c/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Effluent Guidelines Division
WH-552
Washington DC 20460
EPA 440/1-82/079-b
November 1982
Water and Waste Management
Development
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the
Pesticides
Proposed
Point Source Category
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
FOR
EXPANDED BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY,
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY,
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY,
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY, AND
PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
IN THE
PESTICIDE CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
George M. Jett
Project Officer
November 7, 1982
-' .;;i Agency
-------
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this report is to provide a technical data base for
proposal of effluent limitations guidelines by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for the Pesticide Chemicals Industry.
Effluent limitations guidelines for expanded Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available (BPT), Best Conventional Pollutant
Control Technology (BCT), Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) and New Sources
(PSNS) will be proposed under authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307
(b) and (c) of the amended Clean Water Act from the results of this
study and review by EPA. Guidelines will address 126 priority
pollutants, as well as conventional and nonconventional pollutants (BOD,
COD, TSS, Pesticides, and pH) which were not previously regulated at
40 CFR, Part 455 (BPT, 1978).
Analytical methods were developed, during the verification sampling
portion of this study, using Gas or Liquid Chromatography (GC or LC) for
priority pollutants and nonconventional pollutant pesticide parameters
at 16 pesticide manufacturing facilities. The results of these analyses
were evaluated along with data from EPA-conducted screening sampling
programs at 30 plants and from sampling by the manufacturers themselves.
In conjunction with these data a process chemistry evaluation of
280 individual pesticide processes was made in order to define priority
pollutants sources likely to be present where no monitoring data were
available.
The principal groups of pollutants detected or likely to be present in
untreated pesticide process wastewaters were: phenols, volatiles
(aromatics, halomethanes, and chlorinated ethanes and ethylenes),
nitrosamines, dienes, cyanide, copper, zinc, and pesticides.
Treatment units recommended for the control of these pollutants are
activated carbon, resin adsorption, hydrolysis, steam stripping,
chemical oxidation, metals separation, and biological oxidation. These
treatment units are currently installed and operating in the industry.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
NOTE TO THE READER
This report and the industry it covers are admittedly complex. The
following typical questions and answers are provided to assist the
reader:
Q. What pesticides are included in this study?
A. See page III-2 for classes of pesticides; see Section XXI—
Appendix 3 for alphabetical listing.
Q. What priority pollutants are included in this study?
A. Section XXI—Appendix 1 lists priority pollutants individually and
by groups as they are discussed in this report. The 34 priority
pollutants recommended for regulation are listed in Section II.
Q. What pollutants and levels are regulated for specific pesticides?
A. For metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of mercury, cadmium,
copper, or arsenic-based products and pesticide formulators and
packagers, refer to Tables II-5 and II-6 (BCT), 11-18 and 11-19
(BAT), 11-31 and 11-32 (NSPS), and 11-44 and 11-45 (PSES and PSNS),
respectively. For all other pesticides follow this three-step
procedure:
1. Determine pollutants to be monitored in specific pesticide
wastewater (see Section XXI—Appendix 9).
2. Determine subcategory for specific pesticide (see
Section XXI—Appendix 3).
3. Determine pollutants and levels to be regulated—from
subcategory number listed in 2, above. See appropriate
Tables II-l through II-3 (expanded BPT), II-4 (BCT), II-7
through 11-17 (BAT), 11-20 through 11-30 (NSPS), and 11-33
through 11-43 (PSES and PSNS). In appropriate table, only those
pollutants listed in 1, above, will be regulated.
Q. How are metallo-organic pesticides with mercury, cadmium, copper, or
arsenic-bases distinguished from other manufactured pesticide
products in this report?
A. The metallo-organic pesticides with mercury, cadmium, copper, or
arsenic-bases are discussed as a class of compounds under separate
subsections from all other manufactured products where appropriate
(see Sections II, IV, VII, XII, XIII, and XIV).
11
-------
Q. What treatment is recommended to achieve regulations?
A. See Table VII-1.
Q. What will it cost to achieve regulations?
A. Estimated total for industry is included within each regulation
section of this report; see Section X for expanded BPT, Section XII
for BAT, Section XIII for NSPS, and Section XIV for PSES and PSNS.
Individual plant/pesticide estimates are included in the
administrative record, not in this report. Treatment unit cost
curves are found in Figures VIII-1 through VIII-21.
Q. Whom should I call for answers to additional questions?
A. Mr. George M. Jett, U.S. EPA, Effluent Guidelines Division,
(202) 382-7180.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
NOTICE i
ABSTRACT ii
NOTE TO THE READER iii
I CONCLUSIONS 1-1
II PROPOSALS II-l
TABLES II-4
III INTRODUCTION III-l
PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY III-l
SCOPE OF STUDY III-2
Types of Products Covered III-2
Definition of Wastewaters Covered III-3
Status of Pesticide Intermediates III-4
Effect of Previous Regulations III-4
Analytical Methods and Detection Limits III-5
Wastewater Sampling and Data Acquisition III-6
Economic Impact III-6
Water Quality III-7
METHODOLOGY III-7
Definition of the Industry III-7
308 Survey III-8
Existing Data Evaluation III-8
Screening Sampling III-8
Verification Sampling Program III-9
Industry Self-Sampling Program 111-10
Quality Assurance/Quality Control III-ll
Audit of Actual Wastewater Analytical Data III-ll
Process Chemistry Evaluation 111-12
Raw Waste Load Summary 111-12
Treatment Technology Evaluation 111-12
Subcategorization 111-13
Cost and Energy 111-13
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 2 of 9)
Section Page
Nonwater Quality Impact 111-13
Selection of Pollutant Parameters 111-13
Selection of Expanded Best Practicable
Technology 111-13
BCT 111-13
Selection of Best Available Technology IH-14
Selection of NSPS Technology 111-14
Selection of Pretreatment Standards Technology 111-14
Selection of BAT and NSPS Effluent Limitations
and Pretreatment Standards for Existing
(PSES) and New Sources (PSNS) 111-15
Environmental Assessment 111-15
Appendices 111-15
IV INDUSTRY PROFILE IV-1
ECONOMIC AND INVENTORY DATA IV-1
Pesticide Utilization IV-1
Structural Grouping of Pesticides IV-2
Geographical Location of Plants IV-3
Market Value of Pesticides IV-3
Level of Pesticide Production IV-3
Number of Pesticides Produced Per Plant IV-4
Number of Days Each Pesticide Produced IV-4
Number of Plants Producing Pesticides IV-4
Number of Plants Owned by Companies IV-4
Other Operations at Pesticide Plants IV-5
Methods of Wastewater Disposal IV-5
Type of Wastewater Treatment IV-5
Formulator/Packagers IV-6
Metallo-Organic Pesticide Manufacturers IV-7
TABLES IV-8
FIGURES IV-16
V RAW WASTE LOAD CHARACTERIZATION V-l
FLOW V-2
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS V-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 3 of 9)
Section Page
Volatile Aromatics V-3
Halomethanes V-3
Cyanides V-3
Haloethers V-3
Phenols V-4
Nitro-Substituted Aromatics V-4
Polynuclear Aromatics V-5
Metals V-5
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes V-6
Nitrosamines V-6
Phthalates V-7
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene V-7
Priority Pollutant Pesticides V-7
Dienes V-8
TCDD V-8
Miscellaneous V-9
PCBs V-10
Benzidinea V-10
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS V-10
Nonconventional Pesticides V-10
COD V-10
TOG V-ll
TOD V-l1
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS V-ll
BOD V-ll
TSS V-ll
DESIGN RAW WASTE LOADS V-ll
ZERO-DISCHARGE PRODUCTS V-ll
TABLES V-l2
FIGURES V-l10
VI CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY VI-1
IN-PLANT CONTROL VI-1
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW VI-2
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 4 of 9)
Section Page
Steam Stripping VI-2
Chemical Oxidation VI-6
Metals Separation VI-10
Granular Activated Carbon VI-13
Resin Adsorption VI-22
Hydrolysis VI-25
Incineration VI-28
Wet Air Oxidation (WAO) VI-34
Solvent Extraction VI-36
Membrane Processes VI-36
Biological Oxidation VI-38
Powdered Activated Carbon VI-42
Dual Media Filtration VI-45
Contract Hauling VI-46
Evaporation Ponds VI-47
Ocean Disposal VI-47
Deep Well Injection VI-47
DEFINITION OF RECOMMENDED TECHNOLOGIES VI-48
Treatment Effectiveness for Priority
Pollutant Groups VI-48
Design Criteria for Recommended Treatment
Units VI-48
TABLES VI-55
FIGURES VI-103
VII INDUSTRIAL SUBCATEGORIZATION VII-1
FACTORS CONSIDERED VII-1
Raw Materials VII-2
Wastewater Treatability VII-3
Prior Regulatory Status VII-4
Wastewater Characteristics VII-4
Method of Disposal VII-6
Manufacturing Processes VII-6
Metallo-Organic Manufacturing Processes VII-7
Formulating/Packaging Processes VII-7
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 5 of 9)
Section
Plant Location
Plant Age
Plant Size
Pesticides Previously Regulated But
Currently Not Manufactured
Pesticides Previously Excluded from BPT
Regulations But Currently Not Manufactured
PROPOSED SUBCATEGORIZATION
Products Included
Zero-Discharge Pesticides
Metallo-Organic Pesticide Manufacturers
Formulating/Packaging of Pesticides
TABLES
FIGURE
VII-8
VI1-8
VI1-9
VI1-9
VII-9
VII-10
VII-10
VII-10
VII-10
VII-10
VII-11
VII-21
VIII COST. ENERGY. AND NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
COST AND ENERGY
NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Air Quality
Solid Waste Considerations
Protection of Ground Water
TABLES
FIGURES
VIII-1
VIII-1
VIII-4
VIII-4
VIII-5
VIII-6
VIII-8
VIII-53
IX SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS PROPOSED FOR
REGULATION
POLLUTANTS OF PRIMARY, DUAL, OR SECONDARY
SIGNIFICANCE
Priority Pollutants
Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutants
Additional Nonconventional Pollutants
Conventional Pollutants
IX-1
IX-3
IX-4
IX-26
IX-59
IX-60
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 6 of 9)
Section Page
TABLES IX-62
X EXPANDED BEST PRACTICABLE TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE (BPT)X-l
POLLUTANT PARAMETERS PROPOSED FOR REGULATION X-l
IDENTIFICATION OF EXPANDED BPT LIMITATIONS X-l
Expanded BPT Control Technology Options X-l
Selection of Expanded BPT Technology X-2
Selection of Long-Terra Averages X-2
Treatment Variability X-3
Effluent Limitations X-3
TABLES X-4
XI BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY XI-1
IDENTIFICATION OF BCT LIMITATIONS XI-1
BCT Control Technology XI-1
Effluent Limitations XI-1
XII BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
(BAT)XII-1
NONCONVENTIONAL PESTICIDE PARAMETERS PROPOSED
FOR REGULATION XI1-2
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PARAMETERS PROPOSED FOR
REGULATION XI1-4
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE XII-5
BAT Technology Options for Manufacturing
Facilities XII-5
Economic Effects XII-7
Selection of Best Available Technology
for Manufacturing Facilities XII-10
BAT Regulatory Options for Select Metallo-
Organic Pesticide Manufacturers XII-10
BAT Regulatory Options for Formulator/
Packagers XII-11
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 7 of 9)
Section Page
Selection of Long-Term Averages XII-11
Treatment Variability XII-12
Effluent Limitations XII-12
TABLES XII-13
FIGURES XII-23
XIII NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS XIII-1
POLLUTANT PARAMETERS PROPOSED FOR REGULATION XIII-1
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS TECHNOLOGY XIII-2
NSPS Technology Options for Manufacturing
Facilities XIII-2
Selection of New Source Performance
Standards Technology for Manufacturing
Facilities XIII-4
NSPS Regulatory Options for Select Metallo-
Organic Manufacturers XIII-4
NSPS Regulatory Options for Formulator/
Packagers XIII-4
Selection of Long-Term Averages XIII-5
Treatment Variability XIII-5
Effluent Limitations XIII-5
TABLES XIII-6
XIV PRETREATMENT STANDARDS XIV-1
/
POLLUTANT PARAMETERS PROPOSED FOR REGULATION
UNDER PSES AND PSNS XIV-1
IDENTIFICATION OF PRETREATMENT STANDARDS XIV-1
PSES Technology Options for Manufacturing
Facilities XIV-2
Economic Effects XIV-3
PSNS Technology Options for Manufacturing
Facilities XIV-6
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 8 of 9)
Section
XV
XVI
XVII
Selection of Pretreatment Technology for
Manufacturing Facilities
PSES Regulatory Options for Select Metallo-
Organic Pesticide Manufacturers
PSES Regulatory Options for Formulator/
Packagers
Selection of Long-Tenn Averages
Treatment Variability
Pretreatment Standards
TABLES
SELECTION OF BAT AND NSPS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING (PSES) AND
NEW SOURCES (PSNS)
SELECTION OF LONG-TERM AVERAGES
Effluents Achieved
Effluents Achievable
Method of Calculating Long-Term Averages
TREATMENT VARIABILITY
Daily Variability Factors
30-Day Variability Factors
Application of Variability Factors
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
BAT
NSPS
PSES and PSNS
TABLES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
XVIII BIBLIOGRAPHY
Page
XIV-6
XIV-6
XIV-7
XIV-7
XIV-8
XIV-8
XIV-9
XV-1
XV-1
XV-1
XV-2
XV-44
XV-52
XV-53
XV-54
XV-55
XV-56
XV-56
XV-57
XV-57
XV-58
XVI-1
XVII-1
XVIII-1
xi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 9 of 9)
Section
XIX GLOSSARY
XX CONVERSION TABLE XX-1
XXI APPENDICES XXI-1
1. PRIORITY POLLUTANTS BY GROUP XXI-2
2. BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES XXI-5
3. LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS XXI-7
4. SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR
ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT XXI-30
5. 308 QUESTIONNAIRE XXI-46
6. VERIFICATION AND SCREENING SAMPLING SUMMARY XXI-58
7. THEORETICAL BASIS FOR STEAM STRIPPING DESIGN XXI-63
8. PESTICIDE ANALYTICAL METHOD AVAILABILITY/
STATUS XXI-68
9. PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN
PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS XXI-80
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Section II
II-l Proposed Expanded BPT Limitations for
Subcategory 1 II-4
II-2 Proposed Expanded BPT Limitations for
Subcategory 2 II-5
II-3 Proposed Expanded BPT Limitations for
Subcategory 10 II-6
I1-4 Proposed BCT Limitations for Subcategory 11 II-7
II-5 Proposed BCT Limitations for Subcategory 12 II-8
I1-6 Proposed BCT Limitations for Subcategory 13 II-9
II-7 Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 1 11-10
II-8 Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 2 11-11
I1-9 Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 3 11-13
11-10 Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 4 11-14
11-11 Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 5 11-15
11-12 Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 6 11-16
11-13 Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 7 11-17
11-14 Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 8 11-18
11-15 Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 9 11-19
11-16 Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 10 11-20
11-17 Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 11 11-21
11-18 Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 12 11-22
11-19 Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 13 II-23
xiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 2 of 13)
Table Page
Section II
11-20 Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 1 11-24
11-21 Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 2 11-25
11-22 Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 3 11-27
11-23 Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 4 11-28
11-24 Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 5 11-29
11-25 Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 6 11-30
11-26 Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 7 11-31
11-27 Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 8 11-32
11-28 Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 9 11-33
11-29 Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 10 11-35
11-30 Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 11 11-36
11-31 Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 12 11-37
11-32 Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 13 11-38
11-33 Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 1 11-39
11-34 Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 2 11-40
11-35 Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 3 11-42
11-36 Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 4 11-43
11-37 Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 5 11-44
11-38 Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 6 11-45
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 3 of 13)
Table Page
Section II
11-39 Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 7 11-46
11-40 Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 8 11-47
11-41 Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 9 11-48
11-42 Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 10 11-50
11-43 Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 11 11-51
11-44 Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 12 11-52
11-45 Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 13 11-53
Section IV
IV-1 Pesticide Production by Class IV-8
IV-2 Structural Grouping of Pesticides IV-9
IV-3 Types of Operations at Pesticide Plants (1977) IV-10
IV-4 Methods of Wastewater Disposal at Pesticide
Plants (1977) IV-11
IV-5 Treatment Utilized at Plants Disposing Pesticide
Wastewaters to Navigable Waters IV-12
IV-6 Treatment Utilized at Plants Disposing Pesticide
Wastewaters to POTWs . IV-13
IV-7 Formulator/Packager Production Distribution IV-14
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 4 of 13)
Table Page
Section IV
IV-8 Percent of Formulator/Packager Pesticide Classes IV-15
Section V
V-l Likely to be Present/ Detected Frequency of
Priority Pollutant Groups V-12
V-2 Volatile Aromatics Likely to be Present in
Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-l3
V-3 Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters V-17
V-4 Halomethanes Likely to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-28
V-5 Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters V-30
V-6 Cyanides Likely to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-37
V-7 Cyanides Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-38
V-8 Halogenated Ethers Likely to be Present in
Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-39
V-9 Haloethers Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters V-40
V-10 Phenols Likely to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-43
V-ll Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-44
V-12 Nitro-Substituted Aromatics Likely to be
Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-51
V-13 Nitro-Substituted Aromatics Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-52
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 5 of 13)
Table Page
Section V
V-14 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Likely to be
Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-54
V-15 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Detected in
Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-55
V-16 Metals Likely to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-59
V-17 Metals Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-60
V-18 Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Likely to
be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-62
V-19 Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Detected in
Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-63
V-20 Nitrosamines Likely to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-69
V-21 Nitrosamines Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters V-70
V-22 Phthalates Likely to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-71
V-23 Phthalate Esters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters V-72
V-24 Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene Likely to
be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-74
V-25 Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene Detected in
Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-75
V-26 Priority Pollutant Pesticides Likely to be
Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-76
V-27 Priority Pollutant Pesticides Detected in
Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-77
V-28 Dienes Likely to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-82
xvli
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 6 of 13)
Table
Section V
V-29
V-30
V-31
V-32
V-33
V-34
V-35
V-36
Section VI
VI-1
VI-2
VI-3
VI-4
VI-5
VI-6
VI-7
VI-8
VI-9
VI-10
Dienes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
TCDD Likely to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters
TCDD Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
Asbestos Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters
Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters
Summary of Raw Waste Load Design Levels
Plants Manufacturing Pesticides With No Process
Wastewater Discharge
Principal Types of Wastewater Treatment/Disposal
Plants Using Stripping for Pesticide Wastewaters
Steam Stripping Operating Data
Plants Using Chemical Oxidation for Pesticide
Wastewaters
Chemical Oxidation Operating Data
Plants Using Metals Separation for Pesticide
Wastewaters
Plants Using Granular Activated Carbon for
Pesticide Wastewaters
Granular Activated Carbon Operating Data
Plants Using Resin Adsorption for Pesticide
Wastewaters
Resin Adsorption Operating Data
Page
V-83
V-84
V-85
V-86
V-89
V-100
V-107
V-108
VI-55
VI-5 6
VI-5 7
VI-5 9
VI-60
VI-6 2
VI-63
VI-65
VI-71
VI-72
xviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 7 of 13)
Table Page
Section VI
VI-11 Plants Using Hydrolysis for Pesticide Wastewaters VI-76
VI-12 Hydrolysis Operating Data VI-77
VI-13 Plant 10 Hydrolysis Data for STCT Pesticides VI-78
VI-14 Hydrolysis Data—Triazine Pesticides VI-79
VI-15 Plants Using Incineration for Pesticide
Wastewaters VI-80
VI-16 Plants Using Biological Treatment for Pesticide
Wastewaters VI-82
VI-17 Biological Treatment Operating Data VI-84
VI-18 Plants Disposing All Pesticide Wastewaters by
Contract Hauling VI-97
VI-19 Plants Using Evaporation Ponds for Pesticide
Wastewaters VI-98
VI-20 Plants Disposing Pesticide Wastewaters by
Ocean Discharge VI-99
VI-21 Plants Using Deep Well Injection for Pesticide
Wastewaters VI-100
VI-22 Recommended Treatment Technology for Priority
Pollutant Groups VI-102
Section VII
VII-1 Subcategory Numbering System VII-11
VII-2 Products Included in Each Subcategory VII-12
VII-3 Zero-Discharge Pesticides VII-18
VII-4 Metallo-Organic Pesticide Manufacturers of Mercury,
Cadmium, Copper, and Arsenic-Based Products VII-19
xix
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 8 of 13)
Table Page
Section VII
VII-5 Formulator/Packagers VII-20
Section VIII
VIII-1 Basis for Capital Costs Computations VIII-8
VIII-2 Basis for Annual Cost Computations VIII-9
VIII-3 Capital Cost Summary by Subcategory VIII-10
VIII-4 Annual Cost Summary by Subcategory VIII-11
VIII-5 Energy Cost Summary by Subcategory VIII-12
VIII-6 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 1
(Design Flow - 0.01 MGD) VIII-13
VIII-7 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 1
(Design Flow » 0.1 MGD) VIII-15
VIII-8 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 2
(Design Flow = 0.01 MGD) VIII-17
VIII-9 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 2
(Design Flow = 0.1 MGD) VIII-19
VIII-10 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 3
(Design Flow = 0.01 MGD) VIII-21
VIII-11 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 3
(Design Flow =0.1 MGD) VIII-23
VIII-12 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 4
(Design Flow = 0.01 MGD) VIII-25
VIII-13 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 4
(Design Flow = 0.1 MGD) VIII-27
VIII-14 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 5
(Design Flow = 0.01 MGD) VIII-29
VIII-15 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 5
(Design Flow = 0.1 MGD) VIII-31
xx
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 9 of 13)
Table
Section VIII
VIII-16 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 6 VIII-33
VIII-17 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 7
(Design Flow - 0.01 MGD)
VIII-18 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 8
(Design Flow - 0.01 MGD)
VIII-19 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 8
(Design Flow - 0.1 MGD)
VIII-20 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 9
(Design Flow - 0.01 MGD)
VIII-21 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 9
(Design Flow "0.1 MGD)
VIII-22 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 10
(Design Flow -0.1 MGD)
VIII-23 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 10
(Design Flow - 0.01 MGD)
VIII-24 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 10
(Design Flow -0.1 MGD)
VIII-25 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 11
VIII-26 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 12
VIII-27 Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 13
Section IX
IX-1
IX-2
IX-3
IX-4
IX-5
Proposed Pollutants of Primary Significance
Proposed Pollutants of Dual Significance
Proposed Pollutants of Secondary Significance
Volatile Aromatic3 Water Quality Criteria
Halomethanes Water Quality Criteria
VII1-34
VIII-36
VIII-38
VIII-40
VIII-42
VII1-44
VI11-46
VIII-48
VIII-50
VIII-51
VIII-52
IX-62
IX-63
IX-64
IX-66
IX-67
xxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 10 of 13)
Table Page
Section IX
IX-6 Cyanide Water Quality Criteria IX-68
IX-7 Haloethers Water Quality Criteria IX-69
IX-8 Phenols Water Quality Criteria IX-70
IX-9 Nitrosubstituted Aromatics Water Quality Criteria IX-71
IX-10 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Water Quality
Criteria IX-72
IX-11 Metals Water Quality Criteria IX-73
IX-12 Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Water Quality
Criteria IX-74
IX-13 Nitrosamines Water Quality Criteria IX-75
IX-14 Phthalate Esters Water Quality Criteria IX-76
IX-15 Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene Water Quality
Criteria IX-77
IX-16 Priority Pollutant Pesticides Water Quality
Criteria IX-78
IX-17 Dienes Water Quality Criteria IX-79
IX-18 TCDD Water Quality Criteria IX-80
IX-19 Miscellaneous Priority Pollutants Water Quality
Criteria IX-81
IX-20 Polychlorinated Biphenyls Water Quality Criteria IX-82
IX-21 Benzidines Water Quality Criteria IX-83
Section X
X-l Nonconventional Pesticides Proposed for
Regulation of Conventional Pollutants and COD
Under Expanded BPT X-4
xxii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 11 of 13)
Table
Section X
X-2
Section XII
XII-1
XII-2
XII-3
XII-4
XII-5
Section XIII
XIII-1
Selected Long-Terra Averages for Direct
Discharge of BOD, TSS, pH, and COD
Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutant Regulatory
Status
Priority Pollutant Regulatory Status
Direct Discharge Design Effluent Levels
Option 1 BAT Costs for Direct Discharge Metallo-
Organic Manufacturers
Option 1 BAT Costs for Direct Discharge Formulator/
Packagers
Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutants to be
Regulated Only by NSPS
XIII-2 Priority Pollutants to be Regulated Only by
XIII-3
XIII-4
XIII-5
Section XIV
XIV-1
XIV-2
XIV-3
XIV-4
XIV-5
NSPS
Option 1 NSPS Costs for Manufacturers
Option 1 NSPS Costs for Direct Discharge Metallo-
Organic Manufacturers
Option 1 NSPS Costs for Direct Discharge
Formulator/Packagers
Indirect Discharge Design Effluent Levels
Option 1 PSNS Costs for Manufacturers
Option 2 PSNS Costs for Manufacturers
Option 1 PSES Costs for Indirect Discharge
Metallo-Organic Manufacturers
Option 1 PSES Costs for Indirect Discharge
Formulator/Packagers
X-5
XII-13
XII-18
XII-20
XII-21
XI1-22
XIII-6
XIII-7
XIII-8
XIII-9
XIII-10
XIV-9
XIV-10
XIV-11
XIV-12
XIV-13
XXlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 12 of 13)
Table Page
Section XV
XV-1 Effluent Levels Achieved—Nonconventional
Parameters XV-58
XV-2 Effluent Levels Achieved—Conventional Parameters XV-69
XV-3 Effluent Levels Achieved—Volatile Aromatics XV-75
XV-4 Effluent Levels Achieved—Halomethanes XV-81
XV-5 Effluent Levels Achieved—Cyanide XV-85
XV-6 Effluent Levels Achieved—Halogenated Ethers XV-86
XV-7 Effluent Levels Achieved—Phenols XV-87
XV-8 Effluent Levels Achieved—Polynuclear Aromatics XV-92
XV-9 Effluent Levels Achieved—Metals XV-93
XV-10 Effluent Levels Achieved—Chlorinated Ethanes
and Ethylenes XV-94
XV-11 Effluent Levels Achieved—Nitrosamines XV-97
XV-12 Effluent Levels Achieved—Phthalates XV-98
XV-13 Effluent Levels Achieved—Dichloropropane-
Dichloropropene XV-99
XV-14 Effluent Levels Achieved—Priority Pollutant
Pesticides XV-100
XV-15 Effluent Levels Achieved—Dienes XV-103
XV-16 Effluent Levels Achieved—TCDD XV-104
XV-17 Effluent Levels Achieved—Ammonia XV-105
XV-18 Effluent Levels Achieved—Asbestos XV-106
XV-19 Selected Long-Term Averages for Priority
Pollutants XV-108
xxiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 13 of 13)
Table Page
Section XV
XV-20 Selected Nonconventional Pesticides Long-Term
Averages by Subcategory XV-110
XV-21 Selected Long-Term Averages for Direct
Discharge of BOD, TSS, pH, and COD XV-111
XV-22 Effluent Variability Factors XV-112
XXV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Section IV
IV-1 Geographical Location of Pesticide Manufacturers IV-16
IV-2 Market Value of Pesticides (1977) IV-17
IV-3 Daily Level of Pesticide Production (1977) IV-18
IV-4 Annual Level of Pesticide Production (1977) IV-19
IV-5 Number of Pesticides Produced per Plant (1977) IV-20
IV-6 Frequency of Pesticide Production (1977) IV-21
IV-7 Number of Plants Each Producing the Same
Pesticide (1977) IV-22
IV-8 Number of Plants Owned by Each Company (1977) IV-23
Section V
V-l Probability Plot of Pesticide Product Flow Ratios V-110
V-2 Probability Plot of Pesticide Product Flows V-lll
Section VI
VI-1 Range of Flows for Pesticide Treatment/Disposal VI-103
VI-2 Recommended BAT Technology—Pump Station VI-104
VI-3 Recommended BAT Technology—Equalization VI-105
VI-4 Recommended BAT Technology—Steam Stripping VI-106
VI-5 Recommended BAT Technology—Alkaline Chlorination VI-107
VI-6 Recommended BAT Technology—Metals Separation VI-108
VI-7 Recommended BAT Technology—Pesticide Hydrolysis VI-109
VI-8 Recommended BAT Technology—Neutralization VI-110
VI-9 Recommended BAT Technology—Dual Media Pressure
Filtration VI-111
XXVI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued, Page 2 of 4)
Figure Page
Section VI
VI-10 Recommended BAT Technology—Carbon Adsorption VI-112
VI-11 Recommended BAT Technology—Carbon Regeneration VI-113
VI-12 Recommended BAT Technology—Resin Adsorption VI-114
VI-13 Recommended BAT Technology—Resin Regeneration VI-115
VI-14 Recommended BAT Technology—Nutrient Addition VI-116
VI-15 Recommended BAT Technology—Aeration Basin VI-117
VI-16 Recommended BAT Technology—Clarification VI-118
VI-17 Recommended BAT Technology—Sludge Thickener VI-119
VI-18 Recommended BAT Technology—Aerobic Digestion VI-120
VI-19 Recommended BAT Technology—Vacuum Filtration VI-121
VI-20 Recommended BAT Technology—Incineration VI-122
VI-21 Recommended BAT Technology—Spray Evaporation Pond VI-123
VI-22 Recommended BAT Technology—Solar Evaporation VI-124
Section VII
VII-1 Decision Flow Chart for Evaluation and
Subcategorization of Pesticides Based on Wastewater
Characteristics VII-21
Section VIII
VIII-1 Treatment Cost Curves—Pump Station VIII-53
VIII-2 Treatment Cost Curves—Equalization VIII-54
VIII-3 Treatment Cost Curves—Steam Stripping VIII-55
xxvii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued, Page 3 of 4)
Figure
Section VIII
VII1-4
VIII-5
VIII-6
VIII-7
VIII-8
Treatment Cost
Treatment Cost
Treatment Cost
Treatment Cost
Treatment Cost
Filtration
VIII-9 Treatment Cost
VIII-10 Treatment Cost
VIII-11 Treatment Cost
VIII-12 Treatment Cost
VIII-13 Treatment Cost
VIII-14 Treatment Cost
VIII-15 Treatment Cost
VIII-16 Treatment Cost
VIII-17 Treatment Cost
VIII-18 Treatment Cost
VIII-19 Treatment Cost
VIII-20 Treatment Cost
VIII-21 Treatment Cost
Curves—Alkaline Chlorination
Curves—Metals Separation
Curves—Pesticide Hydrolysis
Curves—Neutralization
Curves—Dual Media Pressure
Curves—Carbon Adsorption
Curves—Carbon Regeneration
Curves—Resin Adsorption
Curves—Resin Regeneration
Curves—Nutrient Addition
Curves—Aeration Basin
Curves—Clarification
Curves—Sludge Thickener
Curves—Aerobic Digestion
Curves—Vacuum Filtration
Curves—Incineration
Curves—Solar Evaporation
Curves—Spray Evaporation
Page
VIII-56
VIII-57
VIII-58
VIII-59
VIII-60
VIII-61
VIII-62
VIII-63
VIII-64
VIII-65
VIII-66
VIII-67
VIII-68
VIII-69
VIII-70
VIII-71
VIII-72
VIII-73
xxviii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued, Page 4 of 4)
Figure Page
Section XII
XII-1 Recommended Levels of Treatment—Subcategory 1 XII-23
XII-2 Recommended Levels of Treatment—Subcategory 2 XII-24
XII-3 Recommended Levels of Treatment—Subcategory 3 XII-25
XII-4 Recommended Levels of Treatment—Subcategory 4 XII-26
XII-5 Recommended Levels of Treatment—Subcategory 5 XII-27
XI1-6 Recommended Levels of Treatment—Subcategory 6 XII-28
XII-7 Recommended Levels of Treatment—Subcategory 7 XII-29
XII-8 Recommended Levels of Treatment—Subcategory 8 XII-30
XII-9 Recommended Levels of Treatment—Subcategory 9 XII-31
XII-10 Recommended Levels of Treatment—Subcategory 10 XII-32
xxix
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
This report summarizes work conducted since February 1978 concerning the
technical basis for proposal of effluent limitations guidelines for the
Pesticide Chemicals Industry.
The scope of the study included 280 pesticides manufactured by
117 plants. Forty-two of these plants discharge process wastewater to
navigable waters, 37 are indirect dischargers, and the remainder dispose
of wastewater by deep well injection, incineration, contract hauling,
evaporation ponds, land, or ocean discharge. Eleven plants generate no
wastewater. Metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of mercury, copper,
cadmium, and arsenic-based products and pesticide formulator/packagers
are also included in the scope of this study.
The principal groups of priority pollutants detected or likely to be
present in untreated pesticide wastewaters were found to be: volatile
aromatics, halomethanes, phenols, cyanides, chlorinated ethanes and
ethylenes, metals (copper and zinc), nitrosamines, dienes, and
pesticides. Nonconventional pollutant pesticides were found at
concentrations greater than 1 mg/1 in approximately 75 percent of all
untreated pesticide wastewaters sampled.
The major treatment units currently employed by plants in the industry
are: biological oxidation, activated carbon, incineration, chemical
oxidation, hydrolysis, steam stripping, multimedia filtration, resin
adsorption, and metals separation. It was determined that these units,
when properly designed and operated, could effectively remove the
principal priority pollutants, conventional pollutants, and pesticides
found in process wastewaters. Data transfer for treatment by metals
separation (electroplating industry), for steam stripping (organic
chemicals industry), and for cyanide removal by chemical oxidation
(electroplating industry) was utilized where data were absent or
performance judged inadequate in the pesticide industry. Performance
data from other industrial categories indicating the effectiveness of
these technologies for removal of priority pollutants present in the
pesticide industry wastewaters were analyzed and, if judged applicable
based upon design and historical performance of a treatment technology,
were incorporated into the data base from which these proposed
regulations were developed. EPA has determined that performance data
from other industrial categories can be transferred to the pesticides
industry because regardless of the origin of the wastewater, these
certain technologies are routinely effective in removing specific
pollutants.
1-1
-------
Analytical methods are currently available for detecting in wastewater
112 of the nonconventional pesticide pollutants in the scope of this
study. Proposed EPA 304(h) analytical methods are available for all
126 priority pollutants (U.S. EPA, 1979b). All available industry
analytical methods for nonconventional pesticides and priority
pollutants have been requested and received and are part of the
administrative record for this industry. The Agency intends to propose
industry analytical methods in 40 CFR Part 455 in January 1983.
1-2
-------
SECTION II
PROPOSALS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing effluent
limitations guidelines for BPT, for pesticides excluded from prior
regulation, hereafter termed expanded BPT, and for BAT, NSPS, BCT, and
pretreatment standards for new and existing sources of the Pesticide
Chemicals Industry based upon review and evaluation of technical
information contained in this document, comments from reviewers of this
document, and other information as appropriate.
It is proposed that the 280 pesticides in the scope of this study be
assigned to 11 subcategories for proposal of effluent limitations
guidelines (one subcategory is proposed to be zero discharge), as
identified in Tables VII-2 and VII-3 of this report. It is proposed
that metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of mercury, cadmium,
copper, or arsenic-based products and formulator/packagers of pesticide
active ingredients be assigned to a twelfth and thirteenth subcategory,
respectively, where the proposed pretreatment standard be set at zero
discharge (see Table VII-4 of this report). The rationale for this
proposal is found in Section VII.
It is proposed that 34 priority pollutants be regulated in order to
adequately control the discharge of 70 priority pollutants (the
remaining pollutants are proposed not to be regulated pending the
collection of additional data). The rationale for this proposal is
found in Section IX. The 34 priority pollutants proposed to be
regulated are as follows:
Volatile Aromatics
Benzene
Ch 1 or oben ze ne
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Toluene
1,2,4-Tr ichlorobenzene
Halomethanes
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Metals
Copper
Zinc
Cyanide
Cyanide
Haloethers
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Phenols
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Pesticides
BHC, alpha
BHC, beta
BHC, delta
Endosulfan, alpha
Endosulfan, beta
II-l
-------
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Pesticides (Continued)
1,2-Dichloroethane Endrin
Tetrachloroethylene Heptachlor
Nitrosamines Lindane (BHC, gannna)
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine Toxaphene
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene Dienes
1,3-Dichloropropene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
It is further proposed that 137 nonconventional pollutant pesticides be
regulated to the levels shown in the following tables. The rationale
for this proposal is found in Section XV.
The treatment units recommended to achieve these levels for Subcate-
gories 1 through 10 are listed below, and the rationale for this
recommendation is found in Section VI.
Steam Stripping
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Pesticide Removal (Activated Carbon, Resin Adsorption, Hydrolysis)
Biological Oxidation
The treatment/disposal units recommended to achieve the proposed levels
for Subcategories 11 through 13 are listed below, and the rationale for
this recommendation is found in Section VI.
Recycle and Reuse
Contract Hauling
Evaporation
It is proposed that expanded BPT for direct discharger manufacturers
equal BPT for conventional pollutants and COD (see Section X). The
proposed effluent limitations for expanded BPT are shown in Tables II-l
through II-3.
It is proposed that BCT for zero dischargers equal zero discharge for
BOD and TSS for Subcategories 11, 12, and 13 (see Section XI). The
proposed effluent limitations for BCT are shown in Tables II-4 through
11-6.
It is proposed that BAT for direct discharger manufacturers equal the
levels presented in Tables II-7 through 11-17 for the priority pollutant
and nonconventional pesticide parameters. It is also proposed that BAT
for existing formulating/packaging sources and metallo-organic pesticide
manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based products be
equal to the BPT direct discharge limitation. The proposed BAT
limitations for formulator/packagers and these select metallo-organic
pesticide manufacturers are shown in Tables 11-18 and 11-19. The
rationale for this proposal is found in Section XII.
It is proposed that NSPS for new direct discharger manufacturers equal
BAT for the priority pollutant and nonconventional pesticide parameters
and equal BPT for conventional pollutants and COD. It is also proposed
that NSPS for new direct discharge formulator/packagers and
II-2
-------
metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper, and
arsenic-based products be proposed as zero wastewater discharge. The
proposed effluent limitations for NSPS are shown in Tables II-20 through
11-32. The rationale for these proposals is discussed in Section XIII.
It is proposed that pretreatraent standards for new and existing
manufacturing sources (PSNS and PSES) be equal to BAT levels without
biological treatment, since biological treatment is costly and does not
justify the incremental removal of priority and nonconventional
pesticide pollutants. It is also proposed that pretreatment standards
for new and existing formulating/packaging sources and metallo-organic
pesticide manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based
products be equal to the NSPS direct discharge limitation. The proposed
pretreatraent standards for the priority pollutant and nonconventional
pesticide parameters are shown in Tables 11-33 through 11-45. The
rationale for this proposal is found in Section XIV.
II-3
-------
Table II-l. Proposed Expanded BPT Limitations for Subcategory 1
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average* Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
CODt 9. 13.
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTSt
BOD
TSS
PH
1.6
1.8
**
7.4
6.1
**
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
* Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to atrazine (Plant 1), benzyl benzoate, biphenyl
(Plant 2), coumachlor, coumafuryl, coumatetralyl, diphacinone,
endothall, EXD, methoprene, 1,8-naphthalic anhydride, piperonyl
butoxide, propargite, and warfarin.
** The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0.
II-4
-------
Table II-2. Proposed Expanded BPT Limitations for Subcategory 2
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average" Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
CODt 9. 13.
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTSt
BOD
TSS
PH
1.6
1.8
**
7.4
6.1
**
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to allethrin, chlorophacinone, glyphosate, hexazinone,
phenylphenol, phenylphenol sodium salt, quinomethionate, rotenone,
and sulfoxide.
** The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0.
II-5
-------
Table II-3. Proposed Expanded BPT Limitations for Subcategory 10
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average" Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
CODt 9. 13.
«
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTSt
BOD
TSS
PH
1.6
1.8
**
7.4
6.1
**
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
* Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory.
** The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 and 9.0.
II-6
-------
Table II-4. Proposed BCT Limitations for Subcategory 11
Effluent Limitations
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average0 Maximum
ALL PROCESS WASTEWATER
POLLUTANTS* ZERO DISCHARGE
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
* Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory.
II-7
-------
Table II-5. Proposed BCT Limitations for Subcategory 12
Effluent Limitations
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average" Maximum
ALL PROCESS WASTEWATER
POLLUTANTSt ZERO DISCHARGE
" Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies to all wastewaters from metallo-organic pesticide
manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based
products.
II-8
-------
Table II-6. Proposed BCT Limitations for Subcategory 13
Effluent Limitations
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average" Maximum
PROCESS WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
FROM FORMULATION OR ZERO DISCHARGE
PACKAGING OF ALL PESTICIDE
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
II-9
-------
Table II-7. Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 1
Parameter
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average* Maximum
NONCONVENTIOKAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
0.0457
0.258
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Phenol
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
0.00718
0.00474
0.0133
0.0133
0.0000485 0.000169
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
0 Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to atrazine (Plant 3), benomyl, busan 40, busan 85,
carbam-S, carbofuran, coumaphos, D8CP, dichlorvos, dinoseb,
dioxathion, ferbam, isopropalin, KN methyl, metham, mevinphos,
niacide, oxamyl, PCP salt, phorate, terbacil, terbufos, and
tricyclazole.
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-10
-------
Table I1-8. Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 2
Parameter
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average" Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
0.0751
0.339
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
1,2-Dichlorobenzenett
1,4-Dichlorobenzenet t
1,2,4-TrichlorobenzenetI
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
2,4-Dichlorophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
0.000870
0.000870
0.000781
0.0751
0.0751
0.0751
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00718
0.00984
0.00718
0.00474
0.00944
0.00944
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.339
0.339
0.339
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0278
0.0278
0.0000485 0.000169
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to alachlor, AOP, benfluralin, bentazon, bolstar,
bromacil, butachlor, carbendazim, carbophenothion, chlorobenzilate,
chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos methyl, 2,4-D isobutyl ester, 2,4-D
isooctyl ester (Plant 4), 2,4-DB, 2,4-DB isobutyl ester, 2,4-DB
isooctyl ester, deet, demeton, dichlofenthion, ethalfluralin, ethion,
etridiazole, fenthion, glyphosate, hexazinone, mephosfolan, methomyl,
nabam, naled, profluralin, propachlor, ronnel, stirofos, triadimefon,
and trichloronate.
11-11
-------
Table II-8. Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 2
(Continued, Page 2 of 2)
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
tt Proposed for regulation only in those processes in which it is the
manufactured product; proposed for exclusion from regulation in all
other processes where it is expected to be controlled by the
regulation of chlorobenzene.
11-12
-------
Table II-9. Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 3
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average* Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticides! 0.00662 0.0359
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
Zinc 0.0122 0.0282
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to mancozeb, maneb, zineb (plant 5), and ziram
(Plants 6 and 7).
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-13
-------
Table 11-10. Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 4
Effluent Limitations*
Parameter
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average0 Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
0.0018
0.01
Benzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Cyanide
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
0.000870
0.000781
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00119
0.00944
0.00944
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00244
0.0278
0.0278
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
* Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to fluometuron.
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-14
-------
Table 11-11. Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 5
Effluent Limitations*
Parameter
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average* Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
0,00234
0.0127
Benzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Copper
Zinc
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
0.000870
0.000781
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.0118
0.0122
0.00122
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.0363
0.0282
0.00325
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to fensulfothion, ZAC, and zineb (Plant 8).
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-15
-------
Table 11-12. Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 6
Parameter
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average* Maximum
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS?
Cyanide
0.00119
0.00244
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
* Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary,
11-16
-------
Table 11-13. Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 7
Effluent Limitations*
Parameter
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average" Maximum
PRIORITY POLLUTANTSt
Benzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Copper
Cyanide
0.000870
0.000781
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.0118
0.00119
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.0363
0.00244
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
* Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-17
-------
Table 11-14. Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 8
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average" Maximum
PRIORITY POLLUTANTSt
2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.00718 0.0133
4-Nitrophenol 0.00984 0.0133
Phenol 0.00474 0.0133
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine 0.0000485 0.000169
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.00122 0.00325
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
0 Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-18
-------
Table 11-15. Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 9
Parameter
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average" Maximum
PRIORITY POLLUTANTSt
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
0.000870
0.000870
0.000781
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00122 0.00325
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
0.00718
0.00718
0.00984
0.00718
0.00474
0.00944
0. 00944
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0278
0.0278
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-19
-------
Table 11-16. Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 10
Parameter
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average* Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
0.0838
0.439
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1 , 2-D i chl or oe thane
Tetrachloroethylene
Cyanide
0.000870
0.000870
0.000781
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00944
0.00944
0.00119
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.0278
0.0278
0.00244
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
* Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to ametryne, atrazine (Plants 9 and 10), cyanazine,
metribuzin, prometon, prometryn, propazine, simazine, simetryne,
terbuthylazine, and terbutryn.
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-20
-------
Table 11-17. Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 11
Effluent Limitations
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average" Maximum
ALL PROCESS WASTEWATER
POLLUTANTS* ZERO DISCHARGE
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
* Applies to all wastewaters from manufacture of the nonconventional
pesticides alkylamine hydrochloride, araobam, barban, BBTAC, biphenyl
(Plant 11), chloropicrin (Plants 12, 13, 14), 2,4-D isooctyl ester
(Plant 15), 2,4-D salt, D-D, dichlorophen salt, dowicil 75, ethoprop,
fluoroacetamide, glyodin, HPTMS, merphos, metasol J-26, pyrethrin,
silvex isooctyl ester, silvex salt, sodium monofluoroacetate
(Plant 16), tributyltin benzoate, tributyltin oxide (Plant 17),
vancide TH, vancide 51Z, vancide 51Z dispersion, and ziram
(Plant 18). Also applies to all wastewaters from dichloroethyl ether
and dichloropropene in those processes in which it is the manufactured
product. Dichloroethyl ether and dichloropropene are proposed to be
excluded from regulation in all other processes due to a lack of
adequate monitoring data.
11-21
-------
Table 11-18. Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 12
Effluent Limitations
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average" Maximum
ALL PROCESS WASTEWATER
POLLUTANTS! ZERO DISCHARGE
* Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies to all wastewaters from metallo-organic pesticide
manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based
products.
11-22
-------
Table 11-19. Proposed BAT Limitations for Subcategory 13
Effluent Limitations
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average0 Maximum
PROCESS WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
FROM FORMULATION OR ZERO DISCHARGE
PACKAGING OF ALL PESTICIDE
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
0 Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
11-23
-------
Table 11-20. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 1
Parameter
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
COD°°
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
Phenol
Effluent
30-Day
Maximum
Average
0.0457
9.
0.00718
0.00474
Limitations*
Daily
Maximum
0.258
13.
0.0133
0.0133
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
0.0000485 0.000169
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS'
BOD
TSS
pH
1.6
1.8
Tt
7.4
6.1
tt
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to atrazine (Plant 19 process), benomyl, busan 40,
85, carbam-S, carbofuran, coumaphos, DBCP, dichlorvos, dinoseb,
dioxathion, ferbam, phorate, isopropalin, KN methyl, metham,
mevinphos, niacide, oxamyl, PCP salt, terbacil, terbufos, and
tricyclazole.
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
Tt The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0.
Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory.
11-24
-------
Table H-21. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 2
Parameter
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average" Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
COD***
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
1,2-Dichlorobenzenet t
1,4-Dichlorobenzenett
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenett
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
2,4-Dichlorophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS***
0.0751
9.
0.339
13.
0.000870
0.000870
0.000781
0.0751
0.0751
0.0751
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00718
0.00984
0.00718
0.00474
0.00944
0.00944
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.339
0.339
0.339
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0278
0.0278
0.0000485 0.000169
BOD
TSS
PH
1.6
1.8
e o
7.4
6.1
O O
* All units are Ibs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
11-25
-------
Table 11-21. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 2
(Continued, Page 2 of 2)
T Applies only to alachlor, AOP, benfluralin, bentazon, bolstar,
bromacil, butachlor, carbendazim, carbophenothion, chlorobenzilate,
chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos methyl, 2,4-D isobutyl ester, 2,4-D
isooctyl ester (Plant 20 process), 2,4-DB, 2,4-DB isobutyl ester,
2,4-DB isooctyl ester, deet, demeton, dichlofenthion, ethalfluralin,
ethion, etridiazole, fenthion, glyphosate, hexazinone, mephosfolan,
methomyl, nabam, naled, profluralin, propachlor, ronnel, stirofos,
triadimefon, and trichloronate.
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
tt Recommended for regulation only in those processes in which it is
the manufactured product; recommended for exclusion from regulation
in all other processes where it is expected to be controlled by
regulation of chlorobenzene.
00 The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0.
*** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory.
11-26
-------
Table 11-22. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 3
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average" Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticides! 0.00662 0.0359
COD00 9. 13.
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
Zinc 0.0122 0.0282
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS'°
BOD 1.6 7.4
TSS 1.8 6.1
pH TT tt
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to tnancozeb, maneb, zineb (Plant 21 process), and ziram
(Plants 22 and 23 processes).
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
tt The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0.
00 Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory.
11-27
-------
Table 11-23. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 4
Parameter
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average9 Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
COD00
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
Benzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Cyanide
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS00
0.0018
9.
0.01
13.
0.000870
0.000781
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00119 0.00244
0.00944
0.00944
0.0278
0.0278
BOD
TSS
pH
1.6
1.8
tT
7.4
6.1
tt
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to fluometuron.
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
Tt The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0.
Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory.
11-28
-------
Table 11-24. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 5
Effluent Limitations*
Parameter
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS'
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average" Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
COD"
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
Benzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Copper
Zinc
0.00234
9.
0.000870
0.000781
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.0118
0.0122
0.0127
13.
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.0363
0.0282
0.00122
0.00325
BOD
TSS
PH
1.6
1.8
tt
7.4
6.1
tt
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to fensulfothion, ZAC, and zineb (Plant 24 process).
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
tt The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0.
Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory.
11-29
-------
Table 11-25. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 6
Effluent Limitations*
Parameter
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average* Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTStT
COD
PRIORITY POLLUTANTSt
Cyanide
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTStT
9.
0.00119
13.
0.00244
BOD
TSS
pH
1.6
1.8
**
7.4
6.1
**
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
° Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
** The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0.
tt Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory.
11-30
-------
Table 11-26. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 7
Effluent Limitations*
Parameter
30-Day
Maximum
Average*
Daily
Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTStt
COD
PRIORITY POLLUTANTSt
9.
13.
Benzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Copper
Cyanide
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTSt f
BOD
TSS
PH
0.000870
0.000781
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.0118
0.00119
1.6
1.8
**
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.0363
0.00244
7.4
6.1
**
*. All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
** The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0.
tt Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory.
11-31
-------
Table 11-27. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 8
Parameter
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average" Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
COD"
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Phenol
Endosulfan, alpha
Endosulfan, beta
Heptachlor
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS00
0.0018
9.
0.010
13.
0.00718 0.0133
0.00984 0.0133
0.00474 0.0133
0.0018 0.010
0.0018 0.010
0.0018 Q.010
0.0000485 0.000169
0.00122 0.00325
BOD
TSS
PH
1.6
1.8
tt
7.4
6.1
Tt
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
° Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to aminocarb, fenuron, malathion, methiocarb,
mexacarbate, mirex, monuron, parathion ethyl, parathion methyl,
propham, propoxur, and trifluralin.
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
Tt The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0.
00 Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory.
11-32
-------
Table 11-28. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 9
Parameter
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average" Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
COD
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride,
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
BHC, alpha
BHC, beta
BHC, delta
Endrin
Heptachlor
Lindane (BHC, gamma)
Toxaphene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
0.0018
9.
0.000870
0.000870
0.000781
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.010
13.
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.00122 0.00325
0.00718
0.00718
0.00984
0.00718
0.00474
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.00944
0.00944
0.0278
0.0278
11-33
-------
Table 11-28. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 9
(Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Effluent Limitations*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average0 Maximum
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS00
BOD
TSS
pH
1.6
1.8
tt
7.4
6.1
tt
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
0 Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to azinphos methyl, captan, carbaryl, chlorpropham,
2,4-D, DCNA, demeton-o, demeton-s, diazinon, dicamba, dicofol,
disulfoton, diuron, fenuron-TCA, linuron, methoxychlor, monuron-TCA,
neburon, PCNB, perthane, siduron, silvex, SWEP, and 2,4,5-T.
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
tt The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0.
00 Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory.
11-34
-------
Table 11-29. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 10
Effluent Limitations*
Parameter
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
COD**
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS! t
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
TetrachloroethyLene
Cyanide
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS**
BOD
TSS
pH
30-Day
Maximum
Average0
0.0838
9.
0.000&70
0.000870
0.000781
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00111
0.00944
0.00944
0.00119
1.6
1.8
o o
Daily
Maximum
0.439
13.
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.00278
0.0278
0.0278
0.00244
7.4
6.1
e a
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to ametryne, atrazine (Plants 25 and 26 processes),
cyanazine, metribuzin, prometon, prometryn, propazine, simazine,
simetryne, terbuthylazine, and terbutryn.
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory.
tt Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
00 The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 and 9.0.
11-35
-------
Table 11-30. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 11
Effluent Limitations
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average0 Maximum
ALL PROCESS WASTEWATER
POLLUTANTS* ZERO DISCHARGE
0 Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
* Applies to all wastewaters from manufacture of the nonconventional
pesticides alkylamine hydrochloride, amobam, barban, BBTAC, biphenyl
(Plant 27 process), chloropicrin (Plants 28, 29, 30 processes), 2,4-D
isooctyl ester (Plant 31 process), 2,4-D salt, D-D, dichlorophen salt,
dowicil 75, ethoprop, fluoroacetamide, glyodin, HPTMS, merphos,
metasol J-26, pyrethrin, silvex isooctyl ester, silvex salt, sodium
monofluoroacetate (Plant 32 process), tributyltin benzoate,
tributyltin oxide (Plant 33 process), vancide TH, vancide 51Z, vancide
51Z dispersion, and ziram (Plant 34 process). Also applies to all
wastewaters from dichloroethyl ether and dichloropropene in those
processes in which it is the manufactured product. Dichloroethyl
ether and dichloropropene are proposed to be excluded from regulation
in all other processes due to a lack of adequate monitoring data.
11-36
-------
Table 11-31. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 12
Effluent Limitations
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average" Maximum
ALL PROCESS WASTEWATER
POLLUTANTSt ZERO DISCHARGE
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies to all wastewaters from metallo-organic pesticide
manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based
products.
11-37
-------
Table 11-32. Proposed NSPS Limitations for Subcategory 13
Effluent Limitations
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average0 Maximum
PROCESS WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
FROM FORMULATION OR ZERO DISCHARGE
PACKAGING OF ALL PESTICIDE
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
* Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
11-38
-------
Table 11-33. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for Subcategory 1
Parameter
Pretreatment Standards*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average" Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Phenol
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
0.0528
0.0718
0.0474
0.299
0.133
0.133
0.0000485 0.000169
* All units are Ibs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
0 Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to atrazine (Plant 35), benomyl, busan 40, busan 85,
carbam-S, carbofuran, coumaphos, DBCP, dichlorvos, dinoseb,
dioxathion, ferbatn, isopropalin, KN methyl, metham, mevinphos,
niacide, oxamyl, PCP salt, phorate, terbacil, terbufos, and
tricyclazole.
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-39
-------
Table 11-34. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for Subcategory 2
Parameter
Pretreatment Standards*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average" Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
0.134
0.605
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
1,2-Dichlorobenzenet t
1,4-DichlorobenzenetT
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenet t
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
2,4-Dichlorophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
0.0870
0.0870
0.0781
0.134
0.134
0.134
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.0718
0.0984
0.0718
0.0474
0.0944
0.0944
0.0000485
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.605
0.605
0.605
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.133
0.133
0.133
0.133
0.278
0.278
0.000169
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to alachlor, AOP, benfluralin, bentazon, bolstar,
bromacil, butachlor, carbendazim, carbophenothion, chlorobenzilate,
chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos methyl, 2,4-D isobutyl ester, 2,4-D
isooctyl ester (Plant 36), 2,4-DB, 2,4-DB isobutyl ester, 2,4-DB
isooctyl ester, deet, demeton, dichlofenthion, ethalfluralin, ethion,
etridiazole, fenthion, glyphosate, hexazinone, raephosfolan, tnethomyl,
nabam, naled, profluralin, propachlor, ronnel, stirofos, triadimefon,
and trichloronate.
11-40
-------
Table 11-34. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for Subcategory 2
(Continued, Page 2 of 2)
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
tt Proposed for regulation only in those processes in vftich it is the
manufactured product; proposed for exclusion from regulation in all
other processes where it is expected to be controlled by regulation
of chlorobenzene.
11-41
-------
Table 11-35. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for Subcategory 3
Pretreatment Standards*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average* Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticides! 0.0203 0.110
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
Zinc 0.0247 0.0570
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
0 Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to mancozeb, maneb, zineb (Plant 37), and ziram
(Plants 38 and 39).
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-42
-------
Table 11-36. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for Subcategory 4
Parameter
Pretreatment Standards*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average" Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticides!
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
0.00340
0.0185
Benzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Cyanide
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
0.0870
0.0781
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.00238
0.0944
0.0944
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.00488
0.278
0.278
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to fluometuron.
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-43
-------
Table 11-37. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for Subcategory 5
Pretreatment Standards*
Parameter
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average" Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
0.0255
0.138
Benzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Copper
Zinc
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
0.0870
0.0781
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.0238
0.0247
0.00241
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.0733
0.0570
0.00643
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
0 Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days,;
t Applies only to fensulfothion, ZAC, and zineb (Plant 40).
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-44
-------
Table 11-38. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for Subcategory 6
Pretreatment Standards*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average0 Maximum
PRIORITY POLLUTANTSt
Cyanide 0.00238 0.00488
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-45
-------
Table 11-39. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for Subcategory 7
Parameter
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS!
Benzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Copper
Cyanide
Pretreatment
30-Day
Maximum
Average"
0.0870
0.0781
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.0238
0.00238
Standards*
Daily
Maximum
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.0733
0.00488
* All units are Ibs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-46
-------
Table 11-40. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for Subcategory 8
Pretreatment Standards*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average0 Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest 0.0018 0.010
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.0718 0.133
4-Nitrophenol 0.0984 0.133
Phenol 0.0474 0.133
Endosulfan, alpha 0.0018 0.010
Endosulfan, beta 0.0018 0.010
Heptachlor 0.0018 0.010
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine 0.0000485 0.000169
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.00241 0.00643
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to aninocarb, fenuron, malathion, methiocarb,
mexacarbate, mirex, monuron, parathion ethyl, parathion methyl,
propham, propoxur, and trifluralin.
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-47
-------
Table 11-41. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for Subcategory 9
Parameter
Pretreatment Standards*
30-Day
Maximum
Average"
Daily
Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticidest
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
Benzene
Ch1orobenzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
BHC, alpha
BHC, beta
BHC, delta
Endrin
Heptachlor
Lindane (BHC, gamma)
Toxaphene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
0.0018
0.0870
0.0870
0.0781
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.00241
0.010
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.00643
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
0.0718
0.0718
0.0984
0.0718
0.0474
0.0944
0.0944
0.133
0.133
0.133
0.133
0.133
0.278
0.278
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
0 Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
11-48
-------
Table 11-41. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for Subcategory 9
(Continued, Page 2 of 2)
t Applies only to azinphos methyl, captan, carbaryl, chlorpropham,
2,4-D, DCNA, deneton-o, detneton-s, diazinon, dicamba, dicofol,
disulfoton, diuron, fenuron-TCA, linuron, methoxychlor, monuron-TCA,
neburon, PCNB, perthane, siduron, silvex, SWEP, and 2,4,5-T.
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-49
-------
Table 11-42. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 10
Parameter
Pretreatment Standards*
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average" Maximum
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pesticides?
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS**
0.0991
0.519
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Cyanide
0.0870
0.0870
0.0781
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.0944
0.0944
0.00238
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.00488
* All units are lbs/1,000 Ibs (kg/kkg).
* Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies only to ametryne, atrazine (Plants 41 and 42), cyanazine,
metribuzin, prometon, prometryn, propazine, simazine, simetryne,
terbuthylazine, and terbutryn.
** Applies to all pesticides in this subcategory, as necessary.
11-50
-------
Table 11-43. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 11
Parameter
Pretreatment Standards
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average* Maximum
ALL PROCESS WASTEWATER
POLLUTANTS*
ZERO DISCHARGE
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
* Applies to all wastewaters from manufacture of the nonconventional
pesticides alkylamine hydrochloride, amobam, barban, BBTAC, biphenyl
(Plant 43), chloropicrin (Plants 44, 45, 46), 2,4-D isooctyl ester
(Plant 47), 2,4-D salt, D-D, dichlorophen salt, dowicil 75, ethoprop,
fluoroacetamide, glyodin, HPTMS, merphos, metasol J-26, pyrethrin,
silvex isooctyl ester, silvex salt, sodium monofluoroacetate
(Plant 48), tributyltin benzoate, tributyltin oxide (Plant 49),
vancide TH, vancide 51Z, vancide 51Z dispersion, and ziram
(Plant 50). Also applies to all wastewaters from dichloroethyl ether
and dichloropropene in those processes in which it is the manufactured
product. Dichloroethyl ether and dichloropropene are proposed to be
excluded from regulation in all other processes due to a lack of
adequate monitoring data.
11-51
-------
Table 11-44. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 12
Parameter
Pretreatment Standards
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Average0 Maximum
ALL PROCESS WASTEWATER
POLLUTANTS!
ZERO DISCHARGE
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
t Applies to all wastewaters from metallo-organic pesticide
manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based
products.
11-52
-------
Table 11-45. Proposed Standards for PSES and PSNS for
Subcategory 13
Pretreatment Standards
30-Day
Maximum Daily
Parameter Average0 Maximum
PROCESS WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
FROM FORMULATION OR ZERO DISCHARGE
PACKAGING OF ALL PESTICIDE
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days.
11-53
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in February 1978
began this study for the following purposes regarding the Pesticide
Chemicals Industry:
1. To review effluent limitations guidelines promulgated
pursuant to Sections 301, 304, 306, and 307(b) and (c) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
("The Act").
2. To develop an industry profile identifying the potential
sources and concentrations, as well as the treatability
and economic impact of technology applications, for
129 specific compounds known hereafter as priority
pollutants (listed in Section XXI—Appendix 1) and for
nonconventional pollutant pesticides (listed in
Section XXI—Appendix 3). The priority pollutants were
defined as an outgrowth of a court settlement, NRDC v.
Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified 12 ERC 1833
(D.D.C. 1979). During the course of this study this list
of priority pollutants was reduced by the agency to 126;
excluded were bis(chloromethyl) ether, trichlorofluoro-
tnethane, and dichlorodifluoromethane (U.S. EPA, 1981a and
b). The nonconventional pollutant pesticides are those
manufactured active ingredients listed in the scope of
study below.
The purpose of this document is to provide the technical data base for
proposal of effluent limitations guidelines by EPA for Expanded Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (Expanded BPT), Best
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT), Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS), and Pretreatraent Standards for Existing (PSES) and New
(PSNS) Sources for the Pesticide Chemicals Industry as defined in the
1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act. Both conventional and
nonconventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, pH, COD, and Pesticides) have been
addressed in this review in cases where they were not previously
regulated by Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT) limitations (see Section XXI—Appendix 2); priority pollutants
have been addressed for all pesticides within the scope of this study.
III-l
-------
SCOPE OF STUDY
It is important to understand the assumptions under which this study was
conducted because of such factors as the complicated nature of the
industry itself; the effect of previous regulations and subsequent
litigation; and the effect of analytical methods and technical data
availability on the conclusions and recommendations which will be made.
Types of Products Covered
This study covers the manufacturing of pesticide active ingredients
listed in Section XXI—Appendix 3 of this report. The formulation of
these active ingredients into liquids, dusts and powders, or granules,
and their subsequent packaging in a marketable container is also covered
under this study for new and existing indirect dischargers and new
direct dischargers. The manufacture of mercury, cadmium, copper, and
arsenic-based pesticides is addressed for new and existing indirect
dischargers and new direct dischargers. Direct discharge of wastewaters
from these metallo-organic pesticides and formulating/packaging facili-
ties was prohibited by the BPT regulation. In addition, there are
280 pesticide active ingredients covered in the scope of this study, as
described below.
The BPT regulation also established effluent limitations for the
pesticide parameter in 49 pesticide wastewaters. Two of these
pesticides, aldrin and dieldrin, have been banned from manufacture and
use by EPA and therefore are not covered in this report. Twenty-five of
the previously regulated pesticides are currently manufactured, and when
they are combined with 223 currently manufactured pesticides not pre-
viously regulated by BPT, a total of 248 pesticides are included in the
scope of this study. An additional 22 pesticides regulated under BPT
and 10 pesticides excluded from BPT regulations are currently not
manufactured; however, they are included in the scope of this study
should their manufacture be reactivated, thereby creating a total of
280 pesticides to be studied.
The definition of a pesticide differs among the governmental,
industrial, and scientific communities. For the purposes of this study
a pesticide is defined as "any technical grade ingredient intended to
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest, subject to the following
categories":
Included in Study
Insecticides Avicides
Herbicides Slimicides
Fungicides Piscicides
Nematicides Ovicides
Rodenticides Defoliants
Bactericides Desiccants
Acaricides Repellents
Algicides Synergists
Miticides Botanicals
Molluscicides Fumigants
III-2
-------
Not Included in Study*
Inorganic Pesticides Pesticides produced outside the
Plant Growth Regulators! United States
Sex Attractants Organic, Pharmaceutical, Plastic and
Quaternary Ammonium Saltstt Synthetic, or Other Industry Compounds
Microbials Regulated Elsewhere
Wood Preservatives** Research-Oriented Pesticides Produced
Disinfectants in Limited Quantities
Chemosterilants
* Specific products not included are itemized in the administrative
record for the proposed regulation.
t The plant growth regulator maleic hydrazide is included due to its
high-volume production.
** The wood preservative pentachlorophenol is included due to its high-
volume production.
tt Certain quaternary salts are included due to significant production
volume.
Compounds defined in Section XXI—Appendix 1 as "priority pollutant
pesticides" are known hereafter as priority pollutants, whereas all
other pesticides are referred to as "nonconventional pollutant
pesticides."
Definition of Wastewaters Covered
This study assesses only process wastewater associated with the
manufacture or formulating/packaging of pesticide active ingredients.
As shown in the Glossary, Section XIX, the definition of "process
wastewater" adopted is ... any aqueous discharge which results from or
has had contact with the final synthesis step in the manufacturing of
pesticide active ingredients, or with the formulating/packaging of those
active ingredients, to include the following:
1. Final synthesis reaction wastewater or dilution water
step used directly in the process.
2. Wastewater from vessel/floor washing in the immediate
manufacturing and formulating/packaging area.
3. Stormwater runoff from the immediate manufacturing and
formulating/packaging area.
4. Wastewater from air pollution scrubbers utilized in the
manufacturing process or in the immediate manufacturing
and formulating/packaging area.
Wastewater which is not contaminated by the process, such as boiler
blowdown, cooling water, sanitary sewage, or storm water from outside
the immediate manufacturing area, is not included in the definition of
process wastewater.
III-3
-------
Status of Pesticide Intermediates
The manufacture of pesticide intermediates is not within the scope of
this study. As noted in Section XIX, Glossary, the definition of
"manufacturer of pesticide intermediates" adopted is ... the manufac-
ture of materials resulting from each reaction step in the creation of
pesticide active ingredients, except for the final synthesis step, and
are, in most cases, nonconventional pollutants. In the pesticide
industry these intermediates may be purchased from other manufacturers,
produced on-site in the exact quantities required for pesticide
production, or produced on-site in excess of that required. It is due
to these factors, and the fact that these intermediates are common to
many other chemical processes, that they were not included in this
proposal. However, there are several instances in which available data
relate to comingled streams from intermediate and active ingredient
production, and these are presented with the appropriate footnote in
this proposal.
Effect of Previous Regulations
Final BPT regulations for direct dischargers in the Pesticide Chemicals
Industry were published in the Federal Register on April 25, 1978, and
were amended on September 29, 1978. The effects of these regulations on
the current study are as follows:
1. Several pesticides and classes of pesticides (such as
triazines) were excluded from the BPT regulations.
Therefore, this study addresses nonconventional pesticide
pollutant and priority pollutant removal technology for
both direct and indirect dischargers, as well as BOD, COD,
TSS, and pH for direct dischargers (see Section XXI—
Appendix 2 for a list of previously excluded pesticides).
2. Forty-nine pesticide parent compounds were specifically
identified in the BPT regulation for direct dischargers as
having EPA promulgated analytical methods available for
the pesticide parameter. COD, BOD, TSS, and pH were also
regulated for these compounds. Therefore this study
addresses the priority pollutants for direct and indirect
dischargers which potentially are present in any of these
pesticides (see Section XXI—Appendix 2 for a list of
these 49 pesticides), and addresses pesticides for
indirect dischargers. There are exceptions to the above
discussion for 7 of the 49 previously regulated pesti-
cides. Aldrin, dieldrin, DDT, ODD, and DDE do not require
coverage under this regulation because discharge of
wastewater from the manufacture and/or formulation of
these pesticides was prohibited by Section 307(a) of the
Clean Water Act published in the Federal Register,
January 12, 1977 (U.S. EPA, 1977h7~! The pesticide
parameter for endrin and toxaphene established acceptable
levels for direct discharges (see January 12, 1977
III-4
-------
Federal Register). Wastewaters from endrin and toxaphene
will be subject to BAT/PSES regulations for associated
priority pollutants (direct and indirect discharge) and
endrin and toxaphene parameters (indirect discharge).
