a
0
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
aActual data indicate negative removal.
D-5
-------
TABLE D-4. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR
TERTIARY POLISHING LAGOONS [l]
Pollutant
Number Effluent
of data concentration
points Maximum Median
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Total phenol
2
2
2
263
28
0.051
52
76
46
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Naphthalene
Trichlorofluorome thane
1
1
1
1
2 120
2 11
1
1
36
72
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
TABLE D-5. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY
FOR FACULTATIVE LAGOONS [1]
Pollutant
Number
of data
points
Effluent
concentration
Maximum Median
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TSS
TKM
3
2
2
2
274 152
2,110
105
100
92
63
36
67
37
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
removal is also significant. No full-scale operations for leachate treatment
are currently in place.
D-6
-------
TABLE D-6. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR TRICKLING FILTER [l]
Pollutant
Number Effluent
of data concentration
points Maximum Median
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants,
BOD 5
COD
TSS
Total phenol
rng/L:
Toxic pollutants,
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead _
Bis<2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Naphthalene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
Other pollutants, ug/Li
Xylenes
11
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
137
709
1.0
27
623
98
77
>97
92
23
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
D-7
-------
TABLE D-7. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR
GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION [1]
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODS
COD
TOG
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
TXN
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
H-nitrosodiphenylamine
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
p_-Chloro-m-cresol
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Number
of data
points
20
40
45
23
10
19
1
5
3
7
3
5
11
12
3
7
2
6
4
6
IS
9
3
7
3
5
1
1
4
5
1
3
1
2
1
8
1
1
5
Effluent
concentration
Maximum
37,400
109,000
66,700
2,600
14
4.26
14
S90
42
5.4
22
260
360
52
79
0.4
330
50
91
6,000
410
17
5
3
340
49
1.5
210
<0.05
630
0.4
Median
12
199
S3
16
7.3
0.017
2.0
42
5
2.7
9.3
36
42
<13
35
36
13
22
51
17
<0.03
0.4
1.4
55
1.7
0.9
9.3
1.3
0.1
Removal
efficiency/ %
Maximum Median
95
99
99
99
92
99
57
33
>99
0
95
95
>85
>90
>72
0
63
>50
36
>99
66
>99
>99
oa
96
>97
>96
>30
>99
>99
>97
52
55
60
23
19
69
0
10
0
0
76
>50
54
>63
2
5
9
12
52
0
>97
76a
0
91
78
50
64
24
50
( continued)
D-8
-------
TABLE D-7 (continued)
Pollutant
Number Effluent
of data concentration
points Maximum Median Maximum Median
Removal
efficiency,
Toxic pollutants, ug/L: {cont.
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo ( k ) f luor anthene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chlo roe thane
Chloroform
1 , 1-Dichloroe thane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Trans-dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Methylene chloride
1 , 1 , 2 , 2-Te trachlo roe thane
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroe thane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroe thane
Tr ichloroe thy lene
Tr ichlo r of luo r ome thane
Vinyl chloride
ce-BHC
)
2
1
2
2
13
5
9
57
39
3
46
25
1
2
3
2
1
3
1
<0.02
<0.02
<0.01
240,000
IS
45,000
1,100,000
30,000
<10
56,000
64,000
<10
<10
5
9,600
46,000
<10
<10
4,500
240
<5.4
ISO
4,000
<10
3,600
>97
>90
>97
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
99
>99
>99
>99
53
52
89
74
>99
42
35
65
73
85
>99
a
oa
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
aActual data indicate negative removal.
D-9
-------
TABLE D-8. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR POWDERED ACTIVATED
CARBON ADSORPTION (WITH ACTIVATED SLUDGE) [l ]
Pollutant
Number Effluent
of data concentration
points Maximum Median
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 24
COD 26
TOC 25
TSS 4
Oil and grease 4
Total phenol 4
TKN 1
54
563
387
83
57
0.058
13
98
33
54
13
0.013
>99
98
97
96
96
>99
96
91
90.
0=
54
>99
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium (+6)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
2-Chlorophenol
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
1 , 2-Dichloroe thane
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Acrolein
Isophorone
Note: Blanks indicate data not
aActual data indicate negative
2
1
4
3
3
3
2
1
3
2
4
1
1
1
2 190
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
applicable .
removal .
150
90 53
20 <20
29 14
45 20
38
22 <10
40
140 95
,000
5
97
>64
96
69
>7S
>58
13
98
>85
88
>60
61
>67
>0
38
D-10
-------
TABLE D-9. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR
CHEMICAL OXIDATION (CHLORINATION) [1]
Pollutant
Number Effluent Removal
of data concentration efficiency, %
points Maximum Median Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
Toxic pollutants, Mg/L:
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3-N
7 978 565 39 28
2 159 97
1
17 130 30 >99 34
1
1
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
D-ll
-------
TABLE D-10. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR OZONATION [1]
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/Ls
BODS
coo
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, yq/'L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Benzo ( a ) pyrene
Benzo(k) f luoranthene
Fluor anthene
Pyrene
1 , 2-Trans-diehloroethvlene
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
Number
of data
points
4
4
33
4
1
3
I
2
2
1
1
2
50
1
2
2
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Effluent
concentration
3,190 330
12,100 213
2,840 543
140 14
0.13 0.021
1,200
43
590
12,000 <320
5,000
1,300
460 240
110
2.7
0.4
61
Removal
efficiency, %
10 Oa
92 51
>75 10
33 15
>99 24
48
>99 99
Oa 96
77
>97
Actual data indicate negative removal.
D-12
-------
TABLE D-ll. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (LIME) [-1]
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, rag/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos, fibers/L
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium (dissolved)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Nickel (dissolved)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Other pollutants, (J<3/L:
Fluoride
Chloride
Aluminum
Iron
Calcium
Manganese
Other pollutants, ug/L
Fluoride
Number
of data
points
•4
3
9
2
2
7
11
2
9
10
1
16
1
13
9
13
1
5
6
3
15
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
Effluent
concentration
Maximum
37
<20
ISO
1.5
0.3
iao
110
0.9
30
1,800
700
200
3
5,200
52
<10
3
8,200
12,000
500
Median
23.3
<12
12.5
4
3
3.0
40
54
40
0.7
'.16
3
2.6
1.1
120
9,100
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum
50
37
96
66
33
33
>99
76
92
>99
99
99
>96
>99
0
>ao
>80
>99
98
98
>99
Median
14
13
71
40
63
>38
33
79
73
>60
44
0
10
S3
85
72
Note:. Blanks indicate data not applicable.
D-13
-------
TABLE D-12. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (LIME, POLYMER) [1]
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants ,'"mg/L:
Tee
Xdd
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium (dissolved)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Nickel (dissolved)
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhezcyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Phenol
p_-Chloro-m-cresol
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroe thane
Other pollutants, ug/L
Fluoride
Number
of data
points
7
3
2
3
3
1
10
3
3
3
1
1
1
9
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
Effluent
concentration
43
3.5
99
71
>0
f V
93
90
>99
89
95
96
>99
99
9
oa
„
sdian
69
70
50
39
W J
aa
ww
65
58
76
/ w
83
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
D-14
-------
TABLE D-13. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR SEDIMENTATION
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (ALUM) [1]
Pollutant
Number Effluent
of data concentration
points Maximum Median
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants,
BODg
COD
TOG
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
mg/L:
5
5
4
5
1
4
2
2,900
7,600
1,500
122
225
43
33
416
105
50
0.055
32
71
30
99
31
15
16
61
63
79
19
Toxic pollutants, Mg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Chlorodibromome thane
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
2
2
1
2
4
4
2
3
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
. 120
62
29
230 <40
<110 13
<150
57
170
9,000 2,900
44
<10
<10
13
4,600
2,500 14
70
*j
oa
<37
>8S
>98
>78
760
>56
10
85
oa
>94
>90
>50
oa
93
>88
44
>73
30 .
55
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
D-15
-------
TABLE D-14. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (ALUM, LIME) [1]
Pollutant
Number Effluent
of data concentration
points Maximum Median
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODS 1
COD 1
TOG 1
TSS 1
Oil and grease 1
Total phenol 1
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-nrbutyl phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
1,2-Dichlorofaenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Methylene chloride
1 , 1 , 2 , 2-tetrachloro'e thane
Tetrachloroethylene -
4, 4 '-DDT
Heptachlor--
1
1
2 60
2 30
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 47
1
1
2 22
2 72
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
32
80
96
98
96
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
D-16
-------
TABLE D-15. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (ALUM, POLYMER) [I]..,
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODS
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
Benzene.
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Trans-dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroe thane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Tr ichlo roe thy lene
Number
of data
points
5
5
4
4
4
5
1
2
4
4
1
4
3
3
1
4
1
1
2
3
4
1
4
1
2
1
4
3
2
1
1
Effluent
concentration
Maximum Median
..•.,.».»,....,..
3,800
30,000
4,300
6,000
330
0.15
30
130
27,000
300
14,000
51,000
1,000
310
460
2,900
550
90
13,000
700
120
,.,»., : ' ' ....
2,800
10,000*
2,850
1,370
30.5
0.10
59
290
200
1,500
50
700
390
540 :
160
7,600
100
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum
65
30
71
99 .
99
60
76
95
80
>96
33
>97
S3
>97
>94
73
.>94
>60
98
>44
93
Median
25
69
53
67
30
26
90
58
69
74
9
70
75
40
40
91
0
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
D-17
-------
TABLE D-16. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (Fe2 , LIME) [1]
Pollutant
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Number
of data
points
4
4
2
4
4
6
3
2
5
2
6
2
6
Effluent
concentration
Maximum
30
3
3.2
4
48
<3
0.2
6
32
10
7.0
36
Median
9
<2
1.1
2.5
25
<3
3
3.1
<23
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum
30
>S6
>50
>95
92
>96
>60
>9S
24
93
>88
>97
Median
oa
67
>24
45
83
>25
20
4.5
92
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
aActual data indicate negative removal.
D-18
-------
TABLE D-17. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (POLYMER) [1]
Pollutant
Number Effluent
of data concentration
points: —Maximum Median Maximum Median
Removal
efficiency, %
Conventional pollutants,
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
mg/Ls
1
1
1
1
1
2
0.3
53
Toxic pollutants, Mg/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Bis<2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Die thy 1 .phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Anthracene
Chloroform
1 , 2-Trans-diehloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
I
Z
2
25
400
140
140
6,000
10.
<10
74
1,900
130
14
97
>89
97
99
97
>97
>99
29
39
oa
:-:;.- ... ,oa
Blanks indicate data not applicable.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
D-19
-------
TABLE D-18. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR ION EXCHANGE
Pollutant
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium (+6)
Copper
Cyanide
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Number
of data
points
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
Effluent
concentration
Maximum Median
a
99
>99
98
99
>99
>99
Other pollutants, |jg/L:
Molybdenum
Radium (total)
Radium (dissolved)
1
1
1
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
detected, assumed to be <10 (jg/L.
D-20
-------
TABLE D-19. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS [1]
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
TKN
Toxic pollutants, \iq/~L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium (+3)
Chromium (+6)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
Ac enaphthene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Tr ichloroe thy lene
Number
of data
points
11
13
18
2
5
6
1
11
10
2
11
13
1
1
17
10
11
3
13
4
13
3
30
5
3
2
4
3
6
3
1
1
4
1
4
1
. Effluent
concentration
Maximum Median
429
736
50
<5
17
0.020
200
49
5
48
1,500
28,000
22,000
520
0.53
210
13
78
4
8,600
31
1
170
10
3.0
29
3
31
5
2.7
25.5
8
7
0.014
90
1
14
520
40
22
250
0.3.
<10
4
9
2
57
.3
1
0.7
1
20
0.8
13
5
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum
92
>99
96
>90
>72
81
60
>99
>85
50
>99
>99
97
>99
>60
>9S
35
76
89
>99
96
83
41
80
80
12
99
79
64
Median
87
91.5
90
>50
2.5
30
>92
0
67
82
>42
>2S
4
47
77
17
50
97
67
75
25
50a
0
73
.a
0
10
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
aActual data indicate negative removal.
D-21
-------
REFERENCE
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technologies For
Control/removal of Pollutants, Treatability Manual, Vole III.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1980.
D-22
-------
APPENDIX E
TREATABILITY OF LEACHATE CONSTITUENTS
A recent Environmental Protection Agency report (1) summa-
rized data on the treatability of over 500 compounds, many of
which are listed in Subtitle C, Section 3001 of RCRA. Although
the focus of the report was on concentration technology and it
thus does not fully address all potential leachate treatment op-
tions, much useful information is contained therein. Therefore,
the summary treatability data contained in this report is repro-
duced in Appendix Table E-l. This information can be used to
guide identification of potential hazardous waste leachate treat-
ment technologies. However, because this information was derived
from various types of studies, ranging from laboratory -to full
scale on wastewaters ranging from pure compound to industrial
waste and leachate, the reader is cautioned not to directly apply
these published data to a leachate treatment situation.
Primary organization of Appendix Table E-l is by treatment
process. For each process, the treatability of individual chem-
ical compounds is given with the compounds arranged in alphabet-
ical order within chemical classifications. The following treat-
ment processes are included:
Process
Biological
Coagulation/Precipitation
Reverse Osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Stripping
Solvent Extraction
Carbon Adsorption
Resin Adsorption
Miscellaneous Sorbents
'Process Code No.
I
II
III
IV
V
VII
IX
X
XII
The chemical classification system used is as follows:
Chemical Classification
Alcohols
Aliphatics
Amines
Aromatics
Ethers
Classification Code No.
A
B
C
D
E
E-l
-------
Chemical Classification
Halocarbons
Metals
PCBs
Pesticides
Phenols
Phthalates
Polynuclear Aromatics
Classification Code No.
P
G
I
J
K
L
M
In order to facilitate use of Appendix Table E-l, an index
has been prepared and is presented immediately before Table E-l.
This index_lists compounds contained in Table E-l in alphabetical
order and indicates for each compound it's pollutant group (RCRA,
Section 311,_or Priority Pollutant), chemical classification
(alcohol, aliphatic, etc.), and the compound code number used in
Appendix Table E-l. This latter number can be used to locate
the compound in the main table. Note, some compounds inadver-
tently may have been assigned to more than one chemical classi-
fication in Table E-l. The index identifies these cases.
Many chemical compounds are known by several names. At-
tempts were made to use preferred or generic names according to
The Merck Index. However, in some cases it was. necessary to use
the names which were used in the reference documents. Users of
Table E-l are advised to check for compounds under several po-
tential alphabetic listings.
_In order to present the large quantity of information in a
concise manner, it was necessary to code some of the information
in Table E-l. The coding system is explained in footnotes at
the end of the Appendix.
(1) Shuckrow, A.J. , Pajak, A.P., and J.'W. Osheka.
Concentration Technologies For Hazardous Aqueous Waste
Treatment. EPA-600/2-81-019. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1981. 343pp.
E-2
-------
INDEX OF CHEMICALS LISTED IN APPENDIX TABLE E-l
Compound
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetaldehyde
Acetanilide
Acetic Acid
Acetone
Acetone Cyanohydrin
Acetonitrile
Acetophenone
Acetylglycine
Acrolein
Acrylic Acid
Acrylonitrile
Adipic Acid
Alanine
Aldrin
Allyl Alcohol
Allylamine
p-Aminoacetanilide
m-Aminobenzoic Acid
o-Aminobenzoic Acid
p-Aminobenzoic Acid
m-Aminotoluene
o-Aminotoluene
p-Aminotoluene
Pollutant Chemical Compound
Group* Class.** Code No.***
M
P M
P M
H,T,S B
C
, S ' . B
T B
S B
H,T B
T D
B
P,A,H,S B
T B
P,H,T,S B
S B
B
A,H,P,S J
S,A,H A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
. XM-1
IIM-1
IIM-2
IB-1,2,3
IXB-1
IC-1
IIIB-1,2
IXB-2
IB-4,5,6
IIIB-3,4 •
IXB-3
IXB-4
IB-7,8
IXD-1,2
XD-1
IB- 9
VIIB-1
IXB-5,6
IB-11,12,13
IXB-7
IB-14 to 17
VB-1
VIIB-2
IXB-8
IB-18
IB-19
IJ-1
IIIJ-1
IXJ-1 to 5
XJ-1
IXA-1
IXC-1
IC-2
IC-3
1C- 4
IC-5
IC-6
IC-7
IC-8
(continued)
E-3
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
Aminotriazole
Ammonium Oxalate
Amyl Acetate
n-Amyl Alcohol ( 1-pentanol)
sec-Amylbenzene
tert-Amy Ibenz ene
Aniline
Anthracene
Antimony
Arochlor 1242
Arochlor 1254
Arochlor 1254 and 1260
Arsenic
Arsenic (As"1"5)
Atrazine
Barium
Benz aldehyde
Benz amide
Benz anthracene
Benzene
Benzene Sulfonate
Benzene, Toluene, Xylene(BTX)
Benzenethiol
Benzidine
Pollutant
Group*
S
S,T
P
H,P
H,P,S
H,P,S
H,P,S
H,P
H,P
H
H
H,P,S,T
A,H
H,T
Chemical
Class.**
J
B
B
A
D
D
C
M
G
I
I
I
G
G
J
G
D
C
M
D
D
D
D
C
Compound
Code No.***
IJ-2
IB- 20
IXB-9
IA-1, IXA-2
ID-1
ID- 2
IC-9,10,11
IIIC-1,2
IXC-2,3
XC-1
IM-1
VIIM-1
IIG-1
IXI-4 to 7
IXI-8 to 16
X 1-1,2
X 1-3
XII 1-1
IIG-2,3
IXG-1
XIIG-1
IIG-4
IIIJ-2
XJ-2
IG-1
IIG-5,6,7
IIIG-1
IXG-2
ID-3,4,5
IXD-3,4,5
XD-2
IC-12
IM-2
IIM-3
ID-6 to 10
VD-1,2
VIID-1 to 4
IXD-6 to 12
ID-11
XD-5
ID-12
IXC- 13
IC-13,14
(continued)
E-4
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
Benzil
11 , 12-Benzof luoranthene
Benzoic Acid
Benzonitrile
Benzoperylene
1 , 12 -Benzoperylene
Benzo (a) pyrene
3 ,4-Benzpyrene
Benzylamine
Beryllium
Biphenyl
bis(Chloroethyl) Ether
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether
bis(Chloroisopropyl) Ether
bis ( 2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Bismuth
Bisphenol A
Borneol
Brine Phenol
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Butanamide
Butanedinitrile
1 , 4-Butanediol
Butanenitrile
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**
D
H,P M
S D
D
M
P M
H,T M
D
C
H,P G
M
H,T E
H,T,P E
E
H,P,T L
G
K
A
K
F
P F
P F
H,T F
C
B
A
B
Compound
Code No.***
IXD-14
XD-3
IIM-4
ID-13,14
IXD-15,16
XD-4
ID-15
IM-3
IIM-5
IIM-6
ID-16
IC-15
IIG-8,9
IXM-1
XM-2
VIIE-1
IXE-2
IIIE-1
IXE-1
VIIE-2
IL-1
IIL-1
VIIL-1
IXL-1,2
IIG-10
XK-1,2
I A- 2
XK-3,4
IXF-1
VF-1
VIIF-1
IXF-2
XF-3
IF-1
IXF-3,4
XF-1,2
VF-2
VIIF-2
IXF-5
1C- 16
IB-21,22
I A- 11
IB- 23, 2 4
(continued)
E-5
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
Butanol
see-But anol
tert-Butanol
Butyl Acetate
Butyl Acrylate
Butylamine
s ec-Buty Ibenz ene
tert-Butylbenzene
Buty Ibenz 1 Phthalate
Butylene Oxide
Butyl Ether
Butyl Phenol
Butyraldehyde
Butyric Acid
Cadmium
Calcium Gluconate
Caproic Acid
Caprolactum
Captan
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloral
Chloral Hydrate
D-Chloramphenicol
Chloranil
Chlordane
t
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**
T A
A
A
S B
B
s c
D
D
P,S L
B
E
K
B
S B
H,P G
B
B
B
S J
S,T,P,H F
T F
F
M
D
P,H,T,S J
Compound
Code No. ***
IA-3 to 7
IXA-3,4,5
XA-1
IA-8
IA-9,10
IXA-6
IXB-10
IXB-11
IXC- 4, 5
XC-2
ID-17
ID-18
IL-2
VIIL-2
IB- 2 5
IXE-3
IXK-1
IXB-12
IB-27,28,29
IXB-13,14
XB-1
IG-2,3,4
IIG-11,12,13
IIIG-2
IXG-3 , 4
XIIG-2
IB-30
IXB-15,16
XB-2
IB-31
IIIJ-3
IF- 2
IIF-1
IXF-6,7,8
XF-4
VF-3
VIIF-3
IM-4
ID-19
IJ-3
IXJ-7,8
(Unspecified)
XJ-3
E-6
(continued)
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant Chemical
Compound Group* Class.**
m-Chloroaniline
o-Chloroaniline
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzene
Choroethane
Chloroethylene
Chloroform
Chloromethane
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
l-Chloro-2-nitrobenzene
2 -Chlor o- 4 -nitr opheno 1
Chlorophenol
m-Chlorophenol
o-Chlorophenol (2-chlorophenol)
p-Chlorophenol
Chromic Acid
Chromium ,
Chromium ( * 3 )
A,H
A,H
H,P,S,T
H,P
H,P,S,T
H,T
H
H,T,P
H
H
H
H
H,P,T
H
H,S
H,P
H,P
C
C
C
D
F
F
F
F
K
M
D
K
K
K
K
K
G
G
G
Compound
Code No. ***
IC-17
IC-18
IC-19
ID-20
IIID-1
VD-3,4
VIID-5
IXD-18,19,20
VF-4
VI IF- 4
IXF-9
VF-5
VI IF- 5
IXF-10
IF-3
VF-6
IXF-11,12
XF-5,6
VF-7
VIIF-6
IK-1,2
VIIK-1
IXK-2
XK-5
IIM-7
IXD-21
IK- 3
VK-2
*T*T^ C
IK- 5
-___ >»
XK-6
IK-4,6,7
IIIK-1
VIIK-2
IK-8,9
IIIG-3
IG-5
IIG-14,15
IIIG-4,5
IXG-5,6
XIIG-3
IG-6
IIG-16,17
IXG-7
(continued)
E-7
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
Chromium (Cr*6)
Chrysene
Citric Acid
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol
m-Cresol
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
Crotonaldehyde
Cumeme
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanolone
Cyclohexanone
Cyclohexylamine
Cyclopentanone
Cystine
L-Cystine
2,4-D Butyl ester
2,4-D & related herbicides
2,4-D-Isoctyl ester
DDD
DDE
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**
H,P G
H,T,P M
B
G
P G
S,T ' K
S,T K
SfT K
S,T K
H,T B
T D
M
A
B
B
C
B
B
B
J
S J
J
P,H,T J
P,H J
Compound
Code No.***
IG-7
IIG-18,19
IXG-8
IIM-8
IB- 3 2
IG-8
IIG-20
IG-9 to 12
IIG-21 to 25
IIIG-6,7
IVG-1
IXG-9,10,11
XIIG-4,5
IXK-3
IK- 10
VIIK-3
IK-11-
VIIK-4,5,6
IK-12
VIIK-3
IB-33,34,35
IXB-17
IXD-22
XD-6
IXM-2
XM-3
I A- 12
IXA-7
XA-2
IB-38
IB-39
IXB-18
IXC- 6
XC-3
IB-40
IB-36
IB-37
IX J- 6
XJ-4
XJ-5
IJ-4
IXJ-9,10,11
IIIJ-4
IXJ-12,13,14
(continued)
E-8
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
DDT
DDVp
Decanoic Acid
Decanol
2 , 4-Diaminophenol
Diazinon
1,2,4, 5-Dibenzpyrene
Dibromochloromethane
2 , 4-Dibromophenol
Dibutylamine
Di-N-Butylamine
Dibutylphthalate
Di-N-Butylphthalate
m-Dichlorobenz ene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**
P,H,S,T J
J
B
A
K
S J
D
P,T F
K
C
C
H,P,T L
P L
H,P,S D
H,S,T D
H,S D
H,T,P D
H,T,P D
Compound
Code No. ***
IJ-5
IIJ-1
IIIJ-5
IXJ-15 to 19
XJ-6
IJ-6
IXB-19
XB-3
IXA-8
XA-3
IK-13
IJ-7,8
IIIJ-6
ID-21
VF-8
VIIF-7
IXF-13,14,15
XF-7
XK-7
IXC- 7
XC-4
IXC- 8
IXL-3
XL-1
IL-3
IIL-2
VIIL-3
ID-22,23
VD-5
VIID-6
IXD-25,26
XD-7
ID- 2 4
VD-5
VIID-6
IXD-23,24
XD-8
ID-25
VD-6
VIID-6
IXD-28,29
XD-9
VD-7
VD-8
(continued)'
E-9
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Compound Group*
1, 4-Dichlorobenzene H,P,T
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine P/H/T
Dichlorodif luoromethane P
Dichloroethane H , T
1,1-Dichloroethane H,P,T
•q
1 , 2-Dichloroethane H , P , S , T
Dichloroethy lene H , P , S
1,1-Dichloroethylene H,P,S,T
1 , 2-Dichloroethylene H , P
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene , H,T,P
Dichlorof luoromethane
Dichloroisopropyl Ether
Dichloromethane H , P , S , T
Dichlorophenol
2 , 3-Dichlorophenol
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol H,T,P
2 , 5-Dichlorophenol
2 , 6-Dichlorophenol
2 , 4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid A,H,S
2 , 6-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
2 , 4-Dichlorophenoxyproprionic
Acid
1,2-Dichloropropane H,S,P
E-10
Chemical
Class. **
D
D
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
E
F
K
K
K
K
K
D
D
D
F
Compound
Code No.***
VD-9
IXD-27
IXD-30
VI IF- 8
IXF-16,17
VF-9
VIIF-9
IXF-18,19
XF-8
IF-4
VF-10,11
VI IF- 10
IXF-20,21
XF-9
VIIF-11,12
VF-12,14
VIIF-13
IXF-22
IXF-23
XF-10
VF-13
VIIF-14
IXF-24
IXF-25
IXE-4
VF-15,16
VIIF-15
IXF-27
XK-8
IXK-4
XK-9
IK-14 to 18
VIIK-7,8
XK-10
IK-19
IK-20
ID- 2 6
ID-27
ID-18
VF-17
VlIF-16
IXF-28
(continued)
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Compound G r oup *
1,2-Dichloropropylene ,,„,.„,,.,,.
Dicyclopentadiene '
Dieldrin 'A,H,P,S
Diethanolamine
Diethylene Glycol
Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl
Ether
Diethylene Glycol Monoethyl
Ether
Diethylenetriamine
Diethyl Ether
Diethylhexyl Phthalate
Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate P,H,T
a , a-Diethylstilbenediol
D ihexy 1 ami ne
Diisobutyl Ketone
Diisopropanolamine.
Diisopropyl Methylphosphonate
Dimethylamine T
Dimethylaniline (Xylidene)
2,3-Dimethylaniline
2 , 5-Dimethylaniline
3 ,4-Diinethylaniline
9 , 10-Dimethylanthracene
7 , 9-Dimethylbenzacridine
7 , 10-Dimethylbenzacridine
9 , 10-Dimethyl-l, 2-benzanthracene
Dimethylcyclohexanol
Dimethylnapthalene
Dimethylnitrosamine H,T
Dimethylphenol . ;i • S
2 , 3-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol H,T,P
Chemical
Class.**
F
B
J
C
B
E
E . - .,
C ,
E
L
L
L
"
M
C
B
,c
B
C
D
C , ,
C
c . ,-. •
M
D
D
M - •
:::3o* A •
,dr • M
if. ' •• ::'
C
K , •• :/
K
K
Compound
Code No.***
VF-18
VIIF-17
IXF-29
IXB-20
IJ-9 .
IIJ-2
IIIJ-7
IXJ-20 to 26
IC-20
IXC- 9
• IB- 41
IXB-21
IXE-5
-IXE-6. ,
IXC- 10
IIIE-2
XL- 2
IL-5
IL-4
VIIL-4
IM-5
IXC-11, XC-5
• IXB-22
IXC- 12
IXB-23
IXC-13
XC-6
IXD-31
•IC-21
IC-22
IC-23
IM-6
ID-29
ID-30:
IM-7
IA-14
IXM-3
XM-4
IXC-14
IXK-5
IK-21
IK-22
VIIK-8
(continued)
E-ll
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
2 , 5-Dimethylphenol
2 , 6-Dimethylphenol
3 , 4-Dimethylphenol
3 , 5-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Sulfoxide
Dinitrobenzene
3,5-Dinitrobenzoic Acid
4 , 6-Dinitro-2-Methylphenol
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrophenylhydrazine
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
1, 1-Diphenylhydrazine
1 , 2-Diphenylhydrazine
Di-N-Propylamine
Dipropylene Glycol
2 , 3-Dithiabutane
Dodecane
Dulcitol
Endrin
Endrin and Heptachlor
Erucic Acid
1 , 2-Ethanediola
Ethanol
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**
K
K
K
K
P,H,T L
B
H,S D
D
K
H,P,S,T K
D
P,H,T,S D
P,H,T D
P,H,T L
M
H,T,P M
T C
B
B
B
B
A,P,S J
A,S J
B
A
A
Compound
Code No. ***
IK- 2 3
IK- 2 4
IK- 2 5
IK- 2 6
IK- 6
IL-t6,7
IIL-3
VIIL-5
I XL- 4
XL- 3
IIIB-5
IIID-2
ID-31
VIIK-9
IK-27,28
VIIK-10
IXK-7
IIID-3
ID-32,33
VI ID- 7
IXD-32
VIID-8
IXD-33
IL-8
VIIL-6
IXM-4
IM-8
IXC- 15
IXB-24
IB-42
IXB-25
XB-4
IB-43
IJ-10
IIJ-3
IXJ-27 to
XJ-7
IB-44
I A- 15
IA-16,17,
IIIA-1,2
VIIA-1
IXA-9
31
18
(continued)
E-12
-------
INDEX (continued)
Ethoxy tr igly co 1
Ethyl Acetate T
Ethyl Acrylate T
Ethylbenzene P/S
Ethylbutanol
2-Ethylbutanol
Ethylene Chloride
Ethylene Chlorohydrin
Ethylenediamine A,H,S
£*
Ethylene Bichloride S
Ethylene Glycol
Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether
Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether
Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether
Acetate
Ethylene Glycol Monhexyl Ether
Ethylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether
Ethyl Ether T
2-Ethylhexanol
E
B
B
D
A
A
F
F
C
F
B
E
E
E .
E
E
E
A
IXE-7
IB-45,46,47
IXB-26
IB-48,49,50
IXB-27
ID-34 to 38
IID-1
VD-10,11,12
VIID-9,10
IXD-34 to 37
. IA-19,20,21
IXA-10
VIIF-18
VIIF-19
IC-24
IXC- 16
VF-19,20,21
VIIF-20,21
IXF-30,31,32
XF-11
IB-51
IXB-28
IXE-8
IXE-9
IXE-10
IXE-11
IXE-12
IIIE-3
IA-22
i"*r-n T t
2-Ethyl-l-Hexanol
2-Ethylhexylacrylate
N-Ethylmorpholine
Ferbam
Fluoranthrene
2-Fluorenamine
Formaldehyde
Formamide
•10
H,T,S
B
C
J
M
C
B
B
IXA-12
XA-4
IB-52,53,54
IXC-17
IJ-11
IXM-5
XM-5
IC-25
IB-55,56
IIIB-6,7
IXB-29
IB-57
(continued)
E-13
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
Formic Acid
Purfuryl Alcohol
Glutamic Acid
Glycerine
Glycerol
Glycine
Heptanoic Acid
Heptachlor
Heptachlorepoxide
Heptane
m-Heptanol
Herbicides (Unspecified)
Herbicide Orange
Hexachlorobenz ene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexadecane
Hexanol
1-Hexanol
m-Hexanol
Hexylamine
Hexylene Glycol
Hydracrylonitrile
Hydroguinone
4-Hydroxybenzenecarbonitrile
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**
S,T B
A
B
B
B
B
B
A,H,P,S J
H,P J
B
A
J
J
H,P,T D
H,P,T F
H,P,S,T F
H,T,P F
B
A
A
A
C
B
B
D
D
Compound
Code No.***
IB-58
IXB-30
IA-23,24
IB-59
IB- 60
IIIB-8,9
IB- 61
IXB-31
XB-5
IJ-12
IIIJ-8
IXJ-32,33
IIIJ-9
IB-62 to 65
IXA-13
XA-5
IXJ-34,35
IJ-13
ID-39,40
IIID-4
VD-13
VIID-11,12
IXD-38
VF-22
VIIF-22
IXF-33
XF-12
VF-23
VIIF-23
IXF-34,35
XF-13
IXF-32
XF-6
IA-25
IA-26,27
IXA-14
IXC-18
XC-7
IXB-33
IB-66
IIID-5,6
IXD-39
ID-41
(continued)
E-14
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**
Compound
Code No.***
Iron
Iron (Fe+2)
Iron (Fe+3)
Isobutanol
Isobutyl Acetate
Isophorone
Isophthalic Acid
Isoprene
Isopropanol
Isopropyl Acetate
Isopropyl Ether
Kepone
Lactic Acid
Laurie Acid
Lead
Lindane
Malathion
L-Malic Acid
DL-Malic Acid
Malonic Acid
Maneb
Manganese
G.
