Eff\ £,11-R-15-003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF
PROPOSED EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
FOR THE
CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT INDUSTRY
Volume I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Science and Technology
Standards and Applied Science Division
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Alexandra Tarnay
Task Manager
Support Provided Under EPA Contract No. 68-D3-0013
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canda Ink on paper that
contains at toast 50% recycled teer
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY »
1. INTRODUCTION l
2. METHODOLOGY 3
2.1 Projected Water Quality Impacts 3
2.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities 3
2.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities 6
2.1.3 Assumptions and Caveats 9
2.2 Documented Environmental Impacts 1°
3. DATA SOURCES U
3.1 Facility-Specific Data n
3.2 Information Used to Evaluate POTW Operations 12
3.3 Water Quality Criteria (WQC) 13
3.3.1 Aquatic Life 13
3.3.2 Human Health 14
3.4 Documented Environmental Impacts 18
4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS &
4.1 Projected Water Quality Impacts 19
4.1.1 Direct Discharges 19
4.1.2 Indirect Discharges 23
4.2 Documented Environmental Impacts 29
5. REFERENCES R"1
in
-------
-------
APPENDICES
VOLUME H:
Appendix A Centralized Waste Treatment Facility-Specific Data
A-l
Appendix B National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA) Dissolved Concentration Potentials (DCPs)
B-l
Appendix C Water Quality Analysis Data Parameters C-l
Appendix D Direct Dischargers Analysis at Current (Baseline) and
Proposed BPT/BAT Treatment Levels
D-l
Appendix E Indirect Dischargers Analysis at Current (Baseline) and
Proposed Pretreatment Levels
E-l
Appendix F POTW Analysis at Current (Baseline) and Proposed Pretreatment
Levels
Appendix G Documented Environmental Impacts G-l
-------
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 1. Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Subcategories and
Analyzed Treatment Levels 31
Table 2. Metals Subcategory - Pollutants Discharged from 11 Direct Centralized Waste
Treatment Facilities 32
Table 3. Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Metals Subcategory of Direct and
Indirect Centralized Waste Treaters 34
Table 4. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Centralized Waste
Treatment Discharges (Direct/Metals Subcategory) 35
Table 5. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for
Centralized Waste Treatment Discharges (Direct/Metals Subcategory) ... 36
Table 6. Oils Subcategory - Pollutants Discharged from 4 Direct Centralized Waste
Treatment Facilities 37
Table 7. Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Oils Subcategory of Direct
and Indirect Centralized Waste Treaters 38
Table 8. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Centralized Waste
Treatment Discharges (Direct/Oils Subcategory) 39
Table 9. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for
Centralized Waste Treatment Discharges (Direct/Oils Subcategory) 40
Table 10. Organics Subcategory - Pollutants Discharged from 5 Direct Centralized Waste
Treatment Facilities 41
Table 11. Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Organics Subcategory of
Direct and Indirect Centralized Waste Treaters 43
Table 12. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Centralized
Waste Treatment Discharges (Direct/Organics Subcategory) 44
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 13. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for
Centralized Waste Treatment Discharges (Direct/Organics Subcategory) . . 45
Table 14. Multiple Subcategory Combinations - Pollutants Discharged from
15 Direct Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities 46
Table 15. Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Multiple Subcategory
Combinations of Direct and Indirect Centralized Waste Treaters 48
Table 16. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Centralized
Waste Treatment Discharges (Direct/Combined Subcategories) 49
Table 17. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for
Centralized Waste Treatment Discharges (Direct/Combined Subcategories) 50
Table 18. Metals Subcategory - Pollutants Discharged from 36 Indirect
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities (Discharging to 28
POTWS on 28 Receiving Streams) 51
Table 19. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Centralized
Waste Treatment Discharges (Indirect/Metals Subcategory) 53
Table 20. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for
Centralized Waste Treatment Discharges (Indirect/Metals Subcategory) . . 54
Table 21. Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge
Contamination Problems for Centralized Waste
Treatment Discharges (Indirect/Metals Subcategory) 55
Table 22. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed
Inhibition/Sludge Contamination Values for Centralized
Waste Treatment Discharges (Indirect/Metals Subcategory) 56
Table 23. Oils Subcategory - Pollutants Discharged from 24 Indirect
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities (Discharging to
18 POTWS on 18 Receiving Streams) 57
vni
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 24. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Centralized
Waste Treatment Discharges (Indirect/Oils Subcategory) 58
Table 25. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for
Centralized Waste Treatment Discharges (Indirect/Oils Subcategory) .... 59
Table 26. Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge
Contamination Problems for Centralized Waste
Treatment Discharges (Indirect/Oils Subcategory) 60
Table 27. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Inhibition/Sludge
Contamination Values for Centralized Waste Treatment
Discharges (Indirect/Oils Subcategory) 61
Table 28. Organics Subcategory - Pollutants Discharged from 15 Indirect
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities (Discharging to 15
POTWS on 15 Receiving Streams) 62
Table 29. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Centralized
Waste Treatment Discharges (Indirect/Organics Subcategory) 64
Table 30. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for
Centralized Waste Treatment Discharges (Indirect/Organics Subcategory) . 65
Table 31. Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge
Contamination Problems (Indirect/Organics Subcategory) 66
Table 32. Multiple Subcategory Combinations - Pollutants Discharged from
45 Indirect Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities (Discharging
to 33 POTWs on 33 Receiving Streams) 67
Table 33. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Centralized
Waste Treatment Discharges (Indirect/Combined Subcategories) 69
Table 34. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for
Centralized Waste Treatment Discharges (Indirect/Combined Subcategories) 70
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 35. Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge
Contamination Problems for Centralized Waste Treatment
Discharges (Indirect/Combined Subcategories) 71
Table 36. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed
Inhibition/Sludge Contamination Values for Centralized
Waste Treatment Discharges (Indirect/Combined Subcategories) 72
Table 37. Documented Environmental Impacts of Centralized Waste
Treatment Wastes on POTW Operations and Water Quality 73
Table 38. Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities Included on State 304(L)
Short Lists 74
Table 39. POTWs Which Receive Discharge From Centralized
Waste Treatment Facilities and are Included on State 304(L)
Short Lists 75
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the Centralized
Waste Treatment Industry quantifies water quality-related benefits for centralized waste treatment
facilities based on site specific analyses of current conditions and the conditions that would be
achieved by proposed BPT/BAT and pretreatment process changes.1 Instream pollutant
concentrations for priority and nonconventional pollutants from direct and indirect discharges
are estimated separately for three subcategories (metals, oils and organics) of facility operations
and in multiple subcategory combinations (as appropriate for individual facilities)2 using stream
dilution modeling. The benefits to aquatic life are projected by comparing the modeled instream
pollutant concentrations to EPA aquatic life criteria or to toxic effect values; human health
benefits are projected by comparing estimated instream pollutant concentrations to health-based
water quality criteria. Potential inhibition of POTW operations and sewage sludge contamination
(thereby, limiting its use for land application) are also evaluated based on current and proposed
pretreatment levels. Inhibition of POTW operations is estimated by comparing modeled POTW
influent concentrations to available inhibition levels; potential contamination of sewage sludge
is estimated by comparing projected pollutant concentrations in sewage sludge to available EPA
sewage sludge regulatory standards. Only the results for the combined subcategories analyses
are presented here; results of the subcategory-specific analyses are presented in Section 4 of this
report.
The water quality modeling results for 15 direct facilities (including combined
subcategories as appropriate for individual facilities) discharging 113 pollutants to 15 receiving
streams indicate that at current discharge levels, instream concentrations of 28 pollutants are
*No evaluation of water quality benefits associated with achievement of BCT limitations was
undertaken because the analysis centered on toxic pollutants (excluding conventional pollutants
and pollutant parameters).
2Over 40 percent of the facilities in the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry have
operations in multiple subcategories. Due to the presence of combined facilities, the overall
impact cannot be properly assessed when reviewing subcategories separately.
XI
-------
projected to exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 8 of the 15 (53 percent)
receiving streams. Instream concentrations of 13 pollutants (using a target risk of 10* for
carcinogens) are projected to exceed human health criteria (for water and organisms
consumption) in 8 of the 15 (53 percent) receiving streams.
The proposed BPT/BAT alternative Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals
Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of
Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1) are projected to reduce the aquatic life
excursions to 5 of the 15 (33 percent) receiving streams for 23 and 22 pollutants for Regulatory
Option 1 and Regulatory Option 2, respectively. Projected human health excursions are reduced
to 12 pollutants at 4 of the 15 (27 percent) receiving streams for BPT/BAT Regulatory Option 1
and to 11 pollutants at 3 of the 15 (20 percent) receiving streams for BPT/BAT Regulatory
Option 2. Pollutant loadings are reduced 32 percent at both options.
Modeling results for 45 indirect facilities (including combined subcategories as
appropriate for individual facilities), which discharge to 33 POTWs on 33 receiving streams,
indicate that at current discharge levels, instream concentrations of 10 pollutants are projected
to exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 16 of the 33 (48 percent) receiving
streams. Instream concentrations of 4 pollutants (using a target risk of 1CT6 for carcinogens) are
projected to exceed human health criteria (for water and organisms consumption) in 17 of the
33 (52 percent) receiving streams. The proposed alternative regulatory pretreatment options
would reduce the aquatic life and human health excursions to 1 pollutant at 2 of the 33 (6
percent) receiving streams for both Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3,
Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of Metals
Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1). Pollutant loadings are reduced 56 and 60
percent for Regulatory Option 1 and Regulatory Option 2, respectively. In addition, 1 pollutant
is projected to contribute to potential POTW inhibition at 17 of the 35 (49 percent) POTWs
receiving the discharge from indirect facilities. These potential POTW impacts are projected
to be reduced to 1 pollutant at 6 of the 35 (17 percent) POTWs by the proposed alternative
pretreatment regulatory options (Option 1 and Option 2). Contamination of sewage sludge is
xn
-------
projected to occur in 13 of the 35 (37 percent) POTWs and in 1 of the 35 (3 percent) POTWs
at current and the proposed alternative pretreatment regulatory options (Option 1 and Option 2),
respectively. Four (4) pollutants at current and 1 pollutant at the proposed regulatory options
are projected to exceed EPA sewage sludge regulatory standards.
Documented environmental impacts on water quality and POTW operations from
pollutant discharges from centralized waste treatment facilities are also summarized in the
Environmental Assessment of Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry. The summary data are based on information obtained from State 304(1) Short Lists
and EPA Regional and State Pretreatment Coordinators on the quality of receiving waters and
impacts on POTW operations. Four (4) direct centralized waste treatment facilities and 8
POTWs, receiving wastewater from 13 centralized waste treatment facilities, are currently
impairing receiving stream water quality (i.e., listed on State 304(1) short lists of impaired water
bodies). In addition, 7 cases of impairments of POTW operations and 1 case of an impact on
the quality of receiving waters have also been documented.
The effects of conventional pollutants and pollutant parameters are not calculated when
modeling the effect of the proposed regulation on the water quality of receiving streams and
POTW operations. The discharge of conventional pollutants such as total suspended solids
(TSS), oil and grease, and 5-day biological oxygen demand (BOD5) can have adverse effects on
human health and the environment. For example, habitat degradation can result from increased
suspended paniculate matter that reduces light penetration and, thus, primary productivity, or
from accumulation of sludge particles that alters benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats.
Oil and grease can have lethal effect on fish, by coating surface of gills causing asphyxia, by
depleting oxygen levels due to excessive biological oxygen demand, or by reducing stream
reaeration because of surface film. Oil and grease can also have detrimental effects on
waterfowl by destroying the buoyancy and insulation of their feathers. Bioaccumulation of oil
substances can cause human health problems including tainting of fish and bioaccumulation of
carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic compounds. High BOD5 levels can also deplete oxygen levels
resulting in mortality or other adverse effects on fish.