3. All pesticides not identified in Items 1 and 2 above were
regulated during BPT for the direct discharge of BOD, COD,
TSS, and pH. Therefore this study addresses the noncon-
ventional pollutant pesticides and priority pollutants for
products in this group being directly or indirectly
discharged.
4. The metallo-organic pesticides with mercury, cadmium,
copper, or arsenic bases were assigned a zero-discharge
limitation during BPT for direct dischargers. Process
wastewater from these metallo-organic pesticides will be
subject to PSES and PSNS regulations for indirect
discharge for nonconventional and priority pollutants and
NSPS regulations for new direct discharge facilities.
5. Formulators/packagers of pesticide active ingredients that
discharge wastewater to navigable waters were assigned a
zero-discharge status for BPT. This study addresses
formulators/packagers that discharge process wastewater to
POTWs which are subject to PSES and PSNS regulations and
new direct discharge formulator/packagers which are
subject to NSPS regulation.
Analytical Methods and Detection Limits
Since analytical procedures for pollutants covered under this study were
not uniformly available, EPA developed analytical methods for priority
pollutants and manufactured pesticides at selected plants within the
industry. Sampling was conducted at 16 such facilities, and the
resulting data are presented in this report. In July 1978 the Effluent
Guidelines Division of EPA determined that the continued use of Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) may pose an inordinate economic
burden upon manufacturers who might be required to purchase and/or
perform monitoring with this expensive analytical instrument. Instead,
it was proposed that the more readily available and economic Gas
Chromatograph (GC) be used to qualitatively and quantitatively define
the levels of priority pollutants in industrial wastewaters. High
pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) was considered an equivalent
alternative to GC methods. A summary of the methods developed by the
EPA contractors for this report is presented in Section XXI—Appendix 4.
Priority pollutant and nonconventional pesticide analytical methods
developed by industry were requested during the months of March through
July 1982 and will be available for review as part of the administrative
record. The Agency intends to propose industry analytical methods in
40 CFR Part 455 in January 1983.
Both priority pollutants and manufactured pesticide methods are
undergoing separate development and review at the Environmental
III-5
-------
Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL) in Cincinnati, Ohio. Priority
pollutant methods were proposed in the Federal Register in December 1979
and are scheduled for promulgation in the near future; numerous
pesticide methods are under EPA 304(h) committee review.
A summary of all available pesticide analytical methods from such
sources as the 1973 Federal Register, EPA/EMSL, EPA contractors,
industry, literature, and others is given in Appendix 8 of Section XXI.
In part, this list forms the basis for the subsequent selection of
pesticides to be regulated for the nonconventional pesticide parameter
based on analytical methods availability. Methods for residue analysis,
required for pesticide registration by the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, are available in the administrative
record.
Detection limits were considered in two major ways in this study.
First, during sampling and analysis programs, a level of interest was
established for specific pollutants. This level of interest defined the
detection limits to which quantitative results were sought, but below
which values were acceptably reported as "not detected." The levels of
interest used in this study are defined in Section XIX. Second, in the
selection of effluent limitations and pretreattnent standards in
Section XV, the published detection limits for each pollutant regulated
were compared on an individual plant basis to the level required by the
effluent limitations. In cases where the detection limit was
insufficient to meet effluent limitations, either the limitation was
revised or in-plant monitoring of segregated streams was recommended.
Wastewater Sampling and Data Acquisition
This study evaluates existing data and information gathered during a
screening sampling program conducted by EPA regions and private
contractors. A verification sampling program was then conducted by four
EPA contractors to accurately define the source and level of pollutants
in pesticide wastewaters. Following verification sampling, an industry
self-sampling program was instituted which is still in progress. Data
obtained from the above-mentioned programs and additional priority
pollutant and nonconventional pesticide data received directly from
manufacturers as a result of 308 surveys are presented in this report.
The adequacy and applicability of these data have been evaluated by the
Effluent Guidelines Division of EPA.
Economic Impact
This document is a technology-based assessment of the Pesticide Chem-
icals Industry. The broader economic effects which might result from
the required application of recommended technologies were assessed in a
separate document prepared by EPA/Office of Analysis and Evaluation
which is available as part of the pesticides rulemaking package. This
impact analysis was based on a plant-by-plant evaluation of the type and
cost of recommended technologies, if any, needed to meet the proposed
III-6
-------
limitations included in this document. The results of this evaluation
are presented in Sections XII and XIV.
Water Quality
The frequency of occurrence and maximum level of concentration for
conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants in the pesticide
industry is presented in Section IX and compared to known human health
and ecological effects and proposed EPA water quality criteria. In this
manner water quality was one of several factors considered to be within
the scope of this study in recommending whether pollutants be considered
of primary, dual, or secondary significance.
The environmental effects of implementing the proposed standards and
limitations which are presented in Section II, including the effects on
aquatic life, were assessed in separate documents prepared by
EPA/Monitoring and Data Support Division (Versar, Inc., contractor).
METHODOLOGY
A brief description of the methodology used in the conduct of this study
is given below for the purpose of gaining an overview of project
accomplishments from February 1978 through August 1982, and to provide a
better understanding of the organization and logic of this report.
Definition of the Industry
The first task upon commencing this project was to accurately define the
pesticide products which would be covered, given the assumptions
described above in "Scope of Study." A list of pesticides potentially
manufactured was developed from the following sources:
1. Existing records from the BPT study;
2. Listing of pesticide facilities made available through the
EPA/Office of Pesticides Programs;
3. 1977 Directory of Chemical Producers, Stanford Research
Institute;
4. Pesticides Process Encyclopedia, Marshall Sittig, 1967;
5. Source Assessment: Prioritization of Stationary Water
Pollution Sources, U.S. EPA. 1977 (List of 108
Environmentally Significant Pesticides); and
6. 1977 Chemical Economics Handbook—Pesticides, Stanford
Research Institute.
As a result of this initial review, a total of 167 potential manufac-
turers were identified.
III-7
-------
308 Survey
A 308 Survey was drafted by EPA and reviewed and approved by the
Effluent Guidelines Subcommittee of the National Agricultural Chemicals
Association (NACA). After approval was obtained from the Office of Man-
agement and Budget (OMB #158-R0160), the survey was distributed in
July 1978. The purpose of this survey was to obtain basic data
concerning manufacturing, disposal, and treatment, as well as to
identify potential sources of priority pollutants. A copy of the survey
is provided in Section XXI—Appendix 5. For those plants previously
contacted during BPT, a review of the records was made and many of the
basic data were not requested a second time. Instead, specific ques-
tions concerning the conventional and nonconventional pollutants were
asked along with the general priority pollutant portion of the survey.
Responses were received during August, September, and October 1978.
Based on the assumptions in the scope of coverage, 117 plants were
selected for further study. After evaluation of the survey responses,
it was necessary to send approximately 90 additional 308 follow-up
letters during the months of March, April, and May 1979 to clarify the
record on each plant as well as to request specific priority pollutant
data and treatability studies which might have been available. During
the months of March and April 1980 it was again necessary to send 308
follow-up letters to over 50 selected plants requesting specific data
points to be used primarily for statistical analysis. It is anticipated
that additional 308 surveys will be required between proposal and
promulgation.
Existing Data Evaluation
A major source of data for this study was the approximately 60,000-page
record which was developed in support of the BPT regulation. These
files contain extensive plant process, treatment, and economic data, in
addition to NPDES permits discharge monitoring reports and literature.
These data were summarized and incorporated into a work plan for the
conduct of this study. Additional data have been incorporated into
these files throughout the course of this review.
Screening Sampling
A screening, sampling, and analysis program was conducted during 1977
and 1978. Screening sampling was the first step in determining the
source and level of priority pollutants in the pesticides industry. A
total of 30 plants were screened—27 by EPA Regional Sampling and
Analysis teams and the remainder by private contractors. These samples
were taken and analyzed by GC/MS for the 129 priority pollutants using
the March 1977 protocol prepared by EMSL-Cincinnati (U.S. EPA, 1977g).
These data were used to assist in the selection of plants for verifica-
tion sampling and in the identification of specific pollutants to be
analyzed at those plants. Since GC was the proposed method of analysis
used to define levels of priority pollutants for the pesticide industry,
the levels reported from GC/MS analysis performed during screening
sampling were not utilized in calculating individual plant effluent
III-8
-------
averages. A summary of screening sample results is presented in
Section XXI—Appendix 6.
Verification Sampling Program
An evaluation of existing data as well as 308 Survey responses was used
to select 16 plants for the verification program in the pesticide
industry according to the following criteria: if process chemistry
analysis or screening sampling indicated that priority pollutants
existed or were likely to be present in the raw waste or treated
effluent; if the plant employed a potential BAT wastewater treatment
technology; and if the plant manufactured a variety of pesticide types.
Due to the time constraints involved in the study, a total of four
contractors performed sampling and analysis at the plants selected. The
following procedures were employed at each of the individual plants:
1. An engineering visit was scheduled and conducted. At this
visit a comprehensive engineering survey of the plant was
made, historical data were reviewed, potential priority
pollutant sources were identified, and grab samples were
taken of at least the process intake water, raw process
wastewater, and treated effluent. These samples were
transferred to the individual contractor laboratories for
the purpose of developing a specific GC method for each
priority pollutant and each manufactured pesticide
suspected to be present in the plant wastewater. An
additional grab sample was taken before and after the
major treatment process for transmittal to a separate
contractor working for EMSL-Cincinnati who was to develop
methods only for the manufactured pesticides. An
engineering report was filed and provided to plant
personnel for review and comment.
2. A sampling plan was prepared which, upon conclusion of
laboratory efforts to determine analytical methods,
provided the rationale for selection of future sampling
sites and parameters along with a step-by-step analytical
procedure for each of the pollutants to be measured. A
copy of this report was provided to the plant in advance
of any further wastewater sampling.
3. A verification sampling visit was scheduled and conducted,
consisting of one grab sample and three 24-hour composites
taken at each site specified in the sampling plan. Teams
of engineers and technicians took samples, preserved them,
and shipped them to contractor laboratories for analysis
of conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants.
The grab samples were analyzed first to ensure that the
proposed methods were applicable. In addition, a large-
volume sample was taken before and after the major treat-
ment process for transmittal to a second EMSL contractor
III-9
-------
who was charged with developing precision and accuracy
data for the manufactured pesticide parameter. In some
cases plant personnel also collected wastewater from EPA
sampling sites or were provided split samples by the EPA
contractor during verification sampling visits. When
plant analyses were provided this information was
incorporated into the data base for this report.
4. A verification sampling report was filed on completion of
laboratory analysis. A copy of this report was provided
to the plants for review and comment. The report con-
tained results of analyses, documentation of problems
encountered, and evaluation of treatment system
performance. The results of the verification sampling
program are summarized in Appendix 6—Section XXI.
5. A final plant report was prepared for each site visited to
include all the above-mentioned material, plant correspon-
dence, sampling logs, and final analytical procedures
utilized. These reports were also provided to the
individual plants for comment.
6. A laboratory data report was prepared for each plant
including individual chromatograms, laboratory notebooks,
and documentation of all quality control measures
employed. GC/MS procedures were used to confirm GC anal-
ysis, when specific problems existed, for approximately
10 percent of the verification samples. Due to the volume
of these reports, only one copy was made and forwarded to
EPA; the originals are maintained with each individual
contractor.
Industry Self-Sampling Program
EPA is soliciting volunteers for self-sampling and self-analysis
programs to be conducted for 30- to 45-day periods at specific
plant/process waste streams. The purpose of the program is to obtain a
statistically valid quantity of data on selected priority pollutants,
and to incorporate those data into a Final Regulation.
The recommendation for the selection of plants to undergo self-sampling/
self-analysis was based on a review of the adequacy of plant data, the
presence of detected or likely to be present priority pollutants
proposed for regulation, and whether potential BAT technology was
currently in place. From this review nine plants were recommended for
the self-sampling program. To date, four plants have participated in
the program.
Data from each of the volunteer plants has been received, processed, and
evaluated. Raw waste and treated effluent waste loads have been
statistically analyzed, and an evaluation of the treatment system
performance was made.
111-10
-------
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The entire verification program was designed to be conducted in accord-
ance with a written sampling protocol (ESE, 1979) and within specific
analytical Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) guidelines
(Jayanty, 1979). The sampling protocol specified methods of container
preparation, sample fractioning and preserving, sample transportation,
and sample documentation and tracking.
The analytical QA/QC program was set up and implemented by a separate
contractor. The elements of this program were:
1. Preparation of a QA/QC manual which consolidated and
supplemented in-house manuals by each of the analytical
contractors.
2. Establishment of quality control goals for duplicate and
spike analyses; in this case all first-day verification
samples were duplicated, and all third-day samples were
spiked and recoveries calculated.
3. Implementation of quality assurance testing for each
analytical laboratory. Each contractor was forwarded
unidentified concentrations (both high and low) containing
compounds common to two of the plants analyzed by the lab.
These samples, prepared in distilled water, were analyzed
utilizing the same procedures used on actual plant
wastewaters. In addition, one sample with identical
constituents was sent to all of the analytical contractors
for a comparative basis. The results of these analyses
were returned to the QA/QC contractor for comparison with
levels pre-determined by gravimetric measurement. The
results of the QA/QC program are available in a series of
reports in the administrative record.
The precision and accuracy goals of the study were: an overall accuracy
of +25 percent, including sampling, extraction, and GC measurement; and
spike recovery equal to or greater than 70 percent.
Audit of Actual Wastewater Analytical Data
After evaluating the results of the QA/QC program, it was decided that
an audit of portions of the actual wastewater analytical data supplied
by the verification analysis contractors would be appropriate. At least
10 percent of the data from each of the four verification contractors
was audited by the QA/QC contractor. Since the audit revealed some
deviations from protocol, an additional audit took place of the
remaining 90 percent of the data for the pollutant parameters which were
under consideration for recommended regulation. The results of the
above-mentioned audits were incorporated into the data tables found in
this report.
III-ll
-------
Process Chemistry Evaluation
Because there are 117 plants in the industry and only 16 were sampled
during the verification program, it was imperative to undertake an
evaluation of each of the other pesticide processes not sampled in order
to determine which priority pollutants were likely to be present for the
industry as a whole. This review was accomplished using the process
flow diagrams which were provided to EPA by each plant as part of the
308 Survey response as well as using existing BPT and other technical
information. EPA determined that pollutants are likely to be present if
they are the final manufactured product, used as raw materials, or are
commonly known or reported by-products or impurities of the reaction.
All of the pollutants identified as likely to be present by this
approach were compared to known data and confirmed. The results of the
process chemistry evaluation of 280 pesticides, of which 32 are
currently not manufactured, are presented in Section V.
Raw Waste Load Summary
All available raw waste load data were gathered and presented in
conjunction with the process chemistry evaluation. Historical data from
BPT, screening data, verification data, 308 data, and plant monitoring
and treatability data were all consolidated and summarized in Section V
according to groups of priority pollutants as defined in the Glossary,
Section XIX.
Treatment Technology Evaluation
Treatment and control technology currently available within the industry
and transfer technology from other industries were evaluated in terms of
their applicability to the pesticide industry. Control and treatment
technologies routinely accomplishing exemplary removal (achieving
effluent limitations and standards) of specific pollutants in other
industrial categories were evaluated to determine whether they would be
applicable to the pesticide industry if treatment data were absent or
treatment performance judged inadequate as compared with other available
performance data in the pesticide industry. EPA has determined that
treatment and control technology from other industrial categories can be
transferred to the pesticide industry because regardless of the origin
of the wastewater, these certain technologies are routinely effective in
removing specific pollutants. Specifically, technologies were
transferred from the electroplating and organic chemicals industries for
removal of metals, cyanide, and volatiles. The theory of each
technology, full-scale design and operating data, and treatability data
are all discussed in Section VI. These technologies were analyzed in
terms of their effectiveness for removing each individual or group of
priority pollutants and nonconventional pollutant pesticides. Based on
this review, flow diagrams are presented for the individual treatment
technology units recommended, along with the design and operating
efficiency criteria.
111-12
-------
Subcategorization
Factors such as raw materials, wastewater treatability, prior regulatory
status, wastewater characteristics, disposal, manufacturing processes,
plant location, age, and size were all considered prior to arriving at a
recommended Subcategorization. Based on these criteria, 280 individual
pesticides in the industry were grouped according to the type of
treatment units required to remove the conventional, nonconventional,
and priority pollutants in their wastewaters. A further discussion of
Subcategorization is given in Section VII.
Cost and Energy
As shown in Section VIII, cost curves for each of the recommended treat-
ment units are presented. The unit treatment costs were then combined
in a building-block approach according to subcategory requirements,
where capital, annual, and energy costs were itemized. Because
treatment units were designed and costed for maximum pollutant concen-
trations, many plants may require lower levels of removal. Additional
data will often be required before this determination can be made.
Nonwater Quality Impact
The potential air and solid waste effects of recommended treatment are
discussed in Section VIII in a qualitative manner, and quantitatively
where data permit.
Selection of Pollutant Parameters
The selection of pollutant parameters proposed to be regulated was based
on the availability of technical data and on evaluations of raw waste
load presence and concentration, treatability, analytical methods
availability, and environmental and health effects. Accordingly,
pollutants were designated primary, dual, or secondary in significance.
Section IX provides a more complete explanation for the selection of
pollutant parameters.
Selection of Expanded Best Practicable Technology
Pesticides excluded from the BPT regulations are proposed for regulation
under expanded BPT for BOD, COD, TSS, and pH pollutant parameters. As
discussed in Section X, the technology on which the expanded BPT
proposed limitations are based is equal to that which formed the basis
of the BPT regulation.
BCT
In Section XI the three BAT treatment technology options were utilized
to perform a preliminary BCT cost test. The purpose of this test is to
show whether the cost to reach recommended BAT levels is reasonable when
compared to the cost a POTW would require to achieve similar effluent
levels. On July 28, 1981, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded
111-13
-------
the regulations establishing this BCT methodology and directed the
Agency to conduct an additional cost-effectiveness test and to correct
data errors. The Agency has corrected data errors and applied a second
cost-effectiveness test. The revised BCT methodology was proposed in
the Federal Register on October 29, 1982.
Selection of Best Available Technology
Proposed effluent limitations have been established by EPA based on such
factors as prior pesticide regulatory status, method of disposal, and
analytical methods availability, as well as the development of effluent
variability factors, the economic effect of implementing proposed
effluent limits, and treated effluent data for each subcategory.
The pollutants proposed to be regulated are presented in Section XII.
The factors considered in making this decision were prior regulatory
status, method of disposal, analytical methods availability, and
significance in the industry.
Based on technical feasibility and actual performance data, four levels
of treatment were initially considered. The design effluents for each
level of treatment were then determined. An evaluation of the economic
and technical aspects of implementing regulations at the design
effluents led to the selection of one level of treatment as Best
Available Technology.
A piant-by-plant treatment cost analysis was prepared to determine the
requirements and costs for each plant to comply with the proposed
effluent long-term averages. Treatment costs were estimated for those
nonconventional pesticides and priority pollutants proposed for
regulation. The results of this analysis, as presented in Section XII,
were provided to the EPA economic contractor so the potential impact of
treatment costs on plant production could be calculated.
Selection of NSPS Technology
NSPS is based on consideration of process modifications, in-plant
controls, and end-of-pipe technology, as defined in Section XIII. The
pollutants proposed for NSPS regulation are presented in this section.
Three treatment technology options and associated costs were considered
for this regulation.
Selection of Pretreatment Standards Technology
Pretreatment standards are based on consideration of effluents
achievable by plants utilizing recommended technologies, other than
biological oxidation.
The pollutants proposed for regulation are presented in Section XIV.
The factors considered in making this decision were prior regulatory
status, method of disposal, analytical methods availability, and signi-
ficance in the industry.
111-14
-------
Based on technical feasibility and actual performance data, two levels
of treatment were initially considered. The appropriate design
effluents for two levels of treatment were then determined. An
evaluation of the economic and technical aspects of implementing
regulations at the design effluents led to the selection of one level of
treatment for pretreatment standards for new and existing sources.
A plant-by-plant treatment cost analysis was prepared to determine the
requirements and costs for each plant to comply with the selected
effluent long-term averages. Treatment costs were estimated for those
nonconventional pesticides and priority pollutants proposed for
regulation. The results of this analysis, as presented in Section XIV,
were provided to the EPA economic contractor so the potential impact of
treatment costs on plant production could be calculated.
Selection of BAT and NSPS Effluent Limitations and Pretreatment
Standards for Existing (PSES) and New Sources (PSNS)
Pollutant long-term averages were determined by considering both
effluent levels currently being achieved and effluents estimated to be
achievable based on recommended technology. Effluent levels currently
being achieved in the pesticide industry are presented in Section XV for
each pollutant proposed for regulation. An evaluation is also presented
in Section XV of the effluents estimated to be achievable for
nonconventional pollutant pesticides and priority pollutants proposed to
be be regulated. The technical basis for the selected long-term
averages is established in this portion of Section XV. The method of
calculating the proposed effluent long-term averages for direct and
indirect dischargers is presented for pollutants proposed for
regulation.
Available priority pollutant and pesticide data were statistically
analyzed to determine variability in the daily and monthly effluent
levels. From these results, which are presented in Section XV, the
daily and 30-day maximum effluent limitations and pretreatment standards
for each regulated pollutant were calculated, such that they can be
achieved by well-operated plants a high proportion of the time.
Environmental Assessment
As discussed in Section XVI, an assessment of the environmental effects
of implementing the proposed standards and limitations is presented in a
separate document prepared by EPA/Monitoring and Data Support Division.
This assessment projects the significance of post-regulatory discharges
of nonconventional pesticides and priority pollutants on human health,
aquatic life, and the operation of POTWs.
Appendices
Appendices XXI-1 through XXI-9 are provided to list important reference
data too lengthy for the body of the report and data that are helpful in
interpreting the report.
111-15
-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY PROFILE
ECONOMIC AND INVENTORY DATA
It is important to understand the structure of the Pesticide Chemicals
Industry before any conclusions can be drawn concerning the proper
approach to the drafting of regulations, the effectiveness of
alternative pollution control technologies, the feasibility of waste-
water monitoring, or the financial ability of plants to install
pollution control equipment. This section presents economic and
inventory data so that decisions can be made with full knowledge of
their limitations and advantages as relates to this complex industry.
Each individual pesticide manufacturing process differs, however
structural similarities are normally used to classify pesticides in
groups containing halogens, phosphorus, nitrogen, or metals. Since
these processes are proprietary, detailed process descriptions cannot be
presented in this document. Generalized descriptions were presented by
Jett (1978) based on structural grouping of pesticides.
In addition to pesticide manufacturers there are plants which formulate
and package pesticide active ingredients. Most formulator/packagers
generate little or no wastewater and have comparatively uncomplicated
batch-blending systems. Formulator/packager information is presented as
a subsection to this section.
Pesticide Utilization
*
The major classes of pesticides are presented in Table IV-1. The total
1977 production volume for reported pesticides within the scope of this
study was approximately 1.6 billion pounds according to the Industry 308
Survey. Although published data on industry output lag as much as three
to four years, it is estimated that this production volume accounts for
more than 95 percent of the compounds of interest. A 1980 article
(Chemical Week, May 7, 1980) estimates pesticide shipments of
1.7 billion pounds in 1978. The relative percentage of production for
pesticide classes is consistent with prior data; however, a trend toward
increasing volumes of insecticide and decreasing volumes of herbicide
production is indicated. The number of products within each class of
pesticides conforms roughly to the volume produced for each class. With
regard to the general toxicity of each class, the decreasing order would
be insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, although there are usually
exceptions in each category. There is not necessarily a correlation
between toxicity and the presence of priority pollutants.
IV-1
-------
As reported by Eichers, et_ al_. (1978), the total pesticide use for farm
and nonfarra purposes in 1976 was estimated at 1.67 billion pounds.
Farmers used an estimated 661 million pounds of all pesticides, a
38 percent increase over 1971. In 1976 a total of 394 million pounds of
herbicides was applied by farmers, an increase of 76 percent over 1971.
The leading crop herbicides used by farmers in 1976 were atrazine
(90 million pounds) and alachlor (89 million pounds). In 1976,
162 million pounds of insecticides were used on 74.9 million acres of
major field crops, hay, pasture, and rangeland. The organochlorine
insecticides accounted for 60 percent of all farm crop insecticides in
1966, 46 percent in 1971, and 29 percent in 1976. The increased use in
1976 of organophosphate and carbamate insecticides helped to reduce the
organochlorine residue problems but has increased potential hazards to
farm workers. Although there has been a shift away from organochlor-
ines, toxaphene was the leading insecticide used in 1976, at 30.7 mil-
lion pounds. The major fungicides used in 1976 were chlorothalonil and
copper compounds. Approximately 43.2 million pounds (4.1 pounds per
acre) of fungicides were applied in 1976. The overall growth rate of
pesticide use between 1971 and 1976 was 40 percent. The volume of
exports was 621 million pounds (36 percent of industry total) in 1978,
and exports are expected to reach 43 percent by 1990 (Chemical Week,
May 7, 1980).
The primary factors behind the 1976/1977 growth from previous years are
increased pesticide usage by farmers, particularly cotton and soybeans,
and increased foreign demand for domestic pesticides (NACA, 1978).
Pesticide shipments are expected to increase by 7 percent per year,
while costs are predicted to rise 6 percent per year through 1990
(Chemical Week, May 7, 1980).
Structural Grouping of Pesticides
It is sometimes productive to examine pesticides in terms of their
functional groups. Similarities in molecular weight, polarity, and
solubility may be found in pesticides with the same structure. These
similarities may translate into pollutant generation or treatability
homogeneity. For example, hydrolysis treatment under the proper pH and
temperature conditions is effective for certain triazine compounds
because they possess a similarly bound chloride ion which can be dis-
placed by an hydroxyl ion, thereby changing the nature of the compound
to a hydroxytriazine. Even groups of pesticides produced by like
processes do not necessarily generate the same priority pollutants;
however, for purposes of discussion it is often convenient to classify
them by structure as shown in Table IV-2. Further identification of
chemical structure and configuration for typical and major pesticides
can be found in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pesticide
Chemicals Development Document (Jett, 1978). Pesticides within the
scope of this study are defined by structural groups in the Glossary,
Section XIX.
IV-2
-------
Geographical Location of Plants
Figure IV-1 presents the geographical location of the 117 pesticide
manufacturers under consideration in this study. Since a majority of
pesticides are produced at the same sites as other organic chemicals,
plant location is governed by considerations such as proximity to raw
materials, ease and cost of transportation, local labor and tax condi-
tions, and other factors which would affect any plant siting. Less than
half the manufacturers formulate their products on-site; instead they
ship to formulators/packagers located near the areas of farm
consumption.
Market Value of Pesticides
The response to the Industry 308 Survey revealed that the 1977 market
value for pesticides produced in the scope of this study ranged from
2.5 to 3 billion dollars. Pesticide sales in 1978 were estimated to
range from 2.2 to 3.0 billion dollars (Chemical Week, May 7, 1980).
An examination of individual plant and total industry market value
ranges shows two major trends which must be considered in any technical
or economic evaluation of the industry. First, as shown in Figure IV-2,
almost half of the plants produced products with an annual market value
of less than 5 million dollars for all pesticides produced. This
indicates that these plants must be examined closely if large capital
expenditures are to be required for pollution control facilities.
Second, over 50 percent of the total industry market value is attributed
to only 14 plants. These plants have the ability to finance larger
pollution control investments as well as to maintain staffs capable of
engineering, operating, and monitoring the control systems. The signi-
ficance of this concentration of plants at the extremes of market value
must be further evaluated in terms of pollutant generation potential and
technology requirements before any final conclusions can be drawn
concerning economic impact of this regulation.
Level of Pesticide Production
Figure IV-3 shows, even more dramatically than market value ranges, that
the distribution of individual pesticide production capacities is skewed
toward the low end of the scale. In 1977, 117 pesticide plants made
248 discrete pesticides from a total of 322 pesticide process sites. Of
the 322 process sites more than 44 percent of the pesticides considered
were produced at levels less than 10,000 pounds per day, indicating the
specialized nature and low demand for certain products. Again, it
should be noted that there is a group of 14 to 18 products with high-
volume, heavy-usage patterns such as some cotton insecticides or
selective post-emergence herbicides. The extremes of production
indicate a need for individual plant evaluation of the economic impact
of this regulation.
IV-3
-------
Figure IV-4 shows the annual level of pesticide production for the
305 process sites reporting. More than half the processes produce less
than 1 million pounds of pesticide per year.
Number of Pesticides Produced Per Plant
Figure IV-5 demonstrates the highly individual nature of each pesticide
plant and the narrow product base from which business is conducted. For
example, approximately 95 percent of the plants produce no more than
four pesticides, while almost 50 percent produce only one. When plants
are found to produce more than one pesticide the products are usually
derived from similar reaction chemistry, thereby allowing the same unit
process configurations to be used with minor changes in raw materials.
Although several plants are shown to produce more than four pesticides
during any one year, it is uncommon for plants to run more than four to
five process lines simultaneously.
Number of Days Each Pesticide Produced
The frequency of pesticide production shown in Figure IV-6 follows the
same pattern of extremes as other plant operational factors. Tn this
case, approximately 20 percent of all reported pesticides were produced
less than 30 days per year, while another 20 percent were produced for
all 12 months of the year. This figure indicates the seasonal nature of
the majority of pesticides production, along with the few exceptions of
continuous production for a group of high- to medium-volume products.
Number of Plants Producing Pesticides
Figure IV-7 demonstrates the effect of patents on the operating
structure of the industry. Approximately 84 percent of all patented
pesticides are only produced by individual plants, whereas after patent
expiration each of the remaining 16 percent is produced at from two to
four different plants. These facts contribute to the difficulty of
examining and comparing wastewater data among identical products. As a
matter of fact, there are several cases where the same product is made
by a different process by different plants, thereby resulting in differ-
ent pollutants, treatment technology required, and economic impact.
Number of Plants Owned by Companies
As demonstrated in Figure IV-8, approximately 72 percent of all
companies own only one pesticide manufacturing plant. Of the remaining
28 percent, 13 companies own two plants each, four companies own four
plants each, and four separate companies own three, five, six, and seven
plants, respectively. The above illustrates that pesticide plant
ownership is generally not concentrated among a few companies. However,
it should be noted that certain companies may be the sole producer of a
pesticide sub-group. For example, under the metallo-organic structural
group the pesticides identified as organo-tins are currently
manufactured by only one plant.
IV-4
-------
Other Operations at Pesticide Plants
Another complicating factor in obtaining and evaluating data from
pesticide facilities is that very few sites produce only pesticide
active ingredients. Response to the Industry 308 Survey presented in
Table IV-3 shows that 57 percent of the plants produce pesticide
intermediates. More than 74.4 percent of the pesticide plants also
produce other miscellaneous chemicals. There are only seven pesticide
plants producing neither intermediates nor other chemicals, thereby
representing less than 6 percent of the industry. More than 90 percent
of all plants have at least one shared treatment system for pesticide
intermediate and miscellaneous chemicals wastewaters.
Methods of Wastewater Disposal
Table IV-A itemizes the methods of wastewater disposal utilized at
pesticide plants. Many plants have more than one method of disposal, as
there are a total of 142 discrete methods utilized at 117 plants. The
thrust of this report is toward those plants discharging to navigable
waters (42 plants), those discharging indirectly to POTWs (37 plants),
and those achieving zero discharge because no wastewater is generated
(9 plants), because of evaporation ponds (6 plants), and because of
incineration without scrubber effluent (1 plant). Plants also utilize
deep well injection (18 plants), contract hauling of all wastewater
(9 plants), land disposal (3 plants), and ocean discharge (1 plant).
Type of Wastewater Treatment
Tables IV-5 and IV-6 have been provided to identify the more than
26 different types of treatment used by direct dischargers and by plants
discharging indirectly to POTWs, etc. It should be noted that more than
one means of disposal may be used by each of the 117 plants.
There are 42 plants that dispose of wastewater by direct discharge to
navigable waters. Physical/chemical treatment with activated carbon,
resin adsorption, hydrolysis, chemical oxidation, steam stripping, or
metals separation is used by 22 direct dischargers. Further explanation
of the design and operation of these treatment units is provided in
Section VI. There are 26 discrete plants included in Table IV-5 that
use biological treatment for direct discharge of pesticide wastewater.
Biological systems may consist of an aerated lagoon, activated sludge
unit, or trickling filters. Post-biological or tertiary treatment
consisting of multimedia filtration or activated carbon is used by four
direct dischargers.
There are 37 discrete manufacturers included in Table IV-6 discharging
to a municipal treatment system, of which seven plants treat pesticide
wastewater by activated carbon, resin adsorption, hydrolysis, chemical
oxidation, or steam stripping. More than 20 percent of the POTW
dischargers do not treat at least one pesticide waste stream.
IV-5
-------
Formulator/Packagers
In addition to the plants which manufacture active ingredients there are
plants which make pesticide products by formulating, blending, canning,
and packaging operations. In formulating and packaging the raw
materials used are the pesticide active ingredients, which may be
procured from outside suppliers or may be manufactured on site. The
processing types in this subcategory (called formulators and packagers)
are mechanical and physical/chemical in nature. The levels of waste-
water generation and contamination are either considerably lower than in
the active-ingredient production or are sometimes nonexistent.
Pesticide formulations and packaged products generally fall into three
classifications: water-based, solvent-based, and dry-based. Types of
formulations include powders, dusts, wettable powders, emulsifiable
concentrations, granules, and aerosols. There are approximately 5,000
formulation plants registered with the Agency.
The scale .on which pesticides are produced covers a broad range.
Undoubtedly, many of the small firms, having only one product
registration, produce only a few hundred pounds of formulated pesticides
each year. At least one plant that operated in the range of
100,000,000 pounds of formulated product per year has been identified.
The bulk of pesticide formulations, however, is apparently produced by
independent formulators operating in the 20,000,000 pounds to
40,000,000 pounds per year range. Table IV-7 provides an estimate of
the production distribution of formulating/packaging facilities. It is
suggested, however, that nonmanufacturing formulator/packager
distribution will be more skewed toward small production. The average
range of wastewater flows for formulator/packagers is estimated to be
between 50 gallons to 5,000 gallons per day.
The relative proportion of pesticide classes produced by formulator/
packagers is presented in Table IV-8. Liquid formulations account for
approximately 70 percent of total formulations, whereas solid formulated
pesticides are approximately 30 percent. Pesticide formulators are
generally smaller than manufacturers, having an average of 32 workers,
18 of whom are employed in production (Sittig, 1980).
The data collected to support the initial regulation show that approxi-
mately 90 percent of the formulators/packagers surveyed do not generate
any process wastewater. The remaining plants generate low volumes of
highly concentrated wastewater when they wash out reaction vessels or
control their air emissions by using air scrubbers. These plants
typically evaporate these wastes or contract haul them to meet the BPT
zero discharge limit.
Additional technical and economic data have been collected for this
portion of the industry subsequent to promulgation of the BPT
regulation. The Agency assumes that formulator/packagers conduct the
same operations regardless of mode of discharge.
IV-6
-------
Metallo-Organic Pesticide Manufacturers
The general group of metallo-organic pesticides includes products with
metallic bases such as mercury, cadmium, copper, arsenic, tin, iron,
manganese, zinc, etc. Direct discharge metallo-organic manufacturers of
mercury, cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based pesticides were regulated
under BPT as a class separate from all other manufactured pesticide
products. Therefore, for purposes of consistency these regulations
(PSES, PSNS, and NSPS), which will apply to the metallo-organic
manufacturers, will also cover mercury, cadmium, copper, and
arsenic-based products as a separate class. Other pesticides which are
tin, iron, manganese, or zinc-based are classified with all other
manufactured pesticides in this study. Certain pesticides may use one
of the above-mentioned metals as a catalyst in their process; however,
the definition of metallo-organic pesticides used in this study
is. . .a class of organic pesticides containing one or more metal or
metalloid atoms in the pesticide chemical structure.
In the manufacturing process for metallo-organic pesticides, the
principal sources of wastewater are: byproduct stripping, product
washing, caustic scrubbing, tank and reactor clean-out, and area
washdowns. Adequate information is available concerning the wastewater
characteristics associated with these operations for the mercury,
cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based pesticides. However, a continuing
effort is underway to better characterize the waste streams resulting
from the manufacture of these compounds. Based on available infor-
mation, it is understood that the current state-of-the-art is such that
no discharge of process wastewater pollutants is being achieved through
the application of recycle technology for these pesticides. The
installation of additional technology is not anticipated at facilities
where these metallo-organic pesticide chemicals are manufactured.
IV-7
-------
Table IV-1. Pesticide Production by Class
Class
Insecticide*
Herbicide
Fungicidet
Rodenticide
Plant Growth Regulator
TOTAL
Number of
Products
87
77
71
5
1
241**
Production Volume (1977)
Million Ibs
846
554
229
2
4
l,635tt
Percent
51.74
33.88
14.01
0.12
0.25
100
* Includes raiticides, nematicides, repellants, insect synergists,
fumigants, insect growth regulators, insecticides.
t Includes algicides, bactericides, molluscicides.
** Seven additional pesticides are currently manufactured, but their
classification is unknown at this time.
tt Production not available from 30 (9.3 percent) of 322 process sites,
IV-8
-------
Table IV-2. Structural Grouping of Pesticides
Number of Pesticides
Structural Grouping of Pesticides in Group
Aldrin-Toxaphene 7
Amides 9
Amide type 4
Botanicals 5
Carbamates 15
Chlorinated Aryloxyalkanoic Acids and Esters 15
Cyanates 3
DDT type 7
Dioxin type 1
Halogenated Aliphatics 10
Halogenated Aromatics 23
Heterocyclic with Nitrogen in the Ring 20
Metallo-Organic* 14
Nitro 13
Nonhalogenated aliphatics 1
Nonhalogenated aromatics 8
Nonhalogenated Cyclic Aliphatics 1
Organo Nitrogen-Others 17
Organo Sulfur 5
Phosphates and Phosphonates 5
Phosphorothioates and Phosphorodithioates 36
Phosphorus-Nitrogen 6
Thiocarbamates 14
Triazines 14
Uracils 2
Ureas 11
Noncategorized Pesticides 14
TOTAL 280
* Does not include mercury, copper, cadmium, and arsenic-based
products.
IV-9
-------
Table IV-3. Types of Operations at Pesticide Plants (1977)
Type of Operation
Number of Plants Percent of Total
Manufacturer of Pesticide
Active Ingredients
Manufacturer of Other
Miscellaneous Chemicals
Manufacturer of Pesticide
Intermediates
Formulator/Packager
of Pesticides
117
87
67
55
100
74.4
57.3
47.0
IV-10
-------
Table IV-4, Methods of Wastewater Disposal at Pesticide Plants (1977)
Type of Wastewater Disposal Number of Plants*
Direct Discharge to Navigable Waters 42
Indirect Discharge (POTW, etc.) 37
Deep Well Injection 18
Incineration 13
No Wastewater Generatedt 9
Contract Hauling of all Wastewater 9
Evaporation Ponds 6
Land Disposal 3
Ocean Discharge 1
* There are a total of 117 plants in the industry; however, many have
more than one means of disposal.
t Includes wastewater which is recycled, reused, or because no
wastewater is generated.
IV-11
-------
Table IV-5. Treatment Utilized at Plants Disposing Pesticide
Wastewaters to Navigable Waters
Type of Wastewater Treatment Number of Plants*
Activated Carbon 16t
Activated Sludge 13
Aerated Lagoon 16
Anaerobic Digestor 1
API-Type Separator 1
Chemical Oxidation 6
Chlorination 3
Coagulation 4
Equalization 30
Evaporation Pond 2
Flocculation 3
Gravity Separation 28
Hydrolysis 5
Metal Separation 1
Multimedia Filtration 5**
Neutralization 31
None 2
Not Available 1
Pressure Leaf Filter 2
Resin Adsorption 2
Skimming 8
Sludge Thickening 1
Stripping 1
Trickling Filters 3
Vacuum Filtration 2
Wet Scrubber 5
* There are a total of 42 plants disposing to navigable waters; some
use more than one type of wastewater treatment.
T Activated carbon used as tertiary treatment in three waste streams.
** Multimedia filtration used as tertiary treatment in three
waste streams.
IV-12
-------
Table IV-6. Treatment Utilized at Plants Disposing Pesticide
Wastewaters to POTWs
Type of Wastewater Treatment Number of Plants*
Activated Carbon 2
Activated Sludge 3
Aerated Lagoon 2
Chemical Oxidation 2
Chlorination 3
Coagulation 2
Crystallization 1
Equalization 11
Evaporation Pond 1
Flocculation 2
Gravity Separation 14
Hydrolysis 1
Multieffect Evaporation 1
Multimedia Filtration 2
Neutralization 24
None 5
Not Available 1
Resin Adsorption 2
Skimming 6
Sludge Thickening 1
Stripping 3
Vacuum Filtration 2
Wet Scrubber 1
* There are a total of 37 plants disposing to POTWs; some use more
than one type of wastewater treatment.
IV-13
-------
Table IV-7. Formulator/Packager Production Distribution
Production Percent
(million Ibs/yr) Formulator/Packagers
<0.5 24
>0.5 to <5.0 41
>5.0 to CO 35
TOTAL 100
IV-14
-------
Table IV-8. Percent of Formulator/Packager Pesticide Classes
Class Percentage
Herbicides 40.0
Insecticides 32.0
Fungicides 19.4
Fumigants 8.6
TOTAL 100
IV-15
-------
DC
HI
CC
1
UJ
Q
CO
UJ
Q.
U.
O
O {2
UJ O
ot
I
O)
IV-16
-------
52
50-
(/> 40-
O,
u.
O
OC
Ul
ffi
30-
20-
10-
18
11
14
0 5 10 25 75 >75
INDIVIDUAL PLANT MARKET VALUE RANGES
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS /YEAR)
1500
C 1200
900
600'
£&
S 300
549
316
120
120
1399
>:*:*:*>
•:-ff:-i:V:
SSSSS
0 5 10 25 75 >75
INDIVIDUAL PLANT MARKET VALUE RANGES
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS /YEAR)
(1) MARKET VALUE RANGES FOR 6 OF 117
PLANTS NOT AVAILABLE
FIGURE IV-2. MARKET VALUE OF PESTICIDES (1977)
IV-17
-------
150'
140-
130-
120.
110
100<
C, 90-
co
111
S 80.
o 70
U.
O
g 60.
03
50.
40-
30
20
10
144
40
33
17
14
11
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 >100.
LEVEL OF PRODUCTION (1000 Ibs /day)
(1) LEVEL NOT AVAILABLE FOR 45 (14%) OF 322 PROCESS SITES
FIGURE IV-3
DAILY LEVEL OF PESTICIDE PRODUCTION
(1977)
IV-18
-------
160-
150-
140-
130-
120-
110-
100-
— . 90-
CO
g 80-
|
ffi 70-
CL
U.
B "
| »-
40 —
30-
20-
10-
156
Si-j-jSx'S
SiiiS-xS
Ss&x'S
Illtl
£x?x?iv
§?:•:•!§§
:'-:§:-ivx?:
•:•:•:::•:•:•:•:•:
S'i'i'i-x':-:'
•giJxxS
mil
^§5^x'S
l"X'X"X"X*!
iillxi-i
•
125
:?:§:?:?:
:§Sxg:
•i-SiS:*:-
X*X*XvX
H
i^x'^x^
x?:?:::¥:
SSwi*
x§x^:x'
HIH
::!?:-l?:?l
:xl^lx:|
tisli!
1
. . •?. ...» 7
ivxSSSSSSS: * o
x-x-xwx :-'x ::x:: :•:•; i-'X-x-x-x >XvXvvxi r ° °
I I i F ^
5 45 75 105 135
LEVEL OF PRODUCTION (MILLIONS OF POUNDS/YEAR)
(1) LEVEL NOT AVAILABLE FOR 17 (5%) OF 322 PROCESS SITES
Figure IV-4 ANNUAL LEVEL OF PESTICIDE PRODUCTION (1 977)
IV-19
-------
60-
50
40
fe
flC
30H
20
55
20
15
11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 18 20
NUMBER OF PESTICIDES PRODUCED PER PLANT
(1) N : 117 PLANTS
FIGURE IV-5
NUMBER OF PESTICIDES PRODUCED
PER PLANT (1977)
IV-20
-------
60.
SO-
40-
^~
CO
Sao-
o30'
g
£
&
£20.
3
z
10-
56
1118
XvX'X'X'X
•X*X*XvXv
XvX*X*X*X
•X*X*X*X*X*
•X'X'XvXv
•X*X"X*X*X*
X*X*X*X'X* «
•ivi'i'i'X'iw
:$:$:$:$:$:
X*X*X*X*X*"
X*X*XvX*X
rvXvXvX%
X'X'XvX'X
^i^s?s§
X*XwXvX
X-X-X'Ms'X
;*x*x*x*x*x
X'ivX'i'X-x
•A'X*x*ivX*
^Hl
3&x*x*i
|g:i:x^|
iisxl^
S^^x>
•1
SS&x&xl
•1
VI
MM
25
:X°X:X:X:X'
IS!
i|^^
§x§x§?x:
:S::$S:::::::::
llltl
•1
?xixix^
:^x.x^
SxSx^S
SSSJx'SS
Mi
16
mm
•
•
•sSi
30
g^gg
•x$i$ivi*x"
ilil
S^Sx^S
#£ffftfA
WiSWiS
*&£&&}:
WM8
H
0 30 60 90 15
48
18
••*••••••«•• 4Y
15 K$x:x::>:Si iSxSxSx 18
13 Ixflxf !^ x^^ :x§?x%5$ SSSSSxl x^x^>S
i%SiS^i SiSSSS So^SSS: xSSSSSi :::x:i:J>x%i ixwSxw
mm
•
&8&S
X-X*X*X*X*X"XvX
X*I'X*X'X*X'l'X*X%
ijvViJx'iixxftSSi
l'XvX*X'XvX'X*I'I
•X'X'X'IvX'X'Xvl"
SSSSxVx^?
?Jx¥iwXw??
v''"*X'*''vX''"X'Xv
XvX*I'I'X*X'X"X'l""
i'i'iSi'ft'i'i'S'S'SS
ixlimH
ll^i^^
lill^iS
S?xwx^%^
i-x:S-x:::::::::::::::::::
5:::::::::x:::::::x::::::::
•:-:?x§:3i5:?::$:::
Pi^xPi
$:S:::??$SSxv;
vX'XWXvX'X-X
S^S^^jS:}
vXvX*X*X*X*X*X
•X*X*XvX'X*X*X*v
» 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 365
NUMBER OF DAYS EACH PESTICIDE PRODUCED (1977)
(1) FREQUENCY NOT AVAILABLE FOR 46 (14.3%) OF 322 PROCESS SITES
FIGURE IV-6 FREQUENCY OF PESTICIDE PRODUCTION
(1977)
IV- 21
-------
220
200.
180-
160.
140<
(0
U 120,
o
u.
O 80
111
60-
210
24
NUMBER OF PLANTS EACH PRODUCING THE SAME PESTICIDE
(1) n : 248 PESTICIDES
FIGURE IV-7 NUMBER OF PLANTS EACH PRODUCING
THE SAME PESTICIDE (1977)
IV-2 2
-------
60 —i
50 —
UJ 30 —
o
o
u.
o
g 20 -J
CD
10—J
54
13
1 234667
NUMBER OF PLANTS OWNED BY EACH COMPANY
(1) n : 75 COMPANIES
Figure IV-8 NUMBER OF PLANTS OWNED BY EACH COMPANY (1977)
IV-2 3
-------
SECTION V
RAW WASTE LOAD CHARACTERIZATION
The purpose of this section is to define the raw waste load flow and
wastewater characteristics for the 280 pesticides covered under this
study in terms of priority pollutant, conventional, and nonconventional
parameters. The term "raw waste load," as utilized in this document, is
defined as the quantity of flow or pollutant in wastewater prior to a
treatment process. Raw waste load flow is normally expressed in terms
of million gallons per day (MGD), or gallons of wastewater per 1,000
pounds of pesticide production (gal/1,000 Ibs). Raw waste load
characteristics are normally expressed in milligrams per liter (rag/1) or
pounds of pollutant per 1,000 pounds of pesticide production
(lbs/1,000 Ibs).
In order to assess the pollutant potential for the industry as a whole,
it was necessary to approach the task from two directions: first, all
available raw waste load data were collected from the BPT study, from
manufacturers' responses to the 308 Survey and subsequent follow-up
letters, from screening sampling, and from the verification sampling
program conducted at 16 plants; second, a process chemistry evaluation
of each pesticide was conducted in order to determine which pollutants
were likely to be present. In this manner the theoretical (priority
pollutants likely to be present based upon a process chemistry
evaluation) and the measured (detected) presence of priority pollutants
could be documented.
The flow, concentration, and mass per unit of production were calculated
for each pollutant at each plant where data were available. The most
productive method of evaluating the pollutant concentration data was
according to groups of priority pollutants which were similar in
chemical/physical characteristics and in method of laboratory analysis
(see Section XIX—Glossary, and Section XXI—Appendix 1, for identifi-
cation of specific compounds within each priority pollutant group which
are included in the scope of this study).
Priority pollutants likely to be present were defined by conducting a
process chemistry evaluation for each pesticide process. The possible
sources of the pollutants were identified as: raw materials used in
pesticide synthesis, impurities in raw materials, byproducts of
synthesis reactions, solvents used as a carrier medium, solvents used as
an extraction medium, impurities in solvents, catalysts, manufactured
products, or other sources. This process chemistry evaluation was
conducted by examining proprietary process diagrams supplied by
manufacturers, by reviewing supplemental literature on each process, and
by analyzing process conditions (pH, temperature, reaction time, etc.)
and raw materials specifications where available.
V-l
-------
The detected and likely presence of pollutants derived in this manner is
presented in Tables V-l through V-34. These data are also utilized in
later sections of this report to help establish subcategorization, to
provide a basis for design and costing of recommended treatment systems,
and to provide a basis for the selection of priority pollutant
parameters to be regulated.
There is an ongoing effort by EPA to acquire additional data. All
recommendations and proposals in this report are based on existing
information; however, any supplemental data incorporated at a future
time may affect the results presented herein.
FLOW
The process wastewater flow for each pesticide was evaluated to deter-
mine the amount of flow per unit of pesticide production (gal/1,000 Ibs)
and the amount of flow (MGD) from all pesticides produced at individual
plants.
Figure V-l presents a probability plot of the flow ratio (gal/1,000 Ibs)
for 269 of the 322 pesticide process sites from which data were avail-
able. Significant information in this figure shows that: 11 percent of
all pesticides have no flow; 50 percent of all pesticides have flows
equal to or less than 1,000 gal/1,000 Ibs; and 84 percent (approximately
one standard deviation above the median) have flows equal to or less
than 4,500 gal/1,000 Ibs. Later in this section the 4,500 gal/1,000 Ibs
will be utilized as the design flow for the industry.
Figure V-2 presents a probability plot of pesticide flows (MGD) at
individual plants. This figure shows that 50 percent of all plants have
flows less than 0.01 MGD, and that virtually all plants (98 percent)
have flows less than 1.0 MGD. In Section VIII of this report treatment
cost estimates will be based on the range of flows from 0.01 to 1.0 MGD.
Flow reported in the tables of this section represent the flow measured
at the given sample point rather than pesticide process flow or total
plant flow (see tables listing pollutants detected in pesticide process
wastewaters).
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
An overview of the frequency of detected or likely to be present
priority pollutant groups is presented in Table V-l. These data show
that even the most prevalent pollutant group, volatile aromatics, is
likely to be present in only approximately 40 percent of the
280 pesticides in the scope of study.
A specific discussion of the significance of each priority pollutant in
relation to this industry is provided in Section IX. The source and raw
waste load level of pollutants are presented by pollutant group below.
V-2
-------
Volatile Aromatics
Benzene and its derivatives are used widely throughout the chemical
industry as solvents and raw materials. Table V-2 illustrates the
indicated presence of these compounds in the pesticide industry. Mono-,
di-, and tri-chlorobenzenes are used directly as pesticides for their
insecticidal and fungicidal properties. Benzene, toluene, and
chlorobenzene are used as raw materials in the synthesis of at least
14 pesticides, although their main use is as a carrier solvent in over
78 processes. It is understandable that the remaining aromatics and
chlorinated aromatics existing as impurities or reaction byproducts are
easily possible due to the rearrangement of the basic raw material and
solvent compounds.
Table V-3 shows that volatile aromatics have been detected in three
pesticide wastewaters in concentrations greater than 1,000 mg/1.
Approximately one-fourth of the pesticides wastewaters for which data
exist contained concentrations greater than 100 mg/1.
Halomethanes
Table V-4 shows that methylene chloride, chloroform, and carbon tetra-
chloride (di-, tri-, and tetra-chloromethane, respectively) are used
mainly as raw material and extraction solvents in approximately
28 pesticide processes. Bromomethanes can be expected in at least three
pesticides as reaction byproducts and can function as a fumigant, in the
case of Pesticide J2.
Table V-5 shows that halomethanes are known to exist at levels greater
than 100 mg/1 in 4 of the 25 pesticides sampled. Methylene chloride has
been detected at concentrations as great as 31,000 mg/1.
Cyanides
The pollutant cyanide is detected or likely to be present in approxi-
mately 25 pesticide processes, as shown in Table V-6. The primary raw
materials which favor cyanide generation are cyanamides, cyanates,
thiocyanates, and cyanuric chloride. The latter compound is exclusively
used in the manufacture of triazine pesticides.
Verification sampling at four pesticide plants identified cyanide levels
ranging from not detected to 5.04 mg/1, as shown in Table V-7, except
for Pesticide Fl with wastewater containing 5,503 mg/1.
Haloethers
There are seven compounds classified as priority pollutants that contain
an ether moiety and halogen atoms attached to the aryl or alkyl groups.
Table V-8 identifies 30 pesticides which indicate the presence of at
least one compound from this class. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether (BCEE) is
used as a raw material in Pesticides Dl and VI, while BCEE itself,
V-3
-------
dichloroethyl ether, functions as a fungicide or bactericide in certain
applications. In the remainder of the pesticides listed in Table V-8
the ethers are indicated to be present as impurities or reaction
byproducts from such common pathways as the Williamson synthesis or the
dehydration of an alcohol.
Only BCEE has been identified in pesticide wastewaters. Table V-9 shows
that the product Rl contains 0.582 mg/1 of BCEE which was generated as a
result of impurities in butylcarbitol chloride raw materials.
Nondetectable levels of other halogenated ethers have also been
reported. No other plant or verification data are currently available
for this group of pollutants.
Phenols
Phenols are compounds having the hydroxyl (OH) group attached directly
to an aromatic ring. The phenolic compounds under consideration in this
study are derivatives of phenol, in particular chlorophenols, nitro-
phenols, and methyl phenols (cresols). These compounds may be found
throughout the pesticide industry as raw materials, impurities in raw
materials, or as byproducts of reactions utilizing related compounds
such as chlorobenzenes, etc. It can be concluded from Table V-10 that
the use of 2,4-dichlorophenol as a raw material will tend to generate
variously substituted chlorophenols in process wastewaters. The
presence of pentachlorophenol (PCP) will almost always be restricted to
the production of the pesticide itself, except for the possible over-
chlorination of benzene in the presence of caustic in mono-, di-, tri-,
and hexachlorobenzene. The presence of nitrated phenols is expected in
the pesticides Ml, Nl, Wl, and XI. Methylated phenols are not expected
to be found in significant concentrations since they are not used as raw
materials, but they may appear as impurities or byproducts of reaction
from Pesticides 01 and Rl due to the use of such raw materials as
4-methylthio-m-cresol and 4-chloro-2-methylphenol, respectively.
From an examination of Table V-l1 it can be seen that chlorinated
phenols are detected in concentrations greater than 1,000 mg/1 in at
least three pesticide wastewaters and have been found at concentrations
as high as 42,000 mg/1. Nitrophenols have been detected up to 461 mg/1,
while no data are available for methyl phenols.
Nitro-Substituted Aromatics
As shown in Table V-12, none of the three priority pollutant nitro-
substituted aromatics are indicated to be present as raw materials in
pesticide processes. Nitrobenzene is produced for commercial use in
soaps, shoe polish, and as a chemical intermediate, while the
dinitrotoluenes are important intermediates in the production of
explosives such as trinitrotoluene (TNT). Approximately 27 pesticides
with nitroaromatic structures have been identified which could contain
one of these three priority pollutants as an impurity or a reaction
V-4
-------
byproduct due to rearrangement or substitution on the parent aromatic
compound.
As shown in Table V-13, only two pesticide processes have been monitored
for the presence of nitro-substituted aromatics with reported concen-
trations of not detected and less than 0.01 mg/1. The remaining
25 processes for which the presence of nitro-substituted aromatics are
likely to be present have not been monitored.
Polynuclear Aromatics
There are 17 priority pollutant compounds which can be classified as
polynuclear aromatics (PNAs). These compounds consist of two or more
benzene rings which share a pair of carbon atoms. They are all derived
from coal tar, with naphthalene being the single largest constituent.
Naphthalene derivatives such as alpha-naphthylamine and alpha-naphthol
are used in a number of pesticide processes; therefore, naphthalene and
2-chloronaphthalene should be by far the most prevalent PNA priority
pollutants in the industry. As shown in Table V-14 acenaphthene,
acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluorence, fluoranthene, and phenanthrene
should be found only as raw material impurities. The remaining ten
polynuclear aromatic compounds are not indicated to be present in
pesticide processes.
As shown in Table V-15, naphthalene has been detected in Pesticides Si
and Tl at 0.066 mg/1. Naphthalene and 2-chloronaphthalene have been
detected in Pesticide Hi at 1.06 mg/1 and less than 0.01 mg/1,
respectively. No other polynuclear aromatics have been detected.
Metals
In the pesticide industry metals are used principally as catalysts or as
raw materials which are incorporated into the active ingredient, e.g.,
metallo-organic pesticides. As shown in Table V-16 copper may be found
or is likely to be present in wastewaters from at least 11 pesticides
where it is used as a raw material or catalyst, but is not incorporated
into the active ingredient. Of the remaining priority pollutant metals,
only zinc becomes part of the technical grade pesticide as in Ul, VI,
Tl, Kl, Ql, Rl, and SI. Manganese and tin-based pesticides are still
manufactured; however, these are not priority pollutant metals.
Priority pollutant metals below the level of interest, defined in
Table V-17, may be expected in any pesticide process due to several
factors:
1. Chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc are used extensively in
stainless steel and/or other fabrication metal alloys;
2. Machinery bearings often contain as much as 5 percent
antimony, cadmium, or lead in addition to the other metals
present (copper, nickel, and zinc);
V-5
-------
3. Antimony and arsenic are often found as hardening agents
in copper, lead, and other raetals or metal alloys;
4. Cadmium and lead are used in fusible alloys and some
solders;
5. Corrosion-resistant tank linings and piping often use
lead, nickel, and zinc;
6. Arsenic is combined in nature with phosphorous and
therefore may enter the plant as a raw material impurity;
7. Cadmium may be an impurity in lime;
8. Chromium is added to noncontact cooling water streams to
inhibit slime formation; and
9. Any compound may be found in plant intake water. It is,
however, unlikely that thallium, silver, beryllium, or
selenium will be found in significant levels in any
wastewaters.
As displayed in Table V-17, copper exists in levels of 59,000 mg/1 and
5,350 mg/1 in Pesticides Gl and Ml, respectively. Zinc has been
identified in Pesticides Tl and Ul at 247 mg/1.
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes
The chlorinated ethanes and ethylenes are used as solvents, cleaning
agents, and intermediates. Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene) is used in
the production of plastic polyvinyl chloride. In the pesticide industry
it is likely that approximately 26 products may contain a member of this
group of priority pollutants (see Table V-18). The principal pollutants
likely to be present are 1,2-dichloroethane, which is used as a solvent
in ten pesticides; tetrachloroethylene, which is used as a solvent in
Pesticides Ul and Fl; and trichloroethylene, which is used as a solvent
in Pesticide 01.
Chloroethanes and ethylenes have been detected in 10 pesticides, in
which the concentrations range from not detected to 10,000 mg/1 for
1,2-dichloroethane (see Table V-19).
Nitrosamines
N-nitrosamines are a group of compounds characterized by a nitroso group
(N°0) attached to the nitrogen of an aromatic or aliphatic secondary
amine. In the pesticide industry N-nitrosodimethylamine and N-nitrosodi-
N-propylamine are likely to be present as reaction byproducts from the
nitrosation of dimethylamine and di-N-propylamine, respectively. The
phenyl nitrosoamine is likely to be present in those processes
containing an aniline or N-substituted aniline compound. Table V-20
V-6
-------
shows that some form of N-nitrosamine is indicated to be present in a
total of 11 pesticides.
The only reported incidence of N-nitrosamines was for Pesticide Kl as
shown in Table V-21. Plant monitoring from July 1977 through July 1978
showed an average of 0.123 mg/1 N-nitrosodi-N-propylamine. Verification
monitoring for three days showed an average level of 1.85 mg/1. The
di-methyl and di-ethylamines have been determined by the plant to be in
the parts-per-trillion range.
Phthalates
Phthalate esters are used widely as plasticizers in commercial polymers
and plastic end products such as polyvinylchloride plastics. Five
phthalates classified as priority pollutants are likely to be present in
11 pesticide processes (see Table V-22). Dimethyl phthalate is known to
be a raw material in Pesticides Kl, El, and Cl. Diethyl, di-n-butyl,
and butylbenzyl phthalates are likely to be present as impurities in
Pesticide II because of the use of phthalic anhydride as a raw material.
As shown in Table V-23, only diethyl phthalate has been monitored and
was not detected in a pesticide wastewater stream.
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene
Table V-24 shows that 1,2-dichloropropane is used as a solvent in
Pesticides Gl and Ml. 1,3-Dichloropropene is a raw material in
Pesticides Dl, LI, and Bl. 1,3-Dichloropropene is a pesticide product
as well as a priority pollutant and functions as an insecticidal
fumigant. Halopropanes are likely to be present in 13 pesticide
wastewaters; however, monitoring has shown only nondetectable levels in
three process wastewaters as shown in Table V-25.
Priority Pollutant Pesticides
There are 18 priority pollutants which are commonly classified as
pesticides. Of these, the only five still in production are endrin,
heptachlor, chlordane, DDT, and toxaphene. As shown in Table V-26,
aldrin, dieldrin, and endrin aldehyde are likely to be present as
reaction byproducts in the Hi pesticide process; however, it should be
noted that endrin aldehyde occurs as endrin ketone due to thermal
rearrangement. Heptachlor epoxide will occur as a reaction byproduct in
both Bl and II pesticide manufacturing. ODD, DDE, and DDT can occur in
the manufacture of Pesticides Kl and Fl. While pesticides BHC (alpha,
beta, and delta isomers) and lindane (BHC, gamma) are not currently
manufactured, the priority pollutant BHC (all isomers) is a potential
reaction byproduct in the production of Pesticide Ml. Endosulfan
sulfate can occur as a reaction byproduct in the manufacture of
Pesticide Gl. The priority pollutant pesticides BHC, lindane, DDE, ODD,
and endosulfan are not currently manufactured, and no raw waste load
priority pollutant data are available from past production periods.
V-7
-------
As shown in Table V-27 wastewater data are available for all the
priority pollutant pesticides currently manufactured, except for
Pesticide Bl. The only existing waste stream from a Pesticide Bl
process is a vent scrubber effluent which is disposed of by deep well
injection and is not monitored. The highest level noted was 174 mg/1
DDE in Pesticide El, which is not discharged to a navigable waterway but
rather is contract hauled to a Class I landfill. Toxaphene was detected
at a declared proprietary level prior to treatment, while endrin,
heptachlor, and their byproducts were detected at a declared proprietary
level during the verification monitoring program. Previous monitoring
of the Fl pesticide process wastewater showed levels of DDT as high as
7.34 fflg/1.
Dienes
There are four manufactured pesticides, Cl, 61, Fl, and Dl, and two
pesticides currently not manufactured, El and Hlj which use a priority
pollutant diene as a raw material. The basic material for all six
pesticides is hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCCPD). Pesticides Cl and Gl
are synthesized by a Diels-Alder condensation of HCCPD and
cyclopentadiene to form chlordene, the intermediate. Chlordene is
further chlorinated either by addition to produce Pesticide Cl or by
substitution to produce Pesticide Gl. The Fl pesticide process involves
the stepwise reaction of HCCPD with acetylene, cyclopentadiene, and
peroxyactetic acid. Pesticide Dl is manufactured by the reductive
coupling of HCCPD with itself using a cuprous chloride catalyst. As
shown in Table V-28, the priority pollutant hexachlorobutadiene is
indicated to be present as a raw material impurity, reaction byproduct,
or as a solvent in the manufacture of Pesticide Hi. The pesticide
products Al and Bl show potential chlorinated diene contamination as
reaction byproducts due to the use of butadiene as a raw material in the
presence of perchloromethyl mereaptan.
As shown in Table V-29 monitoring has confirmed that HCCPD exists from
less than 1 mg/1 to 2,500 mg/1 in raw wastewater from four of the
indicated pesticides. The level of 2,500 mg/1 for HCCPD exceeds the
published solubility in water apparently due to sampling from an organic
nonaqueous waste stream. Also, where monitoring was conducted, the
presence of hexachlorobutadiene was confirmed at approximately
25 percent the strength of HCCPD. It is noted that manufacturers of
Pesticides Cl and Dl are disposing of these extremely concentrated
wastes by deep well injection and contract hauling, respectively, while
Gl and Fl pesticide wastewaters are being discharged to navigable waters
after treatment.
TCDD
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is believed to be a byproduct
in chemical processing generated by a halophenol or chlorobenzene
starting material. An intermediate reaction would occur at an elevated
temperature, equal to or greater than 150°C, and alkaline conditions or
in the presence of a free halogen. The end reaction results in either
V-8
-------
direct dioxin, intermediate dioxin, or predioxin formation which would
ultimately form dibenzo-p-dioxins (Dryden, ££_£!... 1979). TCDD is
indicated to be present in 11 pesticide wastewaters listed in
Table V-30. These pesticides use such raw materials as phenol,
2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, and 1,2,4,5-tetrachloro-
benzene which are characteristic of TCDD precursors. The structurally
similar pesticides Hi and Fl are being examined for possible presence of
TCDD in wastewater. As shown in Table V-31, Plant 1 has measured levels
of TCDD at less than 0.000002 parts per million to 0.022 parts per
million after neutralization of wastewater from their Pesticide Bl, Jl,
and Kl operations. No other available monitoring of wastewater streams
has detected TCDD at this time; however, lack of detection does not
preclude the existence of TCDD at the parts-per-trillion range or below.
Analytical procedures are currently being upgraded. A detection limit
of 0.003 ug/1 is currently achievable (U.S. EPA, I979b).
A study by Oswald in 1978 detailed results of analysis of fish samples
from three rivers in Michigan for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Thirty-five samples
were analyzed by high resolution capillary column gas chromotography
interfaced with high resolution mass spectometry. Concentrations in
35 samples ranged from 4 ng/1 to 695 ng/1.
A TCDD level as high as 111 mg/1 has been found in drums of waste from
the production of the pesticide 2,4,5-T, according to Final Rules
published May 19, 1980 in the Federal Register (U.S. EPA, 1980a). The
EPA TCDD task force is currently reviewing the environmental problems of
TCDD residue.
Miscellaneous
Acrolein is manufactured for use in plastics and as a warning agent in
methyl chloride refrigerant. It is not likely to be present, nor has it
been found, as a process-related pollutant in the pesticide industry.
Acrylonitrile is used in the manufacture of synthetic fibers, dyes, and
adhesives. It is likely to be present in the Al pesticide process where
it is likely to be used as a raw material or solvent. Acrylonitrile has
not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
Asbestos is in widespread usage as an insulating material. As shown in
Table V-32, total mass chrysotile fibers of asbestos were found in
pesticide process wastewaters at concentrations from not detected or
0.000038 mg/1 to 0.3 mg/1. These data were reported as part of an EPA
asbestos screening sampling program and represents monitoring of
combined pesticide and nonpesticide process wastewaters.
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine is a chemical intermediate which is not used, and
has not been found in the pesticide industry.
Isophorone is a diene compound (2-cyclohexene-l-one-3,5,5 trimethyl)
classified as a priority pollutant. Unlike the other priority
V-9
-------
pollutant dienes, it is not chlorinated and is not likely to be present,
nor has it been found in any of the processes investigated.