G
G. - :
T A,
,B
P B
D
L
S B
A
B
E
H,S,T J
B
B
H,P G
S J
S J
B
B
B
J
G
IG-15
IIG-26,27,28
IIIG-8
IVG-2
IXG-12,13
IG-13
IG-14
IXA-15
IXB-34
IB-67
.VIIB-3
IXD-40,41
IL-9
IXB-35
IA-28 to 32
IXA-16
IXB-36
IE-1,2,3
IXE-13
IXJ-36
IB-68
IB- 6 9
IXB-37
XB-7
IG-16,17
IIG-29 to 33
IIIG-9,10
IXG-14,15,16
XIIG-6,7
IJ-14
IIJ-4
IIIJ-10
IXJ-37,38
IJ-15,16
IIIJ-11
IB-70
IB-71
IB-72
IJ-17
IG-18,19
IIG-34,35,36
IVG-3
IXG-17,18,19
( continued)
E-15
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**
Compound
Code No.***
Mercury
Methanol
Methyl Acetate
7-Methyl-l,1-benzanthracene
2-Methylbenzenecarbonitrile
3-Methylbenzenecarbonitrile
4-Methylbenzenecarbonitrile
Methyl Butyl Ketone
20-Methylcholanthrene
4-Methylcyclohexanol
Methyl Decanoate
Methyl Dodecanoate
4,4'-Methylene bis-
(2-Chloroaniline)
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methylethylpyridine
2-Methy1-5-EthyIpyridine
Methyl Hexadecanoate
Methyl Isoamyl Ketone
N-Methyl Morpholine
Methyl Octadecanoate
Methyl Parathion
Methyl Propyl Ketone
Molybdenum
Monoethanolamine
Monoisopropanolamine
Morpholine
Myristic Acid
H,P,T
H,T
P
H,T
T
A,H,S
B
M
D
D
D
B
M
A
B
B
D
F
B
D
C
B
B
C
B
B
G
C
C
C
B
IG-20,21
IIG-37,38,39
VIIG-1
IXG-20 to 24
XIIG-8
IA-33 to 38
IIIA-3,4
IXA-17,18
IIIB-10,11 •
IXB-38
IM-9
ID-42
ID-43
ID-4 4
IXB-39
IM-10
I A-3 9
IXB-40
XB-8
IXB-41
XB-9
IXD-42
IF-5
IXF-36
VIIB-4,5
IXB-42
ID-45
IXC-19
IXB-43
XB-10
IXB-44
IXC-20
IXB-45
XB-11
IJ-18,19
IIIJ-12
IXB-46
IIG-40
IXC-21
IXC-22
IXC-23
XC-8
IXB-47
XB-12
(continued)
E-16
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
Napthalene
B-Napthol
B-Napthylamine
Nickel
Nitrilotriacetate
o-Nitroaniline
p-Nitroaniline
m-Nitrobenzaldehyde
o-Nitrobenzaldehyde
p-Nitrobenzaldehyde
Nitrobenzene
m-Nitrobenzoic Acid
o-Nitrobenzoic Acid
p-Nitrobenzoic Acid
Nitrofluorine
m-Nitrophenol
o-Nitrophenol
p-Nitrophenol
m-Nitrotoluene
o-Nitrotoluene
p-Nitrotoluene
Nonylphenol
Octadecane
Octanoic Acid
Octanol
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**
H,P,S,T M
K
H,T C
H,P G
B
C
A,H C
D
D
D
H,P,S,T D
D
D
D
D
S K
P,S K
P,H,T,S K
S D
S D
S D
K
B
B
A
Compound
Code No. ***
IM-11 to 14
IIM-9
VM-1
IXM-6,7
XK-11
IXC- 2 4
IG-22 to 26
IIG-41 to 44
IIIG-11
IXG-25
IB- 7 3
IC-26
IC-27
ID- 4 6
ID- 4 7
ID-47
ID-48 to 52
IID-2
VD-14
VIID-12
IXD-43,44,45
ID-53
ID-54
ID-55
ID- 5 8
IK- 2 9
IK-30,31
VIIK-11
IK-29,32
IIIK-2
VIIK-12
XK-12,13
ID-56
ID-57
ID-57
IXK-8
IXB-48
XB-13
IXB-49
XB-14
IA-40,41
IXA-19
XA-6
(continued)
E-17
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
Octylamine
Oleic Acid
Oxalic Acid
Par aldehyde
Parathion
PCB (Unspecified)
Pentachlorethane
Pentachlorophenol
Pentamethy Ibenz ene
Pentanamide
Pentane
Pentanedinitrile
Pentanitrile
Pentanol
Pentarylthritol
Perchloroethylene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
p-(Phenylazo) aniline
p-Phenylazophenol
2 , 3-o-Phenylene Pyrene
Phenylenediamine
m-Phenylenediamine
o-Phenylenediamine
p-Phenylenediamine
Phenyl Methyl Carbinol
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**
C
B
B
T D
A,H,S J
I
H,T F
A,H,P,S K
J
D
C
B
B
B
A
A
P,T • F
P M
H,P,S,T K
C
K
M
C
C
C
C
A
Compound
Code No. ***
IXC- 2 5
XC-9
IB- 7 4
IB- 7 5
ID- 5 9
IXD-46
IJ-20,21
IIJ-5
IIIJ-13
IXJ-39,40
IXI-1,2,3
VIIF-24
IK-33,34
VIIK-13
IXK-9,10
XK-14
IJ-22
ID- 60
IC-29
IB-76
IB-77,78
IB- 7 9
IXA-20
XA-7
I A- 4 2
VF-24
VIIF-25
IXM-8
XM-6
IK- 3 5 to 43
IIIK-3,4,5
IVK-1
VK-1
VIIK-14 to 19
IXK-11 to 23
XK-15,16,17
1C- 2 8
IK-44
IIM-10
IC-30
IC-31
IC-32
IC-33
I A- 4 3
(continued)
E-18
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Compound Group*
Phthalic Acid H
Phthalimide
Piperidine
Propanedinitrile
Propanenitrile
Propanol
i-Propanol
n-Propanol
Propionaldehyde
Propionic Acid S
Propoxur
B-Propriolactone
Propyl Acetate
n-Propylbenzene
Propylene Dichloride
Propylene Glycol
Propylene Oxide S
Pyrene P
Pyridine H,T
Pyrrole
Pyruvic Acid
Randox
Resorcinol S,T
Selenium H,P
Silver H,P
Sodium Alkylbenzene Sulfonate
Sodium Alkyl Sulfate
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate
Sodium-N-Oleyl-N-Methyl Taurate
Sodium Pentachlorophenol
Sodium a Sulfo Methyl Myristate
Strontium
Chemical
Class.**
L
L
C
B
B
A
A
A
B
B
J
B
B
D
F
B
B
M
D
C
C
B
J
K
G
G
D
B
ii-B
B
s K
B
G
Compound
Code No. ***
IL-11
IL- 12
IXC- 2 6
XC-10
IB-80
IB- 81
IXA-21,22
XA-8
IIIA-5,6
I A- 4 4
IXB-50
IXB-51,52
XB-15
IJ-23
IB- 82
IXB-53
ID- 61
IXF-37
IXB-54
IXB-55
IIM-11
IXM-9
XM-7
IXD-47,48
IXC- 2 7
IXC- 2 8
XC-11
IXB-56
XB-16
IIIJ-14
IXK-24
XK-18
IIG-45,46,47
IXG-26
IIG-48,49,50
ID- 6 2
IB-83
IB-84
IB-85
IK- 4 5
IB-86
IG-27
(continued)
E-19
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
Styrene
Styrene Oxide
Tannic Acid
2,4,5-T Ester
1,2,3, 4-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,3, 5-Tetr achlorobenz ene
1,2,4, 5-Tetr achlor obenz ene
Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1, 2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetraethylene Glycol
Tetrachloromethane
Tetradecane
Tetraethyl Pyrophosphate
Thallium
Thanite
Thio acet amide
Thioglycollic Acid
Thiouracil
Thiourea
Tin
Titanium
Toluene
m-Toluidine
Toxaphene
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**.
S D
D
B
S J
D
D
H,T D
H F
H,T F
H,P,T F
P F
B
H,P,S,T F
B
J
H,P G
J
H,T . C
B
B
H,T B
G
G
H,P,S,T D
D
P,H,T,S D
J
Compound
Code No.***
ID-63,64
VD-15
VIID-13
IXD-49,50,51
IXD-52
IB- 8 7
IIJ-6
IXJ-41,42
ID-65
ID-66
ID-67,68
VIIF-26
IXF-38
XF-14
VF-25
VF-26
VIIF-27
IXF-39
VF-27
VI IF- 2 8
IXF-40,41
XF-15 •
IXB-58
VF-28
VIIF-29
IXB-57
XB-17
IJ-24
IIG-51,52
IXG-27
IJ-25
IC-34
IB-88
IB-89
IB-90
IIG-53
IIG-54
ID-69 to 75
VD-16,17
VIID-14,15
IXD-53,54,55
ID-76
IXD-56
IX J- 43, 44, 45
XJ-8
(continued)
E-20
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**
Compound
Code No.***
Tribromomethane H,P,T
Tributylamine
Trichloroacetic Acid
2,4,6-Trichloroaniline
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene H,P
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene
Trichloroethane H,P,T
1,1,1-Trichloroethane H,P,T
1,1,2-Trichloroethane H,P,T
Trichloroethylene P,H,T,S
Trichlorofluoromethane H,P,T
Trichloromethane H,P,S
2,3,5-Trichlorophenol S
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol H,S,T
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol P,H,T,S
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid H,T
2,4,6-Trichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
F
C
D
D
D
F
F
F
F
K
K
K
J
D
VF-29
VIIF-30
IXF-42,43
IXC-29.
XC-12
IIIF-1
IC-35,36
ID-7 7
ID-78
VD-18,19
VIID-16
IXD-57,58,59
XD-10
ID-79,80
VIIF-31
IF-6
VF-30,31
VIIF-32
IXF-44,45
XF-16
IF-7
VF-32,33
VIIF-33
IXF-46
IF-8,9
IIF-2
VF-34,35
VIIF-34,35
IXF-47,48
VIIF-36
IXF-49
VF-36
VIIF-37
IK-46,47
IK-48
IK-49 to 52
VIIK-20
IXK-25
XK-19,20
IJ-26,27
ID-82
(continued)
E-21
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**
Compound
Code No.***
2,4, 5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic
Acid
1,2, 3-Trichloropropane
Triethanolamine
Triethylene Glycol
Trifluralin
Tr imethy Ipheno 1
2,4, 6-Trinitrotoluene
2,6, 6-Trinitrotoluene
Urea
Urethane
Valeric Acid
Vanadium
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
Vinylidene Chloride
Xylene
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
Xylenol
Zinc
Ziram
Zireb
* Pollutant Groups
A RCRA List -
H RCRA List -
H
H
S .
(TNT)
H,T
S
H,P,T
H,T,S
S,T
S,T
S,T
S,T
S
P
Acute hazardous {-Sec.
D
P
C
B
J
K
D
D
B
B
B
G
B
F
F
D
D
D
D
K
G
J
J
261.
ID- 81
IXF-50
XF-17
IXC- 30
IB- 91
IXB-59
IIIJ-15
IXK-26
IVD-1
IXD-60,61
XD-11,12
ID-83
IB- 9 2
IB- 9 3
IXB-60,61
XB-18
IIG-55
IXB-62
IF-10
VIIF-38
ID- 8 5
VIID-17,18
IXD-62,63
ID- 8 4
ID-84
ID- 8 4
VIIK-21
IG-28 to 34
IIG-56 to 61
IIIG-12,13
IVG-4
IXG-28,29
XIIG-9
IJ-28
IJ-29
33(e) }
Hazardous {Appendix VII}
P Priority Pollutant (Consent Decree)
S Section 311
T RCRA List -
Compound
Toxic {Sec. 261. 33 (f) }
(a blank indicates that the compound
fall into one
of the above groups)
does
not
E-22
-------
INDEX (continued)
** Chemical Classifications
A Alcohol
B Aliphatic
C Amine
D Aromatic
E Ether
F Halocarbon
G Metal
I PCB
J ,Pesticide
K Phenol
L Phthalate
M Polynuclear Aromatic
Compound Code Number - Refers to Compound Code Number used
in Appendix Table E-l
Also see Ethylene Glycol
Also see 1,2-Ethanediol
Also see 1,2-Dichloroethane
Also see Ethylene Dichloride
Caution: Because a compound may have many synonyms as given
in The Merck Index the reader should check for a compound under
several names.This also applies to the pollutant group codes
assigned to each compound because a complete crosscheck between
synonyms was not undertaken.
***
a
b
c
d
E-23
-------
TABLE E-l CHEMICAL TREATABILITY
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols(A)
Nof
IA-
1
IA-
2
IA-
3
IA-
4
IA-
5
IA-
6
IA-
7
IA-
8
IA-
9
IA-
10
Chemical
n-Amyl Alcohol
(1-Pentanol)
Borneal
Butanol
Butanol
Butanol
Butanol
Butanol
sec-Butanol
tert-Butanol
tert-Butanol
Description of Study
Study
Type °.
R
U
F
F
R
F
U
U
U
L
Waste
Type
P
I
I
I
P
P
P
S
Influent
Char.
BOD load
of 42
lb/day/
1000 ft3
Results of Study
Toxic threshold to sensitive
aquatic organisms (approx)
>350 rag/1.
90.3% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
8.9 mg COD/g hr.
70-90% reduction.
98% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
Toxic threshold to sensitive
aquatic organisms (approx)
<250 ppm.
95-100% reduction.
98.8% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
84 mg COD/g hr.
98.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
55 mg COD/g hr.
95.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
30 mg COD/g hr.
Substrate partially degraded.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Aerated lagoon
treatment .
Completely mixed acti-
tivated sludge process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Acclimated aerobic
culture.
(continue
Ref .
99
81
100
101
99
56
81
81
81
102
d)
to
-------
TABLE E'l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
No.
IA-
23
IA-
24
IA-
25
IA-
26
IA-
27
IA-
28
IA-
29
IA-
30
IA-
31
IA-
32
b
Chemical
Furfuryl
Alcohol
Furfuryl
Alcohol
Hexanol
1-Hexanol
1-Hexanol
Isopropanol
Isopropanol
Isopropanol
Isopropanol
Isopropanol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
U
U
U
F
F
F
F
L
U
U
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
I
I
I
I
S
P
P
Influent
Char.
BOD load
of
42 Ib/day/
1000 ft^
Results of Study
97.3% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
41 mg COD/g hr.
96.1% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
40 mg COD/g hr.
95-100% reduction.
70-90% reduction.
100% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
70-90% reduction.
96% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
100% reduction; acetone was
intermediate where upon 50%
reduced by bio-oxidation &
50% removed by air stripping.
99% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
52 mg COD/g hr.
95-100% reduction.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge.
Acclimated aerobic
culture .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
81
81
56
100
101
100
101
102
81
56
d)
N)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
Nof
IA-
11
IA-
12
IA-
13
IA-
14
IA-
15
IA-
16
IA-
17
IA-
18
IA-
19
IA-
20
IA-
21
IA-
22
b
Chemical
1 , 4-Butanediol
Cyclohexanol
•Cyclopentanol
Dime thy Icyclo-
hexanol
1 , 2-Ethanediol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethyl Butanol
Ethyl Butanol
Ethyl Butanol
2-Ethylhexanol
Description of Study
Study
Type c
U
U
U
U
L
F
L
F
F
F
F
F
Waste
Type
P
P
P
P
S
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
Influent
Char.
484 ppm
1000 ppm
42 Ib/day,
1000 ft^
42 lb/dav/
1000 ft?
Results of Study
98.7% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
40 mg COD/g hr.
96% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
28 mg COD/g hr.
97% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
55 mg COD/g hr.
92.3% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
21.6 mg COD/g hr.
74-76% reduction of BOD in
24 hrs. 7.5% of TOD exerted
in 24 hrs.
70-90% reduction.
>99% reduction of BOD in 24
hrs. 24% of TOD exerted in
24 hrs.
95-100% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction .
30-50% reduction.
95-100% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction .
75-85% reduction.
75-85% reduction.
Comments
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Pure aerobic culture .
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Pure aerobic culture.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Ref .
81
81
81
81
103
100
103
101
100
101
56
56
(continued)
i
I
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A
Nof
IA-
33
IA-
34
IA-
35
IA-
36
IA-
37
IA-
38
IA-
39
IA-
40
IA-
41
IA-
42
IA-
43
b
Chemical
Methancl'
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol •
..'ut '*... ' "
4-Methylcyclo-
hexanol
Octanol
Octanol
Pentarythritol
Phenyl Methyl
Carbinol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
F
F
L
L
F
F,C
U
F
F
L
F
Waste
Type d
I
I
U
U
I
I
p
I
I
I
I
Influent
Char.
BOD load
of
42 lb/davy
1000 ft-*
997 ppm
500 ppm
170-2550
ppb
Results of Study
75-85% reduction.
30-50% reduction.
2.4-5.7% reduction of BOD
24 hrs. 36 to 41 mg 02 used
in 24 hrs. 2.4 -1.7% of TOD
exerted in 24 hrs.
110 mg Q>2 used in 24 hrs.
14.6% of TOD exerted in
24 hrs.
84% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
Effluent cone, of 150-510ppb
achieved .
94% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
40 mg COD/g hr.
75% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
30-50% reduction.
No toxic effect.
85-95% reduction
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Pure aerobic culture.
Pure aerobic culture .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge .
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
Activated sludge
process .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge,.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Aerobic culture.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge .
Ref .
56
100
103
103
101
65
81
101
100
104
101
(continued)
i
to
-------
TABLE E--I (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
to
oo
No?
IA-
44
Chemical
n-Propanol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
U
Waste
Type d
P
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
98.8% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
71 mg COD/g hr.
Comments
Activated sludge
process .
(continue
Ref.
81
d)
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification:
Biological Treatment (I)
Aliphatics (B)
Nof
IB-
1
IB-
2
IB-
3
IB-
4
IB-
5
IB-
6
IB-
7
IB-
8
IB-
9
IB-
10
b
Chemical
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acetonitrile
Acetylglycine
Acrolein
Description of Study
Study
Type c<
F •;
F ;
F,C
F,C
F
B
B
B
0
F,C
Waste
Type d
I
I
I
I
I
S
U
S
D
I
Influent
Char.
BOD load
of 42 Ib
day/1000
ft3
120-900
PPb
100-600
PPb
490 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
50-150
PPb
Results of Study
70-90% reduction.
85-95% reduction.
Effluent cone, of 90-1350ppb
achieved .
Effluent cone, of 50-300 ppb
achieved .
70-90% reduction.
Completely degraded or lost
by stripping.
Oxygen consumption was' to-
tally inhibited for 24 hrs.
Toxic or inhibitory during
oxidation periods up to 72
hrs. 1.4% TOD was exerted
in 72 hrs.
Readily oxidized w/9.3% of
TOD exerted after 6 hr S
18.5% after 24 hr of
oxidation.
Effluent cone, of 20-200 ppb
achieved .
Comments
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Activated sludge
process.
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater -treatment
plants.
See IB-3 for comments.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
No identifiable degra-
dation product.
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
(continue
Ref .
100
56
65
65
100
102
103
106
106
65
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification:
Biological Treatment (I)
Aliphatics (B)
Nof
IB-
11
IB-
12
IB-
13
IB-
14
IB-
IS
IB-
16
IB-
17
IB-
IS
IB-
19
IB-
20
IB-
21
Chemical
Acrylic Acid
Acrylic Acid
Acrylic Acid
Acrylonitrile
Acrylonitfile
Acrylonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Adipic Acid
Alanine
Ammonium
Oxalate
Butanedinitrile
Description of Study
Study
Type0
F,
F
F
F
F
F
F
I
B
U
0
Waste
Type d
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
U
P
D
Influent
Char.
BOD load
of
42 Ib/dqy,
1000 ft
BOD load
of
42 lb/day/
1000 ft^
140 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
85-95% reduction.
50-70% 'reduction.
85-95% reduction.
70-90% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
100% reduction.
Readily oxidized w/7.1% of
TOD exerted after 24 hr of
oxidation.
Up to 39% of TOD exerted in
24 hrs.
92.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
40 mg COD/g hr.
Toxic at oxidation periods
up to 72 hrs.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Oxidation improved
greatly after 12 hrs.
Oxygen consumption
showed no lag period.
Material was readily
degraded .
Activated sludge
process.
Ref .
56
100
101
100
101
56
90
107
103
81
106
(continued)
i
•p
U)
o
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
IB-
22
IB-
23
IB-
24
IB-
25
IB-
26
IB-
27
IB-
28
IB-
29
IB-
30
IB-
31
b
Chemical
Butanedinitrile
Butanenitrile
Butanenitrile
Butyleneoxide
Butyric Acid
Butyric Acid
Butyric Acid
Butyric Acid
Calcium
Gluconate
Caprolactam
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
O
0
0
F
O
F
O
L
U
Waste
Type
D
D
D
D
I
D
I
D
U
P
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
BOD load
of
42 lb/day/
1000 ft?
500 ppm
250 ppm
Results of Study
Readily, but slowly, oxi-
dized, 3.8% of TOD exerted
after 24 hr of oxidation.
Inhibited oxidation for up
to 24 hrs; after 72 hrs,up
to 10.5% of TOD was exerted.
Readily, but slowly oxi-
dized. Most rapid oxidation
occurred in first 6 hrs,
1.7% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
9.6% of TOD exerted after
144 hrs of oxidation.
85-95% reduction.
Up to 43% of TOD exerted
after 72 hrs of oxidation.
50-70% reduction.
Rapidly oxidized for first
6 hrs; after 24 hrs of oxi-
dation up to 27.9% of TOD
was exerted.
13.6% of TOD exerted in
24 hrs.
94.3% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
16 mg COD/g hr.
Comments
Oxygen uptake showed
plateau effect after
12 hrs.
See IB-23
for comments.
Degraded very slowly.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Activated sludge process
Ref .
107
106
107
108
56
106
100
107
103
81
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
Nof
IB-
32
IB-
33
IB-
34
IB-
35
IB-
36
IB-
37
IB-
38
IB-
39
IB-
40
IB-
41
IB-
42
_. . ,b
Chemical
Citric Acid
Crotonaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Cystine
L-Cystine
Cyclohexa-
nolohe
Cyc lohexanone
Cyclopentanone
Diethylene
Glycol
2,3-Dithiabu-
tane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L
F
F
F
L
O
U
U
U
U
F,C
Waste
Type
U
I
I
I
U
D
P
P
P
P
I
Influent
Char.
550 ppm
BOD load
of
42 lb/dav/
1000 ft?
1000 ppm
500 ppm
10-120ppb
Results of Study
35 mg of 0 used in 24 hrs.
95-100% reduction.
90-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
Completely inhibited any
consumption of 02-
Slowly oxidized w/4.7% of
TOD exerted after 24 hrs of
oxidation .
92.4% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
51.5 mg COD/g hr.
96% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
30 mg COD/g hr.
95.4% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
57 mg COD/g hr.
95% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
13.7 mg COD/g hr.
Not detectable in effluent.
Comments
Biodegradable, depressed
02 consumption.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process .
See IB-3
for comments.
Ref .
103
56
100
101
103
107
81
81
81
81
65
(continued)
i
to
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification:
Biological Treatment (I)
Aliphatics (B)
Nof
•B^BUBBW
IB-
43
IB-
44
45
IB-
46
IB-
47
IB-
48
IB-
49
IB-
50
IB-
51
IB-
52
IB-
53
Chemical
Dulcitpl
Erucic Acid
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl. Acrylate
Ethylene
Glycol
2-Ethylhexyl-
acrylate
2-Ethylhexyl-
acrylate
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
0
F
F
F
F
F
F
U
F
F
Waste
Type .
U
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
p
I
I
Influent
Char.
1700 ppm
500 ppm
BOD load
of
42 Ib/day,
1000 ft3
BOD load
of
42 Ib/day,
1000 ft*
BOD load .
of
42 Ib/day,
1000 ft ^
Results of Study
Slightly inhibitory
11% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs of oxidation.
90-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
90-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
96.8% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
41.7 mg COD/g hr.
95-100% reduction.
90-100% reduction
Comments
Treated by aerobic
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process
Treated by aerobic
lagoon
Cpmpletely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerobic
lagoon .
(continue
i
Ref .
109
107
100
101
56
56
100
101
81
56
100
a)'
OJ
-------
TABLE E~! (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
IB-
54
IB-
55
IB-
56
IB-
57
IB-
58
IB-
59
IB-
60
IB-
61
IB-
62
IB-
63
IB-
64
IB-
65
IB-
66
Chemical
2-Ethylhexyl-
acrylate
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formamide
Formic Acid
Glutamic Acid
Glycerine
Glycine •
Heptane
Heptane
Heptane
Heptane —
Hydracrylo-
nitrile
Description of Study
Study
Type0
F
L
0
0
L
L
L
L
F
0
F
F
F
Waste
Type
I
U
D
D
I
D
I
I
I
Influent
Char.
720 ppm
3000 ppm
500 ppm
720 ppm
720 ppm
720 ppm
BOD load
of
42 lb/day/
1000 ft
500 ppm
Results of Study
95-100% reduction.
Chemical inhibited 02
consumption .
<99% reduction after 24 hrs
of aeration.
Slowly oxidized for first
12 hrs; 11.8% of TOD exerted
after 24 hrs of oxidation.
70% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs of oxidation.
31% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs of oxidation.
248 mg of 02 used in 24 hrs.
58% of TOD exerted after '
24 hrs.
95-100% reduction.
38.7% of TOD exerted after
72 hrs.
90-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
0-10% reduction.
Comments
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
pH held at 7.2.
No lag period during
oxidation.
Activated sludge
process .
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
(continue
Ref .
01
103
104.
107
107
103
103
103
56
L06
LOO
101
LOO
Jd)
I
U)
*>.
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
Biological Treatment (I)
: Aliphatics (B)
Nof
IB-
67
IB-
68
IB-
69
IB-
70
IB-
71
IB-
72
IB-
73
IB-
74
IB-
75
IB-
76
IB-
77
IB-
78
IB-
79
IB-
80
b
Chemical
Isophorone
Lactic Acid
Laurie Acid
L-Malic Acid
DL-Malic Acid
Malonic Acid
Nitrilotri-
acetate
Oleic Acid
Oxalic Acid
Pentape
Pentanedini-
trile
Pentanedini-
trile
Pentanenitrile
Propanedini-
trile
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F,C
L
0
0
0
0
L
0
L
O
0
0
0
0
Waste
Type d
D
D
D
D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
Influent
Char.
720 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
20 to
500 ppm
250 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
93% reduction.
78% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
6.1% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
44.8% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
20.8% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
Chemical inhibited $2
uptake .
>90% reduction after
acclimation.
02 uptake inhibited;
0_ uptake inhibited.
0_ uptake inhibited.
Toxic at oxidation periods
of up to 72 hrs.
Slowly oxidized with 2.9%
of TOD exerted after 24 hrs
of oxidation.
Toxic to 2 sludges at oxi-
dation periods up to 24 hrs
Toxic for oxidation periods
up to 72 hrs.
Comments
21 day maximum reten-
tion time in a series
of lagoons.
A 10-16 hr lag period
was indicated .
Ref .
81
7
107
107.
107
107
111
109
103
106
106
106
106
106
(continued)
un
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification:
Biological Treatment (I)
Aliphatics (B)
Nof
IB-
81
IB-
82
IB-
83
IB-
84
IB-
85
IB-
86
IB-
87
IB-
88
IB-
89
IB-
90
IB-
91
IB-
92
b
Chemical
Propanenitrile
S-Propiolactone
Sodium Alkyl
Sulfonate
Sodium Lauryl
Sulfate
Sodium N-
Oleyl-N-Methyl
Taurate
Sodium a Sulfo
Methyl
Myristate
Tannic Acid
Thioglycollic
Acid
Thiouracil
Thiourea
Triethylene
Glycol
Urea
Description of Study
Study
Type0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L
0
0
U
L
Waste
Type
D
D
D
D
P
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
12 00 ppm
Results of Study
Toxic for oxidation periods
up to 72 hrs.
02 uptake inhibited.
22% of TOD exerted after
5 days.
65% of TOD exerted after
5 days.
47-52% of TOD exerted in
5 days.
33% of TOD exerted after
5 days.
02 uptake inhibited.
02 uptake inhibited within
24 hrs.
Chemical was oxidized but
very slowly. 12.8% of TOD
exerted after 144 hrs of
oxidation.
0 uptake was inhibited by
chemical for up to 144 hrs
of oxidation.
97.7% reduction based on COD
rate of biodegradation was
27 mg COD/g hr.
02 uptake inhibited.
Comments
Activated sludge proces
Ref .
106
108
112
112
112
112
109
103
108
L03.
81
L03
(continued)
i
to
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
IB-
93
. ?r.
Chemical
Urethane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
Waste
Type d
D
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
02 uptake inhibited.
Comments
(continue
Ref .
IDS
d)
to
-------
TABLE E"I(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
Nof
IC-
1
IC-
2
IC-
3
IC-
4
IC-
5
IC-
6
IC-
7
IC-
8
IC-
9
IC-
10
b
Chemical
Acetanilide
p-Aminoacetan-
ilide
m-Aminobenzoic
Acid
o-Aminobenzoic
Acid
p-Aminobenzoic
Acid
m-Amino toluene
o-Aminotoluene
p-Aminotoluene
Aniline
Aniline
Description of Study
Study
Type0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
I
Influent
Char .
500 ppm
30°C
Results of Study
94.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
19 mg COD/g hr.
93% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
11.3 mg COD/g hr.
97.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
27.1 mg COD/g hr.
97.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
7.0 mg COD/g hr.
96.2% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
12.5 mg COD/g hr. - .
97.7% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
30 mg COD/g hr.
97.7% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
15.1 mg COD/g hr.
97.7% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
20 mg COD/g hr.
94.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
19 mg COD/g hr.
100% reduction in 15 hrs.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
Biodegradation by mu-
tant pseudomonas.
(continue
Ref .
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
92
d)
co
oo
-------
TABLE E '! (continued)
U)
V0
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
Biological Treatment (I)
i Amines (C)
a
No.
IC-
1]
IC-
12
IC-
13
b
Chemical
Aniline
Benzamide
Benzidine
1C- Benzidine
14
1C- Benzylamine
•/-i
J-\u>
16
IC-
17
IC-
18
IC-
19
IC-
20
IC-
21
Butanamide
m-Chloroani-
line
o-Chloroani-
line
p-Chloroani-
line
Diethanolamine
2,3-Dimethyl-
aniline
Description of Study
Study
Typec.
0
0
0
F,C
0
0
u
u
u
u
u
Waste
Type
0
0
D
D
D
D
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
1.6 ppb
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
02 uptake inhibited for up
to 72 hrs.
02 uptake inhibited for
first 6 hrs. 63% of TOD
exerted after 144 hrs of
oxidation.
02 uptake inhibited.
0% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited.
Slowly oxidized w/6.4% of
TOD exerted after 24 hrs
of oxidation.
97 . 2% reduction based on
COD; rate of " biodegradation
6.2 mg COD/g hr.
97.2% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
16.7 mg COD/g hr.
96.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
5.7 mg COD/g hr.
97% reduction based on. COD;
rate of biodegradation
19.5 mg COD/g hr.
96.5% reduction based on COD
rate of biodegradation
12.7 mg COD/g hr.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Ref .
108
108
108
81
108
107
81
81
81
.81
81
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
Nof
IC-
22
IC-
23
IC-
24
IC-
25
IC-
26
IC-
27
IC-
28
IC-
29
IC-
30
IC-
31
IC-
32
IC-
33
Chemical
2,5-Dimethyl-
aniline
3 ,4 -Dimethyl-
aniline
Ethylene-
diamine
2-Fluorenamine
o-Nitroaniline
p-Nitroaniline
P-(Phenylazo)
aniline
Pentanamide *
Phenylene-
diamine
m-Phenylene-
diamine ~"
o-Phenylene-
diamine
p-Phenylene
diamine
Description of Study
Study
Type0
U
U
U
0
U
U
0
0
0
U
U
U
Waste
Type
P
P
P
D
I
I
D
D
D
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
18.5 ppm
6.7 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
96.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
3 -.6 mg COD/g hr.
36% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
30 mg COD/g hr.
97.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
9.8 mg COD/g hr.
02 uptake showed inhibitory
effect but was slowly bio-
logically oxidized.
<99.9% reduction.
<99.9% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited after
72 hrs of oxidation.
Slowly oxidized w/13.6% of
TOD exerted after 24 hrs of
oxidation.
Toxic during 24 hrs of
aeration
60% reduction based on COD.
33% reduction based on COD.
80% reduction based on COD.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Powder activated carbon
& activated sludge
treatment .
See IC-26
for comments .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Ref .
81
81
81
108
58
58
108
107
113
81
81
81
(continued)
I
its-
CD
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
a
No.
IC-
34
IC-
35
IC-
36
b
Chemical
Thioacetamide '
2,4,6-Trichlo-
roaniline
2,4,6-Trichlo-
roaniline
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L
U
0
Waste
Type d
U
I
S
Influent
Char.
100 ppm
500 ppm
10 ppm
Results of Study
02 uptake inhibited.
100% reduction in 30 hrs.
02 uptake not inhibited.
Comments
See 1C- 10
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
103
92
113
"|d)
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
ID-
1
ID-
2
ID-
3
ID-
4
ID-
5
ID-
6
ID-
7
ID-
8
ID-
9
ID-
10
ID-
11
ID-
12
_. . nb
Chemical
sec-Amyl-
benzene
tert-Amyl-
benzene
Benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Sulfonate
i>
Benzenethiol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
0
0
0
U
0
F
F
0
0
F
0
0
Waste
Type
D .
D
P
D
I
I
D
D
I
D
D
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
125 ppm
50-500
ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
Toxic for 24 hrs of aeration .
Toxic for 24 hrs of aeration.
Q£ uptake inhibited.
99% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
119 mg COD/g hr.
61.3% of TOD exerted after
144 hrs of oxidation.
90-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
1.44-1.45g of oxygen uti-
lized per gram of substrate
added after 72 hrs of
oxidation.
02 uptake of 34 ppm 02/hr
for 50 ppm chemical -& 37 ppm
02/hr for 500 ppm chemical.
95-100% reduction.
Slowly oxidized for first 6
hrs; 62% of TOD exerted af-
ter 144 hrs.
02 uptake inhibited for up
to 144 hrs of oxidation.
Comments
Activated sludge
process .
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref.
113
113
109
81
108
100
101
114
114
56
108
108
d)
Ni
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
No.
ID-
13
ID-
14
ID-
15
ID-
16
ID-
17
ID-
18
ID-
19
ID-
20
ID-
21
ID-
22
ID-
23
ID-
24
ID-
25
- ~~,j ,
~f\ '
Chemical
Benzoic Acid
Benzoic Acid
Benzonitrile
3 , 4-Benzpyrene
sec-Butyl-
benzene '
tert-Butyl-
benzene
Chloranil
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2 , 4 , 5-Dibena-
pyrene
m-Dichloro-
benzene
m-Dichloro-
benzene
o-Dichloro-
benzene
p-Dichloro-
benzene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
U
F
0
0
0
0
0
L
0
L
U
L
L.