Xlll
-------
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to present an assessment of the water quality benefits of
controlling the discharge of priority and nonconventional pollutants from centralized waste
treatment facilities to surface waters and publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). Potential
aquatic life and human health impacts of direct discharges on receiving stream water quality and
of indirect discharges on POTWs and their receiving streams are projected at current, proposed
BPT/BAT (Best Practicable Control Technology/Best Available Technology) and proposed PSES
(Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources) levels by quantifying pollutant releases and by
using stream modeling techniques. In addition, EPA Regional and State Pretreatment
Coordinators were contacted and State 304(1) Short Lists are reviewed for evidence of
documented environmental impacts on aquatic life, human health, and POTW operations and for
impacts on the quality of receiving water.
The report does not evaluate impacts associated with reduced releases of conventional
pollutants and pollutant parameters because the analysis centered on toxic pollutants. However,
the discharge of conventional pollutants such as total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, and
5-day biological oxygen demand (BOD^) can have adverse effects on human health and the
environment. For example, habitat degradation can result from increased suspended particulate
matter that reduces light penetration and, thus, primary productivity, or from accumulation of
sludge particles that alters benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. Oil and grease can
have lethal effect on fish, by coating surface of gills causing asphyxia, by depleting oxygen
levels due to excessive biological oxygen demand, or by reducing stream reaeration because of
surface film. Oil and grease can also have detrimental effects on waterfowl by destroying the
buoyancy and insulation of their feathers. Bioaccumulation of oil substances can cause human
health problems including tainting of fish and bioaccumulation of carcinogenic polycyclic
aromatic compounds. High BOD$ levels can also deplete oxygen levels resulting in mortality
or other adverse effects on fish.
-------
Section 2 of this report describes the methodology used in the evaluation of projected
water quality impacts and projected impacts on POTW operations for direct and indirect
discharging facilities (including assumptions and caveats) and in the evaluation of documented
environmental impacts. Section 3 describes the data sources used for evaluating water quality
impacts such as plant-specific data, information used to evaluate POTW operations, water quality
criteria and documented environmental impacts. A summary of the results of this analysis is
presented in Section 4. Section 5 provides a complete list of references cited in this report. The
various appendices presented in Volume II (Appendices A-G) provide additional detail on the
specific information addressed in the main report. These appendices are available in the
administrative record.
-------
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Proected Water Quality
Potential water quality impacts of direct discharges on receiving streams and of indirect
discharges on POTW operations and their receiving streams are evaluated using stream modeling
techniques. Current and proposed pollutant releases are quantified. Site-specific and potential
aquatic life and human health impacts resulting from current and proposed pollutant releases are
evaluated separately for the three subcategories (metals, oils and organics) of facility operations
-------
r = LIOD x CF (Eq. 1)
fa FF + SF
where:
Cis = instream pollutant concentration (/xg/L)
L = facility pollutant loading (Ibs/year)
OD = facility operation (days/year)
FF = facility flow (million gal/day)
SF = receiving stream flow (million gal/day)
CF = conversion factors for units
The facility-specific data (i.e., pollutant loading, operating days, and facility flow) used
in Eq. 1 are derived from the sources described in Section 3.1 of this report. Three receiving
stream flow conditions (1Q10 low flow, 7Q10 low flow, and harmonic mean flow) are used for
the current and proposed regulatory options. The 1Q10 and 7Q10 flows are the lowest 1-day
or lowest consecutive 7-day average flow during any 10-year period and are used to estimate
potential acute and chronic aquatic life impacts, respectively, as recommended in the Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 1991a). The harmonic
mean flow is defined as the reciprocal of the mean value of the reciprocal of individual values
and is used to estimate potential human health impacts. EPA recommends the long-term
harmonic mean flow as the design flow for assessing potential human health impacts because it
provides a more conservative estimate than the arithmetic mean flow. 7Q10 flows are also not
appropriate for assessing potential human health impacts because they have no consistent
relationship with the long-term mean dilution.
Because stream flows are not available for hydrologically complex waters such as bays,
estuaries, and oceans, site-specific critical dilution factors (CDFs) or estuarine dissolved
concentration potentials (DCPs), if CDFs are unavailable, are used to predict pollutant
concentrations for facilities discharging to estuaries and bays as follows:
-------
I CDF
(Eq.2)
where:
ces
L
OD
FF
CDF
CF
estuary pollutant concentration (/xg/L)
facility pollutant loading (Ibs/year)
facility operation (days/year)
facility flow (million gal/day)
critical dilution factor
conversion factors for units
or
Ca = L x DCP x CF
(Eq.3)
where:
ces
L
DCP
CF
estuary pollutant concentration (/xg/L)
facility pollutant loading (Ibs/year)
dissolved concentration potential (mg/L)
conversion factor for units
Site-specific critical dilution factors (CDFs) are obtained from a survey of States and Regions
recently conducted by EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) (Mixing Zone
Dilution Factors for Afew Chemical Exposure Assessments, Draft Report, U.S. EPA, 1992).
Dissolved concentration potentials (DCPs) are obtained from the Strategic Assessment Branch
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NO A A) Ocean Assessments
Division. NO A A has developed DCPs based on freshwater inflow and salinity gradients to
predict pollutant concentrations in each estuary in the National Estuarine Inventory (NET) Data
Atlas. These DCPs are applied to predict concentrations. They do not consider pollutant fate
and are designed strictly to simulate concentrations of nonreactive dissolved substances. In
addition, the DCPs reflect the predicted estuary-wide response and may not be indicative of site-
specific locations.
-------
Water quality criteria or toxic effect levels excursions are determined by dividing the
projected freshwater instream (Eq. 1) or estuary (Eq. 2 or Eq. 3) pollutant concentrations by
EPA water quality criteria or toxic effect levels. A value greater than 1.0 indicates an
excursion.
2.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities
(a) Water Quality Impacts
A stream dilution model is used to project receiving stream impacts resulting from
releases by indirect discharging facilities as shown in Eq. 4. For stream segments with multiple
subcategory centralized waste treatment facilities, pollutant loadings for individual subcategories
are summed before concentrations are calculated. The facility-specific data used in Eq. 4 are
derived from sources described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of this report. Three receiving stream
flow conditions (1Q10 low flow, 7Q10 low flow, and harmonic mean flow) are used for the
current and proposed pretreatment options.
C, = (HOD) x (1"™7) * CF (Eq. 4)
* PF + SF
where:
Cis = instream pollutant concentration
L = facility pollutant loading (Ibs/year)
OD = facility operation (days/year)
TMT = POTW treatment removal efficiency
PF = POTW flow (million gal/day)
SF = receiving stream flow (million gal/day)
CF = conversion factors for units
For POTWs located on bays and estuaries, pollutant concentrations are predicted using
site-specific CDFs or NOAA's DCP values (Eq. 5 and Eq. 6).
-------
PF
(Eq.5)
where:
ces
L
OD
TMT
PF
CDF
CF
estuary pollutant concentration 0-eg/L)
facility pollutant loading (Ibs/year)
facility operation (days/year)
POTW treatment removal efficiency
POTW flow (million gal/day)
critical dilution factor
conversion factors for units
or
= L x (l-TMT) x DCP x CF
(Eq. 6)
where:
es
L
TMT
DCP
CF
estuary pollutant concentration G*g/L)
facility pollutant loading (Ibs/year)
POTW treatment removal efficiency
dissolved concentration potential (mg/L)
conversion factors for units
Potential impacts on freshwater quality are determined by comparing projected instream
pollutant concentrations (Eq. 4) at reported POTW flows and at 1Q10 low, 7Q10 low, and
harmonic mean receiving stream flows with EPA water quality criteria or toxic effect levels for
the protection of aquatic life and human health (see Section 2.1.1 for discussion on receiving
stream flows). Projected estuary pollutant concentrations (Eq. 5 or Eq. 6), based on CDFs or
DCPs, are also compared to EPA water quality criteria or toxic effect levels for the protection
of aquatic life and human health to determine potential water quality impacts. Water quality
criteria excursions are determined by dividing the projected instream or estuary pollutant
concentration by the EPA water quality criteria or toxic effect levels. A value greater than 1.0
indicates an excursion.
-------
(b) Impacts on POTW Operations
Impacts on POTW operations are calculated in terms of inhibition of POTW processes
(i.e., inhibition of activated sludge or biological treatment) and contamination of POTW sewage
sludges (thereby, limiting its use for land application). Inhibition of POTW operations is
determined by comparing calculated POTW influent levels (Eq. 7) with available inhibition
levels. Excursions are indicated by a value greater than 1.0.
where:
OD
PF
CF
c =
PF
(Eq. 7)
POTW influent concentration (/ig/L)
facility pollutant loading (Ibs/year)
facility operation (days)
POTW flow (million gal/day)
conversion factors for units
Potential contamination of sewage sludge is evaluated by comparing projected pollutant
concentrations in the sludge (Eq. 8) with EPA regulatory values for land application of sewage
sludge. A value greater than 1.0 indicates an excursion.
Csp = (L/OD) x TMT x PART x SGF x CF
where:
L* =
OD
TMT =
PART =
SGF =
CF
sludge pollutant concentration (mg/kg)
facility pollutant loading (Ibs/year)
facility operation (days/year)
POTW treatment removal efficiency
chemical-specific sludge partition factor
sludge generation factor (5.96 ppm)
conversion factors for units.
(Eq. 8)
-------
Facility-specific data and information used to evaluate POTW operations are derived from
the sources described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. For centralized waste treatment facilities that
discharge to the same POTW, their individual loadings are summed before the POTW influent
and sludge concentrations are calculated.
2.1.3 Assumptions and Caveats
The following assumptions are used in this analysis:
Background concentrations of each pollutant, both in the receiving stream and in
the POTW influent, are equal to zero; therefore, only the impacts of discharging
facilities are evaluated.
All facilities were assumed to be in operation 250 days per year.
An exposure duration of 365 days is used to determine the likelihood of actual
excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect levels.
Complete mixing of discharge flow and stream flow occurs across the stream at
the discharge point. This mixing results in the calculation of an "average stream"
concentration even though the actual concentration may vary across the width and
depth of the stream.
The process water at each facility and the water discharged to a POTW are
obtained from a source other than the receiving stream.
The pollutant load to the receiving stream is assumed to be continuous and is
assumed to be representative of long-term facility operations. This assumption
may overestimate risks to human health and aquatic life.
1Q10 and 7Q10 receiving stream flow rates are used to estimate aquatic life
impacts, and harmonic mean flow rates are used to estimate human health
impacts. 1Q10 low flows are estimated using the results of a regression analysis
conducted by Versar for EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
of 1Q10 and 7Q10 flows from representative U.S. rivers and streams (Upgrade
of Flow Statistics Used to Estimate Surface Water Chemical Concentrations for
Aquatic and Human Exposure Assessment, Versar, 1992). Harmonic mean flows
are estimated from the mean and 7Q10 flows as recommended in the Technical
Support Document for Water-Quality-based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 1991a).
-------
These flows may not be the same as those used by specific states to assess
impacts.
• Pollutant fate processes such as sediment adsorption, volatilization, and hydrolysis
are not considered. This may result in estimated instream concentrations that are
environmentally conservative (higher).
• Pollutants without a specific POTW treatment removal efficiency, provided by
EPA or found in the literature, are assigned a removal efficiency of zero;
pollutants without a specific partition factor are assigned a value of zero.
• Only the potential for metal contamination of sewage sludge to levels which
would prohibit its land application as a fertilizer or soil conditioner is evaluated.
There are sewage sludge regulatory values in the case of land-applied sludge for
the following 10 pollutants - arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium and zinc.
• Water quality criteria or toxic effect levels developed for freshwater organisms
are used in the analysis of facilities discharging to estuaries or bays.