PCBs
For the past 50 years PCBs have had widespread industrial applications
as hydraulic fluids, plasticizers in synthetic resins and rubbers,
adhesives, heat transfer systems, wax extenders, dedusting agents,
pesticide extenders, inks, lubricants, and cutting oils. Most of these
uses have been banned, but PCBs are still used in vacuum pumps, gas
transmission turbines, and electrical capacitors and transformers.
The only pesticide process where PCBs are likely to occur in the actual
manufacturing scheme is Al, where they could be present as reaction
byproducts. However, the manufacture of Pesticide Al has recently been
ceased and is not anticipated to be produced in the future. Therefore
PCBs are no longer indicated to be present in this industry.
Benzidines
Benzidine compounds are synthetically-produced compounds used primarily
in the manufacture of dyes. They are not likely to be present nor have
they been found to be present as process-related pollutants in the
pesticide industry.
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
The raw waste load concentrations and flows for nonconventional
pollutants are presented in Table V-33 for each of the 280 pesticides
for which data are available.
Nonconventional Pesticides
Nonconventional pesticides have been monitored in 44 percent of
pesticide raw waste streams. Table V-33 presents raw waste load
concentrations ranging from not detected to 11,200 mg/1. From these
data an evaluation can be made of the number of pesticide processes that
could potentially require some type of pesticide removal technology.
For example, if a pretreatment objective of 1 mg/1 were established,
then the following conclusions could be drawn: one-fourth of the
pesticides require no treatment, one-half require less than 90 percent
removal, two-thirds require less than 99 percent removal, five-sixths
require less than 99.9 percent removal, and one-sixth require more than
99.9 percent removal.
COD
COD has been monitored in 27 percent of pesticide raw waste streams.
Table V-33 presents COD concentrations ranging from 14.0 mg/1 to
1,220,000 mg/1.
V-10
-------
TOG
TOG has been monitored in 11 percent of pesticide raw waste streams.
Table V-33 presents TOC concentrations ranging from 53.2 mg/1 to
79,800 mg/1.
TOD
Raw waste load concentrations of TOD have not been monitored in the
pesticide industry.
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
The raw waste load concentrations and flows for conventional pollutants
are presented in Table V-34 for each of the 280 pesticides for which
data are available.
BOD
BOD has been monitored in 27 percent of pesticide raw waste streams.
Table V-34 presents detected BOD concentrations ranging from not
detected to 60,000 mg/1. The oxygen demand is quite high as pesticide
wastewaters leave the process. This demand must be further evaluated at
sampling points immediately prior to biological oxidation systems, since
pretreatment steps (such as activated carbon) can effect considerable
organic removal.
TSS
TSS has been monitored in 24 percent of pesticide raw waste streams.
Table V-34 presents detected TSS concentrations ranging from 2.00 mg/1
to 4,090 mg/1.
DESIGN RAW WASTE LOADS
A raw waste load must be selected in order to design and cost recom-
mended treatment and control technologies. The approach taken in this
study is to design for the removal of maximum priority pollutant raw
waste concentrations. This ensured that the economic impact to treat
high level pollutants would be adequately considered in a piant-by-plant
analysis. A summary of raw waste load design levels taken from
Tables V-2 through V-34 are provided in Table V-35.
ZERO-DISCHARGE PRODUCTS
Table V-36 presents a listing of 29 pesticide products which are
currently being manufactured with zero discharge of process wastewater
to municipal treatment systems or to navigable waterways. This
determination was made from examination of process flow diagrams, and
from manufacturers' responses to the 308 Survey and follow-up letters.
V-ll
-------
Table V-l. Likely to be Present/Detected Frequency of Priority
Pollutant Groups
Priority Number
Pollutant Group Likely
Volatile Aromatics
Halomethanes
Cyanides
Haloethers
Phenols
Nitro-Substituted Aromatics
Polynuclear Aromatics
Metals
Chlorinated Ethanes(ylenes)
Nitrosamines
Phthalates
Dichloropropane(ene)
Pesticides
TCDD
Dienes
Miscellaneous
PCBs
Benzidines
of Pesticides
to be Present
121
56
25
30
34
27
25
22
26
11
11
13
13
11
8
1
0
0
in Group
Detected
44
25
13
4
20
2
5
8
10
1
1
3
5
4
4
76*
0
0
* Refers to priority pollutant asbestos only.
V-l 2
-------
Table V-2. \folatile Aranatics Likely to be Present in Pesticide Process Wasteweters
ABDMmCS, CHLORINA3ED ARDMMICS
Pesticide
Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
12
J2
Benzene
IS
IS
S.IS
IS
—
IS
IS
IS
IS
—
IS
IS
R
R
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
S
IS
R
IS
S
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
I
I
I
IS
IS
IS
IS
Toluene
S
S
S,IS
S
—
S
S
S
S
—
S
S
I
R
IS
IS
S
S
S
IS
IS
I
S
IS
S
S
S
S
IS
—
—
I
S
S
S
S
Ethylbz
IS
IS
IS
IS
—
IS
IS
IS
IS
—
IS
IS
I
I
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
I
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
—
—
I
IS
IS
IS
IS
Chlorobz
_
S
—
—
I
—
—
—
—
R
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
P
—
R
—
—
—
I
B
R
R
R
—
—
—
^^
1,2 di-
chlorobz
__
IS
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
I
—
—
—
I
B
I
I
I
—
—
—
—M»
1,3 di-
chlorobz
_ _
IS
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
I
—
—
—
I
B
I
I
I
—
—
—
™~
1,4 di-
chlorobz
_
IS
—
—
—
—
u
—
—
I
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
I
—
—
—
I
B
I
I
I
—
—
—
•M
Hexa-
chlorobz
^_
—
—
—
—
—
U
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
I
—
—
—
I
B
—
—
I
—
—
—
^^~
1,2,4
TCBz
_ _
IS
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
I
—
—
—
I
B
I
I
I
—
—
—
^^
Footnotes at end of table
V-13
-------
Table V-2. \folatile Aronatics Likely to be Present in Pesticide Process Vbstewaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 4)
ABMftncs, CHuxmuam
Pesticide
Produced
K2
L2
M2
N2
02
P2
Q2
R2
S2
T2
U2
V2
W2
X2
Y2
Z2
A3
B3
C3
D3
E3
F3
G3
H3
13
J3
K3
L3
M3
N3
03
P3
Q3
R3
S3
Benzene
IS
IS
R
R
IS
S
I
IS
IS
—
I,E
IS
—
—
IS*
IS
IS
IS
IS
S
IS
IS
IS
—
IS
IS
—
IS
IS
IS
R
IS
IS
IS
IS
Toluene
S
IS
I
I
S
IS
—
S
IS
—
S
S
I
I
—
IS
S
S
S
15
S
S
S
—
S
S
I
IS
S
IS
I
—
S
S
S
Ethylbz
IS
IS
I
I
IS
IS
—
IS
IS
—
IS
IS
—
—
—
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
—
IS
IS
—
IS
IS
IS
I
—
IS
IS
IS
Chlorobz
_
I
B
B
—
B
I
—
S
—
u
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
—
—
—
S
—
—
—
1,2 di-
chlorobz
__
I
P
B
—
B
I
—
IS
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
—
—
—
IS
—
—
—
AHDMMICS
1,3 di-
chlorobz
__
I
B
B
—
B
I
—
IS
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
—
—
—
IS
—
—
—
1,4 di-
chlorobz
__
I
B
P
—
B
I
—
IS
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
—
—
—
IS
—
—
—
Haca-
chlorobz
_
I
B
B
—
B
I
—
IS
U
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
u
—
—
—
—
—
_
__
IS
—
—
—
1,2,4
TCBz
__
I
B
B
—
B
I
—
IS
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
—
— .
_
IS
—
_
—
Footnotes at end of table
V-14
-------
Table V-2. \blatile Aronatics Likely to be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 3 of 4)
AROMMICS, CHLORINATED
Pesticide
Produced
T3
U3
V3
W3
X3
Y3
Z3
AA
B4
C4
D4
E4
F4
G4
H4
14
J4
K4
LA
M4
N4
04
P4
Q4
R4
S4
T4
U4
V4
W4
X4
Y4
Z4
Benzene
IS
IS
S
S.IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
I
—
I
I
I
IS
S
S
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
—
IS
Tbluene
S
S
IS
S,IS
S
S
S
IS
S
S
IS
IS
I
—
I
—
—
S
IS
IS
S
S
S
S
S
S
IS
S
IS
S
S
—
S
Ethylbz
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
I
—
R
—
—
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
—
IS
Chlorobz
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
—
—
I
I
I
I
B
R
R
—
—
—
S
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
u
"*•
1,2 di-
chlorobz
.__
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
—
—
—
—
I
I
—
I
I
—
—
—
IS
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
~~
ARDMfflCS
1,3 di-
chlorobz
-
—
—
—
—
— •
—
I
—
—
—
—
I
I
—
I
I
—
—
—
IS
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,4 di-
chlorobz
^_
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
—
—
—
—
I
I
—
I
I
—
—
—
IS
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
•^
ftaca- 1,2,4
chlorobz TCBz
— -.
— —
— —
— —
— —
_ -_
— —
— I
_ __
— —
— —
— —
B I
B I
— —
_ui[_ •»•
— I
— —
— —
— —
— IS
— —
— —
— —
— —
— — -
— —
_ _
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
Footnotes at end of table
V-15
-------
Table V-2. Volatile Arcmatics Likely to be Present in Pesticide Process Vfastewaters
(Continued, Page 4 of 4)
AROMfflCS t CHLORINATED AHDMfflCS
Pesticide
Produced Benzene Tbluane Ethylbz Chlorobz
A5 IS S IS —
B5 IS S IS —
C5 S IS IS —
D5 — — — I
E5 S IS IS —
F5 IS S IS —
G5 IS S IS —
H5 IS S IS —
15 IS S IS —
J5 I — — —
K5 IS S IS —
L5 IS IS IS IS
M5 IS S IS —
N5 IS S IS —
05 IS S IS —
P5 R I I B
Q5 IS IS IS —
* = Ethanol denatured with benzene.
T " Alpha, beta, and delta isomers.
R = Raw material .
I « Raw material impurity.
S = Solvent.
IS = Solvent impurity.
ST = Organic stripper solvent.
1ST = Stripper impurity.
B = Reaction byproduct.
1,2 di- 1,3 di- 1,4 di- Ifexa-
chlorobz chlorobz chlorobz chlorobz
_ __ __ _
— — — —
— — — —
I I I I
— — — —
— — — —
— — — —
— — — —
— — — —
— U — —
— — — —
IS IS IS —
— — — —
— — — —
— — — —
B B B B
«• «^» <^HM
Ethybz = Ethylbenzene.
Chlorobz = Chlorobenzene.
TCBz = Trichlorobenzene.
1,2,4
TCBz
...
—
—
I
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
IS
—
—
—
B
-••»
U = Unknown — pollutant reported by plant, source not determined.
— = Not likely to be present.
P = Final product .
V-16
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
AROMATICS. CHLORINATED AROMATICS
BENZENE
Plant/
Pesticide Produced Subcategory
ND
*
T
a
(n)
04
G2
S4
M2
N2
13
VI
M2
N2
14
J4
H2
Wl
Tl
VI
M2
N2
P5
F3
J5
C3
D4
E4
F4
B2
L2
P3
B2
B2
1/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
10/02
11/02
12/02
13/02
14/02
15/02
16/02
17/02
18/02
1/04
1/05
1/08
2/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
Cone.
mg/1
NOT
NOT
0.073
0.0877T
0.0877t
<0.10T
0.220T
0.220t
0.220T
0.2201
0.220T
0.580*
2.68t
3.00
52*
52*
52*
52*
180,000
30
0.580*
0.07
0.07
0.0051
<0.010*
<0.01*
<0.10t
0.220t
<0.30°
(n)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(16)
(16)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(22)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.0315
0.0315
0.012
0.0391
0.0391
2.3
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
1.8
1.241
0.00156
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.000276
1.5
1.8
0.7224
0.7224
0.009
0.1027
1.22
2.3
28.2
0.084
= Not detected.
= Data from
» Data from
• Analysis
a Number of
com ing led pesticide streams.
comingled pesticide/other
not conducted per protocol
data points.
product
•
streams.
V-17
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 2 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
BENZENE
Pesticide Produced
R2
L2
K2
Q4
Plant/
Subcategory
7/09
8/09
9/09
1/10
Cone.
mg/1
0.580*
0.767
2.68T
2.68T
(n)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
1.8
0.0717
1.241
1.241
* • Data from com ing led pesticide streams.
t * Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) =• Number of data points.
V-18
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 3 of 11)
AROMATICS. CHLORINATED AROMATICS
TOLUENE
Pesticide Produced
NA
ND
*
t
(E)
(n)
04
Rl
T4
84
G2
H2
H2
13
U2
VI
M2
N2
13
V2
Wl
LI
F3
C3
02
D4
E4
L2
F4
L2
B2
R2
R2
B2
K2
= Not available.
» Not detected.
= Data from com ing led
=" Data from com ing led
a Estimate.
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
10/02
11/02
12/02
13/02
14/02
15/02
1/05
2/05
1/08
2/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
7/09
8/09
Cone.
mg/1
0.137T
<69.3
Trace
0.030
0.137t
0.180*
0.21*
1.40t
1.49
5.40T
5.40t
5.40t
7.42T
11.7
15. 3t
350
294,000
0.180*
20 , 000
0.10*
0.10*
ND
<0.0050
<0.01*
0.016*
0.180*
0.21*
5.40t
15. 3t
(n)
(1)
(5)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(10)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(E)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.030
0.0665
NA
0.012
0.030
1.8
1.8
2.3
0.130
28.2
28.2
28.2
2.3
0.161
1.241
0.000054
0.000276
1.8
0.00118
0.7224
0.7224
0.3283
0.009
1.22
0.1027
1.8
1.8
28.2
1.241
pesticide streams.
pesticide/ other
product streams.
a Number of data points.
V-19
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 4 of 11)
AROMATICS. CHLORINATED AROMATICS
TOLUENE
Pesticide Produced
B2
Z4
F5
SI
B2
B2
B2
Gl
U4
A5
Gl
U4
A5
Q4
Plant/
Subcategory
9/09
10/09
11/09
12/09
13/09
14/09
15/09
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
6/10
7/10
Cone.
mg/1
28.5*
28.5*
28.5*
370*
528
686
1,570
2.69*
2.69*
2.69*
5.80*
5.80*
5.80*
15. 3t
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(20)
(3)
(30)
(28)
(540)
(540)
(540)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.021
0.101
0.101
0.101
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.241
* • Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t * Data from com ingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) • Number of data points.
V-20
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 5 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
ETHYLBENZENE
Pesticide Produced
04
S4
13
G2
13
VI
M2
N2
C3
E4
R2
F4
L5
B2
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
1/05
1/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
Cone.
mg/1
0.338T
<0 . 005
0.2031
0.338t
l.OOt
7.90t
7.90t
7.90T
ND*
<0.01
ND*
ND
<0.01*
7.90t
(n)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.030
0.012
2.3
0.030
2.3
28.2
28.2
28.2
1.8
6,050 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1.8
0.009
1.22
28.2
ND » Not detected.
* a Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t * Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) m Number of data points.
V-21
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 6 of 11)
AROMATICS. CHLORINATED AROMATICS
CHLOROBENZENE
Pesticide Produced
ND
NA
*
T
o
(n)
D5
14
J4
M2
N2
VI
14
M2
N2
J4
VI
M2
N2
P5
D4
E4
F4
L2
B2
P3
L2
P3
F2
El
- Not detected.
= Not available.
» Data from com ing led
= Data from con ing led
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
10/02
11/02
12/02
13/02
14/02
1/08
2/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
7/09
1/10
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
<0.005*
<0.005*
0.195T
0.195T
3.0T
3.0t
3.0t
3.0t
3.0T
135*
135*
135*
135*
0.30*
0.30*
<0.01
<0.01
3.0t
3.77t
6.31
s.oot
979
ND
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(16)
(16)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
0.00002
0.00002
0.0391
0.0391
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.094
NA
NA
0.0033
1.22
28.2
2.3
0.0717
2.3
0.0163
NA
pesticide streams.
pesticide/other
product
streams.
• Analysis not conducted per protocol.
= Number of data points.
V-22
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 7 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
Pesticide
NA
ND
*
t
(n)
VI
M2
M2
N2
14
J4
VI
M2
N2
P5
B2
L2
B2
F4
- Not
» Not
* Data
= Data
Plant/
Produced Subcategory
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
10/02
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
available.
detected .
Cone.
mg/1
0.023T
0.023t
0.023T
0.023T
0.023T
0.023t
127*
127*
127*
127*
ND
NDt
0.023*
<0.113
(n)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.094
NA
2.3
28.2
0.0033
from com ing led pesticide streams.
from comingled pesticide/other
product
streams.
= Number of data points.
V-23
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 8 of 11)
AROMATICS. CHLORINATED AROMATICS
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
Pesticide Produced
VI
M2
N2
14
J4
VI
M2
N2
P5
B2
F4
L2
B2
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
Cone .
mg/1
0.410T
0.410t
0.410t
0.410T
0.410t
127*
127*
127*
127*
ND
ND
<0.120
0.410*
(n)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.094
NA
NA
2.3
28.2
NA - Not available.
ND - Not detected.
* » Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t * Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) » Number of data points.
V-24
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 9 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
Pesticide Produced
NA
ND
*
t
(n)
Gl
VI
M2
N2
14
J4
VI
M2
N2
P5
B2
P3
F4
B2
• Not available.
= Not detected.
= Data from comingled
= Data from comingled
= Number of data point
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
Cone.
mg/1
ND
0.470T
0.470t
0.470t
0.470T
0.470T
85*
85*
85*
85*
ND
NDt
ND
0.470*
(n)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
NA
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.094
NA
2.3
NA
28.2
pesticide streams.
pesticide/other
:s .
product
streams .
V-25
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 10 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
Pesticide Produced
Gl
B2
T2
H3
P3
F4
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
Cone.
mg/1
ND
ND
ND*
ND*
NOT
<0.008
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.3
0.0033
NA - Not available.
ND - Not detected.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t a Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) • Number of data points.
V-26
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aroraatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 11 of 11)
AROMATICS. CHLORINATED AROMATICS
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
D5 1/02 ND (1) NA
VI 2/02 36* (47) 0.094
M2 3/02 36* (47) 0.094
N2 4/02 36* (47) 0.094
P5 5/02 36* (47) 0.094
P3 1/09 NDt (1) 2.3
F4 2/09 0.0296 (2) 0.0033
NA • Not available.
ND » Not detected.
* ™ Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t " Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) * Number of data points.
V-27
-------
Table V-4. Halomethanes Likely to be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
Pesticide
Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
12
J2
Methyl
chloride
1ST
B
1ST
IS
IS
R
B
—
IS
B
IS
B
IS
IS
IS
B
1ST
1ST
IS
B
R
B
IS
I
B
—
—
—
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
I
^•v
Methyl
bromide
_—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
—
^^
—
**~
—
—
—
—
—
I
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
P
Methylene
chloride
ST
B
ST
IS
IS
I
IS
B
S
B
S
B
IS.B
S
S
B
ST
ST
IS.B
B
I
—
S
I
B
—
—
IS
IS
S
IS
S
S
I
ww
HALOMETHANES
Chloro- Bromo-
fortn form
1ST
B
1ST —
IS
O ——
T *•"•
IS
B B
IS
B —
IS
n .•»— •
TO D «_
ID ) o
~~m 11
IS
IS
R •»••-
1ST
1ST
IS,B
B
I
—
IS
T •••
R — —
i
B
IS
S —
IS
IS
IS
IS
I
B
Dichloro- Chloro-
bromo- dibromo-
methane methane
••M* !_••
B B
H ••
— —
—
—
^^ -n
—
— —
ww ~—
—
••"• •• *•
—
—
—
—
— —
— —
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
»^ »VMK
Carbon
tetra-
chloride
1ST
B
1ST
S
IS
—
S
B
IS
B
IS
B
S
S
IS
B
1ST
1ST
B
B
—
—
IS
I
B
—
—
S
IS
IS
S
IS
IS
I
~~" -
Footnotes at end of table
V-28
-------
Table V-4. Halomethanes Likely to be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 2)
HALOMETHANES
Pesticide Methyl Methyl
Produced chloride bromide
K2 I —
L2 — R
M2 B —
N2 B —
02 B
P2 IS
Q2 IS
R2 R
S2 B —
T2 B
U2 IS —
V2 IS ~
W2 IS —
X2 IS
Y2 IS —
Z2 B
A3 IS
B3 IS
C3 IS
D3 B —
R = Raw material.
I = Raw material impurity.
S « Solvent.
IS • Solvent impurity.
Methylene
chloride
I
—
S
B
IS
IS
IS
I
B
B
IS
S
IS
IS
IS
S
S
IS
IS
B
Dichloro-
Chloro- Bromo- bromo-
fortn form methane
T — p— ~-»
^— T - -
IS —
H -_— -••
s
IS
IS
I
B —
TJ l_rm ••»
IS
IS —
IS
O » M.
T O — — .
lo — —""
IS —
IS
IS
IS
H — *• ^wm
Chloro- Carbon
dibromo- tetra-
methane chloride
•"• • T
— —
— IS
— B
IS
— S
— s
— "
— —
_,_„ rt
~~~ S
IS
s
— IS
_,„ s
IS
IS
~ -~ c
^M o
™^ K
ST • Organic stripper solvent.
1ST ™ Stripper impurity.
B = Reaction byproduct.
— = Not likely to be present.
P = Final product.
Methyl chloride ** (Chloromethane) .
Methyl bromide = (Bromomethane).
Methylene chloride = (Dichloromethane).
Chloroform = (Trichloromethane).
Bromoform " (Tribromomethane) .
Carbon tetrachloride • (Tetrachloride).
V-29
-------
Table V-5. Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
HALOMETHANES
METHYL CHLORIDE
Pesticide Produced
Dl
Wl
M2
V2
Z2
S2
VI
F2
B3
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01
3/01
1/02
2/02
1/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
Cone.
mg/1
ND
ND*°
<1.0*
ND
ND*e
ND
ND
ND*
ND
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA
0.008
NA
NA
0.7224
0.3283
NA
NA
NA - Not available.
ND - Not detected.
* " Data from comingled pesticide streams.
0 » Analysis not conducted per protocol.
(n) • Number of data points.
V-30
-------
Table V-5. Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 7)
HALOMETHANES
METHYL BROMIDE
Pesticide Produced
J2
J2
J2
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
3/02
Cone .
fflg/1
1.10T
53.8
2,600
(n)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
28.2
0.0086
0.0086
t • Data from comingled pesticide/other product stream.
(n) • Number of data points.
V-31
-------
Table V-5. Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 3 of 7)
HALOMETHANES
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
Plant/
Pesticide Produced Subcategory
NA
*
t
O
(E)
(n)
Cl
Kl
Ul
H2
Bl
H2
Z2
Ul
HI
SI
HI
01
B3
1/01
2/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
10/02
1/09
Cone.
fflg/1
None
12. 7'
0.010*
<0.010T
0.017*
0.0233T
0.453*
0.55*
4.17t
<75.2
76. Ot
31,000
<0.01*
(n)
(E)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(50)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
0.0451
0.00323
1.8
0.154
1.034
0.154
0.110
1.8
2.3
0.022
2.3
0.0014
NA
a Not available.
= Data from
= Data from
" Analysis
• Estimate.
= Number of
com ing led pesticide streams.
com ing led pesticide/other
not conducted per protocol,
data points.
product
t
stream.
V-32
-------
Table V-5. Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 4 of 7)
HALOMETHANES
CHLOROFORM
Pesticide Produced
Kl
V2
SI
H2
HI
H2
Ul
Z2
H2
02
02
S2
P2
B3
B3
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
1/05
2/05
1/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
Cone .
mg/1
<0.30°
0.0149
<0.029
0.0367t
O.lllt
0.170t
0.200*
<1.55*
70.0*
70.0*
3,000
0.017*
0.382*
0.623*
6.31
(n)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(10)
(10)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.00323
1.24
0.022
0.154
2.3
0.154
1.8
0.110
0.043
0.043
0.021
NA
0.1893
1.22
0.0717
NA - Not available.
* * Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t * Data from comingled pesticide/other product stream.
• Analysis not conducted per protocol.
(n) * Number of data points.
V-33
-------
Table V-5. Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 5 of 7)
HALOMETHANES
BROMOFORM
Pesticide Produced
B2
HI
HI
L2
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
1/02
2/02
1/10
Cone.
mg/1
ND
NDt
<0.010T
ND
(n)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
0.0533
2.3
2.3
1.8
ND = Not detected.
t • Data from comingled pesticide/other product stream.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-34
-------
Table V-5. Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 6 of 7)
HALOMETHANES
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MSP)
No data available.
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MSP)
No data available.
V-35
-------
Table V-5. Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 7 of 7)
HALOMETHANES
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
Pesticide Produced
ND
*
T
(n)
H2
SI
HI
H2
HI
B3
Yl
F2
B3
Dl
W2
Y2
Dl
W2
Y2
- Not detected.
« Data from com ing led
• Data from com ing led
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
6/10
pesticide stream
pesticide/ other
Cone.
mg/1
ND
<0.001
<0.010t
<0.010t
0.025T
10.5*
67.9*
67.9*
121
<0.160*
<0.160*
<0.160*
0.168*
0.168*
0.168*
•
product
(n)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(540)
(540)
(540)
stream.
Flow (MGD)
0.154
0.022
2.3
0.154
2.3
1.22
0.1893
0.1893
0.0717
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
• Number of data points.
V-36
-------
Table V-6. Cyanides Likely to be Present in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
Pesticide
Produced
R
I
B
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
« Raw material.
Raw Material
Cyanuric chloride
Cyan uric chloride
Cyanuric chloride
Methyl cyanocarbamate
Isophthalodinitrile
Cyanuric chloride
Cyan amide
Potassium cyanide
Sodium cyanide
Sodium thiocyanate
Cyanamide 50
Sodium thiocyanate
Cyanuric chloride
Cyanamide
2-Cyanopyridine
Cyanuric chloride
Cyanuric chloride
Cyanuric chloride
Benzyl cyanide
Cyanuric chloride
Cyanuric chloride
Ammonium thiocyanate
Cyanuric chloride
Cyanuric chloride
Thiazole
Potential Cyanide
Contamination
I, B
I, B
I, B
B
B
I, B
R
R
R
I, B
R
I, B
I, B
R
I, B
I, B
I, B
I, B
I, B
I, B
I, B
I, B
I, B
I, B
B
™ Raw material impurity.
» Reaction byproduct.
V-37
-------
Table V-7. Cyanides Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
CYANIDE
CYANIDE
Plant/
Pesticide Produced Subcategory
NA
ND
t
*
e
(n)
Dl
11
Cl
Rl
Tl
Cl
Rl
Tl
PI
Ql
Rl
Tl
Ul
Wl
XI
Ql
Fl
Al
Fl
1/02
1/04
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
6/10
7/10
8/10
9/10
10/10
11/10
12/10
13/10
14/10
15/10
16/10
17/10
Cone.
mg/1
NDt
1.22*
ND*
ND*
ND*
0.105*
0.105*
0.105*
1.22*
1.22*
1.22*
1.22*
1.22*
1.22*
1.22*
2.16*
3.02
5.04
5,503°
(n)
(1)
(772)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(540)
(540)
(540)
(772)
(772)
(772)
(772)
(772)
(772)
(772)
(3)
(44)
(34)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.0202
1.42
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.2412
NA
NA
0.0634
Not available.
Not detected.
Data from
Data from
Analysis
Number of
com ing led pesticide/other
product
streams.
com ing led pesticide streams.
not conducted per protocol.
data points.
V-38
-------
Table V-8. Halogenated Ethers Likely to be Present in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
Pesticide
Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
C2
D2
I * Raw material impurity.
B » Reaction byproduct.
P • Final product.
PRIORITY POLLUTANT HALOGENATED ETHERS
BCEE
B
—
—
R
B
—
—
I
I
—
—
P
—
—
—
B
I,B
B
—
—
R
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
«M
— • Not likely to be present.
CEVE
B
—
—
I,B
—
B
—
—
I
I
—
—
B
—
—
—
B
I,B
B
—
—
I,B
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
— *
BCEE
CEVE
BCIPE
BCEM
CPPE
BPPE
BCIPE BCEM CPPE BPPE
B
_— _._ "D -M
B
I,B I,B B
*_.• «_ Tl -»•
BO __ _,_
D ^^
<— — .«. Tl *M
B —
T «•• -.— -.-•
I
B
.w. » Tl •.—
B B
— — , w— t» ^^
B —
.«>• ^^ Tl "»^
B B
I,B I,B
BD _^ _—
o — • — —
^^ ^_ « ,mam
B
I,B I,B
B
B
B B B —
B —
M ^MB Tl .•.•
^•v ~~* Tl — .—
^^ ^«» Tl ••i
B
• bis(2-chloroethyl) ether.
• 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether.
™ bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether.
" bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane.
31 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether.
a 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether.
V-39
-------
Table V-9. Haloethers Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT HALOGENATED ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n)
Yl 1/01 NDt (1)
SI 1/02 ND (1)
Rl 1/04 0.582t (3)
NA - Not available.
ND » Not detected.
t • Data from com ing led pesticide/ other product streams.
(n) • Number of data points.
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n)
Yl 1/01 ND (1)
SI 1/02 ND (1)
Flow (MGD)
0.030
NA
1.49
Flow (MGD)
0.03
NA
NA » Not available.
ND = Not detected.
(n) » Number of data points.
V-40
-------
Table V-9. Haloethers Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 3)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT HALOGENATED ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
Pesticide Produced
Yl
SI
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
1/02
Cone.
mg/1
ND
ND
(n)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
0.03
NA
NA = Not available.
ND - Not detected.
(n) = Number of data points.
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
Pesticide Produced
Yl
SI
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
1/02
Cone.
mg/1
ND
ND
(n)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
0.03
NA
NA • Not available.
ND » Not detected.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-41
-------
Table V-9. Haloethers Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 3 of 3)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT HALOGENATED ETHER
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
Pesticide Produced
El
Yl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01
Cone.
mg/1
ND
ND
(n)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
0.03
NA - Not available.
ND - Not detected.
(n) * Number of data points.
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
Pesticide Produced
Plant/
Subcategory
Cone.
mg/1
(n)
Flow (MGD)
No data available.
V-42
-------
Table V-10. Phenols Likely to be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
Pesticide
Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
PHENOLIC E
P
I
—
B
B
B
—
I
I
I
—
I/B
—
I
I
I/B
—
I
I
I
I
I
I
—
—
R
B
B
I
—
I
I
—
—
I
2-CP
^ ^
—
B
—
B
B
B
I
I/B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
I
—
—
—
I/B
—
—
B
B
B
—
—
I
B
—
I
B
24-DCP
— i
R
B
—
B
—
R
R
I
R
—
R
—
—
—
—
I/B
I/B
—
—
—
R
—
'—
B
B
B
—
I
B
B
R
I
I/B
246-TCP
___ .
I
B
—
B
—
B
I
I
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
I/B
I/B
—
—
—
I
—
—
B
B
B
—
—
—
—
—
I
I/B
PCP
— —
—
—
—
B
—
—
—
B
B
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
—
P
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
«
RIORTTY POLLUTANTS
2-NP 4-NP
^» •-_
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
_ __
— —
— —
— —
— —
I —
— R
— —
— —
_ __
— —
— —
— —
— —
_B|1_ TJ
— R
I R
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— •— ••—
24-DNP 4-CMC 24-IWP
- _^ , — _
_ — —
__ _ _
— — —
— — —
— — —
__ _ _
__ _ _
— — —
— — —
__ _ _
— — —
I/R - -
— — —
— I/B I/B
-_ — —
— — —
— I I
__ _ _
— — —
— — —
— __ _
— — —
I — —
— — —
— — —
— — —
— — —
— — —
— — —
— — —
— — —
— — —
— — —
"D _• CttAlt/VI A— JTUW"1 K A_^^t1 — "< f«*n *>•*** 1*1 s-#W*tn^** >*-»•«- AStl \
2-CP - 2-Chlorophenol.
24-DCP - 2,4-Oichlorophenol.
246-TCP - 2,4,6-TrichloroFhenol.
PCP • Pentachlorophenol.
2-NP - 2-Nitrophenol.
4-NP • 4-Nitropbenol.
24-DNP - 2,4-Dinitrophenol.
24-DMP - 2,4-Dinjethylphenol.
R * Raw material.
I " Raw material impurity.
B - Reaction byproduct.
P - Final product.
— = Not likely to be present.
V-43
-------
Table V-ll. Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PHENOLIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
PHENOL
Pesticide Produced
Cl
El
Zl
A2
HI
El
Zl
A2
Yl
Gl
Gl
Gl
Gl
D2
E2
Gl
D2
E2
Gl
Tl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
7/09
8/09
9/09
10/09
11/09
Cone .
ng/1
0.27*
0.290t
0.290t
0.290T
<0.51
16.0*
47.0*
47.0*
61. 8t
0.290t
<1.82*
44.1*
<110*°
<110*°
-------
Table V-ll. Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 7)
PHENOLIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
2-CHLOROPHENOL
Pesticide Produced
El
Zl
A2
El
Zl
A2
HI
Yl
Gl
Gl
Gl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
1/09
2/09
3/09
Cone.
mg/1
0.062t
0.062T
0.062t
3.00*
<5.00*
<5.00*
30.5
<1,000
0.062!
<5.09*
11.2*
(n)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(21)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(8)
(3)
(31)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
28.2
28.2
28.2
0.065
0.00002
0.00002
0.022
0.02
28.2
0.138
0.120
* B Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t * Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams,
(n) * Number of data points.
V-45
-------
Table V-ll. Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 3 of 7)
PHENOLIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
2 ,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
Pesticide Produced
Cl
F2
El
Zl
A2
Zl
A2
Ql
Rl
El
HI
Yl
VI
Jl
VI
Gl
Gl
11
Gl
Gl
Gl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
10/02
11/02
12/02
13/02
14/02
15/02
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
Cone.
mg/1
0.042*
0.042*
0.290T
0.290T
0.290T
<5.00*
<5.00*
<7.74*
<7.74*
15.0*
118
>1,000
3,000
3,600
6,650
0.290T
9.08
36.0
53.7*
92.2*
42,000
(n)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(301)
(301)
(21)
(3)
(9)
(1)
(1)
(6)
(3)
(30)
(3)
(3)
(31)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
1.8
1.8
28.2
28.2
28.2
0.00002
0.00002
0.0960
0.0960
0.065
0.022
0.02
0.002
0.00125
0.0034
28.2
0.101
0.3283
0.120
0.138
0.015
* » Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t « Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) • Number of data points.
V-46
-------
Table V-ll. Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 4 of 7)
PHENOLIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
2 ,4 ,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
Pesticide Produced
Cl
El
Zl
A2
El
Zl
A2
Yl
HI
Gl
Gl
Gl
Gl
Gl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
Cone.
mg/1
0.022*
0.110T
O.llOt
o.not
3.00*
<5 . 00*
<5.00*
<100
481
O.llOt
<0.794
2.20*
<3.69*
8,700
(n)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(21)
(1)
(1)
(8)
(3)
(3)
(30)
(3)
(31)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
1.8
28.2
28.2
28.2
0.065
0.00002
0.00002
0.02
0.022
28.2
0.101
0.120
0.138
0.015
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t = Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-47
-------
Table V-ll. Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 5 of 7)
PHENOLIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
Pesticide Produced
El
Yl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
Cone.
mg/1
1.00*
>1 , 000
(n)
(21)
(9)
Flow (MGD)
0.065
0.02
* • Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) ™ Number of data points.
2-NITROPHENOL
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
V-48
-------
Table V-ll. Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 6 of 7)
PHENOLIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
4-NITROPHENOL
Pesticide Produced
Nl
XI
Wl
XI
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
1/08
2/08
3/08
Cone.
mg/1
0.002
174
461*
461*
(n)
(1)
(121)
(610)
(610)
Flow (MGD)
0.006
0.215
0.75
0.75
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) a Number of data points.
2 ,4-DINITROPHENOL
Pesticide Produced
Ml
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
Cone.
mg/1
7.91T
(n) Flow (MGD)
(4) 1.06
t " Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams,
(n) = Number of data points.
V-49
-------
Table V-ll. Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 7 of 7)
PHENOLIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
Pesticide Produced
No data available.
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1
(n) Flow (MGD)
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
Pesticide Produced
No data available.
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1
(n) Flow (MGD)
4 ,6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL
Pesticide Produced
No data available.
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1
(n)
Flow (MGD)
V-50
-------
Table V-12. Nitro-Substituted Aroraatics Likely to be Present in
Pesticide Process Wastewaters
NITRO-SUBSTITUTED AROMATIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Pesticide
Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
Nitro-
benzene
I.B
I
I,B
I.B
I.B
B
I,B
B
B
I.B
I.B
I.B
—
I.B
I
B
I.B
B
I.B
B
I.B
I.B
I
I.B
I.B
I
I.B
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2, 6-Dinitrotoluene
— •«• -•.-l.
B B
—
—
—
—
— — ,
—
B B
—
—
B B
—
— —
B B
B B
—
— —
—
—
— —
—
— * -.—
I - Raw material impurity.
B ™ Reaction byproduct.
— ™ Not likely to be present,
V-51
-------
Table V-13. Nitro-Substituted Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
NITRO-SUBSTITUTED AROMATIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
NITROBENZENE
Pesticide Produced
Wl
Bl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
1/10
Cone.
mg/1
<0.01
ND*
(n)
(2)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
0.012
NA
NA = Not analyzed.
ND - Not detected.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-52
-------
Table V-13. Nitro-Substituted Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
NITRO-SUBSTITUTED AROMATIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MSP)
No data available.
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (M3D)
No data available.
V-53
-------
Table V-14.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Likely to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Pesticide
Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
61
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Naphthalene
IS
I,B
IS
I,B
IS
IS
IS
B
IS
IS
IS
IS
I,B
I.B
IS
IS
IS
I
B
B
IS
I
IS
I, IS
IS
2-Chloro-
naphthalene
IS,B
—
IS.B
B
IS.B
IS.B
IS.B
B
IS.B
IS.B
—
IS.B
B
—
IS.B
IS.B
IS.B
B
B
B
IS,B
—
—
I.B
—
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
__
I
—
I
__
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
I
I
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
I
—
I
—
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
— —
I
—
I
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— •
I
I
— —
—
--
—
—
—
—
I
—
I
— —
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
—
I
—
I
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
I
I
— —
— —
—
—
—
— —
--
I
—
I
••—
Pesticide Products
Using Benzene IS
Pesticide Products
Using Toluene IS
I—See volatiles Table V-2 for specific compounds—I
I—See volatiles Table V-2 for specific compounds—I
I - Raw material impurity.
B " Reaction byproduct.
IS « Solvent impurity.
— = Not likely to be present.
V-54
-------
Table V-15. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
NAPHTHALENE
Pesticide
NA
ND
*
(n)
SI
Tl
XI
HI
Plant/ Cone.
Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n)
1/02 0.066* (3)
2/02 0.066* (3)
1/09 ND (1)
2/09 1.06* (3)
Flow (MGD)
28.2
28.2
NA
0.1893
= Not available.
™ Not detected.
B Data from com ing led pesticide streams.
= Number of data points.
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n)
NA
ND
*
(n)
XI 1/09 ND (1)
HI 2/09 <0.01* (1)
• Not available.
= Not detected.
= Data from comingled pesticide streams.
» Number of data points.
Flow (MGD)
NA
0.189
V-55
-------
Table V-15. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 2 of 4)
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
ACENAPHTHENE
Pesticide Produced
XI
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
Cone.
mg/1
ND
(n) Flow (MGD)
(1) NA
NA » Not available.
ND » Not detected.
(n) = Number of data points.
ACENAPHTHYLENE
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
V-56
-------
Table V-15. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 3 of 4)
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
ANTHRACENE
Pesticide Produced
XI
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
Cone.
mg/1
ND
(n) Flow (MGD)
(1) NA
NA - Not available.
ND « Not detected.
(n) = Number of data points.
PHENANTHRENE
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
V-57
-------
Table V-15. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 4 of 4)
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
FLUORENE
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
XI 1/09 ND (1) NA
NA = Not available.
ND » Not detected.
(n) = Number of data points.
FLUORANTHENE
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
V-58
-------
Table V-16. Metals Likely to be Present in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
Pesticide
Produced
A 1
Al
n 1
Bi
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
V 1
Kl
Ll
Ml
VI 1
Nl
01
PI
f\1
Qi
D 1
Kl
C 1
51
T 1
11
If 1
Ul
W1
PRIORITY POLLUTANT METAL
Sb As Cd Cr Cu Pb Hg Ni Zn
K.
— — — — c — — — —
— — — „ c __ __ — ._
_ — — — c __ ~ — ._
— ~ — — c — ~ ~ ~
— -_ — -_ c __ — — —
— __ _- __ c — ~ — —
***" "•*" — ™ ""** C ™™" ~— ~" "* *"—
— •« ~ ^_ g^ — .».. — -. .—
.. __ .. — — r< _. «_ f*
•~ \j "- •" \,f •••
i. __. u
__ „ — — — — -- -i. 0
All the above and other
pesticide products
C - Catalyst.
R = Raw material.
I = Impurities in raw materials or catalysts.
— = Not likely to be present.
V-59
-------
Table V-17. Metals Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT METAL
ARSENIC
Pesticide Produced
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/05
Cone.
mg/1
2.0
(n)
(12)
Flow (MGD)
0.27
COPPER
Pesticide Produced
01
Cl
Cl
Jl
Ml
Ml
Gl
Gl
Fl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
1/02
2/02
1/05
2/05
3/05
4/05
5/05
1/09
Cone.
mg/1
1.0
ND*
0.05*
ND*
4,500
5,350*
47,000
59,000
0.204
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(325)
(72)
(1)
(1)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.03
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.021
0.016
0.000946
0.001
1.24
ND • Not detected.
* * Data from comingLed pesticide streams.
(n) * Number of data points.
V-60
-------
Table V-19. Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
CHLOROSTHANE
Pesticide Produced
No data available.
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1
(n)
Flow (MGD)
.1. ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
Pesticide Produced
NA
ND
Yl
SI
SI
Zl
Cl
Bl
= Not available.
= Not detected.
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
1/09
1/10
Cone.
mg/1
ND
0.010*
0.37*
10,000
0.37*
0.010*
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
1.8
1.8
0.0002
1.8
1.8
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams,
(n) = Number of data points.
V-63
-------
Table V-19.
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 2 of 6)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Pesticide Produced
NA
ND
Cl
Ml
Bl
= Not available.
= Not detected.
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
2/09
1/10
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
ND*
ND*
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA
NA
* a Data from comingled pesticide streams,
(n) - Number of data points.
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Pesticide Produced
NA
ND
Yl
Cl
Ml
Bl
= Not available.
= Not detected .
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
1/09
2/09
1/10
Cone .
mg/1
ND
ND*
ND*
ND*
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA
NA
NA
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams,
(n) = Number of data points.
V-64
-------
Table V-19.
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 3 of 6)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
Pesticide Produced
SI
Ml
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
1/09
Cone.
mg/1
0.020*
0.020*
(n)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
1.8
1.8
* * Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
Pesticide
NA
ND
*
(n)
SI
Ml
Ml
Bl
Plant/ Cone.
Produced Subcategory rag/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
1/02 1.70* (1)
1/09 ND* (1)
2/09 1.70* (1)
1/10 1.70* (1)
1.8
NA
1.8
1.8
= Not available.
» Not detected.
= Data from comingled pesticide streams.
= Number of data points.
V-65
-------
Table V-19. Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 4 of 6)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
HEXACHLOROETHANE
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
VINYL CHLORIDE
Plant/ Cone.
Pesticide Produced Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
V-66
-------
Table V-19.
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 5 of 6)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Pesticide Produced
Ml
Cl
Bl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
2/09
1/10
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
ND*
ND*
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not available.
ND » Not detected.
* a Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) « Number of data points.
1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Pesticide Produced
No data available.
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
V-67
-------
Table V-19. Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 6 of 6)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Pesticide Produced
Yl
Ml
Bl
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1
1/02 ND*
1/09 0.052*
1/10 0.052*
(n) Flow (MGD)
(1) NA
(1) 1.8
(1) 1.8
NA • Not available.
ND • Not detected.
* " Data from com ing led pesticide streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
Pesticide Produced
Fl
Ul
Nl
Ql
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1
1/02 0.37*
2/02 <98.0
1/09 0.467*
2/09 0.467*
(n) Flow (MGD)
(1) 1.8
(6) 0.00185
(3) 0.1893
(3) 0.1893
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-68
-------
Table V-20. Nitrosamines Likely to be Present in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
Pesticide
Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
PRIORITY
N-Nitrosodi-
methylamine
B
—
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
POLLUTANT NITROSAMINE
N-Nitrosodi-
n-propylamine
B
— -
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
N-Nitrosodi-
phenylamine
—
B
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B " Reaction byproduct.
— » Not likely to be present.
V-69
-------
Table V-21. Nitrosamines Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT NITROSAMINE
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
Pesticide Produced
Kl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/08
Cone.
mg/1
0.00005
(n)
(240)
Flow (MGD)
0.352
(n) * Number of data points.
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
Pesticide Produced
Kl
Kl
Kl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/08
2/08
3/08
Cone.
rag/1
0.069
0.123
1.85
(n)
(592)
(360)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.076
0.352
0.0678
(n) * Number of data points.
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
Pesticide Produced
Plant/
Subcategory
Cone.
mg/1
(n)
Flow (MGD)
No data available.
V-70
-------
Table V-22. Phthalates Likely to be Present in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
Pesticide
Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PHTHALATE
Dimethyl
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
I,B
B
R
Diethyl
B
B
I,B
B
I,B
B
B
B
I,B
B
I,B
Di-n-butyl
B
B
I,B
B
I,B
B
B
B
I,B
B
I,B
Butylbenzyl
B
B
I,B
B
I,B
B
B
B
I,B
B
I,B
Other pesticide
products — — — —
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
*
* = Not pesticide process-related
R » Raw material.
I = Raw material impurity.
B = Reaction byproduct.
— = Not likely to be present.
V-71
-------
Table V-23. Phthalate Esters Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
Pesticide Produced
No data available.
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1
(n)
Flow (MGD)
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
Pesticide Produced
Dl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
(n) Flow (MGD)
(1) 1.8
ND a Not detected.
* « Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) • Number of data points.
V-72
-------
Table V-23. Phthalate Esters Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 2)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
Pesticide Produced
No data available.
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
Pesticide Produced
No data available.
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1 (n)
Flow (MGD)
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
Pesticide Produced
No data available.
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1 (n)
Flow (MGD)
V-73
-------
Table V-24. Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene Likely to be
Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
Pesticide
Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
PRIORITY
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
I,B
R
B
I,B
I,B
I,B
S
B
B
I
B
I.B
S
POLLUTANT
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
I
R
P
R
I,B
I.B
IS.B
B
B
I
B
R
IS,B
P = Product.
R = Raw material.
I * Raw material impurity.
S = Solvent.
IS = Solvent impurity.
B = Reaction byproduct.
V-74
-------
Table V-25. Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
Pesticide Produced
Fl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
Cone .
mg/1
ND*
(n)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA a Not available.
ND " Not detected.
* a Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
Pesticide Produced
El
Fl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
2/09
Cone .
mg/1
ND*
ND*
(n)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA
NA » Not available.
ND » Not detected.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) » Number of data points.
V-75
-------
i
I
0)
.•a
.a
w
.5
£
B
I
•H
.a
u
3
«£
.2
*»
oj
_c
M
H.
-Si
.5
.5
•£
"oi
.5
01
.-3-8
.y y
in 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
Pu pq ea oa
os oc Pu cd
03
«"
*
1 1 1 1 1 1 " 1 1 1 1
I I I « I I
I I I
I ! I
I I I
•8
8i
j S.
y *
lo
3 1^
a; : s 1, » —
.U U Q 4Z Q
*o O -H -H OS «
g 3 4-i —< -^ to
T3 U -C
2 O cO *J ^^ tL
(B U OJ O r-l I—(
06 & cS 2 -, fcj u
-l
-------
Table V-27.
Priority Pollutant Pesticides Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDE
ALDRIN
Pesticide Produced
Hi
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
Cone.
mg/1
0.012*
(n) Flow (M3D)
(3) 0.1893
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams
(n) * Number of data points.
DIELDRIN
Pesticide Produced
HI
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
Cone.
mg/1
0.382*
(n)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.1893
* * Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) " Number of data points.
ENDOSULFANS--ALL ISOMERS
Pesticide Produced
No data available.
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MSP)
V-77
-------
Table V-27. Priority Pollutant Pesticides Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 2 of 5)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDE
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
Pesticide Produced
No data available.
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1
(n)
Flow (MGD)
ENDRIN
Pesticide Produced
HI
HI
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
2/09
Cone.
mg/1
<0.510
0.518
(n)
(171)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.184
0.1893
(n) • Number of data points.
V-78
-------
Table V-27. Priority Pollutant Pesticides Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 3 of 5)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDE
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
Pesticide Produced
HI
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
(n) Flow (M3D)
(1) NA
NA
ND
*
(n)
Not analyzed.
Not detected.
Data from comingled pesticide streams,
Number of data points.
HEPTACHLOR
Pesticide Produced
11
11
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
2/09
Cone .
mg/1
0.095
0.320
(n)
(3)
(184)
Flow (MGD)
0.1893
0.184
(n) = Number of data points.
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
Pesticide Produced
NA
ND
*
(n)
11
= Not av ai 1 ab 1 e .
= Not detected.
= Data from comingled
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1
1/09 ND*
pesticide streams.
(n) Flow (MGD)
(1) NA
= Number of data points.
V-79
-------
Table V-27. Priority Pollutant Pesticides Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 4 of 5)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDE
BHCs—ALPHA, BETA, AND DELTA ISOMERS
Pesticide Produced
No data available.
Plant/ Cone.
Subcategory mg/1 (n) Flow (MgD)
4.4'-ODD
Pesticide Produced
Fl*
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
Cone.
mg/1
<1.54
(n)
(16)
Flow (M3D)
NA
NA = Not available.
* = Not presently manufactured.
(n) « Number of data points.
4.4'-DDE
Pesticide Produced
Fl*
El
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
2/09
Cone .
mg/1
7.34
174
(n)
(16)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
0.0163
NA = Not available.
* = Not presently manufactured.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-80
-------
Table V-27. Priority Pollutant Pesticides Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 5 of 5)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDE
4,4'-DDT
Pesticide Produced
Fl*
El
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
2/09
Cone.
mg/1
<0.20
135
(n)
(16)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
0.0163
NA - Not available.
* • Not presently manufactured.
(n) * Number of data points.
CHLORDANE
Pesticide
11
Plant/
Produced Subcategory
1/09
Cone .
mg/1
ND*
(n) Flow (MGD)
(1) NA
NA * Not available.
ND - Not detected.
* • Data from comingled pesticide stream.
(n) m Number of data points.
TOXAPHENE
Pesticide
LI
LI
Plant/
Produced Subcategory
1/09
2/09
Cone .
mg/1
0.065°
5.32
(n) Flow (MGD)
(4) 1.22
(3) 0.0717
88 Analysis not conducted per protocol,
(n) s Number of data points.
V-81
-------
Table V-28. Dienes Likely to be Present in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
Pesticide
Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
Hi
HCCPD
—
—
R
R
R
R
R
R
PRIORITY POLLUTANT
Hexachlorobutadiene
B
B
I,B
I.B
I.B
I,B
I,B
I,S
S = Solvent.
R * Raw material.
I = Raw material impurity.
B ™ Reaction byproduct.
— = Not likely to be present.
HCCPD = Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.
V-82
-------
Table V-29. Dienes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
Pesticide Produced
Dl
Dl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/05
2/05
Cone.
mg/1
Trace
180
(n)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
0.000946
0.001
Cl
Fl
Gl
Fl
Gl
1/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
2,500t° (2)
0.435*
0.435*
0.827*
0.827*
(50)
(50)
(3)
(3)
0.10
0.184
0.184
0.1893
0.1893
*
t
(n)
Data from comingled pesticide streams.
Data exceed published solubility of compound in water apparently
due to sampling from organic, nonaqueous streams.
Attributed to intermediate.
Number of data points.
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
Pesticide Produced
Fl
Gl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
2/09
Cone.
mg/1
0.191*
0.191*
(n)
(3)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.1893
0.1893
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) » Number of data points.
V-83
-------
Table V-30. TCDD Likely to be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
Pesticide
Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
PRIORITY POLLUTANT
Raw Material
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Phenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol
1,2,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
TCDD
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
TCDD • 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
B » Reaction byproduct.
V-84
-------
Table V-31. TCDD Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
Pesticide Produced
ND
*
(E)
(n)
Fl
Bl
Jl
Kl
Bl
Jl
Kl
» Not detected.
B Data from com ing led
«• Estimate.
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
1/09 <0.
2/09 <0.
3/09 <0.
4/09
5/09
6/09
pesticide streams
Cone.
mg/1
ND
000002*
000002*
000002*
0.022*
0.022*
0.022*
•
(n)
(E)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
0.0031
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
31 Number of data points.
V-85
-------
Table V-32. Asbestos Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT ASBESTOS
Pesticide Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01
3/01
4/01
5/01
6/01
7/01
8/01
9/01
10/01
11/01
12/01
13/01
14/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
10/02
11/02
12/02
13/02
14/02
15/02
16/02
17/02
18/02
19/02
20/02
21/02
22/02
Cone.
rag/ It
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
0.000038*
0.000038*
0.0003*
0.000824*
0.000824*
0.0027*
0.049*
0.049*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
0.000038*
0.000185*
0.0003*
0.000824*
0.0027*
0.0027*
0.0027*
0.003*
0.049*
0.049*
0.049*
0.049*
0.049*
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
0.900
8.00
8.00
0.030
8.00
8.00
NA
NA
0.187
1.739
1.739
NA
33.5
33.5
8.00
0.960
8.00
0.036
8.00
0.080
0.080
8.00
0.960
NA
0.030
0.187
1.739
NA
NA
NA
0.187
33.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
Footnotes at end of table
V-86
-------
Table V-32.
Asbestos Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 3)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT ASBESTOS
Pesticide Produced
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
12
J2
Al
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Al
Bl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Plant/
Subcategory
23/02
24/02
25/02
26/02
27/02
28/02
29/02
30/02
31/02
32/02
33/02
34/02
35/02
36/02
1/03
1/04
1/05
2/05
3/05
1/08
2/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
7/09
8/09
9/09
Cone .
ng/lt
0.049*
0.049*
0.049*
0.049*
0.049*
0.049*
0.049*
0.049*
0.3*
0.3*
0.3*
0.3*
0.3*
0.3*
0.0027*
ND*
0.000038*
0.000038*
0.000038*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
0.00093*
0.00093*
0.0027*
0.0027*
0.049*
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
33.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
NA
0.960
NA
NA
NA
0.900
8.00
0.080
0.960
0.036
0.083
1.90
1.90
NA
NA
33.5
Footnotes at end of table
V-87
-------
Table V-32.
Asbestos Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 3 of 3)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT ASBESTOS
Plant/
Pesticide Produced Subcategory
NA
ND
*
t
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
= Not available.
= Not detected.
10/09
11/09
12/09
13/09
14/09
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
6/10
7/10
8/10
9/10
10/10
11/10
Cone.
og/lT
0.049*
0.049*
0.3*
0.3*
0.3*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
0.0003*
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
33.5
33.5
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.960
0.900
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.187
= Data from comingled wastewater.
= Total calculated mass
chrysotile
fibers only.
Maximum
of all
plant averages reported.
(n)
= Number of data points
0
V-88
-------
Table V-33. Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
PESTICIDES
Plant/
Pesticide Produced Subcategory
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
Wl
XI
Yl
Al
Bl
Cl
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
1/01
2/01
3/01
4/01
5/01
6/01
7/01
8/01
9/01
10/01
11/01
12/01
13/01
14/01
15/01
16/01
17/01
18/01
19/01
20/01
21/01
22/01
23/01
24/01
25/01
26/01
27/01
28/01
29/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
Cone .
mg/1
ND*
ND
ND
None
None
None
0.003
<0.0336
1.60
3.32*
3.49
7.57
8.03°*
10.4
10.9
16.0**
41.8
160
430
477
720
747
1,090
3,000
4,320
5,995
6,478
6,800
11,200
NA
ND
0.000953
(n)
(11)
(1)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(1)
(25)
(8)
(3)
(10)
(5)
(18)
(221)
(4)
(1)
(147)
(3)
(3)
(163)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(E)
(150)
(E)
(1)
(1)
(690)
(180)
(1)
(29)
Flow (MGD)
0.405
0.000002
0.00005
0.0048
0.0048
0.0004
0.101
1.8
1.15
1.88
NA
0.0315
0.0923
1.08
1.224
0.03
0.242
0.00323
0.187
0.006
0.01
0.0451
0.0072
0.022
0.005
0.00020
0.00281
0.0034
0.005
0.012
0.000002
0.8
* = Data from com ing led pesticide streams.
= Analyzed as hydrolysis
** = Average of pilot plant
(E) = Estimate.
(n) = Number of data points.
product .
data.
V-89
-------
Table V-33. Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 2 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
PESTICIDES
Plant/
Pesticide Produced Subcategory
*
t
(E)
(n)
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
12
J2
= Data from
=* Data from
™ Estimate.
= Number of
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
10/02
11/02
12/02
13/02
14/02
15/02
16/02
17/02
18/02
19/02
20/02
21/02
22/02
23/02
24/02
25/02
26/02
27/02
28/02
29/02
30/02
31/02
32/02
33/02
34/02
35/02
36/02
Cone.
mg/1
<0.019
<0.0817
<0.0918
<0.159
0.175
<0.189
0.207
0.240
0.439
0.470T
0.527
0.58T
0.615
0.70
<0.850
1.08
l.lOt
1.54
2.00
2.5
3. Of
4.26
6.30
7.75
9.0
13.2
14.4
15.0
17.0
19.9
25.8*
29.1
30.3
(n)
(10)
(105)
(33)
(7)
(2)
(18)
(2)
(4)
(20)
(3)
(8)
(4)
(3)
(11)
(59)
(1)
(3)
(6)
(E)
(9)
(3)
(365)
(173)
(1)
(22)
(365)
(89)
(2)
(449)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(30)
Flow (MGD)
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.00854
1.8
2.3
28.2
1.8
28.2
0.130
0.09425
1.241
3.6
1.8
0.144
28.2
3.6
0.161
3.6
28.2
1.034
0.104
0.0202
0.00156
1.034
1.034
0.012
0.135
2.3
0.0749
0.144
0.0792
coming led pesticide streams.
comingled pesticide/other
data points.
product
streams .
V-90
-------
Table V-33. Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 3 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
PESTICIDES
Pesticide Produced
NA
*
TT
(E)
(n)
K2
L2
M2
N2
02
P2
Q2
R2
S2
T2
U2
V2
W2
X2
Y2
Z2
A3
B3
C3
D3
E3
F3
G3
H3
13
J3
K3
L3
M3
N3
03
P3
Q3
R3
S3
= Not available.
= Data from comingled
= Values reported are
= Estimate.
Plant/
Sub category
37/02
38/02
39/02
40/02
41/02
42/02
43/02
44/02
45/02
46/02
47/02
48/02
49/02
50/02
51/02
52/02
53/02
54/02
55/02
56/02
57/02
58/02
59/02
60/02
61/02
62/02
63/02
64/02
65/02
66/02
67/02
68/02
69/02
70/02
71/02
pesticide streams.
after pretreatment
Cone.
mg/1
36*
45.9
53.8
71. ITT
85*
93.1
104
127*
135*
136
<152tt
174
212
218
260
300
320
335
600
863*
863*
863*
863*
863*
973
1,100
1,290
1,630
1,778
2,600
3,^60
3,586
4,580
5,500*
5,500*
•
(n)
(47)
(3)
(2)
(125)
(111)
(11)
(570)
(111)
(111)
(30)
(150)
(173)
(1)
(5)
(2)
(1)
(13)
(3)
(E)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(30)
(474)
(12)
(180)
(5)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(210)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
0.094
1.241
0.0086
0.08026
0.094
0.08026
0.0634
0.094
0.094
0.2088
0.08026
0.104
0.145
0.0315
0.022
0.30
0.208
0.154
4,140 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.792
0.1633
0.163
0.012
NA
0.0086
0.0181
0.00125
0.008
0.00002
0.00002
= Number of data points.
V-91
-------
Table V-33.
Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 4 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
PESTICIDES
Plant/
Pesticide Produced Subcategory
*
o
(E)
(n)
Al
Bl
Cl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
= Data from
= Analysis
= Estimate.
= Number of
1/03
2/03
3/03
1/04
2/04
3/04
4/04
1/05
2/05
3/05
4/05
5/05
1/08
2/08
3/08
4/08
5/08
6/08
7/08
1/09 0
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
7/09
8/09
9/09
10/09
11/09
com ing led pesticide streams
not conducted per protocol.
data points.
«.
Cone.
mg/1
6.9
6.9
481
12.2
<23.5
60.0
<1,418
Trace
<0.820
25.8*
25.8*
863*
12.2*
12.2*
14.8
26.8
27
184
5,950
.00846
<0.010
0.065*
0.095
0.2
0.320
0.457
<0.510
0.518
<0.753
1.48
•
*
(n)
(13)
(E)
(E)
(7)
(72)
(1)
(4)
(1)
(23)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(606)
(606)
(3)
(14)
(85)
(26)
(690)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(3)
(4)
(184)
(2)
(171)
(3)
(120)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
3.6
3.6
9,150 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1.23
1.42
1.5
0.10
0.000946
1.8
0.0749
0.0749
0.144
0.75
0.75
0.0678
0.06
0.05
0.081
0.010
1.241
0.1027
1.224
0.1893
28.2
0.184
0.0033
0.184
0.1893
1.8
2.3
V-92
-------
Table V-33. Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 5 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
PESTICIDES
Pesticide Produced
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
Plant/
""Subcategory
12/09
13/09
14/09
15/09
16/09
17/09
18/09
19/09
20/09
21/09
22/09
23/09
24/09
25/09
26/09
27/09
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
6/10
7/10
8/10
9/10
10/10
11/10
12/10
13/10
14/10
15/10
16/10
17/10
18/10
Cone.
mg/1
<2.00
<3.02
5.32
15.5
17.2
32.3
49.7
66.5
82.5
83.0
190
228
326
330
535
9,300
<0.01
<3.58
<4.93
<6.32
<6.64
<7.67
<8.51
<15.8
<17.7
18.1
40.7
45.7*
45.7*
45.7*
83.4
133*
133*
133*
(n)
(1)
(75)
(3)
(25)
(17)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(28)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(30)
(3)
(26)
(80)
(49)
(28)
(22)
(9)
(41)
(28)
(87)
(4)
(154)
(540)
(540)
(540)
(3)
(270)
(270)
(270)
Flow (MGD)
2.3
1.8
0.0717
505 gal/
1,000 Ibs
117 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.138
0.120
0.0163
0.0163
0.042
0.3283
0.101
0.015
1.8
1.8
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.224
1.01
2.5
2.5
2.5
0.0634
1.3
1.3
1.3
* s Data from comingled pesticide streams
(n) ™ Number of data points.
V-93
-------
Table V-33. Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 6 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
COD
Pesticide Produced
NA
*
T
**
(E)
(n)
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
= Not available.
= Data from com ing led
= Data from comingled
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01
3/01
4/01
5/01
6/01
7/01
8/01
9/01
10/01
11/01
12/01
13/01
14/01
15/01
16/01
17/01
18/01
19/01
20/01
21/01
22/01 1,
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
Cone.
mg/1
<100.0t**
431*
895*
2,750t
2,750t
2,830t
2,830t
4.500T**
4, 750*
5,800
7,070*
8,120
14,400
17,000*
17,000*
17,000*
18,900*
22,650
23,900
150,000t
iso.ooot
220,000
14.0*
14.0*
360
431*
711*
711*
(n)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(5)
(8)
(59)
(E)
(1)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(12)
(1)
(E)
(1)
(1)
(E)
(1)
(1)
(449)
(3)
(E)
(E)
Flow (MGD)
NA
0.110
1.22
1.88
1.88
2.01
2.01
NA
0.0315
0.106
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,200 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.0013
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.105
0.0034
774 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.018
0.018
156 gal/
1,000 Ibs
NA
NA
0.135
0.110
8,000 gal/
1,000 Ibs
8,000 gal/
1,000 Ibs
pesticide streams.
pesticide/other
product streams.
= Pilot plant data average.
= Estimate.
= Number of data points.
V-94
-------
Table V-33. Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 7 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
COD
Pesticide Produced
NA
*
t
(E)
(n)
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
= Not available.
= Data from coining led
= Data from comingled
= Estimate .
Plant/
Subcategory
7/02
8/02
9/02
10/02
11/02
12/02
13/02
14/02
15/02
16/02
17/02
18/02
19/02
20/02
21/02
22/02
23/02
24/02
25/02
26/02
27/02
28/02
29/02
30/02
31/02
32/02
33/02
34/02
pesticide streams
pesticide/ other
Cone .
mg/1
711*
1,318*
1,318*
1,320*
l,660t
l,660t
l,660t
1,710
2,190t
2,450
3,340*
3,710
4,750*
4,900
5,250
5,250
5,700
5,870t
5,870t
7,070*
7,070*
7,070*
7,070*
14,000
16,000
16,800
28, 000 t
40 , 000
•
product
(n)
(E)
(365)
(365)
(365)
(3)
(3)
(3)
NA
(421)
(1)
(3)
(30)
(5)
(1)
(1)
(73)
NA
(3)
(3)
(59)
(59)
(59)
(59)
(3)
(E)
NA
(3)
(1)
streams .
Flow (MGD)
8,000 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1.034
1.034
1.034
2.3
2.3
2.3
0.2088
0.124
0.018
0.1027
0.792
0.0315
0.010
0.09
0.1633
0.0792
1.241
1.241
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.048
1,200 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.0634
0.0181
0.30
= Number of data points.
V-95
-------
Table V-33. Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 8 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
COD
Pesticide Produced
NA
*
t
(E)
(n)
12
J2
K2
L2
Al
Al
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
= Not available.
= Data from com ing led
= Data from com ing led
= Estimate.
Plant/
Subcategory
35/02
36/02
37/02
38/02
1/03
1/04
1/05
1/08
2/08
3/08
4/08
5/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
7/09
8/09
9/09
10/09
11/09
12/09
Cone.
mg/1
75,500t
150,000t
150,000t
195,000
1,570
17,000*
7,070*
436*
436*
5,109
9,740
150.000T
594
674*
674*
1,610
l,660t
3,340*
3,340*
5,870t
7,070*
7,070*
18,900*
148,000
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(59)
(606)
(606)
(3)
(375)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(59)
(59)
(12)
(6)
Flow (MGD)
0.0202
0.018
0.018
4,718 gal/
1,000 Ibs
9,150 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.02
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.7224
0.7224
0.0678
0.213
0.018
0.0717
0.1893
0.1893
0.0033
2.3
0.1027
0.1027
1.241
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.105
117 gal
1,000 Ibs
pesticide streams.
pesticide/ other
product
streams .
= Number of data points.
V-96
-------
Table V-33. Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 9 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
COD
Pesticide Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Plant/
Subcategory
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
6/10
7/10
8/10
9/10
Cone.
mg/1
353*
353*
353*
468*
468*
468*
895*
5.870T
17,444
(n)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(540)
(540)
(540)
(3)
(3)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.22
1.241
0.0634
* m Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t * Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) « Number of data points.
V-97
-------
Table V-33. Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 10 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
TOG
Pesticide Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Al
Bl
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01
3/01
4/01
5/01
6/01
7/01
8/01
9/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
1/04
2/04
1/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
7/09
8/09
Cone.
mg/1
900 T
900 1
1,650*
4,420t
4.420T
5,850*
ll,400t
50, 000 t
50, 000 t
122*
1,650*
l,810t
1,810T
3,230
19,500t
28, 500 T
50, 000 t
50,OOOT
122*
523*
50, 000 t
53.2
341*
341*
441
1.810T
2,660*
5,850*
79,800
(n)
(1)
(1)
(5)
(3)
(3)
(12)
(19)
(1)
(1)
(47)
(5)
(3)
(3)
(503)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(47)
(469)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(12)
(6)
Flow (MGD)
2.01
2.01
0.0315
1.88
1.88
0.105
0.01
0.018
0.018
0.551
0.0315
1.241
1.241
0.1633
0.0202
0.0181
0.018
0.018
0.551
0.15
0.018
0.0717
0.1893
0.1893
0.0033
1.241
0.243
0.105
117 gal/
1,000 Ibs
* = Data from cotningled pesticide streams.
t = Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-98
-------
Table V-33. Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 11 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
TOG
Pesticide Produced
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
6/10
7/10
Cone.
mg/1
178*
178*
178*
585*
585*
585*
l,810t
(n)
(540)
(540)
(540)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.241
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t * Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) * Number of data points.
TOD
Pesticide Produced
No data available.
Plant/ Cone,
Subcategory mg/1
(n)
Flow (MGD)
V-99
-------
able V-34. Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
BOD
'esticide Produced
NA
it
t
**
(E)
(n)
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
= Not available.