Waste
Type
P
I
D
D
. D
D
S
P
D
P
I
P
P
Influent
Char.
BOD load
of
42 Ib/dav
1000 ftj
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
10 ppm
200 ppm
500 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
Results of Study
99% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
88.5 mg COD/g- hr.
95-100% reduction
r
02 uptake inhibited for up tc
72 hrs of oxidation.
02 uptake inhibited for up
to 144 hrs of oxidation.
Toxic for 24 hrs of aeration.
Toxic for 24 hrs of aeration.
02 uptake inhibited.
100% reduction in 14 hrs.
Oj uptake inhibited for up
to 144 hrs of oxidation.
100% reduction in 28 hrs.
100% reduction in 30 hrs.
100% reduction in 20 hrs.
100% reduction in 25 hrs.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
'
Biodegradation by mu-
tant pseudomonas
species.
See ID-20
for comments .
See ID-20
for comments.
See ID-20
for comments.
See ID-20
for comments.
Ref .
81
56
106
106
113
113
102
66
108
66
92
66
66
(continued)
i
U)
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
ID-
26
ID-
27
ID-
28
ID-
29
ID-
30
ID-
31
ID-
32
ID-
33
ID-
34
ID-
35
ID-
36
ID-
37
b
Chemical
2,4-Dichloro-
phenoxyacetic
Acid
2 , 6-Dichloro-
phenoxyacetic
Acid
2 , 4-Dichloro-
phenoxypro-
pionic Acid
7 , 9-Dimethyl-
benzacridine
7,10-Dimethyl-
benzacridine
3,5-Dinitro-
benzoic Acid
2 , 4-Dini'tro-
toluene
2 , 4-Dinitro-
toluene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
L
L
L
0
0
U
F,C
R
F
U
F
L
Waste
Type d
D
D
D
D
D
P
D
U
I
S
I
I
Influent
Char.
174 ppm
178 ppm
186 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
390 ppb
146-188
ppm
BOD load
of
42 Ib/day
1000 ft*
192 ppb
Results of Study
No reduction until after 5
days.
No reduction until after 3
days.
No reduction after 7 days.
Q£ uptake inhibited after
144 hrs of oxidation.
02 uptake inhibited after
after 144 hrs of oxidation.
50% reduction based on COD.
Not detectable in effluent.
90% reduction.
95-100% reduction
i
100% reduction.
90-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction
Comments
Subjected to continuous
aeration.
See ID-26
for comments.
See ID-26
for comments.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge.
(continue
Ref .
115
115
115
108
108
81
81
90
56
21
100
101
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
ID-
38
ID-
39
ID-
40
ID-
41
ID-
42
ID-
43
ID-
44
ID-
45
ID-
46
ID-
47
ID-
48
;&V
Chemical
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-
benzene
Hexachloro-
benzene
4-Hydroxy-
benzenecarbo-
nitrile
2-Methylben-
zenecarbo-
nitrile
3-Methylben-
zenecarbo-
nitrile
4-Methylben-
zenecarbo-
nitrile
Methy'lethyl-
pyridine
m-Nitrobenz-
aldehyde
o-Nitrobenzal-
dfehyde,. p-Ni-
trobenzaldehyd
Nitrobenzene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
L
U
0
0
0
0
F
U
U
U
Waste
Type d
D
P
I
D
D
D
D
I
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
105 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
After 72 hrs of oxidation
1.7g of 02 was used per g
chemical added.
0% reduction in 120 hrs.
0% reduction in 120 hrs.
Toxic after 72 hrs of
oxidation.
Toxic after 72 hrs of
oxidation.
Toxic after 72 hrs of
oxidation.
Toxic after 72 hrs of
oxidation .
10-30% reduction.
94% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
10 mg COD/g hr.
97% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
13.8 mg COD/g hr.
98% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
14 mg COD/g hr.
Comments
See ID-2Q
for comments.
See ID-20
for comments .
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
Activated sludge
process .
Ref .
114
66
92
106
106
106
106
100
81
81
81
(continued)
I
I
Ul
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics
Nof
ID-
49
ID-
50
ID-
51
ID-
52
ID-
53
ID-
54
ID-
55
ID-
56
ID-
57
ID-
58
ID-
59
Chemical
Nitrobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Ni trobenzene
Nitrobenzene
m-Nitrobenzoic
Acid
o-Nitrobenzoic
Acid
p-Ni trobenzoic
Acid
m-Nitrotoluene
o-Nitro toluene
p-Nitrotoluene
Nitrofluorine
Paraldehyde
Description of Study
Study
Type0
U
U
F,C
0
U
U
U
U
U
0
F
Waste
Type d
S -
I
D
D
P
P
P
P
P
D
I
Influent
Char.
175 ppb
530 ppb
58 ppb
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
— —
100% reduction.
£ 96.0% reduction.
>0.1 ppb effluent cone.
02 uptake inhibited for up
to 144 hrs of oxidation.
93.4% reduction based on COD
rate of biodegradation
7 mg COD/g hr.
93.4% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
20 mg COD/g hr.
92% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
19.7 mg COD/g hr.
98.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
21 mg COD/g hr.
98% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
32.5 mg COD/g hr.
Slowly oxidized w/13.7% of
TOD exerted after 144 hrs.
30-50% reduction
Comments
— — ,
Powder activated car-
bon & activated sludge
treatment .
21 day maximum reten-
tion time in a series
of lagoons .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
(continue
i
Ref.
21
58
81
108
81
81
81
81
81
108
100
i)
-------
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification:
TABLE E-l(continued)
Biological Treatment (I)
Aromatics (D)
a
No.
ID-
60
ID-
61
ID-
62
ID-
63
ID-
64
ID-
65
ID-
66
ID-
67
ID-
68
ID-
69
ID-
70
ID-
71
»T
u • -,b
Chemical
Pentamethyl-
benzene
n-Propylben-
zene
Sodium Alkyl-
benzene Sul-
fonate
Styrene
Styrene
1,2,3,4-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
1,2,3,5-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
1, 2,4,5-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
0
0
F
F
L
L
U
0
F
F
0
Waste
Type
D
D
I
I
P
P
I
0
I
I
D
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
37.5 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
02 uptake inhibited during
first 24 hrs of aeration.
After 72 hrs of oxidation
0.67g of 02 were utilized pei
g of substrate added.
26% of TOD exerted after 5
days.
70-90% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
74% reduction in 120 hrs.
80% reduction in 120 hrs.
80% reduction in 120 hrs.
No 02 consumed during first
3 hrs; very slight uptake
thereafter for first 24 hrs
of aeration.
70-90% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited or very
slightly oxidized for first
24 hrs of oxidation.
Comments
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
See ID- 20
for comments.
See ID- 20
for comments.
See ID- 20
for comments .
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
(continue
Ref .
113
114
112
100
101
66
66
66
113
100
101
108
id)
i
M
>£>•
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
No.
ID-
72
ID-
73
ID-
74
ID-
75
ID-
76
ID-
77
ID-
78
ID-
79
ID-
80
ID-
81
ID-
82
ID-
83
ou • -,b
Chemical
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
m-Toluidine
1,2,3-Trichlo-
robenzene
1,2,4-Trichlo-
robenzene
1,3,5-Trichlo-
robenzene
1,3,5-Trichlo-
robenzene
2,4,5-Trichlo-
rophenoxypro-
pionic Acid
2,4, 6-Tr.iehlo-
rophenoxy-
acetic Acid
2,6,6-Trini-
trotoluene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
O
O
F,C
F
U
L
L
U
L
L
L
L
Waste
Type d
D
D
I
I
I
P
P
I
P
O
D
I
Influent
Char.
100 ppm
500 ppm
8-150 ppb
BOD load
of 42 Ib
day/1000
ft*
500 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
107.5 ppm
53 ppm
100 ppm
Results of Study
0.53-0.65g of 02 used per g
of substrate added after 72
hrs of oxidation.
48.3% of TOD exerted after
72 hrs of oxidation.
1.0-10.0 ppb effluent cone.
95-rlOO% reduction.
100% reduction in 10 hrs.
100% reduction in 43 hrs.
100% reduction in 46 hrs.
100% reduction in 50 hrs.
100% reduction in 50 hrs.
99% reduction in 16.5 days.
50% reduction in 14 days.
50-84% reduction in 3-14 hrs.
Comments
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
Activated sludge
process.
See ID- 20 for comments.
See ID-20 for comments.
See ID-20 for comments.
See ID-20 for comments.
See ID-20 for comments.
Subjected to continuous
aeration.
Ref .
114
106
65
56
92
66
66
92
66
115
115
116
(continued)
i
M
*>
CO
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
ID-
84
ID-
85
= ob
Chemical
m-xylene
o-xylene
p-xylene
Xylene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
F,C
Waste
Type d
D'
I
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
20-200ppl
Results of Study
02 uptake inhibited after 24
hrs of oxidation.
1.0-15.0 ppb effluent cone.
Comments
See ID-74
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
113
65
d)
-------
TABLE E-i(continued)
Concentration Process; Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Ethers (E)
No.
IE-
1
IE-
2
IE-
3
b
Chemical
Isopropyl
Ether
Isopropyl
Ether
Isopropyl
Ether
' r
Description of Study
Study
Type0
F
F
F
Waste
Type
I.
I
I
Influent
Char.
BOD load
of
42 lb/day/
1000 ft3
Results of Study
85-95% reduction.
70-90% reduction.
85-95% reduction.
Comments
Activated sludge
process .
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Completely mixed
activated sludge
process.
icontinue
Ref .
56
100
101
d)
Ul
o
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
Biological Treatment (I)
: Halocarbons (F)
No.
IF-
1
IF-
2
IF-
3
IF-
4
IF-
5
IF-
6
IF-
7
IF-
8
IF-
9
IF-
10
b
Chemical
Bromoform
Carbon
Tetrachloride
Chloroform
1, 2-Dichloro-
ethane
Methylene
Chloride
1,1,1-Trichlo-
roethane
1,1,2-Trichlo-
roethane
Trichloro-
ethylene
Trichloro-
ethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F,C
U
F,C
F,C
F,C
F,C
U
F,C
F,C
F,C
Waste
Type d
I.
S
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
Influent
Char.
0.4-1.9
ppb
177 ppb
13 ppb
0.4-260
ppb
10-430ppb
8.0-790
ppb
1305 ppb
78 ppb
214 ppb
8 ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction.
100% reduction.
100% reduction.
1 . 4 ppb effluent cone .
2.0-50 ppb effluent cone.
1.0-20.0 ppb effluent cone.
<^ 99.7% reduction.
100% reduction.
99% reduction
100% reduction
Comments
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
See IF- 1
for -comments .
See IF- 1
for comments.
See IF- i
f oir comments .
See IF-i
for comments.
Powder activated carbon
& activated sludge
treatment.
See IF- 1
for comments.
See IF- 1
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
65
21
65
65
65
65
58
65
21
65
d)
Ul
H
-------
TABLE E-i(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
No?
IG-
1
IG-
2
IG-
3
IG-
4
IG-
5
IG-
6
IG-
7
IG-
8
IG-
9
IG-
10
IG-
11
IG-
12
IG-
13
b
Chemical
Barium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
(Cr+3)
Chromium
(Cr+6)
Cobalt
Copper
Copper
Copper t-
Copper
Iron
(Fe+2)
Description of Study
Study
Type0
0
R
F,C
0
F-
C,P
O
L
R
F
L
C,P
0
Waste
Type
U
U
I
U
D
D
U
S
U
D
S
D
U
Influent
Char.
1-100,000
ppm
6 ppb
27 ppb
1-100,000
ppm
ranged
from
Q.8-3.6ppn
15 ppm
1-100,000
ppm
0.08-0.5
ppm
10 ppm
ranged
from
Q.2-1.5ppn
5-30 ppb
50-560ppb
10 ppm
10-1000
ppm
Results of Study
02 uptake inhibited at cone.
greater than 100 ppm.
1.0 ppb effluent cone.
16 ppb effluent cone.
Cone, of 1-10 ppm inhibited
02 uptake.
22-78% reduc-
tions achieved.
0.2 ppb effluent cone.
02 uptake inhibited at cone.
greater than 100 ppm.
Inhibited biological growth.
75% reduction.
7-77% reductions
achieved.
Stimulated biological growth
Inhibited biological growth.
75% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited at cone.
greater than 100 ppm.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
Survey of municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
Study of Nitrosomas
bacteria.
Activated sludge
process.
See IG-5
for comments.
See IG-8
for comments .
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
109
90
65
109
122
123
109
124
118
122
124
125
109
d)
-------
TABLE E-i (continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
Biological Treatment (I)
: Metals (G)
a
No.
IG-
14
IG-
15
IG-
16
IG-
17
IG-
18
IG-
19
IG-
20
IG-
21
IG-
22
IG-
23
IG-
24
b
Chemical
Iron
(Pe+3)
Iron
Lead
Lead
Manganese
Manganese
Mercury
Mercury
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
C,F
0
L
L
L
O
L
R
. F
C,P
Waste
Type d
0
D
S
S
S
S
S
U
D
D
Influent
Char.
0.01-
100,000
ppm
7.17 ppm
total iror
0.6 ppm
soluble
iron
10-100ppm
5-50 ppb
12.5-50
ppm
50-100ppm
10 ppm
0-200 ppm
5-10 ppm
10 ppm
ranged
from
0.03-2.0
ppm
1-10 ppm
Results of Study
02 uptake inhibited at cone.
greater than 100 ppm.
83% reduction.
62% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited
No stimulation or inhibition
of biological growth.
Stimulated biological growth
Inhibited biological growth.
62 uptake inhibited.
02 uptake inhibited.
51-58% reduction.
28% reduction.
0-33% reduction
achieved.
28-42% reduction.
Comments
See IG- 8
for comments .
See IG- 8
for comments.
Activated sludge
process.
See IG- 5
for comments.
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
109
126
109
124
124
109
127
132
118
122
128
d)
.
Ul
U)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification:
Biological Treatment (I)
Metals (G)
a
No.
IG-
25
IG-
26
IG-
27
IG-
28
IG-
29
IG-
30
IG-
31
IG-
32
IG-
33
IG-
34
b
Chemical
Nickel
Nickel
Strontium
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
- •
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
j
Description of Study
Study
Type0
C,F
P
L
R
F
C,P
L
C,F
L
R
Waste
Type d
D
D
S
U
D
D
S
D
S
U
Influent
Char.
270 ppb
10 ppm
5-50 ppb
10 ppm
ranged
from
0.3-2.2ppn
2.5 ppm
10 ppm
0.08-0.5
ppm
0.91 ppm
1 ppm
3 . 57 ppm
Results of Study
30% reduction.
28% reduction.
No stimulation or inhibition
of biological growth.
89% reduction.
20-91% reduction
achieved.
13% reduction in primary
treatment.
14% reduction in primary
treatment.
Biological growth inhibited.
60% reduction.
Q£ uptake inhibited.
57% reduction.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
See IG- 8
for comments.
Activated sludge
process.
See IG- 5
for comments.
See IG- 8
for comments.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
129
125
124
118
.122
128
124
131
109
90
,d)
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
IJ-
1
IJ-
2
IJ-
3
IJ-
4
IJ-
5
IJ-
6
IJ-
7
IJ-
8
IJ-
9
IJ-
10
IJ-
11
IJ-
12
IJ-
13
IJ-
14
b
Chemical
Aldrin
Aminotriazole
Chlordane
2,4-D-Isoctyl-
ester
DDT
DDVP
Diazinon
Diazinon
Dieldrin
Endrin
Ferbam
Heptachlor
Herbicide
Orange
Lindane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
0
0
O
0
L
L
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
Waste
Type
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
I
U
Influent
Char.
37.50C,
8.0 pH
20°C,
10.4 pH
500 ppm
1380 ppm
Results of Study
Not significantly degraded.
Not significantly degraded.
Slightly degraded.
Biodegradable .
Not significantly degraded.
462 min half-life.
144 hr half -life.
Not significantly degraded.
Not significantly degraded.
Not significantly degraded.
Biodegradable .
Slightly degraded.
77% reduction.
Not significantly degraded.
Comments
Biodegradation by
mutant pseudomonas
species.
See IJ-6 for comments.
Pure 02 & biological
seeding provided.
(continue
Ref .
121
121
121.
121
121
92
92
121
121
121
121
121
81
121
id)
U1
Ul
-------
TABLE E-i(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
Nof
IJ-
15
IJ-
16
IJ-
17
IJ-
18
IJ-
19
IJ-
20
IJ-
21
IJ-
22
IJ-
23
IJ-
24
IJ-
25
IJ-
26
IJ-
27
Chemical
Malathion
Malathion
Maneb
Methyl
Parathion
Methyl
Parathion
Parathion
Parathion
Pentachloro-
phenal
Propoxur
Tetraethyl
Pyrophosphate
Thanite
2,4,5-Trichlo-
rophenoxyace-
tic Acid
2,4,5-Trichlo-
rophenoxyace -
tic Acid '.
Description of Study
Study
Type0
O
L
O
L
O
L
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
Waste
Type
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Influent
Char.
25°C,
10.03 pH
15°C
15°C
75-150ppm
20"C,
10.0 pH
150 ppm
Results of Study
Not significantly degraded.
28 min half -life.
Biodegradable
7.5 min half -life.
Not significantly degraded.
32 min half -life.
Not significantly degraded.
Not significantly degraded.
40 min half -life.
Not significantly degraded.
Biodegradable
Slightly degraded.
99% reduction in 7.5 days.
Comments
See U- 6
for comments.
See IJ-6
for comments.
See IJ- 6
for comments.
See IJ-6
for comments.
Subjected to continuous
aeration.
(continue
i
Ref.
121
92
121
92
121
92
121
121
92
121
121
121
115
d)
Ul
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
IJ-
28
IJ-
29
b
Chemical
»r
Ziram
Zireb
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
O
Waste
Type
U
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Slightly degraded.
Slightly degraded.
Comments
(continue
Ref .
121
121
:d)
tt
Ul
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
No?
IK-
1
IK-
2
IK-
3
IK-
4
IK-
5
IK-
6
IK-
7
IK-
8
IK-
9
IK-
10
IK-
11
Chemical
4-Chloro-3-
Methylphenol
4-Chloro-3-
Methylphenol
2-Chloro-4-
Nitrophenol
2-Chlorophenol
m-Chlorophenol
o-Chlorophenol
o-Chlorophenol
p-Chlorophenol
p-Chlorophenol
m-Cresol
o-Cresol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
0
R
U
R
L
L
U
U
L
U
'«U
Waste
Type d
s.
U
P
U
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
10 ppm
50 ppm
100 ppm
25 ppm
150-200
ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
Results of Study
02 uptake mildly inhibited.
02 uptake strongly inhibited.
Toxic
Biodegradable in 5 days.
71.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
5.3 mg COD/g hr.
90-95% reduction.
100% reduction in 28 hrs.
100% reduction in 26 hrs.
95.6% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
25 mg COD/g hr.
96% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
11 mg COD/g hr.
100% reduction in 33 hrs.
96% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
55 mg COD/g hr .
95% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
54 mg COD/g hr.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Biodegradation by mu-
tant pseudomonaa
species .
See IK- 5
for comments .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
See IK- 5
for comments .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
(continue
Ref.
102
90
81
90
66
66
81
81
66
81
81
d)
01
oo
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
IK-
12
IK-
13
IK-
14
IK-
15
IK-
16
IK-
17
IK-
18
IK-
19
IK-
20
IK-
21
IK-
22
IK-
23
b
Chemical
p-Cresol
2 , 4-Diamino-
phenol
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
2,5-Dichloro-
phenol
2,6-Dichloro-
phenol
2,3-Dimethyl-
phenol ;
2,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
2,5-Dimethyl-
phenol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
U
U
U
R
U
L
L
L
L
U
U
U
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
U '
I
P
I
P
I
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
60 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
64 ppm
200 ppm
64 ppm
Results of Study
95.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
55 mg COD/g hr.
83% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
12 mg COD/g hr.
98% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
10.5 mg COD/g hr.
Biodegradable in 5 days.
100% reduction in 35 hrs. •
100% reduction in 33 hrs .
98% reduction in 5 days
100% reduction in 38 hrs.
99% reduction in 5 days.
95.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
35 mg COD/g hr.
94.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
28.2mg COD/g hr.
94.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
10.6 mg COD/g hr.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
See IK- 5
for comments .
See IK- 5
for comments .
Subjected to continuous
aeration.
See IK- 5
for comments.
See IK- 18
for comments.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Ref .
81
81
81
90
90
90
115
66
115
81
81
81
(continued)
U1
VD
-------
TABLEE-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
No.
IK-
24
1K25
IK-
26
IK-
27
IK-
28
IK-
29
IK-
30
IK-
31
IK- :
32
Chemical
2 , 6 -Dime thy 1-
phenol
3,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
3,5-Dimethyl-
phenol
2,4-Dinitro-
phenol
2,4-Dinitro-
phenol
m-Nitrophenol
P-
o-Nitrophenol
o-Nitropheiiol
p-Nitrophenol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
U
U
U
O
U
U
U
U
U
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
S
P
P
P
I
I
Influent
Char.
1 ppm
5 ppm
1275 ppb
725 ppb
Results of Study
94.3% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
9 mg COD/g hr.
97.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
13.4 mg COD/£ hr.
89.3% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
11.1 mg COD/g hr.
Maximum 02 uptake was 27.7ppm
02/hr after 120 hrs of
aeration
Maximum 02 uptake was 21 . 3ppm
02/hr after 120 hrs of
aeration.
85% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
6 mg COD/g hr.
95% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
17.5 mg COD/g hr.
97% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
14 mg COD/g hr.
£ 98.1% reduction.
<_ 99.5% reduction.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Powder activated carbon
& activated sludge
treatment .
See IK- 31
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
81
81
81
117
81
81
81
58
58
d)
-------
Concentration Process:'
Chemical Classification
TABLE E -i(continued)
Biological Treatment (I)
Phenols (K)
a
No.
IK-
33
IK-
34
IK-
35
IK-
36
IK-
37
IK-
38
IK-
39
IK-
40
IK-
41
IK-
42
IK-
43
IK-
44'
IK-
45
IK-
46
b
Chemical
Pentachloro-
phenol
Pentachloro-
phehol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
p-Phenylazc—
phenol
Sodium Penta-
'chlorophenol
2,3,5-Trichlo-
rophenol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L
L
R
U
F
F
0
O
B,C
L
U
0
L
U
Waste
Type
P
P
U
I
I
I
D
D
I
' P
I
D
D
I
Influent
Char.
200 ppm
200 ppm
150-200
ppm
19 ppm
200 ppm
5 ppm
18 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
120 ppm
@ 500 gpm
200 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
15 ppm
200 ppm
Results of Study
26% reduction in 120 hrs.
26% reduction in 120 hrs.
90-95% reduction.
< 99.9% reduction.
95% reduction.
71% reduction.
62% reduction.
11.6% of TOD exerted after
72 hrs of oxidation.
02 uptake inhibited for first
24 hrs of oxidation." 41.2%
TOD exerted in 144 hrs.
< 200 ppb effluent cone.
100% reduction in 8 hrs.
100% reduction in 10 hrs.
02 uptake inhibited.
0% reduction .
100% reduction in 55 hrs.
Comments
See IK- 5
for comments.
See IK- 5
for comments .
Activated sludge
process .
See IK- 31
for comments .
Activated sludge
process .
Acclimated aerobic
culture .
Activated sludge
process.
See IK- 5
for comments .
See IK- 5
for comments.
See IK- 5
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
66
92
90
58
118
119
106
108
88
66
92
108
120
92
d)
•p
CTl
H
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
Nof
IK-
47
IK-
48
IK-
49
IK-
50
IK-
51
IK-
52
Chemical
2,3,5-Trichlo-
rophenol
2,4,5-Trichlo-
rophenol
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
•'
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L
L
R
L
0
L
Waste
Type d
P
D
U
P
S
D
Influent
Char.
200 ppm
18.8 ppm
20 ppm
200 ppm
1-10 ppm
50-100ppm
Results of Study
100% reduction in 52 hrs.
99% reduction in 6.5 days.
Biodegradable in 5 days.
100% reduction in 50 hrs.
02 uptake showed no inhibi-
tory effect.
02 uptake inhibited.
99% reduction in 5 days.
Comments
See IK- 5
for comments.
See IK- 18
for comments.
See IK- 5
for comments.
See IK- 18
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
66
115
90
66
102
115
d)
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Phthalates (L)
a
No.
IL-
1
IL-
2
IL-
3
IL-
4
IL-
5
IL-
6
IL-
7
IL-
8
IL-
9
IL-
10
IL-
11
b
Chemical
Bis(2-ethylhex-
yl) Phthalate
Butylbenzyl
Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl
Phthalate
Die thy 1
Phthalate
Di(2-ethylhex-
yl) Phthalate.
Dimethyl •
Phthalate
Dimethyl
Phthalate
Di-N-Octyl
Phthalate
Isophthalic
Acid
Phthalimide
Phthalic Acid
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
R
R
F
R
U
R
U
U
U
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
U
I
U
s
U
p
.p
p
Influent
Char.
5 ppm
215 ppb
Results of Study
70-78% reduction.
Biodegradable .
Biodegradable in an environ-
mental system at a level of
200 ppm.
Biodegradable .
50-70% reduction.
Biodegradable, no inhibition
of bacteria at levels of
1000 ppm.
100% reduction.
Biodegradable in an environ-
mental system at a level of
63 ppm.
95% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
78.4 mg COD/g hr.
96.2% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
20.8 mg COD/g hr.
96.8% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
78.4 mg COD/g hr.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
_
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
90
100
90
21
90
- 81
81
81
;d)
I
tjp
8
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
No?
IM-
1
IM-
2
IM-
3
IM-
4
IM-
5
IM-
6
IM-
7
IM-
8
IM-
9
IM-
10
IM-
11
b
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzanthracene
Benzoperylene
D-Chloramphe-
nicol
a, a -Diethyl-
stilbenediol
9,10-Dimethyl-
anthracene
9,10-Dimethyl-
1,2-benzan-
thracene
1,2-Diphenyl-
hydrazine
7-Methyl-l,2-
benzanthracene
20-Methyl-
cholanthrene
Naphthalene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
0
O
R
U.
O
O
O
F,C
O
O
F
Waste
Type
D
D
U
P
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
341 ppb
@ 45 MGD
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
Toxic or inhibitory for up
to 24 hrs.
Slowly oxidized; 2.1% of
TOD exerted in 144 hrs of
oxidation.
Biodegradable from a cone.
of 4 x 10" 7 mg/1.
86.2% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
3.3 mg COD/g hr.
Q£ uptake inhibited.
02 uptake was not inhibited.
Up to 19.5% of TOD was
exerted after 144 hr of
oxidation.
Slowly oxidized; 12.7% of
TOD exerted after 144 hr
of oxidation.
28% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited at
least 24 hrs.
Chemical showed both toxic
or inhibitory effect & the
ability to undergo slow
biological oxidation.
70-90% reduction.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
(continue
Ref.
108
108
90
81
108
108
81
108
108
100
d)
CTi
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
a
No.
IM-
12
IM-
13
IM-
14
b
Chemical
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
F
O
F
Waste
Type
I
D
I
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
BOD load
of
42 Ib/day,
1000 ft*
Results of Study
85-95% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited for
24 hrs.
85-95% reduction.
Comments
Completely mixed
aerated lagoon
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
101
108
56
d)
in
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Nof
II
D-
1
II
D-
2
Chemical
Ethyl Benzene
Nitrobenzene
Description of Study
Study
Type c
R
R
Waste
Type d
D+P
D+P
Influent
Char .
153 ppb
160 ppb
Results of Study
56% reduction w/alum.
34% reduction w/alum.
Comments
Chemical coagulation
was followed by dual
media filtration.
See IID-1
for comments.
Ref.
21
21
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
II
F-
1
II
F-
2
b
Chemical
Carbon Tetra-
chloride
Trichloro-
ethylene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
Waste
Type
D+P
D+P
Influent
Char.
140 ppb
103 ppb
Results of Study
51% reduction w/alum.
40% reduction w/alum.
Comments
Chemical coagulation
was followed by dual
media filtration.
See IIF-1
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
21
21
d)
I
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
£1
No.
II
G-
II
G-
0
£.
II
G-
3
II
G-
b
Chemical
Antimony
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
T C
(As+5) .
Description of Study
Study
f-\
Typec
P
P
F,C
R
Waste
-q
Type a
S
D+P
D
U
Influent
Char.
600 ppb
500 ppb
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7 . 0
2.5 ppb
3.3 ppb
25 ppm
21 ppm
Results of Study
62% reduction w/alum; 28%
reduction w/lime.
65% reduction w/ferric
chloride .
Iron system- 90% reduction;
Low lime system- 80% reduc-
tion; High lime system- 76%
reduction .
56% reduction w/lime.
24% reduction w/lime.
97% reduction by lime soften-
ing.
94% reduction by precipita-
tion w/alum.
Comments
3 coagulants used: 220
ppm of alum @ pH=6.4.
40 ppm of ferric chlo-
ride @ pH=6.2; 415 ppm
of lime @ pH=11.5;
Chemical coagulation
was followed by dual
media filtration.
3 coagulant systems
were used: Iron sys-
tem used 45 ppm as Fe
of Fe2 (50^)3 @pH=6.0.
Low lime system used
20 ppm as Fe of Fe2
(SOjj) 3 & 260 ppm of CaO
@ pH=10.0. High lime
system used 600 ppm of
CaO @ pH=11.5. Chemi-
cal coagulation was
followed by multimedia
filtration.
Lime dose of 350-400ppm
as calcium oxide @
pH=ll . 3 .
(continue
Ref .
39
63
64
90
d)
oo
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
f
(Tv
VO
a
No.
II
G-
II
c* — •
6
II
G-
7
II
G-
8
II
G-
9
II
G-
10
II
C"—
11
II
G-
12
II
G-
13
b
Chemical
Barium
Barium
Barium
Beryllium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F,C
P
P
R
P
P
P
P
F,C
Waste
Type
D
D+P
S
U
S
S
S
D+P
D
Influent
Char.
81 ppb
81 ppb
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7 . 0
500 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
600 ppb
500 ppb
700 ppb
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7 . 0
29 ppb
9 ppb
Results of Study
49% reduction w/lime.
36% reduction w/lime.
Iron system- 94% reduction;
Low lime sytem-99% reduction;
High lime system-78% reduc-
tion.
79% reduction w/alum.
97.8% reduction by lime
softening .
98.1% reduction w/alum;
94% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 99.4% reduction w/lime
95.5% reduction" w/ alum.
95.3% reduction w/lime.
94% reduction w/ferric
chloride .
45% reduction by ferric
chloride .
Comments
See IIG- 3
for comments.
See IIG 2
for comments.
See IIG- i
for comments.
See IIG- 1
for comments .
See IIG- 1
for comments.
See IIG- 1
for comments ..
Iron system- 93% reduction; See IIG- 2
Low lime system-95% reduction for comments.
High lime system-98% reduc-
tion.
92% reduction w/lime.
68% reduction w/lime.
See IIG- 3
for comments .
Ref .
64
63
39
90
39
39
39
63
64
(continued;
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
Nof
II
G-
14
II
G-
15
II
G-
16
II
G-
17
II
G-
18
II
G-
19
II
f1 —
20
II
G-
21
II
G-
22
_. . ,b
Chemical
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
(Cr+3)
Chromium
(Cr*3)
Chromium
(Cr+6).
Chromium
(Cr+6)
Cobalt
Copper
Copper
Description of Study
Study
Type0
L,C
F,C
P
P
P
P
P
P
L,C
Waste
Type d
S
D
S
D+P
S
D+P
S
S
S
Influent
Char.
5.2 ppm
154 ppb
192 ppb
700 ppb
5 ppm
@ 4 gpm
@ pH=7.0
700 ppb
5 ppm
@ gpm
@ pH=7.0
500 ppb
800 ppb
700 ppb
4.6 ppm
Results of Study
26.9% reduction w/lime.
37% reduction w/lime.
54% reduction w/lime.
97.6% reduction w/ ferric
chloride .
Iron system - 99% reduction;
Low lime system - 98% reduc-
tion; High lime system -
98% reduction.
64% reduction w/ferric
chloride .
Iron system - 65% reduction;
Low lime system - 40% reduc-
tion; High lime system -
22% reduction.
18% reduction w/ferric
chloride; 91% reduction
w/lime.
49% reduction w/alum.
67% reduction w/alum.
97.8% reduction w/lime.
Comments
Lime dose of 50 ppm
added .
See IIG-3 for
commehts .
See IIG-1 for
comments.
See IIG-2 for
comments .
See IIG-1 for
comments .
See IIG-2 for
comments.
See IIG-1 for
comments.
See IIG-1
for comments.
See IIG-14 for
comments .
(continue
Ref .
16
64
39
63
39
63
39
39
16
d)
2
o
-------
TABLE E-i(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (.II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
II
23
II
24
II
G-
25
II
G-
26
II
G-
27
II
G-
28
II
G-
29
II
G-
30
II
G-
31
b
Chemical
Copper
Copper
Copper
Iron
Iron
Iron
Lead .
Lead
Lead
Description of Study
Study
Type0
P
F,C
R
L,C
P
F,C
L,C
P
F,C
Waste
Type
D+P
D
U
S
D+P
D
S
D+P
D
Influent
Char.
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7 . 0
266 ppb
285 ppb
15 ppm
10 ppm
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7.0
179 ppb
325 ppb
4.9 ppm
5 ppm @
4 gpm
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
Nof
II
G-
32
II
G-
33
II
G-
34
II
G-
35
II
G-
36
II
G-
37
II
G-
38
II
G-
39
II
G-
40
Chemical
Lead
Lead
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Molybdenum
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
P
P
P
F,C
P
F,C
P
P
Waste
Type
U
S
s
D+P
D
D+P
D
S
S
Influent
Char.
330 ppb
600 ppb
700 ppb
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7 . 0
35 ppb
38 ppb
0.5 ppm
@ 4 gpm
@ pH=7.0
9 ppb
1.2 ppb
500 ppb
60 ppb
50 ppb
600 ppb
500 ppb
Results of Study
94.4% reduction w/lime.
95.5% reduction w/alum.
30% reduction w/alum.
Iron system- 18% reduction;
Low lime system-93% reduc-
tion; High lime system-98%
reduction .