• Facilities were only modeled if the receiving streams or the POTWs to which
they discharge could be identified.
2.2 Documented Envirnmnl
EPA Regional and State Pretreatment Coordinators were contacted and State 304(1) Short
Lists are reviewed for evidence of documented environmental impacts on aquatic life, human
health, POTW operations, and the quality of receiving water due to discharges of pollutants from
centralized waste treatment facilities. Reported impacts are compiled and summarized by study
site and facility.
10
-------
3. DATA SOURCES
Readily available EPA and other agency databases, models and reports are used in the
evaluation of water quality impacts. The following four sections describe the various data
sources used in the analysis.
3.1 Facility-Specific Data
Projected centralized waste treatment facility effluent process flows, plant/pollutant
operating days, and pollutant loadings (Appendix A) are obtained from the Engineering and
Analysis Division (EAD) (December 1993). For each option, long-term averages were
calculated for each pollutant of concern based on sampling data and self-monitoring data.
Facilities reported in the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire the annual quantity
discharged to surface waters and POTWs. The annual quantity discharged (facility flow) was
multiplied by the long-term average for each pollutant and converted to the proper units to
calculate the loading (pounds per year) for each pollutant.
The locations of centralized waste treatment facilities on receiving streams are identified
using USGS cataloging and EPA stream segment (reach) numbers contained in EPA's Industrial
Facilities Discharge (IFD) data base. Latitude/longitude coordinates, if available, are used to
locate those facilities and POTWs that have not been assigned a reach number in IFD. The
names, locations, and the flow data for the POTWs to which the indirect facilities discharge are
obtained from the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, EPA's 1992 NEEDS Survey,
IFD, and EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS).
The receiving stream flow data are obtained from either the W.E. Gates study data or
from measured streamflow data, both of which are contained in EPA's GAGE file. The W.E.
Gates study contains calculated average and low flow statistics based on the best available flow
data and on drainage areas for reaches throughout the United States. The GAGE file also
includes average and low flow statistics based on measured data from USGS gaging stations.
11
-------
Dissolved Concentration Potentials (DCPs) for estuaries and bays are obtained from the Strategic
Assessment Branch of NOAA's Ocean Assessments Division (Appendix B). Critical Dilution
Factors are obtained from the Mixing Zone Dilution Factors for New Chemical Exposure
Assessments (U.S. EPA, 1992).
3.2 Information Used to Evaluate POTW Operations
POTW treatment efficiency removals are obtained from the pass-through analysis
completed for this project (U.S. EPA, 1994). Removals are developed from POTW removal
data and an RREL (Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory - Cincinnati) treatability database
or by using the removal rate of a similar pollutant when data are not available (Appendix C).
Use of the selected removals assumes that the evaluated POTWs are well-operated and have at
least secondary treatment in place.
Inhibition values are obtained from Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at
POTWs (U.S. EPA, 1987) and from CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs: Guidance Manual
(U.S. EPA, 1990) (Appendix C). The most conservative values for activated sludge are used.
For pollutants with no specific inhibition value, a value based on compound type (e.g.,
aromatics) is used.
Sewage sludge regulatory levels, if available for the pollutants of concern, are obtained
from the 40 CFR Part 503, Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, Final Rules
(February 19, 1993). Pollutant limits established for the final use or disposal of sewage sludge
when the sewage sludge is applied to agricultural and non-agricultural land are used
(Appendix C). Sludge partition factors are obtained from the Report to Congress on the
Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (Domestic Sewage Study)
(U.S. EPA, 1986). The partition factor is a measure of the tendency for the pollutant to
standard used for molybdenum is 35 mg/kg (59 Federal Register 9095, February 18
1994).
12
-------
partition in sludge when it is removed from wastewater. For predicting sludge generation, the
model assumes that 1,400 pounds of sludge are generated for each million gallons of wastewater
processed (Metcalf & Eddy, 1972). This results in a sludge generation factor of 5.96 (that is,
for every 1 ppb of pollutant removed from wastewater and partitioned to sludge, the
concentration in sludge is 5.96 ppm dry weight).
3.3 Water Quality Criteria (WQC)
The ambient criteria (or toxic effect levels) for the protection of aquatic life and human
health are obtained from a variety of sources including EPA criteria documents, EPA's
Assessment Tools for the Evaluation of Risk (ASTER), and EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) (Appendix C). Ecological toxicity estimations are used when published values
are not available. The hierarchies used to select the appropriate aquatic life and human health
values are described in the following sections.
3.3.1 Aquatic Life
Water quality criteria for many pollutants have been established by EPA for the
protection of freshwater aquatic life (acute and chronic criteria). The acute value represents a
maximum allowable 1-hour average concentration of a pollutant at any time and can be related
to acute toxic effects on aquatic life. The chronic value represents the average allowable
concentration of a toxic pollutant over a 4-day period at which a diverse genera of aquatic
organisms and their uses should not be unacceptably affected, provided that these levels are not
exceeded more than once every 3 years.
For pollutants for which no water quality criteria have been developed, specific toxicity
values (acute and chronic effect concentrations reported in published literature or estimated using
various application techniques) are used. In selecting values from the literature, measured
concentrations from flow-through studies under typical pH and temperature conditions are
preferred. The test organism must be a North American resident species of fish or invertebrate.
13
-------
The hierarchies used to select the appropriate acute and chronic values are listed below in
descending order of priority.
Acute Aquatic Life Values:
• National acute freshwater quality criteria;
• Lowest reported acute test values (96-hour LC50 for fish and 48-hour
EC5Q/LC5Q for daphnids);
• Lowest reported LC50 test value of shorter duration, adjusted to estimate
a 96-hour exposure period;
• Lowest reported LC50 test value of longer duration, up to a maximum of
two weeks exposure; and
• Estimated 96-hour LC50 from the ASTER QSAR model.
Chronic Aquatic Life Values:
• National chronic freshwater quality criteria;
• Lowest reported maximum allowable toxic concentration (MATC), lowest
observable effect concentration (LOEC), or no observable effect
concentration (NOEC);
• Lowest reported chronic growth or reproductive toxicity test
concentration;
• Estimated chronic toxicity concentration from a measured acute chronic
ratio for a less sensitive species, quantitative structure activity relationship
(QSAR) model, or default acute:chronic ratio of 10:1.
3.3.2 Human Health
Water quality criteria for the protection of human health are established in terms of a
pollutant's toxic effects, including carcinogenic potential. These human health criteria values
are developed for two exposure routes: (1) ingesting the pollutant via contaminated aquatic
14
-------
organisms only, and (2) ingesting the pollutant via both contaminated water and aquatic
organisms as follows:
For Toxicitv Protection (ingestion of organisms only)
IRfxBCF
where:
= human health value 0-tg/L)
RfD = reference dose (mg/day)
IRf = fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
BCF = bioconcentration factor (liters/kg)
CF = conversion factor for units (1,000 /*g/mg)
For Carcinogenicitv Protection (ingestion of organisms only)
HH = BWx RLxCF (Eq. 19)
00 SFxlRfxBCF
where:
= human health value (/xg/L)
BW = body weight (70 kg)
RL = risk level (10"6)
SF = cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)"1
IRf = fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
BCF = bioconcentration factor (liters/kg)
CF = conversion factor for units (1,000 /xg/mg)
15
-------
For Toxicitv Protection (ingestion of water and organisms^
HH^ = —
"° IRv + (IRf x BCF)
where:
HHWO = human health value (/xg/L)
RfD = reference dose (mg/day)
IRW = water ingestion rate (2 liters/day)
IRf = fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
BCF = bioconcentration factor (liters/kg)
CF = conversion factor for units (1000 /xg/mg)
For Carcinogenicitv Protection (ingestion of water and organisms^
BWxRLxCF
'
SF x [ IR^ + (IRf x BCF)
where:
HHWO = human health value (^g/L)
BW = body weight (70 kg)
RL = risk level (10"6)
SF = cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)"1
IRW = water ingestion rate (2 liters/day)
IRf = fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
BCF = bioconcentration factor (liters/kg)
CF = conversion factor for units (1,000
The values for ingesting specific pollutants by contaminated water and/or contaminated aquatic
organisms are derived by assuming an average daily ingestion of 2 liters of water, an average
daily fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams of fish products, and an average adult body weight of
16
-------
70 kilograms (Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Controls (U.S.
EPA, 1991).
Values protective of carcinogenicity are used to assess the potential effects on human
health, if EPA has established a cancer slope factor. Protective concentration levels for
carcinogens are developed in terms of non-threshold lifetime risk level. Criteria at a risk level
of ID"** are chosen for this analysis. This risk level indicates a probability of one additional case
of cancer for every 1,000,000 persons exposed. Toxic effects criteria for noncarcinogens
include systemic effects (e.g., reproductive, immunological, neurological, circulatory, or
respiratory toxicity), organ-specific toxicity, developmental toxicity, mutagenesis, and lethality.
The hierarchy used to select the most appropriate human health criteria values is listed
below in descending order of priority:
Calculated human health criteria values using EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) reference doses (RfDs) or cancer slope factors (SFs) used in
conjunction with adjusted 3 percent lipid BCF values derived from Ambient Water
Quality Criteria Documents (U.S. EPA, 1980); three percent is the mean lipid
content of fish tissue reported in the study from which the average daily fish
consumption rate of 6.5g/day was derived;
Calculated human health criteria values using current IRIS RfDs or SFs and
representative BCF values for common North American species of fish or
invertebrates or estimated BCF values;
Calculated human health criteria values using RfDs or SFs from EPA's Health
Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) used in conjunction with adjusted
3 percent lipid BCF values derived from Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Documents (U.S. EPA, 1980);
Calculated human health criteria values using current RfDs or SFs from HEAST
and representative BCF values for common North American species of fish or
invertebrates or estimated BCF values;
Criteria from \hcAmbient Water Quality Criteria Documents (U.S. EPA, 1980);
and
17
-------
Calculated human health values using RfDs or SFs from data sources other than
IRIS or HEAST.
This hierarchy is based on Section 2.4.6 of the Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 1991a), which recommends using the most current risk
information from IRIS when estimating human health risks. In cases where chemicals have both
RfDs and cancer SFs from the same level of the hierarchy, human health values are calculated
using the formulas for carcinogenicity, which always results in the more stringent value of the
two given the risk levels employed.
3.4 Documented Environmental
Data are obtained from EPA Regional and State Pretreatment Coordinators in Regions
I, H, IH and V. Data are also obtained from the 1990 State 304(1) Short Lists (U.S. EPA,
1991b).
18
-------
4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
4.1 Proected Water Quality
The results of this analysis show the potential water quality benefits of controlling
discharges from centralized waste treatment facilities to surface waters and POTWs. The
following two sections summarize potential aquatic life and human health impacts on receiving
stream water quality and on POTW operations and their receiving streams for the metals, oils,
and organics subcategories and for multiple subcategory combinations (as applicable for
individual facilities) at current discharges and at the proposed regulatory options (Table 1).
Section 4.1.1 presents the results for direct discharges; section 4.1.2 presents the results for
indirect discharges. Appendices D, E and F present the results of the stream modeling for each
type of discharge.
4.1.1 Direct Discharges
(a) Metals Subcategory
The effects of direct wastewater discharges on receiving stream water quality are
evaluated at current and proposed BPT/BAT (Metals Option 3) treatment levels for 1 1 facilities
discharging 80 pollutants (Table 2) to 11 receiving streams (8 rivers and 3 estuaries).
These 11 facilities currently discharge 88.4 million pounds-per-year of priority and
nonconventional pollutants (Table 3). These loadings are reduced to 40.2 million pounds-per-
year at proposed BPT/BAT levels; a reduction of 55 percent.