= Data from com ing led
= Data from comingled
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01
3/01
4/01
5/01
6/01
7/01
8/01
9/01
10/01
11/01
12/01
13/01
14/01
15/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
10/02
11/02
12/02
13/02
Cone.
mg/1
<103
103*
120t
137*
572
791 T
791 1
2,OOOT**
2,260*
2,450
3,490
6,600*
16,000
60, 000 t
60, 000 t
103*
120t
120t
120T
120t
120T
120t
120t
179*
355*
355*
355*
610t
(n)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(8)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(14)
(E)
(1)
(12)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(41)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(4)
Flow (MGD)
0.00323
0.110
28.2
1.22
0.106
1.88
1.88
NA
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,200 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.0034
0.105
0.0013
0.018
0.018
0.110
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
0.551
8,000 gal/
1,000 Ibs
8,000 gal/
1,000 Ibs
8,000 gal/
1,000 Ibs
2.3
pesticide streams.
pesticide/ other
product streams.
= Pilot plant data average.
= Estimate.
= Number of data points.
V-100
-------
Table V-34. Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 2 of 7)
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
BOD
Pesticide Produced
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
12
Al
* = Data from com ing led
t = Data from comingled
tt * Values reported are
(E) = Estimate.
Plant/
Subcategory
14/02
15/02
16/02
17/02
18/02
19/02
20/02
21/02
22/02
23/02
24/02
25/02
26/02
27/02
28/02
29/02
30/02
31/02
32/02
33/02
34/02
35/02
1/03
Cone.
mg/1
610t
610t
630*
630*
630*
1,000
1.940T
1.940T
2,000
2,260*
2,260*
2,260*
2,260*
3.330T
3,500
4,840t
5,680*tt
7,200
8,500
19,600t
60, 000 t
60, 000 t
703
(n)
(4)
(4)
(202)
(202)
(202)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(14)
(14)
(14)
(14)
(2)
(1)
(E)
(3)
(3)
(E)
(E)
(1)
(1)
(E)
Flow (MGD)
2.3
2.3
1.034
1.034
1.034
0.018
1.241
1.241
0.010
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.0181
0.30
4,140 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.1027
0.048
1,200 gal/
1,000 Ibs
4,140 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.018
0.018
9,150 gal/
1,000 Ibs
pesticide streams.
pesticide/ other
product streams.
after pretreatment .
(n) = Number of data points.
V-101
-------
Table V-34. Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 3 of 7)
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
BOD
Pesticide Produced
ND
*
t
(n)
Al
Bl
Al
Al
Bl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
- Not detected.
™ Data from com ing led
* Data from com ing led
Plant/
Subcategory
1/04
2/04
1/05
1/08
2/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
7/09
8/09
9/09
10/09
11/09
12/09
13/09
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
6/10
7/10
8/10
9/10
Cone.
mg/1
179*
2,082t
2,260*
4,320
60, 000 t
58.2
120t
331*
331*
610t
l,940t
l,940t
2,260*
2,260*
5,680*
5,680*
6,600*
45,200
ND*
ND*
ND*
137*
300
1,940T
2,082t
2,082t
2,082t
(n)
(41)
(756)
(14)
(85)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(3)
(3)
(14)
(14)
(3)
(3)
(12)
(6)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(756)
(756)
(756)
Flow (MGD)
0.551
1.42
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.213
0.018
0.0717
28.2
0.1893
0.1893
2.3
0.084
1.241
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.1027
0.1027
0.105
117 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.22
0.0634
1.241
1.42
1.42
1.42
pesticide streams.
pesticide/ other
product
streams .
™ Number of data points.
V-102
-------
Table V-34. Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 4 of 7)
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
BOD
Plant/
Pesticide Produced Subcategory
T
(n)
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
9 Data from
= Number of
10/10
11/10
12/10
13/10
cotningled pesticide/other
data points.
Cone.
mg/1
2,082t
2.082T
2,082t
2,082t
product
(n)
(756)
(756)
(756)
(756)
streams.
Flow (MGD)
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
V-103
-------
Table V-34. Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 5 of 7)
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
TSS
Pesticide Produced
NA
*
T
Tt
(E)
(n)
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
= Not available.
= Data from com ing led
= Data from com ing led
= Values reported are
= Estimate.
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01
3/01
4/01
5/01
6/01
7/01
8/01
9/01
10/01
11/01
12/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
10/02
11/02
12/02
13/02
14/02
15/02
16/02
17/02
18/02
Cone.
mg/1
59. Ot
69.0*
87.7
110
143t
143 T
181
246*
340 1
340 1
350
750
2.00*
2.00*
3.00T
3.00t
3.00t
32.8*
32.8*
32.8*
37.3
68.6*
56.6*tT
59. Ot
59. Ot
59. Ot
59. Ot
59. Ot
59. Ot
59. Ot
(n)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(146)
(3)
(3)
(E)
(37)
(1)
(1)
(8)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(365)
(365)
(365)
NA
(5)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
28.2
0.110
0.00323
0.242
1.88
1.88
1,200 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
2.01
2.01
0.106
0.0034
NA
NA
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.034
1.034
1.034
0.2088
0.0315
0.1027
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
pesticide streams.
pesticide/ other
product streams.
after pretreatment .
= Number of data points.
V-104
-------
Table V-34. Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 6 of 7)
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
TSS
Plant/
Pesticide Produced Subcategory
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
Al
Al
Al
Al
Bl
* = Data from
t = Data from
(E) = Estimate.
(n) = Number of
19/02
20/02
21/02
22/02
23/02
24/02
25/02
26/02
27/02
28/02
29/02
30/02
31/02
32/02
33/02
34/02
1/03
1/04
1/05
1/08
2/08
Cone.
mg/1
69.0*
78.0
100
124
246*
246*
246*
246*
269t
269T
300
3.000T
3,800*
3,800*
3,800*
4,090
1,720
375T
246*
141
360
(n)
(3)
(30)
(1)
(1)
(37)
(37)
(37)
(37)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(3)
(E)
(73)
(37)
(30)
(12)
Flow (MGD)
0.110
0.792
0.010
0.0792
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1.241
1.241
0.018
0.0202
8,000 gal/
1,000 Ibs
8,000 gal/
1,000 Ibs
8,000 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.0181
9,150 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1.42
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.352
1,510 gal/
1,000 Ibs
com ing led pesticide streams.
cotningled pesticide/other
data points.
product streams.
V-105
-------
Table V-34. Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 7 of 7)
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
TSS
Pesticide Produced
Cl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
NA = Not available.
t = Data from comingled
* = Data from comingled
Plant/
Subcategory
3/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
7/09
8/09
9/09
10/09
11/09
12/09
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
6/10
7/10
8/10
9/10
10/10
11/10
12/10
13/10
14/10
15/10
pesticide/ other
Cone.
mg/1
407
3.00t
56.6*
56.6*
59. OT
208*
208*
226
246*
246*
269T
1,460
2,720
253*
253*
253*
269t
375t
375t
375t
375T
375t
375T
375t
411*
411*
411*
474
product
(n)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
00 (3)
00 (3)
(3)
(37)
(37)
(3)
(6)
(3)
(530)
(530)
(530)
(3)
(73)
(73)
(73)
(73)
(73)
(73)
(73)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(1)
streams .
Flow (MGD)
NA
2.3
0.1027
0.1027
28.2
0.1893
0.1893
0.0033
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1,900 gal/
1,000 Ibs
1.241
117 gal/
1,000 Ibs
0.0717
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.241
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.0634
pesticide streams.
Post pretreatment
(n) = Number of data points.
V-106
-------
Table V-35. Summary of Raw Waste Load Design Levels
Pollutant Group
Design Level
(mg/D
Percent of
Detected Pesticide
Wastewaters
at Design Level*
Volatile Arotnatics
Halomethanes
Cyanides
Haloethers
Phenols
Nitro-Substituted Aromatics
Polynuclear Aromatics
Metals — Copper
— Zinc
Chlorinated Ethanes & Ethylenes
Nitrosamines
Phthalates
Dichloropropane & Dichloropropene
Pesticides
Dienes
TCDD
Miscellaneous
PCBs
Benzidine
BOD
COD
TSS
N/A = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected.
* = Remainder of detected oestic
127-293,000
122-2,600
5,503
0.582
100-42,000
ND
1.06-1.2
4,500
247
98-10,000
1.96
ND
ND
10-11,200
2,500-15,000
0.022
N/A
N/A
N/A
l,470t
3,886t
266t
: ide wastewaters are
24
23
6.0
17
45
100
25
17
100
18
100
100
100
45
50
100
N/A
N/A
N/A
33
45
14
below design
level.
Prior to biological oxidation.
V-107
-------
Table V-36. Plants Manufacturing Pesticides With No Process Wastewater
Discharge*
Plant
Code
Pesticide
Comment
2
3
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
2,4-D dimethyl amine salt
2,4-D isooctyl ester
Silvex dimethyl amine salt
Silvex isooctyl ester
Pyrethrins
Ethoprop
Merphos
Amobam
Fluoroacetamide
Sodium monofluoroacetate
Metasol J-26
Chloropicrin
Dichloroethyl ether
HPMTS
Vancide 51Z
Vancide 51Z dispersion
Vancide TH
Ziram
Glyodin
Dichlorophen salts
D-D
Dichloropropene
D-D
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
Wastewater Evaporated
Wastewater Evaporated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
Recycle/Reuse
Wastewater Evaporated
Wastewater Evaporated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
Recycle/Reuse
Footnotes at end of table
V-108
-------
Table V-36. Plants Manufacturing Pesticides With No Process Wastewater
Discharge* (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Plant
Code
Pesticide
Comment
13
14
15
16
17
18
Barban
Alkylamine hydrochloride
BBTAC
Tributyltin benzoate
Chloropicrin
Chloropicrin
Dowicil 75
D-D
Dichloropropene
Biphenyl
Tributyltin oxide
Wastewater Evaporated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
Recycle/Reuse
Recycle/Reuse
Wastewater Evaporated
No Wastewater Generated
No Wastewater Generated
Wastewater Incinerated
No Wastewater Generated
* * "No process wastewater discharge" can be accomplished via recycle/reuse,
evaporation, incineration, or if no wastewater is generated.
V-109
-------
100000
10000
I
1000
100-
10-
1.0
••100000
••10000
1000
• 100
.10
-4—J-
1.0
0.1 04 1 2 8 10 » 10 40 SO 60 70 80 90 95 98 9B 98.8 99.9 99.99
SPROBABHJTY OF FLOW RATIO BEING £ GIVEN VALUE (QAL/1000lt»)
FIGURE V-1
PROBABILITY PLOT OF PESTICIDE
PRODUCT FLOW RATIOS
V-110
-------
CO
I
I
Q
O
GC
GL
LLI
Q
o
LLI
Q.
O
CL
o
OC
Q.
CM
LLJ
OC
O
( QOW ) MOId
V-lll
-------
SECTION VI
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
This section identifies potential in-plant and end-of-pipe control and
treatment technologies for the removal of conventional, nonconventional,
and priority pollutants. The effectiveness of potential technologies is
evaluated, and recommended unit treatments are specified. Design
criteria and flow diagrams for the recommended unit treatments are
presented.
The specific technologies recommended herein represent only one of
several methods for the effective removal of the pollutants under
consideration. Wastewater monitoring and treatability studies should be
conducted for a particular facility in order to determine the most
cost-effective employment and design of available technologies. The
systems designed and costed for this study were derived from comparisons
with full-scale treatment units in the industry. The installation of
similarly designed and properly operated systems is expected to result
in the attainment of equivalent effluent levels.
IN-PLANT CONTROL
The first and most cost-effective step which can be taken to reduce
wastewater pollutants is to treat them at the source. The following
discussion addresses techniques which have general application through-
out the industry.
Waste segregation is an important step in waste reduction. As demon-
strated by plants such as Plants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and others, process
wastewaters containing specific priority pollutants can often be
isolated and disposed or treated separately in a more technically
efficient and economical manner than in combined flows. Highly acidic
and caustic wastewater is usually more effectively adjusted for pH prior
to being mixed with other wastes. Separate equalization for streams of
highly variable characteristics is utilized by more than 41 plants to
improve overall treatment efficiency.
Water reduction can be achieved by replacing steam jet eductors and
barometric condensers with vacuum pumps and surface condensers such as
has been accomplished by Plant 6. Reuse or recycle can be applied to
reactor and floor washwater, surface runoff, scrubber effluents, and
vacuum seal water as demonstrated by Plant 7. Reboilers can be used
instead of live steam.
A good housekeeping and wastewater monitoring program can effect
considerable reductions. Flow measuring devices and pH sensors can be
adapted with automatic alarms such as at Plant 8 in order to detect
VI-1
-------
process upsets. Dry clean-up of spills can be used instead of washing
into floor drains as is demonstrated in the formulation and packaging
portion of the industry. Prompt repair and replacement of faulty
equipment can reduce waste losses.
Material recovery can be achieved through solvent extraction, steam
stripping, and distillation operations as reported at Plants 9 and 10.
Dilute streams can be concentrated in evaporators and then recovered as
reported by Plant 11. Water-based reactions can be conducted in
solvents assuming that subsequent recovery is practiced as reported by
Plant 12.
Specific pollutants can be reduced by requesting specification changes
from raw material suppliers in cases where impurities are present.
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
The number of plants in each treatment/disposal category is given in
Table VI-1. As shown in this table, the most frequently employed
treatment in the industry is biological oxidation, followed by activated
carbon, incineration, chemical oxidation, hydrolysis, steam stripping,
multimedia filtration, resin adsorption, and metals separation.
The volume of wastewater generated was evaluated on a plant-by-plant
basis for the industry. This was performed in order to document the
actual ranges of flows which were being treated and/or disposed by
various technologies throughout the industry. The results of this
analysis are shown for the pesticide active ingredient portion of plant
wastewater flow in Figure VI-1. Based on this figure it was concluded
that for flows less than 0.001 MGD, and for flows between 0.001 and
0.01 MGD, contract hauling and evaporation ponds, respectively, should
be provided as alternatives. At flows greater than 0.01 MGD activated
sludge and aerated lagoons become cost-effective. It should be noted
that the actual flows treated at each individual plants are almost
always larger than these shown here due to the inclusion of wastewaters
from pesticide intermediates, other chemical products, cooling waters,
and storm waters which are comingled and treated jointly along with the
pesticide active ingredient wastewaters.
The following discussion provides descriptions of these currently
operating systems, as well as systems which were considered in
developing treatment recommendations for the industry. The discussion
is in the general order of pretreatment, secondary treatment, and
tertiary treatment systems.
Steam Stripping
Stripping operations involve passing a gas or vapor through a liquid
with sufficient contact so that volatile components are transferred from
liquid to the gas phase. The driving force for such an operation is the
concentration differential between the liquid and concentrated
VI-2
-------
equilibrium point of the gas. The transferred compound may then be
recovered by condensing the stripping vapor. More complete separation
of components may be obtained through refluxing of the stripped conden-
sate. In the pesticide industry both steam and vacuum stripping have
been demonstrated to be applicable to groups of priority pollutants such
as volatile aromatics, halomethanes, and chloroethanes, as well as a
variety of nonpriority pollutant compounds such as xylene, hexane,
methanol, ethylamine, and ammonia.
Full-Scale Systems—Table VI-2 presents the design data for eight
stripping systems used in the pesticide industry. Table VI-3 provides
operating data on these same systems. As shown in Plants 2, 4, 6, and
8, the principal volatile component stripped is normally removed at
least 90 percent. Lower-level volatile impurities are often removed to
a lesser degree.
Plant 1 operates separate steam strippers for wastewater from the A, B,
C, and D pesticide processes. The B pesticide stripper is designed
primarily for the removal of methylene chloride (dichloromethane). The
stripper contains 15 feet of packing containing 1 inch polypropylene
saddles, to which is fed 8,000 pounds per hour wastewater and
1,860 pounds per hour steam. Stripped compounds are recycled to the
process with a net economic savings being realized. Table VI-3 presents
three days of verification sampling which showed that 99.9 percent of
the methylene chloride present was removed, down to less than 0.01 mg/1.
Although this analysis was not conducted per protocol, the percent
removal conformed to plant design.
The stripper used for C and D pesticide wastewater at Plant 1 is
operated for the removal of a nonpriority pollutant, xylene. The A
pesticide process utilizes a vacuum stripper for the recovery of a
nonpriority pollutant, isobutyl alcohol. No data are available to
document the removal efficiency for xylene or isobutyl alcohol in the
abovementioned systems.
Plant 2 operates a steam stripper to treat the combined wastewaters of
Pesticides E, F, G, and other nonpesticide products. As shown in
Table VI-3, the stripper removes chloroform and hexane to less than
5 mg/1 at a removal rate of greater than 92.9 percent. Forty-five
gallons per minute of wastewater is preheated before entering the
24-tray stripper comprising six theoretical units. The stripped
compounds are disposed by on-site incineration.
Plant 3 utilizes steam stripping treatment for wastewater from 10 of its
pesticide processes. Methanol, toluene, and ethylene dichloride are
stripped and recovered from wastewater when they are used in the process
or as extraction solvents. No data are available to document the
effectiveness of these individual pretreatment units since the plant
would not participate in EPA verification sampling; however, no volatile
organics have been detected over 1 mg/1 in screening sampling of the
combined raw waste load at this plant.
VI-3
-------
Plant 4 operates a steam stripper for the removal of ammonia and
ethylamine from Pesticide R process wastewater. The process water
enters the stripper at a flow of 0.072 MGD and approximately 100°C.
From verification sampling the removal rate of ammonia through the
stripper was determined to be greater than 90 percent, resulting in an
effluent ammonia level of 5.00 mg/1 as shown in Table VI-3.
Plant 5 uses steam stripping for the removal of 1,2-dichloroethane from
Pesticide S and Pesticide S intermediate process wastewaters.
1,2-Dichloroethane, a solvent used in the Pesticide S process, is
recovered and recycled to the process. No monitoring of solvent removal
is currently available.
Plant 6 operates a packed bed steam stripper for the removal of ammonia
from Pesticide T process wastewater. Pesticide T wastewater enters the
stripper at a temperature of 80°C and pH of 12 to enhance aomonia
removal. Steam is added at a rate of 1,400 pounds per hour to the
0.0326-MGD stream. EPA verification data presented in Table VI-3 show
that the ammonia removal rate is 98.8 percent, resulting in an effluent
of 98.0 mg/1. Split sample data analyses by the plant reported a
96.3 percent removal rate for ammonia. Stripper overheads, containing
ammonia and organics are incinerated on-site.
Plant 7 uses steam stripping treatment for wastewater from the U pesti-
cide process. Methylene chloride is recovered from the steam stripper
and recycled to the process. Stripped spent beer wastewater is
pretreated and discharged to a POTW. No data are available to document
the effectiveness of the steam stripper treatment system for the removal
of methylene chloride.
Plant 8 operates a vacuum stripper for treatment of wastewater from the
V, W, and X pesticide processes. The stripper was installed to
eliminate agglomeration of toluene in the treatment solvent regenerant
for the subsequent resin system. The original design was to remove
toluene, used as an extractant solvent, from approximately 600 mg/1 to
less than 10 mg/1, while at the same time reducing the temperature of
the process stream so as to improve resin adsorption effectiveness. EPA
verification sampling presented in Table VI-3 showed that the vacuum
stripper removed greater than 70.7 percent of the toluene present to
approximately 29.1 mg/1 in the stripper effluent. More recent EPA
region sampling data have indicated a removal of from 94.5 to
95.4 percent.
During 1980 an in-depth sampling and analytical program was conducted at
three plants in the Organic Chemicals Industry which utilize steam
stripping. Data from these studies are presented as follows, with
emphasis on those pollutants to be regulated in the Pesticide Industry.
Plant A conducted more than 30 days of sampling on a steam stripper
designed to remove nitrobenzene from wastewater. Data showed that
benzene, a pollutant to be regulated in the Pesticide Industry, was also
VI-4
-------
removed by an average of 98.5 percent, from an influent of <15.4 mg/1 to
an effluent of <0.230 mg/1.
Plant B conducted more than 40 days of sampling on a steam stripper
designed to remove vinyl chloride from wastewater. Operating data for
pollutants to be regulated in the Pesticide Industry were: 99.5 percent
removal of methylene chloride, from <3.02 mg/1 to <0.0141 mg/1; and
>70.3 percent removal of toluene, from 178 mg/1 to <52.8 mg/1.
Plant C conducted approximately 1 week of sampling at each of two
strippers designed to remove chloroethane. Operating data for
pollutants to be regulated in the Pesticide Industry were:
Compound
Dichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Compound
Dichloromethane
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Benzene
Toluene
Additional sampling of steam stripping treatment in the Organic
Chemicals Industry was conducted at Plant D's facility on December 14,
1979. Results for pollutants to be regulated in the Pesticide Industry
were as follows:
Stripper 1
Influent
(mg/1)
1,430
<665
<8.81
Influent
(mg/1)
4.73
<18.6
<36.2
<9.7
24.1
22.3
Effluent
(mg/1)
<0.0153
<0.0549
1.15
Stripper 2
Effluent
(mg/1)
<0.0021
<1.9
4.36
<0.030
<0.042
<0.091
Percent
Removal
>99.99
>99.99
<86.9
Percent
Removal
>99.95
89.8
<88.0
99.7
>99.8
>99.6
Compound
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
Influent
(mg/1)
34
4,509
9,030
Effluent
(mg/1)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Percent
Removal
>99.97
>99.99
>99.99
Treatability Studies—Coco, et al. (1978) evaluated the treatment
of process effluents containing chlorinated hydrocarbons and aromatic
hydrocarbons using steam stripping. This unit operation removed up to
99 percent of the chlorinated hydrocarbons (ethylene dichloride, which
was the major organic component in the process effluent was consistently
reduced from more than 1,000 mg/1 in the stripper feed to less than
1 mg/1 in the stripper bottoms) and up to 75 percent of the total
organic carbon (TOG). Steam stripping, as discussed by the authors,
VI-5
-------
offers possibilities for application to the halogenated hydrocarbon
process effluent and the aromatic rich effluent from styrene plants. On
the other hand, aromatic amines and polyols wastewater would not permit
successful steam stripping, due to the number of various organics
present.
Hwang and Fahrenthold (1980) performed treatability evaluations to
determine the extent to which organic priority pollutants can be steam
stripped. Both mixture thermodynamics and tray efficiencies were
considered in this evaluation. The results indicated that due to vola-
tility and high activity coefficients of organic priority pollutants,
steam stripping is an effective means of removing these pollutants from
wastewater. Based on a raw waste load at solubility, and a column
operating with aqueous reflux, the following effluent concentrations,
tray requirements, and column efficiencies were predicted for priority
pollutants to be regulated in the pesticide industry.
Effluent Number of Column
Concentration Actual Trays Efficiency
Compound (ppb) Required (Percent)
Carbon tetrachloride 50 4 100
Chloroform 50 6 100
Methyl chloride 50 6 100
Methylene chloride 50 6 100
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 140 20 53
Benzene 50 5 100
Chlorobenzene 50 5 100
Toluene 50 5 98
1,3-Dichloropropene 50 5 100
1,2-Dichloroethane 50 6 100
Tetrachloroethylene 50 4 99
Methyl bromide 50 3 100
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 50 4 96
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 50 4 100
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 50 4 99
ESE (1975) conducted bench and pilot scale steam stripping studies at an
ethyl benzene/styrene monomer chemicals plant. Benzene was removed from
102 mg/1 to 0.6 mg/1 at optimum conditions; a full-scale system was
designed to remove 99.4 percent of the aromatic hydrocarbons with a
2-foot diameter, 18-foot-high column with 9 feet of packing for a flow
of 30,000 gallons per day.
Chemical Oxidation
Oxidizing agents have been shown to be extremely effective for the
removal of many complex organics from wastewater, including phenols,
cyanide, selected pesticides such as ureas and uracils, COD, and organo-
metallic complexes. The most widely used oxidants in the pesticide
industry are chlorine and hydrogen peroxide.
VI-6
-------
Oxidation reactions and kinetics can be selectively controlled by
altering the pH of the wastewater. For example, under alkaline
conditions the hypochlorite ion destroys compounds such as glycols,
chloroalcohols, organic acids, and ketones (Mulligan, 1976), as well as
cyanide and organo-metallic pesticides. In using chlorine the potential
for creating chloromethanes, chloroamines, or chlorophenols should be
considered.
Hydrogen peroxide oxidizes phenol readily when the reaction is catalyzed
by ferrous sulfate; however, it has generally been not economically
practical to complete the oxidation to carbon dioxide and water (Strunk,
1979). Hydrogen peroxide can also be used to reduce odor, which may be
present due to the use of sulfur compounds.
Hydrogen peroxide oxidation removes both cyanide and metals in
cyanide-containing waters (U.S. EPA, 1980c). The cyanide is converted
to cyanate and the metals are precipitated as oxides or hydroxides. The
metals are then removed from solution by either settling or filtration.
This process can reduce total cyanide to less than 0.1 mg/1 and metals
such as zinc and cadmium to less than 1 mg/1.
Ozone has been shown (Gould, 1976) to give virtually complete removal
of phenol and 70 to 80 percent removal of COD; however, it becomes
costly as 100 percent organic removal is approached. Because ozone is
unstable and must be generated on-site, safety factors must be
considered.
Full-Scale Systems—Tables VI-4 and VI-5 present design and
operating data for nine pesticide manufacturers utilizing chemical
oxidation. In these systems over 98 percent of cyanide, phenol, and
pesticides are removed while COD and other organics also are greatly
reduced.
Plant 1 uses batch chemical oxidation treatment of wastewater from five
of its pesticide processes. Hydrogen peroxide is used for the reduction
of phenolic compounds in the wastewaters from Pesticides A, C, D, and E.
Sodium hypochlorite is used primarily for odor control in the B pesti-
cide process. Although the plant declined to allow EPA contractor
sampling to document the effectiveness of these individual pretreatment
units, two data points for phenol were observed during screening and
verification sampling to be less than 1 mg/1 in the combined raw waste
load prior to secondary treatment and direct discharge of wastewater at
this plant.
Plant 2 adds formaldehyde to cyanide-containing wastewaters to form
cyanohydrin, which hydrolyzes to ammonia and glycolic acid, in their
F pesticide process discharge. This system is designed to add 1.0 gpm
formaldehyde to a 110 gpm waste stream to reduce cyanide from 200 mg/1
to less than 1 mg/1 after a detention time of four days. Table VI-5
shows that during three days of verification sampling, cyanide was
reduced to 99.6 percent from 5,503 mg/1 to 19.7 mg/1, although these
analyses were not conducted per protocol. It should be noted that plant
VI-7
-------
monitoring after chemical oxidation, hydrolysis, steam stripping, and
biological oxidation and before direct discharge show cyanide reduced to
less than 0.0125 mg/1. During verification sampling it was also
determined that chemical oxidation removed 99.8 percent of Pesticide F,
from 83.2 mg/1 to <0.145 mg/1.
Plant 3 has in the past used chlorine chemical oxidation for the purpose
of reducing fish toxicity in wastewaters from its G and H pesticide
processes. During three days of verification sampling at this treatment
unit, only Pesticide H was in production. Table VI-5 shows the results
of split samples from this period as analyzed by the verification
contractor and as supplied by the plant. The principal pollutant
removed in the chemical oxidation unit was the Pesticide H, which was
reduced by more than 99.9 percent from 398 mg/1 to 0.187 mg/1. Plant
data have indicated a long-term removal of 83.4 percent Pesticide H.
Significant removal of Pesticides S (63.6 to 99.3 percent), T (99.5 per-
cent), G (90.5 percent), and U (54.4 percent) was observed. When
chlorine is added to wastewater containing compounds such as raethylene
chloride, chemical substitution of hydrogen by halogens may create or
increase the concentration of compounds such as chloroform. For
example, split verification samples showed chloroform increasing from
less than 0.1 mg/1 to approximately 1 mg/1. The wastewater from
chlorine oxidation at Plant 3 receives subsequent biological treatment
before direct discharge.
Plant 4 has recently designed and constructed a hydrogen peroxide
oxidation system. Operating data are not yet available. Pretreatment
of pesticide and pesticide intermediate wastewater by chemical oxidation
was deemed necessary to make this stream suitable for subsequent biolog-
ical treatment. Treatability studies were conducted which predicted
removals of pesticide (48.8 percent), COD (50 percent), and TOC (41 per-
cent), based on addition of 1 percent by volume of hydrogen peroxide
after acidification to pH 1 to encourage precipitation. Sodium hypo-
chlorite was determined to be an equally effective and more economical
oxidant; however, it was abandoned due to its possible potential for
creating residual quantities of chlorinated hydrocarbons. The waste-
water from chemical oxidation at Plant 4 receives subsequent biological
treatment before direct discharge.
Plant 5 uses hydrogen peroxide to oxidize both phenol and COD in its
pesticide wastewaters. As shown in Table VI-5, the phenol is reduced by
99.8 percent from 1,100 mg/1 to 2.03 mg/1. This removal was achieved by
using a 1:1 ratio of 100 percent hydrogen peroxide to phenol in the
plant's aerated lagoon. At the same time, pesticides in the wastewater
are reduced to 0.023 mg/1. A 3:1 ratio of 100 percent hydrogen peroxide
to phenol has recently been used to improve COD removal. The plant
subsequently disposes of wastewater via direct discharge.
Plant 6 operates a chlorine oxidation treatment unit to remove toxic
compounds from wastewater generated in the L and M pesticide processes.
The wastewater is held approximately one hour at pH 10-12 and
VI-8
-------
:emperature of 107°C. Chlorine is added at a rate of 3.25 gallons per
1,000 gallons of wastewater treated. Pesticides are not detected in the
discharge from chlorine treatment. The wastewater from chlorine
Dxidation is subsequently evaporated to achieve no discharge.
Plant 7 uses sodium hypochlorite to remove odor and COD generated by
diethylamine raw material in wastewater from its N pesticide process.
Wastewater is held for 0.5 to 8.0 hours at pH 7-12 while 1.5 gallons of
sodium hypochlorite bleach (12 to 15 percent available chlorine) is
added to each 1,000 gallons. The wastewater from chlorine oxidation is
subsequently discharged to a POTW.
Plant 8 is reported to use chemical oxidation for wastewaters from its
0, P, and Q pesticide processes. According to the Plant 308 response,
no data on this system are currently available. The plant subsequently
discharges wastewater to a POTW.
Plant 9 uses chemical oxidation to treat wastewaters from its R pesti-
cide process. Cobaltous chloride is used as a catalyst in the presence
of diffused air to oxidize sulfites and other potentially toxic
compounds. No analyses of priority pollutants are conducted by the
plant. Wastewater from chemical oxidation is disposed by direct
discharge.
Barnes (1978) reports that oxidation by chlorine is a common treatment
employed by 90 companies in the electroplating industry for the removal
of cyanide. By analyzing data from 58 plants with oxidation treatment,
it was concluded that 36 percent achieve total cyanide values less than
or equal to 0.04 mg/1 and 50 percent less than 0.11 mg/1.
Cyanide may be precipitated and settled out of wastewaters by the
addition of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate. Data from coil coating
plants (U.S. EPA, 1980c) using cyanide precipitation show a cyanide mean
effluent concentration of 0.07 mg/1.
Treatability Studies—Plant 10 conducted a treatability study on a
waste containing phosphorous-sulfur compounds and high chlorides.
Several chemical oxidants were considered in this study including
dichromate, hydrogen peroxide, and permanganate. Treatment with
peroxide was the most effective showing COD removals in the 65 to
75 percent range on the raw waste and 45 to 50 percent on the effluent
from a nine-stage biological pilot plant.
In the manufacture of cyanuric chloride for triazine pesticides,
hydrocyanic acid and cyanic acid may be present. Lowenback (1978)
reports that these cyanides may be oxidized to carbon dioxide and
nitrogen gas in the presence of excess base and chlorine.
Sweeny (1979) reported complete or nearly complete degradation of
selected organic compounds including cyclodienes, atrazine, and DDT-
type pesticides by methods such as chemical reduction and use of columns
(diluted and fluidized beds). The reductive degradation process
VI-9
-------
primarily involved dechlorination, using catalyzed iron as the most
effective reducing agent. The use of a column was the most efficient
method. Sweeny reported a 99.8 percent p-nitrophenol reduction at a flow
rate of 22.8 gpm/sq. ft. in a fluidized bed.
Rice (1980b) and Novak (1980), summarizing the results of separate
surveys of published literature dealing with the use of ozone for
treating industrial water and wastewater, reported that ozone is mainly
used for cyanide removal, disinfection, dissolved organics oxidation,
and color removal.
Rice (1980b) reported that ozonation of parathion, malathion, and
heptachlor produces paraoxon, raalaoxon, and heptachlor epoxide,
respectively. Continued ozonation of these oxons destroys them and
their toxicities, but heptachlor epoxide is stable to further oxidation
by ozone.
Rice (1980a) reported on European pilot studies and studies in European
drinking-water treatment plants showing that pre-ozonation followed by
activated carbon adsorption results in:
1. Increased capacity of the carbon to remove organics (by a
factor of about 10), and
2. Increased operating life of the carbon columns (up to
3 years).
Metals Separation
Metallic ions in soluble form are commonly removed from wastewater by
conversion to an insoluble form followed by a separation process.
Metallic hydroxides are formed at optimum pH (approximately pH = 9.0 for
copper and zinc found in the pesticide industry) through alteration of
the ionic equilibrium by an agent such as lime, soda ash, or caustic.
Clarification or filtration is normally employed to remove the
precipitate from solution. Concentrations of 0.5 mg/1 are achievable
using these or similar methods. Alternative processes which may be
considered are ion exchange, oxidation or reduction, reverse osmosis, or
activated carbon.
Full-Scale Systems—Three priority pollutant metals separation
systems are operating in the pesticide industry as shown in Table VI-6.
Plant 1 operates a hydrogen sulfide precipitation system in order to
remove copper from its A pesticide wastewater. Other separation methods
attempted were precipitation of copper using ammonium thiocyanate, and
extraction with liquid ionic exchange resins. The operating system
consists of an agitated precipitator to which the hydrogen sulfide is
added, a soak vessel to which sulfur dioxide is added, a neutralization
step using ammonia, followed by gravity separation and centrifuging.
Copper is removed from 4,500 to 2.2 mg/1 or from 5,350 to 2.8 mg/1.
VI-10
-------
Plant 2 utilizes sodium sulfide for the precipitation of copper from the
B pesticide wastewater. Although removals of copper through precipita-
tion is unknown, verification sampling data by EPA contractors showed
copper concentration in all plant process waters to the primary
secondary treatment to be 23 ug/1.
Plant 3 has installed a chemical precipitation step for the removal of
arsenic and zinc from surface water runoff. Ferric sulfate and lime are
alternately added, while the wastewater is vacuum filtered and sludge is
contract hauled. The entire treatment system consists of dual media
filtration, carbon adsorption, ion exchange, chemical precipitation, and
vacuum filtration. Verification sampling across the entire system by
EPA contractors showed arsenic removal from 6.9 to 0.2 mg/1 (97.1 per-
cent) and zinc removal from 0.34 to 0.11 mg/1 (67.6 percent).
Barnes (1978) reports that high pH adjustment followed by clarification
is a common full-scale treatment employed in the electroplating
industry. Data from 25 plants utilizing this treatment show that the
average effluent concentrations for copper and zinc are 0.49 mg/1 and
0.72 mg/1, respectively.
As reported in the Development Document for the Coil Coating industry
(U.S. EPA, 1980c), data from 55 full-scale metal separation systems in
the metal industry employing pH adjustment and hydroxide precipitation
using lime or caustic followed by settling (tank, lagoon, or clarifier)
for solids removal show mean effluent concentrations and percent removal
for metals as follows:
Mean Raw Waste Mean Effluent
No. Data Concentration Concentration Percent
Metal Points (mg/1) (mg/1) Removal
Copper 74 23.2 0.61 97.4
Zinc 69 27.7 0.40 98.6
The Development Document for the Coil Coating Industry (U.S. EPA, 1980c)
also reports long-term data from two plants in the industry using
precipitation-settling systems followed by filtration. Both plants
neutralize wastewater and precipitate metals with lime. A clarifier is
used as settling media. For removal of suspended solids, Plant 4 uses
pressure filtration and Plant 5 uses a rapid sand filter. The data from
these systems are as follows:
Plant 4 Plant 5
Raw Waste Mean Raw Waste Mean
Metal Range (mg/1) Effluent (mg/1) Range (mg/1) Effluent (mg/1)
Zinc 33.2-32.0 0.2 2.35-3.39 0.035
Copper 0.08-0.45 0.0175 0.09-0.27 0.011
Treatability Studies—Amron Corporation (1979) reported on a system
designed to remove high concentrations of toxic heavy metals in their
wastewater. The method is an hydroxide/modified sulfide precipitation
VI-11
-------
system that uses an insoluble sulfide salt which must have a solubility
greater than the heavy metal sulfide to be precipitated. It was found
that ferrous sulfide meets these requirements. Heavy metal removals
reported represent mean values obtained over a 6-month period of
operations.
Remov al
Metal Influent (tng/1) Effluent (mg/1) (Percent)
Phosphorus
Zinc
Iron
Chromium
Nickel
247
27
85
2
0.61
0.40
<0.10
0.04
<0.10
0.10
99.8
99.6+
99.9
95 +
83.6
Lanouette and Paulson (1976) have made a literature review of the
various methods employed to treat wastewaters containing heavy metals.
Typical estimates of the achievable concentration of heavy metals using
precipitation were:
Achievable Precipitating
Heavy Metal Concentration (mg/1) Agent
Copper
Zinc
Cadmium
Nickel
Chromium (total)
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
Caustic, lime
Caustic, lime
Soda ash
Soda ash
Caustic, lime
Gupta, _£_^ _£!.• (1978) reported on a bench test where arsenic was
effectively treated from various waters. Experiments were carried out
on fresh water, sea water, a 10:1 mixture of fresh water and sea water,
and a sodium chloride solution. The best removal rate occurred with
arsenic in the +5 oxidation state and with a pH of 4 to 7 using columns
of activated media. The materials used were activated bauxite,
activated alumina, and activated carbon. A summary of the results are
listed below.
Percent Arsenic Removal
Fresh Water
Saltwater 1: 10
Sea Water
NaCl
Activated
Bauxite
97-100
93-97.3
92.5-97.5
87-94
Activated
Alumina
99-100
98-99
97-99
95.8-97
Activated
Carbon
83.5-96.5
74.3-95
71.1-92.8
62.6-89.7
Pilot plant tests performed by Muruyama, ^ jj_. (1975) evaluated the
effect of precipitation with lime or coagulation with iron followed by
activated carbon to remove heavy metals from wastewater. Data results
are presented in the Activated Carbon Treatability Studies section.
VI-12
-------
Granular Activated Carbon
Activated carbon adsorption is a physical separation process in which
highly porous carbon particles remove a variety of substances from
water. Adsorption is affected by many factors including molecular size
of the adsorbate, solubility of the adsorbate and pore structure of the
carbon. The characteristics of activated carbon treatment that apply to
the pesticide industry may be summarized below:
1. Increasing molecular weight is conducive to better
adsorption.
2. The degree of adsorption increases as adsorbate solubility
decreases.
3. Aromatic compounds tend to be more readily adsorbed than
aliphatics.
4. Adsorption is pH dependent.
Full-Scale Systems—Table VI-7 provides design criteria for
17 plants using activated carbon in the treatment of pesticide waste-
waters. Table VI-8 presents operating data on these same systems.
Pesticides, phenols, and nitrosamines are all shown to be effectively
removed by activated carbon. Volatile organics and oxygen demanding
substances can be significantly removed although the degree of removal
is plant specific. The majority of these systems are long contact time
and high carbon usage rate systems which are applied as a pretreatment
for the removal of organics from concentrated streams. Three plants
operate tertiary carbon systems which use shorter contact times and
have lower carbon usage rates.
Plant 1 operates an activated carbon treatment system for wastewaters
from nine pesticide processes. Activated carbon is used as pretreatment
to remove phenols, Pesticides A, B, and other structurally similar
pesticides prior to discharge to a POTW.
Wastewater at Plant 1 first enters a 3,000 gallon surge tank, then is
transferred to a 160,000 gallon equalization tank to permit handling a
number of separate variable flows on different production schedules from
the nine process areas. The equalization tank also permits a constant
flow rate for maximizing carbon adsorption efficiency. The adsorbers
are sized for 120-gallon per minute flow with normal flow of approxi-
mately 50 gallons per minute. The wastewater at pH 1.0 to 1.5 is pumped
through two 8,000 gallon Douglas Fir wooden tanks operating in an upflow
series mode each containing 18,000 pounds of carbon each. The low pH of
the influent stream facilitates adsorption of these phenolic compounds.
An empty bed contact time of 320 minutes is provided. The carbon
treated effluent is adjusted to pH 5.5 to 9.0 using a lime slurry prior
to discharge. Area drainage is treated for phenols as needed by two
additional carbon columns of the same size.
VI-13
-------
As shown in Table VI-8, verification sampling at Plant 1 indicated that
total phenol in the effluent from the activated carbon columns averaged
less than 0.143 mg/1 and 0.329 from two separate monitoring periods.
This represents a 99.8 percent removal of total phenol. Plant operating
data over the past two years have shown an effluent phenol level of less
than 1.0 mg/1. The columns also remove 99.9 percent of Pesticides A and
B. Due to the presence of glycolic acid and butryolactone, BOD, and COD
pass through the column with relatively little removal.
Plant 1 contracts for off-site thermal reactivation of carbon.
Normally, carbon usage is 26 pounds per 1,000 gallons wastewater
treated.
Plant 2 uses a two-column series activated carbon treatment system for
J and K pesticide wastewater. The downflow carbon system is designed to
operate at 30 gallons per minute, 24 hours per day, during a production
run. This pesticide production schedule is normally 5 days a week,
24 hours a day. Process wastewater, process area drainage, and spent
acid from the manufacturing process are treated in the carbon unit.
Each column is charged with 20,000 pounds of carbon. Because both pest-
icides are batch production units, wastewater and spent acid are fed
into holding tanks with several days retention time. The wastewater is
treated in the carbon system at a pH of 0.5 to 4.0 with an empty bed
contact time of 588 minutes. Carbon column effluent is combined in a
holding tank with other nonpesticide wastewater for a plantwide pH
adjustment prior to direct discharge.
Verification sampling at Plant 2 showed that the concentration of the
manufactured Pesticide K was reduced from a level of 0.465 mg/1 to less
than 0.001 mg/1 constituting a 99.8+ percent removal by the carbon
adsorption unit. Previous Pesticide K sampling at this plant during
1977 had shown removal of 99.9 percent to 0.0182 mg/1. Total phenol was
reduced to a concentration of less than 0.001 mg/1 with a removal of
82.1 percent. The reduction in the concentration of volatile organics
was not consistent. The removal of conventional pollutants ranged from
36.2 percent for TSS to 90.7 for TOC.
The carbon usage rate at Plant 2 for this unit is 81.5 pounds per
1,000 gallons. Normal plant procedure directs that a carbon bed is
replaced in one column every 30 days. Prior to off-site thermal
reactivation carbon is hydraulically pumped from the column into a
caustic soda neutralization tank due to its strongly acidic nature.
Plant 3 operates an activated carbon treatment system for aqueous wastes
from the L, M, N, and 0 pesticide processes. The carbon unit treats
1.2 to 1.4 MGD wastewater and operates 24 hours a day. The system
consists of five carbon towers operated in parallel. Normally three
towers are in operation. The flow rate into each carbon bed is
3.6 gallons per minute per square foot. An average detention time for
each tower is 19.1 minutes. Prior to carbon treatment and direct
discharge the wastewater is pH adjusted to 7.0 for maximum carbon
VI-14
-------
adsorption of pesticides and organics present in this stream. Following
carbon the wastewater is directly discharged.
The carbon system at Plant 3 removed between 92.3 and 96.9 percent of L,
M, and 0 manufactured pesticides during EPA verification sampling, as
shown in Table VI-8. In each case the carbon effluent contained less
than 1 rag/1 pesticide. Plant 3 reported >85.7 and >91.2 percent removal
for Pesticides L and M, respectively, during the period from January
1979 to April 1980. An average carbon effluent concentration of
0.0055 mg/1 for Pesticide 0 was reported for 154 monitoring days.
Halomethanes at Plant 3 were adsorbed with typical removals of 66.3 per-
cent for chloroform and 77.9 percent for carbon tetrachloride. During
EPA verification sampling, minimal reductions of low level phenols by
carbon treatment were observed. As shown in Table VI-8 there was an
increase in BOD across the system. In this case it is likely that
organics measured as BOD were desorbed because of displacement by more
adsorbable influent compounds.
Approximately 20,000 pounds of carbon are exchanged per column every
13 days. The carbon usage rate is calculated as 3.9 pounds per
1,000 gallons of treated wastewater. Plant 3 uses off-site thermal
reactivation of carbon.
Plant 4 uses two dedicated activated carbon treatment systems for
wastewaters from the P and Q pesticide processes. Rainwater runoff and
spent caustic from air pollution control scrubbers from the P pesticide
process passes through activated carbon beds at a rate of 15,000 gallons
per day. Effluent from the beds is combined with cooling tower blowdown
before treatment in the main biological plant. The carbon system was
installed mainly to reduce levels of the pesticide and phenols. Plant
data showed that Pesticide P enters the carbon system at a concentration
of 9,300 mg/1 and is reduced to 1.7 mg/1 constituting a 99.9 percent
removal. The compound 2,4-dichlorophenol is reduced 99.9 percent from
42,000 to 0.82 mg/1. Other phenols and volatile organics are also
significantly reduced.
The carbon bed dedicated to the Q pesticide process at Plant 4 was
installed to treat combined wastewater from the N-isopropyl aniline
distillation, the neutralized HCL cleanup effluent, cooling tower blow-
down, storm water runoff, and washdown water. Approximately 12,000
gallons per day is treated by this unit prior to combining with other
plant effluents in the biological treatment system. The activated
carbon bed was designed to remove the pesticide and volatile organics in
the wastewater. As shown in Table VI-8, plant data indicated that
Pesticide Q was reduced from 15 to 0.01 mg/1. The percent removal is
therefore 99.9 percent. Benzene and toluene were reduced by greater
than 86.3 percent and 66.7 percent, respectively. Halomethanes and
phenols were also reduced at significant levels which ranged from 88.9
to greater than 98.9 percent. The Pesticide Q spent carbon is inciner-
ated without regeneration. No additional information is available for
either carbon system.
VI-15
-------
Plant 5 installed an activated carbon treatment system in 1979 to treat
wastewater from the pesticide process. The major source of wastewater
fed to the unit is the aqueous discharge from vacuum filtration of the
mother liquor. Approximately 1.30 million gallons per day of wastewater
enters the adsorbers at a pH of 6 to 12. The carbon system consists of
three 2-stage adsorption trains operated in parallel. The empty bed
contact time of each train is 18 to 52 minutes.
System start-up data at Plant 5 showed a pesticide influent concentra-
tion of 45.7 mg/1 and an estimated effluent concentration of 12.4 mg/1,
constituting a 72.9 percent removal. Subsequent analyses during 1978
and 1980 revealed that the carbon system was achieving a 96.5 percent
pesticide removal with an effluent pesticide concentration of 4.7 mg/1.
The carbon usage rate is 20 to 33.5 pounds per 1,000 gallons wastewater
treated with a loading of 9 to 15 pounds TOC per 100 pounds carbon.
Spent carbon is reactivated on-site by an infrared electric furnace.
Toluene was reported by Plant 5 at <0.1 mg/1, a >98.3 percent removal,
following carbon adsorption. The reduction of conventional parameters
was inconsistent, with a removal range of zero to 93.7 percent.
Plant 6 operates an activated carbon system as pretreatraent for removal
of nitrosamines and Pesticide U from certain process wastes. Amination
wastes from the U active-ingredient pesticide process are treated in
three carbon columns operating in series. Wastewater enters the system
at a pH of 8.5 to 9.5. Between 50,000 to 75,000 gallons per day of
wastewater is treated by these adsorbers, and empty bed contact time is
usually 1,000 minutes. Carbon in the lead column is replaced about once
a week, resulting in a carbon usage of 136 pounds per 1,000 gallons
treated. When produced, V and W pesticide wastewaters are also treated
in the same carbon treatment system.
Approximately 0.025 to 0.030 MGD of nitration wastes from the U pesti-
cide intermediate process at Plant 6 are treated by carbon adsorption in
three columns operating in series, with a fourth column is used for
storage. Each column has a bed volume of 2,500 gallons wastewater. The
pH of the intermediate waste is 1.5. Approximately 571 minutes of
contact time is usually required. The arrangement of the columns in the
treatment scheme is changed once per day, with the former lead column
being placed in storage. Effluent from both series of carbon columns is
fed to aerobic biological treatment lagoons, clarified, and passed to
tertiary treatment prior to final discharge. Spent carbon is thermally
reactivated off-site.
In the amination process carbon system at Plant 6, U pesticide wastes
were removed during verification sampling, from 14.6 mg/1 to
0.0713 mg/1, or 99.5 percent. Plant data also showed a long-term
average removal of from 98.5 to 99.8 percent. The compound N-nitrosodi-
n-propylamine was reduced during verification to a level of 0.0041 mg/1,
a 99.8 percent removal. Plant data have indicated a long-term removal
of from 77.6 to 90.3 percent as shown in Table VI-8. Incidental removal
of methylene chloride was also noted. Other parameters not mentioned
VI-16
-------
above did not show a significant decrease in concentration. The
nitration carbon system effectively reduced nitrosamine levels from
82 to greater than 95 percent.
Wastewaters from Plant 7 X and Y batch pesticide processes are treated
by an activated carbon system. Pesticide and miscellaneous chemical
process wastewater is combined with area drainage and washdown water and
sent to carbon treatment. All wastewater first enters an equalization/
neutralization pond where the pH is adjusted to between 6 and 8.
Neutralized wastewater is pumped to a holding pond and then to the
carbon system at the rate of 30,000 gallons per day. The system
consists of two carbon columns operating in series. Carbon usage is
reported at 20,000 pounds per week (95 pounds per 1,000 gallons treated)
at a loading of 0.25 pounds TOG per pound carbon. Based on an approxi-
mate bed volume of 5,000 gallons per adsorber, a total system empty bed
contact time of 8 hours is realized. Carbon effluent flows to a holding
pond and is pumped to a spray aeration pond prior to final discharge.
As shown in Table VI-8, manufactured pesticides at Plant 7 are removed
by 99.4 percent and greater. Traditional parameters are reduced by
32.1 to 90.7 percent. Toluene was reduced to a concentration of less
than 0.007 mg/1 resulting in over 94.9 percent removal. Other organics
were reduced to nondetectable levels. Plant 7 uses off-site, thermal
reactivation of spent carbon.
As the result of a recent treatability study, Plant 7 plans to construct
a biological oxidation system to remove the bulk of the organics from
the wastewater. The carbon system would be retained for lower strength
wastewaters which have been segregated.
Plant 8 operates two activated carbon columns for process wastewater
from the water-based manufacture of Pesticide Z. The columns operate in
series, each having a capacity of 20,000 pounds of carbon. At 0.16 MGD,
the contact time is approximately 100 minutes. The average usage of
carbon is 2.89 pounds per 1,000 gallons treated. Wastewater from the
process is first pumped to a holding tank and fed through two multimedia
filters to prevent suspended solids from plugging the adsorbers carbon
system at a pH of 8 to 12. Effluent from the carbon columns is pH
adjusted and clarified before discharge to a municipal treatment
facility. The plant uses regenerated carbon supplied by an off-site
contractor.
Both verification and plant reports at Plant 8 show a removal of 63.6 to
68 percent for Pesticide Z. This removal is determined by an effluent
objective of 10 mg/1 for Pesticide Z which has been arbitrarily set by
the plant. Greater removal can technically be achieved, if desired, by
more frequent carbon replacement. Total suspended solids were reduced
from 77.5 mg/1 to 32.3 mg/1, constituting a 58.3 percent removal.
Plant 9 operates an activated carbon treatment unit for basic (high pH)
wastewater from the AA pesticide process. This unit was designed to
reduce concentrations of pesticide, monochlorobenzene, and
VI-17
-------
1,2-dichloroethane which are raw materials used in the reaction process.
Wastewater is treated by peroxide oxidation prior to carbon adsorption.
Approximately 70,000 gallons per day is passed through this unit before
treatment in the central biological treatment system. No data currently
exist to document the efficiency of this activated carbon unit since the
plant is still in a start-up phase.
Plant 10 uses granular activated carbon as treatment for wastewaters
from reactor exterior and floor washings in the manufacturing area of
the BB pesticide process. Wastewater is stored in 6,000-gallon tanks
prior to the two activated carbon columns. Influent wastewater enters
at a pH of 5 to 9. Due to the low volume of wastewater, the flow
through the columns is intermittent, operating some two to three hours
per day. Each column has a capacity of 20,000 pounds of carbon and
operates downflow in series. Approximate detention time is 250 minutes
with a carbon usage rate of 69.3 pounds of carbon used per 1,000 gallons
wastewater treated. Following carbon treatment, wastewater is held in a
storage tank for complete reuse as washwater in order to achieve a no
discharge status. Spent carbon is contracted for off-site reactivation.
Both plant and verification monitoring at Plant 10 show that
Pesticide BB can be removed from wastewaters by granular activated
carbon by greater than 99 percent. In this same treatment system
traditional parameters and halomethanes were also effectively reduced.
Plant 11 operates a granular activated carbon column to treat 0.001 MGD
wash waters from the CC pesticide process and 500 gallons per day of
discharge from the DD pesticide process dryer. This waste is combined
with other process waste, noncontact and sanitary waste, and passes
through an equalization basin, aerobic digestor, and clarifier prior to
carbon adsorption. The plant has stated that no operating data are
currently available for this treatment system.
Plant 12 uses a tertiary activated carbon unit to treat process waste,
once-through cooling water, and surface water runoff from the EE pesti-
cide manufacturing process. Approximately 2,800 gallons per day of
wastewater is combined with other nonpesticide waste and passed through
primary and secondary treatment as well as a sand filtration system
prior to carbon treatment. The carbon system consists of two columns
operating in series. Treated effluent is chlorinated before final
discharge. No monitoring of Pesticide EE or organics has taken place.
Spent carbon is reactivated on-site by a regeneration furnace. Furnace
product is combined with fresh carbon makeup, then recycled to the
system.
Plant 13 uses tertiary activated carbon columns for wastewater from the
FF pesticide process. Wastewater treated by hydrolysis (0.01 MGD) from
the FF pesticide process is combined with 0.028 MGD of Pesticide FF
intermediate waste and 2.0 MGD of nonpesticide process waste. Preceding
carbon treatment all wastewater passes through equalization, skimming,
gravity separation, neutralization, and multimedia filtration. Influent
wastewater to the columns has a pH of 6. The three activated carbon
VI-18
-------
columns operate upflow in parallel. Empty bed contact time is
approximately 109 minutes. The amount of carbon in each column is
154,000 pounds. Carbon usage rate is 0.92 pounds of carbon per 1,000
gallons wastewater treated. Plant 13 uses an on-site regeneration of
spent carbon.
Final plant effluent at Plant 13, which contains 4.0 MGD noncontact
cooling water, showed Pesticide FF at a concentration of 0.00602 mg/1.
Pesticide removal through the carbon columns has not been measured. TOG
removal averages 29 percent for this high-flow, low carbon usage system.
At Plant 14, Pesticide GG was produced until January 1978. Although the
wastewater was discharged to a public treatment system, Pesticide GG was
pretreated in an activated carbon system prior to discharge. The raw
waste was collected in a 1,000 gallon surge tank, passed through columns
(2 feet in diameter by 10 feet high) at a pH of less than 1 with an
empty bed contact time of 35 minutes, and stored until analysis had been
completed. If the total of all pesticide chemicals was less than
5 mg/1, the wastewater was discharged to the municipal treatment system.
If not, it was recycled through the downflow columns again. The carbon
was regenerated with isopropanol and the solvent was incinerated.
Carbon was replaced infrequently, approximately twice per year. This
system was inefficient because of the small detention time and the
necessity for frequent fresh carbon addition. Low flows allowed
frequent recycling in order that their effluent objective be met.
Table VI-8 presents 5-1/2 months of pesticide data by the plant, 6 days
BOD, COD, TOC, TSS, and pesticide chemicals data by the plant, and 17
days of sampling analyzed by the EPA contractor.
Plant 15 installed two activated carbon columns operating in series to
treat wastewater from the HH pesticide process. The pH of the waste is
lowered to approximately pH 2 prior to carbon treatment. The plant
reports an empty bed contact time of 7 hours. Approximately 27,700
gallons per day of Pesticide HH waste is treated. Carbon usage is
reported to be 451 pounds per 1,000 gallons treated. Due to the
relatively high carbon usage rate, Plant 15 is investigating additional
pretreatment methods. Carbon effluent currently passes through steam
stripping for ammonia removal and is combined with other process wastes
prior to entering the central biological treatment system for subsequent
direct discharge.
Verification sampling at Plant 15 showed approximately 77 percent of the
TOC is removed in the carbon columns. Split sample results reported by
the plant indicated an 83.1 percent removal. Analysis of the pesticide
parameter by verification sampling showed a 99.8 percent removal.
However, plant monitoring and verification split sampling data provided
by the plant showed removals of 66.7 and 68.4 percent, respectively.
Plant 15 participated in a self-sampling monitoring program which
determined a long-term removal efficiency of from 98.6 to 99.9 percent.
The influent suspended solids were found in concentrations from 3,000 to
4,094 mg/1. Traditional parameter removals are inconsistent.
VI-19
-------
Plant 16 uses activated carbon to treat wastewater from the ammonia
recovery and neutralization steps of the II pesticide process. Waste-
water at pH 11,6 to 12.5 enters two carbon beds operating downflow in
series. The vessel size is 11 feet high by 10 feet in diameter.
Approximately 20,000 pounds of carbon is contained in each bed. The
empty bed contact time for the system is 91.5 minutes when operated at
120,000 gallons per day flow and 60.8 minutes when operated at 180,000
gallons per day. Each adsorber is replaced approximately every 2.3 days
making carbon usage 71.6 pounds per 1,000 gallons treated for a flow of
0.120 MGD and 47.7 pounds per 1,000 gallons at 0.180 MGD. Plant 16 uses
off-site reactivation of carbon. Activated carbon effluent flows
through an aerated lagoon treatment system prior to discharge to a
navigable waterway.
As shown in Table VI-8, Pesticide II was found at a concentration of
less than 1,418 mg/1 in the carbon influent at Plant 16. Pesticide II
was reduced by 77.9 percent to less than 314 mg/1 following adsorption.
TOG was reduced by 68.4 percent from a concentration of 523 to 165 mg/l»
Plant 17 operates an activated carbon treatment system for stormwater
runoff and washdown water from the JJ and KK pesticide process areas.
The small flow of 400 to 500 gallons per day of JJ and KK pesticide
wastewater is treated for 30 minutes in each of the two carbon beds.
The carbon beds are 8 feet in diameter by 20 feet in height and operate
in a downflow mode. The carbon usage rate is 2 pounds per 1,000 gallons
treated. An off-site method of spent carbon regeneration is used.
Following carbon treatment, wastewater is combined with other process
waste, neutralized and clarified prior to entering a series of evapora-
tion ponds, and ultimately is discharged to a navigable waterway.
The pollutants of interest for the KK pesticide process at Plant 17 are
chlorobenzene and toluene; however, the plant has stated that no data
currently exist to document the carbon system efficiency. Prior to
final discharge both Pesticides JJ and KK were detected at a
concentration of 0.002 mg/1.
Treatability Studies—A detailed review of activated carbon
treatability studies was presented in the Development Document for
Effluent Limitation Guidelines for the Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing
U.S. EPA 440/1-78/060-e, 1978f. Additional data received since 1978 are
presented below.
Pilot studies were performed at Plant 18 to evaluate biological
treatment effluent using a multimedia filter and four granular activated
carbon columns in series. Data showed granular activated carbon can be
applied to reduce total pesticide concentrations in the wastewater from
5.0 mg/1 to less than 0.05 mg/1, a removal greater than 99 percent.
Plant 19 reported that in-house carbon isotherm studies show essentially
complete removal of a pesticide at high carbon dosage levels. The plant
currently incinerates its wastewater.
VI-20
-------
Pilot plant treatability studies were performed by ESE (Beaudet, 1979a)
to determine removal of benzene, toluene, and six selected polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (naphthalene, acenaphthylene, fluorene,
phenathrene, anthracene, and pyrene). The light hydrocarbon cracking
units wastewater, normally pretreated by the plant for primary oil
separation and solids removal, was further pretreated in the pilot plant
by granular media filtration, then passed through multiple downflow,
granular activated carbon columns. This study showed benzene and
toluene were removed to below detection limits of 10 ug/1 from multi-
media filtered waste containing 21 to 71 mg/1 benzene and 5 to 13 mg/1
toluene. Influent levels as high as 24 mg/1 total PNA's (defined as the
sum of the individual polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons monitored) were
generally reduced to less than the detection limit of 10 ug/1 in
83 percent of the samples analyzed.
Another treatability study by ESE (Beaudet, 1979b) was performed on
hydrocarbon process wastewater to determine removal of 1,2-dichloro-
ethane (EDC) and other chlorinated hydrocarbons (1,1, 2-trichloroethane,
carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene).
Results showed removal of EDC to below detection limits of 10 ug/1 from
a waste stream containing 14 to 950 mg/1 EDC. The other chlorinated
hydrocarbons monitored were adsorbed more readily than EDC.
Hydroscience (Toxler, 1980) reviewed the literature to gather
performance data on the current use of activated carbon for treating
wastewaters from the manufacture of organic chemicals. In general, it
was reported that nonpolar, high molecular weight organics with limited
solubility generally tend to be more readily adsorbed although there is
an upper limit of molecular size above which adsorption is adversely
affected. They report that branched-chain compounds are more adsorbable
than straight-chain compounds. Aware Engineering (1979) also reported
extremely good removals of high molecular weight compounds and erratic
removal of several intermediate weight compounds such as naphthalene and
dicyclopentadiene.
Hydroscience (Toxler, 1980) reports that the adsorptive capacity of the
column could be increased with the increase of the bed depth (contact
time) . The report shows data illustrating the increase on activated
carbon loading of sodium nitrophenol (SNP) with the increase in bed
depth. This increase in loading is due to the greater saturation of the
upper bed layers as the adsorption zone moves through the column.
Zogorski and Faust (1977) reported on the influence of various
operational parameters on the removal of 2,4-dichlorophenol from water
via fixed beds of granular activated carbon. One of the parameters
studied was the height of the mass transfer zone. This parameter, as it
increases, causes greater effluent bed contact time to be required to
reduce an organic pollutant to a desired effluent concentration. It was
found that the height of the mass transfer zone increased markedly:
1. With an increase in the linear velocity of the fluid,
VI-21
-------
2. With an increase in the size of the adsorbent, especially
for carbon particle sizes greater than 0.65 mm, and
3. When the pH value of the solution exceeds the acidic
dissociation constant of the adsorbate.
The effect of pH was also reported by Hydroscience (Toxler, 1980).
Dissolved organics generally adsorb more readily at a pH which imparts
the least polarity to the molecule. For example, phenol, a weak acid,
can be expected to adsorb better at low pH, whereas amines, a weak base,
exhibit better adsorption characteristics at higher pH. Influence of
substituent groups or adsorbability is also important. For example:
(1) Nitro—generally increases adsorbability, and (2) Aromatic ring—
greatly increases adsorbability. Huang, _£££!.• (1977) reported that the
adsorption rate of phenols decreased in order of phenol, o-aminophenol,
pyrocatacol, and resorcinol. For phenols, the adsorption capacity is
greatly increased when an amino or hydroxo group at the ortho position
is substituted.
Muruyama, _e£ Jil.. (1975) evaluated the effect of a two-step method that
includes precipitation with lime followed by activated carbon to remove
heavy metals from water. Pilot plants were dosed with metal concentra-
tions in the influent of 0.5 mg/1 for mercury and 5.0 mg/1 for all other
metals. The percent removals obtained are listed below.
Percent Percent
Metal Removal Metal Removal
Mn2+ 92-98.5 Pb2+ 96-99
Ni2+ 94-99.5 Cr** 95-99.5
Zn2* 86-94 Cr6+ 94-98
Cu2+ 90-96 As3* 80-85
Cd2+ 92-99.4 Hg2+ 92
Ba2+ 85-99
Tertiary treatment of pesticides was studied (Saleh, 1982) at a 1-MGD
pilot plant receiving biologically treated domestic wastewater.
Activated carbon treatment was the most effective, with an empty bed
contact time of 38 minutes providing nearly complete removal for aldrin,
dieldrin, and 2,4-D esters. Chemical coagulation and multimedia filters
did not consistently remove pesticide compounds.
Resin Adsorption
Adsorption by synthetic polymeric resins is an effective means to remove
and recover specific chemical compounds from wastewater. Polymeric
adsorption has been found to be applicable for all members of the phenol
family as well as amines, caprolactam, benzene, chlorobenzenes, and
chlorinated pesticides. The adsorption capacity of polymeric resins
depends on the type and concentration of specific organics in the
wastewater as well as the pH, temperature, viscosity, polarity, surface
tension, and background concentrations of other organics and salts. For
VI-2 2
-------
example, a high salt background will enhance phenol adsorption, while
increasing the pH will cause the adsorptive capacity of the resin to
change sharply since the phenolic molecule goes from a neutral, poorly
disassociated form at low and neutral pH to an anionic charged
disassociated form at high pH. As with carbon adsorption, the
adsorptive capacity increases as solubility decreases.
The adsorbants are hard, insoluble beads of porous, cross-linked polymer
and are available in a variety of surface areas and pore-sized distribu-
tions. The binding energies of the polymers are normally lower than
those of activated carbon for the same organic molecules, thereby
allowing solvent and chemical regeneration and recovery to be practiced.
Regeneration can be conducted with caustic, formaldehyde, or in solvents
such as methanol, isopropanol, and acetone. Batch distillation of
regenerant solutions can be used to separate and return products to the
process.
Full-Scale Systems—Tables VI-9 and VI-10 present design and
operating data for the four resin systems in the pesticide industry.
Phenol, pesticide, and diene compounds are all being effectively removed
by these systems. At least one system realized a significant product
recovery via regeneration and distillation.
Plant 1 operates a resin adsorption treatment unit for wastewaters from
its A pesticide process. After neutralization and settling in lagoons,
the wastewater is filtered through anthracite and sand to remove
suspended solids before entering one of two identical vessels filled
with amberlite XAD-4® resin. An empty bed contact time of 7.5 minutes
is provided at a flow rate of 4 gpm/ft^ to remove Pesticide A.
According to plant monitoring, the effluent Pesticide A concentration
averages below 0.00123 mg/1, representing a 99.1 percent removal across
the resin system. Verification monitoring by EPA contractors confirmed
these results by detecting an effluent of 0.00067 mg/1 over a 3-day
period. During this same sampling the reduction of volatile priority
pollutants such as carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, and chlorobenzene
ranged from 28.4 to 59.4 percent, as shown in Table VI-10. The resin
effluent is discharged to navigable waters.
The resin system at Plant 1 required regeneration only once in the
period of one year. In that instance methanol was used as a regenerant
and then was disposed as supplemental boiler fuel, Isopropyl alcohol
may be used in the future as a regenerant; however, distillation of the
solvent and recovery of pesticide have been ruled out as uneconomical.
Plant 2 designed and installed a resin adsorption system to remove
Pesticide B and nitrated phenols from process wastewater. Wastewater is
adjusted to pH 4.5 to favor the conversion of sodium nitrophenol (SNP)
to para-nitrophenol (PNP), which is much less soluble in water and,
therefore, is strongly attracted to the hydrophobic resin. In contrast,
SNP is hydrophilic and is not attracted to the resin. The column is
chemically regenerated with sodium hydroxide, thereby reconverting PNP
VI-23
-------
back to SNP so that greater than 99 percent can be recovered and
reused.
Plant 2 conducted exhaustive studies on the removal of PNP from
Pesticide B wastewater by adsorption on XAD-4® resins. They determined
that after approximately 100 regeneration cycles the capacity of the
resin leveled off at 3.3 Ibs PNP/ft3 of resin. This was conducted at an
influent PNP concentration of 1,000 mg/1 with approximately 1 mg/1 in
the resin effluent. The wastewater was to be further treated by
activated carbon; however, plant production of Pesticide B was
discontinued.
Plant 3 constructed a resin adsorption unit in 1976 as part of an EPA
demonstration grant for removal of pesticides from wastewaters. The
system is preceded by wastewater settling and pressure filtration;
approximately 15 minutes of detention time is provided at a flow rate of
3.5 gpm/ft^. According to the final report for the demonstration
grant (Marks, 1980), it is possible to maintain an average effluent
level of 0.005 mg/1 for Pesticides C and D with daily values not
exceeding 0.01 mg/1. This would represent 95 to 99.5 percent removals.
As shown in Table VI-10, between 85.1 and 92.2 percent of the dienes
were removed. Volatile toxic organics such as carbon tetrachloride and
toluene were removed in the 34.5 to 64.7 percent range. The resin
effluent is neutralized and discharged to a POTW.