87% reduction w/lime.
96% reduction w/lime.
High lime system-70% reduc-
tion.
71% reduction w/lime.
25% reduction w/lime.
70% reduction w/lime.
94% reduction w/alum.
98% reduction w/ferric
chloride .
68% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 0% reduction w/alum.
0% reduction w/lime.
Comments
Lime dose of 400 ppm
added .
See IIG-1
for comments.
See IIG-1
for comments.
See IIG-2
for comments .
See IIG-3
for comments .
See IIG-2
for comments.
See IIG-3
for comments.
See IIG-1
for comments.
See IIG-1
for comments.
(continue
Ref.
90
39
39
63
64
63
64
39
39
d)
-------
TABLEE-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
No.
II
G-
41
II
G-
42
II
G-
43
II
G-
44
II
G-
45
II
G-
46
II
G-
47
II
G-
48
II
G-
49
jij
b
Chemical
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Silver
Silver
Description of Study
Study
Type0
P
L,C
P
R
P
F,C
R
P
F,C
Waste
Type
S
S
D+P
U
S
D
U
S
D
Influent
Char.
900 ppb
4.8 ppm
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7 . 0
100 ppb
500 ppb
<2.5 ppb
6.5 ppb
100 ppm
500 ppb
600 ppb
5.5 ppb
13 ppb
Results of Study
25% reduction w/alum.
100% reduction w/lime.
Iron system- 10% reduction;
Low lime system-94% reduc-
tion; High lime system-97%
reduction .
52.4% reduction w/lime.
75% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride .
35% reduction w/lime'; 48%-
reduction w/alum.
0% reduction w/lime.
0% reduction w/lime.
80% reduction w/ferric
sulfate.
98.2% reduction w/ferric
chloride; 97.1% reduction
w/1 ime .
96.9% reduction w/alum.
85% reduction w/lime .
38% reduction w/lime.
Comments
See IIG-1
for comments .
See IIG-14
for comments.
See IIG-2
for comments.
Lime dose of 400 ppm
added .
See IIG-1
for comments.
See IIG-3
for comments.
Ferric sulfate dose
of 100 ppm.
See IIG-1
for comments.
See IIG-3
for comments.
Ref .
39
16
63
90
39
64
90
39
64
(continued)
i
U)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
II
G-
50
II
G-
51
II
G-
52
II
G-
53
II
G-
54
II
G-
55
II
G-
56
II
G-
57
II
G-
58
b
Chemical
Silver
Thallium
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc j.
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
P
P
P
P
P
P
L,C
Waste
Type
U
U
S
S
S
S
S
D+P
S
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
500 ppb
600 ppb
500 ppb
500 ppb
600 ppb
500 ppb
600 ppb
500 ppb
2.5 ppm
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7 . 0
6.4 ppm
Results of Study
96% reduction w/lime.
54% reduction w/lime.
30% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 31% reduction w/alum.
60% reduction w/lime.
98% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 92% reduction w/lime.
95.3% reduction w/alum.
98% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 95.5% reduction w/lime
95.8% reduction w/alum.
97.2% reduction w/ferric
chloride; 94% reduction w/
alum; 57% reduction w/lime.
1% reduction w/alum.
Iron system- 63% reduction;
Low lime system-85% reduc-
tion; High lime system-76%
reduction.
100% reduction w/lime.
Comments
See IIG-i
for comments.
See IIG-l
for comments.
See IIG-l
for comments .
See IIG-l
for comments.
See IIG-l
for comments.
See IIG-2
for comments.
See IIG- 14
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
39
39
39
39
39
63
16
d)
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
r
ii
G-
II
G-
II
G-
C. 1
oi
b
Chemical
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Description of Study^
Study
Typec
F,C
R
R
Waste
Type
D
U
U
nfluent
har.
300 ppb
380 ppb
Results of Study
90% reduction w/lime.
37% reduction w/lime.
40.6% reduction by
sedimentation .
91.4% reduction w/lime.
Comments
See IIG-3
for comments .
Lime dose of 400 ppm
added .
(continu
Ref .
64
ed)
i
Ul
-------
TABLE E-Kcontinued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
Nof
II
J-
1
II
J-
2
J-
3
J"~
4
II
J-
5
II
J"~
6
Chemical
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Lindane
Parathion
2,4,5-T ester
" P
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L,C
L,C
L,C
L,C
L,C
L,C
Waste
Type d
R+P
R+P
R+P
R+P
R+P
R+P
Influent
Char.
10 ppb
10 ppb
10 ppb
10 ppb
10 ppb
10 ppb
Results of Study
98% reduction w/alum.
55% reduction w/alum.
35% reduction w/alum.
<10% reduction w/alum.
5% reduction w/alum.
65% reduction w/alum.
Comments
Chemical coagulation
was followed by sand
filtration.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
(continue
i
Ref .
6
6
6
6
6
6
d)
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation .(II)
Chemical Classification: Phthalates (L)
a
No.
II
lj~*
1
II
L-
2
II
L-
3
b
Chemical
Bis (2- ethyl -
nexyl)Phtha-
late
Di-n-Butyl
Phthalate
Dimethyl
Phthalate
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
R
Waste
Type
U
U
D+P
nf luent
Char.
0.5-3.5
ppb @
pH=10 . 0
2.5-4.5
ppb @
pH=10.0
183 ppb
Results of Study
80-90% reduction w/Al2 (80^)3
60-70% reduction w/A!2 (804)3
15% reduction w/alum.
Comments
Chemical coagulation
was followed by dual
media filtration.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
21
'|d)
-------
TABLE E -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
No?
II
M-
1
II
M-
2
II
M-
3
II
M-
4
II
M-
5
II
M-
6
II
M-
7
II
M-
8
II
M-
9
Chemical
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Benzanthracene
11,12-Benzo-
fluoranthene
1,12-Benzo-
perylene
Benzo(a) *-
pyrene
2-Chloro-
Napthalene
Chrysene
Naphthalene
- -— — - - - -;
Description of Study
Study
Type c
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Influent
Char.
0.1-0.9
ppm
0.1-0.9
ppm
0.1-0.9
ppm
Results of Study
Precipitation w/alum.
Precipitation w/alum.
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Precipitation w/alum.
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Comments
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90"
d)
00
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
a
No.
II
M-
10
II
ti-
ll
b
Chemical
2 , 3-o-Phenylene
Pyrene
Pyrehe
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
Waste
Type
U
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Comments
(continue
Ref .
90
90
d)
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
Nof
III
A-
1
III
A-
2
III
A-
3
III
A-
4
III
A-
5
III
A-
6
Chemical
Ethanol
Ethanol
Methanol
Methanol
i-Propanol
i-Propanol
P
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B
L
B
L
B
L
Waste
Type
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
@ 150 mis
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
@ 150 mis
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
@ 150 mis
1000 ppm
Results of Study
21.4% reduction w/CA membrane
70.3% reduction w/C-PEJ mem-
brane .
80-100% reduction w/NS-200
membrane; 60-80% reduction
w/NS-100-T membrane; 40-60%
reduction w/AP & NS-100 mem-
branes; 20-40% reduction w/
CAS & B-9 membranes; <20%
reduction w/CA, CA-T, CAB,
FBI, SPPO & B-10 membranes.
7.3% reduction w/CA membrane;
20% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane.
20-40% reduction w/B-9, NS-
200 & NS-100T membranes;
<20% reduction w/B-10, AP,
SPPO, PBI, NS-100 membranes;
0% reduction w/CA, CA-T, CAB
& CA3 membranes.
40.9% reduction w/CA membrane
88.1% reduction w/C-PEl mem-
brane .
80-100% reduction w/NS-100,
NS-100T, NS-200, AP, B-9 &
B-10 membranes; 40-60% re-
duction w/CA-T, CA & CA3 mem-
branes; 20-40% reduction w/
SPPO, PBI & CAB membranes.
Comments
CA and C-PE1 membranes
operated at 600 psig
and room temperature .
See IIIA-1
for comments.
See IIIA-1
for comments.
(continue
Ref.
18
30
18
30
18
30
d)
oo
o
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
3
No.
Ill
B-
1
III
B-
2
III
R —
3
III
B-
4
III
R—
5
III
B-
6
III
B-
7
k
Chemical
Acetic Acid
Acetic Acid
Acetone
Acetone
Dimethyl Sulf-
oxide
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
L
B
L
B
B
L
Waste
j
Type
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
1000 ppm
250 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
Results of Study
32% reduction w/CA membrane;
68.1% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane .
60-80% reduction w/AP, NS-200
& NS-100T membranes; 40-60%
reduction w/NS-100 membrane;
20-40% reduction w/SPPO, B-9
& B-10 membranes; <20% re-
duction w/PBI, CA3, CAB,
CA-T & CA membranes.
14.9% reduction w/CA membrane
81.8% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane .
80-100% reduction w/NS-200 &
NS-100-T membrances; 60-80%
reduction w/AP & NS-100 mem-
branes; 40-60% reduction w/
B-9 & B-10 membranes; 20-40%
reduction W/CA3 membrane;
<2.0% reduction w/SPPO, FBI,
CAB, CA-T & CA membranes.
88.2% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 63.3% reduction
w/C-PEi membrane .
21.9% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 56.7% reduction w/
C-PEI membrane .
60-80% reduction w/NS-200
membrane; 40-60% reduction
w/AP, NS-100, CAB & NS-100-T
Comments
CA and C-PEI membranes
operated at 600 psig &
room temperature .
See IIIB- 1
for comments .
See IIIB-1
for comments .
See IIIB-1
for comments .
Ref .
18
30
18
30
18
18
30
(continued)
i
CO
H
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
Ill
B-
7
cont
III
B-
8
III
B-
9
III
R—
10
in
fi-
ll
Chemical
Glycerol
Glycerol
Methyl Acetate
Methyl Acetate
r
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
L
B
L
Waste
j
Type a
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
1000 ppm
Results of Study
membranes; 20-40% reduction
w/B-9, CA3 & CA-T membranes;
<20% reduction w/CA, PBI,
SPPO & B-10 membranes.
89.9% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 97.8% reduction
w/C-PEI membrane.
80-100% reduction w/CA-T,
CAB, CA3, NS-100, NS-100T,
NS-200, AP, B-9 & B-10 mem-
branes; 60-80% reduction
w/CA membrane; 40-60% re-
duction w/PBI membrane; 20-
40% reduction w/SPPO membrane
4.6% reduction w/CA membrane
76.1% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane .
60-80% reduction w/NS-200,
NS-100-T & NS-100 membranes;
40-60% reduction w/B-9 mem-
brane; 20-40% reduction
w/B-10, AP & CA-T membranes;
<20% reduction w/SPPO, PBI S
CA3 membranes; 0% reduction
w/CA & CAB membranes.
Comments
See IIIB-i
for comments.
See IIIB-1
for comments.
(continue
Ref.
18
30
18
30
d)
CO
K)
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
a
No.
Ill
C-
III
C-
2
b
Chemical
Aniline
Aniline
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B
L
Waste
Type d
P
P
•
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
1000 ppm
Results of Study
-3.4% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 82.9% reduction
w/C-PEI membrane.
80-100% reduction w/NS-100-T
membrane; 60-80% reduction
w/B-10, NS-200 & NS-100 mem-
branes; 40-60% reduction
w/B-9 membrane; 20-40% re-
duction w/AP, CA3 & CAB mem-
branes; <20% reduction
w/SPPO & PBI membranes; 0%
reduction w/CA & CA-T
membranes.
Comments
CA & C-PEI membranes
operated at 600 psig &
room temperature.
(continue
i
Ref .
18
30
A)
CO
OJ
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
el
No.
Ill
D-
1
ill
D-
2
III
D-
3
III
D-
4
III
D-
5
III
D-
6
jj
Chemical
Chlorobenzene
Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitro-
phenylhydra-
zine
Hexachloro-
benzene
Hydroquinone
Hydroquinone
r
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
B
B
R
B
L
Waste
Type
U
P
P
U
P
P
Influent
Char.
<360 ppm
30 ppm
@ 150 ml
30 ppm
@ 150 ml
638 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
Results of Study
97-100% reduction @ 50-100
kg/cm2 .
7 . 2% reduction w/CA membrane
81.4% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane .
3.2% reduction w/CA membrane
91.1% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane .
52% reduction.
-2.5% reduction w/CA membrane
79.7% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
80-100% reduction w/AP &
NS-200 membranes; 60-80% re-
duction w/B-10, NS-100-T S
NS-100 membranes; 40-60% re-
duction w/B-9 membrane; 20-
40% reduction w/SPPO & CAB
membranes; <20% reduction
w/PBI s CA3 membranes; 0% re-
duction w/CA & CA-T membranes
Comments
CA & C-PEI membranes
operated @ 600 psig &
room temperature.
See HID- 2
for comments.
CA & C-PEI membranes
operated @ 600 psig &
room temperature.
(continue
Ref .
90
18
18
90
18
30
Jd)
i
CO
-------
TABLEE-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Ethers (E)
a
o.
Chemical
Description of Study
Study
Typec
Waste I Influent
Type Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Ill
E-
1
III
E-
9
bis(2-Chloro-
isopropyl)
Ether
250 ppm
@ 150 ml
Diethyl Ether
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
37.3% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 94% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane .
9.5% reduction w/CA membrane
90.3% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane.
CA & C-PEI membrane
operated at 600 psig
& room temperature .
18
See IIIE-1
for comments.
18
III
Ethyl Ether
1000 ppm
oo
Ul
80-100% reduction W/AP,
NS-200, NS-100-T & NS-100
membranes; 60-80% reduction
w/B-10 membrane; 40-60% re-
duction w/B-9, SPPO & FBI
membranes; 20-40% reduction
CAB & CA3 membranes; <20%
reduction w/CA-T S CA
membranes.
30
(continued)
i
-------
00
a\
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons
Nof
III
F-
1
Chemical
Trichloroace-
tic Acid
P
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B
Waste
Type d
P
Influent
Char.
250 ppm
<§ 150 ml
Results of Study
49.3% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 25% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane .
Comments
CA & C-PEI membrane
operated at 600 psig &
room temperature.
(continue
i
Ref .
18
a)
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
Ill
G-
III
G-
2
III
G-
3
III
G-
4
III
G-
5
III
G-
6
III
G-
7
III
G-
8
b
Chemical
Barium
Cadmium
Chromic Acid
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Copper
Iron
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
B
= L,C
B
B
B
B
B
Waste
Type
P
P
I
: P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
0.75 ppm
0.85 ppm
9.15 ppm
7.05 ppm
0.10 ppm
0.10 ppm
0 . 96 ppm
1 . 0 ppm
200 -ppm
@ 20
gal/hr .','
12.5 ppm
12.5 ppm
0.94 ppm
1.01 ppm
8.65 ppm
9.35 ppm
12.5 ppm
0 . 65 ppm
0.7 ppm
6.25 ppm
6 . 5 ppm
12.5 ppm
Results of Study
>86.7% reduction w/CA membrane
>88.2% reduction w/CA membrane
97.8% reduction w/CA membrane
>98.6% reduction w/CA membrane
90% reduction w/CA membrane
90% reduction w/CA membrane
99% reduction w/CA membrane
98.7% reduction w/CA membrane
85% rejection over 200 hrs
w/polybenzimidazole membrane.
97.6% reduction W/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=8.0.
91.3% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=11.0.
96.9% reduction w/CA membr.ane
95.0% reduction w/CA membrane
93.2% reduction w/CA membrane
85.1% reduction w/CA membrane
99.9% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=8.0 & 11.0.
97% reduction w/CA membrane
94.8% reduction w/CA membrane
99.6% reduction w/CA membrane
99.2% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=8.0 & 11.0.
Comments
CA membrane operated
at 400 psig & 16-22°C.
See IIIG-i
for comments .
Polybehzimidazole mem-
brane operated at
1500 psl.
C-PEI membrane operated
at 600 psig & room
temperature .
See IIIG-i
for comments .
See IIIG- 4
for comments.
See IIIG- 1
for comments.
See IIIG-4
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
18
18
24
18
)
18
18
18
1.8
sd)
00
-J
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
(III)
a
No.
Ill
G-9
III
G-
10
III
G-
11
III
/-*_ .
12
III
G-
13
b
Chemical
Lead
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Zinc
' r
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
B
B
B
B
Waste
Type
P
P
' P
P
P
Influent
Char.
12.5 ppm
0.95 ppm
1.1 ppm
4.75 ppm
9.3 ppm
12.5 ppm
12.5 ppm
12.5 ppm
12.5 ppm
9.4 ppm
10.0 ppm
31.4 ppm
32.8 ppm
Results of Study
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=8.0 & 11.0.
99.5% reduction w/CA membrane
97.8% reduction w/CA membrane
99.9% reduction w/CA membrane
97.8% reduction w/CA membrane
92.8% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=8.0.
97.6% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=11.0.
96.6% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=8.0.
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=11.0.
96.9% reduction w/CA membrane
98.6% reduction w/CA membrane
98.8% reduction w/CA membrane
99.5% reduction w/CA membrane
Comments
See IIIG-4
for comments.
See IIIG-1
for comments.
See IIIG-4
for comments.
See IIIG-i
for comments.
See IIIG-1
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
18
18
18
18
18
d)
M
oo
oo
-------
TABLES -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
Ill
J -"
1
III
J-
2
III
J-
3
III
J-
4
III
J-
5
III
J-
6
III
J-
7
III
J-
8
III
J-
9
III
J "~
10
b
Chemical
Aldrin
Atrazine
Cap tan
DDE
DDT
Diazinon
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor-
epoxide
Lindane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Waste
Type
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
142 yg
1102 yg
689 yg
69 yg
42 yg
474 yg
321 yg
145 yg
307 yg
506 yg
Results of Study
100% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
Drane .
84% reduction w/CA membrane
97.8% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
Drane .
98.8% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
100% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
100% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
98.3% reduction w/CA membrane
88.1% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
99.9% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
100% reduction w/CA & C-PEI
membranes.
99.8% reduction w/CA & C-PEI
membranes .
99.5% reduction w/CA membrane
99.0% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
Comments
CA & C-PEI membranes
operated at 600 psig &
room temperature.
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
See IIIJ-1
for comments .
See IIIJ-1
for comments .
See IIIJ-1
for comments .
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
See IIIJ-1
for comments .
See IIIJ-1
for comments .
Ref .
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
No?
Ill
—
i:
in
j-
12
J-
13
*"*
14
J-
4-b
Chemical
Malathion
Methyl
Parathion
Parathion
Randox
Trifluralin
P
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
B
B
B
B
Waste
.Type d
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1058 yg
913 pg
747 pg
327 pg
1579 pg
Results of Study
99.2% reduction w/CA membrane
99.7% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
99.6% reduction w/CA & C-PEI
membranes .
99.9% reduction w/CA membrane
99.8% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
72% reduction w/CA membrane
98.6% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
99.7% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
Comments
See IIIJ-i
for comments.
See IIIJ-i
for comments.
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
See IIIJ-1
for comments .
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
(continue
Ref.
18
18
18
18
18
d)
vo
o
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
Ill
K-
1
III
K-
2
III
K-
3
III
K-
4
III
K-
5
j-,
Chemical
2-Chlorophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
* , !• <}-; - •.- '- - "<
••;
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
R
B
P
t
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
P
S
\
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
l-100mg/l
each of
phenol ,
resorcin-
ol, o-
cresol,
catechol
Results of Study
66.3% reduction.
Removable by reverse osmosis.
17.8%' reduction .
-5.7% reduction w/CA membrane
76.5% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
In excess of 90% separation
at pH 8-10 w/optimum at pH 9
at flux rate of about 70 gpd/
ft2. Results indicate that
hyperfiltration (reverse os-
mosis) produced higher re-
jection & flux rates than
ultrafiltration. Increasing
pressure improves rejection
slightly & flux rate greatly.
Increasing pH increased re-
jection w/little .ef.fect on
flux rate. Cone, had little
effect on .either rejection
or flux rate.
Comments
Size: 60-130 gpd/ftz
flux. Duration: 0-60hrs
Pressure: 250-950 psig.
Velocity: 15 fps. Mem-
branes: Hydrous Zr (IV)
oxide-PAA membrane on
carbon stainless steel
S selas support.
.--•-•••
.. • -\>
(continue
1
Ref .
90
90
90
18
54
,
d)
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Ultrafiltration (IV)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
IV
D-
1
b
Chemical
TNT
(accounted for
90% of TOG)
Description of Study
Study
Type0
L,C
Waste
Type
I+P
Influent
Char.
20 ppm
TOG @
pH=11.0
200 ppm
TOG @
pH=11.0
Results of Study
80% TOG reduction by PSAL
(Millipore) noncellulose
membrane .
93% TOG reduction by PSAL
(Millipore) noncellulose
membrane .
Comments
TDS cone, was 1200 ppm.
Average pressure: 25-60
psi. Estimated cost
for full scale opera-
tion was $1.85/1000 gal
(continue
Ref.
10
id)
M
vo
-------
TABLE:IS-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Ultrafiltration (IV)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
IV
G-
1
IV
G-
2
IV
G-
3
IV
G-
4
b
Chemical
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
! •>'.-•
Description of Study
Study
Typec
C,P
C,P
C,P
C,P
Waste
Type d
I
I
I
I
:
Influent
Char.
0.44 ppm
6.8 ppm
4 . 9 ppm
1.8 ppm
."
Results of Study
0 . 08 ppm effluent cone .
1.0 ppm effluent cone.
0.52 ppm effluent cone.
0.38 ppm effluent cone.
\
Comments
(continue
Ref .
59
59
59
59
>d)
I
U)
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: ultrafiltration (IV)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (g)
3.
No.
IV
K -
1
]rj
Chemical
Phenols
Description of Study
Study
Typec
P
Waste
Type
S.
Influent
Char.
1-100 ppm
each of
phenol ,
resorcin-
ol, o-
cresol,
catechol
Results of Study
Maximum rejection was 75% at
pH 10; rejection increased
as pH increased. Ionic state
of solute rather than mem-
brane material controlled re-
jection rate. Increased
temp resulted in increased
flux rate but rejection rate
was only slightly affected.
Solute rejection was not
affected by length of oper-
ating time.
Comments
Size: 30-160 gpd/ft2
flux. Duration: 0-200hr
Pressure: 200 psig.
Velocity: 15 fps
Temp: 25-55°C
Hydrous Zr(IV) oxide,
silicate membranes.
(continue
Ref.
54
id)
-------
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification:
TABLE E-l (continued)
Stripping (V)
Aliphatics (B)'
a
No.
VB-
'1
b
Chemical
Acrylonitrile
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
Waste
type d
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Flash vaporization from
water by high pressure
discharge.
Comments
(continue
Ref .
90
id)
ID
Ul
-------
TABLE E-i (continued)
Concentration Process: stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
VD-
1
VD-
2
VD-
3
VD-
4
VD-
5
VD-
6
VD-
7
VD-
8
VD-
9
VD-
10
VD-
11
VD-
12
VD-
13
b
Chemical
Benzene
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
m-Dichloro-
benzene
o-
p-Dichloro-
benzene
1,2-Dichloro-
benzene
1,3-Dichloro-
benzene
1,4-Dichloro-
benzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylben zene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-
benzene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
C,P
R
F,C
R
R
F,C
F,C
F,C
F,C
R
P,C
R
Waste
Type d
U
S
U
D
U
U
D
D
D
D
U
S
U
Influent
Char.
0.13 gpm
flow
0.66 MVs
flow
0.66 MVs
flow
0.66 Md/s
flow
0.66 Md/s
flow
0.66 Md/s
flow
0.13 gpm
flow
Results of Study
Air & steam strippable.
95-99% reduction by steam
stripping .
Steam strippable .
60% reduction by air strip-
ping.
Air & steam strippable .
Steam strippable.
70% reduction by air strip-
ping.
80% reduction by air strip-
ping.
90% reduction by air strip-
ping.
80% reduction by air strip-
ping.
Air S steam strippable .
86-93% reduction by steam
stripping.
Steam strippable.
Comments
Estimated cost of
$3.35/1000 gal based on
0.03 MGD
See VD- 2
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
90
13
90
64
90
90
64
64
64
64
90
13
64
d)
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
VD-
14
VD-
15
VD-
16
VD-
17
VD-
18
VD-
19
Chemical
Nitrobenzene
Styrene
Toluene
Toluene
1,2,4-Trichlo-
robenzene
1,2,4-Trichlo-
robenzene
*._
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
PfC
P,C
R
F,C
R
Waste
Type
U
S
S
U
D
U
Influent
Char.
450-2160
ppm
0.13 gpm
flow
0.13 gpm
flow
0.66 M^/E
Results of Study
Steam strippable.
98-99% reduction by steam
stripping.
73-92% reduction
Air & steam strippable.
50% reduction by air strip-
ping.
Steam strippable.
Comments
See VD- 2
for comments .
See VD- 2
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
64
13
13
90
64
90
d)
VD
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
VF-
1
VF-
2
VF-
3
VF-
4
VF-
5
VF-
6
j-,
Chemical
Bromodichlo-
rome thane*
Bromome thane
«•;»!
Chloral
Chlo roe thane
Chloroethy-
lene
Chloroform
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
P,C
R
R
P,C
Waste
Type d
U
U
I
U
U
I
Influent
Char.
693.2 ppm
@
250ml/min
feed rate
140.3 ppm
@
250ml/min
feed rate
Results of Study
Air S steam strippable.
Air strippable.
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 1213.0 171.9
2.8 1163.6 177.1
5.1 1185.5 172.6
2.3 with 2332.3 464.3
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 2301.6 434.4
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
90% evaporation from H20-79
min with air stripping.
Air strippable
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 1185.1 0
2.8 882.4 0
5.1 838.3 0
Comments
Gas at STP
Water quality:
TOG - 9022 ppm
COD - 15100 ppm
pH - 0.1
acidity - 102312 ppm
Cl-116,127 ppm
Numerous other halogens
present .
Gas at STP
See VF- 3
for comments.
Ref .
90
90
95
90
90
95
(continued)
i
00
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
Nof
VF-
6
cont
VF-
7
VF-
8
VF-
9
VF-
10
b
Chemical
Chlorome thane
Dibromochloro-
me thane
1,1-Dichloro-
e thane ••-}•
1,2-Dichlo-ro-
e thane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
R
R
Waste
Type
U
U
U
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 with 412.3 0
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 1124.3 64.7
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Air strippable.
Air & steam strippable.
90% evaporation from H20 -
109 min with air stripping.
Air & steam strippable .
Comments
Gas at STP
: J , •..
(continue
Ref.
90
90
90
90
d)
AD
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
Nof
VF-
11
VF-
12
i VF~
13
•/F-
14
b
Chemical
1,2-Dichloro-
ethane
1,1-Dichloro-
ethylene
1,2-trans-Di-
chloroethylene
1,1-Dichloro-
ethylene
i
i
Description of Study
Study
Type0
P,C
R
R
PfC
Waste
Type
I
U
U
I
Influent
Char.
1583 . 3ppm
@ 250 ml/
min feed
rate
61 . 5 ppm
@ 250 ml/
min feed
rate
Results of Study
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 350.8 373.7
2.8 269.7 1255.4
5.1 465.0 14.8
2.3 with 1320.9 16.1
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 679.9 0
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Air & steam strippable.
90% evaporation from H20 -
83 min with air stripping.
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 124.4 32.8
5.1 111.2 0
2.5 with 179.9 0
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Comments
See VF-3 for comments.
See VF-3 for comments.
Ref .
95
90
90
95
(continuecu
i
I
o
o
-------
TABLE E -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
No.
VF-
15
b
Chemical
Dichlorome thane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
P,C
Waste
Type d
I
nf luent
har.
00.9 ppm
250 ml/
in feed
ate
Results of Study
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 3511.8 114.1
2.8 3277.0 89.5
5.1 2736.5 175.6
2.3 with 1183.0 296.3
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 5159.9 131.7
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Comments
See VF-3 for comments.
(continu<
Ref .
95
3d)
H1
O
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
Nof
VF-
16
VF-
17
VF-
18
VF-
19
Chemical
Dichlorome th-
ane
1 , 2-Dichloro-
propane
1,2-Dichloro-
propylene
Ethylene
Dichloride
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
R
P,C
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
I
Influent
Char.
1593 ppm
@
250ml/min
feed rate
Results of Study
90% evaporation from HaO-GO
min with air stripping.
Air & steam strippable.
Air & steam strippable.
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 4383.5 42.2
2.8 4105.5 64.5
5.1 4731.5 43.1
2.3 with 3654.5 38.6
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
flow
2.5 with 5541.3 436.4
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Comments
See VF- 3
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
9.0
90
90
95 .
d)
H
O
tv)
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons
(F)
No.
VF-
20
VF-
21
VF-
22
VF-
23
VF-
24
VF-
25
b
Chemical
Ethylene
Dichloride
Ethylene
Dichloride
Hexachloro-
butadiene
Hexachloro-
cyclopenta-
diene
Perchloro-
ethylene
I Of--.-
1,1,1,2-Tetra-
chloroethane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
P,C
P,C
R
R
P,C
P,C
Waste
Type
I
I
U
U
I
I
Influent
Char.
Average
Gone . of
4512 ppm
@ ave .
feed rate
of
325ml/min
8700 ppm
@ 10 gpm
flow rate
14.9 ppm
@
250ml/min
feed rate
512.8ppm
@
250ml/min
feed rate
Results of Study
Average Average Average
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow Cone . Cone .
(ml/min) (ppm) (ppm)
20.8 21.6 20.3
99% reduction with average
stripping tower temperature
of 221 F.
Air & steam strippable.
Polymerizes with heat.
Overhead Overhead ' Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 Not reported 6.8
2.8 50.2 0
2.5 with 9.6 0
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 189.8 0
2.8 393.8 0.84
Comments
Wastewater quality:
COD - 615 ppm
TC - 1703 ppm
pH - 11.2
Alkalinity - 4840 ppm
Cl - 6564 ppm
See VF- 3
for comments.
See VF- 3
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
95
66
90
90
95
95
>d)
o
U)
-------
•p
H
O
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons
Nof
VF-
25
cont
VF-
26
,
Chemical
1,1,2,2-Tetra-
chloroethane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
—
P,C
Waste
Type
I
Influent
Char.
14.9 ppm
e
250ml/min
feed rate
Results of Study
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
5.1 22.7 0
2.3 with 25.8 0.5
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 392.5 1.6
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. -Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2-3 14.9 32.7
2.8 121.7 49.5
5.1 444.4 78.4
2.3 with 8.7 0
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 24.2 0.1
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Comments
See VF-3
for comments.
Ref.
95
(cunlinued)
i
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons
(F)
No.
VF-
27
VF-
28
VF-
29
VF-
30
VF-
31
VF-
32
VF-
33
Chemical
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Tetrachloro-
me thane
Tribromomethane
1,1,1-Trichlo-
roe thane
1,1,1-Trichlo-
roethane
1,1,2-Trichlo-
roe thane
1,1,2-Trichlo-
roe thane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
R
R
P,C
R
P,C
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
U
I
U
I
nfluent
har.
50.92 ppm
@ 250 ml/
min feed
rate
14.14 ppm
@ 250 ml/
min feed
rate
Results of Study
Air & steam strippable, 90%
evaporation from H2O - 72 min
Air & steam strippable , 90%
evaporation from H^O - 97 min
Air & steam strippable.
Air & steam strippable.
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.5 with 173.4 41.6
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Air & steam strippable, 90%
evaporation from H2O- 102 min
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 24.6 0.19
2.8 34.0 0
5.1 76.5 0
2.3 with 42.4 0
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Comments
See VF-3 for comments.
See VF-3 for comments.
Ref .
90
90
90
90
95
90
95
(continued)
i
o
en
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
VF-
33
cont
VF-
34
VF-
35
VF-
36
b
Chemical
Trichloro-
ethylene
Trichloro-
ethylene
Trichloro-
me thane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
P,C
R
Waste
j
Type a
U
I
U
Influent
Char.
250ml/mir
feed rate
Results of Study
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.5 with 66.1 0
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Air & steam strippable, 90%
evaporation from %0-63 mitt.
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 640.8 34.2
2.8 567.0 0
5.1 627.4 22.7'
2.3 with 640.8 37.2
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2. 5' with 644.5 0
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Air & steam strippable, 90%
evaporation from H?0-62 min.
Comments
See VF-3
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
90
95
90
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: phenols (K)
a
No.
VK-
1
VK-
2
Chemical
Phenol
Chlorophenol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
Waste
Type d
, u
u
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Steam strippable.
Steam strippable.
•
Comments
(continue
Ref .
90
• 90
d)
1
H
O
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: stripping (V)
Chemical Classification; Poinuce
o
00
Nof
VM-
1
Chemical
Naphthalene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
Waste
Type
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Air stripping by 50:1
volumes of air.
Comments
(continue
Ref .
90
d)
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
a
No.
VII
A-
1
b
Chemical
Ethanol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
L,C
Waste 1 Influent
d
Type
I
Char .
286 ppm
Results of Study
7% reduction.
Comments
Extraction of neutral-
ized oxychlorination
wastewater using 2-ethy
hexanol (S/W=0.106) ;
RDC extractor used.
Ref .
27
(continued)
-------
TABLE E~i (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
(VII)
£
No.
VII
B-
1
VII
B-
2
VII
B-
3
VII
B-
4
VII
B-
5
b
Chemical
Acrolein
,.-er
Acryloni-trile
Isophorone
Methyl Ethyl
Ketone
Methyl Ethyl
Ketone
Description of .Study
Study
Typec
R
R
R
L,C
L,C
Waste
Type
U
U
U
I
I
Influent
Char.
12200ppm
@ 3.21
gal/hr
12200ppm
@ 3.21
gal/hr
Results of Study
Extractable w/xylene. Sol-
vent recovery by azeotropic
distillation.
Extractable w/ethyl ether.
Extractable w/ethyl ether.
69% reduction.
88% reduction.
Comments
Sequential extraction oi
waste water from lube-
oil refining using butyl
acetate (S/W=0.10) &
isobutylene (S/W=0.101) ;
RDC extractor used.
Sequential extraction of
waste water from lube-
oil refining using butyl
acetate (S/W=0.10) &
isobutylene (S/W=0.101) ;
RDC extractor used.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
27
27
d)
o-
-------
TABLE B-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
VII
D-
1
VII
D-
2
VII
D-
3
VII
D-
4
VII
D-
5
VII
D-
6
VII
D-
7
VII
D-
8
b
Chemical
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
or-bichloro-
benzene
m-
P~
2,4-Dinitro-
toluene
2 , 6-Diriitro-
toluene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
L,C
L,C
L,C
R
R
R
R
Waste
Type
U
I
I
I
U
U
U
U
nf luent
har.