Modeled instream concentrations of 2 pollutants are projected to exceed human health
criteria (for water and organisms consumption) in 5 of the 11 receiving streams at current
discharge levels (Tables 4 and 5). No excursions are projected at proposed BPT/BAT discharge
levels.
19
-------
Additionally, instream concentrations of 13 pollutants are projected to exceed chronic
aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 5 of the 11 receiving streams at current discharge
levels (Tables 4 and 5). Proposed BPT/BAT discharge levels reduce projected excursions to 2
pollutants in 2 of the 11 receiving streams.
Tables 4 and 5 also provide information on projected instream pollutant excursions of
human health criteria (for organisms consumption only) and of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic
effect levels. Instream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed human health criteria at
current discharge levels only and acute aquatic life criteria at both current and proposed
BPT/BAT discharge levels.
(b) Oils Subcategory
The effects of direct wastewater discharges on receiving stream water quality are
evaluated at current and at the two co-proposed BPT/BAT (Oils Option 2 and Oils Option 3)
treatment levels for 4 facilities discharging 50 pollutants (Table 6) to 4 receiving streams (3
rivers and 1 estuary).
These 4 facilities currently discharge 3.1 million pounds-per-year of priority and
nonconventional pollutants (Table 7). These loadings are reduced to 1.0 million pounds-per-year
at proposed BPT/BAT Oils Option 2 levels and to 0.12 million pounds-per-year at proposed
BPT/BAT Oils Option 3; reductions of 68 and 96 percent, respectively.
Modeled instream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed human health criteria
(for water and organisms consumption) in 1 of the 4 receiving streams at both current and
proposed BPT/BAT Oils Option 2 discharge levels for 3 pollutants and 1 pollutant, respectively
(Tables 8 and 9). No excursions of human health criteria are projected at proposed BPT/BAT
Oils Option 3 discharge levels.
20
-------
Additionally, instream concentrations of 12 pollutants are projected to exceed chronic
aquatic life criteria in 2 of the 4 receiving streams at current discharge levels (Tables 8 and 9).
Proposed BPT/BAT Oils Option 2 and Oils Option 3 discharge levels reduce projected
excursions to 1 of the 4 receiving streams for 4 pollutants and 1 pollutant, respectively.
Tables 8 and 9 also provide information on projected instream pollutant excursions of
human health criteria (for organisms consumption only) and of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic
effect levels. Instream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed human health and acute
aquatic life criteria at current discharge levels only.
(c) Organics Subcategory
The effects of direct wastewater discharges on receiving stream water quality are
evaluated at current and proposed BPT/BAT (Organics Option 1) treatment levels for 5 facilities
discharging 82 pollutants (Table 10) to 5 receiving streams (4 rivers and 1 estuary).
These 5 facilities currently discharge 87.0 million pounds-per- year of priority and
nonconventional pollutants (Table 11). These loadings are reduced to 80.5 million pounds-per-
year at proposed BPT/BAT levels; a reduction of 8 percent.
Modeled instream concentrations of 11 pollutants are projected to exceed human health
criteria (for water and organisms consumption) in 3 of the 5 receiving streams at both current
and proposed BPT/BAT discharge levels (Tables 12 and 13).
Additionally, modeled instream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed chronic
aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 2 of the 5 receiving streams at both current and
proposed BPT/BAT discharge levels (Table 12). A total of 23 pollutants at current and 22
pollutants at proposed BPT/BAT are projected to exceed instream criteria or toxic effect levels
(Table 13).
21
-------
Tables 12 and 13 also provide information on projected instream pollutant excursions of
human health criteria (for organisms consumption only) and of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic
effect levels. Instream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed human health and acute
aquatic life criteria at both current and proposed BPT/BAT discharge levels.
(d) Multiple Subcategory Combinations
In order to evaluate overall impacts of current direct wastewater discharges on receiving
stream water quality and potential benefits of the proposed BPT/BAT regulatory options, water
quality analyses are performed, in addition to the subcategory - specific analyses described
above, for multiple subcategory combinations as appropriate for individual facilities5. These
analyses are performed for 15 facilities discharging a total of 113 pollutants (Table 14) to 15
receiving streams (12 rivers and 3 estuaries) at current discharge levels and at the proposed
BPT/BAT Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and
Organics Option 1) and Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option
3, and Organics Option 1) (See Table 1 for description of options).
These 15 facilities currently discharge 179 million pounds-per- year of priority and
nonconventional pollutants (Table 15). These loadings are reduced to 122 million pounds-per-
year at proposed BPT/BAT Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils
Option 2, and Organics Option 1), and to 121 million pounds-per-year at proposed BPT/BAT
Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3 and Organics Option
1), for reductions of approximately 32 percent.
Modeled instream concentrations of 13 pollutants are projected to exceed human health
criteria (for water and organisms consumption) in 8 of the 15 receiving streams (53 percent) at
current discharge level (Tables 16 and 17). The proposed BPT/BAT Regulatory Option 1 (the
5
Over 40 percent of the direct facilities in the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry have
operations in multiple subcategories.
22
-------
combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) is projected to reduce
these excursions to 12 pollutants at 4 receiving streams and proposed BPT/BAT Regulatory
Option 2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1) to 11
pollutants at 3 receiving streams (27 and 20 percent of the receiving streams, respectively).
Additionally, modeled instream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed chronic
aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 8 of the 15 (53 percent) receiving streams at current
discharge levels and in 5 of the 15 (33 percent) receiving streams at both proposed BPT/BAT
regulatory options (Table 16). A total of 28 pollutants at current, 23 pollutants at proposed
BPT/BAT Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and
Organics Option 1), and 22 pollutants at proposed BPT/BAT Regulatory Option 2 (the
combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1) are projected to exceed
instream criteria or toxic effect levels (Table 17).
Tables 16 and 17 also provide information on projected instream pollutant excursions of
human health criteria (for organisms consumption only) and of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic
effect levels. Instream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed human health and acute
aquatic life criteria at both current and proposed BPT/BAT regulatory options.
4.1.2 Indirect Discharges
(a) Metals Subcategory
The potential effects of 36 indirect facilities, which discharge 80 pollutants (Table 18)
to 28 POTWs on 28 receiving streams (24 rivers and 4 estuaries), on receiving stream water
quality are evaluated at current and proposed pretreatment (Metals Option 3) discharge levels.
These 36 facilities currently discharge 36.9 million pounds-per-year of priority and
nonconventional pollutants (Table 3). These loadings are reduced to 16.5 million pounds-per-
year after proposed pretreatment; a reduction of 55 percent.
23
-------
Modeled instream concentrations of 1 pollutant are projected to exceed human health
criteria (for water and organisms consumption) in 7 of the 28 receiving streams at current
discharge levels (Tables 19 and 20). No excursions are projected at proposed pretreatment
discharge levels.
Additionally, modeled instream concentrations of 9 pollutants are projected to exceed
chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 14 of the 28 receiving streams at current
discharge levels (Tables 19 and 20). The proposed pretreatment reduces projected excursions
to 1 pollutant in 2 of the 28 receiving streams.
Tables 19 and 20 also provide information on projected instream pollutant excursions of
human health criteria (for organisms consumption only) and of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic
effect levels. No excursions of human health criteria are projected at current or proposed
pretreatment discharge levels. Instream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed acute
aquatic life criteria at current discharge levels only.
In addition, the potential impacts of 38 indirect facilities, which discharge to 30 POTWs,
are evaluated in terms of inhibition of POTW operations and contamination of sludge.6 At
current discharge levels, inhibition problems are projected to occur from 1 pollutant at 9 of 30
POTWs (Tables 21 and 22). Potential inhibition problems are reduced after proposed
pretreatment to 1 pollutant at 2 of the 30 POTWs. Contamination of sludge is projected to occur
in 11 of the 30 POTWs from 3 pollutants at current discharge levels (Tables 21 and 22).
Potential sludge contamination is reduced after proposed pretreatment to 1 pollutant at 1 of the
30 POTWs.
"The two additional facilities, analyzed for potential impacts on POTW operations, discharge
to two POTWs whose receiving streams/flows could not be identified; therefore, they are not
included in the water quality analysis.
24
-------
(b) Oils Subcategory
The potential effects of 24 indirect facilities, which discharge 50 pollutants (Table 23)
to 18 POTWs on 18 receiving streams (16 rivers and 2 estuaries), on receiving stream water
quality are evaluated at current and at the co-proposed pretreatment (Oils Option 2 and Oils
Option 3) discharge levels.
These 24 facilities currently discharge 6.8 million pounds-per-year of priority and
nonconventional pollutants (Table 7). These loadings are reduced to 2.2 million pounds-per-year
after proposed pretreatment Oils Option 2 and to 0.25 million pounds-per-year after proposed
pretreatment Oils Option 3; a reduction of 68 and 96 percent, respectively.
Modeled instream concentrations of 1 pollutant are projected to exceed human health
criteria (for water and organisms consumption) in 1 of the 18 receiving streams at current
discharge levels. (Tables 24 and 25). No excursions are projected at either co-proposed
pretreatment discharge levels.
Additionally, instream concentrations of 4 pollutants are projected to exceed chronic
aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 5 of the 18 receiving streams at current discharge
levels (Tables 24 and 25). No excursions are projected at either co-proposed pretreatment
discharge levels.
Tables 24 and 25 also provide information on projected instream pollutant excursions of
human health criteria (for consumption only) and of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic effect
levels. No excursions are projected at current or either co-proposed pretreatment discharge
levels.
25
-------
In addition, the potential impacts of 25 facilities, which discharge to 19 POTWs, are
evaluated in terms of inhibition of POTW operation and contamination of sludge.7 At current
discharge levels, inhibition problems are projected to occur at 11 of the 19 POTWs from 1
pollutant (Tables 26 and 27). These inhibition problems are reduced after both co-proposed
pretreatment options to 3 of the 19 POTWs and 1 pollutant. Potential contamination of sludge
is projected to occur in 1 of the 19 POTWs from 2 pollutants at current discharge levels (Tables
26 and 27). No contamination of sludge is projected at proposed pretreatment Oils Option 2 or
Oils Option 3 discharge levels.
(c) Organics Subcategory
The potential effects of 15 indirect facilities, which discharge 84 pollutants (Table 28)
to 15 POTWs on 15 receiving streams (12 rivers and 3 estuaries), on receiving stream water
quality are evaluated at current and proposed pretreatment (Organics Option 1) discharge levels.
These 15 facilities currently discharge 11.4 million pounds-per-year of priority and
nonconventional pollutants (Table 11). These loadings are reduced to 5.4 million pounds-per-
year after proposed pretreatment; a reduction of 52 percent.
Modeled instream concentrations of 3 pollutants are projected to exceed human health
criteria (for water and organisms consumption) in 11 of the 15 receiving streams at current
discharge levels (Tables 29 and 30). The proposed pretreatment will reduce projected excursions
to 1 pollutant at 2 of the 15 receiving streams. None of the evaluated pollutants are projected
to exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels at current or proposed pretreatment
discharge levels (Tables 29 and 30).
7The one additional facility, analyzed for impacts on POTW operations discharges to a
POTW whose receiving stream/flow could not be identified; therefore, it is not included in the
water quality analysis.
26
-------
Tables 29 and 30 also provide information on projected instream pollutant excursions of
human health criteria (for consumption only) and of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic effect
levels. Excursions of human health criteria are projected at current discharge levels only. No
excursions of acute aquatic life criteria are projected.
In addition, the potential impacts of 15 facilities, which discharge to 15 POTWs, are
evaluated in terms of inhibition of POTW operations and contamination of sludge at current and
proposed pretreatment discharge levels. No potential inhibition problems or sludge
contamination problems are projected at any discharge level (Table 31).