Although isopropanol was used to regenerate the resin beds at Plant 3
during the EPA demonstration grant, methanol has been found to be
equally effective at lower cost. The alcohol can be successfully
recovered for use in further regenerations by means of pot distillation,
or it can be disposed as boiler fuel.
Plant 4 operates a resin system for the removal of phenols, Pesticide E,
and other structurally similar pesticides. The process wastewater is
pretreated by vacuum stripping to prevent toluene from building up in
the regenerant. The wastewater is then filtered to remove suspended
solids and cooled to prevent crystallization. One part of wastewater is
mixed with two parts of recycled resin-treated effluent, then passed
through one of two adsorbers containing XAD-4® resin with 15 minutes
empty bed contact time. Columns last approximately 13 hours between
regenerations. Both the plant and EPA contractors have sampled the
resin system. As shown in Table VI-10, Pesticides E, F, and G were
removed by 76.5 to 97 percent to levels of approximately 20 mg/1.
Phenol and 2,4-dichlorophenol were reduced to approximately the 0.5 to
4 mg/1 range. Toluene was shown to be reduced approximately 60 percent.
Additional sampling/analysis of this system is being conducted by EPA
Region IV. Resin-treated wastewater is neutralized and discharged to a
POTW.
Plant 4 regenerates the resin with 1-1/2 bed volumes of methanol. The
methanol and desorbed pesticides and phenols are distilled for product
recovery and solvent reuse.
VI-24
-------
Treatability Studies—Aware (1979) conducted pilot scale studies
with adsorbent resins at Plant 3. For a loading rate of 7.5 gpra/ft2,
and an empty bed contact time of 6 minutes, the following average
removals were observed:
Influent Effluent Percent
Parameter (ug/1) (ug/1) Removal
Pesticide C 123 3.7 96.9
Pesticide D 40 2.1 94.7
Chlordane 283 2.1 99.3
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 1,129 5.5 99.5
Heptachlor epoxide 11 0.2 98.2
Toluene 2,360 198 91.6
Chloroform 1,430 509 64.4
Carbon tetrachloride 20,950 8,670 58.6
Tetrachloroethylene 34 1.1 96.8
Naphthalene 529 100 81.1
Plant 5 is reported to be conducting bench scale treatability studies
using XAD-4® resin for removal of phenols and pesticides in wastewater
from their pesticide process.
Hydrolysis
In hydrolysis an hydroxyl or hydrogen ion attaches itself to some part
of the pesticide chemical molecule, either displacing part of the group
or breaking a bond, thus forming two or more new compounds.
The primary design parameter to be considered in hydrolysis is the
half-life of the original molecule, which is the time required to react
50 percent of the original compound. The half-life is generally a
function of the type molecule being hydrolyzed and the temperature and
pH of the reaction. A detailed review of the theory of hydrolysis and
laboratory data was presented in the BPT development document for pest-
icide chemicals (Jett, 1978). Additional full-scale and treatability
data received since 1978 are presented below.
In assessing the treatability of pesticide compounds, hydrolysis should
be considered a logical candidate for the following structural groups:
amide type; carbamates; heterocyclic with nitrogen in the ring;
phosphates and phosphonates; phosphorothioates and phosphorodithioates;
thiocarbamates and triazines (Jett, 1978). According to this listing
the use of hydrolysis can reasonably be expected to apply to at least
one-third of all pesticides manufactured.
The effect of hydrolysis on priority pollutant compounds is not well
documented. During EPA verification sampling at Plant 6, priority
pollutant volatiles, such as methylene chloride and chloroform, and
cyanide were either completely or partially removed. Since temperatures
in hydrolysis basins sometimes exceed the boiling points of many of the
VI-25
-------
volatile priority pollutants, it can be inferred that they will be
transferred to a vapor phase unless basins are enclosed.
Full-Scale Systems—Table VI-11 presents the design data for nine
plants employing full-scale hydrolysis treatment systems. Table VI-12
presents operating data for these same systems. Detention time up to
ten days is used in the industry to reduce pesticide levels by up to
99.8 percent resulting in typical effluents less than 1 mg/1.
Plant 1 hydrolyzes washdown and rainwater runoff from its A pesticide
process. Wastewater is adjusted with caustic to a pH greater than 9.0
and detained in one of two identically sized batch hydrolysis basins for
anywhere from 4.5 to 31.0 days. As shown in Table VI-12, the
Pesticide A content is reduced an average of 99.8 percent, from
3,300 mg/1 to 5.49 mg/1. The basin effluent is neutralized and then
spray irrigated with no discharge to navigable waters.
Plant 2 operates an hydrolysis basin for wastewater from its B pesticide
process. A pH less than 1 is maintained for 8 to 15 days in order to
reduce the Pesticide B concentration by 99.9 percent from 57 mg/1 to
0.049 mg/1. The basin effluent is then combined with other plant
wastewaters and sent to a biological treatment plant for subsequent
direct discharge.
Plant 3 operates a hydrolysis basin for wastewater from its C pesticide
process. The wastewater is detained in one of two identical batch
basins for approximately 3 hours at pH 12.7. Steam is added to raise
the wastewater temperature to approximately 46°C. As a result,
Pesticide C is reduced from 93.7 to 97.9 percent, from approximately
27 mg/1 to between 1.7 and 0.56 mg/1. The basin effluent is combined
with other plant wastes and sent to a biological treatment system prior
to subsequent direct discharge.
Plant 4 hydrolyzes wastewater from its D and E pesticide processes. The
acidic wastewater is hydrolyzed by passing it through a limestone pit
and two parallel holding tanks where the pH is adjusted to between 7 and
10. After 3 to 5 hours detention in the holding tanks it is further
hydrolyzed in four parallel aeration basins for a period of three to
five days. Pesticides are reduced by more than 99.9 percent, from
12.2 mg/1 to <0.01 mg/1 prior to discharge to a POTW.
Plant 5 operates hydrolysis treatment units for wastewater from 11 of
its pesticide processes. A maximum of six vessels are used at any one
time, four on a continuous basis, and two on a batch basis. Because the
units are relatively small (1,200 to 12,000 gallons), high pH (up to
13+), and high temperature (up to 100°C) is used to hydrolyze pesticides
rapidly (within 1 to 4 hours). As shown in Table VI-12, actual plant
wastewater sampling demonstrates that all pesticides can be reduced
below 1 mg/1 (Pesticide K would require an additional 45 minutes
detention). After pretreatment by hydrolysis, pesticide wastewater is
combined with other plant wastes and sent to biological treatment for
subsequent direct discharge.
VI-2 6
-------
Plant 6 uses two separate hydrolysis treatment units for wastewaters
from its pesticide processes. The Pesticide Q hydrolysis system is a
proprietary unit designed to remove more than 95 percent of all pesti-
cide compounds structurally similar to Pesticide Q. Actual verification
analyses of this unit were inconsistent with plant and EPA expected
results; therefore, a longer term re-sampling is being planned.
Four other pesticides are hydrolyzed at Plant 6 for 12 hours at 43°C
while the pH is maintained between 12 and 14. These pesticides are
removed to below their detection limits according to plant monitoring
records. After pretreatment by hydrolysis, all pesticide wastewaters are
sent to a biological treatment system for subsequent direct discharge.
Plant 7 used both alkaline and acid hydrolysis to remove pesticides from
their W and X pesticide wastewaters. A pH of 10 to 12 is maintained for
80 minutes at 104°C in the first hydrolysis unit, while a pH of 4 to 6
is maintained for 50 to 60 minutes at 104°C in the second unit.
Pesticide W is reduced from 55 mg/1 to nondetectable levels in the
system; Pesticide X is reported by the plant to hydrolyze more readily,
although no analyses are currently available. After pretreatment by
hydrolysis the wastewater is chemically oxidized and then evaporated
with no discharge to navigable waters.
Plant 8 operates a hydrolysis basin for wastewaters from its Y pesticide
process. Wastewater is maintained at pH 9.0 for 19 hours at 75°C,
during which time the Pesticide Y is reduced from 720 to 90 mg/1. Plant
experimental data show that by increasing the temperature to 85°C and
increasing the pH to 10.0, the half-life for Pesticide Y would change
from 6 to 2 hours. Under such experimental conditions the hydrolysis
basin effluent would be approximately 1 mg/1. After pretreatment by
hydrolysis the effluent is combined with other plant wastes and sent to
activated carbon treatment for subsequent direct discharge.
Treatability Studies—Plant 9 reports that it is planning to modify
its treatment system to use hydrolysis for wastewaters from their
pesticide processes. Lab data on which these plans are based show
percent removal of pesticides to be 97 and 93, respectively, at specific
conditions of pH and temperature.
Plant 10 reports that the following pesticides will hydrolyze under
alkaline conditions: Z, AA, BB, CC, and DD. Table VI-13 contains
hydrolysis data for these compounds.
Plant 11 states that organophosphate pesticides will hydrolyze in warm
alkaline water.
Studies on triazine pesticides not reported in the BPT Development
Document (Jett, 1978) are presented in Table VI-14. In general, acid
hydrolysis provides sufficient degradation to allow feasible full-
scale design of systems removing pesticides through 10 half-lives
(99.9 percent).
VI-2 7
-------
Kinetic studies conducted by Wolfe (1976) indicate second order rate
constants for the hydrolysis of atrazine with sulfuric and with
hydrochloric acid in waters. The reported values at pH 0.5 and 40°C
plus or minus 0.02°C are:
Hydrochloric — (6.9 plus or minus 0.6) x 10"^
Sulfuric— (1.9 plus or minus 0.2) x 10~4
Half-life for atrazine at the same conditions were calculated as:
Hydrochloric — 529 plus or minus 38 minutes
Sulfuric — 192 plus or minus 18 minutes
Studies performed by Armstrong, et al. (1967) on atrazine showed that
the pesticide hydrolysis follows first order kinetics at constant pH,
but the rate is also pH dependent. Authors reported hydroxyatrazine as
the primary hydrolysis product of atrazine and that it is quite
resistant to microbial degradation. However, Kearney, et al. (1969)
reported a decrease in phototoxicity proportional to a "deVrease in the
actual concentration of the s-triazine, thereby demonstrating that
degradation products do not have herbicidal properties.
Munnecke (1976) reported that seven commonly used organophosphate
insecticides were hydrolyzed at rates significantly higher (40 to
1,005 times faster) than chemical hydrolysis through the use of enzymes.
Parathion metabolites, such as p-nitrophenol, did not significantly
influence enzyme activity. The optimum pH range for enzymatic
hydrolysis of the eight organophosphate pesticides range from 8.5 to
9.5 with less than 50 percent activity at pH 7. Munnecke notes that the
ability of cell-free enzymes to degradate pesticides has been demon-
strated for phenylureas, phenylcarbamates, acylanilides, and phenol
herbicides. Through culture enrichment and enzyme production techniques
the hydrolysis kinetics on these pesticides may be demonstrated on
actual pesticide wastewaters in full scale applications.
In 1978, Munnecke reported that the application of soluble or immobil-
ized enzymes can degrade toxic pesticides to less toxic metabolites. In
laboratory studies on parathion hydrolyze activity an immobilized enzyme
was stabilized at a half-life of 280 days.
Incineration
Incineration is a controlled process for oxidizing solid, liquid, or
gaseous combustible wastes to carbon dioxide, water, and ash. In the
pesticide industry thermal incinerators are employed to destroy wastes
containing compounds such as: hydrocarbons (toluene); chlorinated
hydrocarbons (carbon tetrachloride, ethylene dichloride, etc.);
sulfonated solvents (carbon disulfide); and pesticides. Greater than
99.9 percent pesticide removal, as well as greater than 95 percent BOD,
COD, and TOC removal, can be achieved provided that sufficient tempera-
ture, time, and turbulence are utilized. It should be noted that sulfur
and nitrogen-containing compounds will produce their corresponding
VI-2 8
-------
oxides and should not be incinerated without considering their effects
on air quality. Halogenated hydrocarbons may not only affect the air
quality but may corrode the incinerator. Also, it is not recommended
that organo-metallic compounds containing cadmium, mercury, etc., be
incinerated due to the potential for air and solid waste contamination.
Full-Scale Systems—Table VI-15 provides design data for
14 pesticide manufacturers using incineration for flows ranging up to
39,000 gallons per day.
Plant 1 uses an incinerator to dispose of the centrifugal filtrate and
floor washings from the A pesticide process area. Since other
nonpesticide organic residues are also atomized by the two brick-lined
incinerators, only 5.7 percent of the wastewater processed is attributed
to Pesticide A. The residues sustain combustion in the reactors
operating at 1,400°C. The heat value of waste is estimated at
98,000 BTU per gallon. As shown in Table VI-15, the incinerator
capacity is 30 to 35 million BTU per hour for both reactors operating in
parallel using a common scrubber. Steam is continuously fed to the
reactors to supply hydrogen to form hydrochloric acid. Because these
residues are highly chlorinated, the thermal degradation yields carbon
dioxide and hydrochloric acid. The off-gas is water quenched in a
carbon block spray tower and water scrubbed in the carbon block, ceramic
Intalox packed tower before venting to atmosphere. The dilute
hydrochloric acid from the scrubber system is neutralized and discharged
to a municipal treatment system. Prior to incineration, toluene/
orthochlorotoluene and Pesticide A raw materials are found at levels of
24 and 8 mg/1, respectively; however, there are no data available for
the scrubber discharge waste stream.
Plant 2 has a Trane thermal incinerator to oxidize high strength wastes
from six pesticide processes. Sixty percent of incinerator use has been
devoted to pesticides; however, on only two occasions for testing
purposes has pesticide wastewater been oxidized. In both instances the
pesticide wastewaters were mixed with total plant effluents. Therefore,
no pesticide data exist for the scrubber discharge.
The incinerator capacity is 36 million BTU per hour and will process an
average pesticide wastewater volume of 18,000 gallons per day. The
wastewater characteristics for the pesticide portion of the incinerator
influent are as follows: 2,700 mg/1 phosphorus; 6,200 mg/1 sulfur;
60,000 mg/1 BOD; 150,000 mg/1 COD; and 50,000 mg/1 TOC. The incinerator
at this plant is planned to be an alternative to ocean disposal.
Plant 3 uses two on-site incinerators to oxidize process off-gases and
waste organic liquid streams. One incinerator has a capacity of
8.7 million BTU per hour and is designed to operate in excess of 871°C.
This combination liquid-vapor incinerator is entirely devoted to H, I,
and J pesticides. The flue gas scrubber effluent is combined with the
general aqueous effluent from these pesticides prior to entering the
treatment system. At present there are no available data to document
VI-29
-------
removal; however, during the EPA verification visits it was estimated by
plant personnel to remove all pesticides.
The second pesticide incinerator at Plant 3 has a capacity of 20 million
BTU per hour. This two-stage, John Zink oxidizer is designed to handle
effluents with high chemically-bound nitrogen content maintaining
acceptably low levels of NOx emissions. This unit is totally dedicated
to the K pesticide operation. The design raw waste load data is as
follows: TOG 33.0 Ibs/1,000 Ibs production and TOD 207.8 Ibs/1,000 Ibs
production.
Plant 4 operates two thermal oxidizers to dispose of wastewater from six
pesticide products. One of the two oxidizers was built by the John Zink
Company and has a rated heat release capacity of 35 million BTU per
hour. The second oxidizer has a heat release capacity of 70 million BTU
per hour and was built by the Trane Thermal Company.
The thermal oxidizers at Plant 4 were designed to dispose of two
different wastes. The first primary feed stream consists of approxi-
mately 95 percent organics and 5 percent water. The second stream
consists of approximately 5 percent organics and 95 percent water. The
energy generated in the burning of the primary stream is anticipated to
vaporize all water in the secondary stream and to oxidize all of the
organics present. Wastes from the 0 and P pesticide processes currently
use 0.55 and 4.68 percent, respectively, of the incinerator capacity.
As shown in Table VI-15, available information shows that pesticides
incinerated have a combined wastewater volume of 0.0074 MGD.
The incinerator scrubber water at Plant 4 was sampled during the EPA
verification program. The scrubber effluent is discharged to the
tertiary treatment system at a rate of 0.992 MGD. Cyanide was found at
a level of 0.00633 mg/1 or 0.0239 pound per day in the incinerator
scrubber water. No other conventional or priority pollutants have been
measured to determine incinerator efficiency.
Plant 5 operates an incinerator with a capacity of 3,000 BTU per
thousand pound feed to dispose of wastes from the manufacture of
Pesticides R, S, T, U, and V. Approximately 0.05 MGD of T pesticide
wastewater is incinerated. The waste stream from the extraction phase
of Pesticide S production is incinerated. This stream is 2,000 gallons
per day. Waste streams from the reaction processes of Pesticides R and
V are also incinerated. Spills, leaks, and scrubber discharge from the
U pesticide process are incinerated at a rate of 500 gallons per day.
The incinerator feed at Plant 5 separates into an aqueous and organic
phase. The water content of the aqueous phase is approximately 82 per-
cent. At present, 22 percent of the incinerator feed contains pesticide
active ingredients. All incinerator feed originates in pesticide
operations. Incineration at Plant 5 effectively reduces levels of the
priority pollutants methylene chloride, benzene, and toluene, as well as
controlling odor and COD.
VI-30
-------
Plant 5 incinerator feed data indicate pesticide levels to be up to
130 pounds per thousand pounds of production. As shown by effluent data
from the incinerators stack gas water scrubbers, pesticide removal is
from 50 to 99.9 percent. Traditional parameters average 95.9 percent
destruction. Nitrogen destruction averages 63.9 percent. A possible
explanation for this low destruction is that although initial ammonia
may be destroyed, partial destruction of organic nitrogen to ammonia
nitrogen results in a significant amount of ammonia in the scrubbing
liquid. The effluent from the stack gas water scrubber combines with
other plant wastes before biological treatment.
Plant 6 uses an on-site incinerator to treat organic waste from the
manufacture of Pesticide W. The organic waste contains all of the
reaction byproducts as well as sufficient methanol to keep it fluid.
Approximately 5.5 million pounds of incinerator feed was generated in
1977 averaging 10.4 percent Pesticide W, 33 percent methanol, and
56.6 percent byproducts.
The daily flow of Pesticide W organic waste into the incinerator at
Plant 6 is 2,000 gallons per day. The incinerator capacity is rated at
10 million BTU per hour and operates between 1,370 and 1,540°C. The
dwell time for this unit is 0.4 to 0.6 seconds. There are no scrubber
or wastewater discharges from the incinerator. Exhaust gases are vented
to the atmosphere. No data currently exist to document the incinerator
efficiency for this halogenated aromatic compound.
Plant 7 operates three thermal oxidizers to dispose of organics which
have been skimmed off process wastewater from eight pesticide effluents.
The incinerators were installed to remove pesticides as well as benzene
and toluene before discharge by deep well injection.
As shown in Table VI-15, two of the incinerators at Plant 7 have
capacities of 9 million and 12 million Btu per hour, respectively. The
pesticide volume oxidized for both incinerators is 276 gallons per day.
The average pounds per day incinerated for pesticides and volatiles is
shown below:
Organic Liquid Waste Pounds per Day
Benzene 414
Toluene 322
Pesticide X 23
Other Pesticides (Y-EE) 968
Byproducts 576
Approximately 15 to 20 percent of the units are devoted to the liquid
waste.
The third incinerator at Plant 7 mainly oxidizes waste from the X
pesticide process. Approximately 60 percent of the unit is devoted to
liquid waste. Five hundred and fifty-two gallons per day of pesticide
wastewater is incinerated averaging 230 pounds of Pesticide X,
VI-31
-------
1,705 pounds of toluene, and 2,672 pounds of byproducts. This unit
operates at a rate of 20 million BTU per hour.
All incinerators at Plant 7 operate at 815°C with an exhaust stack
height of 100 feet.
Plant 8 operates a waste gas incinerator which uses FF pesticide waste
as supplemental fuel since its heat value is approximately 120,000 BTU
per gallon. The source of this waste is still bottoms from the FF
pesticide distillation process. The rated capacity of the incinerator
is 5 million BTU per hour. Approximately 1,000 gallons per day of FF
pesticide waste is fed to the incinerator. There is no air pollution
control equipment on the incinerator. The plant has estimated that no
FF pesticide residue is in the process wastewater from the plant which
is discharged to a navigable waterway.
Plant 9 operates a J.D. Thorpe incinerator for the destruction of wastes
from the manufacture of Pesticides GG and HH. The incinerator is
devoted to only pesticide wastes. Organic wastes from the HH pesti-
cide plant, aqueous and organic solvent wastes from the GG pesticide
plant, and some wastes from the formulations plant are injected into a
firebox, operating at 870 to 3,180°C, with approximately two seconds
residence time. The heat release capacity is 76.7 million BTU per
hour.
The 39,000 gallons per day of GG pesticide waste which is incinerated by
Plant 9 is estimated to be composed of the following:
Compound mg/1
TOC 35,800
Nitrogen 29,600
Chlorine 39,400
Phosphorus 4,850
Sulfur 33,200
The HH pesticide process at Plant 9 feeds 1,000 gallons per day of waste
to the incinerator. The following are the characteristics of HH
pesticide wastewater:
Compound mg/1
TOC 4,140,000
Chlorine 301,000
Sulfur 67,900
The source of the high TOC was found to be the HH pesticide solvent
bleed stream which is primarily toluene.
The incinerator at Plant 9 was designed to oxidize organic compounds to
water and carbon dioxide. Sulfur, chlorine, and phosphorus are con-
verted to sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, and phosphorus pentoxide.
VI-3 2
-------
The hot exhaust gases are quenched by a recirculating neutral salt water
solution, followed by scrubbing in a venturi. The venturi operates at
pressure drops up to 100 feet of water to remove phosphorus pentoxide.
The cooling tower and heat exchanger cool down the exhaust gases from
87.8 to 71.7°C. Over 50 million BTU per hour are recovered from the
condensation of water in the stack gases. The recirculating scrubber
solution, approximately 0.27 MGD, is neutralized with sodium hydroxide.
Solids that remain are sodium sulfite, sodium chloride, and sodium
phosphate. Sodium sulfite is then oxidized to sodium sulfate in an air
oxidizer prior to direct discharge.
The average wastewater characteristics from the incinerated and air
oxidized effluent at Plant 9 are shown below.
Compound mg/1
Pesticide HH 0.0026
Pesticide GG Not detected
Paraquat* Not detected
Toxaphene* Not detected
Captan* 0.0017
Chlordane* 0.00013
Arsenic 2.0
Zinc <3.5
NH3"N 125
Zinc 1.77
* Not manufactured at time of sampling.
Plant 10 operates an on-site Trane thermal oxidizer to dispose of
organic and aqueous waste from the manufacture of Pesticide II.
Approximately 0.024 MGD of wastewater is oxidized by this unit which is
entirely devoted to pesticide wastes. The heat release capacity is
48 million BTU per hour. The incinerator off-gases are passed through
an alkaline wet scrubber and into an oxidation tower. The incinerator
separator liquid is drained off, mixed with lime, and discharged to a
sludge lagoon. The lagoon effluent and oxidation tower condensate
averaging 0.09 MGD are combined with other plant wastes. The plant has
stated that there are no data available for the incineration effluent at
Plant 10 which is discharged to a navigable waterway.
Plant 11 incinerates all of the waste produced by the JJ pesticide
facility. Both aqueous waste from the aminolysis reaction and
nonaqueous still residue from distillation are oxidized. The average
aqueous waste flow from the process is approximately 2,900 gallons per
day. The incinerator influent contains about 95 to 97 percent water,
1 to 3 percent high molecular weight organics, and 1 to 3 percent
inorganic salts. As shown in Table VI-15 the rated capacity of the
oil-fired incinerator is 12 million BTU per hour; however, there is no
useful heat value from the aqueous waste stream. At present, the
incinerator is used only to dispose of process wastewater from
Pesticide JJ. Air pollution is controlled by a caustic soda enriched
VI-3 3
-------
water scrubber. The plant has stated that no data are available for the
wet scrubber effluent.
Plant 12 is reported to use an on-site incinerator for aqueous waste
from the chlorinator step of the KK pesticide process. No additional
details on this system are currently available. Waste from another
pesticide product, which cannot be recovered to the process, is used as
boiler fuel at Plant 12, thereby allowing no wastewater discharge from
this process.
Plant 13 uses two incinerators to dispose of organic waste and vent
gases from the LL and MM pesticide processes. In addition, aqueous
waste from the toluene purification step of the LL pesticide process is
oxidized. Periodically the pressure filtration treatment system
contributes organic waste to the incinerator feed.
As shown in Table VI-15, one incinerator at Plant 13 degrades
11.1 gallons per day of LL pesticide waste and has a 100-foot exhaust
stack. The incinerator capacity is rated at 14 million BTU per hour.
A second incinerator at Plant 13 combines wastes from both the LL and MM
pesticide processes. Pesticide MM contributes 105 gallons per day, and
Pesticide LL provides 7.6 gallons per day of waste to this 10-million
BTU per hour thermal oxidizer. This incinerator has a 100-foot exhaust
stack for air pollution control. At present the plant has stated that
there are no available data to document the efficiency of these
incinerators prior to discharge of process wastewaters by deep well
injection.
Plant 14 has installed an incinerator to destroy nonconventional
pesticide NN, which is contained in aqueous plant process wastes.
Performance testing showed that NN pesticide destruction efficiencies in
excess of 99.9 weight percent were achieved at a permitted design feed
rate of 6 gpm, oxidizer temperature of 1,800CF, and residence time of
2 seconds. Additional testing showed that 99.9 percent pesticide
destruction could also be achieved, if permitted, at feed rates up to
8.4 gpm, oxidizer temperatures as low as 1,427°F, and residence time as
low as 1.8 seconds. The 9.5 million BTU per hour incinerator was found
to achieve 99.9 percent pesticide destruction under acceptable
conditions of combustion efficiency, stack opacity, and sulfur dioxide
emissions.
Wet Air Oxidation (WAO)
Wet air oxidation is a liquid phase oxidation and/or hydrolysis at
elevated temperature and pressure. The process can be used as a
pretreatment step to destroy toxics ahead of conventional biological
treatment, or to regenerate powdered activated carbon from a biological
treatment system. Products of oxidation stay in the liquid phase and do
not create a secondary air pollution problem. The process can substan-
tially reduce COD of toxic waste streams. When raw waste loads reach a
level of 20,000 to 30,000 mg/1 COD, the process becomes thermally
VI-34
-------
self-sustaining. Phenols, cyanide, nitrosamines, dienes, and pesticides
have been shown to be effectively removed by WAO.
There are no full-scale WAO systems operating in the pesticide industry
today.
Treatability Studies—Wilhelmi and Ely (1975) reported that demon-
stration work on the end of pipe effluent from a pesticide manufacturer,
using WAO, reduced the COD/BOD ratio from 3.7:1 to 1.2:1. They also
reported that cyanide, in concentrations between 500 and 3,000 mg/1, at
an acrylo nitrile plant in Japan, has been reduced by over 99.9 percent
along with a 95+ percent reduction in COD. In general, they noted that
a two-step process of partial oxidation and detoxification by WAO,
followed by some type of biological process, can typically result in COD
reductions from 55,000 to 300 mg/1.
Wilhelmi and Ely (1976) and Randall and Knopp (1978) reported on the
destruction of phenols (more than 99.8 percent) by WAO. It was noted
that during the oxidation process higher molecular weight compounds are
preferentially oxidized to lower molecular weight intermediate products.
High oxidation temperatures, and the use of copper catalysts at lower
temperatures, were proven effective in phenol destruction.
Wilhelmi and Knopp (1978) reported that the WAO system used at the
Louisville, Kentucky sewage plant to detoxify spills of hexachlorocyclo-
pentadiene reduced the concentration of the toxic chemical from
6,000 mg/1 to 420 mg/1.
WAO tests (Wilhelmi, 1979) showed reductions of nitrosodipropylamine
from 170 mg/1 to 2 to 3 mg/1 and for N-nitrosomethylamine, reductions
from 400 mg/1 to 50 ppb.
Zimpro, Inc. (1980) reported on the destruction of pesticide chemicals
by WAO. A summary of the pesticides evaluated (identified by structural
group) follows.
A. Destroyed at 200°C
* Most of the amide and amide-type pesticides
* Carbamate pesticides
* Urea pesticides, monuron and siduron
* Heterocyclic pesticides with nitrogen in the ring
* The uracil pesticides, bromacil and terbacil
* Phosphorothioate and phosphorodithioate pesticides
VI-3 5
-------
* Most of the halogenated aliphatic and aromatic pesticides
(except trichlorobenzene, PCNB, dichlorobenzene, ortho, and
para)
B. Destroyed at 240°C to 275°C
* All the tested pesticides in the nitro structural group
* The triazines pesticides
* Most of the urea pesticides (except monuron and siduron)
Zimpro, Inc. (1980) also reported that in pilot plant tests, a
wastewater composite of about 40 actual pesticides showed a 99+ percent
pesticide destruction and 85 percent COD reduction by WAO.
Solvent Extraction
The use of solvent extraction as a unit process operation is common in
the pesticide industry; however, it is not widely practiced for the
removal of pollutants from waste effluents. It should be considered as
a potential treatment alternative to steam stripping and adsorption
systems with product recovery. Solvent extraction is most effectively
applied to segregated process streams as a roughing treatment for the
removal of priority pollutants such as phenols, cyanide, and volatile
aromatics.
Full-Scale Systems—Plant 1 uses solvent extraction for the removal
of 2,4-dichlorophenol from pesticide process wastewaters. As a result,
Plant 1 has reported that 2,4-dichlorophenol is reduced by an average of
98.9 percent, from 6,710 to 74.3 mg/1.
Treatability Studies—Phenol removal by solvent extraction has been
used extensively for the treatment of refinery and coke byproduct waste
(Mulligan, 1976). Removals generally range from 90 to 99.9 percent with
effluent levels of 1 to 4 mg/1 from a feed of 1,500 mg/1 when high
distribution coefficient solvents were used.
Solvent extraction removals of 97 percent for benzene, ethylbenzene, and
TOD have been reported (Earhart, et al., 1977) using isobutylene as the
solvent.
Membrane Processes
Reverse osmosis systems place wastewater under pressure in the presence
of an osmotic membrane to remove solutes from solution. Molecular size,
valency, temperature, pH, suspended solids, and pressure may affect the
rejection rate for the membrane. Membrane materials used are cellulose
acetate, polymers such as polyamides and polyureas, dynamic membranes
using hydrous zirconium oxide and polyacrylic acid, and inorganic
membranes.
VI-3 6
-------
Ultrafiltration systems achieve similar removal of solutes from solution
based primarily on molecular size. Modern ultrafiltration membranes are
made from a variety of noncellulosic synthetic polymers such as nylon,
vinyl chloride-acrylonitrile copolymers, polysulfone, polyvinylidene,
etc.
Although no membrane processes are used in the pesticide industry, their
application has been demonstrated in the metal industry for recovery of
zinc and copper, in the textile industry for recovery of polyvinyl
alcohols and mineral oils as well as for removal of dyes, and in the
pulp and paper and food industries (Mulligan, 1976).
The Development Document for the Coil Coating Industry (U.S. EPA, 1980c)
reported the following data from full-scale systems using membrane
filtration to remove precipitated metals from wastewater.
Plant 1
Plant 2
Metal
Copper
Zinc
Percent Percent
In (mg/1) Out (mg/1) Removal In (mg/1) Out (mg/1) Removal
18.8
2.09
0.043
0.046
99.8
97.6
8.0
5.0
0.22
0.051
97.3
98.9
Treatabi1ity Studi e s—CARRE (1977) conducted screening tests on
textile wastewater to review the rejection by membrane of various known
toxic chemicals and indicators. Eight different types of membrane and
14 parameters (BOD, COD, TOC, dissolved solids, volatile solids, color,
phenol, mercury, manganese, iron, nickel, chromium, zinc, copper) were
investigated. Rejection data for some specific compounds by Selas
Dynamic Zr(IV)-PAA membrane follows.
Parameter
COD
BOD
TOC
Phenol
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Percent
Rejection
71-99
74-99
82-98
86-100
94-99
92-99
80-98
Concentration
(mg/1)
1600-7100
25-2300
175-2000
0.66-315
2.1-18
1.5-5.5
0.7-3.87
No. of Data
90-100%
27 out of 35
29 out of 38
26 out of 32
4 out
13 out
of 7
of 13
14 out of 14
7 out of 10
Rejection data for the cellulose acetate membrane demonstrated good
removals at high concentrations over wide fluctuations in pH. These
results agreed closely with available literature data.
Bench tests and an extensive literature search were made by Cabasso,
et_ al_. (1975) to determine the applicability of trace organic solutes
removal from drinking water by membrane separation. The five membranes
evaluated were cellulose acetate, cellulose acetate butyrate, ethyl
cellulose, polyamide, and polyurea (NS-1) with the latter two proving
most effective. The authors concluded Chat treatment by reverse osmosis
VI-3 7
-------
with further treatment by an osmotic concentrator is a. reasonable
approach. The authors further concluded that high water-solute coupling
occurs in transport.
Hyper filtration treatability studies are currently being conducted on
pesticide wastewaters by EPA.
Biological Oxidation
Aerated lagoon, activated sludge, and trickling filter systems are
widely used throughout the pesticide industry to remove organic
pollutants measured by parameters such as BOD and COD. As shown in
Table VI-16, there are: (1) 14 aerated lagoon systems with detention
times ranging from approximately 2 days to 95 days, (2) 13 activated
sludge systems with detention times from 7.15 to 79 hours, and (3) 4
trickling filter systems.
Conventional and nonconventional pollutant operating data for these
systems are presented in Table VI-17. BOD removals ranging from 87.4 to
98.8 percent were achieved at major industry biological systems such as
Plants 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 26. COD removals at these same plants
ranged from 60.5 to 89.7 percent. The only major group of pesticides
not previously regulated for BOD and COD are the triazines; average BOD
and COD removals are approximately 94.2 and 64.8 percent, respectively,
for Plants 3, 7, and 9, which produce triazines.
Priority pollutant and nonconventional pollutant pesticide (manufactured
pesticide) removal in biological systems is described below. The
mechanism of pollutant removal may be one or more of the following:
(1) biological degradation of the pollutant, (2) adsorption of the
pollutant onto sludge which is separately disposed, or (3) volatiliza-
tion of the pollutant into the air.
It is well documented that biological systems can be acclimated to
wastewaters containing significant concentrations of phenols. For
example, Plant 21 operates an aerated lagoon system removing phenol by
>93.8 percent from 61.8 to <3.84 mg/1. Plant 16 operates an aerated
lagoon with hydrogen peroxide added, which reduces phenol by 99.8 per-
cent from 1,100 mg/1 to 2.03 mg/1. Plant 5 reduces 4-nitrophenol by
94.7 percent from 203 mg/1 to 10.7 mg/1. Plant 6 reduces 4-nitrophenol
by >99.8 percent from 461 mg/1 to <1.0 mg/1. Plant 2 reduces
2,4-dinitrophenol by 95 percent from 7.91 mg/1 to 0.397 mg/1. In such
cases as described above, biological systems achieve priority pollutant
phenols removal similar to that of activated carbon, resin adsorption,
and chemical oxidation pretreatment systems.
The fate of priority pollutant phenols which reach biological systems,
after pretreatment, at approximately 1 mg/1 or below is a phenomenon of
importance which requires further study. As shown in Table VI-17, the
following actual removals have been observed in the pesticide industry:
VI-3 8
-------
Percent Removal with
Priority Pollutant Raw Load Below 1 mg/1
Phenol 84.4-96.5
2-Chlorophenol >83.9
2,4-Dichlorophenol 93.8-97.6
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 4.5 or less
Pentachlorophenol 39.6-41.0
Data from wood preserving plants in the Timber Industry (BSE, 1978)
indicate that pentachlorophenol is removed through biological systems as
follows:
Percent
PI ant Influent Effluent Removal
33 158.0 0.907 99.4
34 1.2 0.032 97.3
35 22.3 0.21 99.1
36 2.7 0.069 97.4
As shown in Table VI-17, approximately 50 percent of the cyanide at a
1 mg/1 concentration entering the biological systems at Plants 3 and 13
is removed. Additional data from Plants 3, 7, and 9 indicate that
cyanide removals are related to influent concentration, i.e., greater
than 50 percent removal is experienced for raw wasteloads greater than
1 mg/1, and less than 50 percent for raw wasteloads less than 1 mg/1.
Air stripping of volatile priority pollutants in biological systems is a
phenomenon which has received some study as described in Section VIII
(Nonwater Quality Aspects). In general, these pollutants are removed
from above about 1 mg/1 down to their detection limits of <0.005 to
<0.01 mg/1. Actual data from biological systems treating pesticide
wastewater are summarized below from Table VI-17:
Percent Percent
Pollutant Group Removal Range Removal Average
Volatile Aromatics 56.5-99.9 94.6
Halomethanes 22.6-98.5 58.3
Haloethers 90.9 90.9
Chlorinated Ethanes(ylenes) 9.1-96.3 63.0
Polynuclear Aromatics >84.8 >84.8
Priority pollutant metals which can be traced to process sources in the
pesticide industry are copper and zinc. Table VI-17 shows copper and
zinc removals in biological systems to be about 50 percent at influent
concentrations of 1 mg/1 or less. These metals are adsorbed onto sludge
since they are not volatile or biodegradable.
Priority pollutant dienes are not currently biologically treated in the
pesticide industry. Due to their relatively low solubility, dienes are
VI-3 9
-------
not expected to be biodegraded or volatilized (Strier, 1979), but rather
like metals will adsorb on sludge.
Pesticides are removed in biological systems to varying degrees, based
on the characteristics of the individual compound. It can be observed
from Table VI-17 that biological systems such as Plants 2, 7, and 13
which are receiving pesticides at approximately 1 mg/1, are achieving
removals in excess of 50 percent.
Treatability Studies—Results from bench scale treatability studies
performed by Plant 37 showed that a pesticide in concentrations up to
3,000 mg/1 did not inhibit aerobic degradation of sewage at typical
aerator food-to-mass ratios.
Plant 5 conducted bench-scale biological studies to determine the
removal of COD from pesticide wastewater. An average COD removal of
57 percent was achieved in an aerated lagoon with no equalization and
40 days retention. A pilot plant with equalization and 20 days
retention time achieved an average COD removal of 56 percent. An
activated sludge bench unit with 5 days retention and no equalization
achieved an average removal of 44 percent. Plant 5 determined that
equalization of 5 to 10 days should allow the activated sludge system to
achieve 57 percent COD removal.
After conducting bench-scale and pilot-plant treatability studies, as
well as in-plant hydraulic/sampling surveys, Plant 38 has concluded that
out of ten alternative schemes to ocean disposal, biological treatment
of selected wastes, coupled with evaporation and thermal oxidation of
high strength wastes, have been selected.
Plant 39 reported that it will be replacing its activated carbon
treatment system for biological oxidation for the treatment of all plant
wastes. Startup was planned for after June 1979.
Plant 16 reported phenol degradation with a strain of aspergillus
bacteria.
Plant 40 conducted a bench-scale activated sludge study of wastewater
from a pesticide process. Over 99 percent destruction of this pesticide
was achieved with effluent levels of less than 1.8 ug/1.
Plant 28 has conducted pilot-scale treatability studies on the pesticide
consisting of a 20-gallon aerated lagoon with approximately 15 days
detention time along with gravity classification and flocculation. COD
removal of 83 percent and BOD removals of 97.5 percent was reported.
Plant 29 reported that spent pesticide fermentation beer, sampled in
March 1978, did not inhibit biological activity when added to a bench
scale activated sludge unit.
Monnig, _et_ _al. (1979) reported results of a bench-scale activated sludge
system where carbaryl wastewater was diluted with nine parts of
VI-40
-------
municipal wastewater. Carbaryl, toluene, and COD were all reduced
90 percent or greater. The influent concentration of the wastewater was
the following: Toluene, 160 mg/1; COD, 4,100 mg/1; Carbaryl, 4.3 mg/1;
and NH3~^, 158 mg/1. Carbaryl or alpha-naphthal (which was
reported as the hydrolysis product for carbaryl) was not detected above
0.5 ug/1 in the test unit effluent. Data indicated that carbaryl is
readily degraded in activated sludge systems.
Saldick (1975) reported cyanuric acid is removed from aqueous chemical
plant wastes by treatment of the wastes with active bacteria, under
anaerobic conditions, while preferably holding pH approximately 5.0 to
8.5 at ambient temperature.
Petrasek, et al. (1981) conducted a pilot-plant study to evaluate the
behavior and fate of the volatile organic priority pollutants in a
conventional municipal wastewater treatment plant. It was determined
that POTW removals of these pollutants were greater than or equal to
95 percent with effluent levels less than 1 ug/1 in most cases. Excep-
tions were 1,1,2-trichloroethane (69 percent) and dibromochloromethane
(73 percent). It was also found that the volatile organic priority
pollutants do not generally partition strongly to the sludge. A direct
relationship was observed between a compounds tendency to partition to
the sludge and the sludge's octanol/water partition coefficient.
Significant quantities of some of the compounds were also found in the
off-gases from the aeration basin. Removal by primary clarification and
activated sludge treatment for specific compounds to be regulated in the
pesticide industry were as follows:
Compound Percent Removal
Benzene 99
Chlorobenzene 99+
Toluene 95
Carbon tetrachloride 99
Chloroform 97
Methylene chloride 99
Tetrachloroethylene 93
Biological treatment studies were conducted on a bench scale (Kincannon,
1981) in order to observe the removal of specific compounds by
biodegradation versus air stripping. The results indicated that overall
removal of compounds to be regulated in the pesticide industry ranged
between 93 and 99.9 percent. In the case of 1,2-dichloroethane and
1,2-dichloropropane, this removal is accomplished almost entirely by air
stripping, rather than by biodegradation as noted were as follows:
VI-41
-------
Percent Percent Percent
Parameter Overall Removal Biodegraded Air-Stripped
1,2-Dichloropropane 99.4-99.9 0-11.2 88.3-99
Methylene chloride 99.5 94.5 5.0
Benzene 99.9 84.5-85 15.4
1,2-Dichloroethane 98.5 0 97.5-100+
Phenol 99.9+ 99.9+ 0
Tetrachloroethane 93 0 93
2,4-Dichlorophenol 94 94 0
Preliminary findings of a U.S. EPA program (Feiler, 1980) to study the
occurrence and fate of the 129 priority pollutants in 40 POTWs show
that, based on the data for the first 20 of the 40 POTWs, 50 percent of
secondary treatment plants which utilize the conventional activated
sludge process achieve at least 76 percent reduction of total priority
pollutant metals, 85 percent reduction of total volatile priority
pollutants, and 70 percent reduction of total acid-base-neutral priority
pollutants. Median secondary removal rates for specific pollutants to
be regulated in the pesticide industry are:
Priority Pollutant Percent Removal
Zinc 80
Copper 82
Cyanide 54
Toluene 94
Methylene chloride 55
Total phenols 77
BOD 91
COD 83
TSS 92
Tetrachloroethylene 86
Benzene 95
Chloroform 79
Powdered Activated Carbon
Powdered activated carbon (PAC) is used in wastewater facilities to
adsorb soluble organic materials, to enhance aerobic biological systems,
and to aid in clarification. Powdered carbon can be fed to primary
clarifiers, aeration basins, or to separate sludge recirculation
clarifiers. The du Pont PACT® process, which incorporates PAC addition
to the activated sludge system, is the most widely used form of PAC
treatment in wastewater. Spent carbon is removed with the sludge and
can then be discarded or regenerated in a furnace or wet air oxidation
system.
Powdered carbon adsorption has not been widely used on a full-scale
basis in the pesticide industry. Plant 1 designed a PACT® system but
switched to granular-activated carbon because it experienced problems
with regeneration by wet-air oxidation.
VI-4 2
-------
Plant 2 operates three batch activated carbon units for wastewater from
three pesticide processes. Separation wash water from one pesticide is
initially treated by extraction, gravity separation, and stripping prior
to entering the carbon unit. This unit is designed to remove phenol and
pesticide.
Prior to the reaction step in a second pesticide process at Plant 2,
wastewater passes through solvent extraction, activated carbon,
hydrolysis, and ammonia stripping. One to two percent by weight,
powdered carbon is mixed with waste from this pesticide in a batch
vessel for one hour. The compound 1,2-dichloroethane is felt to be
removed by activated carbon; however, no data currently exist from this
plant.
Wastewater from the reaction step of a third pesticide at Plant 2 is
treated by batch slurry contact activated carbon adsorption. The system
is preceded by wastewater extraction, gravity separation, stripping, and
chemical oxidation. Carbon treatment was installed to reduce concentra-
tions of pesticide and phenols. Following carbon treatment, wastewater
from all three processes is combined with other plant wastes in the
general waste treatment plant prior to direct discharge. There is no
regeneration of spent carbon.
Advantages of the PACT* process system have been reported by DeJohn
(1975) and Frohlich (1976). Among possible benefits are:
1. Improved organic pollutant removal (BOD, COD, and TOC).
2. Protection of biological system against upsets by removal
of toxic waste components.
3. Greater proportions of nonbiodegradable materials are
removed through direct adsorption.
4. Improved operational stability.
5. Nitrification in single-stage aeration systems.
6. Control of foaming tendencies.
7. Improved oxygen transfer.
Treatability Studies—DeJohn (1975) reported the performance of
four full scale activated sludge systems before and after the addition
of powdered carbon:
Parameter Before After
Plant 1 BOD Removal 23% 90 to 95%
Plant 2 Effluent COD 1,800 mg/1 350 mg/1
Plant 2 Effluent TOD 100-1,000 mg/1 less than 20 mg/1
Plant 3 TSS & COD — 40% improvement
VI-43
-------
Preliminary studies results improvements (Sublette, et al., 1980) on the
mechanisms for PAC improvements on the activated sludge processes showed
PAC effects are not attributable entirely to physical adsorption, but
involve biological enhancement. Studies involving the addition of
phenol to reactors showed that microcultures are apparently not affected
to such toxins when the toxins are adsorbed by the PAC.
Studies to determine the effect of PAC on biogradation of benzene (Allen
and Gloyna, 1980) showed that PAC provided a system of benzene uptake by
adsorption and release through desorption that essentially controlled
and optimized biological oxidation. Cumulative oxygen uptakes as high
as 95 percent of the TOD of the final benzene concentrations were
observed.
Berndt and Polkowski (1978) reported on powdered activated carbon/wet
air oxidation pilot plant studies where removals of pesticides and PCB's
were more than 90 percent higher than removals with the existing full
scale activated sludge plant. Similarly, the PAC pilot plant effluent
residual concentrations of arsenic, phenol, and total cyanides were
shown to be about one-half of the values for the activated sludge
system. Effluent concentrations of compounds are listed below:
Activated PAC/WAO
Parameter Sludge Pilot Plant
TOC mg/1 18.2 8.3
COD mg/1 50 16
Chlorinated pesticides ug/1 0.35 0.017
Organo-sulfur pesticides ug/1 15.0 0
Copper mg/1 0.01 0.008
Zinc mg/1 0.08 0.021
NH3-N mg/1 12.4 0.17
PCBs ug/1 0.131 0.008
Flynn, et al. (1979) reported on the operational results of a treatment
plant receiving organic chemical manufacturing wastes. The plant, using
PACT® in conjunction with neutralizers, primary and secondary
clarifiers, aerators, and waste sludge thickener with long sludge age,
achieves a dissolved organic carbon (DOC) reduction of approximately
80 percent.
Heath (1980) reports on two years operating data for a 40-MGD plant
using PACT* process to provide combined secondary/tertiary treatment to
industrial wastewater. BOD removals over 96 percent were reported.
Other achievements of this system are:
1. The filtration rate of PACT® sludge increases with increasing
carbon content.
2. There have been no foaming problems in the PACT® liquid train,
even though the wastewater contains surfactants.
VI-44
-------
Data showed removal of volatile organics to be generally 90 percent with
effluent concentration around 10 ug/1. The removal of phenol was
reported between 94 and 98 percent and effluent concentration less than
40 ug/1.
Ford and Eckenfelder (1979) report that because many of the organic
constituents included in the list of 129 priority pollutants are
amenable to carbon.adsorption, the attractiveness of the addition of PAC
to the activated sludge process for effluent quality control is
increasing. Data are presented showing pilot plant performance with PAC
addition as follows:
Pilot Plant 25 mg/1 PAC 50 mg/1 PAC
Parameter Influent Addition Addition
NH3-N (mg/1) 19 0.4 0.1
Phenolics (mg/1) 3.95 0.006 0.002
Soluble COD (mg/1) 294 50 27
Dual Media Filtration
Dual media filtration involves the use of both sand and anthracite for
the removal of solids in pretreatment or tertiary applications.
Full-Scale Systems—Plant 1 employs a settling lagoon followed by
multimedia filtration as pretreatment before resin adsorption. Little
or no reduction of pesticide and other pollutants was observed across
multimedia filtration; however, the following data show the achieved
reductions for pesticide and other pollutants across the settling
lagoon.
Lagoon Lagoon Effluent/
Influent Filter Influent Percent
Pollutant (mg/1) (mg/1) Removal
Pesticide 5.500 0.122 97.8
Copper 0.047 <0.020 57.4
Dibromochloromethane 0.0557 0.005 91.0
Benzene 0.839 <0.010 98.8
Carbon tetrachloride 121.6 8.017 93.4
Chloroform 6.187 2.180 64.8
Plant 2 employs tertiary multimedia filtration to treat wastewaters from
pesticide intermediate and active ingredient processes. This filtration
system is preceded by two series of activated carbon columns and aerobic
biological treatment lagoons.
The following table presents data for some pollutants removed by this
series of filters.
VI-45
-------
Influent Effluent Percent
Pollutant^ (mg/1) (mg/1) Removal
Methylene chloride 0.028 0.025 12.0
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.038 0.036 5.3
Toluene 0.371 <0.010 97.3
Cyanide 0.090 0.069 23.3
Pesticide <0.002 <0.001 >50.0
Copper 0.135 0.059 56.3
Zinc 0.116 0.075 35.3
BOD 191.0 31 83.8
TSS 96.0 35 63.5
Plant 3 uses a dual media filter for pretreatment before activated
carbon. The plant reports that particles less than 10 microns contained
in this waste are not retained. The removal of suspended solids
achieved by this system is approximately 90 percent with an effluent
concentration of 10 mg/1. Data show that pesticide reduction is also
accomplished by this treatment. Pesticide concentration is reduced
approximately 33 percent, with an average concentration of 40 mg/1 in
the filter effluent.
Plant 4 operates a multimedia filtration system for pretreatment of two
pesticide wastewaters prior to activated carbon adsorption. Following
biological treatment, total plant wastewater passes through four sand
filters operating in parallel before entry to the carbon system. No
data are available to document the removals through the filtration
system.
Plant 5 uses multimedia filtration for pesticide wastewater as
pretreatment before activated carbon adsorption. Prior to filtration,
the flow of approximately 2.08 MGD of pesticide and other process waste
enters an equalization and skimming system, then flows to a dissolved
air flotation unit, and is neutralized. Although there are no data
representing filtration influent, effluent values have been reported by
the plant for the following parameters:
Parameter Value
pH 6
TOC 344 mg/1
TSS 97 mg/1
Contract Hauling
Contract hauling of all pesticide wastewaters has been found to be an
economically viable alternative to on-site treatment for the nine
manufacturers shown in Table VI-18. The term "contract hauling" refers
to the transportation and disposal of wastes by a private company,
although some pesticide plants may elect to transport the wastes
themselves. In this industry contract hauling is practiced with flows
up to 50,000 gpd, although most are in the range from a few gallons up
VI-46
-------
to 1,000 gpd. Many plants dispose of some, rather than all, wastewaters
from pesticide processes. Data on partial disposal were not available
for this study.
Evaporation Ponds
Evaporation ponds are open holding facilities which depend on favorable
climatic conditions and/or supplementary design factors to effect
removal of liquid wastes. Evaporation is generally feasible if evapora-
tion, precipitation, temperature, humidity, and wind velocity combine to
cause a net loss of liquid in the pond. If a net loss does not exist
then recirculating sprays, roofs, heat, or aeration can be used to
offset natural factors. A lagoon lining is recommended to prevent
pesticide wastes from entering the groundwater. Solids accumulating
over time will eventually require removal by contract hauling, normally
after a period of approximately 10 years. Land area requirement is a
major factor limiting the amount of flow disposed by this method. The
potential for air emissions should be evaluated on a site-by-site basis;
however, no adverse effects are known to have been documented.
Full-Scale Systems—Table VI-19 summarizes the use of evaporation
ponds in the pesticide manufacturing industry in order to achieve no
discharge of process wastewaters. Six plants dispose of volumes from
0.001 to 0.091 MGD. Three plants operate in regions where precipitation
exceeds evaporation by up to 12 inches per year; three operate in areas
of favorable evaporation conditions.
Ocean Disposal
Plant 1 is the only pesticide manufacturer known to hold a permit to
dispose of wastes into the ocean. Table VI-20 shows that up to six
pesticides with flows ranging from 5,000 to 12,000 gallons per day are
barged without pretreatment. For the past nine years the company has
evaluated ten alternatives to ocean disposal. These included evapora-
tion, thermal oxidation, wet-air oxidation, biological treatment,
electrochemical oxidation, reverse osmosis, solvent extraction, chemical
oxidation, precipitation/coagulation, and irradiation. As a result of
these investigations, biological treatment of selected wastes, coupled
with evaporation and thermal oxidation of high strength wastes, has been
selected as the most cost-effective treatment. The level of pesticides
in the barged effluent ranges from 4.0 to 37.0 lbs/1,000 Ibs, or
approximately 4,000 to 11,000 mg/1.
Deep Well Injection
A deep well disposal system requires a porous, permeable formation of a
large area and thickness at sufficient depth to ensure continued,
permanent storage. The system must be below the lowest groundwater
aquifer, be confined above and below by impermeable zones (aquicludes),
and contain no fractures or faults. The wastewater disposed must be
chemically compatible with the formation, and provisions must be made
for continuous monitoring.
VI-47
-------
Full-Scale Systems—Deep well injection of pesticide wastewaters is
practiced by 17 plants in the industry as shown in Table VI-21. Volumes
injected range from 0.00125 to 0.328 MGD. Some plants have no pretreat-
ment, while most have solids removal steps (such as skimming, pressure
filtration, or gravity separation) in order to ensure that blockage of
the well does not occur. Plant 2 is the only plant known to have
installed in-plant controls for the removal of priority pollutants prior
to a well. The plant employs steam stripping to reduce chlorobenzenes
from 400 to 1 mg/1; it also uses solvent extraction to reduce
Pesticide K from 1,000 to 35 mg/1.
DEFINITION OF RECOMMENDED TECHNOLOGIES
Each of the potential technologies described earlier was evaluated in
terms of its effectiveness for the removal of individual and groups of
priority pollutants. Design criteria were then developed for treatment
units recommended.
Treatment Effectiveness for Priority Pollutant Groups
Table VI-22 identifies the treatment technologies considered for appli-
cation to pesticide chemical wastewaters. The primary unit treatment
recommended for each pollutant group is designated with a "1". After
pretreatment by the recommended primary unit, it is predicted that
pollutant groups can be further removed by treatment units designated by
a "2". For example, wastewater containing volatile aromatics is
recommended to be pretreated to 1 mg/1 by steam stripping (designated as
"1"). After steam stripping, and any other pretreatment required, it is
recommended that biological oxidation (designated as "2") be utilized to
further reduce volatile aromatics and other pollutants. As additional
alternatives, dual media filtration and tertiary activated carbon may be
applied after biological oxidation. In this example only tertiary
activated carbon is assumed to remove volatile aromatics, and is
therefore designated as "2".
Design Criteria for Recommended Treatment Units
Each of the recommended treatment units has been designed based on
actual systems in place in the pesticides industry. The design criteria
utilized have already been demonstrated to achieve the levels specified.
The raw waste loads have been derived so that maximum priority pollutant
concentrations presented in Section V can be consistently removed. Each
unit treatment will be discussed below in conjunction with Figures VI-2
through VI-22, which provide a concise summary of design criteria and
flow diagrams.
Pump Station—Pump stations provide a wet well and three individual
pumps which will each handle 50 percent of the daily flow during eight
hours of service time. The pumping head is assumed to be 20 feet. Pump
stations are required to bring the process effluents to the treatment
plant, and before any carbon adsorption, resin adsorption, or aeration
basins; and to recycle backwash water from dual media filters and carbon
VI-48
-------
or resin adsorption and overflow from sludge thickener, aerobic
digestor, and vacuum filters.
Equalization—Equalization basins of 12-hour detention are provided
for raw process wastewater as it leaves the plant, and for 24-hour
detention before any biological treatment system. Equalization consists
of two basins in parallel, each equipped with a floating aerator
providing 75 horsepower per million gallons of volume.
Steam Stripping—A steam stripping system has been provided to
remove volatile organics from levels equal to or greater than solubility
down to one part per million. The stripped volatile may be recovered if
process chemistry considerations allow, or it may be incinerated. The
steam stripping system includes an influent storage drum, feed
preheater, pump, stripping column, overhead condenser, reflex drum,
effluent heat exchanger, and effluent storage drum. The column is
designed to have three theoretical and approximately 25 actual trays,
assuming a tray efficiency of 12 percent. The reflux is 25 percent of
the feed. The theoretical basis for the steam stripping design is
presented in Section XVIII, Appendix 7.
Alkaline Chlorination—Alkaline chlorination is provided to treat
cyanide to levels of 0.04 ppm from raw waste concentrations greater than
3,000 ppm. It is an established method of cyanide destruction in the
metal plating industry. The destruction of cyanide proceeds by the
following reactions:
Cn~ + C12 ~> CnCl + Cl~~
This reaction is practically instantaneous and independent of pH. The
secondary reaction is:
CnCl + 2NaOH -> NaCnO + NaCl + H20
In the pH range from 8.5 to 11, the reaction takes 5 to 30 minutes to go
to completion.
The alkaline chlorination system consists of two batch reactor vessels,
feed pumps, recirculation pumps, caustic storage, caustic addition pump,
chlorine storage, and a chlorinator. Each reactor vessel is sized for
24 hours detention at flows of 10,000 gallons per day and 12 hours
detention at flows of 100,000 gallons per day. Each reactor is provided
with 75 horsepower of mixing for each million gallons of volume. The
reaction time is assumed to be four hours for the purpose of determining
operating costs. The chlorine and caustic usage are assumed to be three
parts per part of cyanide.
Metals Separation—Metals separation is accomplished by
precipitation of the metal hydroxide. The system has been designed for
removal of zinc at 245 mg/1 and copper at 4,500 mg/1 to an effluent of
0.5 part per million. The optimum pH of operation is 9.0.
VI-4 9
-------
The metals separation system consists of influent pumps, two batch
mixing tanks, a filter press, an effluent holding tank, caustic storage,
caustic addition pump, polymer storage, and a polymer addition pump.
Mixing and holding tanks are sized for 24-hour detention at flows of
1,000 gallons per day and 12 hours detention of 30,000 gallons per day.
Each tank contains 75 horsepower mixing per million gallons of flow.
The filter press operates eight hours per day. The caustic addition
rate is 24.5 parts per part of zinc or copper. The polymer addition
rate is 20 mg/1.
Hydrolysis—Hydrolysis treatment has been provided as one of
several alternatives for pesticide removal. Two flow-through basins
have been sized for detention times of 400, 4,000, 10,000, and
24,000 minutes in order to achieve 99.9 percent pesticide removal (the
equivalent of 10 half-lives) to 1.0 mg/1 or less.
Chemical addition has been provided in order to raise the pH of the
wastewater from 7.0 to 11.0, while it has been assumed that steam is
available to raise the wastewater temperature from 22°C to 40°C. System
components include: caustic storage tank, chemical feeders, mixing
tank, basins, temperature control, steam delivery and control, and basin
enclosure,
Neutralization—Neutralization has been provided prior to activated
carbon and resin adsorption, pesticide removal, and/or prior to
biological treatment.
The neutralization basin is sized on the basis of an average detention
time of 6 minutes. Either acid or caustic neutralization may be
required. For the purpose of cost estimation, caustic neutralization
was assumed since it is the most expensive. The size of the caustic
soda handling facilities is determined according to a 100 mg/1 feed
rate. Caustic soda storage is provided based on 30 days' capacity and
is fed by positive displacement metering pumps. Seventy horsepower per
million gallons is provided for mixing.
Dual Media Pressure Filtration—Dual media pressure filtration has
been provided for two purposes. fh~e first is for suspended solids
removal prior to activated carbon or resin adsorption applied as a
pesticide removal pretreatment. The second purpose is for tertiary
polishing after biological oxidation and before tertiary activated
carbon treatment.
The filter system design is the same for both applications. Feed pumps
load the filters at a rate of 4 gpm/ft^ against a maximum pumping head
of 20 feet. The run length is assumed to be 12 hours, after which time
the filters are backwashed for 15 minutes. Backwash water for pretreat-
ment filters is recycled back to a 12-hour equalization basin; backwash
water for tertiary filters is recycled to a 24-hour equalization basin.
Backwash pumps are sized to accommodate two filters concurrently at a
rate of 20 gpm/ft^ against a maximum head of 30 feet.
VI-50
-------
Activated Carbon Adsorption—Activated carbon has been provided as
a pretreatment and tertiary treatment system. In each case at least two
columns in series have been provided. The pretreatment carbon system
consists of contact times of 60, 300, 600, and 750 minutes at a loading
rate of 0.5 gpm/ft^. The corresponding carbon usage rate for all
detention times is 100 lbs/1,000 gallons of pesticide wastewater. These
design characteristics encompass the range found in the industry for
removals of 99.9 percent for pesticides while maintaining an effluent
level of one part per million or less.
For tertiary treatment a detention time of 30 minutes, a loading rate of
4 gpra/ft^, and a carbon usage rate of 30 lbs/1,000 gallons has been
provided. These design characteristics ensure additional removal for
pesticides and other adsorbable compounds such as dienes, nitrosamines,
phenols, cyanide, polynuclear aromatics, chlorinated ethanes, metals,
BOD, COD, and TSS.
Backwash water for a pretreatment activated carbon system is recycled to
a 12-hour equalization basin. For the tertiary activated carbon system,
the backwash water is recycled to a 24-hour equalization basin.
Activated Carbon Regeneration—A regeneration facility is provided
to include a furnace(feeder,scrubber, and afterburner), spent carbon
dewatering tank, slurry pumps, regenerated carbon wash tank, makeup
carbon wash tank, and washwater pumps. A 6.5 percent carbon loss during
the regeneration step is assumed.
The possibility of carbon replacement rather than regeneration was
considered. The sytems involved here are generally too large to make
this option economically feasible. The smallest regeneration facility
(for tertiary treatment of 0.03 mgd) is at approximately the break-even
point for this option.
Resin Adsorption—Resin adsorption has been provided for pretreat-
ment applications.In both cases there are two columns installed in
parallel so that each handles half the flow. An additional column
remains as a spare. The columns have been sized for a 15-minute contact
time and a loading rate of 4 gpm/ft*. The columns are regenerated
daily. The columns are expected to remove phenols and pesticides down
to an effluent level of 1 part per million or less.
Backwash water for the resin adsorption pretreatment system is recycled
to a 12-hour equalization basin. The backwash water for resin adsorp-
tion tertiary treatment is recycled to a 24-hour equalization basin.
Resin Regeneration—A regeneration facility has been provided to
include methanolstorage, methanol pumps, batch distillation column,
overhead condenser and reflux drum. Regeneration consists of solvent
extraction with two bed volumes of methanol followed by batch
distillation to separate the solvent from adsorbed organics. The
methanol loading rate is 0.3 gpm/ft^. The distillation column has
ten actual plates and a reflux ratio of three to one.
VI-51
-------
Nutrient Addition—Nutrient addition is provided prior to aeration.
Phosphoric acid addition and anhydrous ammonia addition are included.
Addition rates are set to maintain a BOD/P/N ratio of 100/5/1.
Aeration Basins—As part of an activated sludge system a. minimum of
two aeration basins in parallel are provided. Each basin has a deten-
tion time of three days and a mixed liquor suspended solids concentra-
tion of 3,000 mg/1. Mechanical surface aerators are provided in the
aeration basin with 100 horsepower per million gallons treated.
Aerators were selected on the basis of 1.5 Ibs of oxygen per
horsepower-hour.
Clarification—As part of an activated sludge system a minimum of
two clarifiers in parallel have been provided. The clarifiers are
assumed to be circular concrete basins with a depth of 12 feet. They
are sized on the basis of an overflow rate of 400 gpd/ft2. Allowances
are made for a sludge return capacity of 200 percent.
Sludge Thickener—The sludge thickener is designed on the basis of
a solids loading of 10 Ib/ft^/day. A solids concentration of
2 percent is assumed for sludge leaving the thickener. Water leaving
the thickener is recycled to a 24-hour equalization basin.
Aerobic Digestion—The size of the aerobic digester is based on a
hydraulic detention time of 20 days. The size of the aerators/mixers is
based on 150 horsepower per million gallons of digester volume. A
solids production of 0.6 Ib VSS/lb BOD removed and a VSS reduction of
50 percent were assumed. A solids concentration of 3.5 percent was
assumed for sludge leaving the digester. Water leaving the digestor is
recycled to a 24-hour equalization basin.
Vacuum Filtration—The size of the vacuum filters is based on a
solidsloading of 4 lb/ft^/hr with effluent solids at 15 percent.
Average running times of 12 hours are assumed. Chemical addition
(ferric chloride) at a rate of 7 percent by weight of dry solids is
provided. Filtrate is recycled to a 24-hour equalization basin.
Contract Hauling—Contract hauling of activated and metals sludge
is provided to both hazardous and nonhazardous landfills.
Incineration—A liquid-vapor incineration system has been provided
to handle concentrated organic process wastes, condensed organics from
steam stripping systems which cannot be reused, reactor vent streams,
and other refractory streams. The volume to be incinerated is assumed
at 1 percent of the total wastewater treatment system flow.
The design of the incinerator is based on flow volume and waste type.
Cost curves have been developed for five types of wastes which might be
encountered in the industry:
1. Hydrocarbons,
2. Chlorinated aliphatics,
VI-5 2
-------
3. Chlorinated aromatics,
4. Aqueous oily wastes, and
5. Aqueous ammonia wastes.
The incineration system includes influent storage and pump, fuel storage
and pump, fan, incinerator, venturi scrubber, final scrubber, scrubber
water holding tank and pump, and stack. For chlorinated organics
incineration, caustic or lime storage and feeders, a mixing tank, and
mixer are provided to neutralize the HCl formed. Caustic is used for
small flows and lime is used for large flows where the large capital
investment would be offset by the lower price of lime. Steam recovery
has been designed and included in cost calculations.
Evaporation Ponds—Two alternatives for evaporation ponds were
designed. A solar evaporation system was designed for net evaporation
rates of 5, 10, 20, and 30 inches per year. Based on these rates the
surface area required for the pond was calculated assuming that there
was a period of four months when precipitation exceeded evaporation by
30 inches per year. A 4-foot deep lined pond was provided using the
assumptions itemized above.
A spray evaporation pond was designed for situations where the net
evaporation rate was not sufficient. This system consists of a lined
pond with recirculation pumps, pipes, and nozzles installed at the
height of 10 feet in order to assist natural climatic conditions. An
equation developed by Reynolds and Shack (1976) was used to approximate
evaporation as shown below:
"* "(l-H-)P.
RLn
1260.5 Whp 1-e -
5280 Whp
P
a
In the previous equation the following definitions apply:
1. E » Evaporation (ft-' per month)
2. W » Wind velocity (mph)
3. h • height of spray above pond surface (feet)
4. p = air density = (39.66 Pa) r (460 + Ta)
Where: Pa = atmospheric pressure (atmosphere)
Ta = atmospheric temperature (°F)
5. Ky1 = spray mass transfer coefficient
6. L = pond length (ft)
7. Cw = surface mass transfer coefficient
VI-53
-------
8. Hr = relative humidity (as a decimal)
9. Ps = saturation vapor pressure (atmosphere)
10. R « ratio of width to length
11. n = days per month
Given the evaporation established above, the amount of rainfall and the
amount of flow into the pond will determine pond depth and land require-
ments. It was assumed that annual rainfall was equal to 40 inches per
year, and that for determining pond depth there was at least a 10-week
period during the year when there was rainfall but no evaporation. The
resulting pond design was 4 feet deep including 2 feet of freeboard,
with a berm slope of 3:1. The top of the berm was assumed to be 2 feet
wide and 2 feet from the fenced property line.
VI-54
-------
Table VI-1. Principal Types of Wastewater Treatment/Disposal
Type of Treatment/Disposal Number of Plants*
Biological Oxidation 32
Activated Carbon 17
Deep Well Injection 17
Incineration 13
Chemical Oxidation 9
Contract Hauling of All Wastewater 9
Hydrolysis 8
Steam Stripping 8
Multimedia Filtration 7
Evaporation 6
Resin Adsorption 4
Metals Separation 3
* = There are a total of 117 plants in industry; however, many have
more than one means of treatment/disposal.