290 ppm
3 gal/hi
71 ppm @
4.6 gal/
hr
81 ppm @
4.6 gal/
hr
600 ppm
Results of Study
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
97% reduction.
96% reduction.
97% reduction.
3 ppm effluent cone, using
chloroform solvent.
Extractable w/suitable
solvent .
Extractable w/suitable
solvent. • - -
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
Comments
Extraction of waste-
water from styrene man-
ufacture using isobuty-
Ine (S/W=0.107); RDC
extractor used.
Extraction of ethylene
quench wastewater using
isobutylene (S/W=0.101)
RDC extractor used.
Extraction of ethylene
quench wastewater using
isobutane (S/W=0.097) ;
RDC extractor used.
. -
Ref .
90
27
27
27
90
9.0
t.
90
90 ;
(continued)
-------
TABLEE-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
VII
D-
9
VII
D-
10
VII
D-
11
VII
D-
12
VII
D-
13
VII
D-
14
VII
D-
15
VII
D-
16
VII
D-
17
VII
D-
18
_. . nb
Chemical
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-
benzene
Nitrobenzene
Styrene
Toluene'
Toluene
1, 2,4-Tri-
chlorobenzene
Xylene
Xylene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L,C
R
R
R
L,C
R
L,C
R
L,C
L,C
Waste
Type
I
U
U
U
I
U
I
U
I
I
Influent
Char.
41-44ppm
@ 4.6
gal/hr
Results of Study
97% reduction.
Extractable w/suitable
solvent .
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
Extractable w/suitable
solvent .
>93% reduction.
Extractable w/suitable
solvent .
94%-96% reduction.
Extractable w/suitable
solvent .
>97% reduction.
>97% reduction.
Comments
See VIID-2
for comments.
See VIID-2
for comments .
See VIID-3 & 4
for comments.
See VIID-3
for comments.
See VIID-4
for comments.
Ref .
27
90
90
90
27
90
27
90
27
27
( continued j
i
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Ethers (E)
a
No.
VII
E-
1
VII
E-
2
b
Chemical
bis-Chloro-
ethyl Ether
bis-Chloro-
isopropyl
Ether
1 !J . . '
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
Waste
Type d
U
U
Influent
Char.
. Results of Study
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
Comments
(continue
Ref .
90
90
d)
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
No?
VII
FI
VII
F-
2
VII
F-
3
VII
F-
4
VII
F-
5
VII
F-
6
VII
*7
VII
F-
8
VII
F-
9
Chemical
Brompdichlo-
rometnane
Bromomethane
Chloral Hydrate
Chloroe thane
Chloroethylene
Chlorome thane
Dibromochloro-
methane
Diehlorodi-
fluorome thane
1,1-Dichloro-
ethane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
L,C
R
R
R
R
R
R
Waste
Type
U
U
I
U
U.
U
U
U
U
Influent
Char.
15200 ppn
Results of Study
Soluble in most organics.
Soluble in most organics.
49% reduction.
Extractable w/alcohols and
aromatics.
Soluble in most organics.
Soluble in most organics.
Extractable w/organics,
ethers and alcohols.
Extractable w/organics,
ethers and alcohols.
Extractable w/alcohols and
aromatics .
Comments
Extraction of neutral-
ized oxychlorination
wastewater using 2-
ethylhexanol (S/W=0.106)
RDC extractor used.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
27
90
90
90
90
90
90
d)
1
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
No.
VII
Tt1 —
10
VII
p-
11
VII
T?—
12
VII
F-
13
VII
F-
14
VII
F-
15
VII
F-
16
VII
F-
17
b
Chemical
1,2-Dichlpro-
ethane
Dichloro-
ethylene
Dichloro-
ethylene
1,1-Dichloro-
ethylene
1, 2-trans-Di-
chloroethylene
Dichlorome thane
'"6
1,2-Dichloro-
propane
1 , 2-Dichloro-
propylene
Description of Study'
Study
Typec
R
L,B
L,C
R
R
R
R
R
Waste
Type d
U
I
I
U
U
U
U
U
Influent
Char.
49 ppm
1500 ppm
Results of Study
Extractable w/alcohols and
aroma tics .
Kerosene effluent cone. -
2 ppm; CIQ-CIZ effluent
cone. - 1 + ppm
>99% reduction.
Extractable w/alcohols,
aromatics and ethers.
Soluble in most organics.
Soluble in most organics.
Soluble in most organics.
Soluble in most organics.
Comments
Solvent extraction used
separatory funnel w/ker-
osene & Cio-Ci2 hydro-
carbon solvents at 7:1
solvent to wastewater
ratio.
See VIIF-3
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
90
95
27
90
90
90
90
90
:d)
I-1
U1
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
•i
No.
VII
P-
18
VII
F-
19
VII
F-
20
VII
F-
21
VII
F-
22
VII
F-
23
j-)
Chemical
Ethyl Chloride
Ethylene
Chlorohydrin
Ethylene
Dichloride
Ethylene
Dichloride
Hexachloro-
butadiene
Hexachloro-
e thane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L,B
L,C
L,B
P,C
R
R
Waste
Type d
I
I
I
I
U
U
Influent
Char.
3 ppm
1640 ppm
320 ppm
23-1804
ppm @
2.76-3.76
1/min
Results of Study
Kerosene effluent cone. -
1 ppm; CiQ-Ci2 hydrocarbon
effuent - 1 + ppm.
21% reduction.
No detectable cone, in kero-
sene effluent; CIQ-C;^ hydro-
carbon effluent - 1 + ppm.
A 5.5:1 water to solvent ratic
gave 94-96% reduction. C\Q-
Ci2 paraffin solvent at 5:1
to 16.5:1 water to solvent
ratio showed 94-99% reduction
Soluble in most organics.
Extractable w/aromatics,
alcohols and ethers
Comments
Solvent extraction used
separatory funnel w/
kerosene & CIQ-CIZ
hydrocarbon solvents at
7:1 solvent to waste-
water ratio.
See VIIF-3 for comments.
See VIIF-9 for comments.
Wastewater contained
other halocarbons in-
cluding 30-350 ppm
1,1, 2- trichloroethane
and 5-197 ppm 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane. A
532 1/min extractor
w/1000 ppm influent es-
timated to have a capi-
tal cost of $315,000 and
total annual cost of
$143,000 including cred-
it for recovered EDC.
Ref .
95
27
95
95
90
90
(continued)
i
H
cn
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction
Chemicvi] Classification: Halocarbons (F)
(VII)
a
No.
VII
F-
24
VII
F-
25
VII
F-
26
VII
F-
27
VII
F-
28
VII
F-
29
VII
F-
30
VII
F-
31
VII
F-
32
VII
F-
33
Chemical
Pentachloro-
e thane
Perchloro-
ethylene
Tetrachloro-
ethane
1,1,2,2-Tetra-
chloroe thane
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Tetrachloro-
me thane
Tribromometham:
Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichlo-
roe thane
1,1,2-Trichlo-
roethane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
L,B
L,B
L,B
R
R
R
R
L,B
R
R
Waste
Type d
I
I
I
U
U
U
U
I
U
U
Influent
Char.
10 ppm
14 ppm
148 ppm
-
75 ppm
Results of Study
Kerosene effluent cone. -
2 ppm; No detectable cone, in
C10~C12 hydrocarbon effluent.
Kerosene effluent cone. -
2 ppm; CIQ-CIZ hydrocarbon
effluent cone. - 1 ppm.
Kerosene effluent cone. -
7 ppm; Ci0-Cj2 hydrocarbon
effluent cone. - 6 ppm.
Extractable w/aromatics,
alcohols and ethers.
Soluble in most organics.
Soluble in most organics.
Soluble in most organics.
Kerosene effluent cone. -
2 ppm; Cio~Ci2 hydrocarbon
effluent cone. - 1 ppm.
Extractable w/alcohols and
aroma tics.
Extractable w/aromatics ,
methanol and ethers.
Comments
See VIIF-9
for comments.
See VIIF-9
for comments.
See VIIF-9
for comments.
•
See VIIF-9
for comments.
Ref .
95
95
95
90
90
90
90
95
90
90
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process; Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
No?
VII
F-
34
VII
F-
35
VII
F-
36
VII
F-
37
VII
F-
38
Chemical
Trichloro-
ethylene
Trichloro-
ethylene
Trichloro-
f luorome thane
Trichloro-
me thane
Vinylidene
Chloride
Description of Study
Study
Type0
L,B
R
R
R
L,B
Waste
Type d
I
U
u
U
I
Influent
Char.
24 ppm
13 ppm
Results of Study
Kerosene effluent conc.-
6 ppm; Cio~Ci2 hydrocarbon
effluent cone. - 5 ppm.
Soluble in most organics.
Extractable w/alcohol, ether
and organics.
Soluble in most organics.
Kerosene effluent cone. -
1 ppm; Cio~Ci2 effluent
cone. - 1 ppm.
Comments
See VIIF- 9
for comments.
v
See VIIF- 9
for comments.
(continue
Ref.
95
90
90
90
95
d)
H
H
CXI
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
VII
G-
1
b
Chemical
Mercury
G
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
Waste
Type d
U
Influent
Char.
2 ppm
Results of Study
99% reduction w/high molec-
ular weight amines &
quartenary salts .
Comments
(continue
Ref .
90
d)
I
H
H
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
VII
K-
1
VII
K-
2
VII
K-
3
VII
If «.
4
VII
K-
5
VII
ll*»
6
jj
Chemical
4-Chloro-
3-Methylphenol
t
2-Chlorophenol
m-Cresol
P-
o-Cresol
o-Cresol •
o-Cresol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
L,C
L,C
L,C
L,C
Waste
Type
U
U
I
I
I
I
Influent
Char.
291 ppm
307 ppm
890 ppm @
3.21 gal/
hr
890 ppm @
3.21 gal/
hr
Results of Study
Extractable w/benzene,
alcohol and nitrobenzene
Extractable w/Diisopropyl-
ether, benzene, butylacetate,
and nitrobenzene
91% reduction.
90% reduction.
99.9% reduction.
99.9% reduction.
Comments
Extraction of evapora-
tor condensate from
spent caustic process-
ing using isobutylene
(S/W=1.8); spray ex-
tractor used.
See VIIK- 3
for comments .
Sequential extraction
of wastewater from
lube-oil refining us-
ing butyl acetate
(S/W=0.100)& isobuty-
lene (S/W=0.101) ; RDC
extractor used.
Sequential extraction
of wastewater from
lube-oil refining us-
ing butyl acetate
(S/W=0.30) S isobuty-
lene (S/W=0.101): RDC
extractor used.
Ref.
90
90
27
27
27
27
(continued)
i
M
O
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification:
Solvent Extraction (VII)
Phenols (K)
a
No.
VII
K-
7
VII
K-
8
VII
K-
9
VII
K-
10
VII
K-
11
VII
K-
12
VII
K-t
13
VII
K-
14
VII
K-
15
b
Chemical
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
2, 4 -Dime thy 1-
phenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-
Methylphenol
2 , 4-Dinitro-
phenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachloro-
phenol
Phenol
•>jj( •
Phenol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
L,C
Waste
Type
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
I
Influent
Char.
67 ppm @
4.6 gal/
hr
Results of Study
Extractable w/benzene,
alcohol and nitrobenzene .
Extractable w/benzene and
alcohol.
Extractable w/benzene and
acetone .
Extractable w/benzene and
alcohol .
Extractable w/benzene and
alcohol.
Extractable w/benzerie and
alcohol .
Extractable w/benzene and
alcohol and nitrobenzene.
Extractable w/diisopropyl-
ether, benzene, butylacetate
and nitrobenzene .
6% reduction.
Comments
Extraction of ethylene
quench wastewater using
isobutylene (S/W=0.101)
RDC extractor used.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
27
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
No?
VII
K-
16
VII
K-
17
VII
K-
18
VII
K-
19
VII
K-
20
VII
K-
21
Chemical
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
Xylenols
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L,C
L,C
L,C
L,C
R
L,C
Waste
Type d
I
I
I
I
U
I
Influent
Char.
69 ppm @
4.6 gal/
hr
579 ppm
8800 ppm
@ 3.21
gal/hr
8800 ppm
@ 3.21
gal/hr
227 ppm
Results of Study
4% reduction.
72% reduction.
97% reduction
98% reduction.
Extractable w/benzene,
alcohol and nitrobenzene.
96% reduction .
Comments
Extraction of ethylene
quench wastewater using
isobutane (S/W=0.097) ;
RDC extractor used.
See VI IK- 3
for comments.
See VI IK- 5
for comments .
See VIIK-7
for comments .
See VIIK-3
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
27
27
27
27
90
27
d)
to
K)
-------
TABLE E~l (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Phthalates (L)
No.
VII
L-
1
VII
L-
2
VII
L-
3
VII
Jj"~
4
VII
L-
5
VII
L-
6
b
Chemical
Bis (2-ethyl-
hexyl) Phtha-
late
Butylbenzyl
Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl
Phthalate
Di ethyl
Phthalate
Dimethyl
Phthalate
Di.-N-Oct;yl
Phthalate
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
R
R
R
R
•
Waste
Type
U
U
U
U
U
U
Influent
Char .
Results of Study
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
Extractable w/ethyl ether.
& benzene .
.. . ......
Comments
6
(continue
Ref ..
90
90
90
90
90
90
Jd)
to
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
N)
No.
VII
M-
1
Chemical
Anthracene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
•«-«^_^«^__
R
Waste
Type d
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Extractable w/ toluene.
Comments
(continue
Ref.
90
d)
-------
en
; TABLE E-ICHEMICAL TREATABILITY
.Concentration .Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
c
A
No.
IX
—
1
A-
2
-
3
, b
Chemical
i Ally T Alcohol
' T T ' ' ' ^
"
-
'• n-Amyl
. Alcohol
(li-Pentanol)
Butanol
Description of Study
Study
'- Type c
' I
ft
T:~i
- B,L
•
Waste
• Type
P
7 P
1 P
*
»
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
-1
"
1000 ppm
100 ug/1
7
-
Results of Study
21 . 9% reduction ; final cone .
of 789 ppm; capacity was
0.024 gm/gm of carbon. Ad;-
_sorbability found to increase
with molecular weight. For
compounds of <4 carbons or-
der of decreasing adsorption
was: undissociated organic
acids, aldehydes, esters,
ketones, alcohols (when > 4
carbons, alcohols moved ahead
of esters), glycols. Aromat-
ics had greatest adsorption.
Results of two component iso-
therm tests could be predict-
ed from single compound tests;
however, in four-component
tests, only about 60% of pre-
dicted adsorption occurred.
Continuous columns produced
60-80% of .theoretical iso-
therm capacity.
71.8% reduction; 282 ppm
rinal cone., 0.155 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal. Desorption
of alcohols from carbon by
elutriating with various sol-
vents ranged from 4 to 110%.
Comments
Carbon dose was 5g/l
Westvaco Nuchar
See IXA- i for 'additional
results.
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, methyl
Ref
35
35
20
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
Nof
IX
A-
4
IX
A-
5
IX
A-
6
IX
A-
7
IX
A-
8
IX
A-
9
IX
A-
1
IX
A-
1
IX
A-
1
b
Cheiri'jal
Butanol
Butanol
t-Butanol
Cyclohexanol
Decanol
Ethanol
2-Ethyl-
Butanol
2-Ethyl-
Hexanol
2-Ethyl-l-
Hexanol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
I
I
B,L
B,L
I
I
I
B,L
Waste
Pypa d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
p
nfluent
Char .
000 ppm
000 ppm
500 ppm
100 ppm
000 ppm
00 /ug/1
LOO Aig/1
LOGO ppm
LOOO ppm
700 ppm
100 /ug/i
Results of Study
53.4% reduction; 466 ppm fina]
cone., 0.107 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
75% reduction
67% reduction
78% reduction
29.5% reduction; 705 ppm fi-
nal pone., 0.059 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
Complete removal.
Complete removal.
10% reduction; 901 ppm final
cone., 0.020 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
85.5% reduction; 145 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.170 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
98.5% reduction; 10 ppm final
cone., 0.138 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
Complete removal.
Comments
hloride-acetone , and
cetone.
ee IXA-i for additional
results.
4 hr. contact .time;
carbon does was 10 times
chemical cone.
See IXA-l for additional
results.
See IXA-3 for additional
results.
See IXA-3 for additional
results.
See IXA-l for additional
results.
See IXA-l for additional
results,.
See IXA-l for additional
results.
3ee IXA-3 for additional
results.
(continue
Ref .
35
72
35
20
20
35
35
35
20
sd)
I
a\
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
Nof
IX
Ar
13
IX
A-
14
IX
A-
15
IX
A-
16
IX
A-
17
IX
A-
18
IX
A-
19
IX
A-
20
IX
A-
21
IX
A-
22
Chemical
m-Heptanol
m-Hexanol
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Methanol
Methanol.
Octanol
Pentanol
Propanol
Propanol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
I
I
I
I
; I
B,L
B,L
B,L
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 /ug/1
1000 ppm
.1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
200 ppm
15 ppm
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/1
1000 ppm
Results of Study
Complete removal .
95.5% reduction; 45 ppm
final cone., 0.155 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
41.9% reduction; 581 ppm
final cone., 0.084 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
12.6% reduction; 874 ppm
final cone., 0.025 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
3.6% reduction; 964 ppm
final cone., 0.007 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
17% reduction
33% reduction
33% reduction
Complete removal.
Complete removal.
Complete removal.
18.9% reduction; 811 ppm
final cone., 0.038 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Comments
See IXA-3 for addi-
tional results.
See IXA-1 for addi-
tional results.
See IXA-1 for addi-
tional results.
See IXA-1 for addi-
tional results.
See IXA-1 for addi-
tional results.
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical cone.
See IXA-3 for addi-
tional results.
See IXA- 3 for addi-
tional results.
See IXA-3 for addi-
tional results.
See IXA-1 for addi-
tional results.
(continue
.
Ref .
20
35
•&? '
•35
k
ffi35
35
«j
$72
20
20
20
35
d)
to
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
(IX)
cl
No.
IX
B-
1
IX
B-
2
IX
B-
3
IX
B-
4
]-,
Chemical
Acetaldehyde
*'*"
Acetic Acid
Acetone
Acetone
Cyanohydrin
Description of Study •
Study
Typec
I
I
I
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
200 ppm
100 ppm
Results of Study
11.9% reduction; 881 ppm
final cone., 0.022 gm/gm
carbon capacity. Adsorbabil-
ity found to increase with
molecular weight. For com-
pounds of <4 carbons order of
decreasing adsorption was:
undissociated organic acids,
aldehydes, esters, ketones,
alcohols (when >4 carbons,
alcohols moved ahead of es-
ters) , gylcols. Aromatics
had greatest adsorption. Re-
sults of two-component iso-
therm tests could be predict-
ed from single compound tests
however , in four-component
tests, only about 60% of pre-
dicted adsorption occurred.
Continuous columns produced
60-80% of theoretical iso-
therm capacity.
24% reduction; 760 ppm final
cone., 0.048 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
21.8% reduction; 782 ppm
final cone., 0.043 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
60% reduction
45% reduction
30% reduction
Comments
Carbon dose was 5 g/1
Westvaco Nuchar.
,
See IXB-1 for'
additional results.
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10 time
chemical cone .
Ref .
35
35
35
72
(cuiitxiiueaj
H
10
CO
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
Nof
IX
B-
5
IX
R*~
6
IX
R —
7
IX
B-
8
IX
B-
9
IX
B-
10
IX
fi-
ll
IX
B-
12
IX
B-
13
IX
B-
14
Chemical
Acrolein
Acrolein
Acrylic Acid
Acrylonitrile
Amyl Acetate
(primary)
Butyl Acetate
Butyl Acrylate
Butyraldehyde
Butyric Acid
Butyric Acid
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
R
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
u
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
100 ppm
985 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
100 ug/1
Results of Study
30,6% reduction; 694 ppm
final cone., 0.061 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
30% reduction at 0.5% carbon
dose.
64.5% reduction; 355 ppm
final cone., 0.129 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
51% reduction
28% reduction
88% reduction; 119 ppm
final cone., 0.175 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
84.6% reduction; 154 ppm
final cone., 0.169 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
95.9% reduction; 43 ppm
final cone., 0.193 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
52.8% reduction; 472 ppm
final cone., 0.106 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
59.5% reduction; 405 ppm
final cone., 0.119 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete reduction; No de-
sorption from carbon by
elutriating with solvent.
Comments
See IXB-l for
additional results.
See IXB- 1 for
additional results.
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical cone.
See IXB-l for
additional results.
See IXB-l for
additional results.
See IXB- 1 for
additional results.
See IXB-l for
additional results.
See IXB-l for
additional results.
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether ,
(continue
Ref .
35
90
35
72
35
35
35
35
35
20
d)
e
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (ix)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
Nof
IX
B-
14
cont
IX
B-
15
IX
B-
16
IX
B-
17
IX
B-
18
IX
B19
IX
B-
20
IX
B-
21
IX
B-
22
b
Chemical
Caproic Acid
Caproic Acid
Crotonaldehyde
Cyclohexanone
Decanoic Acid
Dicyclo-
pentadiene
(DCPC)
Diethylene
Glycol
Diisobutyl
Ketone
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
I
I
I
B,L
P,C
I
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
I
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 ug/1
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
100 ug/1
82 to
1000 ppb
1000 ppm
300 ppm
Results of Study
90% reduction; 3% desorbed
from carbon by elutriating
with solvent.
97% reduction; 30 ppm
final cone., 0.194 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
45.6% reduction; 544 ppm
final cone., 0.092 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
66.8% reduction; 332 ppm
final cone., 0.134 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete reduction; 2%
desorbed from carbon by
elutriating with solvent.
Diisopropyl methylphosphonate
(DIMP) and TOG used to
measure performance. DCPC
found to vaporize.
26.2% reduction; 738 ppm
final cone., 0.053 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
100% reduction; 0.060 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Comments
methylene chloride-
acetone, methyl chlo-
ride-acetone, and
acetone .
See IXB-14for
additional results
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
I
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
See IXB-14for
additional results.
Contaminated ground-
water. See IXB-23
for remarks.
See IXB- 1 for
additional results.
See IXB- l for
additional results.
(continue
Ref.
20
35
35
35
20
86
35
35
!d)
U)
O
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
(IX)
U)
H
rj
No.
IX
B-
23
jj
Chen ical
Diisc roply
Meth} ».-
phosf-iionate
(DIM1 ;
Description of Study
Study
Typec
P,C
t
Waste
Type d
I
(Bog
Water)
I
(Bog
Water)
Influent
Char.
210 to
430 ppb
DIMP; TOC
about 40
ppra;
pH 7.6 to
8.0
290 to
470 ppb
Results of Study
Average DIMP removal was
99.75% ( <1.9 ppb in
effluent)
Average DIMP removal was
98.77% ( 6.4 ppb in effluent)
DIMP removal averaged 99% at
350 Aig/1 carbon dose and
96.33% at 250 ug/1 carbon
dose. Optimum anionic/cati-
onic mixture was found to be
anionic-0.13 gm/1 and
120 cc/min, cationic -
1.59 gm/1 & 25 cc/min.
DIMP removal ranged from 92 . 5
to 97.5% at 175 /ug/1 carbon
dose and 98.7% at 220 ug/1
carbon dose.
Comments
Test 1- Influent flow
7 gpm; carbon feed rate
1649,/ug/l» anionic poly-
mer Herufloc 836.2 at
0.556 gm/1 cone, and
1000 cc/min flow added;
cationic polymer Cat-
f loc at 4 Aig/1 cone .
and 26.5 cc/min flow
added; duration of test
4 weeks; 28,600 gal.
throughput .
Test 2- Carbon feed
1000 ug/1 duration of
test 3 weeks; other con-
ditions similar to
Test 1 . ;'"
Test 3- Influent flow
rate 5 gpm; anionic
cone, and flow-0.13 gm/i
& 120 cc/min; cationic
cone . and f low-
1.59 gm/1 & 25 cc/min;
carbon feed at 350 ug/1
& 250 /ug/1 for 1 week
each.
Ref .
86
(continued)
I
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
Nof
IX
B-
22
cont
IX
B-
24
IX
B-
25
_. . b
Chemical
Dipropylene
Glycol
Dodecane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
I
B,L
Waste
Type d
I
(Bog
Water)
I
(Ground
Water)
P
P
Influent
Char.
400 ppb
2680 ppb
2400 ppb
2564 ppb
1000 ppm
100 ug/1
Results. of Study
DIMP removal steadily de-
creased to about 40% at
carbon dose of 100 /ug/1.
DIMP cone, reduced to 50 ppb,
reactivated carbon tested
17000 gal before break-
through, virgin carbon
treated 9600 gal; reactivated
carbon capacity-3.8 ug
DIMP/gm carbon (0.9 Ib car-
bon/1000 gal) ; virgin carbon
capacity 2.3 «g DIMP/gm car-
bon (1.41b carbon/1000 gal.)
98% removal at carbon dose
of 252 ug/1
94 to 97% removal at carbon
dose of 200 /ug/1
Could not achieve steady
state performance at carbon
dose of 252 ug/1 & flow rate
of 225 gal/hr.
16.5% reduction; 835 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.033 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal; 28% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriating with solvent.
Comments
Filtrasorb 300 carbon
was used.
Hydrodarco C carbon;
duration of test-
13100 gal.
Hydrodarco C carbon;
duration of test -
9000 gal. '
Aqua Nuchar carbon;
duration of test -
15200 gal (2 .weeks) .
See IXB-1
for additional results.
See IXB-14
for additional results.
(continue
Ref.
35
20
d)
00
to
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
Chemical
Description of Study
Study
Typec
Waste
Type
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
U)
U)
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Acrylate
IX Ethylene
B- Glycol
IX Formaldehyde
B-
29
IX
B-
30
IX
B-
31
IX
B-
32
IX
B-
33
IX
Formic Acid
Heptanoic Acid
Hexadecane
Hexylene Glyco
Isobutyl
I
B,L
B,L
I
I
B- Acetate
34
1000 ppm
50.5% reduction; 495 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.100 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
1015 ppm
77.7% reduction; 226 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.157 gm/gm
carbon capacity
1000 ppm
6.8% reduction; 932 ppm fi-
nal conc;, 0.014 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
1000 ppm
9.2% reduction; 908 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.018 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
1000 ppm
23.5% reduction; 765 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.047 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
100 ug/1
10% reduction; 1% desorbed
from carbon by elutriating
with solvent.
100 ug/1
Complete reduction; 12% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriating with solvent^
1000 ppm
61.4% reduction; 386 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.122 gm/gm
:arbon capacity.
1000 ppm
82% reduction; 180 ppm fi-
nal cone., 164 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
35
35
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
.
See IXB-1 j
for additional results .
See IXB-1
for additional results.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- l
for additional results.
Jb
35
35
20
20
35
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
Nof
IX
^
IX
B-
36
IX
B-
37
IX
B-
38
IX
R—
39
IX
B-
40
IX
B-
41
IX
B-
42
IX
B-
43
IX
B-
44
Chemical
Isoprene
Isopropyl
Acetate
Laurie Acid
Methyl Acetate
Methyl Butyl
Ketone
Methyl
Decanoate
Methyl
Dodecanoate
.Methyl Ethyl
Ketone
Methyl
Hexadecanoate
Methyl Isoamyl
Ketone
Description of Study
Study
Type0
I
I
B,L
I
I
B,L
B,L
I
B,L
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
500 ppm
1000 ppm
100 /ug/1
1030 ppm
988 ppm
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/1
1000 ppm
100 Aig/1
986 ppm
Results of Study
86% reduction
86% reduction
68.1% reduction; 319 ppm
final cone., 0.137 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal; No desorp-
tion from carbon by elutria-
tion with solvent.
26.2% reduction; 760 ppm
final cone . , 0 . 054 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
80.7% reduction; 191 ppm
final cone., 0.159 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal; 71% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
Complete removal; 50% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
46.8% reduction; 532 ppm
final cone., 0.094 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal; 35% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
85.2% reduction; 146 ppm
final cone . , 0 . 169 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Comments
See IXA-5
See IXB- 1
for additional results
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB- 14
for additional results .
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results .
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
(continue
Ref .
72
35
20
35
35
20
20
35
20
35
,d)
¥
M
OJ
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
Nof
IX
B-
45
IX
B-
4€
IX
B-
47
IX
B-
48
IX
B-
49
IX
. B-
50
IX
B-
51
IX
B-
52
IX
B
53
IX
B
54
b
Chemical
Methyl
Octadecanoate
Methyl Propyl
Ketone
Myristic Acid
Octadecane
Octanoic Acid
Propiona'l-
dehyde
Propionic Acid
%'A;L
Propionic Acid
Propyl Acetate
Propylene
Glycol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
I
B,L
B,L
B,L
L
B,L
I
I
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 /ug/1
1000 ppm
100 /ug/1
100 Aig/l
100 Aig/l
1000 ppm
100 Aig/I
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
Results of Study
Complete removal; 40% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
69.5% reduction; 305 ppm
final cone., 0.139 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal; no de-
sorption from, carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
Complete removal; no desorp-
tion from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
50% removal; 1% desorbed
from carbon -by elutriation
w/solvent.
27.7% reduction; 723 ppm
final cone., 0.057 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal, no desorp-
tion from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
32.6% reduction; 674 ppm
final cone., 0.065 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
75.2% reduction; 248 ppm
final cone., 0.149 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
11.6% reduction; 884 ppm
final cone., 0.024 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Comments
See IXB-14
for additional results.
See IXB- 1.
for additional results.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 1 =
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results .
See IXB-1
for additional results.
Ref .
20
35
20
20
20
35
20
35
35
35
(continued)
i
U)
in
-------
H
OJ
TABLE B-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification; Aliphatics
Nof
••Wi^BBl
IX
B-
55
IX
B-
56
IX
B-
57
IX
B-
58
B-
59
B-
60
IX
B-
61
B-
62
Chemical
Propylene
Oxide
Pyruvic Acid
Tetradecane
Tetraethylene
Glycol
Triethylene
Glycol
Valeric Acid
Valeric Acid
Vinyl Acetate
Description of Study
Study
Type0
I
B,L
B,L
I
I
B,L
I
I
Waste
Type
•"••••^••^•••^^
P
P
' P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
—
1000 ppm
100 /ug/1
100 «g/l
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
100 Mg/1
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
' • — _
Results of Study
• —
26.1% reduction; 739 ppm
final cone., 0.052 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal, -no desorp-
tion from carbon using
organic solvent.
Complete removal; 25% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
58.1% reduction; 419 ppm
final cone., 0.116 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
52.3% reduction; 477 ppm
final cone., 0.105 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal; 10% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
79.7% reduction; 203 ppm
final cone., 0.159 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
64.3% reduction; 357 ppm
final cone., 0.129 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
• — .
Comments
— , —
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB-14-
for additional results.
See IXB-14
for additional results.
See IXB-1
for additional results.
See IXB-1
for additional results.
See IXB-14
for additional results.
See IXB-i
for additional results.
See IXB-l
for additional results.
(continue<
i
™— ~>^.^^_
Ref.
• - -
35
20
20
35
35
20
35
35
3)
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
a
No.
IX
c-
1
IX
c-
2
IX
C-
3
]-,
Chemical
Allyamine
Aniline
Aniline
Description of Study
Study
Type0
I
B,L
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
100 pg/1
1000 ppm
Results of Study
31; 4% reduction; 686 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.063 gm/gm carbon
capacity. Adsorbability
found to increase with molec-
ular weight. For compounds
of <4 carbons order of de-
creasing adsorption was: un-
dissociated organic acids,
aldehydes, esters, ketones,
alcohols (when >4 carbons,
alcohols moved ahead of es-
ters) , glycols. Aromatics
had greatest adsorption.
Results of two component is-
otherm tests could be pre-
dicted from single compound
tests; however, in four com-
ponent tests only 60% of
predicted adsorption oc-
curred . Continuous columns
produced 60-80% of theoreti-
cal isotherm capacity.
100% reduction; No desorptior
from carbon by elutriation
with solvents.
74.9% removal; 251 ppm final
cone.; 0.15 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
Comments
Carbon dose was 5 g/1
Westvaco Nuchar.
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, methyl
chloride-acetone, and
acetone .
See IXC-1 for addition-
al results.
Ref .
35
20
35
(continued)
M
H
OJ
-J
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
No?
IX
C-
4
IX
C-
5
IX
C-
6
IX
C-
7
IX
C-
8
IX
C-
9
IX
C-
10
IX
C-
11
IX
C-
12
IX
c-
13
Chemical
Butylamine
i-:*;
Butylamine
Cyclohexyl-
amine
Dibutylamine
Di-N-
Butylamine
Diethanolamine
Diethylene-
triamine
Dihexylamine
Diisopropan-
olamine
Dimethylamine
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
I
B,L
B,L
I
I
I
B,L
I
B,L
Waste
Type
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 /ug/1
1000 ppm
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/1
1000 ppm
996 ppm
1000 ppm
100 ;ug/l
1000 ppm
100 /jg/1
Results of Study
100% removal; no desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
52% reduction; 480 ppm final
cone., 0.103 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
100% removal; 38% desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; No desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
87% removal; 130 ppm final
cone., 0.174 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
27.5% removal; 722 ppm final
cone., 0.057 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
29.4% removal; 706 ppm final
cone., 0.062 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
100% removal; 24% desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
45.7% removal; 543 ppm final
cone., 0.091 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
100% removal; 82% desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
Comments
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
Ref .
20
35
20
20
35
35
- '35
20
35
20
(continued)
i
CO
00
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
Nof
IX
C-
14
IX
C-
15
IX
c-
16
IX
C-
17
IX
C-
18
IX
C-
19
IX
C-
20
IX
C-
21
IX
C-
22
IX
C-
23
b
Chemical
Dimethyl-
nitrosamine
Di-N-
Propylamine
Ethylene-
diamine
ti-Ethyl-
morpholine
Hexylamine
2-Methyl-5-
Ethylpyridine
N-Methyl
Morpholine
Monoethan-
olamine
Monoisopro-
panolamine
Morpholine
Description of Study
Study
TYPe°
I
I
I
I
B,L
I
I
I
I
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
100 Aig/1
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1012 ppm
1000 ppm
100 Aig/1
Results of Study
Not adsorbed.