(d) Multiple Subcategory Combinations
In order to evaluate overall impacts of current indirect wastewater discharges on POTW
operations and receiving stream water quality and potential benefits of the proposed pretreatment
options, POTW and water quality analyses are performed, in addition to the subcategory-specific
analyses described above, for multiple subcategory combinations as appropriate for individual
facilities.8 These analyses are performed for 45 facilities discharging a total of 113 pollutants
(Table 32) to 33 POTWs on 33 receiving streams (29 rivers and 4 estuaries) at current discharge
levels and at the proposed pretreatment Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals
Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of
Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1) (See Table 1 for description of options).
These 45 facilities currently discharge 55.1 million pounds-per-year of priority and
nonconventional pollutants (Table 15). These loadings are reduced to 24.1 million pounds-per-
year after proposed pretreatment Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils
Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and to 22.1 million pounds-per-year after proposed
8 Over 40 percent of the indirect facilities in the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry have
operations in multiple subcategories.
27
-------
pretreatment Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and
Organics Option 1); a reduction of 56 and 60 percent, respectively.
Modeled instream concentrations of 4 pollutants are projected to exceed human health
criteria (for water and organisms consumption) in 17 of the 33 receiving streams (52 percent)
at current discharge levels (Tables 33 and 34). Proposed pretreatment Regulatory Option 1 (the
combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and Regulatory Option
2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1) are both projected
to reduce these excursions to 1 pollutant at 2 of the 33 receiving streams (6 percent).
Additionally, modeled instream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed chronic
aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 16 of the 33 (48 percent) and in 2 of the 33 (6
percent) receiving streams at current and at the proposed pretreatment Regulatory Option 1 (the
combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and Regulatory Option
2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1) discharge levels,
respectively (Table 33). A total of 10 pollutants at current and 1 pollutant at proposed
pretreatment Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and
Organics Option 1) and Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils
Option 3, and Organics Option 1) are projected to exceed pollutant criteria or toxic effect levels
(Table 34).
Tables 33 and 34 also provide information on projected instream pollutant excursions of
human health criteria (for organisms consumption only) and of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic
effects. Excursions are projected at current discharge levels only.
28
-------
In addition, the potential impacts of 47 indirect facilities, which discharge to 35 POTWs,
are evaluated in terms of inhibition of POTW operations and contamination of sludge.9 At
current discharge levels, inhibition problems from 1 pollutant are projected to occur at 17 of the
35 POTWs (49 percent) (Tables 35 and 36). After proposed pretreatment Regulatory Option 1
(the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and Regulatory
Option 2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1) inhibition
problems are reduced to 1 pollutant at 6 of the 35 POTWs (17 percent). Potential contamination
of sludge is projected from 4 pollutants at 13 of the 35 (37 percent) POTWs and from 1
pollutant at 1 of the 35 (3 percent) POTWs at current and at the proposed pretreatment
Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option
1) and Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics
Option 1) discharge levels, respectively (Tables 35 and 36).
4.2 Documented Environment^
EPA Region and State Pretreatment Coordinators identified environmental impacts on
POTW operations and water quality due to discharges of pollutants from 8 indirect centralized
waste treatment facilities (Table 36). Impacts included 7 cases of impairment to POTW
operations due to cyanide, nitrate/nitrite, sodium, zinc and ammonia, and 1 case of an impact
on the quality of receiving waters due to organics. In addition, 4 direct centralized waste
treatment facilities and 8 POTWs, which receive the discharge from 13 facilities, are identified
by States as being point sources causing water quality problems and are included on their 304(1)
Short List (Tables 37 and 38). Pollutants of concern include cadmium, copper, cyanide, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, and organics. Section 304(1) of the Water Quality Act
of 1987 requires States to identify waterbodies impaired by the presence of toxic substances, to
identify point source discharges of these toxics, and to develop Individual Control Strategies
two additional facilities analyzed for potential POTW impacts discharge to two POTWs
whose receiving streams/flows could not be identified; therefore, they are not included in the
water quality analysis.
29
-------
(ICSs) for these discharges. The Short List is a list of waters for which a State does not expect
applicable water quality standards (numeric or narrative) to be achieved after technology-based
requirements have been met due entirely or substantially to point source discharges of Section
307(a) toxics. Documentation received from the pretreatment coordinators are provided in the
CBI record.
30
-------
Table 1. Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Subcategories and Analyzed Treatment Levels
Subcategory
1. Subcategorv - Specific Analyses
Metals
Oils
Organics
2. Multiple Subcategorv Combinations*
Regulatory Option 1
Regulatory Option 2
Analyzed Treatment Levels
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Proposed BPT/BAT/PSES
Option 3
Option 2, Option 3
Option 1
Metals - Option 3, Oils - Option 2,
Organics - Option 1
Metals - Option 3, Oils - Option 3,
Organics - Option 1
As appropriate for individual facilities.
12/5/94
31
-------
Table 2. Metals Subcategory - Pollutants Discharged From
11 Direct Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
Pollutant Name
Number of Detections by
Facility
ACETOPHENONE
ALUMINUM
AMENABLE CYANIDE
AMMONIA AS N
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHENYL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BORON
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
CYANIDE
DIPHENYL ETHER
ETHYL BENZENE
FLUORIDE
HEX CHROMIUM
HEXANOIC ACID
IODINE
IRIDIUM
IRON
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
MOLYBDENUM
N-DECANE
N-DODECANE
N-EICOSANE
N-HEXADECANE
N-OCTADECANE
N-TETRADECANE
N .N-DIMETHYLFORM AMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
NICKEL
NITRATE-NITRITE AS N
O + PXYLENE
PHENOL
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
8
10
10
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
7
10
10
11
7
10
10
10
11
10
7
10
10
10
9
9
10
10
9
9
10
10
6
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
7
10
9
10
32
-------
Table 2. Metals Subcategory - Pollutants Discharged From
11 Direct Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
(Continued)
Pollutant Name
RHENIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
STYRENE
SULFIDE
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TETRACHLOROETHENE
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TOLUENE
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 , 1 , 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE
2-METHYLNAPTHALENE
2-PROPANONE
4-CHLORO 3-METHYLPHENOL
4-METHYL 2-PENTANONE
Number of Detections by
Facility
9
10
9
10
11
9
10
10
10
9
9
7
10
10
10
10
10
11
9
9
10
10
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Source: Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), December 1993.
12/5/94
33
-------
Table 3. Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Metals Subcategory of Direct and Indirect
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
Current
Promised BPT/BAT/Pretreatment
No. of Pollutants Evaluated
No. of Facilities Evaluated
Loadings, pounds-per-year*
Direct
Dischargers
88,414,098
40,174,630
80
11
Indirect
Dischargers
36,893,258
16,472,387
80
36
Total
125,307,356
56,647,017
**80
47
**
Loadings are representative of priority and non-conventional pollutants evaluated; conventional
pollutants such as BOD, COD, TSS, TOC and Oil and Grease are not included.
The same pollutant may be discharged from a number of direct and indirect facilities; therefore,
the total does not equal the sum of pollutants.
12/5/94
34
-------
g
g1
1
Q
oo
c5
S-— -C -s
.T: 4)
llil
3333
c^ Z Z Z
*
3
It
jt
^
43 w>
K^
1
1 1
0
a
cr
<
_o
I
a
0
•a
3
o4
^
jj
9
0
>n m cs cs es o
00
i
c,rzro oozo
NO NO
R £
en rn
in cs
cs
"•^
1
00
K
V
a .
!€
9 -H
ii
<*^
0 O
o
g 3
_^ fS
Is 8
3 a.
5 £*
o :«
H
U 00
o o
•a .9
30
j-J
o o
Wl
• fi ^2
ca *M
11*
§JS
K .- "rt
*o § £*
«J S 'O
^ w K
•1°!
g» Vj ^
3 ^ "3
° d w
— | -^
B O Q
« etf §
G. a 3
47 0 J3
^ « J3
8 'C .ts
rl 'C M
"a
UN Q ^M
Crt S 3
S, 0 =3
-------
lo
Icn
lo
- Ivo
5
o\
I
2
o.
U
bfi
1
g
CO
1
I
-------
Table 6. Oils Subcategory - Pollutants Discharged From 4 Direct
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
Pollutant Name
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA AS N
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BENZENE
BENZOIC ACID
BORON
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
ETHYL BENZENE
FLUORIDE
HEXANOIC ACID
IRON
LEAD
M-XYLENE
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
MOLYBDENUM
N-DECANE
N-DOCOSANE
N-DODECANE
N-EICOSANE
N-HEXACOSANE
N-HEXADECANE
N-OCTADECANE
N-TETRADECANE
NICKEL
NITRATE-NITRITE AS N
O + P XYLENE
PHENOL
SILVER
SODIUM
SULFIDE, TOTAL
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TIN
TITANIUM
TOLUENE
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOLMETHYL ETHER
ZINC
1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
2-BUTANONE
2-PROPANONE
4-CHLORO 3-METHYLPHENOL
Number of Detections by Facility
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Source: Engineering and Analysis Division (BAD), December 1993.
12/5/94
37
-------
Table 7. Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Oils Subcategory of Direct and Indirect
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
Current
Proposed BPT/BAT/Pretreatment (Oils Option 2)
Proposed BPT/BAT/Pretreatment (Oils Option 3)
No. of Pollutants Evaluated
No. of Facilities Evaluated
Loadings, pounds-per-year*
Direct
Dischargers
3,137,428
1,007,375
116,856
50
4
Indirect
Dischargers
6,821,072
2,192,019
254,227
50
24
Total
9,958,500
3,199,394
371,083
**50
28
**
Loadings are representative of priority and non-conventional pollutants evaluated; conventional pollutants such
as BOD, COD, TSS, TOC, and Oil and Grease are not included.
The same pollutant may be discharged from a number of direct and indirect facilities; therefore, the total does
not equal the sum of pollutants.
12/5/94
38
-------
ff
"8
8 ? -8
2 5 .<£
5 ^ oo Q
—. • • oo ?2
O -S 'S 3
o ^ ~
cc ^ O
>>U, OS Q-
s <*. <*- <*.
M ° ° °
^ t- w t-
I 6 E 6
^5
i
JS
3
d
1
S
H
S
1
'i
c
3
t-c
to
<4-l
Cfl
C3
_O
'S
u,
o
X
tu
e«
5
•c
u
1
0
S
'81
(X
i*-
0
S*
a
00
00
/r
0
•
cs
•^s ^f ^ ^f
^•^tS^. oo^o oo$e
A ^ ^-i ^H
* * *
5^ £N Jk
^ll °il ^^tl
^+* t TT ^"^ ^ • >^ ^"^ ^ • >TP ^"^ 5^
^S-Ss s z^P» ^ z^P'
O j2 S\ Si O ^ «S M M O ^ «S S\ x
3&OO.UH Ep&oOHUH goeofluUH
U (X* Oj cu O
1
cd
1
•c
o
cP
o
k
u
•S •
|€
a —
ti
«*- ^
o d
d 2
9 *^
S ^
,,-rt ^\
^ £
=5 o.
« >>
o ]S
d '3
J60
o
^•^ o
rt H
o 3
« 8«§
•P1
1.8 1
8 »•§
4J J2 >
*4H Q -^
o g c*
o c 'o
"y to 'J<
3 L,_ n
•S 0 **
1 te ^
l|1
w § ja
Q. d a
$ ° *
* -c -
8 S ^
•S 'o -2
J3 M
cj u S
Q. O S Hi
.a 8 £3
e ^ ' •-
^ 1 d "^
g a 60<
^III
S2^3 ii
o * <
£ * * z;
39
-------
rs '— > 3
C rr '3 =
E E E
= 33
Z Z Z
•§£
g 0
c ^5
11
K o
1
1 &
HM 0
1|
•5
0
J
o
3
cr
_o
'5
|
U
u
••«
, ^
o
cr
u
3
<
*5?