VI-5 5
-------
Table VI-2. Plants Using Stripping for Pesticide Wastewaters
Plant Product/
Code Process Code
1 A
B
C
D
2 E
F
G
3 H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
4 R
5 S
6 T
7 U
8 V
W
X
Type Stripper
Vacuum
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam & Vacuum
Steam & Vacuum
Steam & Vacuum
Flow (MGD)
NA
0.0165
NA
NA
0.01
0.05
0.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.072
0.09
0.0326
0.048
0.09
0.06
0.04
Stripped Material
Isobutyl alcohol
Methylene chloride
Xylene
Xylene
Chloroform, hexane
Chloroform, hexane
Chloroform, hexane
Ethylene dichloride
NA
Methanol
Toluene
Toluene
Methanol
NA
NA
Toluene
NA
Ammonia, ethylamine
1 , 2-dichloroethane
Ammonia
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
NA » Not available.
VI-5 6
-------
Table VI-3, Steam Stripping Operating Data
VOLATILE AROMATICS
Benzene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/ 1 rag/1 Removal
1 <0.07 <0.04 42.8
6 <0.050 <0.050 NA
6 ND ND NA
8 <0.299° <0.299° NA
Toluene
Plant
1
6
6
8
8
8
8
Influent
rag/1
<0.070
<0.20
ND
>99.5
686
1,570
528
Effluent
rag/1
<0.041
<0.20
ND
29.1
33.8
86.5
24.2
Percent
Removal
42.1
NA
NA
>70.7
95.1
94.5
95.4
Chlorobenzene
Influent
Plant mg/1
6 ND
Effluent
rag/1
ND
Percent
Remov al
NA
HALOMETHANES
Methylene chloride
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant rag/1 mg/1 Removal
1 <159 <0.01° 99.9
6 0.005 0.02 +
6 <0.798 <0.645 19.2
Plant
1
2
6
Chloroform
Influent Effluent
mg/1 mg/1
<0.0623 <0.0010°
70.0* <5.0*
<0.30 <0.733
Percent
Reraov al
98.4
>92.9
+
Carbon tetrachloride
Influent
Plant rag/ 1
Effluent
mg/1
Percent
Reraov al
<0.0010 <0.0010
NA
Footnotes at end of table.
VI-5 7
-------
Table VI-3. Steam Stripping Operating Data (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
Trichloroethylene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
1
6
<0.070
NA
<0.04
0.01
42.9
NA
AMMONIA
Ammonia
Influent Ertluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
4
6
6
>50.0
2540
7890
5.00
95
98.0
>90.0
96.3
98.8
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
+ = Concentration increased.
= Analysis not conducted per protocol.
* = Data from comingled waste stream.
VI-58
-------
Table VI-4. Plants Using Chemical Oxidation for Pesticide Wastewaters
Plant
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Pesticide
Code
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
Pesticide Volume
Disposed (MGD)
NA
0.029
NA
NA
NA
0.0634
0.10
0.02
0.07
0.0005
0.0015
0.02
0.015
0.0003
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0026
PH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13-14
7-11
7-11
1
8
8
10-12
10-12
7-12
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chemical Oxidant
Hydrogen peroxide
Sodium hypochlorite
Hydrogen peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide
Formaldehyde
Chlorine
Chlorine
Hydrogen peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide
Chlorine
Chlorine
Sodium hypochlorite
NA
NA
NA
Cobaltous chloride
NA - Not available.
VI-5 9
-------
Table VI-5. Chemical Oxidation Operating Data
CYANIDE
PHENOLS
Cyanide
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant tag/1 mg/1 Removal
Phenol
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
5503°
19.7
99.6
1100*
2.03*
99.8
MANUFACTURED
PESTICIDES
Pesticides
Pesticide
Code
F
S
S
T
G
V
H
H
U
I
K
J
Influent
Plant
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
mg/1
83.2
1.33
3.46
2.03
2.40
2.57
398
19.2
0.013
NA
NA
NA
Effluent
mg/1
<0.145
<0.01
1.26
<0.01
0.229
1.19
0.187
3.19
0.299
NA
0.023*
0.023*
Percent
Removal
>99.8
>99.3
63.6
>99.5
90.5
54.4
99.9
83.4
+
98. 9t
NA
NA
VOLATILE AROMATICS
Chlorobenzene
Influent Effluent
Plant mg/1 mg/1
3 ND ND
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
0 = Analysis not conducted
Toluene
Percent
Removal
NA
per protocol
Plant
3
*
Influent
rag/1
<0.01
Effluent Percent
rag/ 1 Remov al
<0.01 NA
* = Data from comingled waste stream.
t = Pilot plant data.
+ = Concentration increased
.
VI-60
-------
Table VI-5. Chemical Oxidation Operating Data (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
HALOMETHANES
Carbon tetrachloride
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
3 Trace 0.014° NA
Plant
3
Methylene chloride
Influent Effluent
mg/ 1 mg/ 1
ND ND
Percent
Removal
H*
Chloroform
Influent
Plant mg/1
3 0.0367
3 0.170*
Effluent
mg/1
1.50
1.90°
Percent
Remov al
*
NA - Not available.
ND = Not detected.
+ =* Concentration increased.
Q * Analysis not conducted per protocol.
VI-61
-------
Table VI-6. Plants Using Metals Separation for Pesticide Wastewaters
Plant
Code
1
2
3
NA -
Pesticide
Code
A
B
C*
D*
Not available.
Flow (MGD) Type of System
0.06 Hydrogen Sulfide
Precipitation
NA Sodium Sulfide
Precipitation
0.35 Ferric Sulfate,
Lime Precipitation
Effluent
Concentration
(mg/1)
2.2-2.8 (Cu)
NA
0.2 (As)
0.11 (Zn)
* • Previously manufactured metal lo-organics.
As •
Cu -
Zn -
Arsenic
Copper
Zinc
VI-62
-------
to
Jj
Ol
1 1
(0
S
01
CO
CO
0)
•o
•^
o
4-1
CO
01
u
o
U-I
c
o
t-l
CO
01
4-1
CO
•r-t
2
n)
,__(
3
C
CO
^J
O
e
• <-4
(0
CO
4J
C
<0
r-^
PU
•
^^
1
l-l
01
r—t
c\
CO
E-i
C
O
4J
10
>
• H
U
CO
01
01
60
CO
CO
o
CO
0
73
0) 73
4J 01
r-t
3 >>
u 4J
•—4 D.
4
4J
CQ
01
P-
4J
C
CO
,— t
PW
T)
O
4J
S
x-v
,— 4
CO
60
O
O
~
i— i
*^S
0)
B
*fH
H
4-J
O
CQ
•U
C
0
u
a
a
Q
0
ss
*O
•w
s
(a
H
f^ CJ
|H P-4
^s^ ^*^
Ol 01
(0 CO
1 1
U-I U-I
0 0
O O
CM CM
e c
£ X
O 0
CM CM
CO CO
in m
(—4 •— 4
1 t
O O
•—4 1—4
2> |§
3S M
CO co
B E
01 01
s* _tn
P P
•*^... "»*N.
0) 0)
(0 CQ
1 1
U-J U-l
^ ^^
0 0
in m
i—4 f— 4
00 00
c c
S X
00 00
00 00
in m
O 0
ft
in m
0 0
CO
in
N* ON
0 0
o o
0 O
t-) ^
CM
01
O
W
C
i;
co co co co u-i
E E e e
CU Ol 0> 01 01
^2 f*- ^2 ^^ ij
fH H H H to
^^ "X^. ^x. ^*^ )taf
Ol 01 01 01 "^
10 (0 CO CO -->
1 1 1 1 V
u-i u-i u-i u-i ^D
•f -"
U-I U-I
C C
>C-C
01 0>
4-1 i-i
•H .H
to co
1 1
<§<§
in in
t •
CO CO
CO CO
0 0
o o
CM CM
• •
c c
S £
CM CM
m in
I I
oo oo
f«H *"H
CN CM
i—* ^-i
i i
i i
^) ^3
o o
vO vO
Ol CM
-* ~*
W H
co co co
see
C 1-4 C
Ol 01 01
J-I ^" J<
P P P
^*N. "^*. *^«fc
01 V 0>
4-1 4-1 4J
CO CO CO
1 1 1
IM w^ u-<
M-( M-l iM
O O O
X-S X-N /-"^
^4 "^3 ^4
SMX NM^ •*-•
srt ^ \O
co co co
P-4 p— 4 ^H
Q Q^
>W' NwX NMI/
C C C
s a a
o o o
o o o
o o o
r«4) r~4 t—4
X™\ /"S X"N
»
vjD
to
g
0)
Jj
P
"^*.
0)
4J
(fl
1
U-I
U-I
0
X"N
Z
^
,-*.
Z
• l-l
a
•-H
fs^
m
Z
m
^
o
CO
O
•
^5
m
o
•
o
(U
4J
01 CO
73 -H
•H 73
y Ol
CO Ol
01 4-1
PM C
1-1
.
CD
i— 1
.0
CO
4J
U-I
O
73
C
0)
4-1
CO
CO
01
o
c
4->
O
o
VI-63
-------
CM
u-i
o
CM
0>
60
to
M
•o
0>
C
4J
c
8
ID
I-l
0)
J_)
to
0>
4J
to
CO
s
0)
-o
•H
o
4-1
to
01
cu
Jj
o
14-1
c
0
CO
o
o>
to
• I-l
4-1
***
1-
to
^
3
c
03
>-l
CS
60
• i-l
to
3
(O
C
tO
•—4
Cu
•
f*^
M
0)
1— 1
CO
H
C
O
4J *^
tO O
4-1 Ol
u Z
to
0)
^
0) i-l
00 <0
tO 00
CO
S3 o
o
C 0
O -H
.n ^~.
to .-4
CJ NW'
01
•a B
0) "O •<•!
4J 01 H
to n
i-l 4-1
3 >> 0
O 4J 03
r-l O. 4-1
« E C
CJ W O
0
X
(X
x~s
1
^n*
0)
9 0)
•-I 4->
o to
0)
H
0)
*o
•f-l
U 0)
4J O
CO CJ
(X
4J
C 0)
tO -0
M O
PL, tj
CQ to co to ,_4 f-^
EBB B CO to
u C u C SB
oi 0) oi o> C C
rj r; rj _f 0) 0)
H H H H f f
^^•~~~. — •*-, H H
0) 0) 0) 0) ^^ "^
4-1 4J 4J 4-1 0) 0)
CO U CO CO -r4 .H
(I) | CO CO
U-4 U-l U-l U-l ||
U-l U-l U-l < 14-1 «»! f»"> CM
• • OO • O>
in in • ^ t?N ^C ^ ^d *
O> <7^ CM Z ^O K Z Z CO
c c c c c
• H .H -i-l -i-l -rt
5C 3S IS S )£
O O O O ON
coco O ^ m ^^ ^ o
%^- s^1 — ^ KCM ZA Z i— I
CM
OO 00 — H tj>
vOvO 00 Z m ZZ Z vO
in oo
vo r~> —< o CM O
>*-> N O "— * CM CO
i-H ^H I— 1 i"^
1— 1
o
c
a to to
Q, 0) 01
O -p -C
to P5 H
M ^ "~^
•^- 0) 0)
• H 10 CO
CO | |
I U-l U-l
C U-l U-l
o o o
0 0
• •
i— 1 fH
^J l^ \f}
^ t |
14-1 U-l U-l U-l
o o o o
\£) ^«
• *
-H r- o O
r^» *4* • •
CM CM
• *
c c
SB JB £5 C
lO 00 JlEj JEJ
• *
-HO O O
ON vO vO vO
in m
CM CM • •
i— t i— 1 O O
II ^H — 1
NO VO II
. . o o
3 £ -*' st
l^ -J V!
MM >-) $6
s 1^
•
4^
c
w
B
4J
a)
• tj) •
S w *o
O J-* OJ
i—4 3
«*-!>» C
D to AJ
•0 .-4 C
•H 4J O
u u u
•H Ot to •
4_i 4J •!-( ai
W T3 P-I
OI CO J2
O* CO C Q) • •
O M C C
0) 0) 4-1 CO -pJ -i-l
e N o > 4-» 4J
• i-l .iH 3 tO C8 CO
js -4 -a en
§•-< O 4J -i-l 4J
4-1 V4 O B •<-•
cj a PU z < z
n M n n n n
*" Z «? z:
>-x ^x
VI-64
-------
Table VI-8. Granular Activated Carbon Operating Data
MANUFACTURED PESTICIDES
Pesticides
Pesticide
Code
B
B
A
A
C
K
K
0
0
M
M
L
L
P
Q
R,S,T
R.S.T
U
U
U
Y
X
Z
Z
BB
BB
FF
GG
HH
HH
HH
HH
HH
II
Plant
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
10
10
13
14
15
15
15
15
15
16
Influent
mg/1
7.83
<4.63
83,0
82.5
<0.01
0.465
15.5
NA
0.065t
10.4
10.9
40.7
18.1
9300
15
133*
45.7*
184
14.6
3.37
7.57
218
31.3
41.8
160.0
477
NA
17.2
7.75
3460
320
1780
4.2
<1420
Effluent
mg/1
<0.0084
<0.0147
0.0428
<0.0359
<0.01
<0.001
0.0182
0.0055
0.005
<0.92
<0 . 342
<5.84
0.680
1.7
0.01
4.7*
12.4*
2.82
0.0713
0.004
>0.01
1.26
<10.0
15.2
<0.025
3.37
0.00602
11.0
2.45
5.71
4.32
1.85
1.4
<314
Percent
Removal
>99.9
99.7
99.9
>99.9
NA
>99.8
99.9
NA
92.3
>91.2
>96.9
>85.7
96.2
99.9
99.9
96.5
72.9
98.5
99.5
99.8
<99.9
99.4
>68.0
63.6
>99.9
99.3
NA
36.0
68.4
99.8
98.6
99.9
66.7
77.9
* = Data from comingled waste stream.
t • Analysis not conducted per protocol.
NA = Not available.
VI-65
-------
Table VI-8.
Granulated Activated Carbon Operating Data
(Continued, Page 2 of 6)
PHENOLS
Phenol
Plant
1
1
4
4
6
8
Influent
mg/1
44.1*
<1.82*
0.92
280
<0.015t
ND
Effluent
mg/1
0.197*
<0.081*
<0.01
0.029
<0.01
ND
Percent
Removal
99.6
95.5
>98.9
99.9
33.3
NA
Plant
1
1
8
15
2 ,4-Dichlorophenol
Plant
1
1
1
1
4
Influent
mg/1
92.2*
NA
NA
53.7*
42,000
Effluent
mg/1
<0.0591*
0.482°
0.4988
<0.022*
0.82
Percent
Removal
>99.9
NA
NA
>99.9
99.9
Plant
1
1
4
8
Pentachlorophenol
Plant
2
6
NA -
ND =
t -
Influent
rag/1
<1 .0
<0.01
Not available
Not detected.
Analysis not
Effluent
mg/1
<0.10t
<0.01t
conducted
Percent
Removal
90.0
NA
per protocol,
Plant
1
1
2
3
2-Chlorophenol
Influent
mg/1
<5.09*
11.2*
ND
0.040
Effluent
mg/1
<0.0233*
<0.010*
ND
ND
Percent
Removal
99.5
>99.9
NA
NA
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Influent
mg/1
<3.69*
2.20*
8700
ND
Total
Influent
mg/1
<145*
<79.6*
<0.0056
0.187
Effluent
mg/1
<0.0493*
<0.010*
0.068
ND
phenol
Effluent
mg/1
<0.329*
<0.143*
<0.001
0.118
Percent
Removal
98.7
>99.5
99.9
NA
Percent
Removal
99.8
99.8
82.1
36.9
Reported as total phenol with 2,4-dichlorophenol principal constituent
Data from comingled waste stream.
VI-66
-------
Table VI-8.
Granulated Activated Carbon Operating Data
(Continued, Page 3 of 6)
NITROSAMINES
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Plant
6
6
6
8
Influent
mg/1
0.069
0.123
1.96
ND
Effluent
mg/1
0.0067
0.0276
0.0041
ND
Percent
Removal
90.3
77.6
99.8
NA
VOLATILE AROMATICS
Benzene
Toluene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
1
4
4
7
15
15
NA -
ND =
<0.01*
NA
0.073
ND*
<0.050
0.02
Not available.
Not detected.
<0.01*
<0.012
<0.01
NA
<0.050
ND
»
NA
NA
>86.3
NA
NA
NA
1
4
4
5
5
5
7
15
15
0.0162*
NA
0.03
5.80*
1.08
2.69*
0.137*
ND
<0.20°
0.0194*
<0.006
<0.01
<0.1*
NA
NA
<0.007*
ND
<0.20
+
NA
>66.7
>98.3
NA
NA
>94.9
NA
NA
Concentration increased.
Data from comingled waste stream.
Analysis not conducted per protocol,
VI-67
-------
Table VI-8. Granulated Activated Carbon Operating Data
(Continued, Page 4 of 6)
VOLATILE AROMATICS (Continued)
Chlorobenzene
InfluentEffluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
Hexachlorobenzene
Influent EffluentPercent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.008 <0.001
87.5
DichlorobenzeneT
InfluentEffluentPercent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
<0.108 <0.0167
84.5
HALOMETHANES
Methylene chloride
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant
1
1
4
4
6
8
10
15
NA -
ND -
t •
• «,
rag/1
3.54*
1.70*
0.88
NA
0.326
ND
12.7°
<0.10
Not available,
Not detected.
mg/1 Removal
<3.07* >13
1.49* 12
<0.01 >98
1.43
<0.010 >96
ND
<0.10* >99
<0.798
Combined dichlorobenzenes:
.3
.5
.9
NA
.9
NA
.2
+
1,2;
*«»••» y\*- t*i f
Plant
1
1
3
4
4
10
1,3; 1,4.
,~i
Chloroform
Influent
mg/1
<0.0689*
0.0189*
0.623
<0.09
NA
<0.30e
Effluent
mg/1
<0.0119*
0.0231*
0.210
<0.01
<0.0233
<0.30°
Percent
Removal
82.7
+
66.3
88.9
NA
NA
Data from comingled waste stream.
Concentration increased.
VI-68
-------
Table VI-8.
Granulated Activated Carbon Operating Data
(Continued, Page 5 of 6)
HALOMETHANES (Continued)
Carbon tetrachloride
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
1
1
3
4
4
5
5
5
<0.150*
<0.0010*
10.5*
NA
<0.91
0.39
0.168*
<0.16*
<0.0261*
<0.0010*
2.32*
<0.02
<0.01
NA
NA
<0.1*
82.6
NA
77.9
NA
98.9
NA
NA
37.5
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
Plant
6
4
1,2-Dichloroethane
Influent
mg/1
Effluent
mg/1
Percent
Removal
<0.022
NA
<0.012
<0.01
45.5
NA
NA - Not available.
ND - Not detected.
* = Data from comingled waste stream.
VI-6 9
-------
Table VI-8. Granulated Activated Carbon Operating Data
(Continued, Page 6 of 6)
TRADITIONAL PARAMETERS
BOD
Plant
1
3
5
5
6
7
10
14
15
Plant
1
2
3
5
5
5
6
7
8
10
13
14
15
15
Influent
mg/1
5690*
137.0*
ND*
78.8
NA
NA
<103
45200
3331
Influent
mg/1
56.6*
235
35.0*
411*
178
253*
NA
68.6*
77.5
87.7
<97.0*
1460
4094
3000
Effluent
mg/1
4136*
319.0*
<20.0*
NA
316
889*
<1.92
37400
2397
TSS
Effluent
mg/1
185*
150
35.0*
25.7*
NA
NA
34.0
46.6*
32.3
<5.00
<117*
2600
204
2000
Percent
Removal
27.3
+
+
NA
NA
NA
98.2
17.3
28.0
Percent
Removal
+
36.2
0.0
93.7
NA
NA
NA
32.1
58.3
>94.3
+
+
95.0
33.3
Plant
1
2
3
5
5
5
6
7
10
14
15
15
Plant
2
5
5
7
10
13
14
15
15
16
Influent
mg/1
8000*
1500
895.0*
353*
890
468*
5120
4750*
4880
148000
28021
75500
Influent
mg/1
430
585*
178*
1650*
2170
<344*
79800
28489
19500
523
COD
Effluent
mg/1
2580*
204
819.0*
<285*
NA
NA
2880
808*
31.2
109000
5340
60000
TOC
Effluent
mg/1
40.3
81.0*
NA
153*
15.4
<245*
66700
6538
3300
165
Percent
Removal
67.7
86.4
8.49
>19.3
NA
NA
43.7
83.0
99.4
26.3
80.9
20.5
Percent
Removal
90.6
86.2
NA
90.7
99.3
28.8
16.4
77.0
83.1
68.4
NA • Not available.
+ = Concentration increased.
* » Data from comingled waste stream.
VI-70
-------
Table VI-9. Plants Using Resin Alsorption for Pesticide Wastewaters
Plant
Code
1
2
3
4
Pesticide
Code
A
B*
C
D
E
F
G
Vblune Disposed
00»
0.15
0.10
0.14
0.04
0.09
0.06
0.04
Flow Rate
(GPM/Ft2)
4.0
1.0
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
PH
6-8
4.5
3-4
3-4
1.5
1.5
1.5
Bnpty Bed
Contact Time
7.5Min.
30Min.
ISMin.
ISMin.
ISMin.
ISMin.
ISMin.
Regeneration
Solvent/Disposal
Methanol/Boiler fuel
Sodium hydroxide/Becycle
Isopropanol/Boiler fual
Isopropanol/Boiler fuel
Methanol/Distilled-Beused
Methanol/DistilledHReused
Methanol/Distilled-Reused
* • Production discontinued.
VI-71
-------
Table VI-10. Resin Adsorption Operating Data
MANUFACTURED PESTICIDES
Pesticides
Pesticide
Code Plant
A 1
A 1
D 3
D 3
C 3
C 3
E 4
E 4
E 4
E 4
E 4
F 4
G 4
Influent
mg/1
0.154
0.142
0.095
0.320
0.518
<0.51
129
612
<331
260
248
<152
71.1
Effluent Percent
mg/1 Removal
0.00067 99.6
0.00123 99.1
0.038 60.0
0.010 96.9
0.539 +
<0.015 97.1
24.0 87.5*
18.6 97.0
<19.5 94.1
61.1 76.5
26.7 89.2
<18.3 88.0
<9.24 >87.0
PHENOLS
2-Chlorophenol
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant rag/ 1 mg/ 1 Removal
4 <0.152 <0.01 93.4
4 0.162 <0.0314 >80.6
4 <0.718 <0.069 90.4
2 ,4 ,6-Trichlorophenol
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
4 <0.348 <0.163 68.8*
4 0.378 <0.0892 >76.4
4 <0.544 <0.219 59.7
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
* = Removal based on pollutant mass
t = Pilot scale data.
tt = Reported as total phenol with 2,
+ = Concentration increased.
Plant
4
4
4
4
Plant
2
balance, not
2 ,4-Dichlorophenol
Influent Effluent Percent
mg/1 mg/1 Removal
5.76 0.523 93.9*
<10.5 <4.32 58.9
3.15 <0.462 >85.3
5.46 <1.53 >72.0
4-Nitrophenol
Influent Effluent Percent
mg/1 mg/1 Removal
lOOOt l.OOt 99.9
concentration.
4-dichlorophenol as principal constituent.
VI-72
-------
Table VI-10, Resin Adsorption Operating Data (Continued, Page 2 of 4)
PHENOLS (Continued)
Phenol
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
4
4
3.82
0.955
1.15
0.518
69.8*
45.8
DIENES
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
Hexachlorobutadiene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant rag/1 mg/1 Removal
3
3
0.827*
0.435*
0.123*
0.034*
85.1
92.2
3 0.210* 0.01* 91.1**
VOLATILE AROMATICS
Benzene
Influent
Plant mg/1
1 <0.053
4 <0.298
Effluent
mg/1
<0.032
NA
Percent
Removal
34.5**
NA
Plant
3
4
4
4
4
4
Toluene
Influent
mg/1
2.10*
16.8
<171
20.8
25.2
82.9
Effluent
mg/1
0.742*
8.76
<79.6
19.8
<16.4
NA
Percent
Removal
64.7
65.2**
53.5
63.1
>34.9
NA
NA = Not available.
* = Data from comingled waste stream.
** = Removal based on pollutant mass balance, not concentration.
VI-73
-------
Table VI-10. Resin Adsorption Operating Data (Continued, Page 3 of 4)
VOLATILE AROMATICS (Continued)
Chlorobenzene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
0.577
0.151 39.2**
HALOMETHANES
Chloroform
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
Chlorodibromome thane
Influent Effluent
Plant mg/1 mg/1
1 6.19 2.51 59.4 1 <0.0063 0.005
3 0.382* 0.339* 11.2
Carbon tetrachloride
Influent
Plant mg/1
1 8.07
3 67.9*
Effluent Percent
mg/1 Removal
5.49 28.4**
44.5* 34.5
Percent
Removal
<13.8**
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Naphthalene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
1.06*
0.297* 72.0
* » Data from comingled waste stream.
** = Removal based on pollutant mass balance, not concentration.
VI-74
-------
Table VI-10. Resin Adsorption Operating Data (Continued, Page 4 of 4)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
Tetrachloroethylene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 rag/1 Removal
1 0.054
3 0.467*
0.018 55.3**
0.199* 57.4
TRADITIONAL PARAMETERS
Plant
1
3
4
Influent
mg/1
55.0
331*
1906
BOD
Effluent
tng/1
55.0
278*
2104
Percent
Remov al
0.0
16.0
+
Plant
1
3
Influent
mg/1
674
675*
COD
Effluent
rag/1
576
545*
Percent
Removal
17.9**
19.3
Plant
TSS
Influent
mg/1
Effluent
mg/1
Percent
Remov al
TOC
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
1
3
23.0
208*
19.0
81.3*
25.0**
60.9
1
3
4
62.0
342*
2670*
59.0
301*
2590
3.85**
12.0
3.0
*
**
Data from com ing led waste stream.
Removal based on pollutant mass balance, not concentration.
Concentration increased.
VI-75
-------
09
Ol
4-1
01
4-1
03
CO
:»
Ol
T3
• H
u
•H
4J
03
01
P-
p
O
U-l
CO
• H
CO
0
M
•O
^
33
00
e
, j
CO
£3
CO
4J
ff
JS
Pw
•
,— t
i— (
1
h*4
QJ
_fl
(0
H
B
V
0)
co
o>
a
H
Ol
3
<0
1 .
8,
e
01
H
C
o
• H
a B
O> -H
4J EH
a*
33
a
o>
IS
0 5
01 "O
T3 01
•r-l CO
0 O
•rt O.
4-1 09
CO -i-l
O> Q
Pu
Ol
•0
u 01
•H -a
4J O
CO CJ
01
jj
C 01
CO -0
rH O
Pi CJ
ca cacoca ca ca co ca en ca
3 333 333333
O OOO OOOOOO
3 333 333333
C CCC BC3CCCC
CO O <0 O O oacOQCOOOOCOOO
(O cj « cjcj cjcQcacjcacjcjcjcQCjcj
CJ CJ 0 CJ
U o o o CJ °
4J 4-1 0 O O O « O
cccj oooo mo
,rt -H — 1 | | | 0 | 0 0 | | 0 0
g B vo* ^^ o«A*nomoooinoo
.. 0)CU(U
vO
CO CO 03
33 3
§ s §
B B B
CO B
88 8
oo CJ
«?+ «.+ a
*^ ^- w
O O m
i— 4 PH r^
B
•H
e 03
•HO t*
CO CO C^
oo >n -H
CM
1— 1
1 vO
0 1
m m
i—* »-*
0 0
7^0
T o
CM CM -*
O O O
o o o
*«x.,
s ^
r~ 00
•
0)
«
CO
I—I
•f-l
CO
w
o
II
z
VI-76
-------
Table VI-12. Hydrolysis Operating Data
MANUFACTURED PESTICIDES
Pesticides
Pesticide
Code
MA
ND
*
t
**
A
B
C
C
E
D
6
F
J
N
L
H
K
P
0
I
M
Q
V
u
T
S
R
X
w
Y
"Not analyzed
- Not detected
• Sampling has
achievable;
time.
Influent Effluent
Plant
1
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
8
•
•
mg/1
3300
57
27.0
26.8
12.2**
12.2**
20
50
50
60
60
60
104
150
200
300
1000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
55
720
mg/1
5.49
0.049
0.56
1.7
<0.01**
<0.01**
<1.0*
<1.0*
<1.0*
<1.0*
<1.0*
<1.0*
4.0
<2.0*
1.0*
<1.0*
<2.0*
NA
<0.01
<0.1
<0.1
<0.01
<0.5
NDt
<0.001
90.8
demonstrated that cited effluent removal is
average varies based on pH, temperature , and
• Design basis .
a Hydrolysis and biological oxidation
treatment
combined .
Percent
Removal
99.8
99.9
97.9
93.7
>99.9
>99.9
>95.0
>98.0
>98.0
>98.3
>98.3
>98.3
96.1
>98.7
99.5
>99.7
>99.8
>95.0t
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>99.9
87.4
detention
VI-77
-------
Table VI-13. Plant 10 Hydrolysis Data for STCT Pesticides
Pesticide Temp Half-Life
Code pH (°C) (Hours)
Z 10 20 Less than
one hour
AA and BB 3 20 1.0
35 0.45
50 0.27
6 20 2.7
35 2.7
50 5.0
9 20 12.9
35 8.0
50 6.0
CC 3
6
9
DD 4
4
8
8
20
20
20
30
60
30
60
Greater than
40 days
Greater than
40 days
72
120
50
Less than
24 hours
Less than
24 hours
VI-78
-------
Table VI-14. Hydrolysis Data—Triazine Pesticides
Pesticide
Atrazine
Cyanazine
Prometryn
Ametryne
Metribuzin
Cyprazine
Simazine
Atratone
pH
13
0.5
1
1
3
12
14
16
1.55
1.0
11
1
0.5
11
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
11
1
1
Temp
CO
25
40
25
80
25
25
25
80
25
25
41
41
41
23
41
23
41
23
41
23
41
23
41
23
41
Half- Life
(Hours)
48
3.3
80
4.7
331
295
4.5
0.27
30
22
133
22
10
270
236
19
9
43
8
33
8
420
290
176
48
Reference
Armstrong, et al., 1967
Lowenbach, 1977
Little, et al . ,
Little, et al. ,
Little, et al.,
Little, et al.,
Little, et al.,
Little, et al.,
Brown, et al. ,
Kearney, et al .
LAI, 1977
LAI, 1977
LAI, 1977
LAI, 1977
LAI, 1977
LAI, 1977
LAI, 1977
LAI, 1977
LAI, 1977
LAI, 1977
LAI, 1977
LAI, 1977
LAI, 1977
LAI, 1977
LAI, 1977
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1972
, 1969
VI-79
-------
00
i— 1
,0
Q
H
•O
0) W
0 T3
> '-I
01 U
(I QQ
e 01
0> (X
y
t-> o
Q] 4-1
PL.
I
4J
O
a.
Qj
O
W
o
2
01
c
• H
c
^
-0
0)
01 4J
^3 CO
• H M
U 01
•* C
4J •<-)
CO U
01 C
(X I-l
0)
-o
• H
O 0)
•|H| ^
4J 0
(o O
0)
(X
4J
C 0)
co -d
.-I O
(X U
f-» oooooo oooo ^j<< j3
CO vO vO vO vO ^O ^O *^ ^O ^O vO vO vO ^O *~^ '^ *~^ f~^ """^
_H OOOOOO vO^OvOO OOOOOO ^.-v.^.-^-^
x ^^^ EHHHHHO
xxxxxx x xxxxxx ea m m ca M -,
m xxx
CO OOOOOO O OOOOOO OOOOO X
f^i ^(5 ^j|J5 ^0 %jp v£J VO * * * C^ 1*O ^^ U^ ^/^ U^ ^^ C? C3 ^^ (O C? CD
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO GO GO 00 (M CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ^H
^
CO
CM oo co co in
O CN —< CO CN O CM
§ §8§ §S8 8
• 4-l
o
T3
01
4J
CO
CO
01
o
c
4-1
o
o
VI-80
-------
/-s
U-l
O
CM
1)
00
to
em
•o"
0)
3
C
•i-l
4-1
C
5
(0
OJ
to
J5
0>
to
&
v
"O
o
4J
tfl
(X
,_,
0
*
O
•f-l
4J
to
OJ
c
• l-l
o
c
M
00
C
• l-l
IQ
D
to
4-1
C
0)
i—4
cm
•
lA
f-*4
1
M
£>
4)
r- 1
jQ
to
H
•o
4-1 0)
O ^3
0) U
o •*
4-1 tO
C 0)
o
M O
-a
at
0) 4J
•"2 2
U
C 0)
^ ^J
f-l o
fXi O
^^^g^^^^g
^O ^D ^D vO ^O ^O ^O ^O
oooooooo
xxxxxxxx
oooooooo
CMtMCMCSCNCSCMCM
^ T3 ^3 ^0 *O ^3 *T3 *T3
cccccccc
vO
-^oooooooo
X
xxxxxxxx
o
.oooooooo
Z'Z'Z'Z'ZSEZ'Z'Z'
^ « yaw
f*^
o
» r~- O O o o o
C? • • * • * • • u^
l/^ f^" f*»* *sf ^H Z ^^ *•"* **H ON
^^ vO
^H m r^
rH O O
^3 ON ^3 *^ C^ i^
—
a.
to
w
S
CQ
a»
v<
4J
-o
• l-l
3 *
O* CO
•H V4
i-H
U,_i
•^i
•iH O
C ^5
bO C
O
1— i
•a ai
n 3
(0 i-l
3 to
O 4-1
0) C
CO E
bO 0)
i— 1 1
u-i o.
o a.
3
1-4 tfl
to
U) tfl
O
a, to
•i-i
TJ 4-1
O
0) 01 C
i-i J3
O 4J •»
CO tfl
r* O SO -l-l
CO 1-1 f-4
11 -rH
4-1 >4-l O
O 01 W
Z (A «-i
II II
<: *
z
VI-81
-------
CO
0>
4-1
(0
01
AJ
(0
CO
0>
•0
•r-l
O
• ft
4J
CO
9)
Pu
V<
£
4J
C
55
s
u
cfl
U
H
CQ
U
60
O
i— i
O
•H
60
e
• H
CO
4-1
CO
•— 1
Pu
.
vO
i-H
1
M
o>
CO
H
0>
60
•a
3
co
X^
•O CO «-i
, 1 . 1 KA
• S3 1°
> ^
.,-1
•U
u
"*•
x-*v
to
e hi
0 S
•H O
jj £3
0)
4-1 01
a B
H
lint
0 B
o>
Q) AJ
Q. Cfl
H CO
0)
CD p
AJ •?
O *J
2%
83
QI rt
£
£
JJ
C d)
CO T3
PH U
O O O O O O
1 1 IOIOOOI 1 O 1 CN •< < < 1 1 •<
i I 1010001 loii^zzzi i yi
CM in vo en CM oo
en A
o
OJ GJ 1^^ <^t »"H
sO ^4 '""^ '•^ CO C^ **^ O^ f*^ vO i^V ^£ C^ ^C * CD OQ C*J •*» *M
^•n pt4 H"! CO hJ CO CO CO >"( H«l CO t~*5 CO CO hJ CO hJ >J CO
i^WVrf M|J^I t^l^u
(U Q) 5a>(D(l)(D0)O)Q>0)0)O) O> Q)QJ^)Q)Q>OJO>CU
Pw PL, DM PL, PL, PH P^ p , p^ pt, pLt PL, PL, PL, pt, Pu PL,
^^ CM en <}* in vo r*» oo ON o '^ CN en «^ m vo f***
.
0)
1— 4
•8
*j
U-4
O
"§
o>
4-1
cO
CO
0)
0
C
4J
O
to
VI-82
-------
CO
^4
0)
M^
.
vO.
f-H
1
>
01
1— 1
r\
CO
H
O)
60
•0
3
W
•O CA i-i
0) WJ^
4-1 (J 60
« Z B
> ^
• H
U
'»
e u
O 3
US-
CD
4J Q)
"•§
H
m
O B
m
4) 4j
O* 00
5**» &*b
H w
•o
O)
00 (-1
O 4-1
3 0
O <4-l
l-i 3
PL, C
£
C 0)
CO -O
-i 0
PL, U
Z 1 ! 1 1 Z Z 1 Z
*o
55 55 95 CS 55 55 SS Z cS)
COtJ^fcJi-Jc/SCO^CO
4^ ^X! ^t« ^4 *4 ^4 *4 ^C ^
U l-i l-i
OI 01 OI
r^ ^[ r?
4-1 4-14-1
O O O
- Wi • «
g g .g g g
O O 4J O O
fa fc O m b
UUI-il-il-il-itil-il-i
0)0) OIOI OIOIO) 010)
C4JC4J4JC4-ICC
MOi-iOOwOWM
4-I4J4J4J4J4J4-I4-14J
oocooootaooocoaioo
O)0)0)OICUOIOIO)OI
& V4 CO O
3 60 01 3
g "O C 4-1 W "4-1
U OI 3 O ^ O
Eh XI CO 60 fa O 4)
« * 3 P
D r-i T3 t-4 60 O" 3
T3 -H OI C -H 4-1
•i-i CO jj T3 -H (J O
O > to 0) I-H 1 CO
4-1 -i-i CB O OI 3
CO 4J 4-1 »J -H X C
4) O O 4) l-i -r* C8
P- Z < < H 2 X
II II II II II II II
l-l
gC/D 01
^0 *C
Q ^3 C/3 t-3 fa *-3 4-1
fc Z •< < H X O
VI-83
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Data
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
BOD
Plant
1
1
3
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
11
13
15
16
18
20
20
20
26
28
29
Influent
mg/1
92.0*
179*
1940*
2082*
120*
4320
NA
928*
19.0*
675
694*
610*
1131*
NA
572*
NA
1000
2000
905*
2000*
7200*
Effluent
mg/1
39.0*
15.3*
96.5*
122*
8.0*
1820
12.7*
73.6*
<1.0*
29.6
12.2*
7.0*
NA
253
NA
74.3
NA
NA
114*
50.0*
NA
Percent
Removal
57.6
91.4
95.0
94.1
93.3
57.9
NA
92.1
>94.7
95.6
98.3
98.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
87.4
97.5
NA
Plant
1
1
3
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
9
11
13
15
18
20
20
20
26
26
28
TSS
Influent
mg/1
NA
NA
269*
375*
59.0*
NA
360
NA
595
5320*
38.7
47.6*
39.2*
3.0*
1394*
350*
NA
100
300
140*
340*
<100*
Effluent
mg/1
18.0*
22.8*
50.1*
66.8*
39.0*
501
NA
20.8*
62.5
NA
101
35.0*
28.4*
1.8*
NA
NA
81.2
NA
NA
27.3*
64.0*
92.0*
Percent
Removal
NA
NA
81.4
82.2
33.9
NA
NA
NA
89.5
NA
+
26.5
27.5
40.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
80.5
81.2
<8.00
NA s Not available.
* - Data from comingled waste stream.
+• a Concentration increased.
VI-84
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Data (Continued, Page 2 of 13)
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
COD
Plant
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
9
11
13
15
18
20
20
20
21
22
26
26
28
29
Influent
mg/1
429
5870*
9740
436*
4290*
5250*
137*
1480
1550*
1600*
2382*
5800*
NA
2450
4900
2191*
5250
2630*
2830*
4500*
14000*
Effluent
mg/1
299
2320*
3390
127*
1280*
NA
60.3*
537
160*
290*
NA
NA
515
NA
NA
394*
NA
519*
336*
770*
NA
Percent
Removal
30.3
60.5
65.2
70.9
70.2
NA
56.0
63.7
89.7
81.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
82.0
NA
80.3
88.1
82.9
NA
Plant
1
1
3
8
26
26
Plant
3
13
Influent
mg/1
110*
122*
1810*
3230*
900*
3680*
Influent
mg/1
7430
NA
TOC
Effluent
mg/1
104*
NA
621*
NA
100*
136*
TOD
Effluent
mg/1
3094*
408*
Percent
Removal
5.45
NA
65.7
NA
88.9
96.3
Percent
Removal
58.4
NA
NA - Not available.
* « Data from comingled waste stream.
VI-85
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Data (Continued, Page 3 of 13)
MANUFACTURED PESTICIDES
Plant
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
NA -
ND -
+ «
* •
t -
Pesticides
Influent Effluent Percent
mg/1 mg/1 Removal
NA 0.0452 NA
NA 0.0452 NA
1.56 0.101 93.5
12.2 <0. 00183 >99.9
0.00213 0.00175 17.8
0.00846 0.00149 82.4
0.615 0.0554 91.0
<0.684 0.533 22.1
<3.67 <1.62 55.9
<4.93 <4.17 15.4
<6.32 <4.19 33.7
<6.64 <4.31 35.1
<7.67 <4.67 39.1
<8.51 <5.37 36.9
<15.8 <14.5 8.23
<17.7 <18.4 +
<23.5 <27.0 +
45.9 0.184 99.6
0.023 <0.01 >56.5
0.120 0.05 58.3
0.20 <0.0001 >99.9
0.470 <0.010 >97.9
0.240 <0.0001 >99.9
1.11 0.011 99.0
3.00 <0.010 >99.7
0.084 0.0093 88.9
0.0507 0.0169 66.7
12. 2t <0.01t >99.9
12. 2T <0.01t >99.9
<0.010 <0.010 NA
0.019 0.027 +
Not available.
Not detected.
Concentration increased.
Data from coming led waste stream.
Hydrolysis and biological oxidation
Pesticides
Plant
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
9
9
9
9
9
11
11
11
11
11
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Influent
mg/1
<0.0336
0.0817
0.0918
0.189
0.439
0.753
<0.820
<0.850
1.03
3.02
3.58
1100
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.10
3.56
13.8
18.0
30.3
104
136
0.207
1.48*
1.48*
19.9
29.0
180
6.84
2.80
26.2
(Continued)
Effluent
mg/l
<0.0394
0.067
0.0197
0.148
0.0836
0.0946
<0.254
<0.105
<0.129
0.0685
0.49
114
<0.012
<0.011
<0.5
<0.01
<0.10
2.08
10.3
0.012
NA
NA
NA
0.164
0.783*
0.783*
3.20
<1.0
1.67
<0.279
0.255
15.3
Percent
Removal
+
18.0
78.5
21.7
81.0
87.4
69.0
87.6
87.5
97.7
86.3
89.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.6
25.3
99.9
NA
NA
NA
20.8
47.1
47.1
83.9
>96.5
99.1
>95.9
90.9
41.6
treatment combined.
VI-86
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Data (Continued, Page 4 of 13)
MANUFACTURED PESTICIDES (Continued)
Plant
13
13
16
16
20
20
20
21
22
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
28
Pesticides
Influent
mg/1
292
326
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.58*
NA
3.63
3.05*
3.05*
0.979*
0.979*
9.40*
5.90*
16.0
(Continued)
Effluent
mg/1
1.40
<2.0
0.023
0.023
<0.05
<0.05
<0.2
0.35*
<1.0
0.88
0.378*
0.378*
0.362*
0.362*
0.170*
0.080*
10.0
Percent
Removal
99.5
>99.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
39.6
NA
75.7
87.6
87.6
63.0
63.0
98.2
98.6
37.5
NA * Not available.
NT) " Not detected.
* * Data from comingled waste stream.
VI-87
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Data (Continued, Page 5 of 13)
VOLATILE AROMATICS
Benzene
Plant
3
4
4
6
7
26
26
Influent
mg/1
2.68*
0.220*
52.0*
0.07*
0.057*
<0.050
0.005*
Effluent
mg/1
<0.01*
<0.01*
NA
0.005*
0.16*
<0.050
ND*
Percent
Removal
>99.6
>95.4
NA
92.9
+
NA
NA
Plant
3
4
6
7
10
13
13
25
26
26
Chlorobenzene
Plant
4
4
4
6
9
13
13
26
NA =
ND =
Influent
mg/1
<0.005*
3.0*
135.0*
0.3*
ND*
3.80*
5.0*
ND*
Effluent
mg/1
NA
<0.01*
NA
0.76*
ND*
<0.01*
<0.02*
ND*
Percent
Removal
NA
>99.7
NA
+
NA
>99.7
>99.6
NA
Plant
4
10
13
Toluene
Influent
mg/1
15.3*
5.40*
0.10*
0.21*
0.00103*
1.4*
7.42*
<69.3
<0 . 20*
0.150*
Effluent
mg/1
<0.01*
<0.01*
0.009*
0.021*
0.0347*
ND
<0.01*
<9.6
<0.20*
0.005*
Percent
Removal
>99.9
>99.8
91.0
90.0
+
NA
>99.9
86.1
NA
96.7
Ethylbenzene
Influent
mg/1
7.90*
<0.001*
0.20
Effluent
mg/1
ND
<0.001*
<0.01
Percent
Removal
NA
NA
>95.0
Not available.
Not detected
.
Data from comingled waste stream.
Concentration increased.
VI-88
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Data (Continued, Page 6 of 13)
VOLATILE AROMATICS (Continued)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant tng/1 nig/1 Removal
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
0.023* <0.01*t >56.5
0.410* 0.013* 96.8
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
0.470* <0.01*T >97.9
HALOMETHANES
Plant
6
9
NA -
ND -
* a
+ *
0 =
t -
Methyl chloride
Influent Effluent Percent
mg/1 mg/1 Removal
ND ND NA
ND8 ND° NA
Not available.
Not detected.
Data from com ing led waste stream.
Concentration increased.
Analysis not conducted per protocol
Data from combined dichlorobenzenes
Plant
4
7
9
10
11
13
26
26
: 1,2;
MethyJ.ene
Influent
mg/1
0.260*
0.55*
<0.464*
<0.001*
0.017*
76.0*°
0.030*
<0.25*
1,3; 1,4.
chloride
Effluent
mg/1
0.190*
0.24*
<0.10*
0.172*
0.020*
<1.1*
0.010*
<0.100*
Percent
Remov al
26.9
56.4
78.4
+
+
>98.5
66.7
60.0
VI-89
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Data (Continued, Page 7 of 13)
HALOMETHANES (Continued)
Chloroform
Plant
3
4
4
4
6
7
7
9
10
13
13
26
26
Influent
mg/1
0.0149*
0.022*
0.120*
2.8
0.017
0.04*
0.20*
<0.571*°
<0.001*
0.455*
0.867*
0.080*
<0.80
Effluent
mg/1
<0.01*
NA
0.032*
NA
<0.01
0.06*
NA
ND*
<0.001*
<0.01*
<0.01*
0.020*
<0.30
Percent
Removal
>32.9
NA
73.3
NA
>41.2
+
NA
NA
NA
>97.8
>98.8
75.0
62.5
Carbon tetrachloride
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
4 1.00* 0.270* 73.0
13 Trace Trace NA
CYANIDE
Cyanide
Plant
3
3
3
7
9
13
Influent
mg/1
1.22*
2.16*
5.04
0.067*
0.0959
0.92*°
Effluent
mg/1
0.682*
0.337*
NA
0.065*
0.071
0.404*"
Percent
Removal
44.1
84.4
NA
2.98
26.0
56.1
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
* = Data from comingled waste stream.
+ = Concentration increased.
= Analysis not conducted per protocol.
VI-90
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Data (Continued, Page 8 of 13)
HAIDETHERS
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
0.582
0.0527 90.9
PHENOLS
Phenol
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
2-Chlorophenol
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
1
1
4
4
4
4
7
16
21
28
NA
0.058*
0.290*
16.0
16.0
47.0*
0.270*
1100*
61.8*
0.01*
0.004*
4.0*
<0.01*
NA
NA
NA
0.042*
2.03*
<3.84*
0.09*
NA
+
>96.5
NA
NA
NA
84.4
99.8
>93.8
+
4 0.062* <0.01* >83.9
4 <5.0* NA NA
NA » Not available.
* * Data from comingled waste stream.
+ * Concentration increased.
VI-91
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Data (Continued, Page 9 of 13)
PHENOLS (Continued)
2 ,4-Dichlorophenol
Plant
4
4
4
4
7
7
Influent
rag/1
0.290*
<5.0
15.0*
>1000
0.002*
0.042*
Effluent
mg/1
0.018*
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.001*
Percent
Removal
93.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
>97.6
Plant
4
4
4
4
7
2 ,4j6-Trichlorophenol
Influent
mg/1
0.110*
3.0*
<5.0
<100
0.022*
Effluent
mg/1
0.180*
NA
NA
NA
0.021*
Percent
Removal
+
NA
NA
NA
4.54
Pentachlorophenol
Plant
4
4
4
21
Influent
mg/1
0.390*
1.0*
>1000
0.58*
Effluent
mg/1
0.230*
NA
NA
0.35*
Percent
Remov al
41.0
NA
NA
39.6
Plant
4
5
5
6
4-Nitrophenol
Influent
mg/1
ND
203
174
461 1
Effluent
mg/1
<0.01*
10.7
<7.84
<1.0t
Percent
Removal
NA
94.7
>95.5
>99.8
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
7.91
0.397
95.0
NA » Not available.
ND » Not detected.
* ** Data from comingled waste stream.
+ » Concentration increased.
e "Analysis not conducted per protocol.
t • Hydrolysis and biological oxidation treatment combined,
VI-92
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Data (Continued, Page 10 of 13)
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Naphthalene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
0.066* <0.01* >84.8
METALS
Copper
Plant
3
4
7
9
9
10
13
Influent
mg/1
0.204*
0.510*
0.05*
0.0575
0.093*
0.065
0.53
Effluent
mg/1
0.114*
0.110*
0.06*
0.112
0.088*
1.66*
0.30
Percent
Removal
44.1
78.4
+
+
5.38
+
43,4
Plant
4
7
10
13
Cadmium
Plant
3
4
7
26
26
Influent
mg/1
0.00723
0.0021*
0.2
0.0003*
<0. 00120
Effluent
mg/1
0.0046
0.0017*
0.25
0.0001*
<0. 00080
Percent
Removal
36.4
19.0
+
66.7
33.3
Plant
3
4
7
10
13
26
26
26
Zinc
Influent
mg/1
0.450*
0.06
<0.0257
0.530
Effluent
mg/1
0.400*
0.13
0.187*
0.120
Percent
Removal
11.1
+
•f
77.4
Chromium
Influent
mg/1
0.0647
0.240*
1.0
0.060
0.280
0.041
0.048*
0.059
Effluent
mg/1
0.044
0.049*
1.1
0.033*
0.120
0.007
0.008*
<0.0075
Percent
Removal
32.0
79.6
+
45.0
57.1
82.9
83.3
>87.3
Data from comingled waste stream.
Concentration increased.
VI-93
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Data (Continued, Page 11 of 13)
METALS (Continued)
Lead
Plant
3
4
7
13
26
26
26
Influent
mg/1
0.0489
0.032*
0.003
0.065
0.011*
0.024
0.0243
Effluent
mg/1
0.0683
0.0038*
0.003
0.018
0.0048*
<0.001
<0.001
Plant
3
7
13
Percent
Removal Plant
+ 13
88.1
0.0
72.3
56.4
>95.8
>95.9
Nickel
Influent Effluent
rag/ 1 mg/ 1
0.331 0.286
0.45 0.45
0.140 0.024
Mercury
Influent Effluent
mg/ 1 mg/ 1
0.0008 <0.0004
Percent
Removal
13.6
0.0
82.8
Percent
Removal
>50.0
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
1,2-Dichloroethane
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
4 1.40* 0.580* 58.6
7 0.37* 0.18* 51.3
10 <0.0117* <0.069* +
0.430* 0.022*
94.9
* = Data from comingled waste stream.
+ = Concentration increased.
VI-94
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Data (Continued, Page 12 of 13)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES (Continued)
Vinyl chloride
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant rag/1 mg/1 Removal
0.023* <0.01* >56.5
1.10* 0.041* 96.3
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
Trichloroethylene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
4 0.011* <0.01* >9.09
7 0.17* 0.54* +
0.034*
<0.01* >70.6
Tetrachloroethylene
Plant
4
7
7
Influent
mg/1
0.330*
2.47*
0.37*
Effluent
mg/1
0.037*
1.45*
6.9*
Percent
Removal
88.8
41.3
+
PHTHALATES
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
<0.01*
0.028*
Data from com ingled waste stream.
Concentration increased.
VI-95
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Data (Continued, Page 13 of 13)
AMMONIA
Ammonia
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
7.24 4.4 39.2
VI-96
-------
Table VI-18. Plants Disposing All Pesticide Wastewaters by Contract Hauling
Plant
Code
1
2
3
4
5
Pesticide
Code
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Volume
Disposed
(MGD)
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.0163
0.00055
0.00130
0.00130
0.0000154
0.000086
Pretreatment
NE,GS,SK,SP
NE,GS,SK,SP
MS,NE,GS,SK,SP
NO
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Disposal Site/Method
City evaporation pond
City evaporation pond
City evaporation pond
Sanitary landfill
Hazardous waste landfill
Hazardous waste landfill
Hazardous waste landfill
Sanitary landfill
Sanitary landfill,
K
Nil
0.0068
0.000252
NO
EQ,NE
NO
deep well injection
Sanitary landfill,
deep well injection
Private waste treatment
plant
Contract incineration
9
EQ =
GS =
MS =
NA =
NE =
NO =
SK =
SP =
M 0.0001
M NA
N 0.0009
0 0.0002
P 0.005
Q NA
R 0.0002
R NA
Equalization
Gravity Separation
Metal Separation
Not Available
Neutralization
None
Skimming
Stripping
NE
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
incineration
incineration
incineration
incineration
incineration
incineration
incineration
incineration
VI-97
-------
Table VI-19. Plants Using Evaporation Ponds for Pesticide Wastewaters
Plant Pesticide
Code Code
1 A
B
2 C
D
3 E
4 F
5 G
6 H
Volume Net
Disposed Evaporation Supplementary
(MGD) (Inches/Yr) Design Pretreatment
0.02 -12 Heat HD, NE, CO, EQ
0.015 -12 Heat HD, NE, CO, EQ
0.01 -12 Aeration AL
0.001 -12 Aeration AL
0.0072 -2 None GS, NE
0.091 +13 Heat SK, AL
0.002 +20 NA NO
0.001 +69 NA NE
+ = Indicates precipitation is less than evaporation.
AL a Aerated Lagoon
CO m Chemical Oxidation
EQ • Equalization
GS • Gravity Separation
HD * Hydrolysis
NA « Not Available
NE - Neutralization
NO = None
SK - Skimming
VI-98
-------
Table VI-20. Plants Disposing Pesticide Wastewaters by Ocean Discharge
Plant Pesticide
Code Code Flow (MGD) Pretreatment
A 0.01009 None
B 0.012 None
C 0.005 None
D 0.012 None
E 0.008 None
F 0.005 None
VI-99
-------
Table VI-21. Plants Using Deep Well Injection for Pesticide Wastewaters
Plant
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Pesticide
Code
A
B
C
D
D, H, I, and Q Combined
Pesticide Processes
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
G, J, 0, and P Combined
Pesticide Processes
M
N
0
P
Q
R
Pesticide intermediate
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Volume
Injected (MGD)
0.0072
0.0086
0.0720
NA
0.013
0.041
0.032
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.025
0.0029
0.036
NA
0.010
NA
NA
NA
Nil
0.010
NA
0.0072
0.0072
0.07
0.08
0.30
0.01
Pretreatment
NO
NO
NO
GS
GS
SE
SE
NE
GS
GS
NE
GS.NE
PF
NE
NA
NO
NE
NE
GS
GS,MF,GS
GS,MF,GS
NO
NE
NE
NE,PF
NE.PF
NE.PF
NE,CA,SK,GS,PF
EQ
Footnotes at end of table.
VI-100
-------
Table VI-21.
Plants Using Deep Well Injection for Pesticide Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Plant Pesticide
Code Code
9 Z
AA
BB
CC
DD
EE
FF
GG
HH
10 II
JJ
KK
11 LL
12 MM
13 NN
14 00
15 PP
QQ
16 RR
17 SS
TT
AP * API Type Separator
CA * Coagulation
EQ m Equalization
GS ™ Gravity Separation
MF » Multimedia Filtration
NA * Not available
NE « Neutralization
NO * None
PF * Pressure Leaf Filter
SE " Solvent Extraction
SK * Skimming
Volume
Injected (MGD)
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.0015
0.015
0.005
0.328
0.0072
0.00125
0.014
0.073
0.0095
0.0533
NA
NA
Pretreatment
SK.GS.PF
SK,GS,PF,GS
SK,GS,PF,GS
SK,GS,PF,GS
SK,NE,GS,PF
SK,GS,PF,GS
SK.GS.PF.GS
SK,NE,GS,PF,GS
SK.GS.PF.GS
AP
AP
AP
PF
NO
NO
NE,GS,SE,GS,NE,
PF
GS,PF
NE.GS.PF
GS.SK
NO
NO
VI-101
-------
-
.LJ
i
y
•H
£
X
1
£
u
>2
tf
1
^
u
i
0)
"S
1
e
CM
<1)
I
1
1
U
I
S
u c
|3
| J s
o > .2
1 33
& <
J
10
•2
•a. I
o ^J
j.l
-J
IH
^^ Ui
c
o
« -a
•a «
^j u
rtj *
w
W V
"E 3
* i
. g
,3 S
x_a>_x s
"3 .§ - S
J ^ "^ >,
4-1 — , C — <
1! O
1 = Primal y ranov
2 = Secondary lai
— = Pollutant gri
x = Indicates tec
vi-102
-------
i
e>
-I-
r
H
3
a.
( ODIN ) MOld
CO
o
a.
CO
5
UJ
i
UJ
o
UJ
Q.
CC
O
u.
CO
u.
o
UJ
O
UJ
cc
o
LL
VI-103
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
8 HOURS OF SERVICE TIME
THREE PUMPS AT 50% OF TOTAL FLOW EACH
PUMPING HEAD =20 ft.
PUMP EFFICIENCY** 85%
WET WELL CAPACITY = 0.5% OF DAILY FLOW
FLOW DIAGRAM
PUMPS
INFLUENT
50 FT. OF PIPING
_^ / > EFFLUENT
WET WELL
Figure VI-2 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
PUMP STATION
VI-104
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
USE AT LEAST TWO BASINS
AERATION AND MIXING =75 HP/MG
DETENTION TIME ALTERNATIVES = 12 HOURS (BEFORE
PRETREATMENT)
24 HOURS (BEFORE
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT)
FLOW DIAGRAM
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
EQUALIZATION BASINS
Figure VI-3 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
EQUALIZATION
VI-105
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
THEORETICAL TRAYS= 3 APPROX.
TRAYEFFICIENCY=12%
REFLUX IS 25% OF FEED
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - SOLUBILITY OF VOLATILES (PPM)
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION =1 PPM
FLOW DIAGRAM
OVERHEAD
CONDENSER
SEPARATOR
DRUM
STORAGE
DRUM
INFLUENT
PUMP
»,. »rjPUI
_Wvw\Z^«—
EFFLUENT
HEAT
EXCHANGER
TO
INCINERATION
OR RECYCLE
STEAM
STRIPPING
COLUMN
STORAGE DRUM
Figure VI-4 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
STEAM STRIPPING
VI-106
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
USE TWO BATCH VESSELS WITH 24 HR. DETENTION TIME
REACTION TIME=4 HR.
CAUSTIC USAGE «3 PARTS/PART CN
CHLORINE USAGE«3 PARTS/PART CN
OPERATING RANGE«pH 8.5 TO 11.0
FLOW DIAGRAM
BATCH TYPE
REACTOR VESSEL
INFLUENT
PUMPS
RECIRCULAT10N
PUMP
EFFLUENT
CAUSTIC STORAGE
CHLORINATOR
CHEMICAL
CHLORINE STORAGE
Figure VI-5
RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
ALKALINE CHLORINATION
VI-107
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
MIXING TANK DETENTION TIME-24 HR
MIXING HORSEPOWER-72 HP/MGD
FILTER PRESS RUNTIMES HR
HOLDING TANK DETENTION TIME =24 HR
OPERATING pH = 9.0
INFLUENT ZINC - 245 MG/I: CAUSTIC ADDITION = 6000 MG/I
INFLUENT COPPER^4500 MG/I:CAUSTIC ADDITIONS 10,000 MG/I
FLOW DIAGRAM
CAUSTIC STORAGE
CHEMICAL
POLYMER
POLYMER STORAGE
INFLUENT
MIXING TANKS
HOLDING TANK
Figure Vl-6
RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
METALS SEPARATION
VI-108
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
USE TWO FLOW-THROUGH BASINS
BASIN LENGTH/WIDTH * 20/1 INFLUENT T =22°C =72°F
BASIN LENGTH/DEPTH *20/1 BASIN T=40°O104°F
BASIN pH-11
DETENTION TIME ALTERNATIVES 0.28; 2.8; 6.9; 16.7 DAYS
FLOW DIAGRAM
MIXING
TANK
INFLUENT
CAUSTIC
STORAGE
CHEMICAL
EFFLUENT
HYDROLYSIS BASINS
(COVERED)
Figure VI-7
RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
PESTICIDE HYDROLYSIS
VI-109
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
6 MIN. DETENTION TIME FOR MIXING TANK
CAUSTIC ADDITION=100 PPM
CAUSTIC STORAGE=30 DAYS
FLOW DIAGRAM
MIXING TANK
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
CHEMICAL
CAUSTIC
STORAGE
Figure VI-8 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
NEUTRALIZATION
VI-110
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
PUMPING HEAD =20 FT.
FILTER RATE « 4 GAL/MIN/FT2
BACKWASH 2 FILTERS AT ONE TIME
BACKWASH RATE =20 GAL/MIN/FT2
BACKWASH HEAD- 30 FT.
RUN LENGTH «" 12 HOURS
BACKWASH DURATION = 15 MIN.
FLOIV DIAGRAM
BACKW ASHED
WATER TO "*""
EQUALIZATION BASIN
INFLUENT
ANTHRACITE
SAND
UNDERDRAIN
FEED PUMPS
FILTERS
EFFLUENT
PROCESS
WATER
BACKWASH PUMPS
Figure VI-9 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRATION
VI-lll
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
SURFACE LOADING=0.5GPM/FT 2 (PRIMARY USE)
SURFACE LOADING=4 GPM/FT2 (TERTIARY USE)
BACKWASH RATE*20 GPM/FT2
BACKWASH HEAD«15 FT.
TWO COLUMNS IN SERIES
FLOW DIAGRAM
CARBON COLUMNS
INFLUENT-
BACKWASHED WATER
TO EQUALIZATION BASIN
1
B
BACKWASH PUMP
Figure VI-10 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
CARBON ADSORPTION
VI-112
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
CARBON USAGE =100 LB/1000 GAL (PRIMARY USE)
CARBON USAGE =30 LB/1000 GAL (TERTIARY USE )
FLOW DIAGRAM
NEW CARBON
WASH WATER
TO ADSORBERS
MAKE-UP TANK WASH TANK
FROM ADSORBERS
JL
DEWATERING
SLURRY TANK
PUMPS
FURNACE
QUENCH
TANK
WASH TANK
TO ADSORBERS
Figure VI-11 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
CARBON REGENERATION
VI-113
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
EMPTY BED CONTACT TIME = 15 MIN
SURFACE LOADING = 4 GPM/FP
USE TWO COLUMNS IN PARALLEL, ONE COLUMN SPARE
FLOW DIAGRAM
INFLUENT
-BACKWASHED WATER-
TO EQUALIZATION BASIN
RESIN COLUMN
RESIN COLUMN
BACKWASH PUMPS
EFFLUENT
Figure VI-12 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
RESIN ADSORPTION
VI-114
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
REGENERATION FREQUENCY (PRIMARY)=TWICE DAILY
SOLVENT LOADING = 0.3 GPM/FP
PUMP HEAD = 20 FT
METHANOL LOSS= 1% YEARLY
BATCH DISTILLATION
REFLUX RATIO= 3/1
FLOW DIAGRAM
OVERHEAD CONDENSER
FROM RESIN COLUMN
TO RESIN COLUMN ,,
REFLUX
DRUM
METHANOL STORAGE
BATCH DISTILLATION
COLUMN
Figure VI-13 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
RESIN REGENERATION
VI-115
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
MAINTAIN BOD/P/N= 100/5/1
FLOW DIAGRAM
PHOSPHORIC ACID
STORAGE
CHEMICAL FEED
PUMPS
•Q
TO AERATION BASINS
ANHYDROUS
AMMONIA
STORAGE
Figure VI-14 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
NUTRIENT ADDITION
VI-116
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
DETENTION TIME=3 DAYS
AERATION = 100 HP/MG
USE TWO BASINS IN PARALLEL
FLOW DIAGRAM
INFLUENT-
EFFLUENT
AERATION BASINS
Figure VI-15 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
AERATION BASIN
VI-117
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
OVERFLOW RATE =400 GPD/FP
DEPTH =12 FT.
SLUDGE RETURN CAPACITY-200%
MINIMUM OF TWO BASINS IN PARALLEL
POLYMER ADDITION AT 20 MG/I
FLOW DIAGRAM
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
Figure VI-16 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
CLARIFICATION
VI-118
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
SURFACE LOADING = 0.4 GPM/FT2
SOLID LOADING = 10 LB/FTVDAY
INFLUENT = 0.5% SOLIDS
EFFLUENT = 2.0% SOLIDS
FLOW DIAGRAM
SLUDGE THICKENER
INFLUENT
WATER BACK TO
'EQUALIZATION BASIN
EFFLUENT
SLUDGE RECYCLE
Figure VI-17 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
SLUDGE THICKENER
VI-119
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
DETENTION TIME-20 DAYS
INFLUENT = 2% SOLIDS
EFFLUENT = 3.5% SOLIDS
FLOW DIAGRAM
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
^ WATER BACK TO
EQUALIZATION BASIN
DIGESTION CHAMBER
Figure VI-18 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
AEROBIC DIGESTION
VI-120
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
FERRIC CHLORIDE ADDITION = 7% OF DRY SOLIDS WEIGHT
EFFLUENT = 15% SOLIDS
FLOW DIAGRAM
CHEMICAL
STORAGE
CHEMICAL
FEEDERS
INFLUENT-
EFFLUENT
VACUUM FILTER
WATER BACK TO
EQUALIZATION BASIN
Figure VI-19 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
VACUUM FILTRATION
VI-121
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
CHLORINATED ORGANICS pH ADJUSTMENT FOR SMALL
FLOWS WITH CAUSTIC
CHLORINATED ORGANICS pH ADJUSTMENT FOR LARGE
FLOWS WITH LIME
STEAM RECOVERY INCLUDED
FLOW DIAGRAM
STORAGE
AIR
FUEL STORAGE
CAUSTIC/LIME
STORAGE
VENTURI
SCRUBBER FINAL
SCRUBBER
»- pH ADJUSTMENT
Figure V!- 20 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
INCINERATION
VI-122
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
AVG. WIND = 5 MPH
NOZZLE HEIGHT=10 FT
RELATIVE HUMIDITY =.05
SQUARE POND
NOZZLE = 1 /2 A25
ATMOSPHERIC TEMP.=70°F
RAINFALL=40 IN/YR
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE = 1 ATM
SURFACE MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENT = 0.8
SATURATION VAPOR PRESSURE = .024 ATM
NOZZLE PRESSURE =10 psig, 5 psig
FLOW DIAGRAM
INFLUENT
PUMP
FEEDER NETWORK
FOR SPRAY NOZZLES
Figure VI-21 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
SPRAY EVAPORATION POND
VI-123
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
NET EVAPORATION = 5 IN/YR, 10 IN/YR, 20 IN/YR, 30 IN/YR
STORAGE FOR FOUR MONTHS PROVIDED AT -30 IN/YR
FLOW DIAGRAM
INFLUENT
SOLAR EVAPORATION POND
Figure VI-22 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
SOLAR EVAPORATION
VI-124
-------
SECTION VII
INDUSTRIAL SUBCATEGORIZATION
FACTORS CONSIDERED
The purpose of this section is to provide the rationale for the
placement of individual pesticides into proposed subcategories. The
subcategorization scheme was developed to evaluate each pesticide
product in a manner that was functionally feasible as well as fair and
equitable. The differences in types of pollutants regulated, effluent
levels achievable, and/or costs to reach that level resulted in a
proposal that manufactured pesticides be placed in one of
11 subcategories. This section also provides the rationale for the
placement of pesticide manufacturers of mercury, copper, cadmium, and
arsenic-based pesticide products and fonnulator/packagers into separate
subcategories, numbered 12 and 13.
The subcategorization proposed for this industry is based primarily upon
the priority pollutants detected or likely to be present in wastewater
from each pesticide process. The process chemistry for each of the
280 pesticide products in the scope of this study was evaluated in
Section V to determine what combinations of priority pollutants have
been detected or are likely to be present in its wastewaters. The
treatment recommended to remove conventional, nonconventional, and
priority pollutants was evaluated in Section VI as to technical
feasibility and performance. Based on treatability of the priority
pollutants detected or likely to be present, the major treatment units
recommended are chemical oxidation, steam stripping, metals separation,
pesticide removal (adsorption or hydrolysis), and biological oxidation.
Seven combinations of these units provide for removal of the priority
pollutants detected or likely to be present in the pesticide industry,
and therefore based on the presence of pollutants detected or likely to
be present and treatability, seven subcategories were initially
proposed.