80.2% removal; 198 ppm final
cone., 0.174 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
10.7% removal; 893 ppm final
cone., 0.021 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
47.3% removal; 527 ppm final
cone., 0.095 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
100% removal; 24% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
89.3% removal; 107 ppm final
cone., 0.179 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
42.5% removal; 575 ppm final
cone., 0.085 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
7.2% removal; 939 ppm final
cone., 0.015 gm/gm carbon
capacity. • :
20% removal; 800 ppm final
cone . , 0 . 04 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
100% removal; 67% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
Comments
See IXC-1
for additional results .
See IXC-1
for additional results.
See IXC--1
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC- 1
for additional results .
See IXC-1-
for additional results.
See IXC- 1
for additional results..
See IXC-1
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results .
Ref .
31
35
35
35
20
35
35
35
35
20
(continued)
H
00
-------
H
*>
O
TABLE E -1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
Nof
IX
C-
24
IX
C-
25
IX
C-
26
IX
C-
27
IX
C-
28
IX
c-
29
IX
C-
30
Chemical
B-Napthylamine
Octy lamina
Piperidine
Pyridine
Pyrrole
Tributylamine
Triethanol-
amine
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
B,L
B,L
I
B,L
B,L
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 ,ug/l
100 Aig/1
1000 ppm
100 /tig/]
100 Mg/]
1000 ppn
Results of Study
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows :
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 77.4 0.361
Filtrasorb 166.0 0.234
Carbon dose (mg/1) required
to reduce 1 mg/1 to
0.1 mg/1: Darco - 27
Filtrasorb - 10
100% removal; no desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 73% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
53.3% removal; 467 ppm final
cone., 0.107 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
100% removal; 16% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
1QO% removal; no desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
33% removal; 670 ppm final
cone., 0.067 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
Comments
See IXC- 2
for additional results .
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC-1
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC-1
for additional results.
(continue
Ref .
31
20
20
35
20
20
35
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: .Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
No.
IX
D-
1
IX
D-
2
j-j
Chemical
Acetophenone
Acetophenone
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B,L
I
Waste
Type
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 /ug/1
1000 ppm
Results of Study
50% reduction; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
97.2% removal; 28 ppm final
cone., 0.194 gm/gm carbon
capacity. Adsorbability
found to increase with mo-
lecular weight. For com-
pounds of <4 carbons order
of decreasing adsorption
war>: undissociated organic
acids, aldehydes, esters,
ketones, alcohols (when > 4
carbons, alcohols moved
ahead of esters) , glycols.
Aromatics had greatest ad-
sorption. Results of two
component isotherm tests
could be predicted from sin-
gle compound tests; however,
in four-component tests,
only about 60% of predicted
adsorption occurred. Con-
tinuous columns produced
60-80% of theoretical iso-
therm capacity.
Comments
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, methey
chloride-acetone, and
acetone .
Carbon dose was 5 g/1
Westvaco Nuchar.
Ref .
20
35
i
|
?_
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-i(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics
No?
IX
D-
3
IX
D-
4
IX
D-
5
IX
D-
6
IX
D-
7
IX
D-
8
IX
D-
9
Chemical
:T
Benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
I
I
P,C
I
I
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
H
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 /ug/1
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
500 ppm
100 ppm
1 ppb
1 ppm
416 ppm
Results of Study
50% reduction; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
94% reduction; 60 ppm final
cone . , 0 . 188 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
99% removal
99% removal
98% removal
90% removal (to 0.1 ppb ef-
fluent cone.) achieved in
8.5 min. contact time.
0.7 mg/gm carbon capacity.
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows :
Carbon K l/n
Darco 26.8 1.305
Filtrasorb 18.5 1.158
Carbon dose (mg/1) required
to reduce 1 mg/1 to 0.1 mg/1:
Darco - 678
Filtrasorb - 705
95% reduction; 21 ppm final
cone., 0.080 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
Comments
— . — .
See IXD-1
for additional results.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical cone .
Spilled material treat-
ed using EPA's mobile
treatment trailer.
See IXD- 2
for additional results.
— •— «^-^_
Ref.
••••• in ..
20
35
72
6
21
31
35
(continued)
i
H
ife.
to
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
IX
D-
10
IX
D-
11
IX
D-
12
IX
D-
13
IX
D-
14
IX
• D-
15
IX
D-
16
b
Chemical
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzil
Benzoic Acid
Benzoic Acid
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
I
R
I
B,L
B,L
I
Waste
Type
I
P
U
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1500 ppm
TOC
500 ppm
250 ppm
50 ppm
416 ppm
100 ug/1
100 ug/1
1000 ppm
Results of Study
Effluent cone, of 30 ppm TOC
achieved (98% removal)
95% removal
91% removal
60% removal
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
Isotherm kinetics were as
as follows:
Carbon K l/n
Darco 85.4 0.253
Filtrasorb 173 0.288
Carbon dose (mg/1) required
to reduce 1 mg/1 to 0.1 mg/1:
Darco - 19
Filtrasorb - 10
50% removal; 8% desorbed from
carbon by elutriation with
solvent.
Complete removal; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
91.1% removal; 89 ppm final
cone., 0.183 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
Comments
At contact time of 55
min.j 0.15 MGD flow;
pretreatment included
pH adjustment.
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical cone.
See IXD-1
for additional results.
See IXD-1
for additional results.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
(continue
Ref .
38
72
90
31
"20
20
35
d)
co
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
IX
D-
17
IX
D-
18
IX
• D-
19
IX
D-
20
IX
D-
21
IX
D-
22
IX
D-
23
IX
D-
24
Chemical
Chlorinated
Aromatics
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
l-Chloro-2-
Nitrobenzene
Cumene
o-Dichloro-
benzene
o-Dichloro-
benzene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
I
F,C
R
I
B,L
B,L
R
Waste
Type
I
P
D
U
P
P
P
U
Influent
Char.
6000 ppm
TOC
1 mg/1
416 ppm
1 ppm
100 yg/1
100 pg/1
416 ppm
Results of Study
Effluent cone, of 3000 ppm
TOC achieved (50% reduction).
High effluent cone, because
activated carbon served as
pretreatment before biologi-
cal system.
93 mg/gm carbon capacity.
50% reduction.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose .
103 mg/gm adsorption
capacity.
Complete removal; 8% desorbec
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
Complete removal; 5% desorbec
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
Comments
At contact time of 1375
min; flow of 6000 gpd;
pretreatment included
chemical reduction.
Treatment of effluent
from 0.66 mVsec bio-
logical system.
See IXD-1
for additional results.
See IXD-1
for additonal results.
(continue
Ref .
38
21
64
90
21
20
20
90
d)
tjl
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
IX
D-
25
IX
D-
26
IX
D-
27
IX
D-
28
IX
D-
29
IX
D-
30
IX
D-
31
b
Chemical
m-Dichloro-
benzene
m-Dichloro-
benzene
1 , 4-Dichloro-
benzene
p-Dichloro-
benzene
p-Dichloro-
benzene
S^'-Dichloro-
benzidine
Dimethylaniline
(Xylidine)
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
R
F,C
B,L
R
I
P,C
Waste
Type d
P
U
D
P
U
P
H
Influent
Char.
100 jug/1
416 ppm
100 Aig/1
416 ppm
380 ppb
Results of Study
Complete removal; 15% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
60% removal
100% removal; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
isotherm kinetics were as
follows :
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 126 0.253
Filtrasorb 240 0.194
Carbon dose (mg/1) to reduce
1 mg/1 to 0.1 mg/1:
Darco - 12.8
Filtrasorb - 5.7
94% removal (23 ppb in efflu-
ent) achieved in 85 min.
contact time.
Comments
See IXD- 1
for additional results.
Treatment of effluent
from 0.66 m /sec bio-
logical system.
See IXD- 1
for additional results.
250,000 gal. spilled
materials treated with
EPA mobile treatment
trailer.
(continue
Ref .
20
90
64
20
90
31
6
d)
M
K
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
IX
D-
32
IX
D-
33
IX
D-
34
IX
D-
35
IX
D-
36
IX-
D-
37
IX
D-
38
IX
D-
39
IX
D-
40
IX
D-
41
b
Chemical
2,4-Dinitro-
toluene{,7.
2,6-Dinitro-
toluene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-
benzene
Hydroquinone
Isophrone
Isophrone
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
I
I
F,C
R
R
I
I
R
Waste
Type
U
U
P
L
D
U
U
P
P
U
Influent
Char.
416 ppm
416 ppm
lmg/1
115 ppm
115 ppm
416 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
Results of Study
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
53 mg/gm carbon capacity.
84.3% reduction; 21 ppm
final cone . , 0 . 08 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
50% removal
84.3% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
83 . 3% removal ; 167 ppm
final cone., 0.167 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
96.6% removal; 34 ppm final
cone., 0.193 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
96.6% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
Comments
Not thermally regener-
able.
Not thermally regener-
able.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
Treatment of effluent
o
from 0.66 m /sec bio-
logical system.
See IXD-2
for additional results
See IXD-2
for additional results
Ref .
90
90
21
35
64
90
90
35
35
90
(continued)
ON
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aroraatics (D)
No?
IX
D-
42
IX
D-
43
IX
D-
44
IX
D-
45
IX
D-
46
IX
D-
47
IX
D-
48
IX
D-
49
Chemical
4,4' -Methylene
Bis-(2-Chloro-
aniline
Nitrobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Ni trobenzene
Paraldehyde
T.< >
Pyridine
Pyridine
Styrene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
I
I
R
I
I
I
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
U
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1 ppm
1023 ppm
416 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
500 ppm
1 ppm
Results of Study
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows :
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 120 0.96
Filtrasorb 240 0.982
Carbon dose fag/1) to reduce
1 rag/1 to 0.1 mg/1:
Darco - 27
Filtrasorb - 15
68 mg/gm adsorption capacity
95.6% removal; 44 ppm final
cone., 0.196 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
73.9% removal; 261 ppm final
cone., 0.148 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
47.3% removal; 527 ppm final
cone . , 0 . 095 gm/gm carbon
capacity .
86% removal; 145 ppm final
cone., 86% removal; 71 ppm
final cone.
120 m g/gm adsorption
capacity.
Comments
See IXD-2
for additional results.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
See IXD- 2
for additional results.
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical cone.
(continue
Ref .
31
21
35
90
35
35
72
21
d)
i
I
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
No.
IX
D-
50
IX
D-
51
IX
D-
52
IX
D-
53
IX
D-
54
IX
D-
55
IX
D-
56
IX
D-
57
IX
D-
58
IX
D-
59
b
Chemical
Styrene
Styrene
Styrene Oxide
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toxaphene
1,2,4-Tri-
chlorobenzene
1,2,4-Tri-
chlorobenzene
1,2,4-Tri-
chlorobenzene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
I
I
P,C
I
R
I
B,L
F,C
R
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
H
P
U
I
P
D
U
Influent
Char.
180 ppm
200 ppm
100 ppm
20 ppm
1000 ppm
120 ppb
317 ppm
317 ppm
155 ppb
pH 7.0
100 yg/1
416 ppm
Results of Study
88.8% removal; 44 ppm final
cone., 0.196 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
97% removal
93% removal
55% removal
95.3% removal; 47 ppm final
con., 0.19 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
99.8% removal (0.3 ppb in
effluent achieved in 8.5 min
contact time.
79.2% removal; 66 ppm final
cone., 0.05 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
79% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
>99% removal; <1 ppb final
cone. , 42 mg/gm carbon
capacity.
100% removal; no desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
70% reduction.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
Comments
See IXD-2 for additional
results.
24 hr contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical cone.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
250,000 gal spilled
materials treated with
EPA mobile treatment
trailer.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
See IXD-1
for additional results.
Treatment of effluent
from 0.66 m3/sec bio-
logical system.
Ref.
35
72
35
6
35
90
66
20
64
90
A\
i
00
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
(IX)
£
No.
IX
b-
60
IX
D-
61
IX
D-
62
k
Chemical
2,4, 6-Trinitro-
toluene (TNT)
2,4,6-Trinitro-
toluene (TNT)
and other muni-
tions plant
wastewaters:
Cyclonite(RDX) ,
Nitramine
(Tetryl) , and
cyclotetrameth-
ylene tetrani-
tramine (HMX) .
Xylene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
P,C
R
P,C
Waste
f>
Type °
I
I
H
Influent
Char.
108 ppm
Not
reported
140 ppb
Results of Study
Carbon adsorption capacity
was 0.125 gm/gm at 1 ppm
breakthrough after 600 bed
volume (B.V.)
Adsorption capacities
(Lb/Lb carbon) :
Contami- Break- Satura-
nant through tion
TNT 0.098 0.125
RDX 0.300 0.550
RDX & 0.008 0.048
TETRYL 0.002 0.024
TNT & 0.125 0.181
RDX 0.074 0.090
TNT & 0.134
HMX 0.006
(Note: breakthrough cone.
not defined. )
Typical cone, of contami-
nants in wastewaters :
TNT - 0-400 ppm
RDX - 50-100 ppm
pH - 3.5-7.0
Flow - 0.02-1.0 MGD
Temp - 60-160°F
>99.9% removal ( 0.1 ppb
in effluent) achieved in
8.5 min. contact time.
Comments
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Thermal regeneration
not possible because of
explosion potential.
TNT is preferentially
adsorbed over RDX; when
RDX > TNT cone. TNT
capacity reduced 50%.
For 80 gpm facility
costs estimated to be
$8.90/1000 gal.
] •
(
250,000 gal. spilled
materials treated with
EPA mobile treatment
trailer.
(continue
Ref .
2
40
6
d)
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aroraatics (D)
H
Ul
O
Nof
IX
b-
63
Chemical
Xylene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
I
Waste
Type d
P
Influent
Char.
200 ppm
100 ppm
Results of Study
86% removal
68% removal
Comments
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical cone.
(continue
— ^— —— «~
Ref.
72
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
a
No.
IX
E-
1
IX
E-
2
IX
E-
3
j-,
Chemical
Bis ( 2-chloro
isopropyl)
Ether
Bis (chlgEp-
etnyij btner
Butyl Ether
—
^ildUJ-l~ClJ_ 1**J.CL&& J.J. J-UCt L.JLUU
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
I
Waste
Type d
U
U
P
Influent
Char.
Not re-
ported
94 ppb
197 ppm
Ethers (E)
Results of Study
100% removal at 0.5% car-
bon dose .
50% removal
100% removal; 0.039gm/gm
carbon capacity. Adsorb-
ality found to increase
with molecular weight.
For compounds of <4 car-
bonSjOrder of decreasing
adsorption was: undisso-
ciated organic acids,
aldehydes, esters, he-
tones, alcohols (when>4
carbons, alcohols moved
ahead of. esters), gly-
cols. Aromatics had
greatest adsorption. Re-
sults of two-component
isotherm tests could be
predicted from single
compound tests; however,
in four-component tests,
only about 60% of pre-
dicted adsorption oc-
curred. Continuous col-
umns produced 60-80% of
theoretical isotherm
capacity .
Comments
Carbon dose was 5g/l
Westvaco Nuchar.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
35
d)
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Ethers (E)
Nof
IX
E-
4
IX
E-
5
IX
E-
6
IX
E-
7
IX
E-
8
IX
E-
9
IX
E-
10
IX
fi-
ll
IX
E-
12
IX
E-
13
b
Chemical
Dichloroiso-
propyl Ether
f
Diethylene
Glycol Mono-
butyl Ether
Diethylene
Glycol Mono-
ethyl Ether
Ethoxytri-
glycol
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
butyl Ether
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
ethyl Ether
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
ethyl Ether
Acetate
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
hexyl Ether
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
methyl Ether
Isopropyl
Ether
Description of Study
Study
Type0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Waste
Type
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1008 ppm
1000 ppm
1010 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1022 ppm
1000 ppm
975 ppm
1024 ppm
1023 ppm
Results of Study
100% removal; 0.20 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
82.7% removal; 173 ppm final
cone., 0.166 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
43.6% removal; 570 ppm final
cone., 0.087 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
69.7% removal; 303 ppm final
cone., 0.139 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
55.9% removal; 441 ppm final
cone., 0.112 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
31% removal; 705 ppm final
cone., 0.063 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
65.8% removal; 324 ppm final
cone., 0.132 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
87.1% removal; 126 ppm final
cone., 0.170 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
13.5% removal; 886 ppm final
cone., 0.028 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
80% removal; 203 ppm final
cone., 0.162 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
Comments
See IXE-3
for additional results.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
See IXE-3 •-.;•
for additional results.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
See IXE-
for additional results.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
Ref.
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
A\
i
Ul
10
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Halocarbons(F)
Chemical
•a
No.
IX
F-
1
IX
F-
2
IX
F-
3
IX
F-
4
IX
F-
5
IX
F-
6
IX
F-
7
Chemical
Bromochloro-
methane
Bromodi-
chloro-
methane
Bromof orm
Bromof orm
' T&-':.
Bromomelfhane
Carbon
Tetrachlo-
ride
Carbon
Tetrachlo-
r ide
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
R
L
B,L
R
P,C
I
Waste
Type d
P
S
S,M
U
W
P
U
H
P
Influent
Char.
Not re-
ported
0 . 2ppb
100 ppb
1.1 ppb
Not re-
ported
Results of Study
Sorptive capacity x/m at
residual cone (C,) of
100 ppb was 3.37 mg/g in
pure compound studies,
2.56 in a mixture and
0.875 in secondary
effluent .
Reported to be adsorbed
100% removal; 10% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent
Reported to be adsorbed.
Not detected in effluent
after 8.5 min contact
time .
Sorptive capacity (x/m)
at residual cone. (C,;) of
100 ppb was 4.66 mg/g
Comments
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbon's added to
secondary effluent.
See IXF-44
for results.
Filtrasorb 300 used
Solvent included
pentane-acetone,
diethylether , methy-
lene chloride-ace-
ton-e , methyl chlo-
ride-acetone, and
acetone .
250,000 gal spilled
materials treated
with EPA mobile
treatment trailer.
Ref .
21
90
46
20
90
6
21
(continued)
I
U1
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
No.
IX
F-
8
IX
F-
9
IX
F-
10
IX
T? —
11
IX
F-
12
IX
F-
13
IX
F-
14
b
Chemical
Carbon
T e t r a c h 1 o r i d=
Chloroethane
Chloroethy-
lene
Chloroform
Chloroform
Dibromochlo-
rome thane
Dibromochlo-
rqme thane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
R
I
L
L
I
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
P
S
S,M
W
W
P
S
S ,M
Influent
Char.
Not re-
ported
3.9 ppb
Not re-
ported
Results of Study
Reported to be adsorbed.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Sorptive capacity (x/m)
at residual conc.(C,) of
100 ppb was 1.58 mg/g in
pure compound studies,
0.93 in a mixture, and
0.365 in secondary
effluent .
At 2 ppm chloroform,
equilibrium capacity was
12 mg/g.
Sorptive capacity (x/m)
at residual conc.(Cf) of
100 ppb was 7.52 mg/g in
pure compound studies,
4.54 in a mixture, and
0.885 in secondary
effluent.
Comments
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbons added to
sedondary effluent.
See IXF- 44
for results .
See IXF- 44
for results .
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbons added to
secondary effluent.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
21
46
46
21
d)
Ul
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
M
M
Ul
U1
a
No.
IX
F-
15
IX
F-
16
IX
F-
17
IX
F-
18
IX
F-
19
IX
F-
20
IX
F-
21
IX
TP —
22
Chemical
Dibromochlo-
r o ra e t h a n e
Dichloro-
e thane
Dichloro-
ethane
1 , 1-Dichloro
ethane
1 i 1-Dichloro
ethane
1 ,-2- Diphl-©ro-
etl ?ue
1,2-D.ichloro
ethane
1, 1-Dichloro-
ethylene
Chemical Classification
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
P,C
I
L
R
L
- R
R
Waste
Type d
u
H
P
S
S,M
W
U
W
U
u
Influent
Char.
12 ppb
Not re-
ported
2.3 ppb
2.1 ppb
1'OOOppm
-
: Halocarbons (F)
Results of Study
Reported to be adsorbed.
Not detected in effluent
after 8.5 min contact
time .
Sorptive capacity (x/m)
at residual conc.(Cf) of
100 ppb was 1.07 mg/g in
pure compound studies,
0.44 in a mixture, and
0.52 in secondary
effluent.
Reported to be adsorbed.
81.1% removal at 0.5%
carbon dose .
Reported to be adsorbed.
;.
Comments
250,000 gal spilled
materials treated
with EPA mobile
treatment trailer. •
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbons added to
secondary effluent.
See IXF-44
for results .
. -.
See IXF-44
for results..
(continue
i
Ref .
90
6
21
46
90
46
90
90
3)
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
IX
F-
23
IX
F-
24
IX
F-
25
IX
F-
26
IX
F-
27
IX
F-
28
IX
F-
29
IX
F-
30
I,
Chemical
1 , ° ichloro-
eth/lene
1,2-trans-
Dichloro-
ethylene
Dichloro-
fluorome thane
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
Dichloro-
me thane
1,2-Dichloro-
propane
1,2-Dichloro-
prppylene
Ethylene
Dichloride
(EDC)
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L
R
R
R
R
R
R
I
Waste
Type
W
U
U
U
U
U
U
L
Influent
Char.
0.2 ppb
4 ppm
TOG at
1 MGD
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
Results of Study
Reported to be adsorbed.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Effluent cone, of 0.05 ppm
TOC achievable at contact
time of 8 min.
Reported to be adsorbed.
92.9% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
Reported to be adsorbed.
81.1% reduction, 189 ppm
final cone., 0.163 g/g car-
bon capacity. Adsorbabil-
ity found to increase with
molecular weight. For com-
pounds of <4 carbons, order
of decreasing adsorption
was: undissociated organic
acids, aldehydes, esters,
ketones, alcohols (when
Comments
See IXF-44
for results.
Flow equalization used
as pretreatment .
Carbon dose was 5 g/1
Westvaco Nuchar.
Ref .
46
90
90
38
90
90
90
35
(continued)
i
Ul
cn
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated .Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
IX
F-
30
con t
IX
F-
31
b
Chemical ;
Ethylene
Dichloride
(EDC)
Description of" Study
Study ;
Typec
I
Waste
rl
Type Q
I
Influent
Char.
Indus-
trial
waste-
waters
contain-
ing num-
erous
halocar-
bons
with
predomi-
nately
EDC at
up to
9000ppm
Results of Study
>4 carbons, alcohols
moved ahead of esters),
glycbls. Aromatics had
greatest adsorption. Re-
sults of two-component
isotherm tests could be
predicted from single
compound tests; however,
in four-component tests,
only about 60% of pre-
dicted adsorption oc-
curred. Continuous col-
umns produced 60-80% of
theoretical isotherm
capacity.
Carbon adsorption capaci-
ty to achieve 10 ppm EDC
residual ranged from 0.47
to 1.25 gm EDC/gm carbon
Capacity to achieve 0.1
ppm EDC residual ranged
from 0.0145 to 0.13 gm
EDC/gm carbon. To obtain
0.5 ppm TOC residual,
capacity ranged from
0.052 to 0.7 gm TOC/gm
carbon. Capacity to
achieve 50 ppm TOC resid-
ual ranged f rom 7 . 0 to
150 gm TOC/gm carbon.
Comments
•'
Calgon (Filtrasorb
400), Westvaco(WVG)
WITCO, and Barneby-
Cheney (BCNB-9377)
carbons were used.
Capacity was depend-
ent on wastewater
being tested and the
carbon .
Ref .
95
(continued)
(Jl
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
IX
F-
32
IX
F-
33
IX
F-
34
Chemical
Ethylene
Dichloride
(EDC)
Hexachloro-
butadiene
Hexachloro-
ethane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L,C
(3 col
urns in
series
20 mm
ID by
450mm
length
B,L
B,L
Waste
j
Type
I
P
P
Influent
Char.
Indus-
trial
waste-
waters
contain-
ing num-
erous
halo-
carbons
with
predom-
inately
EDC. TC-
1200ppm
EDC-
6400 to
6800ppm
total
chlori-
nated
hydro-
carbons
-SOOOppm
100 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
EDC did not breakthrough
(to original concentra-
tion) at up to 57 BV;
however, reduction
dropped below 90% after
between 10 and 28 BV as
flow increased from
^0.85 to 2.40 L/sq m.
Westvaco WVG performed
slightly better than
Calgon Filtrasorb 400.
Minimum level of efflu-
ent TC attainable was
300 ppm .
100% removal; 31% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent
100% removal; 98% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent
Comments
100 g of loaded
carbon was regener-
ated with 1 atm of
steam for 5 min; af-
ter 5 regenerations
carbon capacity was
0.186 gm EDC/gm car-
bon or 93% of fresh
carbon .
See IXF-4
for additional
comments .
See IXF-4
for additional
comments .
Ref .
95
20
20
(continued)
i
U1
CO
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
No.
IX
F-
35
IX
p1 —
36
IX
F-
37
IX
F-
38
IX
F-
39
IX
F-
40
IX
TT*—
41
IX
F-
42
k
Chemical
0'!
Hexachloro-
e thane
Methylene
Chloride
Propylene
Dichloride
Tetrachloro-
e thane
1,1,2,2-Tetra-
chloroe thane
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Tribromo-
me thane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
P,C
I
B,L
R
L
R
R
Waste
Type d
U
H
L
P
U
W
U
U
Influent
Char .
190 ppb
1000 ppm
100 ppb
179 ppb
Results of Study
Reported to be adsorbed.
73% removal with 51 ppb de-
tected in effluent after
8.5 min contact time.
92.9% reduction, 71 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.183 g/g carbon
capacity.
100% removal; 70% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Comments
250,000 gal spilled
materials treated with
EPA mobile treatment
trailer.
See IXF-32
for additional results.
See IXF-4
for additional comments
See IXF-44
for results.
(continue
Ref .
90
6
35
^
1
20
90
46
•
90
ffi.
90
'd)
i
H
cn
vo
-------
TABLE E-l( continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (ix)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
=»
No.
IX
F-
43
IX
F-
44
IX
F-
45
IX
F-
46
j-,
Chemical
Tribromo-
raethane
1,1,1-Tri-
chloroethane
1,1, 1-Tri-
chlof bethane
1,1,2-Tri
chloroethane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
I
L
R
R
Waste
Type d
P
S
S,M
W
U
U
Influent
Char.
Not re-
ported
551 ppb
Results of Study
Sorptive capacity (x/m)
at residual cone. (Cf)
of 100 ppb was 28.7 mg/g
in pure compound studies,
10.8 in a mixture, and
1.53 in secondary
effluent.
Performance for treat-
ment of water containing
several halogens.
Virgin Regenerated
BV to
33ppb 5100 4000
com-
pound
leak-
age
Days 13.3 10.4
Gal 38,250 30.000
treat- '
ed/cu
ft
sor-
bent
Reported to be adsorbed.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Comments
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbons added to
secondary effluent.
Column studies 14mm
dia glass tubes,
height 4" (15 cu cm
adsorbent) Flow-2
gpm/cu ft (16 BV/hr)
Regenerated at 37 Ib
steam/cu ft @5 psig
Ref .
21
46
.90
90
(continued)
H-1
a\
o
-------
TABLES-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (P)
(IX)
No.
IX
F-
47
IX
•pi _
48
IX
F-
49
IX
F-
50
-- v»
Chemical
- .,H
Trichloro-
ethylene
(TCE)
Trichloro-
ethylene
Trichloro-
f luoro-
methane
1, 2,3-Tri-
chloropro-
pane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
P,C
R
R
B,L
Waste
Type d
H
U
U
P
Influent
Char .
21 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
98.6% removal with
0.3 ppb detected in
effluent after 8.5 min
contact time.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Reported to be adsorbed.
100% reduction; 35% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent
Comments
250,000. gal spilled
materials treated
with EPA mobile
treatment trailer.
See IXF-4
for additional
comments .
(continue
Ref .
6
90
90
20
d)
a\
H
-------
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification:
TABLE E-l(continued)
Activated Carbon
Metals (G)
(IX)
a
No.
IX
G-
1
IX
G-
2
IX
f —
3
IX
G-
4
IX
G-
5
IX
G-
6
IX
G-
7
b
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium"1" J
.. j G*~~
Description of Study
Study
Type0
F,C
F,C
F,C
P,C
F,C
F,C
L,I
Waste
Type d
M
M
M
R
M
M
P
Influent
Char.
1 . 1 ppb
1 . 8 ppb
32 ppb
31 ppb
2 . 5 ppb
1 . 8 ppb
0.02 £ppm
84. Oppb
41 . Oppb
100 ppm
Results of Study
No reduction.
Increase to 2.4 ppb.
No reduction.
No reduction.
12% reduction; 2.2 ppb
effluent cone.
6% reduction; 1.7 ppb
effluent cone.
With virgin Filtrasorb
200 average removal was
19%; w/exhausted FS 200
average removal was 37%.
43% reduction; 48.0 ppb
effluent cone .
37% reduction; 26.0 ppb
effluent cone.
Carbon dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 5
1,000 7.5
Comments
Carbon used as ad-
vanced treatment of
biologically & chem-
ically treated waste
water. Plant capaci-
ty 0.66 cu m/sec .
Data presented for
two time periods.
See IXG-1
for comments .
See IXG-1
for comments .
Study consisted of
8 tests of about 100
hr duration each.
See IXG-1
for comments .
See IXG-1
for comments .
Test chemical used
was Cr C13 with 24
hr carbon contact
time.
Ref .
64
u **
64
64
82
64
64
72
(continued)
t
<7V
-------
TABLE E~i(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Metals (G.)
(IX)
Nof
IX
G-
7
cont
IX
G-
8
IX
f* -,
9
IX
G-
10
IX
G-
11
IX
f —
12
IX
G-
13
b
Chemical
i. 1 • . .
Chromium"*"0
Copper
Copper
Copper
Iron
Iron
Description of Study
Study
Type0
L,I
F,C
F,C
L,I
F,C
F,C
Waste
Type
P
M
M
P
M
M
Influent
Char.
100 ppm
88 ppb
49 ppb
100 ppm
207 ppb
40 ppb
Results o'f Study
Carbon dose % Removal
(ppm)
5,000 17.5
10,000 47.5
Carbon dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 16
1,000 26
5,000 34
10,000 36
69% reduction; 27 ppb
effluent cone.
35% reduction; 32 ppb
effluent cone.
Carbon Dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 8
1 , 000 10
5,000 73
10,000 96.4
68% reduction; 66 ppb
effluent cone.
Clone, increased to 45 ppb
in effluent.
Comments
24 hr contact time,
test chemical was
K2Cr207
See IXG-1
for comments .
See IXG-1
for comments .
24 hr contact time,
test chemical was
Cu 804
See IXG-l
for- comments .
See IXG-1
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
72
64
64
72
64
64
d)
H
CT\
CJ
-------
TABLES -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
IX
G-
14
IX
G-
15
IX
G-
16
IX
G-
17
IX
G-
18
IX
G-
19
IX
G
20
b
Chemical
Lead
Lead
Lead
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Mercury
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F,C
F,C
L,I
F,C
F,C
L,I
F,C
Waste
Type d
M
M
P
M
M
P
M
Influent
Char.
22 ppb
4 . 7 ppb
100 ppm
6 . 2 ppb
2.3 ppb
100 ppb
3.6 ppb
Results qf Study
Cone, increased to 26 ppb
Cone, increased to 5.3
ppb.
Carbon dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 13
1,000 17.7
5,000 84.0
10,000 93.0
21% reduction; 4.9 ppb
effluent cone.
Cone, increased to 4.1
ppb.
Carbon dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 1
1,000 3
5,000 25
10,000 50
Cone, increased to 6.7
ppb.
Comments
See IXG-1
for comments .
See IXG-1
for comments.
24 hr contact time,
test chemical used
Pb(NO3)2
See IXG-1
for comments .
See IXG-1
for comments .
24 hr contact time,
test chemical used
was MnCl2 .
See IXG- 1
for comments.
(continue
Ref.
64
64
72
64
64
72
64
:d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
IX
G-
21
IX
G-
22
IX
G-
23
IX
G-
24
IX
G-
25
IX
G-
2
~ >:' b'
Chemicar
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Nickel
S elenium
Description of Study
Study
Type0
F,C
L, I
u
R
L,I
R
Waste
Type
M
P
U
U
P
U
Influent
Char.
1.2 ppb
100 ppm
10 ppb
100 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
Cone . increased to 4 . 9
apb .
Carbon Dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 99
1,000 99
5,000 99
10,000 99
80% reduction achieved
with carbon dose of 100
Mg/1. PAC + chelating
agent .
80% reduction by PAC &
Alum Coagulation.
Carbon dose % Removal
(pp m )
0 0
500 4
1,000 5
5,000 10.5
10,000 52
GAC treatment after Lime
ppt. yielded 96% reduc-
tion .
Comments
See IXG- i
cor comments .
24 hr contact time,
test chemical used
was Hg Cl2-
Efficiency of reduc-
tion was dependent
on pH. Optimum pH
was 7.0. Tannic Ac-
id and Citric Acid
were ineffective as
chelating agents.
GAC reduction of Hg
enhanced by use of
chelating agent.
24 hr contact time,
test chemical used
was NiCl2.
Ref .
64
72
8 7
90
72
90
(continued)
I
H
CTt
Ul
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
Nof
IX
G-
27
IX
G-
28
IX
G-
29
Chemical
Thallium
Zinc
Zinc
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
F,C
F,C
Waste
Type
U
M
M
Influent
Char.
670 ppb
412 ppb
Results of Study
GAG treatment after Lime
ppt. yielded 84% reduc-
tion.
81% reduction; 124 p'pb
effluent cone.
61% reduction; 162 ppb
effluent cone.
Comments
See IXG-1
for comments.
See IXG-1
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
90
64
64
d)
H
a\
-------
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
TABLE E-l(continued)
Activated Carbon (IX)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (I)
a
No.