Q £$
|-'J 5.m
£ °
"8 c
5 s3 ^ ^
p o x*
£
-
u
J*J"
£
la*,,
1°^
|
3
U
"8 «
g M O
1 a'-8 -
So*
3
o °* ®
J"^ ^J
OH
"S o
t'".-3.|i.ci
•Q
•**
1
u
lo
lo
~ 1 —
lo
„
52-
q" ^~. ^
c4 ^ ^
^ xL C-
-• -H -H len
P
^T i^
00 -^^ ^-N >— S.
c. ci ci c
__ ^^ i_l ^_ i ^.
^ P 9
r*- ^ oo oo
i "*
lo
lo
>
l§
arcinogen
« o
C VH
0 ^
1 «
0 w
g 8
<*- ^
O «»
« >
TJ >%
3 .«
11
S s
g s
S3 j=
" c
&l
<" S
o J=
i!
aJ
3
•si
IB
3 U)
z.i
P
Z «
40
-------
Table 10. Organic* Subcategory - Pollutants Discharged From 5 Direct
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
Pollutant Name
Number of Detections by
Facility
ACETOPHENONE
ALUMINUM
AMENABLE CYANIDE
AMMONIA AS N
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BENZENE
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BORON
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
CALCIUM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
CYANIDE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL BENZENE
FLUORIDE
HEXANOIC ACID
IODINE
IRON
ISOPHORONE
LEAD
LITHIUM
M-XYLENE
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
MOLYBDENUM
N.N-DIMETHYLFORM AMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
NICKEL
NITRATE-NITRITE AS N
O+PXYLENE
O-CRESOL
P-CRESOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
PYRIDINE
SILICON
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFIDE
SULFUR
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
TIN
TITANIUM
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
4
5
4
5
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
4
41
-------
Table 10. Organics Subcategory - Pollutants Discharged From 5 Direct
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
(continued)
Pollutant Name
TOLUENE
TRANS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ZINC
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 , 1 , 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETH ANE
1 , 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETH ANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETH ANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETH ANE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
2-BUTANONE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-HEXANONE
2-PICOLINE
2-PROPANONE
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
2,3 ,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2 ,4 ,5-TRICH LOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
4-METHYL 2-PENTANONE
Number of Detections by
Facility
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
4
5
4
Source: Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), December 1993.
12/5/94
42
-------
Table 11. Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Organics Subcategory of Direct
and Indirect Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
Current
Proposed BPT/BAT/Pretreatment
No. of Pollutants Evaluated
No. of Facilities Evaluated
Loadings, pounds-per-year*
Direct
Dischargers
87,025,839
80,532,999
82
5
Indirect
Dischargers
11,371,557
5,408,752
84
15
Total
98,397,396
85,941,751
**84
20
Loadings are representative of priority and non-conventional pollutants evaluated; conventional
pollutants such as BOD, COD, TSS, TOC, and Oil and Grease are not included.
The same pollutant may be discharged from a number of direct and indirect facilities; therefore,
the total does not equal the sum of pollutants.
12/5/94
43
-------
ed
fS
ac
• • e*
6 §
2
c
U
=3
O
X
UJ
rt
^
'C
U
"8
CL
<4->
O
3
on
XI
rt
C . . OO W3
M 2 •£ C
O ^ 'S ^
CJ Q ^^
rt 'v O
>, u, a: o_
t <*-•-*.<*-
X O C O
jr w« v. i-
« X X X
J e e e
3333
c^ Z Z Z
*
1
o
£
f*
W O
If
K
•
If
g
i *?
5 ^5
r*j c$
MH ^>
'. &
•S
j
0
'*J
2
cr
<
o
•a
1
i§
o
1
**j
U
mOO m ON O
m •— i CS «-•
2 8
i
^< S
*^^5z^ ^H^-5^
/•"•V X"S X~N /""N
22 §2
ii ii
«s < ..-3
^ S >
o § £
*•*
S e §
*- 2 xl
1*1
o. a 3
§• o xi
«» J3
|||
t-i 'C M
"a
S Tj CO
c 8 -2
S S s .
{5, O ^3 4)
.a S£|
?? ^ • •-
1 Ml
| ^2 w><
^111
P2<3 "
0 ^ <
z * * z
44
-------
E «
2.1
!si Q
60 M
w - « .2
o y —
.. « 3 o
£ u. oi a
S.'c 'c 'o
IT u i_ i-
W ^ JD ^3
* E e E
~
>-
«-|
x S
1 '3
*f
„
«l
"s ?<>
c —
3 ,_
K |
^
<£
2
cr
u
•a
2
JC
U
<£
CO
3
cr
^
3
O
<£
I1
& ^
1
O
§
I i
*^
1
§*
s
g
u
§
1
•o
s
t
s
g
3
u
1
s
c
|
u
0 ^ P
c o< c<
S vN^,^ri p
s^ ^*< s^
*"*
^ £> ^^ G" P ^>.
• ^. • oo ro •
^ ^ \s ^00
^-* ^^ »— ^ ^-» ^H ^-»
— GC^ ^ ^ 00 »-««r>i-ir>5
^ s^ v_^ \_^ >_^O^VJ'
i i s
s ill
r^J
... - - - u - ^ « - -e §
1 I-s a § e* «| § i i'^s^-g-i §1
||l|iJlll§-il|||f^!Hl.s
<.<<.CQUUUOUJi-4^jSSS)2Z«S.O.i/iHH
ci
0?
Q,
-•
x-s
is
(S^ 00*4- ff P
s s cl c- cf-
- - « -
^
cs
s sod ci
_H ^4 (V) _M ^4
^ t? x-vO
«c, {s so
o ^ <*i ^ R
^d- d ci s c-
/-N /-^ ^-s
^O Ov C*"}
ci ci o
_4 ^4 ^^
^ G" ^ co"
d ci cid
1
* o *
s* • !•!!
. 5 ss in
8 g| | 1 I" I"
M ® 5 o S ® ®
g 1 1 1 E? 1 1
0 ^ £ « vq ^ ^7
js
-------
Table 14. Multiple Subcategory Combinations - Pollutants Discharged Prom 15 Direct
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
Pollutant Name
Number of Detection* by Stream
ACETOPHENONE
ALUMINUM
AMENABLE CYANIDE
AMMONIA AS N
ANITMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BENZENE
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHENYL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BORON
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
CYANIDE
DIETHYL ETHER
DIPHENYL ETHER
ETHYL BENZENE
FLUORIDE
HEXCHROMIUM
HEXANOIC ACID
IODINE
IRIDIUM
IRON
ISOPHORONE
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
M-XYLENE
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
MOLYBDENUM
N.N-DIMETHYLFORM AMIDE
N-DECANE
N-DOCOSANE
N-DODECANE
N-EICOSANE
N-HEXACOSANE
N-HEXADECANE
N-OCTADECANE
N-TETRADECANE
NAPHTHALENE
NICKEL
NITRATE-NITRITE AS N
0 + P XYLENE
9
14
12
15
14
14
14
5
14
11
9
7
15
2
12
15
9
2
3
14
14
14
13
3
10
10
14
10
14
12
9
14
2
14
12
9
5
15
14
8
11
14
12
12
3
12
12
3
12
12
12
11
15
14
10
46
-------
Table 14. Multiple Subcategory Combinations - Pollutants Discharged Prom IS Direct
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities (continued
Pollutant Name
O-CRESOL
P-CRESOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
PYR1DINE
RHENIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
STYRENE
SULFIDE
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TOLUENE
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TRANS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TR1CHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL ETHER
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
VINYL CHLORIDE
ZINC
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-HEXANONE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-PICOLINE
2-PROPANONE
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2 ,4 ,5-TRICH LOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
4-CHLORO 3-METHYLPHENOL
4-METHYL 2-PENTANONE
Number of Detections by Stream
3
3
3
14
12
13
3
9
10
11
12
15
12
10
14
13
9
9
11
2
10
14
14
13
12
12
3
3
3
3
9
9
10
3
14
9
11
14
2
3
2
2
3
2
10
14
3
3
10
3
14
3
4
2
3
3
12
12
Source: Engineering and Analysis Division (BAD), December 1993.
47
12/5/94
-------
Table 15. Summary of Pollutant Loadings For Multiple Subcategory Combinations of
Direct and Indirect Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
Current
Proposed Regulatory Option 1
(the combination of Metals Option 3,
Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1)
Proposed Regulatory Option 2
(the combination of Metals Option 3,
Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1)
No. of Pollutants Evaluated
No. of Facilities Evaluated
Loadings, pounds-per-year*
Direct
Dischargers
178,577,365
121,715,004
120,824,485
113
15
Indirect
Dischargers
55,085,887
24,073,158
22,135,366
113
45
Total
233,663,252
145,788,162
142,959,851
**113
60
**
Loadings are representative of priority and non-conventional pollutants evaluated; conventional pollutants
such as BOD, COD, TSS, TOC and Oil and Grease are not included.
The same pollutant may be discharged from a number of direct and indirect facilities; therefore, the total
does not equal the sum of pollutants.
12/5/94
48
-------
1
I
.8
w
•c
u
NO
v—t
9)
Z~ % Q
I ill
rs
VO ON O
cs -+
I I
CN» (S
-------
o o o
i« i» t.
«> V V
-O J2 -O
E E e
333
Z 2 Z
l
e
- i-
e. i
cj-ci ci §• cic-d. dSc-de. s. e.5.c. o
p ~ ~ -^ P
2 «p« &&
m w yj t% «b c?
' Ci Ci >t O O O Ct ^ Ci Ci C- ^ O O ^f C- ^ C^
ci
eec.
occ.
^ vp H «? ^
" «e r-' "! "!
—, wj,—' OCi
^^r ,;
•a "a
S 5
!!
f
4
50
-------
Table 18. Metals Subcategory - Pollutants Discharged From 36 Indirect Centralized Waste
Treatment Facilities (Discharging to 28 POTWs on 28 Receiving Streams)
Pollutant Name
Number of Detections by Facility
ACETOPHENONE
ALUMINUM
AMENABLE CYANIDE
AMMONIA AS N
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHENYL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BORON
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
CYANIDE
DIPHENYL ETHER
ETHYL BENZENE
FLUORIDE
HEX CHROMIUM
HEXANOIC ACID
IODINE
IRIDIUM
IRON
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
MOLYBDENUM
N-DECANE
N-DODECANE
N-EICOSANE
N-HEXADECANE
N-OCTADECANE
N-TETRADECANE
N.N-DIMETHYLFORM AMIDE
29
34
35
36
34
34
34
34
30
29
26
36
32
36
26
34
34
34
36
30
26
36
34
33
36
35
35
34
36
31
36
34
26
26
35
34
34
34
34
31
34
30
51
-------
Table 18. Metals Subcategory - Pollutants Discharged From 36 Indirect Centralized Waste
Treatment Facilities (Discharging to 28 POTWs on 28 Receiving Streams) (continued)
Pollutant Name
NAPHTHALENE
NICKEL
NITRATE-NITRITE AS N
0+P XYLENE
PHENOL
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
RHENIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
STYRENE
SULFIDE
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TETRACHLOROETHENE
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TOLUENE
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETH ANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-PROPANONE
4-CHLORO 3-METHYLPHENOL
4-METHYL 2-PENTANONE
Number of Detections by Facility
30
34
36
26
34
34
36
34
30
36
34
36
34
34
34
36
34
34
26
31
36
34
31
35
36
34
34
35
34
12
29
30
34
34
30
34
30
33
Source: Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), December 1993.
12/5/94
52
-------
ff
s
»a
>-3 \^
— «*)
C/2
*a w
«3 V
0) -^3
SS
.. ^
I4-
&2
II
= 1
en Z
Number of POTWs: 28
Number of Receiving Streams:
Number of Pollutants Discharged;
8
-M
.8
o
•M
§
s
^
H
S
1
1
t^
s
u
&
2
o
'i
a
X
W
.*
£
•c
•1^.