Some pesticides with identical wastewater treatability have been
separated into more than one subcategory because of differences in prior
regulatory status. For example, 2,4-D, which was previously regulated
in BPT for conventional and nonconventional parameters, was placed in
Subcategory 9. Whereas, 2,4-DB, which was not previously regulated in
BPT, was placed in Subcategory 2. Both Subcategories 2 and 9 include
steam stripping, pesticide removal, and biological oxidation as recom-
mended treatment units. This factor increased the number of proposed
subcategories from 7 to 17.
Raw waste and treated effluent priority pollutant concentrations were
examined and compared to the design effluent levels shown in
VII-1
-------
Sections XII and XIV. Design effluent levels are long-term average
effluent levels demonstrated or judged achievable from maximum design
raw waste load levels. This evaluation process is depicted in
Figure VII-1 and ultimately defines the treatment alternative best
suited to remove pollutants found in concentrations above the design
levels. Treated effluent levels for BOD, COD, and TSS were evaluated in
relation to levels regulated in BPT. Pesticides that are meeting or
were considered able to meet BPT, BOD, COD, and TSS pollutant levels
were grouped together. These evaluations reduced the number of proposed
subcategories from 17 to 10.
Some pesticide manufacturing processes achieve no discharge of waste-
water through total reuse, recycle, evaporation, incineration without
scrubber effluent, or because no wastewater is generated. Based on
industry 308 Survey responses, 29 pesticides were found which fit this
definition. This factor created the proposal for an eleventh
subcategory.
The need to address regulation of the formulating/packaging processes
and metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper,
and arsenic-based products not previously regulated during BPT created
the recommendation for a twelfth and thirteenth subcategory.
Plant location,,age, and size were examined and found not to be factors
in subcategorization. A detailed discussion of all the factors
considered in subcategorization is presented below.
Raw Materials
The particular combination of raw materials used in the industry is
unique to individual products, although as discussed in Section V many
products share the same raw material. When these raw materials are
priority pollutants, or when they contain impurities which are priority
pollutants, then raw materials become a significant factor in subcate-
gorization. As reported by Plant 1 in March 1977, typical pesticide
manufacturing reactions are only 75 to 94 percent complete; therefore,
the source of priority pollutants in wastewaters can often be traced to
unreacted raw materials or their impurities.
It was necessary to inventory the raw materials utilized in each of the
280 pesticides in the scope of this study, based on proprietary
information provided by manufacturers in their responses to the industry
308 Survey and based on an independent review of process chemistry by
EPA and its contractor. In this manner a matrix was developed, as shown
in Section V, which identified all pesticides with wastewaters which
when detected or when likely to be present contained the same combina-
tion of specific groups of priority pollutants. Pesticides with similar
priority pollutants were placed in the same subcategory for further
evaluation.
As reported by several manufacturers such as Plant 2, even the same raw
material purchased from different suppliers can contain altogether
VII-2
-------
different levels of priority pollutant impurities. Since raw materials
specifications were not received from manufacturers, then differences
due to this factor must be identified on a case-by-case basis and are
therefore not a determining factor in subcategorization. Raw materials
differences should be further evaluated to determine if differences in
wastewater characteristics subsequently exist. Manufacturers can and
have requested suppliers to provide raw materials of different purity,
thereby eliminating or reducing the priority pollutants present. For
example, users of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol have requested suppliers to
reduce TCDD to below detection limits.
Wastewater Treatability
The treatability of each priority pollutant or group of pollutants was
examined to determine the most feasible treatment alternative and its
corresponding cost. Each of the unit treatment processes so considered
has been discussed in Section VI.
A matrix was developed, as shown in Table VI-22, to evaluate the selec-
tion of one or more technologies for each pollutant group. Based on an
examination of actual treatment utilized, treatability studies conducted
in the industry and treatability data from other industries, as
discussed in Section VI, those technologies found to be effective and
economically achievable have been recommended and costed for each
subcategory. In addition, the treatment units were costed on a
plant-by-plant basis.
Once the treatability for specific pollutants or groups of pollutants
had been determined, this information was coupled with evaluations
detailing which priority pollutants or groups of pollutants are
generated by each of the 280 pesticides as defined by the raw materials
analysis in Section V. Raw materials and treatability matrices were
combined to determine the recommended treatment units for each indivi-
dual pesticide in the industry. All the pesticides sharing common
treatment recommendations were then placed in one subcategory (for
example, each pesticide with wastewaters containing phenols, volatiles,
and traditional pollutants detected or likely to be present was placed
in a category where adsorption, steam stripping, and biological
oxidation, respectively, were recommended).
Due to the diversity in the nature of wastes encountered in the
industry, more than one technology alternative has been recommended
within individual subcategories. For example, based on treatability
studies conducted for each individual pesticide wastewater, it may be
determined that removal of the pesticide active ingredient is most
efficiently performed in either hydrolysis, resin adsorption, or carbon
adsorption systems. Since these solutions to pesticide removal were
demonstrated in the BPT regulation to be typical for the industry, all
three have also been recommended and costed in BAT for purposes of
comparison. Individual plants may elect to achieve effluent levels by
any type of in-process or end-of-line treatment rather than the specific
treatment units described in this report. The type of treatment
VI1-3
-------
alternative chosen for pesticide active ingredient removal is therefore
not a factor in subcategorization.
For certain processes in the industry, a portion of the wastestream may
contain refractory wastes which cannot be effectively or economically
treated by conventional end-of-pipe technologies (for example,
distillation tars, solvent bleed streams, stripper overheads which
cannot be recycled, and concentrated organic residues). Since these
processes are distributed throughout the industry in a manner unrelated
to specific priority pollutant groups or treatability, alternative
methods of disposal, such as incineration, evaporation, and contract
hauling, have been designed and costed for each subcategory. These
refractory waste streams, when they represent only a portion of the
total wastewater from a particular process, are therefore not a factor
in subcategorization. When all process wastewater from a pesticide is
incinerated, and a scrubber effluent discharge is present, it is
predicted that priority pollutants and nonpriority pollutant pesticides
will be destroyed in the incinerator. Six pesticides (captafol,
fenarimol, isopropalin, oryzalin, tebuthiuron, and tricyclazole) fall
under this classification, and it is therefore assumed that no priority
pollutant or pesticide treatment is required for the scrubber effluent.
In this case, then, treatability of all process wastewaters by
incineration is a factor in subcategorization.
Prior Regulatory Status
The status of previous regulations affects subcategorization because
different pollutants must be regulated for different groups of
pesticides. These groups are summarized below:
1. Pesticides previously excluded from BPT regulations—must
be regulated in expanded BPT for COD, BOD, TSS, and pH,,
and in BAT for nonconventional pesticides and priority
pollutants.
2. Pesticides previously regulated in BPT for BOD, COD, TSS,
and pH—must be regulated in BAT for nonconventional
pesticides and priority pollutants.
3. Pesticides previously regulated in BPT for BOD, COD, TSS,
pesticides, and pH—must be regulated in BAT for priority
pollutants.
The effect this had on subcategorization was that the seven subcate-
gories initially created because of wastewater pollutants/treatability
were expanded because of prior regulatory status into 17 subcategories.
Wastewater Characteristics
Data on flow, pollutant concentration, and ratio of pollutant to
production were collected for 280 pesticides as pertains to the
VII-4
-------
126 priority pollutants as well as BOD, COD, TSS, and pesticides. For
each pesticide these data were combined with indicated raw material, raw
material impurity, and reaction byproduct pollutant information as
defined by the process evaluation presented in Section V. Once the
priority pollutants detected and likely to be present in each pesticide
process were defined, and the treatability and regulatory status
considered, the level of pollutant concentration became a limiting
factor in determining subcategorization.
The evaluation sequence shown in Figure VII-1 was used to determine
treatment recommendations for each pesticide based on level of waste-
water pollutant concentration. Raw waste and treated effluent priority
pollutant data for each pesticide were evaluated and compared to the
design effluent levels in order to arrive at one of the three following
conclusions:
1. Treatment for the specific priority pollutants is
recommended because current effluents do not meet design
levels.
2. Treatment for the specific priority pollutants is recom-
mended, but will not be costed in subsequent piant-by-
plant economic impact analyses. This indicates that the
pesticide should be placed in a subcategory where the
specific priority pollutant is monitored, but that it is
currently meeting design levels.
3. No treatment for the specific priority pollutant is
recommended because the raw waste load concentration is
less than the design level.
Data for the pollutants BOD, COD, and TSS were also evaluated to
determine if treated effluents could meet levels regulated in BPT.
The effect the wastewater characteristics analysis had on subcategori-
zation was to reduce the number of proposed subcategories from 17 to 10,
as shown in Table VII-1.
In addition to the above-mentioned criteria, the nonpriority pollutant
ammonia, when likely to be present in pesticide process wastewater,
placed that pesticide in a subcategory where steam stripping was
recommended. This subcategory assignment simply recognizes that ammonia
is commonly treated by steam stripping in the industry.
One facet of the proposed subcategorization scheme should be high-
lighted. If no raw waste load or treated effluent data are available,
but a pesticide is likely to contain a priority pollutant from the
process chemistry evaluation, the pesticide has been placed in a
category which provides treatment for removal of the priority pollutant.
Future monitoring may show that the levels of the pollutant do not
justify the recommendation of a specific technology for its removal.
VII-5
-------
For example, a raw waste load phenol level of 10 mg/1 would not require
a carbon column for removal if it could be degraded to the design level
in a subsequent biological process. In certain cases, therefore,
current judgments of recommended treatment will be an overestimate of
actual requirements to meet design levels.
In subcategories with similar pollutants/technology, the flows,
pollutant concentrations, and ratios of pollutant to production may vary
considerably. This fact is not judged to be a requirement for further
subcategorization at this time. Treatment designs and cost estimates
are provided to accommodate the maximum levels in each category;
therefore, lower wastewater characteristics can only result in smaller
economic impact. Contract hauling and evaporation are recommended as
treatment alternatives where flows are 0-1,000 gpd and 1,000-5,000 gpd,
respectively.
Based on manufacturers' responses to a 308 Survey and follow-up
responses, a list of 22 pesticides was developed for which no discharge
of process wastewaters exists because of total reuse, recycle, or
because no wastewater is generated. Due to these wastewater character-
istics, an eleventh subcategory was created for pesticides that achieve
"zero discharge."
Method of Disposal
Several methods of disposal which are utilized in the industry
effectively eliminate the discharge of wastewater to navigable waters or
publicly owned treatment works. When all wastewater from a pesticide
process was found to be disposed by evaporation or incineration without
scrubber effluent, then the pesticide was placed in the eleventh "zero
discharge" subcategory. Therefore only evaporation and incineration
without scrubber discharge, as methods of disposal, are a basis for
subcategorization.
Manufacturing Processes
Pesticide manufacturers are known to utilize as few as one and as many
as eight unit operations, as reported by Plant 3, in the production of
active ingredients. Based on manufacturers' responses to the 308
Survey, the principal unit operations utilized were determined to be
chemical synthesis, separation, recovery, purification, and product
finishing, such as drying. Chemical synthesis can include chlorination,
alkylation, nitration, and many other substitution reactions. Separa-
tion processes include filtration, decantation, extraction, evaporation,
distillation, stripping, and centrifugation. Recovery and purification
steps are utilized to reclaim solvents for excess reactants as well as
to purify final products.
The number or type of unit operations is not in itself a determining
factor in subcategorization, however several specific operations are
known to favor the generation of priority pollutants. For example, the
VII-6
-------
amination of compounds such as halogenated alkylbenzenes yields
secondary amines; these secondary amines are known to produce priority
pollutant nitrosamines upon nitration. The chlorination of various raw
materials generates priority pollutant chlorophenols, chlorobenzenes,
hexachlorocyclopentadienes, and TCDD.
Batch, semicontinuous, and continuous processes have been examined for
their relationship to potential subcategorization. Equalization of
process wastewater has been shown by 43 plants to negate any differences
in treatability among the three types of processes. This fact was
demonstrated in BPT as regards the conventional pollutants BOD and TSS;
nonconventional pollutant COD; and 49 pesticide active ingredients.
Since equalization is a recommended treatment for all subcategories, the
type of process does not in itself create the demand for additional
subcategories.
Several manufacturers of identical products use fundamentally different
processes. For example, Pesticide A is produced by both solvent and
water-based reactions, thereby creating volatile organic priority
pollutants in process wastewaters from one product but not the other.
This is an obvious example where manufacturing processes influence
wastewater characteristics; however, the treatability of the two
wastewaters must be examined first before it can be assumed that the
difference in processes creates a demand for different subcategories.
The use of different processes for the same product is the exception
rather than the rule in the pesticide industry.
Metallo-Organic Manufacturing Processes
Direct discharge metallo-organic manufacturers were regulated under BPT
as a separate subcategory with the state-of-the-art such that no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants was being achieved through
the application of recycle technology. Based on available information
it is believed that metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of mercury,
cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based products can achieve or are achieving
zero discharge through wastewater recycle or reuse. Therefore, based on
manufacturing process, it is proposed that existing metallo-organic
manufacturers which discharge wastewater to municipal treatment plants
and new direct and indirect discharge metallo-organic manufacturers be
assigned to a twelfth subcategory.
Formulating/Packaging Processes
Adequate information is available to regulate the formulator/packager
segment of the pesticide industry, based on data for the direct
discharge formulator/packagers which were regulated as a separate
subcategory under BPT. The data collected to support this regulation
show that approximately 90 percent of the formulator/packagers surveyed
do not generate any process wastewater. The remaining plants in that
data base generate such small volumes that disposal can be handled
adequately and more inexpensively by disposal contractors, land
application, evaporation, or other means leading to no discharge of
VI1-7
-------
process wastewater pollutants. It is assumed that the data base is
representative of the formulator/packagers subcategory. In addition,
formulator/packagers conduct the same types of operations regardless of
mode of discharge; thus, it is reasonable to assume that the indirect
discharger formulator/packagers can achieve the same limitations and
standards as the direct formulator/packagers. Therefore, it is proposed
that existing pesticide formulator/packagers which discharge wastewater
to municipal treatment plants or navigable waters and new direct and
indirect discharge formulator/packagers be assigned to a thirteenth
subcategory.
Plant Location
Plant location has no observed effect on the quality or quantity of
wastewater generated, assuming that pollutant mass loadings are
calculated on a net basis so as to exclude the contribution of
pollutants in the intake water. Geographic location, however, can
influence the performance of aerated and stabilization lagoons. In
these cases, performance problems can be overcome by adequate sizing,
proper equalization, or selection of alternative treatment processes,
such as activated sludge.
Plant location can affect the availability and cost of land required for
the installation of pollution control facilities. As part of the 308
Survey response, it was determined that land prices varied between
$200 and $200,000 per acre. For the purposes of cost estimates an
average cost of $30,000 per acre has been utilized. Neither extremes of
land cost could cause total treatment costs to vary enough to demand
that another subcategory be created. The cost differential can only be
determined on an individual case basis once additional land
requirements, if any, are known.
Plant Age
Pesticide plants are relatively new, being commissioned predominantly
since post-World War II. Because pesticide manufacturing plants are
modified as needed for individual product or process changes, plant age
does not necessarily reflect the type or efficiency of process techno-
logy employed. Plant wastewater sewer piping systems sometimes lag
behind process equipment in modernization, making it difficult to
segregate wastewaters for economy of treatment. In such cases oversized
treatment systems are often designed in order to compensate for ineffi-
cient piping. On the other hand, most plants built or upgraded within
the last six to seven years have had considerably more effort devoted to
process and treatment controls related to wastewater pollution. This
effort is due, in part, to implementation of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Consequently,
these plants may generate lower-volume, lower-strength wastewater
resulting in less costly pollution control technology. The general
trend has been toward upgrading plants, rather than seeking permit
approval for new sites.
VI1-8
-------
The effect of plant age must be evaluated on an individual site basis,
as its advantages or disadvantages can be overshadowed by factors such
as type, level, and source of pollutant as well as method of treatment
required. For these reasons it is concluded that plant age is not a
significant factor for subcategorization.
Plant Size
As noted in Section IV, total plant production is usually the sum of
from one to four different pesticides. It was further noted that
46.8 percent of plants in the industry were categorized in the lowest of
five production level groups. When plant size is compared to the
installation cost of pollution control equipment, the effect is not
advantageous to small manufacturers. According to Jelen (1970), the
size of treatment systems is normally related to cost by the 0.6 factor
(i.e., a plant with a flow 10 times that of a smaller plant would only
require (10/1)"'° = 3.98 times more capital), the economic impact of
high initial capital cost technology may be more strongly felt by the
small plant. Plant size does not, however, dictate the type or strength
of pollutant, nor the treatment required. It is therefore concluded
that plant size is not a determining factor in subcategorization because
it does not relate to treatability; plant size should be examined
closely, however, as it relates to economic impact at individual
facilities.
Pesticides Previously Regulated But Currently Not Manufactured
Of the 24 pesticides currently not manufactured that were previously
regulated for pesticide, BOD, COD, and TSS parameters according to BPT
regulations, 22 have been included in the current subcategorization.
The remaining two, aldrin and dieldrin, have been banned by EPA from
manufacture and use. If these pesticides currently not manufactured are
reactivated and production begins, then they will be required to meet
the applicable regulations according to the subcategory in which they
fall.
Pesticides Previously Excluded From BPT Regulations But Currently
Not Manufactured
Of the 14 pesticides currently not manufactured that were previously
excluded from BPT regulation for all parameters, 10 have been included
in the current subcategorization. Three have been excluded from the
scope of this study: gibberellic acid and naphthalene acetic acid have
been classified as plant growth regulators and excluded from the BAT
scope, and the manufactured product dimethyl phthalate would be
regulated in another industrial category. Bisethylxanthogen has been
identified as EXD which is included in the study. If these ten
pesticides currently not manufactured are reactivated and production
begins, then they will be required to meet the applicable regulations
according to the subcategory in which they fall.
VII-9
-------
PROPOSED SUBCATEGORIZATION
After considering each of the factors affecting subcategorization, in
particular, raw materials, treatability, prior regulatory status, and
wastewater characteristics, ten subcategories were developed as outlined
in Table VII-1. Placement in a subcategory shows that the pesticide
wastewater contains priority pollutants detected or likely to be present
which can effectively be removed by the recommended combination of
treatment units.
Products Included
Table VII-2 itemizes the pesticides included in each subcategory. Plant
numbers after a pesticide name indicate which of several manufacturers
is to be regulated in the subcategory. If no plant numbers appear
following a pesticide name, the subcategorization applies to all
manufacturers of those pesticides listed.
Zero-Discharge Pesticides
Pesticides which generate no wastewater, or whose wastewater is not
discharged because of recycle, reuse, evaporation, or incineration
without scrubber discharge, were placed in Subcategory 11 as shown in
Table VII-3. These 29 pesticides have been shown to achieve no
discharge of process wastewater to either POTW or navigable waters.
Metallo-Organic Pesticide Manufacturers
Metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of mercury, copper, cadmium, and
arsenic-based products were placed in Subcategory 12, as shown in
Table VII-4. These metallo-organic manufacturers are proposed for
regulation if not previously regulated under BPT for existing direct
discharge. Therefore, new and existing indirect dischargers and new
direct dischargers of metallo-organic pesticides will be regulated.
Formulating/Packaging of Pesticides
Formulated and/or packaged pesticide active ingredients were placed in
Subcategory 13, as shown in Table VII-5. New and existing indirect
discharger and new direct discharger formulator/packagers will be
regulated.
VII-10
-------
Table VII-1. Subcategory Numbering System
Treatment Units
Recommended
Subcategory Numbering According to
Parameters Previously Regulated/
Wastewater Characteristics
BOD, COD BOD, COD, TSS
TSS, pH pH, Pesticides None
Pesticide Removal
Biological Oxidation
Steam Stripping
Pesticide Removal
Biological Oxidation
Metals Separation
Pesticide Removal
Biological Oxidation
Steam Stripping
Chemical Oxidation
Pesticide Removal
Biological Oxidation
Steam Stripping
Metals Separation
Pesticide Removal
Biological Oxidation
Chemical Oxidation
Pesticide Removal
Biological Oxidation
Steam Stripping
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Pesticide Removal
Biological Oxidation
10
Combination is not required based on the observed data,
VII-11
-------
Table VII-2. Products Included in Each Subcategory
Subcategory 1
Pesticides Included: 64
Aldicarb
Atrazine (Plant 1)*
Bendiocarb
Benomyl
Benzyl benzoate*
Biphenyl (Plant 2)*
Busan 40
Busan 85
Captafol
Carbam-S
Carbofuran
Chloropicrin (Plant
Coumachlor*
Coumafuryl*
Coumaphos
Coumatetralyl*
Dalapon
Dazomet
DBCP
Dichlorvos
Dimethoxane
Dinocap
Dinoseb
Dioxathion
Diphacinone*
Endothall*
Ethylene dibromide
EXD*
Fenarimol
Ferbam
Folpet
HAE
3)
HAMP
Isopropalin
KN methyl
Maleic hydrazide
Metham
Methoprene*
Mevinphos
1,8-Napthalic anhydride*
Niacide
Norflurazon
Octhilinone
Oryzalin
Oxamyl
PCP salt
Permethrin
Phorate
Piperonyl butoxide*
Polyphase antimildew
Propargite*
Propionic acid
8 Quinolinol citrate
8 Quinolinol sulfate
Sodium monofluoroacetate (Plant 4)
Sulfallate
Tebuthiuron
Terbacil
Terbufos
Thionazin
Tributyltin fluoride
Tricyclazole
Vane ide PA
Warfarin*
* Previously excluded from BPT regulation.
VII-12
-------
Table VII-2.
Products Included in Each Subcategory
(Continued, Page 2 of 6)
Subcategory 2
Pesticides Included:
113
Alachlor
Allethrin*
AOPt
Aspon
Benfluralin
Bensulide
Bentazon
Benzethoniuo chloride
Benzylbromoacetate
Bifenox
Bo1 star
Bromacil
Bromoxynil
Bronoxynil octanoate
Busan 90
Butachlor
Butylate
Carbendazirat
Carbophenothion
COM
Chlorambent
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorophac inone*
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos methyl
Cycloate
Cycloheximide
Cycloprate
Cyhexatin
Cythioate
2,4-D isobutyl estert
2,4-D isooctyl estert (Plant 5)
2,4-DB
2,4-DB isobutyl estert
2,4-DB isooctyl estert
DC PA
Deet
Demeton
Dichlofenthion
* Previously excluded from BPT regulation.
Dichlorobenzene, ortho
Dichlorobenzene, para
Dichlorophen
Dichlorprop
Diphenamid
Diphenylamine
EPN
EPTC
Ethalfluralin
Ethion
Ethoxyquin, 66%
Ethoxyquin, 86%
Etridiazole
Famphur
Fenthion
Fentin hydroxide
Fluchloralin
Fluoridone
Fono fo s
Giv-gard
Glyphosate*
Hexachlorophene
Hexazinone*
Hyamine 2389
Hyamine 3500
Kathon 886
Kinoprenet
MCPA
MCPA isooctyl estert
MCPP
Mephosfolan
Methamidophos
Me thorn yl
Methylbenzethonium chloride
Methyl bromide
MGK 264
MGK 326
Molinate
Nab am t
t Presence of nonpriority pollutant ammonia determined that this
pesticide be placed in a Subcategory which included stripping.
VII-13
-------
Table VII-2.
Products Included in Each Subcategory
(Continued, Page 3 of 6)
Subcategory 2 (Continued)
Naled
Napropamide
Naptalam
Nitrofen
NMI
Oxydemeton
Oxyfluorofen
Paraquat
PBED
PGP
Phenylphenol*
Phenylphenol sodium salt*
Phosfolan
Phosmet
Pindone
Piperalin
Profluralin
* Previously excluded from BPT regulation.
t Presence of nonpriority pollutant ammonia determined that this
pesticide be placed in a Subcategory which included stripping.
Pronamide
Propachlor
Propanil
Quinomethionate*
RH-787
Ronne1
Rotenone*
Stirofos
SuIfoxide*
Temephos
Thiofanoxt
Tokuthion
Triadimefon
Tributyltin oxide (Plant 5)
Trichlorobenzene
Trichloronate
Vernolate
Subcategory 3
Pesticides Included: 5
Aquatreat DNM 30
Mancozeb
Maneb
Zineb (Plant 6)
Ziram (Plants 7, 8)
Subcategory 4
Pesticides Included: 6
Chlorothalonil
Fluometuron
Lethane 384
Methylene bisthiocyanate
Picloram
Thiabendazole
VII-14
-------
Table VII-2. Products Included in Each Subcategory
(Continued, Page 4 of 6)
Subcategory 5
Pesticides Included:
Acephate
Dienochlor
Fensulfothion
Monocrotophos
Pebulate
ZACt
Zinebt (Plant 10)
t Presence of nonpriority pollutant ammonia determined that this
pesticide be placed in a Subcategory which included stripping.
Subcategory 6
Pesticides Included:
Dodine
Metasol DGH
Nabonate
Subcategory 7
Pesticides Included:
Fenitrothion
TCMTB
Subcategory 8
Pesticides Included: 14
Aminocarb
Chlordane
Endosulfan
Fenuron
Malathion
Methiocarb
Mexacarbate
Mirex
Monuron
Parathion ethyl
Parathion methyl
Propham
Propoxur
Trifluralin
VII-15
-------
Table VII-2. Products Included in Each Subcategory
(Continued, Page 5 of 6)
Subcategory 9
Pesticides Included; 32
Azinphos methyl
BHC (Alpha, Beta, and Delta isomers)
Captan*
Carbaryl
Chlorpropham
2,4-D
DCNA
ODD
DDE
DDT
Demeton-o
Demeton-s
Diazinon
Dicamba
Dicofol
Disulfoton
Diuron
Endrin
Fenuron-TCA
Heptachlor
Lindane
Linuron
Methoxychlor
Monuron-TCA
Neburon
PC MB
Perthane
Siduron
Silvex
SWEP
2,4,5-T
Toxaphene
* Presence of nonpriority pollutant ammonia determined that this
pesticide be placed in a Subcategory which included stripping.
VII-16
-------
Table VII-2. Products Included in Each Subcategory
(Continued, Page 6 of 6)
Subcategory 10
Pesticides Included: 13
Ametryne*
Anilazine*
Atrazine (Plants 11, 12)*
Cyanazine*t
Metribuzin*
Prometon*
Prometryn*
Propazine*
Resmethrin*
Simazine*
Simetryne*
Terbuthylazine*
Terbutryn*
* Previously excluded from BPT regulation,
t Presence of nonpriority pollutant ammonia determined that this
pesticide be placed in a Subcategory which included stripping.
VII-17
-------
Table VII-3. Zero-Discharge Pesticides
Subcategory 11
Pesticides Included: 29
The following pesticides are assigned a zero-discharge status because
wastewater is totally recycled, reused, evaporated, incinerated, or
because there is no wastewater generated:
Alkylamine hydrochloride
Amobam
Barban
BBTAC
Biphenyl* (Plant 13)
Chloropicrin (Plants 14, 15, 16)
2,4-D isooctyl ester (Plant 17)
2,4-D salt
D-D
Dichloroethyl ether
Dichlorophen salt
Dichloropropene
Dowicil 75
Ethoprop
Fluoroacetamide
Glyodin
HPTMS
Merphos
Metasol J-26
Pyrethrin
Silvex isooctyl ester
Silvex salt
Sodium monofluoroacetate (Plant 18)
Tributyltin benzoate
Tributyltin oxide (Plant 19)
Vancide 51Z
Vancide 51Z dispersion
Vancide TH*
Ziram (Plant 20)
* Previously excluded from BPT regulation.
VII-18
-------
Table VII-4. Metallo-Organic Pesticide Manufacturers of Mercury,
Cadmium, Copper, and Arsenic-Based Products
Subcategory 12
All new and existing indirect discharge and direct discharge
metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper, and
arsenic-based products are assigned a zero-discharge status.
VII-19
-------
Table VII-5. Formulator/Packagers
Subcategory 13
All new and existing indirect discharge and direct discharge
formulator/packagers of pesticide active ingredients are assigned a
zero-discharge status.
VII-20
-------
- 2 > _
5 § i i a.
5 | i 5 §
* 0 t J §
£E ° o °
a "•
1 I '
o
K UJ K t-
z o . o > z
UJ Z Q u. >- <
§
> I
tfl
UJ _ (- PC s. (• °-
l_ Q 9 ;i > 2 D
L* uj ^ O t— ** 5i
< S UJ u. - .
UJ *~ uj Q o. Q Qj
a.
i i i
s ° 2
S Q 5 S UJ Z j
= S g < > 2 i"
", Z m " ° W >
< — S CC B3 UJ UJ
^™ S 5^ H* ^ o ™ J
Q O S M
o w
1- D
Z u
< . CC
*- fc o
D 0 »_
-1 Z —
_j Z
0 g
^ 5
t
miii
\~ S u. W> Q j
< 8 « a
4 i i
1
sScrujtS
c? Q o » o ^ o
£ 3 |> J ! j
3 Uf UJ d Z = (
>SSn{Sd
3 5 °~
3
3
UJ
to in
i i
S c
K M
GROUP
_J
u
a
K £ > _
2 Q - z
u z c o
+ j± _.^&
CO <
^M 4V*
og
£"<
^^^ ^^h
o
LL 2
^^
C^^k
Q
< LLJ
T, CO
SS
s ^
O LU
••• ^^^
^L MM
z o
oS
£ CL
UJ LL
Q O
i
£
3
a>
E
VII-21
-------
SECTION VIII
COST, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
The purpose of this section is to document the cost, energy, and
nonwater quality aspects of recommended treatment technology presented
in Section VII.
COST AND ENERGY
The costs presented in this section are estimates of the capital,
annual, and energy expenses which could potentially be incurred to meet
the design effluent levels presented in Sections XII and XIV. The costs
itemized are based on the assumption that plants already have installed
pesticide removal and/or biological oxidation systems where BPT regula-
tions require. These estimates are therefore the incremental costs
above and beyond BPT. The costs presented here represent the maximum
expenditures which would be required to treat detected and likely to be
present priority, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants. For
example, it was shown in Table V-10 that 34 pesticides have the
potential for phenolic priority pollutants to be present in their
wastestreams. Of those pesticides for which data were available, only
10 pesticides, or 29 percent, contained phenols over the level of
100 mg/1. Adsorption technology has been designed and costed which
would reduce that 100 mg/1 of phenol to 1 mg/1, however, it is estimated
at this time that 69 percent of the pesticides may not require such
stringent control nor will they incur the maximum costs that are
derived.
The Agency does not require that these technologies be installed at any
plant location; however, the application of these technologies will
attain the design effluent levels. Individual plants have the option of
utilizing process modifications, in-plant controls, alternate methods of
disposal, alternate end-of-pipe treatment units, or any combination of
the above in order to achieve equivalent effluent levels. A plant-by-
plant cost analysis has been conducted in order to allow a separate
economic contractor to assess the potential impact of installing the
recommended treatment to meet design effluent levels. This analysis is
presented in Sections XII and XIV.
The cost estimates in this section are presented on a subcategory,
rather than plant-by-plant, basis. They show the range of costs
potentially incurred by model plants of various flows and differing
pesticide treatability. They were derived in the following manner:
1. Costs were generated for each treatment unit specified in
Section VI based on September 1979 dollars and corres-
ponding to a Marshall and Swift Index value of 630. The
capital and annual cost assumptions for these computations
VIII-1
-------
are presented in Tables VIII-1 and VIII-2. The basis for
these assumptions is documented in the Administrative
Record to the proposed regulations. The total construc-
tion costs for each unit were prepared from equipment
manufacturers' estimates which were compared to actual
plant data when available. The total construction costs
include the treatment unit cost, land, electrical, piping,
instrumentation, site preparation, engineering, and
contingency fees. Annual and energy costs were calculated
in accordance with the assumptions specified. Cost curves
were prepared for dollars versus volume treated, and each
of the components included in the individual treatment
units was specified. These cost curves are presented
graphically in Figures VIII-1 through VIII-21.
The total cost for each subcategory, as summarized in
Tables VIII-3 through VIII-5, was derived by summing the
costs for individual treatment units that are specified
for each level of control recommended in Sections XII and
XIV. Treatment costs for each subcategory are based on
flow rates of 0.01 MGD, 0.1 MGD, and 1 MGD for pesticide
manufacturers which were representative of actual flows in
the industry; flows below 0.01 MGD were provided with
alternative costs for evaporation or contract hauling as
is practiced in the industry. Treatment costs for zero
dischargers, metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers, and
pesticide formulator/packagers, Subcategories 11, 12, and
13, respectively, are based on representative flow rates
of 50 gpd, 500 gpd, and 5,000 gpd.
For pesticide manufacturers, a high and low cost for each
treatment unit was introduced to reflect differences in
degree of treatability or differences in recoveries
obtainable. For example, in each case where pesticide
removal was recommended, the costs for activated carbon,
resin adsorption, and hydrolysis were compared. The
effectiveness of these technologies has been demonstrated
within the design ranges provided; however, each indivi-
dual pesticide plant must determine by laboratory and/or
pilot scale treatability studies the exact design criteria
to meet effluent objectives. In general, this comparison
resulted in the selection of carbon adsorption at
750 minutes detention time for the high cost, and
hydrolysis at 400 minutes detention time for the low cost
for each subcategory. In this cost comparison, 12-hour
equalization, neutralization, dual media filtration, and
pumping stations were assumed to be part of both activated
carbon and resin adsorption systems.
High and low costs were also provided where steam
stripping was the designated technology to account for the
VIII-2
-------
fact that stripped organics may either be returned to the
process (in which case a recovery has been calculated) or
that they become a wastestream which is normally disposed
by incineration.
High and low costs have been provided for the incineration
unit to reflect the fact that the size of the unit and
especially the annual costs are quite different depending
on whether a chlorinated hydrocarbon or aqueous oily waste
is being disposed. A reduction of fuel consumption based
on the fuel value of hydrocarbon wastestreams has been
considered.
A high and low cost has been provided for evaporation
ponds, corresponding.to solar evaporation and spray evap-
oration alternatives which are determined by site-specific
climatic conditions.
The high and low costs for annual and energy may appear
reversed. This simply means that the annual cost for a
high capital system may be less than the annual cost for a
low capital system.
The flows upon which unit treatment costs are based have
been split into three groups based on wastewater segrega-
tion. Wastestreams not compatible with biological treat-
ment (i.e., distillation tower bottoms, stripper overhead
streams, reactor vent streams, etc.) are most effectively
disposed of by incineration. Based on the operating range
of incinerators in the industry it has been assumed that
1 percent of the total flow from the plant requires
incineration. This corresponds to a range of 100 to
10,000 gallons per day.
Based on the actual operating practices in the industry,
steam stripping, chemical oxidation, and metal separation
have been costed at flows equal to one-third the total
volume disposed by the plant for total flow rates of
0.1 MGD and 1 MGD. Flow rates of 0.01 MGD have been
costed at full flow. Pesticide removal (hydrolysis,
activated carbon, or resin adsorption) and biological
treatment (equalization, neutralization, nutrient addi-
tion, aeration basin, etc.) have been costed based on the
total flow.
The high and low costs for each subcategory and each level
of technology are summarized in Tables VIII-3 through
VIII-5 for capital, annual, and energy estimates.
Table VIII-3 shows that the capital costs for Level 1
technology, excluding evaporation or contract hauling, are
a minimum of $290,000 and a maximum of $4,690,000 at a
flow rate of 0.1 MGD for pesticide manufacturers
VII1-3
-------
(Subcategories 1 through 12); Level 3 technology is shown
to cost a minimum of $854,000 and a maximum of $5,250,000.
There are four subcategories (6, 11, 12, and 13) where the
average flow was less than 10,000 gallons per day for
which it may be more cost-effective to dispose of wastes
by contract hauling or evaporation, than to construct a
wastewater treatment plant.
Cost itemization for each treatment unit in each
subcategory is presented in Tables VIII-6 through VIII-27,
including costs for alternative disposal by evaporation
ponds or contract hauling.
NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
An analysis of the total nonwater quality aspects of the manufacturing
and formulating/packaging of pesticides is beyond the scope of this
study. Instead, the discussion of the potential contamination by
gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes will be restricted to those areas
directly affected by the implementation of technology recommendations
contained in this report.
Air Quality
Incineration has been recommended as a means for disposing of concen-
trated organic liquids and nonrecoverable solvents. The incinerator
design recommended in this study provides for the scrubbing of off-gases
with caustic or lime, should there be hydrogen chloride gas present, or
with water in cases where nonchlorinated liquid wastes are being fed to
the incinerator. Given the proper temperature and dwell time in the
combustion chamber, greater than 99.9 percent removal of pesticide
active ingredients can be maintained so that a potential air pollution
problem is not created. Nitrogen-based pesticides could generate
cyanide gas if incineration temperatures and excess air are not
adequate, and this potential should be monitored for specific waste-
streams. Incineration is not applicable to organic pesticides
containing heavy metals such as mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, copper,
or zinc.
Air stripping of volatile organics from biological oxidation systems has
generally been assumed to be a potential air pollution problem. This
conclusion should be substantiated before technology recommendations in
this study are implemented. For example, steam stripping of volatile
organics which are detected or likely to be present has been provided as
a pretreatment step before biological oxidation, in order to remove
volatile organics to approximately one part per million. This stripping
has been designed to remove volatiles such as methylene chloride at a
maximum rate of 167,000 pounds per MGD, or an annual cost of $0.0279 per
pound methylene chloride per MGD. This removes the potential release of
the compound from a biological system to the atmosphere in return for
the capital and annual expenses associated with the stream stripper.
VIII-4
-------
The air stripping thesis appeared to be verified in a study by Coco
(1978) who analyzed 18 separate chlorinated solvent process streams. In
each case the sample was analyzed, aerated for 500 minutes, and analyzed
again, in order to simulate a bio-aeration system. Removal of aromatic
solvents and chlorinated ethanes ranged from 88.6 percent to
99.9 percent.
In an evaluation of the potential air stripping of hydrocarbons during
activated sludge wastewater treatment, Engineering Science (1979) con-
tends that biological removal of hydrocarbon compounds greatly exceeds
the removal by air stripping of the volatile components in the presence
of activated sludge biomass. Engineering Science reports that less than
0.5 percent of the raw wastewater TOC was air stripped when as much as
21 percent contained the potential for stripping. In monitoring the
hydrocarbon content of the air with a Bendix Model 8202 reactive
analyzer it was concluded that any predicted methodology for estimating
hydrocarbon emissions substantially overestimates this potential air
pollutant source.
Both solar and spray evaporation have been recommended as alternative
methods for disposal of low volumes of wastewater. Although the poten-
tial for evaporation of volatiles and possible losses by drift have not
been quantified at this time, the State of Texas has determined that
methanol and less volatile arsenic emissions from a pesticide wastewater
evaporation pond would be below the level of significance (U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, 1979).
On-site regeneration of activated carbon has been recommended as an
alternative for the removal of pesticides, phenols, nitrosamines, and
chlorinated dienes. The furnace which is utilized in this system has
been provided with an afterburner to control obnoxious gases and a wet
scrubber for dust collection and cooling of gases.
In a study conducted by Wagner, et^ al_. (1979) it was determined that the
conditions necessary to safely incinerate granular activated carbon
reactivation off-gases were within the normal operating range of a
typical afterburner. Of the eight compounds selected five were not
present in their original form in the furnace off-gases (two of these
five were the pesticides malathion and 2,4-D). The residual levels of
the other three compounds, and the hydrocarbon decomposition products
from all eight compounds, were reduced by at least 98 percent in the
afterburner.
Solid Waste Considerations
Many liquid and solid wastes generated in the pesticide industry have
been classified as "hazardous" by regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (U.S. EPA, 1980b). Specific waste
streams within specific processes have been designated as hazardous, as
well as specific products and raw materials. The economic impact of
compliance with RCRA regulations has been initially reviewed in order to
allow a separate economic contractor to assess the potential impact of
VIII-5
-------
these regulations. RCRA management costs were estimated using
procedures described in the Draft Final Guidance for RCRA Interim Status
Standards (ISS) Costs, Office of Analysis and Evaluation, Revised April
1981.The costs include: (1) runoff collection and treatment system,
(2) closure plan, (3) off-site management, (4) administration,
(5) record-keeping, (6) monitoring and testing, (7) training,
(8) contingency plan, and (9) closure and post closure financial
responsibilities as applicable to each type of facility. The RCRA ISS
management costs associated with these regulations are estimated to be
$73,000 annually for the industry. Facilities which treat, store,
dispose, or transport hazardous wastes were evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. It is estimated that these costs will be $1.1 million annually
with no additional capital expenditures.
Metal separation systems have been recommended for Subcategories 3, 5,
and 7 of this document for the removal of copper and zinc. Adjustment
of pH using sodium hydroxide in these systems will create zinc and
copper hydroxide sludges. The quantities of sludge generated are
estimated to be:
Cubic Yards of Sludge
Generated Per Year Per MGD
Copper Zinc
102,000 5,540
Activated sludge systems have been recommended for Subcategory 10
pesticides that were excluded from the BPT regulation. Sludges
generated in these systems are thickened, digested, and vacuum filtered
to a solids content of 15 percent. The quantity of sludge generated by
plants in this subcategory is estimated to be:
Cubic Yards of Sludge
Generated Per Year Per MGD
7,720
Contract hauling of wastewaters generated in volumes less than
1,000 gallons per day has been recommended by this study. Under the
RCRA regulations proposed by EPA, disposal of wastes off-site would
require preparation of a manifest to track the movement of the waste
from the generator's premises to a permanent off-site treatment,
storage, or disposal facility.
Protection of Ground Water
Deep well injection is practiced at 17 plants in the pesticide industry.
Since this method of disposal has not been recommended by this study,
its potential impact on groundwater pollution will not be addressed.
Evaporation ponds are the only earthen basins recommended as a treatment
technology in this study. Unless the natural soil is impervious, lining
VHI-6
-------
of the basin will be required to ensure that ground water is protected.
The basins designed and costed in this study have a liner included.
Spray irrigation of process wastewaters is practiced at three plants in
the industry. Since this is not a technology recommended in this study,
its potential for pollution of the ground water will not be addressed.
VIII-7
-------
Table VIII-1. Basis for Capital Costs Computations
(September 1979 Dollars)
Item
Capital Cost
Land
Excavation
Materials
Reinforced Concrete
Machined Steel
Epoxy Coating
Liner
Sitework, electrical, piping
and instrumentation
Engineering
Contingency
$30,000 per acre
$6.25 per cubic yard
$260 per cubic yard
$2.00 per pound
$2.50 per square foot
$0.90 per square foot
48% of total equipment cost
15% of construction cost
15% of construction cost
VIII-8
-------
Table VIII-2. Basis of Annual Cost Computations
(September 1979 Dollars)
Item
Capital Cost
Capital Recovery (0.163)
Taxes and Insurance
Manpower
Labor
Supervision
Maintenance Materials
Sludge Disposal
Water
Activated Carbon
Chemicals Consumed
Caustic Soda (502)
Chlorine
Ferric Chloride
Lime
Methanol
Chemicals Recovered
Methylene Chloride
Pesticides
Energy Consumed
Electricity
Gas
Steam
Energy Recovered
Thermal
10 years at 10%
2% of capital cost
$15,000 per worker per year
including fringe benefits
$20,000 per worker per year
including fringe benefits
4Z of capital cost
$25 per cubic yard (non-hazardous)
$60 per cubic yard (hazardous)
$0.12 per thousand gallons
$0.60 per pound
$0.10 per dry pound
$0.15 per pound
$0.20 per pound
$50 per ton
$0.70 per gallon
$0.10 per pound
$2.50 per pound
$0.05 per kilowatt-hour
$3.50 per million cubic feet
$7.50 per thousand pounds
$6.25 per million BTU
VIII-9
-------
Table VIII-3. Capital Cost Summary by Subcategory
Subcategory
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Level
High
2770
2960
3350
3340
3540
160*
1480 1
630
950
4690
160*
160*
160*
1
Low
702
892
942
1270
1130
16.4*
797t
290
610
2620
16.4*
16.4*
16.4*
Cost ($1,
Level
High
2930
3120
3510
3500
3700
—
1580t
790
1110
4850
—
—
—
OOOs)
2
Low
862
1050
1100
1430
1290
—
897t
450
770
2780
—
—
—
Level
High
3340
3530
3920
3910
4110
—
1740t
1190
1510
5250
—
—
—
3
Low
1270
1460
1510
1840
1700
—
1060t
854
1170
3180
—
—
—
Costs itemized at a design flow of 0.1 MGD unless otherwise specified.
* Flow - 500 GPD; however, costs for flows of 5,000 and 50 GPD are
also available.
t Design flow » 0.01 MGD.
VIII-10
-------
Table VIII-4. Annual Cost Summary by Subcategory
Cost ($l,OOOs)
Subcategory
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Level
High
1310
1420
2210
1940
2320
44.6*
943 1
190
332
2340
44.6*
44.6*
44.6*
1
Low
371
481
486
1000
596
10.5*
4621
190
332
1380
10.5*
10.5*
10.5*
Level 2
High
1340
1450
2240
1970
2360
—
967t
225
367
2380
—
—
—
Low
406
516
521
1040
631
—
486 1
225
367
1420
—
—
—
Level
High
1720
1830
2620
2350
2730
—
1080t
604
746
2760
—
—
—
3
Low
785
895
900
1420
1010
—
596T
604
746
1800
—
—
—
Costs itemized at a design flow of 0.1 MGD unless otherwise specified.
* Flow - 500 GPD; however, costs for flows of 5,000 and 50 GPD are
also available.
t Design flow - 0.01 MGD.
VIII-11
-------
Table VIII-5. Energy Cost Summary by Subcategory
Cost ($l,OOOs)
Subcategory
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Level
High
133
180
142
187
189
0.40*
39t
36
84
216
0.40*
0.40*
0.40*
1
Low
122
168
129
176
176
0.24*
34T
42
90
204
0.24*
0.24*
0.24*
Level
High
134
181
143
188
190
—
40t
37
85
217
—
—
—
2
Low
122
170
130
177
176
—
34t
43
91
205
—
—
—
Level
High
163
210
172
217
219
—
43t
66
114
225
—
—
—
3
Low
151
198
158
205
205
—
37t
72
120
233
—
—
—
Costs itemized at a design flow of 0.1 MGD unless otherwise specified.
* Flow » 500 GPD; however, costs for flows of 5,000 and 50 GPD are
also available.
t Design flow - 0.01 MGD.
VIII-12
-------
Table VIII-6.
Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 1
(Design Flow = 0.01 MGD)
Design Flow = 0.01 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital Annual* Energy*
High low HighLow High Low
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration
SUBTOTAL
Level 2
Dual Media Filters
SUBTOTAL
36
64
36
64
140
8
17
8
17
37
48
100
31
36
240
160
20
24
7
8
65
130
150 67
865 307
100 100
965 407
130 86_
409 148
0.3 0.3
0.3 0.3
8
1
0.3 --
0.2 -
0.3 --
1
8
VIII-13
-------
Table VIII-6. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 1
(Design Flow = 0.01 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow - 0.01 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 3
Pump St at ion
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regenerat
SUBTOTAL
Alternatives for
Evaporation Pond
Contract Hauling
High
Low
36 36
15 15
ion 110 110
1130 568
low-flow wastewater disposal
(500 gpd) 160
(500 gpd)
16.4
Annual*
High
8
14
87
542
28
44.6
Low
8
14
87
281
10.5
18.6
Energy*
High
0.3
1
2
19
0.40
Low
0.3
1
_2
16.2
0.24
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-14
-------
Table VIII-7.
Unit Treatment Cost Itetnization for Subcategory 1
(Design flow - 0.1 MGD)
Design Flow -0.1 MGD
Capital
High Low
Cost ($1000s)
Annual*
High Low
Energy*
High Low
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration
SUBTOTAL
Level 2
Dual Media Filters
SUBTOTAL
42
130
42
130
9
32
9
32
53
160
36
42
1100
580
240
23
35
—•— 8
——_ Q
470
530
140
0.5 0.5
1 1
78
1
1
0.3 —
0.5
4
89
630 290 190 190 36 42
2770 702 1310 371 133 122
160 160 35_ 35_ 1_ 1_
2930 862 1340 406 134 122
VIII-15
-------
Table VIII-7. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 1
(Design flow =0.1 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow » 0.1 MGD
Cost (SlOOOs)
Capital
Level 3
Pump Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
High
42
72
290
3340
low
42
72
290
1270
Annual*
High
9
130
240
1720
Low
9
130
240
H^B^B^HH
785
Energy*
High
0.5
2
26
163
Low
0
2
26
•••••••••
151
.5
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-16
-------
Table VIII-8. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 2
(Design Flow - 0.01 MGD)
Design Flow - 0.01 MGD
Cost ( $1000s )
Capital
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration
High
36
64
120
48
100
31
36
240
160
150
Low
36
64
120
140
- —
67
Annual*
High
8
17
44
20
24
7
8
65
130
130
Low
8
17
44
37
- —
86
Energy*
High
0.3
0.3
14
1
0.3
0.2
0.3
1
8
4
low
0.3
0.3
14
_ —
8
4
SUBTOTAL 985 427 453 192 29.4 26.6
Level 2
Dual Media Filters 100 100
SUBTOTAL 1080 527
VIII-17
-------
Table VIII-8. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 2
(Design Flow = 0.01 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow = 0.01 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 3
Pump Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regenerat
SUBTOTAL
Alternatives for
Evaporation Pond
Contract Hauling
High
Low
36 36
15 15
ion 110 110
1250 688
low-flow wastewater disposal
(500 gpd) 160
(500 gpd)
16.4
Annual*
High
8
14
87
586
28
44.6
Low
8
14
87
^•^•MMV
325
10.5
18.6
Energy*
High
0.3
1
2
33
0.40
Low
0.3
1
_2
30.2
0.24
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-18
-------
Table VIII-9.
Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 2
(Design Flow = 0.1 MGD)
Design Flow =0.1 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital Annual* Energy*
High Low High Low High Low
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration
SUBTOTAL
Level 2
Dual Media Filters
SUBTOTAL
42
130
190
42
130
190
9
32
110
9
32
110
240
140
53
160
36
42
1100
580
23
35
8
9
470
530
0.5 0.5
1 1
47 47
78
1
1
0.3 —
0.5 —
4
89
630 290 190 190 36 42
2960 892 1420 481 180 168
160 160 3£ 35_ 1_ 1_
3120 1050 1450 516 181 170
VIII-19
-------
Table VIII-9. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 2
(Design Flow * 0.1 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow « 0.1 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 3
Pump Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
High
42
72
290
3530
Low
42
72
290
1460
Annual*
High
9
130
240
1830
Low
9
130
240
895
Energy
High
0.5
2
26
210
*
Low
0
2
26
198
.5
Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VI11-20
-------
Table VIII-10. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 3
(Design Flow » 0.01 MGD)
Design Flow - 0.01 MGD
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
High Low
36 36
64 64
260 140
140
48
100
31
36
240
160
150 67
Annual*
High
8
17
260
20
24
7
8
65
130
20
130
Low
8
17
60
37
0.5
86
Energy*
High Low
0.3 0.3
0.3 0.3
5 4
8
1
0.3
0.2
0.3
1
8
4 4
SUBTOTAL 1120 447 689 208 20.4 16.6
Level 2
Dual Media Filters 100 100
SUBTOTAL 1220 547
VIII-21
-------
Table VIII-10. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 3
(Design Flow » 0.01 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow • 0.01 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 3
Pump Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
Alternatives for low- flow wastewater
Evaporation Pond (500 gpd)
Contract Hauling (500 gpd)
High
Low
36 36
15 15
110 110
1390 708
disposal
160
16.4
Annual*
High
8
14
87
••MM^MBM <•
822
28
44.6
low
8
14
87
••^M^^
342
10.5
18.6
Energy*
High
0.3
1
_2
24
0.40
Low
0.3
1
2
^^••HHIMB
20.2
0.24
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-22
-------
Table VIII-11.
Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 3
(Design Flow = 0.1 MGD)
Design Flow =0.1 MGD
Capital
High low
Cost ($1000s)
Annual*
High Low
Energy*
High Low
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration
SUBTOTAL
Level 2
Dual Media Filters
SUBTOTAL
42
130
42
130
9
32
9
32
580
53
160
36
42
1100
580
240
240
700
23
35
8
9
470
530
110
140
204 5
630 290 190 190
3350 942 2210 486
0.5
1
0.5
1
7
78
1
1
0.3
0.5
4
89
36 42
*M^^BHB ••••MH
142 129
160 160 35_ 35_
3510 1100 2240 521 143 130
VIII-23
-------
Table VIII-11. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 3
(Design Flow =0.1 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow - 0.1 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 3
Pump Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
High
42
72
290
3920
Low
42
72
290
1510
Annual*
High
9
130
240
2620
Low
9
130
240
900
i
Energy*
High
0.5
2
26
172
Low
0.
2
26
158
5
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VI11-24
-------
Table VIII-12.
Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 4
(Design Flow » 0.01 MGD)
Design Flow = 0.01 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital Annual* Energy*
High Low High low High Low
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration
SUBTOTAL
Level 2
Dual Media Filters
SUBTOTAL
36
64
120
230
36
64
120
230
8
17
44
210
8
17
44
210
0.3 0.3
0.3 0.3
14 14
3 3
140
48
100
31
36
240
160
37
20
24
7
8
65
130
100 100
1320 757
130 86
663 402
24 _24_
687 426
1
0.3
0.2
0,
1
8
3
VIII-25
-------
Table VIII-12. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 4
(Design Flow = 0.01 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow = 0.01 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 3
Pump Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
Alternatives for low-flow wastewater
Evaporation Pond (500 gpd)
Contract Hauling (500 gpd)
High
36
15
110
^•M^VHB •
1480
Low
36
15
110
•••^••M^H <
918
Annual*
High
8
14
87
796
Low
8
14
87
535
Energy*
High Low
0.3 0.3
1 1
2 2
3.6 33.2
disposal
160
16.4
28
44.6
10.5
18.6
0.40 0.24
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-26
-------
Table VIII-13.
Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 4
(Design Flow =0.1 MGD)
Design Flow =0.1 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital Annual* Energy*
High Low High Low High Low
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration
SUBTOTAL
Level 2
42
130
190
380
— _ _
53
160
36
42
1100
580
42
130
190
380
240
9
32
110
520
___
23
35
8
9
470
530
9
32
110
520
140
0.5 0.5
1 1
47 47
7 7
78
1
1
0.3
0.5
4
89
Dual Media Filters
SUBTOTAL
630 290 190 190 36 42
3340 1270 1940 1000 187 176
160 160 35 3_5_ 1_ 1_
3500 1430 1970 1040 188 177
VIII-27
-------
Table VIII-13. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 4
(Design Flow =0.1 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow =0.1 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 3
Pump Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
High
42
72
290
3910
Low
42
72
290
1840
Annual*
High
9
130
240
2350
Low
9
130
240
1420
Energy*
High Low
0.5
2
26
217
0.
2
26
205
5
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-28
-------
Table VIII-14. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 5
(Design Flow » 0.01 MGD)
Design Flow = 0.01 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
».• j.
AerauLon oasxn
O1 a «• l fi t* a |~ i rtfi
oieinricat ion
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
V Q (^ II 1 1171 TP 1 lt~l™at"1OT>
V dV*U LLUl r i.J.ULaLi.VJLl
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incinerat ion
High
36
64
120
260
48
100
31
36
240
160
150
Low
36
64
120
140
140
67
Annual*
High
8
17
44
260
20
24
7
8
65
130
20
130
Low
8
17
44
60
37
0.5
86
Energy*
High Low
0.3 0.3
0.3 0.3
14 14
5 4
8
1
0.3
0.2
0.3
1
8
4 4
SUBTOTAL
Level 2
Dual Media Filters
SUBTOTAL
1240 567
100 100
«^B*«I^H -^^^^^H«
1340 667
733 252
34.4 30.6
VIII-29
-------
Table VIII-14. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 5
(Design Flow = 0.01 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow = 0.01 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 3
Pump St at ion
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
Alternatives for low-flow
Evaporation Pond (500 gpd)
Contract Hauling (500 gpd)
High
Low
36 36
15 15
110 110
1510 828
wastewater disposal
160
16.4
Annual*
High
8
14
87
866
28
44.6
Low
8
14
87
386
10.5
18.6
Energy*
High
0.3
1
2
38
0.40
Low
0.3
1
_2
34.2
0.24
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-30
-------
Table VIII-15. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 5
(Design Flow = 0.1 MGD)
Design Flow = 0.1 MGD
Capital
High Low
Cost ($1000s)
Annual*
High Low
Energy*
High Low
Level 1
Pumping Station 42 42 9 9 0.5 0.5
Equalization (12-hr) 130 130 32 32 11
Steam Stripper 190 190 110 110 47 47
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation 580 240 700 110 9 7
Hydrolysis 240 140 78
Neutralization 53 23 1
Dual Media Filter 160 35 1
Pumping Station 36 8 0.3
Pumping Station 42 9 0.5
Activated Carbon 1100 470 4
Carbon Regeneration 580 530 89
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr) -—
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge 204 5
Incineration 630 290 190 190 36 42
SUBTOTAL 3540 1130 2320 596 189 176
Level 2
Dual Media Filters 160 160 35 35_ 1__ 1_
SUBTOTAL 3700 1290 2360 631 190 176
VIII-31
-------
Table VIII-15. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 5
(Design Flow = 0.1 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow =0.1 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 3
Pump Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
High
42
72
290
4110
Low
42
72
290
1700
Annual*
High
9
130
240
2730
Low
9
130
240
1010
Energy*
High
0.5
2
26
219
Low
0
2
26
205
.5
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-32
-------
Table VIII-16. Ihit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 6
Average Flow (gpd)
5.000 500 50
Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy
Contract Hauling
Hazardous — $446,000 — — $44,600 — — $4,460 —
Nonhazardous — $186,000 — — $18,600 — — $1,860 —
Evaporation
Solar
(5 in/yr NE) $1,200,000
(10 in/yr 1C) $640,000
(20 in/yr IE) $350,000
(30 in/yr N5.) $230,000
$170,000
$100,000
$58,000
$46,000
—
$160,000
$92,000
$62,000
$42,000
$28,000
$18,000
$13,000
$10,500
—
$28,000
$16,500
$13,000
$9,200
$6,700
$5,600
$4,400
$4,400
—
Spray
(10
(5
psi)
psi)
$90
$145
,000
,000
$50,000
$66,000
$13,000
$20,000
$16,400
$24,000
$11,000
$11,900
$240
$400
$10,700
$12,000
$4,200
$4,600
$150
$165
1G « Net Evaporation.
psi * pounds per square inch.
VIII-33
-------
Table VIII-17. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 7
(Design Flow « 0.01 MGD)
Design Flow = 0.01 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration
SUBTOTAL
Level 2
Dual Media Filters
SUBTOTAL
High
36
64
120
230
260
48
100
31
36
240
160
—
— — —
___
— — —
150
1480
100
1580
Low
36
64
120
230
140
140
~_ «
___
___
67
797
100
897
Annual*
High
8
17
44
210
260
20
24
7
8
65
130
__ _•
— —
20
130
943
24
967
Low
8
17
44
210
60
37
— — —
— — —
— — —
0.5
86_
462
24
486
Energy*
High
0.3
0.3
14
3
5
1
0.3
0.2
0.3
1
8
-— -
— — —
— — —
4
39.2
0.3
39.5
Low
0.3
0.3
14
3
4
8
__ v
— — —
— — —
4
33.6
0.3
33.9
VIII-34
-------
Table VIII-17. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 7
(Design Plow = 0.01 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow » 0.01 MGD
Capital
Level 3
Pump St at ion
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
High
36
15
110
1740
Low
36
15
110
1060
Cost (SlOOOs)
Annual*
High Low
8 8
14 14
BT_ 87^
1080 596
Energy*
High
0.3
1
_2
42.8
Low
0.3
1
_2
37.2
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-35
-------
Table VIII-18. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 8
(Design Flow = 0.01 MGD)
Design Flow • 0.01 MGD Cost ($1000s)
Capital Annual* Energy*
High low High Low High Low
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration —-
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration 150 67 130 86_ 4_ 4_
SUBTOTAL 150 67 130 86 4 4
Level 2
Dual Media Filters 100 100 24 24 0.3 0.3
SUBTOTAL 250 167 154 110 4.3 4.3
VIII-36
-------
Table VIII-18. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 8
(Design Flow = 0.01 MGD) ("Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow - 0.01 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 3
Pump Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
High
36
15
110
411
Low
36
15
110
328
Annual*
High
8
14
87
263
Low
8
14
87
219
Energy*
High
0.3
1
_2
7.6
Low
0.3
1
_2
7.6
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-37
-------
Table VIII-19. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 8
(Design Flow = 0.1 MGD)
Design Flow = 0.1 MGD
Capital
High Low
Cost ($1000s)
Annual*
High Low
Energy*
High Low
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration
SUBTOTAL
Level 2
Dual Media Filters
SUBTOTAL
VIII-38
-------
Table VIII-19. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 8
(Design Flow « 0.1 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow - 0.1 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 3
Pump Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
High
42
72
290
1190
Low
42
72
290
854
Annual*
High
9
130
240
604
Low
9
130
240
604
Energy*
High
0.5
2
26
65.5
Low
0.5
2
26
71.5
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-39
-------
Table VIII-20.
Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 9
(Design Flow = 0.01 MGD)
Design Flow = 0.01 MGD
Capital
High Low
Cost ($1000s)
Annual*
High Low
Energy*
High Low
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration
SUBTOTAL
Level 2
Dual Media Filters
SUBTOTAL
64 64
120 120
17
44
17
44
0.3 0.3
14 14
150 67
334 251
130 86
191 147
VIII-40
-------
Table VIII-20. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 9
(Design Flow - 0.01 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow = 0.01 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 3
Pump Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
Alternatives for low-flow wastewater
Evaporation Pond (500 gpd)
Contract Hauling (500 gpd)
High
36
15
110
^^^^^P«> •
595
Low
36
15
110
^•^^•^••B <
512
Annual*
High
8
14
87
324
Low
8
14
87
280
Energy*
High
0.3
1
_2
21.9
Low
0.3
1
2
H^H^MMBK
21.9
disposal
160
*w
16.4
w
28
44.6
10.5
18.6
0.40
""
0.24
"
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-41
-------
Table VIII-21. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 9
(Design Flow =0.1 MGD)
Design Flow =0.1 MGD __^ Cost ($1000s)
Capital Annual*" Energy^*
High Low High Low High Low
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr) 130 130 32 32 11
Steam Stripper 190 190 110 110 47 47
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
.Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration 630 290 190 190 36_ 42_
SUBTOTAL 950 610 332 332 84 90
Level 2
Dual Media Filters 160 160 35_ 35_ 1_ 1_
SUBTOTAL 1110 770 367 367 85 91
VIII-42
-------
Table VIII-21. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 9
(Design Flow = 0.1 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow - 0.1 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 3
Pump Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
High
42
72
290
1510
Low
42
72
290
1170
Annual*
High
9
130
240
746
Low
9
130
240
746
Energy*
High
0.5
2
26 _
114
Low
0.5
2
26
120
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-43
-------
Table VIII-22.
Unit Treatment Cost Itetnization for Subcategory 10
(Design Flow = 0.01 MGD)
Design Flow = 0.01 MGD
Capital
High Low
Cost ($1000s)
Annual*
High Low
Energy*
High Low
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration
SUBTOTAL
Level 2
Dual Media Filters
SUBTOTAL
48
100
31
36
240
160
150
2000
140
36
76
48
36
29
33
260
72
31
130
29
36
76
48
36
29
33
260
72
31
130
29
67
1440
100 100
2100 1540
20
24
7
8
65
130
130
H^BHBM*
869
24
893
37
8
20
20
8
11
12
55
11
12
38
7
8
20
20
8
11
12
55
11
12
38
7
86
606
24
•••!••»
630
0.3
0.3
14
3
— — —
1
0.3
0.2
0.3
1
8
0.3
0.4
1
0.3
1
0.3
3
1
1
1
0.2
0.3
0.3
14
3
8
^ ^ ^
0.3
0.4
1
0.3
1
0.3
3
1
1
1
0.2
VIII-44
-------
Table VIII-22. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 10
(Design Flow » 0.01 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow - 0.01 MGD
Cost (SlOOOs)
Capital
Level 3
Pump Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
Alternatives for low-flow
Evaporation Pond (500 gpd)
Contract Hauling (500 gpd)
High
Low
36 36
15 15
110 110
2260 1700
wastewater disposal
160
16.4
Annual*
High
8
14
87_
1000
28
44.6
Low
8
14
87
739
10.5
18.6
Energy*
High Low
0.3 0.3
1 1
2 _2
45.5 44.4
0.40 0.24
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-45
-------
Table VIII-23.
Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 10
(Design Flow =0.1 MGD)
Design Flow - 0.1 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital Annual* Energy*
High Low High Low High Low
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
Metals Sludge
Incineration
SUBTOTAL
Level 2
42
130
190
380
___
53
160
36
42
1100
580
42
170
53
42
32
200
320
150
120
180
34
630
4690
42
130
190
380
240
42
170
53
42
32
200
320
150
120
180
34
290
2620
9
32
110
520
_ _ _
23
35
8
9
470
530
9
42
23
9
24
57
72
36
36
47
7
LL
mi
190
2340
9
32
110
520
140
9
42
23
9
24
57
72
36
36
47
7
1 Q
J.O
190
1380
0.5
1
47
7
— . — ,.
1
1
0.3
0.5
4
89
0.5
3
1
0.5
1
3
3
1
4
11
0.3
36
216
0.5
1
47
7
78
0.5
3
1
0.5
1
3
3
1
4
11
0.3
42
204
Dual Media Filters
SUBTOTAL
160 160 35^ 35 ]_ 1_
4850 2780 2380 1420 217 205
VIII-46
-------
Table VIII-23. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 10
(Design Flow "0.1 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow - 0.1 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 3
Pump Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
SUBTOTAL
High
42
72
290
5250
Low
42
72
290
3180
Annual*
High
9
130
240
2760
Low
9
130
240
1800
Energy*
High
0.5
2
6 _
225
Low
0
2
26
233
.5
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-47
-------
Table VIII-24.
Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 10
(Design Flow =1.0 MGD)
Design Flow =1.0 MGD
Cost ($1000s)
Capital
Level 1
Pumping Station
Equalization (12-hr)
Steam Stripper
Chemical Oxidation
Metals Separation
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
Dual Media Filter
Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Activated Carbon
Carbon Regeneration
Resin Adsorption
Resin Regeneration
Pumping Station
Equalization (24-hr)
Neutralization
Pumping Station
Nutrient Addition
Aeration Basin
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Pumping Station
Contract Hauling
Activated Sludge
\£ !*.+• A 1 *•• O 1 •• J A A
Metals Sludge
Incineration
SUBTOTAL
High
130
340
500
1100
70
420
42
130
14000
3000
130
510
70
130
48
1100
550
330
520
320
40
— — —
3200
26700
Low
130
340
500
1100
1100
130
510
70
130
48
1100
550
330
520
320
40
— — —
1300
8220
Annual*
High
24
95
620
4300
51
100
9
24
3900
3600
24
150
51
24
130
290
170
72
140
110
8
442
290
14600
Low
24
95
620
4300
1300
24
150
51
24
130
290
170
72
140
110
8
184
400
KH^^HM^B
8090
Energy*
High
2
13
470
35
1
2
0.5
2
25
660
2
26
1
2
1
35
9
5
30
4
0.4
— — _
360
Low
2
13
470
35
740
2
26
1
2
1
35
9
5
30
4
0.4
— — —
420
1680 1800
Level 2
Dual Media Filters
SUBTOTAL
420 420 100 100 2 2
27100 8640 14700 8190 1690 1800
VIII-48
-------
Table VIII-24. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 10
(Design Flow = 1.0 MGD) (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Design Flow -1.0 MGD Cost ($1000s)
CapitalAnnual*~Energy*
High Low High Low High low
Level 3
Pump Station 130 130 24 24 2 2
Activated Carbon 470 470 1200 1200 4 4
Carbon Regeneration 1200 1200 1200 1200 250 250
SUBTOTAL 28900 10400 17100 10600 1940 2050
* Correspond to capital high/low system specified.
VIII-49
-------
Table VIII-25. Unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 11
Average Flow (gpd)
5,000 500 50
Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy
Contract Hauling
Hazardous — $446,000 — — $44,600 — — $4,460 —
Nonhazardous — $186,000 — — $18,600 — — $1,860 —
Evaporation
Solar
(5 in/yr IE)
(10 in/yr IE)
(20 in/yr IE)
(30 in/yr IE)
$1,200
$640
$350
$230
,000
,000
,000
,000
$170,000
$100,000
$58,000
$46,000
— $160,000
— $92,000
— $62,000
— $42,000
$28,000
$18,000
$13,000
$10,500
—
$28,000
$16,500
$13,000
$9,200
$6,700
$5,600
$4,400
$4,400
—
Spray
(10
(5
psi)
psi)
$90
$145
,000
,000
$50,000
$66,000
$13,000
$20,000
$16,400
$24,000
$11,000
$11,900
$240
$400
$10,700
$12,000
$4,200
$4,600
$150
$165
NE • Net Evaporation.
psi a punds per square inch.