IX
I-
1
IX
I-
2
IX
T —
3
IX
T —
4
IX
I-
5
IX
I-
6
IX
I-
7
IX
I-
8
IX
I-
9
IX
I-
10
b
Chemical
PCB ' s
( Unspecified)
PCB ' s
(Unspecified)
PCB ' s
( Unspecified)
Arochlor
1242
Arochlor
1242
Arochlor
1242
Arochlor
1242
Arochlor
•1254
Arochlor
1254
Arochlor
1254
Description of Study
Study
Typec
C,P
C,P
C,P
L,B,I
I
I
I
L,B,I
I
I
Waste
Type d
H
H
H
P
P
S
I
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
19 ppb
400 ppb
@ 0. 6 MG
treated
1.0 ppb
@ 12 MG
treated
45 ppb
45 ppb
45 ppb
45 ppb
49 ppb
160 ppb
ll.lSppb
and
37.5 ppb
Results of Study
Not detectable in efflu-
ent with 60 min contact
time .
Not detectable in efflu-
ent with 30-40 min con-
tact time.
Not detectable in efflu-
ent with 8.5 min contact
time .
<0.5 ppb final cone.
carbon capacity was
25 mg/g.
4.3 ir.g/g capacity for a
1.1 ppb final cone.
25 mg/g capacity for a
<0.5 ppb final cone.
25 mg/g capacity for a
<0.5 ppb final cone.
72 mg/g of carbon capac-
ity for a final cone, of
<0.5 ppb
15.75 mg/g capacity for
98.5% reduction.
0.37 mg/g capacity for
99% reduction.
Comments
Treatment by EPA
trailer .
See IXI- 1
for comments .
See IXI- 1
for comments .
Pulverized FS-300
Pulverized FS-300
used .
Ref .
6
6
6
8
22
38
66
8
22
22
(continued)
i
7
-------
TABLEE-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (I)
No.
IX
I-
11
IX
I-
12
IX
I-
13
IX
T —
14
IX
I-
15
IX
I-
16
j-,
Chemical
Arochlor
1254
Arochlor
1254
Arochlor
1254
Arochlor
1254
Arochlor
1254
Arochlor
1254
i I
Description of Study
Study
Type0
C,L
F,C
I
I
I
B,L
Waste
Type
P
P
P
S
I
P
Influent
Char.
0.25 ppb
at 100ml
per hr
50 ppb
49 ppb
49 ppb
pH = 7 . 0
49 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
<0.05 ppb final cone.
for 240 BV.
<1.0 ppb final effluent
at 0.006 Ib/lb capacity.
1.0 mg/g capacity for
1.2 ppb effluent.
7.2 mg/g capacity for
final cone, of 0.5 ppb.
See IXI-13 results
94.4% average reduction;
14% desorbed from carbon
by elutriation w/solvent
Comments
Experiment lasted
5 days.
Cost estimate for
full scale columns
are $0.65/100 gal
at 0.25 Mgd.
FS-300 used.
Solvents included
pentane-acetone , di
ethyl ether, methy-
lene chloride-ace-
tone, chloroform-
acetone, acetone.
(continue
Ref.
22
22
22
38
66
20
id)
I
I
CT>
00
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
Activated Carbon (IX)
: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
IX
J-
1
IX
J-
2
IX
J-
3
IX
J-
4
IX
J-
5
IX
J-
6
IX
J-
7
IX
J-
8
IX
J~
9
IX
J-
10
b
Chemical
Aldrin
Aldrin
Aldrin
Aldrin
Aldrin
2,4-D butyl
ester
Chlordane
Chlordane
ODD
ODD
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
I
L,B,I
C,P
C,P
L,B
C,P
C,P
I
I
Waste
Type d
P
S
P
H
H
P
H
H
S
P
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
48 ppb
48 ppb
8 . 5 ppb
@ 0.1 MG
treated
60.5 ppb
@ 3000
gal
treated .
100 ppb
13 ppb
@ 1.0 MG
treated
1430 ppb
@ 3000
gal
treated
56 ppb
pH = 7.0
56 ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction; 2% desorbed
by elutriation with solvent.
30 mg/g of carbon capacity
for a final cone, of
<1.0 ppb.
30 mg/g of carbon capacity
for a final cone, of
<1.0 ppb.
98% reduction w/17 min
contact time.
99.8% reduction w/240 min
contact time.
100% reduction; 10% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
97.3 reduction; w/17 min
contact time .
99.99% reduction; w/240 min
contact time .
130 mg/g carbon capacity for
a final cone, of 0.1 ppb.
See IXJ-9 results.
Comments
Calgon FS-300 used.
pH = 7.0
Pulverized FS-300
Treated by EPA mobile
trailer.
See IXJ-4
for comments.
Calgon FS-300 used.
See IXJ-4
for comments.
See IXJ-4
for comments.
Pulverized FS-300 used.
Ref .
20
38
8
6
6
20
6
6
38
8
(continued)
bd
H
-------
TABLES-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
No?
IX
J-
11
IX
J-
12
IX
J-
13
IX
J-
14
IX
•J-
15
IX
J-
16
IX
J-
17
IX
J-
18
IX
J ~*
19
IX
J-
20
b
Chemical
ODD
DDE
DDE
DDE
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT f
Dieldrin
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
I
I
I
I
L,B, I
C,L,R
B,L
I
I
Waste
Type d
I
I
P
S
S
P
P,R
P
I
S
Influent
Char.
6 ppb
DH=7.0
8 ppb
ph=7.0 •
38 ppb
38 ppb
pH=7.0
41 ppb
pH = 7
41 ppb
10 ppb
100 ppb.
41 ppb
DH = 7
L9 ppb
Results of Study
See IXJ-9 results.
9.4 mg/g carbon capacity
for a -final cone, of
<1.0 ppb.
See IXJ-12 results.
See IXJ-12 results.
11 mg/g of carbon capac-
ity for a final cone.
of 0.1 ppb
11 mg/g of carbon capac-
ity for a final cone, of
0.15 ppb.
Greater than 99% reduc-
tion achieved.
100% reduction; 51% de-
so.rbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
See IXJ-15 results.
15 mg/g carbon capacity
for a final cone, of
0.05 ppb.
Comments
Pulverized FS-300
used .
Pulverized FS-300
Cumulative removal
following prechlo-
rination and coagu-
lation-filtration
Calgon FS-300
(continue
Ref.
66
66
8
38
38
8
6
20
66
38
d)
i
-J
o
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
IX
J-
21
IX
J "*
22
IX
J-
23
IX
J-
24
IX
J-
25
IX
J-
26
IX
J-
27
IX
J-
28
IX
J-
29
u.
Chemical
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Endr in
Endrin
Endr in
Description of Study
Study
Type0
L,B,I
C,P
C,P
B,L,R
C,L,R
I
I
L,B,I
B,L,R
Waste
Type d
P
H
H
P,R
P,R
I
I
P
P,R
Influent
Char.
19 ppb
11 ppb
@ 0.1MG
treated
60 . 5ppb
0 3000
gal.
treated .
10 ppb
10 ppb
@ 0.5
gpm/f t3
19 ppb
pH=7 .0
62 ppb
pH=7.0
62 ppb
10 ppb
Results of Study
15 mg/g carbon capacity
for a final cone, of
0.08 ppb.
No detectable level in
effluent w/17 min con-
tact time .
No detectable level in
effluent w/240 min con-
tact time.
Carbon Cone. % Removal
5 mg/1 75
10 mg/1 85
20 mg/1 92
Greater than 99% reduc-
tion achieved.
See IXJ-lO results.
100 mg/g carbon capacity
for a final cone, of
0.05 ppb.
100 mg/g carbon capacity
for a final cone, of
0.07 ppb
Carbon Cone. % Removal
5 mg/1 80
10 mg/1 90
20 mg/1 94
Comments
Pulverized FS-300
Treated by EPA
mobile trailer.
See IXJ-22
for comments.
Cumulative removal
following prechlo-
rination & coagula-
tion-sedimentation.
See IXJ- 24
for comments .
Pulverized FS-300
See IXJ-24
for comments .
Ref .
8
6
6
6
6
66
66
8
6
(continued)
i
H
~J
H
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
No.
IX
U~~
30
IX
J-
31
IX
J-
32
IX
J-
33
IX
J-
34
IX
J-
35
IX
J-
36
IX
J-
37
b
Chemical
Endrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Herbicides
(unspecified)
Herbicides
(unspecified)
Kepone
Lindane
r
Description of Study
Study
Type0
C,L,R
I
C,P
C,P
R
R
C,P
B,L,R
Waste
Type
P,R
S
H
H
U
U
H
P,R
Influent
Char.
10 ppb
@ 0.5
gpm/ft3
62 ppb
pH = 7.0
6.1 ppb
@ 0.1 MG
treated
80 ppb
@ 3000
gal
treated
10,000
ppm TOC
@ 0.02
MGD
1500 ppm
TOC @
0.02 MGD
4000 ppb
@ 0.225MG
treated
10 ppb
Results of Study
Greater than 99% reduction
achieved.
See IXJ-27 results.
99% reduction w/17 min
contact time.
99.9% reduction w/240 min
contact time .
99% TOC reduction achieved
w/412 min contact time.
90% TOC reduction achieved
w/412 min contact time.
No detectable levels in
effluent w/45 min contact
time.
Carbon Cone . % Removal
5 mg/1 30
10 mg/1 55
20 mg/1 80
Comments
See IXJ-24
for comments.
Treated by EPA mobile
trailer.
Treated by EPA mobile
trailer.
Pretreatment included
pH adjustment.
Pretreatment included
settling and filtration
Treated by EPA mobile
trailer.
See IXJ-24
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
6
38
6
6
38
38
6
6
Jd)
I
to
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification;
Activated Carbon (IX)
Pesticides (J)
a
No.
IX
J-
38
IX
J-
39
IX
J-
40
IX
J-
41
IX
J-
42
IX
J-
43
IX
J-
44
IX
J-
45
b
Chemical
Lindane
Parathion
Parathion
2,4,5-T ester
2,4,5-T ester
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
C,L,R
B,L,R
C,L,R
B,L,R
C,L,R
C,P
L,B,I
I
Waste
Type d
P,R
P,R
P,R
P,R
P»R
P
P
S
Influent
Char.
10 ppb
@ 0.5
jpm/ft3
10 ppb
10 ppb
10 ppb
10 ppb
@ 0.5
gpm/ft3
36 ppb @
0.25 MG
treated
155 ppb .
155 ppb
Results of Study
Greater than 99% reduction
achieved.
Carbon Cone. % Removal
5 mg/1 >99
10 mg/1 >99
20 mg/1 >99
Greater than 99% reduction
achieved.
Carbon Cone. % Removal
5 mg/1 80
10 mg/1 90
20 mg/1 95
Greater than 99% reduction
achieved.
97% reduction w/26 min
contact time .
42 mg/g carbon capacity for
a final cone, of <1.0 ppb.
See IXJ-44 results.
Comments
See IXJ-24
for comments .
See IXJ-24
for comments.
See IXJ-24
for comments.
See IXJ-24
for comments.
See IXJ-24
for comments.
Treated by EPA mobile
trailer.
Pulverized FS-300.
(continue
Ref .
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
38
d)
-------
TABLES-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Phenols(K)
(IX)
Chemical Classification:
No?
IX
K-
1
IX
K-
2
IX
K-
3
IX
K-
4
IX
K-
5
IX
K-
6
IX
K-
7
Chemical
Butyl Phenol
4-Chloro-
3-Methyl-
phenol
Cresol
2 , 3-Dichloro
phenol
Dimethyl-
phenol
3 , 5-Dimethyl
phenol
2 , 4-Dinitro-
phenol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
C,P
B,L
C,P
B,L
C,P
B,L
I
Waste
Type d
H
P
H
P
H
P
P
Influent
Char.
300 ppb
100 ppb
230 ppb
100 ppb
L220 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
95% reduction w/8.5 min
contact time.
100% reduction; 10% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
96.5% reduction w/8.5
min contact time.
100% reduction; 14% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
99.6% reduction w/8.5
min contact time.
100% reduction; 5% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
For pH=3.0:
Carbon capacity=405mg/g
K =168
1/n =0.38
r =0.99
Comments
250,000 gal spill
treated by EPA mo-
bile treatement
trailer .
Calgon FS-300 used.
Solvents included
pentane-acetone, d i-
ethyl ether, methy-
lene chloride-ace-
tone, chloroform-
acetone and acetone.
250,000 gal spill
treated by EPA
mobile treatment
trailer .
See IXK-2
for comments .
See IXK-3
for comments .
See IXK-2
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
6
20
6
20
6
20
21
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
(IX)
ft
No.
IX
K-
7
cont
IX
K-
8
IX
K-
9
b
Chemical
' 5
Nonylphenol
• i
;
Pentachloro-
phenol
/
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
I
Waste
j
Type
P
P
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
For pH=7.0:
Carbon capacity=160mg/g
K =18
1/n =0.95
r =0.94
For pH=9.0:
Carbon capacity=75 mg/g
K =41
1/n =0.25
r =0.87
For pH=3.0:
Carbon capacity=570mg/g
K =55
1/n =1.03
r =0.97
For pH=7.0:
Carbon capacity=595mg/g
K =254
1/n =0.37
r =0.98
For pH=9.0:
Carbon capacity=275mg/g
K =148
1/n =0.27
r =0.98
For pH=3.0:
Carbon capacity=635mg/g
K =260
1/n =0.4
r =0.98
Comments
•
Ref .
21
i
21
(continued)
i
H
Ul
-------
TABLE E-i(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: phenols (K)
a
No.
IX
K-
9
:ont
IX
K-
10
IX
K-
11
IX
K-
12
k
Chemical
Pentachloro-
phenol
Phenol
Phenol
_
!i '
Description of Study
Study
Type0
C,P
B,L
I
Waste*
Type
H
P
P
Influent
Char.
10 ppm
100 ppb
Results of Study
For pH=7.0:
Carbon capacity=385mg/g
K =145
1/n =0.42
r =0.98
For pH=9.0:
Carbon capacity=260mg/g
K =100
1/n =0.41
r =0.98
Not detectable in efflu-
ent after 26 min contact
time .
100% reduction; 6% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
For pH=3.0:
Carbon capacity=85 mg/g
K =12
1/n =0.38
r =0.92
For pH=7.0:
Carbon capacity=80 mg/g
K =13
1/n =0.77
r =0.91
For pH=9.0:
Carbon capacity=70 mg/g
K =22
Comments
215,000 gal treated
by EPA mobile treat-
ment trailer.
See IXK-2
for comments .
Ref .
6
20
21
(continued)
i
-------
TABLEE-l (continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification:
Activated CArbon
Phenols(K)
(IX)
No?
IX
K-
12
cont
IX
K-
13
IX
K-
14
IX
K-
15
IX
K-
16
IX
K-
17
IX
K-
18
IX
K-
19
IX
K-
20
Chemical
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol.
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
I
C,P
L,I
I
R
R
R
R
Waste*
Type d
P
H
P
S
U
U
U
U
Influent
Char.
1 . 0 ppm
140 ppb
100 ppm
500 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
200 ppm
@ 0.05
MGD
600 ppm
§ 0.2MGD
800 ppm
?0. 15MGD
L200 ppm
3.0. 15MGD
Results of Study
1/n =0.49
r =0.94
Adsorption capacity
21 mg/g
100% reduction w/8 . 5 min
contact time.
99% reduction
99% reduction
99% reduction
80% reduction; 194 ppm
final cone., 161 mg/g
carbon capacity.
Effluent cone, of 0.01
ppm achievable at con-
tact time of 165 min.
Effluent cone, of lOOppm
achievable at contact
time of 41 min.
Effluent con. of O.OSppm
achievable at contact
time of 24 min.
Effluent cone, of 1 . Oppm
achievable at contact
time of 55 min.
Comments
See IXK-3
for comments .
24 hr contact time
time w/carbon dose
of lOx phenol cone.
Settling, equaliza-
tion & mixed media
filtration used as
pretreatment .
Equalization used
as pretreatment.
Biological & mixed
media filtration
used as pretreatment
Sand filtration &
settling used as
pretreatment .
(continue
Ref .
21
6
72
35
38
38
38
38.
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
IX
21
IX
K-
22
IX
K-
23
IX
K-
24
IX
K-
25
IX
K
26
w
Chemical
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Res. orcinol
2,4, 6-Tri-
chlorophenol
Trimethyl-
phenol
.«:-
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
B,L
B,L
B,L
C,P
Waste
Type »
U
£
Influent
Char.
80 ppm
0.3MGD
I
U
P
P
P
H
.000 ppm
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
130 ppb
Results of Study
Effluent cone, of 1 . Oppm
achievable at contact
time of 33 min.
80.6% reduction achieved
100% reduction; 6% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
100% reduction; 0% de
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
100% reduction; 0% de
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
92% reduction w/8.5 min
contact time.
Comments
Biolog-ical, set-
tling & multi media
filtration used as
pre treatment .
500 mg/1 carbon
dose used.
See IXK- 2
for comments.
See IXK- 2
for comments .
See IXK- 2
for comments .
See IXK- 3
for comments .
(continu
Ref .
38
20
20
6
ad)
i
00
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Phthalates (L)
a
No.
IX
L-
1
IX
L-
2
IX
L-
3
IX
L-
4
b
Chemical
Bis(2-ethyl-
feexyl) Phthalate
Bis(2-Ethyl-
hexyl)Phthalate
Dibutyl
Phthalate
Dimethyl
Phthalate
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B
R
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type d
I
U
P
P
Influent
Char.
1300 ppb
e
1 . Ogpm/f £
100 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
Final cone, of <22 ppb achiev
able at 90 min EBCT.
Reduction by flocculation
w/Al 2 (SO.) improved w/granu-
lar activated carbon pre-
treatment.
100% reduction; 38% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent .
100% reduction; 13% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
Comments
TOC cone, of influent
was 15000 ppm; estimated
cost excluding pretreat-
ment was $27.00/1000 gal
Calgon FS-300 used. Sol-
vents included pentane-
acetone, diethyl ether,
methylene chloride-ace-
tone, chloroform-ace-
tone and acetone .
See IXL- 3
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
5
90
20
20
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
a
No.
IX
M-
1
IX
M-
2
IX
M-
3
IX
M-
4
IX
M-
c
IX
M-
6
i..
Chemical
Biphenyl
Cumene
Dimethyl-
Naphthalene
1,1-Diphenyl-
lydrazine
Fluoranthrene
Napthalehe
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
B,L
B,L
I
B,L
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
nf luent
har.
00 ppb
00 ppb
00 ppb
pH=7 . 5
100 ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 8% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
80% reduction; 11% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows :
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 94.8 0.279
Filtrasorb 149.0 0.232
Carbon dose (mg/1) required
to reduce 1.0 mg/1 to O.lmg/L
Darco - 18.0
Filtrasorb - 10.0
80% reduction; 5% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows:
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 62.8 0.30
Filtrasorb 1.69 0.56
Comments
Calgon FS-300 used. Sol-
vents included pentane-
acetone, diethyl ether,
methylene chloride-ace-
tone, chloroform-acetone
and acetone.
See IXM-1
for comments.
See IXM-i
:or comments.
See IXM- i
for comments.
Ref .
20
20
31
20
31
(continued)
i
00
o
-------
TABLEE-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: polynuclear Aromatics (M)
No.
IX
M-
6
:ont
IX
M-
7
IX
M-
8
IX
M-
9
j-j
Chemical
Napthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F,C
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type
M
P
P
Influent
Char.
Cone.
not re-
ported
100 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
Carbon dose (mg/1) required
to reduce l.Omg/1 to O.lmg/1:
Darco - 29.0
Filtrasorb - 19.0
70% reduction achieved in
carbon treatment phase.
80% reduction; 6% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
80% reduction; 5% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
Comments
Carbon used as advanced
treatment of biological-
ly & chemically treated
wastewater. Plant ca-
pacity 0.66 M /sec.
See IXM- l
for comments .
See IXM- 1
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
64
20
(
20
id)
M
H
oo
H
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification; Alcohols (A)
Nof
XA-
i
XA-
2
XA-
3
XA-
4
XA-
5
XA-
6
Chemical
Butanol
Cyclohexanol
Decanol
2-Ethyl-l-
Hexanol
m-Heptanol
dT
Octanol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 /ug/1
100 «g/l
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/1
Results of Study
Complete removal. 38% de-
sorption of butanol by
elutriation with solvent
was achieved.
Complete removal. 81% de-
sorption of cyclohexanol by
elutriation with solvent
was achieved.
Complete removal. 89% de-
sorption of decanol by
elutriation with solvent
was achieved.
Complete removal. 100% de-
sorption of 2-Ethyl-l-Hexa-
nol by elutriation with sol-
vent was achieved.
Complete removal. 100% de-
sorption of n-Heptanol by
elutriation with solvent
was achieved.
Complete removal. Greater
than 100% desorption of
Octanol by elutriation with
solvent was reported.
Comments
Resin was Amberlite
XAD-2 . Resin found to
be more effective than
carbon for phthalate
esters, most aromatics,
and pesticides. Carbon
was more efficient for
alkanes; neither effec-
tive for acidic com-
pounds .
See XA- i
for additional results .
See XA-1
for additional results.
See XA-1
for additional results.
See XA^L
for additional results.
See XA-i
for additional results.
Ref.
20
20
20
20
20
20
(continued)
00
-------
TABLE E--l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
Ho?
XA-
'7
XA-
8
Chemical
Pentanol
Propanol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
B,L
Waste 1
Type
P
P
Influent
Chair.
100 jug/]
100 /ig/3
Results of Study
Complete removal. 67% de-
sorption of pentanol by
elutriation with solvent
was achieved.
Complete removal . Propanol
could not be desorbed by
elutriation with solvent.
Comments
See XA~i
for additional results.
See XA-1
for additional results.
(continu
Ref .
20
20
ed)
i
H1
00
OJ
-------
TABLEE-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
No.
XB-
1
XB-
2
XB-
3
XB-
4
XB-
5
XB-
6
XB-
7
XB-
8
b
Chemical
Butyric- Acid
Caproic Acid
Decanoic Acid
Dodecane
Heptahoic Acid
Hexadecane
Laurie • Acid
Methyl
Decanoate
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 Aig/3
100 Aig/1
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/3
100 yug/3
100 Aig/1
100 Aig/1
100 Aig/i
Results of Study
100% reduction; no desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
50% reduction; 6% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
25% reduction; No desorptior
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
50% reduction; 4% desorptior
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
25% reduction; No desorptior]
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; 50% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Comments
Resin was Amberlite
XAD-2. Resin found to
be more effective than
carbon for phthalate
esters, most aroma tics,
and pesticides; carbon
more efficient for
alkanes; neither effec-
tive for acidic com-
pounds .
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results..-
See XB-i
for additional results .
See XB- i
for additional results.
See XB-i
for additional results.
See XB-i
for additional results.
See XB-i
for additional results.
Ref .
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
(continued)
oo
-------
TABLE
(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
XB-
9
XB-
10
XB-
11
XB-
12
XB-
13
XB-
14
XB-
15
XB-
16
XB-
17
XB-
. 18
b
Chemical
Methyl
Dodecanoate
Methyl Hexa-
decanoate
Methyl Octa-
decanoate •
Myristic Acid
Octadecane
Octa.noia Acid
Propionic Acid
Pyruvic Acid
Tetradecane
Valeric Acid
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
»
Influent
Char.
100 /ug/1
100 Aig/1
100 .Aig/1
100 Aig/1
100 Mg/1
100 ./ug/1
100 Aig/1
100 Aig/1
100 xig/1
100 Aig/1
Results of Study
100% reduction; 72% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; 67% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; 54% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
25% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
90% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
50% reduction; 23% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
50% reduction; 2% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Comments
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1 .
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
Ref .
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
(continued)
i
00
U1
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
No.
XC-
•1
XC-
2
xc-
3
XC-
4
xc-
5
xcJ
6
xc-
7
jj
Chemical
Aniline
Butylamine
Cyclohexyl-
amine
Dibutylamine
Dihexylamine
Dimethylamine
Hexylamihe
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 Aig/1
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/1
100 Mg/1
100 Aig/1
100 /ug/1
100 Aig/1
Results of Study
Complete removal; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Complete removal; 74% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Complete removal; 94% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Complete removal; 62% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Complete removal; 11% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% removal; 50% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 110% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Comments
Resin was Amberlite
XAD-2. Resin found to
be more effective than
carbon for phthalate
esters, most aromatics,
and pesticides; carbon
was more efficient for
alkanes; neither effec-
tive for acidic com-
pounds .
See XC-i
for additional results.
See XC-i
for additional results.
See XC-l
for additional results.
See XC-i
for additional results.
See XC-l
for additional results.
See XC-i
for additional results.
(continue
Ref .
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
^)
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
No.
XC-
8
XC-
9
XC-
10
XC-
11
xc-
12
•
Chemical
Morpholine
Octylamine
Piperidine.
Pyrrole
Tributylamine
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 xug/1
100 /ug/1
100 Aig/1
100 fig/l
100 /ug/1
Results of Study
100% removal; 28% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 15% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 42% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 5% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 108% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
Comments
See XC-i
for additional results.
See XC-l
for additional results.
See XC-l
for additional results.
See XC-l
for additional results.
See XC-l
for additional results.
(continue
Ref .
20
20
20
20
20
d)
M
H
00
-------
TABLE E-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
XD-
1
XD-
2
XD-
3
XD-
4
XD-
5
XD-
6
„. . ,b
Chemical
Acetophenone
Benzaldehyde
Benzil
Benzoic Acid
Benzene,
Toluene ,
Xylene (BTX)
DE
Cumene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
P
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
I
P
Influent
Char.
100 ^g/1
100 pg/1
100 jig/1
100 pq/l
20 to
300 ppm
100 jig/1
Results of Study
100% reduction; 80% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; 79% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; 63% desorp-
tion from resin by-elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Effluent (leakage) is '0.2ppm
100% removal; 63% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
Comments
Resin was Amberlite
XAD-2. Resin found to
be more effective than
carbon for phthalate
esters, most aromatics,
and pesticides; carbon
more efficient for al-
kanes; neither effective
for acid compounds.
See XD-1
for additional results.
See XD-l
for additional results.
See XD-1
for additional results.
Costs estimated to be
$3.36/1000 gal. at
250 gpm and 300 ppm BTX.
Resin regenerant is
steam. Recovery of BTX
reduces costs to $1.09/
1000 gal.
See XD-1
for additional results.
(continue
Ref .
20
20
20
20
32
20
,d)
00
00
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
XD-
7
XD-
8
XD-
9
XD-
10
XD-
11
XD- :
12"
::'„;£>
Chemical
m-Dichloro-
jehzene
o-Dichloro-
>enzene
p-Dichloro-
)enzene
l,2;4-Trichloro-
jenzene
2,4, 6-Trinitro-
toluene (TNT)
2,4, 6-Trinitro-
toluene (TNT)
and other muni-
tions plant
waste waters:
Cycionite (il)X) ,
Htramine
(Tetryl) and
2-yclotetrameth-
/lene tetrani-
tfamine (HMX) .
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
P,C
R
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
I
; .1;
Influent
Char.
100 pg/1
100 jag/1
100 fig/1
100 ^g/1
81 to
116 ppm
Not.
reported
Results of Study
100% removal; 52% desorption
from_ resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 61% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 35% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 67% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
Resin adsorption capacity was
0.116 to 0.154 gm/gm at 1 ppm
breakthrough. No loss in
capacity after 15 regenera-
tion cycles. 1 ppm break-
through occurred after 633
to 1193 B.V.
Adsorption capacities (Lb/Lb
Amberlite XAD-4 resin) :
Contami- Break- Satura-
nant through tion
TNT 0.020 0.050
RDX " 0.236 0.382
, RDX &. 0.003 0.019
TETRYL 0.001 0.006
TNT & 0.116 0.278
RDX 0.020 0.030
TNT & 0.179
HMX 0.002
Comments
See XD-i
for additional results.
See XD-l
for additional results.
See XD-l
for additional results.
See XD-l
for additional results.
Amberlite XAD-4 used;
acetone regenerant. Less
costly than carbon due
to regenerability.
For 80 gpm facility
costs estimated to be
$5.08/1000 gal.
(continue
Ref .
20
20
20
20
2
40
d)
•p
H1
00
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
XD-
12
:ont.
;
b
Chemical
'' -u .
Description of Study
Study
Type0
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
(Note: breakthrough cone, not
defined.)
Typical cone, of contaminants
in wastewaters:
TNT - 0-400 ppm
RDX - 50-100 ppm
pH - 3.5-7.0
Flow - 0.02-1.0 MGD
Temp - 60-160°P
Comments
(continue
Ref .
sd)
H
^
O
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
No.
XF-
1
XF-
2
XF-
3
XF-
4
XF-
5
XF-
6
b
Chemical
Bromof orm
Bromof orm
Bromodichlo-
me thane
Carbon
Tetrachlo-
r ide
Chloroform
Chloroform
Descr
Study
Typec
L
B,L
L
P '
P
L
iption c
Waste
Type d
W
P
W
I
I
W
f Study
Influent
Char.
0 . 2 ppb
100 ppb
100 to
7000 ppm
chlori-
nated
hydro-
carbons
100 to
7000 ppn
chlori-
nated
hydro-
carbons
1.1 ppb
Results of Study
100% removal; 28% de-
sorption from resin by
elutriation w/solvent.
At 1 ppm, equilibriu m
capacity was 48 mg/g.
Effluent of
-------
TABLE E-](continued)
Concentration Process: Re sin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
Nof
XF-
7
XF-
8
XF-
9
XF-
10
XF-
11
XF-
12
XF-
13
XF-
14
XF-
15
XF-
16
„ . nb
Chemical
Dibromochlo-
romethane
1 , 1-Dichlo-
roethane
1, 2-Dichlo-
roethane
1 , 2-Dichlo-
roethylene
Ethylene
Di chloride
Hexachloro-
butadiene
Hexachloro-
ethane
Tetrachloro-
ethane
Tetrachloro-
ethyl e_n e
1,1, 1-Tri-
chloroethane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L
L
L
L
P
B,L
B,L
B,L
L
L
Waste
Type d
W
W
W
W
I
P
P
P
W
W
Influent
Char.
3.9 ppb
2.3 ppb
2.1 ppb
0.2 ppb
100 to
7000
ppm
chlori-
nated
hydro-
carbons
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
179 ppb
551 ppb
Results of Study
Effluent of
-------
U)
TABLEE -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (x)
Chemical Classification:
a
No.
XF-
16
cont
XF-
17
b
Chemicai,
1,2, 3-Tri-
chloropro-
pane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
Results of Study
Virgin Regenerated
33 ppb 9°°° 850°
com-
pound
leakage
Days 23.4 22.1
Gal
treated/
cu ft 67500 63750
sorbent
Complete removal w/com-
plete desorption by
elutriation w/solvent.
Comments
Flow-2 gpm/cu ft
(16 BV/hr) Regener-
ated at 37 Ib steam/
cu ft @ 5 psig
See XF-2
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
20
d)
-------
TABLE E~l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (I)
a
No.
XI-
1
XI-
2
XI-
3
Chemical
Arochlor 1254
Arochlor 1254
Arochlor 1254
& 1260
..JTC
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
C,L
C
Waste
Type d
P
P
M
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
0-25 ppb
lOOml/hr
1-25 ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction; 76.6% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
Final effluent cone, was
0-0.25 ppb for 192 B.V.
60% reduction w/&mberlite
XAD-4. 23% ± 2% reduction
w/ftmberlite XAD-2.
Comments
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone , chloro-
form-acetone & acetone.
5 day study.
In continuous flow
system reduction de-
creased greatly w/time.
(continue
Ref .
20
22
57
d)
-------
TABLEE-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
Nof
XJ-
1
XJ-
2
XJ-
3
XJ-
4
XJ-
5
Chemical
Aldrin
Atrazine
Chlorinated
Pesticides
(Unspecified)
2,4-D Butyl
ester
2,4-D and re-
lated herbi-
cides
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B,L
B,L
L
B,L
U
Waste
Type
P
P
I
P
I
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
100 ppb
33 to
118 ppm
100 ppb
20-1500
ppm 070-
80 gpm
Results of Study
100% reduction; 39% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 38% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Column studies indicatd that
Amberlite XAD-4 could pro-
cess about four times more
throughput before experienc-
ing some leakage as carbon
column. Leakages of <1 ppm
maintained at longer than
120 BV. Resin" could be ef-
fectively regenerated w/2 BV
of isopropanol whereas even
8 BV did not effectively
generate carbon.
100% reduction; 10% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Effluent cone, reduced to
<1.0 ppm.
Comments
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, chloro-
form-acetone and acetone
See XJ-i
for comments .
Solvents ranking in
terms of decreasing ef-
fectiveness were acetone
isopropanol, and metha-
nol; however, acetone
is very flammable. Col-
umn study conditions:
50-150 BV passed, 4 BV/hr
flow, 12.5-125 hr dura-
tion. Costs estimated
to be $0.83 for resin
sorption and $1.33/1000
gal for carbon.
See XJ- 1
for comments .
Amberlite XAD-4 resin
used.
(continue
Ref .
20
20
49
20
20
d)
VO
Ul
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
Nof
XJ-
6
XJ-
7
XJ-
8
Chemical
DDT
Endrin and
Heptachlor
Toxaphene
T^
t-
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B,L
F
U
Waste
Type
P .
I
I
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
0.1-2.0
ppm
@ 100 gpm
70-2600
ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction; 49% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent .
Effluent cone, reduced to
<3.0 ppb.
Effluent cone, reduced to
0.1-4.2 ppb.
Comments
See XJ-i
for comments.
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
(continue
Ref .
20
32
32
d)
M
H
VD
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
XK-
1
XK-
2
XK-
3
XK-
4
XK-
5
XK-
6
b
Chemical
Bisphenol-A
Bisphenol-A
Brine Phenol
Brine Phenol
4-Chloro-3-
methylphenol
m-Chlorophenol
w/13% NaCl
Description of Study
Study
Type0
C,L
C,L
U
U
B,L
U
Waste
Type
I
I
I
I
P
I
Influent
Char.
900 ppm
2 BV/hr
280 ppm
2 BV/ r
20% brine
w/10-150
ppm
phenol
10% brine
w/10-400
ppm
phenol
100 ppb
350 ppm
@ 0.5
gpm/ft3
Results of ..Study
At pH 11.4, poor adsorption
achieved on either XAD-4 or
XAD-7. At pH 10.0, XAD-4
treated 33.5 B.V.'s to SOppm
breakthrough. XAD-7 treated
16 B.V. to 50 ppm break-
through .
At pH 6.9, XAD-4 capacity
was 34 g/1 and XAD-7 capa-
city was 16 g/1.
Effluent cone, reduced to
<0.5 ppm.