"3
o
.c
X— i
^
^-< ^-^
t^^^t^. oooo
x^*\
QQ ^^
•<± ^
m ts
^ N
^^ ^*
S.ls «-|M
O\
O
^H
vOCN>7-r~- OO>7-O
^H ^^
* *
*^ *
^?^-2 §^?5--2
?^W3§tJ ^fec«S«J
*iW>X ^tSOOX
tQSoU -«?Q9oW
B 5 G 4J H 2 u
fci«"oe3o Sij"oe5o
3v5ixUH S55c^UH
u a-
«-H
ed
1
•g
00
c
o
K
0
It
!i
VM ^^
0 S
_, o
S -a
% ^
1&
5 >>
o ;s
•^ c
> ' .§
J S a "§•
la 15-
s g o ^
^lll
S23 "1
0 » <
z * * z
53
-------
o\
•ri
S
"8
cd
U
U
X
UJ
a
E
3
00
o
cs
g o
E |
C w
c 'S
C a)
Z3 W)
K ^
VJ
g 1
>T< J?
>J-i Q
C 1
K 5
,,^7
!>
13
o
rt
-i
3
CT1
3
0
!i
1
fc
3
U
"8 «
^°
I
3
U
•8 c
8 -2
PI . •^
s o
a.
•g
3
U
"8 c
I*
c
E
U
lo
lo
lo
IT)
,_,
^J
r- 1 r-
S-.
(N
(N
(S
oo
if? 2 5" i? 5
s"^ •«*• i o
lo
^-^
6 o"
5^ |r.
I E
ECO p
o « 2 ^-o § .2 d
*£j -. ^ c^ 71 O O , *^j *Cj
§QCOO>,O2 cd ^
ll&lsliliS>§ g
o
o "
T3 >-,
2-3
c -5
rt
J=
11
- C
&i
•s:§
e o.
O !
3
z
z *
54
-------
Subcategory: Metals / Indirect Dischargers
Number of Facilities: 38
Number of POTWs: 30
Number of Pollutants Discharged: 80
Table 21. Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems
for Centralized Waste Treatment Discharges
Current
POTWs (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Problems
Proposed Option
POTWs (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Problems
Biological Inhibition
9
1 (1.1 -24.4)
9
2
1 (2.9 - 4.3)
2
Sludge Contamination
11
3(1.1 -33.7)
14
1
1 (1.5)
1
Total*
11
4
2
2
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent magnitude of excursions.
* Pollutants may exceed inhibition/sludge contamination values at a number of POTWs; therefore, total
does not equal sum of pollutants exceeding values.
12/5/94
55
-------
Subcategory: Metals / Indirect Dischargers
Number of Facilities: 38
Number of POTWs: 30
Number of Pollutants Discharged: 80
Table 22. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Inhibition/Sludge Contamination Values for
Centralized Waste Treatment Discharges
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Molybdenum
TOTAL
Biological Inhibition
Current
9 (1.1 - 24.4)
9
Proposed Option
2 (2.9 - 4.3)
2
Sludge Contamination
Current
2 (2.2 - 3.2)
1 (1.3)
11 (1.1 -33.7)
14
Proposed Option
1 (1.5)
1
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent magnitude of excursions.
12/5/94
56
-------
Table 23. Oils Subcategory - Pollutants Discharged From 24 Indirect
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities (Discharging to 18
POTWs on 18 Receiving Streams)
Pollutant Name
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA AS N
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BENZENE
BENZOIC ACID
BORON
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
ETHYL BENZENE
FLUORIDE
HEXANOIC ACID
IRON
LEAD
M-XYLENE
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
MOLYBDENUM
N-DECANE
N-DOCOSANE
N-DODECANE
N-EICOSANE
N-HEXACOSANE
N-HEXADECANE
N-OCTADECANE
N-TETRADECANE
NICKEL
NITRATE-NITRITE AS N
O + PXYLENE
PHENOL
SILVER
SODIUM
SULFIDE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TIN
TITANIUM
TOLUENE
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL ETHER
ZINC
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
2-BUTANONE
2-PROPANONE
4-CHLORO 3-METHYLPHENOL
Number of Detections by Facility
24
24
22
21
22
24
24
24
21
24
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
23
24
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
22
24
22
22
22
22
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
Source: Engineering and Analysis Division (BAD), December 1993.
12/5/94
57
-------
rt
O
h-
o
1
S
o
1
UJ
.rt
o
O
•8
^ ^ .. «> ^2
^Oi W3 .5 S
o is E -s 5
..^080
^, UH flu, & CL,
^ g_ 1*N M-l Vl_l
P. O O O O
s e s e
3 3 3 S
3
o
H
f >>
8 "S
a: o
E £?
3 O
as
<-> Bl
•S go
.8 o
ac *Q
c- C
C £H
es
e i-
1 |
J*3
JT
O
'c
1
ts
3
0
in m — ' ooo ooo
< < <
£-* £-* X-«
.^••s /^^*.
. .
C C
^^,_^ 0000 OOOO
5;
~
^_i
^^ ^e
o Z w> »; t^oZ."5:! wiO"*-""5;;
Tr ^^ C 3 -3 -» ^^ C a "3 -y ^^ C a
^s&x- o S a a g o^-&S
- II 1!! -8 E 1 IS "8 1 1 IS
g s -2 1 a s s ^ 1 3 § s ^ 1 a
H>-"oe
-------
5 *•* 2 ^5 Q
00 M
.S c
.> 3
E?
«
1
5
s
o :•=
w O
u. S,
H u —
<2 £
M.
1 -
C M
if
•tS *n
»3 C
S g>
335
I*
c «
S3 «T
Iti
O
1
«r
o
'3
o
i*
U
<4-<
J
O
i
a
9
<
If ^
f°£
•o
| » §
g- 5 JL ^
£
6
•v tS
1 #
1 Ȥ
§-$ 'jl04
ft O
*
o
3
^5 c
** w S
§•5 £- rt
0, ^
l«l«
|°|"
1
c
u
o .-= J m
1 "
•o
4> G
o — .2
B,
€
5
lo
lo
lo
lo
lo
s
lo
lo
^,<0
~t r-
>O (T)
— i T}- -H V)
6 6cl6
- ^
'o
I
o
1
«
C t-.
o <5
e"^ ..
u
o "
X o
o u
o cd
"° £•
.•§ 'o
c gp
1 2
C *e3
U S
g1
c E
0 -C
o -5
1 -
.S ^
e «£
1 8
If
w 1
S "
e e e e
3333
z z z z
59
-------
Subcategory: Oils / Indirect Dischargers
Number of Facilities: 25
Number of POTWs: 19
Number of Pollutants Discharged: 50
Table 26. Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems
for Centralized Waste Treatment Discharges
Current
POTWs (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Problems
Proposed Oils Option 2
POTWs (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Problems
Proposed Oils Option 3
POTWs (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Problems
Biological Inhibition
11
1 (1.0 - 31.7)
11
3
1 (2.0 - 5.7)
3
3
1 (1.7 -4.8)
3
Sludge Contamination
1
2 (1.3 - 1.8)
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total*
11
3
3
1
3
1
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent magnitude of excursions.
* Pollutants may exceed inhibition/sludge contamination values at a number of POTWs; therefore, total
does not equal sum of pollutants exceeding values.
12/5/94
60
-------
Subcategory: Ofls / Indirect Dischargers
Number of Facilities: 25
Number of POTWs: 19
Number of Pollutants Discharged: 50
Table 27. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Inhibition/Sludge Contamination Values for
Centralized Waste Treatment Discharges
|| Biological Inhibition
Boron
Molybdenum
Nickel
TOTAL
Current
11 (1.0-31.7)
11
Proposed
Oils
Option 2
3 (2.0-5.7)
3
Proposed
Oils
Option3
3 (1.7-4.8)
3
Sludge Contamination
Current
1 (1.8)
1 (1.3)
2
Proposed
Oils
Option 2
0~
Proposed
Oils
Option 3
b~
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent magnitude of excursions.
12/5/94
61
-------
Table 28. Organics Subcatcgory - Pollutants Discharged From 15 Indirect
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities (Discharging to 15 POTW
on 15 Receiving Streams)
Number of Detections by Facility
ACETOPHENONE
ALUMINUM
AMENABLE CYANIDE
AMMONIA AS N
ANITMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BENZENE
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BORON
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
CALCIUM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
CYANIDE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL BENZENE
FLUORIDE
HEXANOIC ACID
IODINE
IRON
ISOPHORONE
LEAD
LITHIUM
M-XYLENE
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
MOLYBDENUM
N.N-DIMETHYLFORM AMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
NICKEL
NITRATE-NITRITE AS N
O+PXYLENE
O-CRESOL
P-CRESOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
PYRIDINE
SILICON
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFIDE
SULFUR
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
TIN
TITANIUM
11
15
12
15
10
10
11
14
14
14
15
11
15
11
11
14
10
10
11
13
13
11
14
13
13
15
12
10
13
11
14
11
4
15
11
15
11
11
15
11
14
14
14
14
13
14
14
13
15
13
14
14
13
11
11
14
62
-------
Table 28. Organics Subcatcgory - Pollutants Discharged Prom IS Indirect
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities (Discharging to 15 POTW
on 15 Receiving Streams) (continued)
Number of Detections by Facility
TOLUENE
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ZINC
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETH ANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROMOETH ANE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETH ANE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
2-BUTANONE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-HEXANONE
2-PICOLINE
2-PROPANONE
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
4-METHYL 2-PENTANONE
15
14
14
11
14
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
14
13
14
11
15
11
15
14
15
11
14
11
11
11
14
Source: Engineering and Analysis Division (BAD), December 1993.
12/5/94
63
-------
Tf
00
IT)
Q
a
I
1
3
"8
a S?
C CO
S "8
«2 vj £ .2
^ ^ & Q
w w ^2
.2 w -9 9
O ^2
c5 U
tu, (X
O
a,
1"
.c
o o o
U JD J3
I I I I
z z z z
*
13
o
-TO V~3
(rt c|
SR o
3 W
II1
1°
2 o
s 1
1 *-
II
; ^
<£
>-3
o
'£3
1
<
O
'a
1
*£
2
t
1
»-< m m cs <-*'-'
00
oo
^~* ^, ^
r«"> •— • >T- f) O O >7 O
X--i X— «
X-N ^
OO OO ~* ~H
II II
oq r- r>
^ O O O
^mmV) (s^,^^
< <
00^0 OOjjr®
< <
OO^O OO^O
"
* *
* *
^ ^ 'IT 5Q
O C O C
^7Z.o a ^ 7 Z .2
t? S3 1 |,X 1 3
^-ttWiX ON^-gW)X
« gi §5 -8 a i is
a s S 'S a i s 3 1 3
"ovjopjo Si3o*o
S55o-UH 8«^i(xUH
pQ fl.j
^*
»—i
rt
•c
i
•g
W)
s
K
ti
<4-( S~'
2 §
9 TJ
3 o
s 3
18.
o f5»
o ;«
^ "p
Joo
o
_Q
^M O
Oj ^
o 3
V4
a S -
•-< g w
C 4) ««
N §
5? ;«- *«3
4J J2 >
*O S 5l*
4J wi "o
*§ t« -g
-2 <*H o
15*
ill
« § ja
§ S I
Q. G 3
oT 0 J3
** « J3
en -I-1 *J
1* *
| 5 i
at O 3 •
«->. Q r3 m
TE: Numbers in ]
Pollutants may ex
Carcinogens - Po
= Not Applicabl
0 * <
z * * z
64
-------
£
v
2?