Effluent cone, reduced to
<2.0 ppm phenols using cross
linked polystyrene macrore-
ticular resin.
100% reduction; 70% de-
sorbed from resin by
elutriation w/solvent.
At zero leakage sorption
capacity was 0.07 Ib/lb.
Comments
95% regeneration
achieved w/1 B.V. of
4% NaOH &. 4 B.V.
deionized water.
See XK-1
for comments.
Wastewater of brine
purification process
5 B.V. of 4% NaOH re-
quired for regeneration
Wastewater from a
phenoxy acid pesticide
manufacturer.
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included
pentane-acetone ,
diethyl ether, methy-
lene chloride-acetone,
chloroform-acetone and
acetone.
15 min contact time
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
(continue
Ref .
23
23
33
33
20
66
'|d)
I
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
Nof
XK-
7
XK-
8
XK-
9
XK-
10
XK-
11
XK-
12
XK-
13
XK-
14
Chemical
2,4-Dibromo-
phenol
Dichlorophenol
2,3-Dichloro-
phenol
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
3-Napthol
p-Nit'rophenol
p-Nitrophenol
P
Pentachloro-
phenol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B,L
U
B,L
U
B,L
C,L
U
B,L
f
Waste
Type d
P
I
P
I
P
I
I
P
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
1500 ppm
w/15%
brine,
pH = 2-3
100 ppb
430 ppm
@ 0.5
gpm/ft3
100 ppb
700-1300
ppm
@ 50 C
1000-
1800 ppm
@ pH=2.0
100 ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction; 44% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Resin capacity was '5. 6 Ib
phenols/ft3 @ 5 ppm break-
through.
100% reduction; 54% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
At zero leakage sorption
capacity was 0.116 Ib/lb.
100% reduction; 76% desorbed
by elutriation w/solvent.
Effluent cone, reduced to
5.0-6.0 ppm for 32 B.V.
Resin capacity was about
40 g/1. Efficient ethanol
regeneration .
Effluent cone, reduced to
1-5 ppm by cross-linked
polystyrene adsorbent resin.
100% reduction; 60% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Comments
See XK-5
for comments.
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
2% caustic soda heated
to 80°-85°C used as
regenerant.
See XK-5
for comments.
15 min contact time.
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
See XK-5
for comments.
Amberlite XAD-7 used.
20 ml columns used
w/experimental runs of
up to 40 B.V.
Effluent from parathion
manufacturer. 4% aque-
ous caustic soda (2B.V.
followed by water rinse
used as regnerant.
See XK-5
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
20
33
20
66
20
23
33
20
d)
H
VD
00
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: phenols (K)
Nof
XK-
15
XK-
16
XK-
17
XK-
18
XK-
19
XK-
20
j-,
Chemical
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Resorcinol
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
C,L
U
U
B,L
B,L
U
Waste
Type d
P
I
I
P
P
I
Influent
Char.
6700 ppm
500-1500
ppm
5000 ppm
100 ppb
100 ppb
510 ppm '
@ 0.5
•3
gpm/ftj
Results of' Study
Effluent cone, of <1.0 ppm
achieved.
Effluent cone, of 1.0-3.0ppm
achieved.
/
/
Effluent cone, reduced to
<25 ppm. /'
100% reduction; 35% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent .
100% reduction; 60% desorbed
from resin by elutriation /
w/solvent.
At zero leakage sorption
capacity was 0.2*72 Ib/lb.
Comments
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
Acetone & methanol used
as regenerants .
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
Wastewater from Bisphe-
nol A manufacturer con-
taining 0.5-1.5% phenol.
0.5-1.0% NaCl, 100-1000
ppm acetone @ pH=0.2-
1.5. Acetone & metha-
nol used as regenerant.
'Wastewater from phenolic
resin manufacturer.
Warm 44%/ formaldehyde
used as regenerant.
See Xk-5
for' comments . ./'
/
See XK-5 ,
for comments^. •
/
15 min contact time.
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
I
'"•!.'
(continue
Ref .
23
33
33
20
20
66
d)
10
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption
Chemical Classification: Phthalates (L)
(X)
Nof
XL-
1
XL-
2
XL-
3
Chemical
Dibutyl
Phthalate
Diethylhexyl
Phthalate
Dimethyl
Phthalate
'
Description of Studv
Study
Type0
B,L
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction; 108% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent .
100% reduction; 76% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 62% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent .
Comments
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl-
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, chloro-
form-acetone & acetone .
See XL-i
for comments.
See XL-1
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
20
20
20
d)
to
o
o
-------
TABLE E-i(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
No?
XM-
1
XM-
2
XM-
3
XM-
4
XM-
5
XM-
6
XM
7
Chemical
Acenapththa-
lene
Biphenyl
Cumene
Dimethyl-
naphthalene
Pluoranthrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction; 78% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent .
100% reduction; 73% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 63% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent .
100% reduction; 90% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 66% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent .
100% reduction; 41% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 63% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Comments
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone , diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, chloro-
form-acetone & acetone.
See XM- l
for comments.
See XM- 1
for comments .
See XM-1
for comments.
See XM-i
for comments.
See XM-1
for comments .
See XM-i
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
d)
to
o
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Miscellaneous sorbents (XII)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
No?
XII
G-
XII
G-
2
XII
G-
3
XII
G-
4
XII
G-
5
XII
G-
6
XII
G-
7
XII
G-
8
XII
G-
9
Chemical
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Copper
Lead
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
" T
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Influent
Char.
25 ppm
25 ppm
300 ppm
300 ppm
25 ppm
25 ppm
25 ppm
10 ppm
Results of Study
Effluent cone, of 1 . Oppm
achieved.
Effluent cone, of 1 . Oppm
achieved .
100% removal.
100% removal.
Effluent cone, of 1 . Oppm
achieved.
Residual of <5.0 mg/1
achieved .
Effluent cone, of 1 . Oppm
achieved .
Final cone, of 10 ppb
achieved.
Final cone, reduced to
0.1 ppb.
Comments
Silicon alloy used,
Silicon alloy used.
High clay soil used
High clay soil used
Silicon alloy used.
Ground redwood bark
used.
Silicon alloy used.
Silicon alloy used.
Si02 & CaO slags
used.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
d)
ISJ
o
to
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Miscellaneous Sorbents (XII)
Chemical Classification: Poljchlorinated Biphenyls (I)
a
No.
Chemical
Description of Study
Study
Typec
Waste
Type
d
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
XII
I-
1
Arochlor 1254
& 1260
1-25 ppb
73% reduction in raw sewage
w/PVC chips. Polyurethane
foam adsorbed 35% ± 3%.
In continuous flow
system reduction de-
creased greatly w/time.
57
Footnotes:
O
U)
a. Three part code .number assigned to each individual chemical compound. First
part is a Roman ;numeral which corresponds to the concentration process code
number. Second part is a capital letter corresponding to the chemical class-
ification code number. Third part is unique number for each individual
compound. :
b. Chemicals are presented in alphabetical order generally according to The Merck
Index preferred or generic name. However, it is recommended to check for a
compound under several potential names.
c. Describes the scale of the referenced study:
B - Batch Flow
C - Continuous Glow
F - Full Scale
I - Isotherm Test
L - Laboratory Scale
N - Flow Not Controlled
O
P
R
S
U
Respirometer Study
Pilot Scale
Literature Review
Slug Dose Chemical Addition
Unknown
(continued)
i
-------
Footnotes (continued):
d. Describes the type of wastewater used in the referenced study;
D - Domestic wastewater
H - Hazardous material spill
I - Industrial wastewater
P - Pure Compound (one solute in a solvent)
R - River water
S - Synthetic wastewater
U - Unknown
W - Well water
o
-------
REFERENCES TO TABLE E-l
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.-
8.
9.
10.
Anderson, G.L., Bair, W.G., and J.A. Hudziak. Ultrafil-
tration for Coal Gasification Plants. Chemical Engine'er-
ing Progress, 74(8):66-72, 1978.
Anderson, R.K., Nystron, J.M., McDonnell, R.P., and B.W.
Stevens. Explosives Removal from Munitions Wastewater.
In: Proceedings of the 30th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1975. pp. 816-825.
Bansal, B.,and W.N. Gill. Theoretical Experimental Study
of Radial Flow Hollow Fiber Reverse Osmosis. Water - 1974
70(144):136-149, 1974.
Bansal, I.K. Ultrafiltration of Oily Wastes from Process
Industries. Water - 1975, 71(151):93-99, 1975.
Beaudet, B.A. Study of Effectiveness of Activated Carbon
Technology for the Removal of Specific Materials from
Organic Chemical Processes. US EPA Contract No. 68-03-2610.
Environmental Science and Engineering Inc., Gainesville,
Florida, May 1979.
Becker, D.L.,and S.C. Wilson. The Use of Activated Carbon
for the Treatment of Pesticides and Pesticidal Wastes.
In: Carbon Adsorption Handbook, P.N. Cheremisinoff and
F. Ellerbusch, eds. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan
1978. pp. 167-213.
Berkau, E.E., Frank, C.E., and I.A. Jefcoat. A Scientific
Approach to the Identification and Control of Toxic Chemi-
cals in Industrial Wastewater. US EPA, IERL, Cincinnati,
Ohio. Presented at AIChE 87th National Meeting, Boston,
Massachusetts, August, 1979.
Bernardin, F.E. Jr., and E.M. Froelich. Practical Removal
of Toxicity by Adsorption. In: Proceeding 30th Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1975. pp. 548-560.
Berndt, C.L.,and Polkowski, L.B., PAC Upgrades Wastewater
Treatment. Water & Wastes Engineering, 15(5):48, 1978.
Bhattacharyya, D., Garrison, K.A., and R.B. Grieves. Mem-
brane Ultrafiltration of Nitrotoluenes .from Industrial
Wastes. In: Proceedings 31st Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 139-149.
E-205
-------
11. Bhattacharyya, D., Garrison, K.A., The, P.J.W., and R.B.
Grievesj Membrane Filtration: Waste Treatment Application
for_ Water Reuse. In: Proceedings of the 30th Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1975. pp. 120-131.
12. Bhattacharyya, D., Jumawan, A.B., Grieves, R.B., and S.O.
Witherup. Ultrarbitration of-Complex Wastewaters: Re-
cycling for Nonpotable Use. Journal Water Pollution Con-
trol Federation, 50 (5) :846-861, 1978.
13. Bruderly, D.E., Crane, J.D., and J.D. Riggenbach. Feasi-
bility of Zero Aromatic Hydrocarbon Discharge from a Sty-
rene Monomer Facility. In: Proceedings 32nd Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1977. pp..726-732.
14. Carberry, J.B., Twardowski, W.,and D.K. Eberhart. Clay
Adsorption Treatment of Non-Ionic Surfactants in Waste-
water. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
49 (3) :452-459, 1977.
15. Carnahan, R.P.,and L. Smith. Treatment of Wastewater Con-
taining Nitroglycerin and Nitrated Esters. In: Proceed-
ings 32nd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
•Lafayette, Indiana, 1977. pp. 876-887.
16. Chian, E.S.K. Renovation of Vehicle Washrack Wastewater
for Reuse. Water - 1975, 71 (151) :87-92, 1975.
17. .Chian, E.S.K., Bruce, W.N., and H.H.P. Fang. Removal of
Pesticides by Reverse Osmosis. Environmental Science and
Technology, 9(1):52-59, 1975.
18: Chian, E.S.K., H.H.P. Fang. Removal of Toxic Compounds
by Reverse Osmosis. Unpublished report available from
Abcor, Inc., Wilmington, Massachusetts.
19. Chian, E.S.K., Fang, H.H.P., DeWalle, F.B., and J.W. Smith.
Physical-Chemical Treatment of Hospital Wastewaters for
Potential Reuse. In: Proceedings of the 30th -Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, 'Indiana,
1975. pp. 377-389. . -fc
20. Chriswell, C.D., Ericson, R.L., Junk, G.A., Lee, K.W.,
Fritz, J.S., and H.J. Svec. Comparison of Macroreticular
Resin and Activated Carbon as Sorbents. Journal American
Water Works Association, 69 (12) :669-674, 1977.
E-206
-------
21. Cohen, J.M. Briefing for Dr. Gage on Treatability/Remov-
••.'•• ability of Toxics from Wastewater. US EPA, Cincinnati,
Ohio, June 1979.
22. Contos, G., Durfee, R.L., Hackman, E.E., and K. Price.
Assessment of Wastewater Management, Treatment Technology,
and Associated Costs for Abatement of PCB's Concentrations
. in Industrial Effluents. EPA 560/6-76-006, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 1976. 227 pp.
23. Crook, E.H., McDonnell, R.P., and J.T. McNulty. Removal
and Recovery of Phenols from Industrial Waste Effluents
with Amberlite XAD Polymeric Adsorbents. I & EC Product
Research and Development. 14:113, 1975.
24. Davis, H.J., Model, F.S., and J.R. Leal. FBI Reverse Os-
mosis Membrane for Chromium Plating Rinse Water. EPA-
600/2-78-040, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 28 pp.
25. Dence, C.W., Wang, C.J., and P.R. Durkin. Toxicity Reduc-
tion Through Chemical and Biological Modification of Spent
Pulp Bleaching Liquors. EPA Project-R 804779, Preliminary
Draft Report, U.S. Environmental- Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
26. Directo, L.S., Chen, C.L., and I.J. Kugelman. Pilot Plant
Study of Physical-Chemical Treatment. Journal Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, 49 (10):2081-2106, 1977.
27. Earhart, J.P., Won, K.W., Wong, H.Y., Prattsnitz, J.M., and
C.J. King. Recovery of Organic Pollutants via Solvent
Extraction. Chemical Engineering Progress, 73(5):67-73,
1977.
28. Eisenberg, W.C., Fochtman, E., and R.A. Dobbs. Treatment
of Carcinogenic and Other Hazardous Compounds in Water.
In: Preprints of Papers Presented at the 177th National
Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Honolulu', "Hawaii,
1976. pp. 794-795.
29. DeJ.ohn, P.B., Factors to Consider When Treating Dye Wastes
with Granular Activated Carbon. In: Proceedings 31st In-
dustrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, 1976. pp. 375-384.
30. Fang, H.H.P.,and E.S.K. Chian, Reverse Osmosis Separation
of Polar Organic Compounds in Aqueous Solution. Environ-
mental Science and Technology, 10(4):364-369. 1976.
E-207
-------
31. Fochtman, E.G./and R.A. Dobbs.
Compounds by Activated Carbon.
Ohio.
Adsorption of Carcinogenic
US EPA, MERL, Cincinnati,
32. Fox, C.R. Toxic Organic Removal from Waste Waters with
Polymeric Adsorbent Resins. Presentation at 86th National
American Institute of Chemical Engineers Meeting, Houston,
Texas, 1979.
33. Fox, C.R. Plant Uses Prove Phenol Recovery with Resins.
Hydrocarbon Processing, pp. 269-273, November, 1978.
34. Gehr, R. /and' J.G. Henry. Measuring and Predicting Flota-
tion Performance. Journal Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion, 50 (2) :203-215, 1978.
35. Giusti, D.M., Conway, R.A., and C.T. Lawson. Activated
Carbon Adsorption of Petrochemicals. Journal Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, 46 (5) :947-965, 1974.
36. Givens, D.P. /and L.D. Lash. What to Look for in Granular
Media Filters. Chemical Engineering Progress,
74(12):50-54, 1978.
37. Gurvitch, M.M. Description of an Advanced Treatment Plant
to Produce Recycle Water at a Chemical R & D Facility.
34th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1979.
38. Hager, D.G. Waste Water Treatment Via Activated Carbon.
Chemical Engineering Progress, 72(10):57-60, 1976.
39. Hannah, S.A., Jelus, M., and J.M. Cohen. Removal of Un-
common Trace Metals by Physical and Chemical Treatment
Processes. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
49 (11) .-2297-2309, 1977.
40. Heck, R.P. II. Munitions Plant Uses Adsorption in Waste-
water Treatment. Industrial Wastes, pp. 35-39, March/April
1978.
41. Helsel, R.W. A New Process for Recovering Acetic Acid
from Dilute Aqueous Waste Streams. In: Proceedings of the
31st Industrial Waste Conference,.Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 1059-1067.
42. Hewes, C.G., Smith, W.H., and R.R. Davison. Comparative
Anaylsis of Solvent Extraction and Stripping in Wastewater
Treatment. Water - 1974, 70(144):54-60, 1974.
E-208
-------
43. Huang, J.C.,and J.T. Garrett Jr. Effects of Colloidal
Materials and Polyelectrolytes on Carbon Adsorption in
Aqueous Solution. In: Proceedings of the 30th Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1975. pp. 1111-1121.
44. Huang, J.C.,and C.T. Steffans. Competitive Adsorption of
Organic Materials by Activated Carbon. In: Proceedings
31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 107-121.
45. Huang, C.P.,and M.H. Wu. Chromium Removal by Carbon Ad-
sorption. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
47(10) :2437-2446, 1975.
46. Isacoff, E.G., and J.A. Bittner. Resin Adsorbent Takes on
Chlororganics from Well Water. Water and Sewage Works,
126 (8) :41-42, 1979.
47. Jones, M.L. Jr. Techniques for Qualitative Economic Com-
parison of Reverse Osmosis Membranes. Water - 1975,
71(151) :145-152, 1975.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
Jordan, Edward C. Co. Inc. Literature Review, Removal of
Phenolic Compounds from Wastewater. EPA Project No.
68-03-2605, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979.
Kennedy, D.C. Treatment of Effluent from Manufacture of
Chlorinated Pesticides with a Synthetic, Polymeric Adsor-
bent, Amberlite XAD-4 . Environmental Science and Tech-
nology, 7(2) :138-141, 1973.
Kennedy, D.C., Kimler, M.A. , and C.A. Hammer. Functional
Design of a Zero Discharge Wastewater Treatment System for
the National Center for Toxicological Research. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 823-830.
Kessick, M.A. , Characklis, W.G. , and W. Elvey. Treatment
of Wastewater from Torpedo Refueling Facilities. In: Pro-
ceedings 32nd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Univer-
Lafayette, Indiana, 1977. pp. 442-449.
Kim, B.R., Snoeyink, V.L. , and F.M. Saunders. Adsorption
of Organic Compounds by Synthetic Resins. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, 48 (1) : 120-133 , 19-76.
E-209
-------
53. Kim, B.R., Snoeyink, V.L., and R.A. Schmitz. Removal of
Dichloramine and Ammonia by Granular Carbon. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, 50(1):122-133, 1978.
54. Klemetson, S.L.,and M.D. Scharbow. Removal of Phenolic
Compounds in Coal Gasification Wastewaters Using a Dynamic
Membrane Filtration Process. In: Proceedings 32nd Indus-
trial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indianar 1977. pp. 786-796.
55. Klinkowski, P.R. Ultrafiltration: An Emerging Unit-Opera-
tion. Chemical Engineering, 85 (11) :165-173, 1978.
56. Kimke, G.W., Hall, J.F., and R.W. Oeben. Conversion to
Activated Sludge at Union Carbide's Institute Plant.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 40 (8) :1408-1422
1968.
57. Lawrence, J.,and H.M. Tosine. Adsorption of Polychlori-
nated Biphenyls from Aqueous Solutions and Sewage.
Environmental Science and Technology, 10(4):381-383, 1976.
58. Leipzig, N.A.,and M.R. Hockenbury. Powdered Activated
Carbon/Activated Sludge Treatment of Chemical Production
Wastewaters. In: Proceedings 34th Industrial Waste Con-
ference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1979.
59. Lopez, C.X.,and R. Johnston. Industrial Wastewater Re-
cycling with Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis. In:
Proceedings 32nd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Uni-
versity, Lafayette, Indiana, 1977. pp. 81-91.
60. Luther, P.A., Kennedy, B.C., E. Edgerley Jr. Treatability
and Functional Design of a Physical-Chemical Wastewater
Treatment System for a Printing and Photodeveloping Plant.
In: Proceedings 31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 816-884.
61. Luthy, R.G., Selleck, R.E., and T.R. Galloway. Removal of
Emulsified Oil with Organic Coagulants and Dissolved Air
Flotation. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
50 (2) .-331-346, 1978. x:,
62. Markind, J. , Neri, J.S.,' and R.R.' Stana. Use of Reverse
Osmosis for Concentrating Waste-Soluble.Oil Coolants.
Water - 1975, 71(151):70-75, 1975.
63. Maruyama, T., Hannah, S.A., and J. M. Cohen. Metal Remov-
al by Physical and Chemical Treatment Processes. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, 47 (5) :962-975, 1975.
E-210
-------
64. McCarty, P.L., Reinhard, M., Dolce, C., Nguyen, H.,and
D.G. Argo. Water Factory 21: Reclaimed Water, Volatile
Organics, Virus, and Treatment Performance.
EPA-600/2-78-076, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 100 pp.
65. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, US EPA. Sur-
vey of Two Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants for Toxic
Substances. Cincinnati, Ohio. March 1977.
66. Nathan, M.F. Choosing a Process for Chloride Removal.
Chemical Engineering, 85(3):93, 1978.
67. Naylor, L.M.,and R.R. Dague. Simulation of Lead Removal
by Chemical Treatment. Journal American Water Works
Association, 67 (10) :560-565, 1975.
68. Neufeld, R.D.,and P. Yodnane. Enhanced Wastewater Purifi-
cation via the Addition of Granular Coals and Chars to
Activated Sludge. Journal Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion, 50 (3) :559-568, 1978.
69 Ng, K.S., Mueller, J.C., and C.C. Walden. Foam Separation
for Detoxification of Bleached Kraft Mill Effluents.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 48 (3) : 458-472
1'976.
70, Ott, C., Gingras, R., and R. Litman. Removal-of Chromium
from Wastewater Using Activated Carbon. In: Preprints of
Papers Presented at the 177th National Meeting of the
American Chemical Society, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1979.
pp. 708-709.
71. Pajak, A.P., Martin, E.J., Brinsko,G.A., and F.J. Erny.
Effect of Hazardous Material Spills on Biological Treatment
Processes, EPA-600/2-77-239, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 202 pp.
72. Pilie, R.J., Baier, R.E., Ziegler, R.C., Leonard, R.P.,
Michalovic, J.G., Pek, S.L., and D.H. Bock. Methods to
Treat, Control,and Monitor Spilled Hazardous Materials.
EPA-670/2-75-042. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
-'Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975. 138 pp.
73. Ramirez, E.R. Comparative Physio-Chemical Study of Indus-
trial Waste Water Treatment by Electrolytic, Dispersed Air,
and Dissolved Air Flotation Technologies. In: Proceedings
34th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1979.
E-211
-------
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
Ramirez, E.R., Barber, L.K., and O.A. Clemens. Physio-
chemical Treatment of Tannery Wastewater by Electrocoagu-
lation. in: Proceedings 32nd Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1977. pp.183-188.
Reismers, R.S., Englande, A.J., and H.B. Miles. A Quick
Method for Evaluating the Suitability of Activated Carbon
Adsorption for Wastewaters. In: Proceedings 31st Indus-
trial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, 1976. pp. 395-407.
Sandhu, S.S.,and P. Nelson. Concentration and Separation
or Arsenic from Polluted Aqueous Samples by Ion Exchange.
in: Preprints of Papers Presented at the 177th National
Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Honolulu, Hawaii
1979.
qfhulte G R , Hoehn, R.C., and C.W. Randall. The Treat-
ability'of a Munitions-Manufacturing Waste with Activated
Carbon! In: Proceedings 28th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1973. pp. 150-ieu.
Sigworth, E.A.,and S.B. Smith. Adsorption of Inorganic
Compounds by Activated Carbon. Journal American Water
Works Association, 64 (6):386-391, 1972.
Slejko, F.L.,and G.F. Meigs. Economic Analysis of Employ-
ing Ambersorb XE-340 Carbonaceous Adsorbent in Trace
Organics Removal from Drinking Water. In: Proceedings
176th National Meeting American Chemical Society,
Miami Beach, Florida, 1978.
Snyder, D.D., and R.A. Willihnganz. A New Electrochemical
Process for Treating Spent Emulsions. In: Proceedings
31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 782-791.
SCS Engineers. Selected Biodegradation Techniques for
Treatment and/or Ultimate Disposal of Organic Material.
EPA-600/2-79-006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979. 377 pp. S
Sorg, T.J., Csana-dy, Mihaly, and S.S. Logsdon. Treat-
men? Technology to Meet the Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Inorganics. Part 3. Journal American
Water Works. Association, 70:12, 680, 1978.
Sorg, T.J., and G.S. Logsdon. Treatment Technology to
Meet the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Inorganics. Part 2. Journal American Water Works
E-212
-------
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91,
92.
93
94
Association, 70 (7):379, 1978.
Steiner, J.L., Bennett, G.F., Mohler, E.F., and L.T. Clere.
Air Flotation Treatment of Refinery Waste Water. Chemical
Engineering Progress, 74(12):39-45, 1978.
Suler, D. Composting Hazardous Industrial Wastes.
Compost Science/Land Utilization, 20(4):25-27, 1979.
Swedes, R.G. Jr. Report on Carbon Adsorption Treatment of
Contaminated Groundwater at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, De-
partment of Army, 1977-781-590/139, 1977.
Thiem, L., Badorek, D., and J.T. O'Connor. Removal of
Mercury from Drinking Water Using Activated Carbon. /
Journal American Water Works Association, 68 (8) : 447-4,51,
1976. /
Volesky, B.> Czornyj, N., Constantine, T.A., Zajic, J.E.,
and K. Ya. Model Treatability Study of Refinery Phenolic
Wastewater. Water - 1974, 70 (144) :31-38, 1974.
Wahl, J.R., Hayes, T.C., Kleper, M.H., and S.D. Pinto.
Ultrafiltration for Today's Oily Wastewaters: A Survey of
Current Ultrafiltration Systems. In: Proceedings 34th
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, -Lafayette,
Indiana, 1979.
Dryden, F.E., Mayes, J.H., Planchet, R.J., andC.H. Woodard
Priority Pollutant Treatability Review. EPA Contract
No. 68-03-2579, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.
Westrick, J.J., and J.M. Cohen. Comparative Effects of
Chemical Pretreatment on Carbon Adsorption. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, 48 (2) : 323-338, 1976.
Wilkinson, R.R., Kelso, G.L., and F.C. Hopkins. State-of-
the-Art Report, Pesticide Disposal Research.
EPA-600/2-78-183, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 247 pp.
Zahka, J., and L. Mir. Ultrafiltration of Latex Emulsions.
rChemical Engineering Progress, 72 (12):53-55, 1977.
Zogorski, J.S., and S.D. Faust. Removing Phenols via
Activated Carbon. Chemical Engineering Progress,
73 (5) :65-66, 1977.
E-213
-------
95. Coco, J.H., et . al, Development of Treatment and Control
Technology for Refractory Petrochemical Wastes.
EPA-600/2-79-080, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Ada, Oklahoma, 1979. 236 pp.
96. Chan, P.C./ Dresnack, R., Liskowitz, J.W., Perna, A., and
R. Trattner. Sorbents for Fluoride, Metal Finishing, and
Petroleum Sludge Leachate Contaminant Control.
EPA-600/2-78-024, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 94 pp.
97. Chian, E.S.K. , and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of Leachate
Treatment, Volume II: Biological and Physical Chemical
Process. EPA-600/2-77-186b, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 265 pp.
98. Chian, E.S.K., and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of Leachate
Treatment, Volume 1: Characterization of Leachate.
EPA-600/2-77-186a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 226 pp.
99. Lund, H.F. Industrial Pollution Control Handbook,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, New York, 1971.
100. Bess, F.D., and R.A. Conway. Aerated Stabilization of
Synthetic Organic Chemical Wastes. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 38(6):939-956, 1966.
101. Kumke, G.W., et al. Conversion to Activated Sludge at
Union Carbide's Institute Plant. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 40(8):1408-1422, 1968.
102. Manufacturing Chemists Association. The Effects of Chlo-
rination on Selected Organic Chemicals. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control Research
Series, EPA Report No. 12020 EXG-03/72, March 1972.
103. Placak, O.R., and C.C. Ruchhoft. Studies of Sewage Puri-
fication, XVII: The Utilization of Organic Substrates by
Activated Sludge. Sewage Works Journal, 19(3):44.0, 1947.
104. Dickerson, B.W., et al.. Further Operating Experiences in
Biological Purification of Formaldehyde Wastes. In: Pro-
ceedings 9th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Univer-
sity, Lafayette, Indiana, 1954. pp. 331-351.
105. Bogan, R.H., and C.N. Sawyer. The Biochemical Oxidation
of Synthetic Detergents. In: Proceedings 10th Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1955. pp. 231-243.
E-214
-------
106. Lutin, P.A. Removal of Organic Nitrites from Wastewater
Systems. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
42(9):1632-1642, 1970.
107. Malaney, G.W., and R.M. Gerhold. Structural Determinants
in the Oxidation of Aliphatic Compounds by Activated
Sludge. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
41(2):R18-R33, 1969.
1 • i
108. Malaney, G.W. Resistance of Carcinogenic Organic Com-
pounds to Oxidation by Activated Sludge. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, 39(12) :2029, 1967.
109. Dawson, P.S., and S.H. Jenkins. The Oxygen Requirements
of Activated Sludge Determined by Monometrie'Methods.
II: Chemical Factors Affecting Oxygen Uptake. Sewage and
Industrial Wastes, 22(4):490, 1950.
110. Sawyer, C.N., Frame, J.D., and J.P. Wold. Industrial
Wastes, Revised Concepts on Biological Treatment. Sewage
and Industrial Wastes, 27 (8):929, 1955.
111. Swisher, R.D., e_t aJL. Biodegradation- of Nitrilotriace-
tate in Activated Sludge. Environmental Science and
Technology, 1(10):820-827, 1967.
112. Hunter, J.V., and H. Heukelekian. Determination of Bio-
degradability Using Warburg Respirometric Techniques.
In: Proceedings 19th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1964. pp. 616-627.
113. Marion, C.V., and G.W. Malaney. Ability of Activated
Sludge to Oxidize Aromatic Organic Compounds. In: Pro-
ceedings 18th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Univer-
sity, Lafayette, Indiana, 1963. pp. 297-308.
114. Hydroscience, Inc. The Impacts of Oily Materials on
Activated Sludge Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series,
EPA Report No. 12050 DSH 03/71, March 1971.
115. The City of Jacksonville, Arkansas. The Demonstration of
M" Facility for the Biological Treatment of a Complex
i Chlorophenolic Waste. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series,
EPA Report No. 12130 EGK 06/71, June 1971.
116. Hay, M.W. , e_t -a_l. Factors Affecting Color Development
During Treatment of TNT Wastes. Industrial Wastes,
18(5), September/October 1972.
E-215
-------
117 •
118.
119
120 .
121.
: a?tors Affecting Growth and Respiration
the Activated Sludge Process. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cafe
Institute of Technology, Cleveland, Ohio, 1963.
Masselli, J.W., et al. The Effect of Industrial Waste On
sS96™ TfeaT??' .PrePared fo* the New EngllnS inJJr-
state Water Pollution Control Commission by Weslevan
University, Middletown, Connecticut, No. TR-13, ?un?,1965 .
"* of Creating Chemical Wastes with
P°llution contro1
Si- Metab°lic Response of Activated
chlorophenol. In: Proceedings
Okey, R.W., and R.W. Bogan. Synthetic Organic Pesticides
An Evaluation of Their Persistence in Natural Wafers? '
In: Proceedings llth Pacific Northwest Industrial Slate
Universit^' Corvallis, Oregon,
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
Bafth' E-F-' et al. Field Survey of Four Municipal Waste-
nJ?SS +rea*m^ PlantS Receiving Metallic Wastes JouJ-
1965 Pollution Control Federation, 37 (8) : 1101-1117,
D-A" and K'S- Robinson. The Influence of Triva-
e Chr°rn)1"ln on the Biological Treatment of Domestic
Sewage. Water Pollution Control (G.B.), 69:100ff, 1970.
lonrn f-E;.and N-A» Painter. The Influence of Metal
Ion Concentration and pH Value on the Growth of a Nitro-
?SnSna? ^rai£.Is°l*ted from Activated Sludge. Journal
General Microbiology, 52(3) :lff, 1968. ^"urnai
Earth, E.F., et al. Summary Report on the Effects of
Heavy Metals on the Biological Treatment Processes^
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 37(1) :86, 1965
Leary, R D Phosphorus Removal with Pickle Liqueur in an
Activated Sludge Plant. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series
EPA Report No. 11010 FLQ 3/71, March 1971.
Lamb, J.C.,III, et al. A Technique for Evaluatinq the
Biological Treatability of Industrial Wastes. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, 36 (10) : 1263-1284 ,1964 .
E-216
-------
128. Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Chemistry and
Physics Center. Interaction of Heavy Metals and Biologi-
cal Sewage Treatment Processes. U.S. Public Health
Service, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1965.
129. Stones, T. The Fate of Nickel During the Treatment of
Sewage. J. & Proc. Inst. Sew. Purif. (Brit.), Part 2,
pp. 252ff, 1959.
130. McDermott, G.N. Zinc in Relation to Activated Sludge and
Anaerobic Digestion Processes. In: Proceedings 17th
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette
Indiana, 1963. pp. 461-475. •
131. Stones, T. The Fate of Zinc During the Treatment of
Sewage. J. & Proc. Inst. Sew. Purif. (Brit.), Part 2,
pp. 254ff, 1959.
132. Ghosh, M.M., and P.D. Zugger. Toxic Effects of Mercury
on the Activated Sludge Process. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 45 (3) :424-433, 1973.
133. Fitter, P. Determination of Biological Degradability of
Organic Substrates. Water. Res., 10:231-235, 1976.
134. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Physical, Chemical, and Biologi-
cal Treatment Techniques for Industrial Wastes. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Contract/Grant No.
68-01-3554, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, 1976.
135. Rohm and Haas Company. Ambersorb Carbonaceous Adsorbents.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1977. 20 pp.
136. New Jersey Hazardous Waste Advisory Commission. Report
of the Hazardous Waste Advisory Commission to Governor
Brendan Byrne. Trenton, New Jersey, January, 1980.
137. Geraghty and Miller, Inc. The Prevalence of Subsurface
• Migration of Hazardous Chemical Substances at Selected
Industrial Waste Land Disposal Sites. EPA/530/SW-634,
U.jEb Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.
E-217
*n.S. GOVEKNMEH'i PKINTMG OfPIOE: 198Z-0-3t>1-08i:/31Y
-------
------- |