CO
ja
u
.S3
Q
1
•o
.§-
en
M ,U
o i
o
.. 03
f ^
O ^
<^1
00
>« ..
~-s
« £?
E 2
s«s
00 w
ij .5 e
^ .£ fl
H 8 ^
S.&&
<*« VH <4_1
O O O
i_ u, i_
O U O
"i "I "I
333
z z z
*f
go
s|
1 1
OJ
E O
§•0
C
a «
*
•a
.a
1
cr1
o
|
U
o
«r
1
"8 c
OT 2
i*
i
u
"8 c
P
u
"8 c
Q °
£°
Current
| g
a,
Current
lo
^_^
00
oo
m 1 m
5
cs 1 n
® 00
<* ^°
cX - - |£
lo
lo
lo
lo
111
-C -C V
r ) CL o
°P
c 5 p
£11 --2 ^
3 S .
C l->
o .o
O "^
"3 £*
11
11
•S^
2 &
•*;
E g
3 00
Z *
65
-------
Subcategory: Organics / Indirect Dischargers
Number of Facilities: 15
Number of POTWs: 15
Number of Pollutants Discharged: 84
Table 31. Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems
Current
POTWs (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Problems
Proposed Option
POTWs (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Problems
Biological Inhibition
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sludge Contamination
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
12/5/94
66
-------
Table 32. Multiple Subcategory Combinations - Pollutants Discharged From 45 Indirect
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities (Discharging to 33 POTWs on 33 Receiving Streams)
Pollutant Name
Number of Detections by Stream
ACETOPHENONE
ALUMINUM
AMENABLE CYANIDE
AMMONIA AS N
ANITMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BENZENE
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHENYL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BORON
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
CYANIDE
DIETHYL ETHER
DIPHENYL ETHER
ETHYL BENZENE
FLUORIDE
HEX CHROMIUM
HEXANOIC ACID
IODINE
IRIDIUM
IRON
ISOPHORONE
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
M-XYLENE
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
MOLYBDENUM
N-DECANE
N-DOCOSANE
N-DODECANE
N-EICOSANE
N-HEXACOSANE
N-HEXADECANE
N-OCTADECANE
N-TETRADECANE
N.N-DIMETHYL FORMAMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
NICKEL
NITRATE-NITRITE AS N
0+PXYLENE
28
32
29
33
32
31
32
23
32
29
25
22
33
11
29
33
26
11
14
32
32
32
30
13
26
31
33
26
32
30
27
32
12
32
30
26
22
33
32
24
31
32
31
18
31
31
18
31
31
31
29
29
32
33
31
67
-------
Table 32. Multiple Subcategory Combinations - Pollutants Discharged From 45 Indirect
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities (Discharging to 33 POTWs on 33 Receiving Streams)
(continued)
Pollutant Name
0-CRESOL
P-CRESOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
PYRIDINE
RHENIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
STYRENE
SULFIDE
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TOLUENE
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TRANS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL ETHER
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
VINYL CHLORIDE
ZINC
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETH ANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETH ANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETH ANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETH ANE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-HEXANONE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-PICOLINE
2-PROPANONE
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
2,3 ,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
4-CHLORO 3-METHYLPHENOL
4-METHYL 2-PENTANONE
Number of Detections by Stream
14
14
14
32
29
30
14
26
26
30
30
33
29
26
32
30
26
26
31
11
26
33
32
32
32
33
11
14
11
18
26
26
27
11
32
17
28
32
11
11
14
13
14
11
261
32
11
15
26
14
32
11
14
11
11
11
31
29
Source: Engineering and Analysis Division (HAD), December 1993.
68
12/5/94
-------
I
1°
*
Q £>
I a?
e -^ go
S «
ia^ IS
e ^ «*> oo Q
'•8 » .. 33
g S M .9 q
W "3 LH '5> ^
'a o 8 *§
£,BH OH (£ OH
O*o *O *O *O
-*S 41 4) D U
« i J5 J5 J5
Jo £ £ Z Z
8
00
!
S
4_>
i
H
1
1
i
0
«_i
<£
o
'S
1
U
oj
'C
•c
1
•43
"s1
OH
<4-l
O
&
1
3
JU
H
*
3
£
is*
wo
_> «
jt
,
ij
» ^
0
3
ro
s
g
S
o
1
£
1
£j^tTfr ^ttS^H Tj-fS^
1-H
00
i
oo
^^ ^ ^ ^
fr>«-^»2'fn O O ^ O O O *jr O
00 OO -^ i-< i-H -4
ir> >n -H -H i-H -H
61 ii ii
^^ f*^ f*^ j**i» ^^
-55R NrrN MrrN
o? x«s ^^
t->! vo vo
fT\ ^\ — j
*^ ts cs
^^ i-H i-H
£255~ (N^^rs ts^^ts
^
o\
2
vots^t^- oo^o oo^o
* * *
* rt^ * X> *
* ^^ O O • f^^ O O • !^^ O
Z va § W Z w § U Z M § U
¥| o W | 1^1 o £ ! || o t3
i^luH 11235 1^2uH
s
1-H
at
•c
U
00
s
k..
5 " ^ ^
^*< ^M *^J ",^3
^M ^ . ^^
o g (Jo^
1 '« -8 -s
§9
Go C &A 6|h
'*««
4_l •*« "Q ~
si 9 9
S oo (vT fT
O 3 rt c3
•o .s s 8
3 S '!•'!•
5 o O^O^
.r o 42 42
a 1 "5 s s
rt **H 4J
o Z
69
-------
.. £3
E-lSll
ft*5 "o "S "3
Illll
J5 z z z z
lo
lo
n 1
e* 1
I III
oil ft ft
S3**
z • • .c
70
-------
Subcategory: Combined / Indirect Dischargers
Number of Facilities: 47
Number of POTWs: 35
Number of Pollutants Discharged: 113
Table 35. Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge
Contamination Problems for Centralized Waste Treatment Discharges
Current
POTWs (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Problems
Regulatory Option 1*
POTWs (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Problems
Reeulatorv Option 2b
POTWs (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Problems
Biological Inhibition
17
1 (1.1 - 36.0)
17
6
1 (1.1 -6.4)
6
6
1 (1.1 -6.1)
6
Sludge Contamination
13
4(1.1 -34.4)
17
1
1 (1.8)
1
1
1 (1.5)
1
Total*
19
5
6
2
6
2
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent magnitude of excursions.
* Pollutants may exceed inhibition/sludge contamination values at a number of POTWs; therefore, total does not
equal sum of pollutants exceeding values.
* Regulatory Option 1 = The combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1.
b Regulatory Option 1 = The combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1.
12/5/94
71
-------
s
5 V,
g
.2
1
g
U
&
So
.2
i1***
*J5
3
H-l
to
*o
£
Si
£<§•
Is
iofiL
.*>
o ^
3 g
2j*D
~"' r^
rsj ^— i ^— i i— c | »— i
x— v
.
^
<^H
^4
\o 1 \o
^?
i
*— 4
\O 1 vo
XJ^v
o
c^
^•^
^
C it
el j
•§ a I S -a 3
5 o £3 -E* ^ H
5/3 r? *2 O ^* O
< PQ U 2 2 H
i-H *-H
c e
II
09 W
O O
§'- 'c
et
£? 8?
VH **
O O
•o -o
c c
3 «J
rf en
c c
2 .2
*^3 S
^j P ,
O O
01 09
«; rra «
cOO
o
'S en" rn
ace
S -2 .2
S ^^
^oo
« - -S
•033
•^11
c 2 «
60 ,_ s_
| 0 0
c c c
l-s-s
03 ^ *
E -S .5
111
S 8 8
09 « J>
S _c jC
•£ H H
C H H
u II II
S ^ -*
^ e c
.S§|
jU
1 e^b
*!!
w 1 1
g^*
as - *
12
-------
Table 37. Documented Environmental Impacts of Centralized Waste Treatment Wastes on
POTW Operations and Water Quality
POTW
Case#l
Case #2
Case #3
Case #4
Case #5
Case #6
Case #7
Case #8
Identified Impacts
High concentrations of nitrate, nitrite and sodium in CWT's
batch discharges responsible for interference of POTW
operations (1993/1994). High chlorine demand of
discharges caused loss of chlorine residual and resulted in
POTW fecal coliform violations; $5000 fine is pending.
Permit violations for phosphorus and total cyanide
(1992/1993). Discharge of high levels of cyanide caused
interference of POTW operations and resulted in $10,000
fine.
Municipality below POTW developed drinking water taste
and odor problems. Organics discharged by CWT identified
as source.
Permit violations of Total Toxic Organics (TTO), cyanide,
nickel, fats, oils and grease (FOG), lead, zinc and mercury
(1989-1990). Resulted in $60,000 fine.
Zinc pass-through from CWT discharge caused POTW
NPDES violations (1991)
Ammonia-nitrate pass-through from CWT discharge caused
POTW NPDES violations due to nitrification inhibition
(1991/1992)
Zinc pass-through from CWT discharge caused POTW
NPDES violations on 3 occasions (1993)
High strength ammonia discharge from CWT caused
inhibition problems resulting in low pH POTW NPDES
violations on 3 occasions (1991).
Source: EPA Regional and State Pretreatment Coordinators, 1994.
12/5/94
73
-------
J
t:
CO
CO
c
o
"8
U-
§
E
"8
N
§
U
•8
H
i
3
o
OH
"S
.33
M
•>
4— •
"o
i2
NPDES
4
1
U
fc
ex
ex
0
U
„ o
.2 N
C "T3*
*O o3
o3 o5
U J
^
8
1
CO
O
"5
U
JD
1
4)
'£
JS
Ml
'6
.in
m
.§
*3
C/D
3
•o
^
1/3
1/3
JO
0003247
J
<
o
c
N
"53
Z
of
ex
ex
0
U
Tfr
S
(N
O
00
0
o
3
O
(U
0
y.
o
o
y^
QQ
O ^
^ 5
c
E
cd
W
>^
C
.ti
^
kj
t!
t-i
OH
VO
H
U
c
N
2
0
Z
1
fe
ex
Q
U
m
O
m
0
(N
O
w-
"^
<^
Jx!
t.
U
00
X
•o
§ =
£ '^
c
6
o.
U
oc
«— 1
Z
4)
CO
1
«3
ex
ex
0
CJ
«n
s
cs
o
0
H
-------
S
I
t;
o
Ca
M
Cadmium, Cop
Mercury, PCB
Ca
Me
h
•if
si
fr
I
Ca
•o"
j
8
s
55
I
D
§ >>
11
* I
«
8
o
M
1
o
i
'I
O
958
oi
fe
O
£
K T
2
•s
o8
ffl
o
£
1
Jl
£5
w
Ch
Ma
O
E
75
-------
-------
5. REFERENCES
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (1972) Wastewater Engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York.
U.S. EPA. (1980) Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 440/5-80 Series. [Also refer to any
updated criteria documents (EPA 440/5-85 and EPA 440/5-87 Series)].
U.S. EPA. (1986) Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly-Owned
Treatment Works (Domestic Sewage Study). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
U.S. EPA. (1987) Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at POTWs. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (1990) CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs: Guidance Manual. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
EPA/540/G-90/005.
U.S. EPA. (1991a) Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA/505/2-90-001.
Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA. PB91-127415.
U.S. EPA. (1991b) National 304(L) Short List Database. Compiled from Office of Water Files
Dated April/May 1991. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water.
U.S. EPA. (1992) Mixing Zone Dilution Factors for New Chemical Exposure Assessments,
Draft Report, October 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. 68-D9-0166. Task No. 3-35.
U.S. EPA. (1994) Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Versar, Inc. (1992) Upgrade of Flow Statistics Used to Estimate Surface Water Chemical
Concentrations for Aquatic and Human Exposure Assessment. Report prepared by Versar Inc.
for the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
R-l
-------
------- |