VIII-50
-------
Table VI11-26. unit Treatment Cost Itemization for Subcategory 12
Average Flow (gpd)
5,000 500 50
Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy
Contract Hauling
Hazardous — $446,000 — — $44,600 — — $4,460 —
Nonhazardous — $186,000 — — $18,600 — — $1,860 —
Evaporation
Solar
(5 in/yr IE)
(10 in/yr NE)
(20 in/yr NE)
(30 in/yr NE)
$1,200,000
$640,000
$350,000
$230,000
$170,000
$100,000
$58,000
$46,000
—
$160,000
$92,000
$62,000
$42,000
$28,000
$18,000
$13,000
$10,500
—
$28,000
$16,500
$13,000
$9,200
$6,700
$5,600
$4,400
$4,400
—
Spray
(10
(5
psi)
psi)
$90
$145
,000
,000
$50,000
$66,000
$13,000
$20,000
$16,400
$24,000
$11,000
$11,900
$240
$400
$10,700
$12,000
$4,200
$4,600
$150
$165
NE * Net Evaporation.
psi * pounds per square inch.
VIII-51
-------
Table VIII-27. Unit Treatment Cbst Itemization for Subcategory 13
Average Flow (gpd)
5,000 500 50
Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy
Contract Hauling
Hazardous — $446,000 — — $44,600 — — $4,460 —
Nonhazardous — $186,000 — — $18,600 — — $1,860 —
Evaporation
Solar
(5 in/yr re)
(10 in/yr re)
(20 in/yr re)
(30 in/yr re)
$1,200,000
$640,000
$350,000
$230,000
$170,000
$100,000
$58,000
$46,000
—
$160,000
$92,000
$62,000
$42,000
$28,000
$18,000
$13,000
$10,500
—
$28,000
$16,500
$13,000
$9,200
$6,700
$5,600
$4,400
$4,400
*"~
Spray
(10
(5
psi)
psi)
$90,
$145,
000
000
$50,000
$66,000
$13,000
$20,000
$16,400
$24,000
$11,000
$11,900
$240
$400
$10,700
$12,000
$4,200
$4,600
$150
$165
NE * Net Evaporation.
psi a pounds per square inch.
VIII-52
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
WET WELL
PUMPS
50 FT. OF PIPING
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
001
FLOW (MOO)
Figure VHI-1 TREATMENT COST CURVES
PUMP STATION
VIIIW53
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
EQUALIZATION BASINS
AERATORS/MIXERS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
FLOW (MOO)
I
TOTAL
Ml «.! t.«
n.ow (MOO)
Figure VIII-2 TREATMENT COST CURVES
EQUALIZATION
VIII-54
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
FEED STORAGE DRUM
FEED PREHEATER
FEED PUMPS
STRIPPING COLUMN
DVETTHEAIJCOWENSER
SEPARATOR DRUM
HEAT EXCHANGER
EFFLUENT STORAGE DRUM
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
i
*
FLOW (MOO)
FLOW (MOO)
Figure Vlll-3
TREATMENT COST CURVES
STEAM STRIPPING
VIII-55
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
FEED PUMPS
REACTOR VESSELS
RECIRCULATION PUMPS
CAUSTIC STORAGE
CHEMICAL FEEDERS
CHLORINE STORAGE
CHLORINATORS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
FLOW (MOD)
TOTM-
ENERGY
FLOW (MOO)
Figure VIIH
TREATMENT COST CURVES
ALKALINE CHLORINATION
VIII-56
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
FEED PUMPS
MIXING TANK
FILTER PRESS
HOLDING TANK
CAUSTIC STORAGE
CHEMICAL FEEDERS
POLYMER STORAGE
POLYMER FEEDERS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
TOTAL
ENERGY
FLOW (MOO)
FLOW (MOO)
Figure VIII-5
TREATMENT COST CURVES
METALS SEPARATION
VIII-57
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
CAUSTIC STORAGE TANK
CHEMICAL FEEDER
MIXING TANK
HYDROLYSIS BASINS WITH COVERS
TEMPERATURE CONTROL
STEAM DELIVERY AND CONTROL
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
FLOW (MOO)
Figure VIII*6 TREATMENT COST CURVES
PESTICIDE HYDROLYSIS
VIII-58
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
CAUSTIC STORAGE TANK
CHEMICAL FEEDER
MIXING TANK
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
ENERGY
now (MOO)
FLOW (MOO)
Figure Vlll-7
TREATMENT COST CURVES
NEUTRALIZATION
VIII-59
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
FEEDPUMPS
FILTERS
BACKWASH PUMPS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
ROW (MOD)
I-
9
FLOW (MOD)
Figure VIII-8
TREATMENT COST CURVES
DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRATION
VIII-60
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
CARBON COLUMNS
BACKWASH PUMPS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
FLOW (MOD)
Figure VIII-9 TREATMENT COST CURVES
CARBON ADSORPTION
VIII-61
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
CARBON MAKE-UP TANK
MAKE-UP CARBON WASH TANK
SLURRY PUMPS
SPENT CARBON DEWATERING TANK
FURNACE
QUENCH TANK
REGENERATED CARBON WASH TANK
WASH WATER PUMPS
AFTER BURNER
SCRUBBER
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
FLOW (MOO)
TOTAL
•.« •.! 1.0
FLOW (MOD)
Figure VII MO
TREATMENT COST CURVES
CARBON REGENERATION
VIII-62
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
RESIN COLUMNS
BACKWASH PUMPS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
H
X
Ml (.1
now (MOO)
ENERGY
••< u
FLOW (MOO)
Figure Vlll-11
TREATMENT COST CURVES
RESIN ADSORPTION
VIII-63
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
METHANOL STORAGE
PUMP
BATCH DISTILLATION COLUMN
OVERHEAD CONDENSER
REFLUX DRUM
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
i
9
FLOW (MOO)
FLOW (MOO)
Figure VIIM2
TREATMENT COST CURVES
RESIN REGENERATION
VIII-64
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
PHOSPHORIC ACID STORAGE
ANHYDROUS AMMONIA STORAGE
CHEMICAL FEED PUMPS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
ENERGY
HOW (MOO)
PLOW (MOD)
Figure VIIM3 TREATMENT COST CURVES
NUTRIENT ADDITION
VIII-65
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
AERATION BASINS
AERATORS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
I
FLOW (MOD)
I-
U1 (.1 1.0 It
FLOW (MOD)
Figure VIII-14 TREATMENT COST CURVES
AERATION BASIN
VIII-66
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
CLARIFIER
SLUDGE RECYCLE PUMPS
POLYMER STORAGE AND FEEDER
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
i
5
FLOW (MOD)
FLOW (MOO)
Figure V1IM5 TREATMENT COST CURVES
CLARIFICATION
VIII-67
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
AIR FLOTATION TANK AND MECHANISM
SLUDGE RECYCLE PUMPS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
I
FLOW (MOD)
FLOW (MOO)
Figure VIII-16
TREATMENT COST CURVES
SLUDGE THICKENER
VIII-68
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
DIGESTION CHAMBER
AERATORS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
I
i
now (MO)
FLOW (MOO)
Figure VIIW7
TREATMENT COST CURVES
AEROBIC DIGESTION
VIII-69
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
VACUUM FILTER
CHEMICAL FEEDERS
CHEMICAL STORAGE
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
FLOW (MOO)
FLOW (MOO)
Figure VIIH8
TREATMENT COST CURVES
VACUUM FILTRATION
VlH-70
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
WASTEWATER STORAGE
FUEL STORAGE
CAUSTIC STORAGE
FEED PUMP
FUEL PUMP
CAUSTIC ADDITION PUMP
QUENCH PUMP
AIR FAN
INCINERATOR
VENTURI SCRUBBER
FINAL SCRUBBER
HOLDING TANK
pH ADJUSTMENT MIXING TANK
STACK
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
O.M1 0.01 0.1
FLOW (MOO)
FLOW (MOD)
Figure Vlll-19 TREATMENT COST CURVES
INCINERATION
VIII-71
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
LINED PONDS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
X
1H
NE - NET EVAPORATION
NE-5IN/YR
NE-10IN/YR
NE-20IN/YR
NE*30IN/YR
NE - NET EVAPORATION
FLOW (OK X 1000)
FLOW (OK) (1000)
Figure Vlll-20
TREATMENT COST CURVES
SOLAR EVAPORATION
VIII-72
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
LINED POND
PUMP
PIPE NETWORK INCLUDING NOZZLES
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
FLOW (« 1«M OPD)
TOTAL
l.t 1.1 U
FLOW (QPO x 1000)
Figure Vlll-21
TREATMENT COST CURVES
SPRAY EVAPORATION
VIII-73
-------
SECTION IX
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS PROPOSED FOR REGULATION
The purpose of this section is to define the pollutants proposed for
regulation in the Pesticide Chemicals Industry and to provide the
rationale for this proposal. EPA's objective was to limit the number of
pollutants regulated to the minimum required to ensure compliance with
the effluent levels technically achievable, while also reducing the
possibility that discharges of wastewater would contribute to adverse
effects on aquatic life or human health. The priority, nonconyentional,
and conventional pollutants in the scope of this study were segregated
into the three groups defined below, as listed in Tables IX-1 through
IX-3:
1. Pollutants of primary significance are those proposed to
be regulated;
2. Pollutants of dual significance are proposed to be
regulated only where they are the manufactured product;
where they are a wastewater constituent of other pesticide
products they are not regulated; and
3. Pollutants of secondary significance are not currently
proposed for regulation; they are excluded.
The rationale for assigning pollutants into these three groups was based
on factors such as raw waste load level and presence, treatability,
analytical methods availability, and environmental effects.
Priority pollutants were initially categorized as being of primary or
secondary significance, as shown in Tables IX-1 and IX-3, according to
the rationale described below.
Priority pollutants detected or likely to be present in each pesticide
wastestream were examined by group as shown in Section V, as was the raw
waste load level. Priority pollutants were initially classified as of
primary significance if:
1. They are shown to exist independently of other priority
pollutants in that group, or
2. They are shown to exist in combination with other priority
pollutants in that group; but because they may be raw
materials, solvents, or products, they are normally found
in higher concentrations than priority pollutants of
secondary significance.
IX-1
-------
Priority pollutants were initially classified as of secondary
significance if they lack adequate monitoring or can be adequately
controlled by regulating the discharge of pollutants of primary
significance to proposed levels because:
1. They were detected or are likely to exist predominantly in
conjunction with pollutants of primary significance, or
2. They may be impurities or reaction byproducts that are
normally found in lower concentrations than priority
pollutants of primary significance.
In the manner described above, for example, benzene, toluene, and
chlorobenzene were selected as priority pollutants of primary
significance in the volatile aromatic pollutant group. Ethylbenzene was
considered to be of secondary significance since it predominantly exists
as an impurity in benzene or toluene. Hexachlorobenzene and
1,3-dichlorobenzene were considered to be of secondary significance
since they predominantly exist in conjunction with, and at lower levels
than, chlorobenzene.
Once the presence and levels of priority pollutants had been initially
evaluated, the relative treatability of each priority pollutant was
examined. The purpose of this review was to identify any priority
pollutants initially classified as of secondary significance, which
because of a lesser degree of treatability could not achieve the same
effluent levels as priority pollutants of primary significance in the
same pollutant group. Upon completion of this review it was concluded
that the pollutants of primary significance represented the extremes of
treatability in each group of priority pollutants and that no further
additions were required.
Analytical methods availability was examined for the priority pollutants
initially designated as of primary significance. It was judged that no
modifications were required based on analytical methodology.
Finally, adverse effects on human health and aquatic life were evaluated
for each pollutant under consideration. EPA Water Quality Criteria for
each compound, if available, are cited in Tables IX-4 through IX-21. No
changes to the initial classification of pollutants were required due to
environmental effects.
All nonconventional pesticide pollutants with tentatively approved
analytical procedures were categorized as of primary significance.
These pollutants are identified in Sections XII and XIII.
Nonconventional pesticide pollutants which lack approved analytical
procedures and technical and economic data were categorized as of
secondary significance and are proposed to be excluded from regulation
at this time pending the development of analytical methods and the
collection of an adequate data base. The pollutants ammonia and
manganese have been detected at significant concentrations in segments
of the pesticide industry but not across entire subcategories. Ammonia
and manganese were classified as of secondary significance and national
IX-2
-------
limitations and standards are not proposed. Other nonconventional
pollutants, excluding COD, were not considered for regulation in the
Pesticide Industry.
The pollutants BOD, COD, TSS, and pH are considered to be of primary
significance for this industry. Other conventional pollutants such as
fecal coliform and oil and grease may be of concern in a particular
location, but are generally considered of less importance. It is
recommended that monitoring of these pollutants be considered on a
plant-by-plant basis.
POLLUTANTS OF PRIMARY, DUAL, OR SECONDARY SIGNIFICANCE
Based upon the factors discussed above, it is proposed that the
pollutants listed in Table IX-1 be considered of primary significance in
the Pesticide Chemicals Industry.
The 29 priority pollutants listed in Table IX-1 will not necessarily be
found in every pesticide plant's wastewater, and it is not proposed that
each plant be regulated for all the priority pollutants of primary
significance. The specific priority pollutants of primary significance
proposed for regulation as a result of this study are listed by
subcategory in Tables II-l through 11-43. A listing of all priority
pollutants to be regulated in each pesticide wastewater is provided by
pesticide in Section XXI—Appendix 9. This appendix, which provides
manufacturers and EPA with a consolidated list of pollutants, can be
verified and updated as more data become available.
It is proposed that the pollutants listed in Table IX-2 be considered of
dual significance in the Pesticide Chemicals Industry. These pollutants
(1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene , bis
(2-chloroethyl) ether, and 1,3-dichloropropene) are classified as
pollutants of primary significance if they are manufactured as a
pesticide product. If these pollutants are detected or likely to be
present in other pesticide processes, they are classified as pollutants
of secondary significance.
It is proposed that the pollutants listed in Table IX-3 be considered of
secondary significance in the Pesticide Chemicals Industry. Pollutants
of secondary significance which are proposed to be excluded from
regulation include pollutants which lack adequate monitoring data or
lack approved analytical methods. Pollutants of secondary significance
which are proposed to be excluded from regulation include pollutants
which were previously regulated, banned, not likely to be present in the
industry, not likely to be present over the level of interest, or are
judged to be adequately controlled if the pollutants of primary signifi-
cance are reduced to proposed levels. Table IX-3 identifies pollutants
which are proposed to be excluded from regulation.
A detailed discussion of the selection rationale for priority
pollutants, nonconventional pollutants, and conventional pollutants is
given as follows.
IX-3
-------
Priority Pollutants
Priority pollutants proposed as of primary, dual, or secondary signifi-
cance are discussed by pollutant group in order of their approximate
frequency of occurrence as follows.
Volatile Aromatics—
There are nine compounds which represent the volatile aromatic priority
pollutant group. Wastewater analytical methods have been developed for
all nine pollutants as shown in the December 1979 Federal Register.
Benzene, chlorobenzene, and toluene were chosen as pollutants of primary
significance since they are used as raw materials and solvents and are
found in higher concentrations than the other volatile aromatic
compounds. The 1980 EPA ambient water quality criteria, the lowest
reported aquatic toxic concentration, and the human health water quality
criteria for the volatile aromatic compounds are presented in
Table IX-4.
Primary Significance—-In the pesticide industry, benzene is used as
a raw material in the production of four pesticides. It is used as a
solvent in at least 8 pesticide processes, and it is likely to be
present in an additional 96 processes (primarily as an impurity in the
solvent toluene). It has been detected in raw waste loads at
concentrations up to 180,000 mg/1. While benzene in treated effluents
has been observed for the most part to be less than 1 ppm, this level
may have been achieved by volatilization in biological systems, thereby
creating a potential air pollution problem. Benzene is toxic,
carcinogenic, and a fire and explosive hazard (Centec, 1979; Kraybill,
£t _al., 1979; U.S. EPA, 1979e). A 1972 environmental release potential
of 183.6 million pounds has been reported by SRI (Centec, 1979).
In the pesticide industry, chlorobenzene is detected or likely to be
present in 33 pesticide processes as a solvent, raw material, impurity,
or final product. Of 21 processes monitored, chlorobenzene has been
measured in raw waste loads at levels up to 979 mg/1.
In the pesticide industry, toluene is detected or likely to be present
in 102 pesticide processes as a solvent, raw material, or impurity. Of
35 processes monitored, toluene concentrations in raw waste loads ranged
from not detected to 294,000 mg/1. A 1972 environmental release
potential of 1,074.2 million pounds, or 18 percent of the annual
production, has been reported by SRI (Centec, 1979). Toluene is toxic
by ingestion, inhalation, and skin absorption, and is a dangerous fire
risk (Centec, 1979).
Dual Significance—In the pesticide industry, 1,2-dichlorobenzene
is detected or likely to be present in 25 pesticide processes as a final
product, raw material impurity, solvent impurity, or a reaction
byproduct. Raw waste load concentrations of 1,2-dichlorobenzene have
ranged up to 127 mg/1. It is an irritant and is moderately toxic by
IX-4
-------
ingestion and inhalation (Centec, 1979). 1,2-Dichlorobenzene is
proposed for regulation as a priority pollutant only if it is
manufactured as a product. In other processes it is expected to be
adequately controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant of primary
significance, chlorobenzene.
In the pesticide industry, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is detected or likely to
be present in 26 pesticide processes as a final product, raw material
impurity, or as a solvent impurity. Raw waste load concentrations of
1,4-dichlorobenzene have ranged up to 85.0 mg/1. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene is
an eye irritant and is moderately toxic. It is estimated to have had an
environmental release potential of 70.7 million pounds in 1972 which
equates to 91 percent of the annual production (Centec, 1979).
1,4-Dichlorobenzene is proposed for regulation as a priority pollutant
only if it is manufactured as a product. In other processes it is
expected to be adequately controlled by regulation of the priority
pollutant of primary significance, chlorobenzene.
In the pesticide industry, 1,2 ,4-trichlorobenzene is detected or likely
to be present in 24 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct, raw
material impurity, or a stripper impurity. Raw waste load
concentrations of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene have ranged up to 36.0 mg/1.
It is moderately toxic by ingestion and inhalation (Centec, 1979).
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is proposed for regulation as a priority
pollutant only if it is manufactured as a product. In other processes
it is expected to be adequately controlled by regulation of the priority
pollutant of primary significance, chlorobenzene.
Secondary S ign ifieance—In the pesticide industry, 1,3-dichloro-
benzene is detected or likely to be present in 26 pesticide processes as
a raw material impurity, solvent impurity, or a reaction byproduct. Raw
waste load concentrations of 1,3-dichlorobenzene have ranged up to
127 mg/1. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene is expected to be adequately controlled
by regulation of the priority pollutant of primary significance,
chlorobenzene.
In the pesticide industry, ethylbenzene is detected or likely to be
present in 99 pesticide processes as a raw material, solvent impurity,
or a raw material impurity. Raw waste load concentrations of ethyl-
benzene have ranged up to 7.9 mg/1. It is an eye and skin irritant, is
moderately toxic by ingestion, inhalation, and skin absorption, and
poses a dangerous fire risk. It is estimated to have had an environ-
mental release potential of 203.5 million pounds in 1972, or the
equivalent of one-third of the annual production (Centec, 1979).
Ethylbenzene is expected to be adequately controlled by regulation of
the priority pollutants of primary significance, benzene and toluene.
In the pesticide industry, hexachlorobenzene is detected or likely to be
present in 18 pesticide processes as reaction byproducts, solvent
impurity, or raw material impurity. Raw waste load concentrations of
hexachlorobenzene have been detected at levels less than 0.008 mg/1. It
is combustible and toxic (Centec, 1979). Hexachlorobenzene is expected
IX-5
-------
to be adequately controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant of
primary significance, chlorobenzene.
Halomethanes—
There are eight compounds which represent the halomethane priority
pollutant group. Wastewater analytical methods have been developed for
all eight pollutants as shown in the December 1979 Federal Register.
Carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, methyl bromide, methyl chloride, and
methylene chloride were chosen as pollutants of primary significance
since they are used as raw materials and solvents and are found in
higher concentration than the other halomethane compounds. The 1980 EPA
ambient water quality criteria, the lowest reported aquatic toxic
concentration, and the human health water quality criteria for the
halomethane compounds are presented in Table IX-5.
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, carbon
tetrachloride is detected or likely to be present in 45 pesticide
processes as a solvent, organic stripper solvent, solvent impurity,
reaction byproduct, or raw material impurity. Carbon tetrachloride
concentrations in raw waste loads have been detected at levels up to
121 mg/1. It is highly toxic by ingestion, inhalation, and skin
absorption, and is a narcotic and is carcinogenic. It had an
environmental release potential in 1972 of 715 million pounds or
71 percent of the annual production (Centec, 1979).
In the pesticide industry, methyl bromide (bromomethane) is detected or
likely to be present in four pesticide processes as a final product, raw
material, a reaction byproduct, or an impurity. Raw waste load
concentrations have been monitored up to 2,600 mg/1. It is toxic by
ingestion, inhalation, and skin absorption and is also a strong irritant
to the skin.
In the pesticide industry, methyl chloride is detected or likely to be
present in 48 pesticide processes as a solvent and organic stripper
solvent, or as raw material, raw material impurity, or reaction
byproduct. Methyl chloride has been monitored in only nine pesticide
process raw waste loads with concentrations measured less than 1.0 mg/1.
In 1972 it had an environmental release potential of 18.1 million pounds
(Centec, 1979).
In the pesticide industry, methylene chloride is detected or likely to
be present in 49 pesticide processes as a solvent, impurity, or reaction
byproduct. Of 17 processes monitored, methylene chloride was detected
in raw waste loads at concentrations equal to or less than 31,000 mg/1.
A 1972 environmental release potential of 366.8 million pounds, or
78 percent of annual production, has been reported (Centec, 1979).
Methylene chloride is moderately toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and
skin absorption, and is an eye irritant (Centec, 1979).
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, bromoform
(tribromomethane)isdetected or likely to be present in five
IX-6
-------
pesticide processes as either a reaction byproduct or as an impurity.
Only trace levels were detected in the four processes monitored.
Bromoform is toxic by ingestion, inhalation, and skin absorption
(Centec, 1979), and is a potential mutagen (Kraybill, ££_£!_., 1979).
Bromoform is expected to be adequately controlled by regulation of the
priority pollutant of primary significance, methyl bromide.
In the pesticide industry, chlorodibromomethane is likely to be present
in one pesticide process as a reaction byproduct. Raw waste load
concentrations of chlorodibromomethane are not available in the
pesticide industry. It is probably an irritant and narcotic (Centec,
1979) and is a suspected mutagen (Kraybill, ot^ a±., 1979). Chlorodi-
bromomethane is expected to be adequately controlled by regulation of
the priority pollutants of primary significance, methylene chloride and
methyl bromide.
In the pesticide industry, dichlorobromomethane is detected or likely to
be present in two pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct. The
halomethane dichlorobromomethane is used as a fire extinguishing agent
and/or propellant for fire extinguishers. It is also used as an
additive to reduce tar formation in the production of polybutenyl-
succinic anhydride (Centec, 1979). It is a suspected mutagen (Kraybill,
££ .£!•» 1979). Dichlorobromomethane is expected to be adequately
controlled by regulation of the priority pollutants of primary
significance, methylene chloride and methyl bromide.
Cyanide—
Cyanide represents a priority pollutant group. Wastewater analytical
methods have been developed for cyanide as described in the December
1979 Federal Register. Cyanide was chosen as a pollutant of primary
significance since it is a unique compound in the pesticide industry
where it is used as a raw material and is found in significant concen-
trations in pesticide raw waste loads. The 1980 EPA ambient water
quality criteria, the lowest reported aquatic toxic concentration, and
the human health water quality criteria for cyanide are presented in
Table IX-6.
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, cyanide is
detected or likely to be present in 25 pesticide processes as a raw
material, impurity, or reaction byproduct. Of the 17 pesticide
processes monitored, cyanide was present in levels ranging up to
5,503 mg/1 in raw waste loads. Cyanide toxicity is essentially an
inhibition of oxygen metabolism (U.S. EPA, 1976g).
Haloethers—
There are six compounds which represent the haloether priority pollutant
group. Wastewater analytical methods have been developed for all six
pollutants as shown in the December 1979 Federal Register. Since
adequate monitoring data are not available, haloethers were not selected
as pollutants of primary significance. However, bis(2-chloroethyl)
ether has been classified as a pollutant of dual significance since it
IX-7
-------
is manufactured as a product and has zero wastewater discharge. The
1980 EPA ambient water quality criteria, the lowest reported aquatic
toxic concentration, and the human health water quality criteria for the
haloether compounds are presented in Table IX-7.
Dual Significance—In the pesticide industry, bis(2-chlorethyl)
ether (BCEE) is detected or likely to be present in 11 pesticide
processes as a final product, reaction byproduct, or raw material
impurity. BCEE has been detected in only one process raw waste load and
was found at a concentration of 0.582 mg/1. It has been shown to be
mutagenic and carcinogenic in laboratory animals (Kraybill, et al.,
1979). Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether is proposed for regulation "as"a~
priority pollutant only if it is manufactured as a product. In other
processes, coverage of BCEE is being excluded at this time until
sampling programs can be instituted to confirm its presence as indicated
by the process chemistry evaluation.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, bis(2-chloro-
ethoxy) methane is likely to be present in eight pesticide processes as
a reaction byproduct or an impurity. This compound has not been
detected in raw waste loads monitored. It is a strong irritant and is
toxic by inhalation and ingestion (Centec, 1979). Bis(2-chloroethoxy)
methane is proposed to be excluded from coverage pending the collection
of adequate monitoring data.
In the pesticide industry, bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether is likely to be
present in 11 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or an
impurity. This compound has not been detected in monitored raw waste
loads. Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether is proposed to be excluded from
coverage pending the collection of adequate monitoring data.
In the pesticide industry, 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether is likely to be
present in one pesticide process as a reaction byproduct. This compound
has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. In other industries
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether is used as a dielectric fluid, as a dye
intermediate, and is used in the production of hypolipidemic agents
(Centec, 1979). Coverage of this compound is proposed to be excluded
until sampling programs can be instituted to confirm its presence as
indicated by the process chemistry evaluation.
In the pesticide industry, 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether is likely to be
present in 11 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or as an
impurity. This compound has not been detected in the pesticide
industry. It is moderately toxic by ingestion and inhalation and is a
moderate fire and explosive hazard (Centec, 1979). 2-Chloroethyl vinyl
ether is proposed to be excluded from coverage pending collection of
adequate monitoring data.
In the pesticide industry, 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether is likely to be
present in 20 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct. Raw waste
load concentrations have not been detected in monitored waste streams.
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether is used as an antipyretic agent and
IX-8
-------
analgesic as well as a dielectric fluid for capacitors. This compound
is proposed to be excluded from coverage pending the collection of
adequate monitoring data.
Phenols—
There are 11 compounds which represent the phenol priority pollutant
group. Wastewater analytical methods have been developed for all
11 pollutants as shown in the December 1979 Federal Register.
2,4-Dichlorophenol, 2,4-dinitrophenol, 4-nitrophenol, pentachlorophenol,
and phenol were chosen as pollutants of primary significance since they
are used as raw materials or produced as final products, and are found
in higher concentrations than the other phenolic compounds. The 1980
EPA ambient water quality criteria, the lowest reported aquatic toxic
concentration, and the human health water quality criteria for the
phenols are presented in Table IX-8.
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, 2,4-dichlorophenol
is detected or likely to be present in 19 pesticide processes as a raw
material, raw material impurity, or reaction byproduct. Of the
15 process raw waste loads monitored, the concentration of
2,4-dichlorophenol ranged from 0.042 mg/1 to 42,000 mg/1.
In the pesticide industry, 2,4-dinitrophenol is detected or likely to be
present in two pesticide processes as a raw material or raw material
impurity. 2,4-Dinitrophenol concentrations in raw waste loads have been
monitored at levels up to 7.91 mg/1. 2,4-Dinitrophenol is highly toxic
and can be absorbed through the skin; dust inhalation can be fatal. In
the dry form, 2,4-dinitropenol has a severe explosion hazard. The
substance is known to cause cataract formation in humans and bacterial
mutagenicity (U.S. EPA, 1979c).
In the pesticide industry, 4-nitropheno1 is detected or likely to be
present in four pesticide processes as a raw material or reaction
byproduct. Of the three process raw waste loads monitored,
4-nitrophenol has been detected in raw waste streams with concentrations
ranging from 0.002 mg/1 to 461 mg/1.
In the pesticide industry, pentachlorophenol is detected or likely to be
present in seven pesticide processes as a final product or reaction
byproduct. Of two processes monitored, pentachlorophenol concentrations
in raw waste loads ranged from 1.0 mg/1 to greater than 1,000 mg/1.
Pentachlorophenol is toxic by ingestion, inhalation, and skin absorption
(Centec, 1979).
In the pesticide industry, phenol is detected or likely to be present in
23 pesticide processes as a raw material, impurity, or reaction
byproduct. There have been ten processes monitored for phenol with
concentrations ranging from 0.27 mg/1 to 1,100 mg/1. Phenol is toxic by
ingestion, inhalation, and skin absorption, and is a strong irritant to
tissues. It has been estimated to have an environmental release
potential in 1972 of 47 million pounds (Centec, 1979).
IX-9
-------
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, 2-chlorophenol
is detected or likely to be present in 14 pesticide processes as a
reaction byproduct or an impurity. Raw waste load concentrations of
2-chlorophenol have been detected at levels less than 1,000 mg/1 and at
30.5 mg/1. It is toxic by ingestion, inhalation, and skin absorption,
and is a strong irritant (Centec, 1979). 2-Chlorophenol is expected to
be adequately controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant of
primary significance, 2,4-dichlorophenol.
In the pesticide industry, 2,4-dimethylphenol is likely to be present in
two pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or an impurity. Raw
waste load concentrations of this compound have not been monitored in
the pesticide industry. It is toxic by ingestion and skin absorption
(Centec, 1979). 2,4-Dimethylphenol is expected to be adequately
controlled by regulation of the priority pollutants of primary
significance, 2,4-dichlorophenol and phenol.
The compound 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol is not likely to be present in the
pesticide industry. It is highly phytotoxic. To humans, it is toxic
and is absorbed by the skin (Centec, 1979). The presence of 4,6-
dinitro-o-cresol, if any, would be expected to be adequately controlled
by regulation of the priority pollutants of primary significance,
2,4-dichlorophenol and phenol.
In the pesticide industry, 2-nitrophenol is likely to be present in two
pesticide processes as an impurity. Raw waste load concentrations have
not been monitored in the pesticide industry. For the protection of
freshwater aquatic life, EPA has proposed a limit of 6,200 ug/1
(U.S. EPA, 1979c). 2-Nitrophenol is expected to be adequately
controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant of primary
significance, 4-nitrophenol.
In the pesticide industry, parachlorometa cresol (4-chloro-m-cresol) is
likely to be present in two pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct
or an impurity. Raw waste load concentrations of this compound have not
been monitored in the pesticide industry. The presence of
4-chloro-m-cresol is expected to be adequately controlled by regulation
of the priority pollutants of primary significance, 2,4-dichlorophenol
and phenol.
In the pesticide industry, 2,4,6-trichlorophenql is detected or likely -
to be present in 14 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or as an
impurity. Of the nine processes monitored, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
concentrations in raw waste loads ranged from 0.022 mg/1 to 8,700 mg/1.
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol is expected to be adequately controlled by the
regulation of the priority pollutant of primary significance,
2,4-dichlorophenol.
Nitrosubstituted Aromatics—
There are three compounds which represent the nitrosubstituted aromatic
priority pollutant group. Wastewater analytical methods have been
IX-10
-------
developed for the three pollutants as shown in the December 1979 Federal
Register. There are no pollutants of primary significance in this group
since 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, and nitrobenzene are
expected to be adequately controlled by the regulation of a pollutant of
primary significance. The 1980 EPA ambient water quality criteria, the
lowest reported aquatic toxic concentration, and the human health water
criteria for the nitrosubstituted aromatics are presented in Table IX-9.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, 2,4-dinitro-
toluene is likely to be present in five pesticide processes as a
reaction byproduct. This compound has not been monitored in the
pesticide industry. It can be absorbed by the skin and is highly toxic
and is a moderate fire and explosion hazard (Centec, 1979). The
presence of 2,4-dinitrotoluene is expected to be adequately controlled
by regulation of the priority pollutant of primary significance,
toluene.
In the pesticide industry, 2,6-dinitrotoluene is likely to be present in
five pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct. The nitrosubstituted
aromatic 2,6-dinitrotoluene is predominantly used as a mixture with
2,4-dinitrotoluene. Raw waste load concentrations of this compound have
not been monitored in the pesticide industry. The presence of
2,6-dinitrotoluene is expected to be adequately controlled by regulation
of the priority pollutant of primary significance, toluene.
In the pesticide industry, nitrobenzene is detected or likely to be
present in 26 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or an
impurity. Raw waste load concentrations of this compound have been
detected in monitored waste streams at less than 0.01 mg/1. It is
highly toxic by ingestion, inhalation, and skin absorption. It is
estimated that nitrobenzene had an environmental release potential of
19.3 million pounds in 1972 (Centec, 1979). The presence of
nitrobenzene is expected to be adequately controlled by regulation of
the priority pollutant of primary significance, benzene.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons—
There are 17 compounds which represent the polynuclear aromatic hydro-
carbon (PNA) priority pollutant group. Wastewater analytical methods
have been developed for all 17 pollutants as shown in the December 1979
Federal Register. Nine PNAs are not detected or likely to be present in
the pesticide industry. Since adequate monitoring data are not
available for the remaining eight compounds, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons were not selected as pollutants of primary significance and
are therefore reserved from coverage at this time. The 1980 EPA ambient
water quality criteria, the lowest reported aquatic toxic concentration,
and the human health water quality criteria for the polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons are presented in Table IX-10.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, acenaphthylene
is likely to be present in six pesticide processes as an impurity. Raw
waste load concentrations of this compound have not been detected in
IX-11
-------
monitored waste streams. Acenaphthylene is proposed to be excluded from
coverage pending the collection of adequate monitoring data.
In the pesticide industry, acenaphthene is likely to be present in six
pesticide processes as an impurity. Raw waste load concentrations of
this compound have not been detected in monitored waste streams.
Acenaphthene is proposed to be excluded from coverage pending the
collection of adequate monitoring data.
In the pesticide industry, anthracene is likely to be present in six
pesticide processes as an impurity. Raw waste load concentrations of
this compound have not been detected in monitored waste streams.
Anthracene is carcinogenic (Centec, 1979). This compound is proposed to
be excluded from coverage pending the collection of adequate monitoring
data.
BenzoCa)anthracene is not detected or likely to be present in the
pesticide industry. It is a potent carcinogen (Centec, 1979), having
been found to affect the liver, lung, skin, and subcutaneous tissue in
mice (Kraybill, et al.,1979).
Benzo(a)pyrene is not detected or likely to be present in the pesticide
industry. It is toxic by inhalation and is one of the strongest
carcinogens known to man (Centec, 1979). Benzo(a)pyrene has been found
to cause cancer of the skin, lung, forestomach, subcutaneous tissue, and
mammary gland in mice, rats, hamsters, rabbits, and monkeys (Kraybill,
£t_aj.., 1979).
3,4-Benzofluoranthene is not detected or likely to be present in the
pesticide industry.
Benzo(ghi)perylene is not detected or likely to be present in the
pesticide industry. It is a suspected carcinogen thought to cause
cancer of the skin in mice (Kraybill, et al., 1979).
Benzo(k)fluoranthene is not detected or likely to be present in the
pesticide industry.
In the pesticide industry, 2-chloronaphthalene is detected or likely to
be present in 18 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or an
impurity. Raw waste load concentrations of 2-chloronaphthalene have
been reported at less than 0.01 mg/1. The oil of chloronaphthalene is
toxic by inhalation and is a strong irritant. The wax of 2-chloro-
naphthalene decomposes to form nitrosoamines (Centec, 1979). 2-Chloro-
naphthalene is proposed to be excluded from coverage pending the
collection of adequate monitoring data.
Chrysene is not detected or likely to be present in the pesticide
industry.
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene is not detected or likely to be present in the
pesticide industry. It has been found to cause cancer in the
IX-12
-------
forestomach, skin, lung, and subcutaneous tissue of mice and rats, and
is a suspected tnutagen (Kraybill, et_ al_., 1979).
In the pesticide industry, fluoranthene is likely to be present in six
pesticide processes as an impurity. Raw waste load concentrations of
this compound have not been detected in monitored waste streams. It is
moderately toxic (Centec, 1979), Fluoranthene is proposed to be
excluded from coverage pending the collection of adequate monitoring
data.
In the pesticide industry, fluorene is likely to be present in six
pesticide processes as an impurity. Raw waste load concentrations of
fluorene have not been detected in monitored waste streams. Fluorene is
proposed to be excluded from coverage pending the collection of adequate
monitoring data.
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene is not detected or likely to be present in the
pesticide industry. It is carcinogenic (Centec, 1979).
In the pesticide industry, naphthalene is detected or likely to be
present in 25 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or as an
impurity. Of the four processes monitored for naphthalene, levels were
detected up to 1.06 mg/1. These data were determined to be insufficient
on which to propose regulation. However, as shown in the process
chemistry evaluation, naphthalene is indicated to be present in
significant concentrations. Therefore, naphthalene is proposed to be
excluded from regulation pending the collection of adequate monitoring
data.
In the pesticide industry, phenanthrene is likely to be present in six
pesticide processes as an impurity. Raw waste load concentrations have
not been detected in monitored waste streams. Phenanthrene is
carcinogenic (Centec, 1979). Phenanthrene is proposed to be excluded
from coverage pending the collection of adequate monitoring data.
Pyrene is not detected or likely to be present in the pesticide
industry. It is one of the most powerful carcinogens known (Centec,
1979) and is a suspected mutagen (Kraybill, et_ a±., 1979).
Metals—
There are 13 compounds which represent the metals priority pollutant
group. Wastewater analytical methods have been developed for all
13 pollutants as shown in the December 1979 Federal Register. Copper
and zinc were chosen as pollutants of primary significance since they
are detected or likely to exist in significant concentrations and are
independent of other priority pollutants in this group. The 1980 EPA
ambient water quality criteria, the lowest reported aquatic toxic
concentration, and the human health water quality criteria for the
metals are presented in Table IX-11.
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, copper is detected
or likely to be present in 11 pesticide processes as a raw material or
IX-13
-------
catalyst. Of six pesticide process raw waste loads monitored, copper
was present at levels ranging from not detected to 59,000 mg/1. Copper
is known to be toxic at high levels; however, the taste threshold
concentration of 1 mg/1 was used for the criteria of the Drinking Water
Standard (U.S. EPA, 1979c).
In the pesticide industry, zinc is detected or likely to be present in
11 pesticide processes as a raw material, catalyst, or as an impurity.
Of two processes monitored, zinc concentrations were detected in raw
waste streams at a level of 247 mg/1. Although zinc is an essential and
beneficial element in human metabolism (U.S. EPA, 1976g), the Drinking
Water Standard of 5.0 mg/1 has been set due to its undesirable aesthetic
effects.
Secondary Significance—Antimony is not detected or likely to be
present in the pesticide industry in concentrations over the level of
interest of 0.1 mg/1. Although antimony is not considered a major
environmental contaminant, it can be toxic to both aquatic and
terrestrial organisms at high concentrations. It is known to cause
chromatic breaks in human leukocyte cultures and is thus considered a
potential carcinogen (Jett, 1980).
In the pesticide industry, arsenic is detected or likely to be present
in one pesticide process as a raw material impurity. Raw waste load
concentrations of arsenic have not been monitored for this pesticide;
however, arsenic has been detected in significant concentrations in the
treated effluent. In 1974, about 28.6 million pounds of arsenic was
used by pesticide manufacturers in the United States. The use of these
pesticides is estimated to have resulted in 80 to 90 percent of the
total arsenic emissions (U.S. EPA, 1976h). Inorganic arsenic is
absorbed readily from the gastrointestinal tract, lungs, and to a lesser
extent from the skin, and becomes distributed throughout the body
tissues and fluids (U.S. EPA, 1976g). In Formosa and Argentina, arsenic
in drinking water has been implicated as causing cancer (Kraybill,
£_t jaK, 1979). It should be noted that arsenic is not proposed for
regulation as a priority pollutant of primary significance but is
proposed to be excluded from coverage pending the collection of
additional monitoring data.
Beryllium is not detected or likely to be present in the pesticide
industry in concentrations over the level of interest of 0.05 mg/1.
Beryllium is toxic by most routes of administration (U.S. EPA, 1976g)
and has been correlated with bone, breast, and uterine cancer (Kraybill,
jet_aj.., 1979).
Cadmium is not detected or likely to be present in pesticides industry
in concentrations over the level of interest of 0.005 mg/1. Cadmium has
a high toxic potential and is readily deposited and accumulated in
various body tissues; virtually no absorbed cadmium is eliminated
(U.S. EPA, 1976g).
IX-14
-------
Chromium is not detected or likely to be present in the pesticide
industry in concentrations over the level of interest of 0.025 mg/1.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of chromium
(with the exception of hexavalent chromium), EPA has proposed a limit of
50 ug/1 for the ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms.
Lead is not detected or likely to be present in the pesticide industry
in concentrations over the level of interest of 0.025 mg/1.
Mercury is not detected or likely to be present in the pesticide
industry in concentrations over the level of interest of 0.001 mg/1.
In the pesticide industry, nickel is likely to be present in one
pesticide process as a catalyst. Raw waste load concentrations have not
been monitored in the pesticide industry; however, nickel is not likely
to be present in concentrations over the level of interest of 0.5 mg/1.
Nickel concentrations appear to correlate with mouth and intestinal
cancer (Kraybill, _e£ _al.., 1979). It is considered nontoxic to man
(U.S. EPA, 1976g).
Selenium is not detected or likely to be present in the pesticide
industry in concentrations over the level of interest of 0.01 mg/1.
Silver is not detected or likely to be present in the pesticide industry
in concentrations over the level of interest of 0.005 mg/1.
Thallium is not detected or likely to be present in the pesticide
industry in concentrations over the level of interest of 0.05 mg/1.
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes—
There are 12 compounds which represent the chlorinated ethanes and
ethylenes priority pollutant group. Wastewater analytical methods have
been developed for all 12 pollutants as shown in the December 1979
Federal Register. 1,2-Dichloroethane and tetrachloroethylene were
chosen as pollutants of primary significance since they are used as
solvents in the industry and are found in higher concentrations than the
other compounds in this group. The 1980 EPA ambient water quality
criteria, the lowest reported aquatic toxic concentrations, and the
human health water quality criteria for the chlorinated ethanes and
ethylene compounds are presented in Table IX-12.
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, 1,2-dichloroethane
is detected or likely to be present in 26 pesticide processes as a
solvent, reaction byproduct, or as an impurity. Of the six process raw
waste loads monitored, 1,2-dichloroethane concentrations were detected
up to 10,000 mg/1. It was estimated to have an environmental release
potential of 540.2 million pounds in 1972 (Centec, 1979).
1,2-Dichloroethane is known to be mutagenic and potentially carcinogenic
(Kraybill, et_ al_., 1979).
IX-15
-------
In the pesticide industry, tetrachloroethylene is detected or likely to
be present in 15 pesticide processes as an impurity, reaction byproduct,
or solvent. Of the four processes monitored, tetrachloroethylene
concentrations in raw waste loads ranged from 0.37 mg/1 to less than
98.0 mg/1. It is estimated that there was a 500-million-pound
environmental release potential in 1972, or 68 percent of the annual
production (Centec, 1979). Tetrachloroethylene is suspected of being
carcinogenic (U.S. EPA, 1979e).
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, chloroethane is
likely to be present in 26 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct
or as an impurity. Raw waste load concentrations have not been detected
in monitored waste streams. It is moderately toxic, an eye irritant,
and is a severe fire and explosive risk (Centec, 1979). Chloroethane is
reported to have had an environmental release potential of 34.5 million
pounds in 1972 (Centec, 1979). The presence of chloroethane is expected
to be adequately controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant of
primary significance, 1,2-dichloroethane.
In the pesticide industry, 1,1-dichloroethane is likely to be present in
26 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or an impurity. Raw
waste load concentrations of this compound have not been detected in
monitored waste streams. It is moderately toxic and combustible.
1,1-Dichloroethane is expected to be adequately controlled by the
regulation of the priority pollutant of primary significance,
1,2-dichloroethane.
In the pesticide industry, 1,1-dichloroethylene is likely to be present
in 15 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or an impurity. Raw
waste load concentrations have not been detected in monitored waste
streams. The priority pollutant 1,1-dichloroethylene is expected to be
adequately controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant of primary
significance, 1,2-dichloroethane.
In the pesticide industry, hexachloroethane is likely to be present in
seven pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or an impurity. Raw
waste load concentrations of this compound have not been detected in
monitored waste streams. Hexachloroethane is expected to be adequately
controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant of primary
significance, 1,2-dichloroethane.
In the pesticide industry, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane is detected or
likely to be present in 26 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct
or an impurity. Raw waste load concentrations of this compound have
been detected at 1.70 mg/1 in monitored waste streams. This compound is
expected to be adequately controlled by regulation of the priority
pollutant of primary significance, 1,2-dichloroethane.
In the pesticide industry, 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene is likely to be
present in 15 pesticide processes as a raw material or an impurity. Raw
waste load concentrations have not been detected in monitored waste
streams. I,2-Trans-dichloroethylene is toxic by ingestion, inhalation,
IX-16
-------
and skin contact. It is estimated to have had an environmental release
potential of 540.2 million pounds in 1972 (Centec, 1979). This compound
is expected to be adequately controlled by regulation of the priority
pollutant of primary significance, tetrachloroethylene.
In the pesticide industry, 1,1,1-trichloroethane is likely to be present
in 26 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct. Raw waste load
concentrations have not been detected in monitored waste streams. It is
estimated to have had an environmental release potential of
284.5 million pounds in 1972, which is 65 percent of the annual
production (Centec, 1979). The presence of 1,1,1-trichloroethane is
expected to be adequately controlled by regulation of the priority
pollutant of primary significance, 1,2-dichloroethane.
In the pesticide industry, 1,1,2-trichloroethane is detected or likely
to be present in 26 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or an
impurity. Raw waste load concentrations of this compound have been
detected in concentrations up to 0.02 mg/1 in monitored waste streams.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane is expected to be adequately controlled by
regulation of the priority pollutant of primary significance,
1,2-dichloroethane.
In the pesticide industry, trichloroethylene is detected or likely to be
present in 15 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or an
impurity. Raw waste load concentrations have ranged up to 0.052 mg/1.
The presence of trichloroethylene is expected to be adequately con-
trolled by regulation of the priority pollutant of primary significance,
tetrachloroethylene.
In the pesticide industry, vinyl chloride is likely to be present in
15 pesticide processes as a raw material, reaction byproduct, or as an
impurity. Raw waste load concentrations have not been detected in
monitored waste streams. It is highly flammable and a severe explosion
hazard. Vinyl chloride was estimated to have an environmental release
potential of 146.5 million pounds in 1972 (Centec, 1979). Vinyl
chloride is expected to be adequately controlled by regulation of the
priority pollutant of primary significance, tetrachloroethylene.
Nitrosamines—
There are three compounds which represent the nitrosamine priority
pollutant group. Wastewater analytical methods have been developed for
all three pollutants as shown in the December 1979 Federal Register.
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine was chosen as a pollutant of primary
significance since it is found in higher concentrations than the other
priority pollutant nitrosamines and, through monitoring, it is expected
to adequately control N-nitrosodimethylamine and N-nitrosodiphenylamine.
The 1980 EPA ambient water quality criteria, the lowest reported aquatic
toxic concentration, and the human health water quality criteria for the
nitrosamines are presented in Table IX-13.
IX-17
-------
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, N-nitrosodi-n-
prppylamine is detected or likely to be present as a reaction byproduct
in ten processes. Only one process has been monitored showing a maximum
raw waste load concentration of 1.85 mg/1. N-nitrosodi-n-
propylamine has been found to be carcinogenic (Centec, 1979).
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, N-nitrosodi-
methylamine is detected or likely to be present in ten pesticide
processes as a reaction byproduct. Raw waste load concentrations of
this compound have been monitored at less than 0.00005 mg/1. It has
been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals (Centec, 1979).
N-nitrosodimethylamine is expected to be adequately controlled by
regulation of the priority pollutant of primary significance,
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine.
In the pesticide industry, M-nitrosodiphenylamine is likely to be
present in two pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct. Raw waste
load concentrations of this compound have not been monitored in the
pesticide industry. It is thought to be carcinogenic (Centec, 1979).
The presence of N-nitrosodiphenylamine is expected to be adequately
controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant of primary
significance, N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine.
PhthalateEsters—
There are six compounds which represent the phthalate ester priority
pollutant group. Wastewater analytical methods have been developed for
all six pollutants as shown in the December 1979 Federal Register, Two
phthalate esters are not detected or likely to be present in the
pesticide industry. Phthalate esters were chosen as pollutants of
secondary significance due to the lack of adequate monitoring data. The
1980 EPA ambient water quality criteria, the lowest reported aquatic
toxic concentration, and human health water quality for the phthalate
esters are presented in Table IX-14.
Secondary Significance—Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is not likely
to be present in the pesticide industry. In other industries it is
widely used as a plasticizer for resins, elastomers, and paints. It is
estimated to have had an environmental release potential in the United
States of 441.6 million pounds in 1972, or 102 percent of the annual
production (Centec, 1979).
In the pesticide industry, butyl benzyl phthalate is likely to be
present in ten pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or as an
impurity. Raw waste load concentrations of this compound have not been
monitored in the pesticide industry. It is of low toxicity and is
combustible (Centec, 1979). Butyl benzyl phthalate is proposed to be
reserved from coverage until sampling programs can be instituted to
confirm its presence as likely to be present by the process chemistry
evaluation.
In the pesticide industry, dimethyl phthalate is likely to be present in
ten pesticide processes as a raw material, reaction byproduct, or as
IX-18
-------
an impurity. Dimethyl phthalate has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry. It is toxic by ingestion and inhalation and is an irritant
(Centec, 1979). Coverage of dimethyl phthalate is proposed to be
excluded until sampling programs can be instituted to confirm its
presence as indicated by the process chemistry evaluation.
In the pesticide industry, diethyl phthalate is likely to be present in
ten pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or an impurity. Raw
waste load concentrations of this compound have not been detected in the
pesticide industry. It is toxic by ingestion and inhalation and is a
strong irritant to the eyes and mucous membranes. It is a narcotic at
higher concentrations (Centec, 1979). Diethyl phthalate is proposed to
be excluded from coverage pending the collection of adequate monitoring
data.
Di-n-octyl phthalate is not likely to be present in the pesticide
industry.
In the pesticide industry, di-n-butyl phthalate is likely to be present
in ten pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or an impurity. Raw
waste load concentrations of this compound have not been monitored in
the pesticide industry. Di-n-butyl phthalate is proposed to be excluded
from coverage until sampling programs can be instituted to confirm its
presence as indicated by the process chemistry evaluation.
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene—
There are two compounds which represent the dichloropropane and
dichloropropene priority pollutant group. Wastewater analytical methods
have been developed for both pollutants as shown in the December 1979
Federal Register. Since adequate monitoring data are not available,
dichloropropane and dichloropropene were not selected as pollutants of
primary significance. However, 1,3-dichloropropene has been classified
as a pollutant of dual significance since it is manufactured as a final
product and has zero wastewater discharge. The 1980 ambient water
quality criteria, the lowest reported aquatic toxic concentration, and
human health water quality criteria for dichloropropane and
dichloropropene are presented in Table IX-15.
Dual Significance—In the pesticide industry, 1,3-dichloropropene
is likely to be present in 12 pesticide processes as a raw material,
solvent, reaction byproduct, or impurity. This compound has not been
detected in either of the two pesticide raw waste loads monitored.
1,3-Dichloropropene is proposed for regulation as a priority pollutant
only if it is manufactured as a final product. In other processes,
coverage of 1,3-dichloropropene is proposed to be excluded at this time
until sampling programs can be instituted to confirm its presence as
indicated by the process chemistry evaluation.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, 1,2-dichloro-
propane is likely to be present in 12 pesticide processes as a raw
IX-19
-------
material, solvent, reaction byproduct, or impurity. 1,2-Dichloropropane
was not detected in either of the two raw waste loads monitored.
1,2-Dichloropropane is toxic by ingestion and inhalation and is a
dangerous fire risk (Centec, 1979). It is suspected of being a
mutagenic (Kraybill, _et _al_., 1979). Coverage of 1,2-dichloropropane is
proposed to be excluded at this time pending the collection of adequate
monitoring data.
Priority Pollutant Pesticides—
There are 18 compounds which represent the priority pollutant pesticide
group. Wastewater analytical methods have been developed for all 18
pollutants as shown in the December 1979 Federal Register. BHC-alpha,
BHC-beta, BHC-delta, endosulfan-alpha, endosulfan-beta, endrin,
heptachlor, lindane, and toxaphene were chosen as pollutants of primary
significance since they are produced as final products. The 1980 EPA
ambient water quality criteria, the lowest reported aquatic toxic
concentration, and the human health water quality criteria for the
priority pollutant pesticide compounds are presented in Table IX-1'6.
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, BHC-alpha is
likely to be present in five pesticide processes as a final product or a
reaction byproduct. Raw waste load concentrations of this compound have
not been monitored in the pesticide industry. It is toxic by ingestion,
skin absorption, is an eye and skin irritant, and a central nervous
system depressant (Centec, 1979). BHC was previously regulated during
BPT for direct discharge only.
In the pesticide industry, BHC-beta is likely to be present in five
pesticide processes as a final product or a reaction byproduct. Raw
waste load concentrations of this compound have not been monitored in
the pesticide industry. It is moderately toxic by inhalation, highly
toxic by ingestion, and is a strong irritant by skin absorption. It
acts as a central nervous system depressant (Centec, 1979). BHC was
previously regulated during BPT for direct discharge only.
In the pesticide industry, BHC-delta is likely to be present in five
pesticide processes as a final product or a reaction byproduct. Raw
waste load concentrations of this compound have not been monitored in
the pesticide industry. It is moderately toxic by inhalation and highly
toxic by ingestion. It is a strong irritant to the skin and eyes, is
absorbed by the skin, and is a central nervous system depressant
(Centec, 1979). BHC was previously regulated during BPT for direct
discharge only.
In the pesticide industry, endosulfan-alpha is likely to be present in
one pesticide process as a final product. Raw waste load concentrations
of this compound have not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
Endosulfan was regulated during BPT for direct discharge only.
IX-20
-------
In the pesticide industry, endosulfan-beta is likely to be present in
one pesticide process as a final product. Raw waste load concentrations
have not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Endosulfan is toxic
by ingestion, inhalation, and skin absorption (Centec, 1979).
Endosulfan was regulated during BPT for direct discharge only.
In the pesticide industry, endrin is used as a final product in one
pesticide process. It has been monitored in the raw waste load at a
level which is declared proprietary. It is highly toxic by inhalation
and skin absorption (Centec, 1979). Endrin is proposed as a pollutant
of primary significance because its discharge has been regulated for
direct discharge only (U.S. EPA, 1977h).
In the pesticide industry, heptachlor is detected or likely to be
present in two pesticide processes as a final product or reaction
byproduct. Raw waste load concentrations of heptachlor have ranged up
to a declared proprietary level. Heptachlor is a nonsystemic stomach
and contact insecticide which has fumigant action. It is a soft waxy
solid with a melting range of 46 to 74°C and is practically insoluble in
water (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Heptachlor is very toxic to mammals
with an acute oral LD50 of 100 mg/kg for male rats and an acute dermal
LD50 for male rats of 195 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Heptachlor
and its epoxide bioaccumulate in fatty tissue and persist for lengthy
periods of time. Several uses of heptachlor have been discontinued to
avoid contamination of milk and animal products (Vettorazzi, 1979).
Heptachlor is a suspected carcinogen (Kraybill, 1977). The total number
of tumors in both male and female rats increased in one long-term study
after heptachlor exposure (Vettorazzi, 1979). It has been recommended
that human daily intake of heptachlor should not exceed 0.005 mg/kg of
body weight (Vettorazzi, 1979). A ban was placed on heptachlor in
Canada in 1969 because of concern for residues in milk and deleterious
effects on birds (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979).
In the pesticide industry, lindane (BHC-gamma) is likely to be present
in two pesticide processes as a final product or a reaction byproduct.
Raw waste load concentrations of this compound have not been monitored
in the pesticide industry. It is highly toxic by ingestion and
moderately toxic by inhalation (Centec, 1979). BHC was previously
regulated during BPT for direct discharge only.
In the pesticide industry, toxaphene is used as a final product in one
pesticide process. Toxaphene concentrations in raw waste loads have
been detected at levels which are declared proprietary. Toxaphene is
proposed as a pollutant of primary significance because its discharge
has been regulated for direct discharge only (U.S. EPA, 1977h).
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, aldrin is
detected or likely to be present in one pesticide process as a reaction
byproduct. Raw waste load concentrations of aldrin have been monitored
at a level which is declared proprietary. It is highly toxic by
ingestion and inhalation, and is absorbed through the skin. It has been
found to be carcinogenic to the liver of mice. For the protection
IX-21
-------
of human health against the carcinogenic properties of aldrin, EPA has
proposed a limit of 4.6 x 10"^ ng/1 at a risk factor of 10"^ for
the ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms. Aldrin is
expected to be adequately controlled by regulation of the priority
pollutant endrin. Additionally, the pesticide aldrin was previously
regulated under Section 307(a), and is banned from manufacture and use
by EPA.
In the pesticide industry, chlordane is likely to be present in two
pesticide processes as a final product or a reaction byproduct.
Chlordane has not been detected in the pesticide industry. Chlordane
was the first known cyclodiene insecticide. It is a contact and stomach
poison used mainly as a soil insecticide (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979).
Chlordane is a viscous, amber-colored liquid which is insoluble in
water. The vapor pressure is 1 x 10~5 torr at 25°C (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 is 457 to 590 mg/kg (Martin and
Worthing, 1977) and the dermal LD50 is 80 mg/kg for rats (McEwen and
Stephenson, 1979; Martin, 1977). Long-term studies show that chlordane
causes hepatocellular carcinomas in mice at 60 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979).
Chlordane is highly persistent in the soil. As an example, one study
reported that 16 percent of a 14 kg/ha application remained after
15 years. Residues in root crops have been detected up to four years
after application to the soil (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). A toxic
metabolite of chlordane, oxychlordane, is stored in the fat and/or
excreted in the milk of mammals. Man's intake of chlordane is
recommended not to exceed 0.001 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979). It is toxic
by ingestion, inhalation, skin absorption (Centec, 1979), and is a
suspected mutagen (Kraybill, je_t _a_l., 1979). Chlordane was previously
regulated during BPT for direct discharge only. Coverage of chlordane
in these regulations is proposed to be excluded at this time pending the
collection of adequate monitoring data.
In the pesticide industry, dieldrin is detected or likely to be present
in one pesticide process as a reaction byproduct. Raw waste load
concentrations of this compound have been monitored at levels which are
declared proprietary. It is highly toxic by ingestion, inhalation, and
skin absorption (Centec, 1979). Dieldrin has been found to cause cancer
in the liver of mice (Kraybill, et_ sil_., 1979). Dieldrin is expected to
be adequately controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant endrin.
Additionally, the pesticide dieldrin was previously regulated under
Section 307(a), and is banned from manufacture and use by EPA.
In the pesticide industry, 4,4 '-ODD is detected or likely to be present
in five pesticide processes as a final product or a reaction byproduct.
Raw waste load concentrations of 4,4'-DDD have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. It is toxic by ingestion, inhalation,
skin absorption, and is combustible. The use of DDD is restricted in
the United States (Centec, 1979). The presence of 4,4'-DDD is expected
to be adequately controlled by regulation of the pesticide methoxychlor,
the only currently manufactured source. Additionally, discharge from
the pesticide DDD has been prohibited (U.S. EPA, 1977h).
IX-22
-------
In the pesticide industry, 4,4'-DDE is detected or likely to be present
in five pesticide processes as a final product or a reaction byproduct.
Raw waste load concentrations of 4,4'-DDE have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. DDE is significantly more stable than
DDT and results in more serious consequences than DDT (Centec, 1979).
Evidence exists to suggest that it causes cancer of the liver in mice
(Kraybill, _e£ jiK, 1979). The presence of this compound is expected to
be adequately controlled by regulation of the pesticide methoxychlor,
the only currently manufactured source. Additionally, discharge from
the pesticide DDE has been prohibited (U.S. EPA, 1977h).
In the pesticide industry, 4,4'-DDT (DDT) is detected or likely to be
present in five pesticide processes as a final product, raw material, or
reaction byproduct. DDT concentrations in solid wastes being contract
hauled have been monitored at levels which are declared proprietary.
DDT is not proposed as a pollutant of primary significance because its
discharge has been prohibited (U.S. EPA, 1977h).
In the pesticide industry, endosulfan sulfate is likely to be present in
one pesticide process as a reaction byproduct. Raw wasteload
concentrations of this compound have not been monitored in the pesticide
industry. It is toxic and has no known commercial uses (Centec, 1979).
Endosulfan sulfate is expected to be adequately controlled by the
regulation of the priority pollutant, endosulfan.
In the pesticide industry, endrin aldehyde is likely to be present in
one pesticide process as a reaction byproduct. Raw waste load
concentrations of this compound have been monitored in the pesticide
industry at levels which are declared proprietary. It is toxic and has
no known commercial uses (Centec, 1979). Information concerning the fate
of the compound is sparce (SRI International, 1979). The presence of
endrin aldehyde is expected to be adequately controlled by regulation of
the priority pollutant, endrin.
In the pesticide industry, heptachlor epoxide is likely to be present in
two pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct. Raw waste load
concentrations have been monitored in waste streams at levels which are
declared proprietary. It is toxic (Centec, 1979) and has been found to
cause cancer in the liver of mice (Kraybill, et al., 1979). Heptachlor
epoxide is expected to be adequately controlled by regulation of the
priority pollutant of primary significance, heptachlor.
Dienes—
There are two compounds which represent the diene priority pollutant
group. Wastewater analytical methods have been developed for both com-
pounds as described in the December 1979 Federal Register. Hexachloro-
cyclopentadiene was chosen as a pollutant of primary significance since
it is used as a raw material and is found in higher concentrations than
hexachlorobutadiene. The 1980 EPA ambient water quality criteria, the
lowest reported aquatic toxic concentration, and the human health water
quality criteria for the diene compounds are presented in Table IX-17.
IX-23
-------
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, hexachlorocyclo-
pentadiene (HCCPD) is detected or likely to be present in six pesticide
processes as a raw material. HCCPD concentrations in raw waste loads
range from 0.435 mg/1 to 2,500 mg/1. It is toxic by inhalation,
ingestion, and skin absorption (Centec, 1979).
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, hexachloro-
butadiene is detected or likely to be present in eight pesticide
processes as a solvent, reaction byproduct, or an impurity. Raw waste
load concentrations have ranged up to 0.191 mg/1. Hexachlorobutadiene
is expected to be adequately controlled by regulation of the priority
pollutant of primary significance, hexachlorocyclopentadiene.
TCDD—
TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) represents a priority
pollutant group. A wastewater analytical method has been developed for
TCDD as described in the December 1979 Federal Register. TCDD was
chosen as a pollutant of secondary significance since adequate
monitoring and control data have not been developed. The 1980 EPA
ambient water quality criteria, the lowest reported aquatic toxic
concentration, and the human health water quality criteria for TCDD are
presented in Table IX-18.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, 2,3,7,8-tetra-
chlorodibenzo-'p-dioxin (TCDD) is detected or likely to be present in 11
pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct. TCDD has been monitored in
one raw waste load at a concentration of 0.022 mg/1. It is extremely
toxic and a potential carcinogen and mutagen. Coverage of TCDD is
proposed to be excluded at this time pending the collection of adequate
monitoring and control data.
Miscellaneous Priority Pollutants—
There are five compounds which represent the miscellaneous priority
pollutant group. Wastewater analytical methods have been developed for
all five pollutants as shown in the December 1979 Federal Register. All
five compounds have been chosen as pollutants of secondary significance
since they lack adequate monitoring data or they are not detected or
likely to be present in this industry. The 1980 EPA ambient water
quality criteria, the lowest reported aquatic toxic concentration, and
the human health water quality criteria for the miscellaneous priority
pollutant group are presented in Table IX-19.
Secondary Significance—The compound acrolein is not detected or
likely to be present in the pesticide industry. It is toxic and a very
strong irritant. It is the active ingredient in tear gas.
The compound acrylonitrile is detected or likely to be present in one
pesticide process. It is toxic by inhalation and skin absorption and is
flammable. It is estimated to have had an environmental release
potential of 27.4 million pounds in 1972 (Centec, 1979). Coverage of
IX-24
-------
acrylonitrile is proposed to be excluded at this time pending the
collection of adequate monitoring data.
In the pesticide industry, asbestos is detected to be present in
72 pesticide/nonpesticide wastewaters. Raw waste load concentrations
have ranged from nondetectable limits to 0.3 mg/1 (total calculated mass
chrysotile fibers only). These concentrations are not shown to be
process related, and are therefore not proposed for regulation as a
pollutant of primary significance.
The compound 1,2-diphenylhydrazine is not detected or likely to be
present in the pesticide industry. It has been found to cause cancer in
the liver, mammary glands, urinary tract, and skin of mice and rats
(Kraybill, et_ a±., 1979).
The compound isophorone is not detected or likely to be present in the
pesticide industry.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls—
Seven polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) represent a priority pollutant
group. Wastewater analytical methods have been developed for PCBs as
shown in the December 1979 Federal Register. PCBs were chosen as
pollutants of secondary significance since they are not currently
likely to be present in the pesticide industry. The 1980 EPA ambient
water quality criteria, the lowest reported aquatic toxic concentration,
and the human health water quality criteria for the PCBs are presented
in Table IX-20.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, PCBs are likely
to be present in one pesticide process as reaction byproducts. No data
are available on the concentration of PCBs in the raw waste loads of
this pesticide process. Since this pesticide is not currently
manufactured, PCBs are not proposed for regulation as a pollutant of
primary significance.
Benzidines—
There are two compounds which represent the benzidine priority pollutant
group. Wastewater analytical methods have been developed for both
compounds as described in the December 1979 Federal Register. Benzidine
and 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine were chosen as pollutants of secondary
significance since they are not likely to be present in the pesticide
industry. The 1980 EPA ambient water quality criteria, the lowest
reported aquatic toxic concentration, and the human health water quality
criteria for the benzidines are presented in Table IX-21.
Secondary Significance—The compound benzidine is not likely to be
present in the pesticide industry. In other industries it is primarily
used in the manufacture of dyes and other organic synthesis processes.
Other uses include rubber vulcanization (Centec, 1979). Benzidine is a
IX-25
-------
potential tnutagenic (Kraybill, js_t al_., 1979), carcinogenic, and is toxic
by ingestion, inhalation, and skin absorption (Centec, 1979).
The compound 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine is not likely to be present in the
pesticide industry.
Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutants
Nonconventional pesticide pollutants are proposed for regulation,
provided that technical and economic data and acceptable analytical
methods are available for pesticide active ingredients as listed in
Table XII-1. A generalized rationale for their selection as pollutants
of primary significance is given below; however, a detailed discussion
of the deleterious effects of each specific pesticide on humans and the
environment is subsequently provided in alphabetical order for
137 pesticides with approved analytical procedures.
Pesticides are, by their very nature and use, toxic to certain living
organisms. They can be a hazard to aquatic life, terrestrial life, and
man when allowed to enter the natural environment in sufficient amounts.
Pesticides may affect the aquatic environment and water quality in
several ways. A pesticide with a slow rate of degradation will persist
in the environment, suppressing or destroying some organism populations
while allowing others to gain supremacy resulting in an imbalance in the
ecosystem. Other pesticides will degrade rapidly, some to products that
are more toxic than the parent compound, some to relatively harmless
products, and some to products for which toxicity data are lacking.
Many pesticides have a high potential for bioaccumulation and
biomagnification in the aquatic and terrestrial food chains, thereby
posing a serious threat to a large number of ecologically important
organisms, including humans (FWPCA, 1968).
The chlorinated hydrocarbons are among the most widely used groups of
synthetic organic pesticides. They are stable in the environment, toxic
to wildlife and nontarget organisms, and have adverse physiological
effects on humans. These pesticides readily accumulate in aquatic
organisms and in man. They are stored in fatty tissue and are not
rapidly metabolized. Humans may accumulate chlorinated hydrocarbon
residues by direct ingestion of contaminated water or by consumption of
contaminated organisms. Regardless of how chlorinated hydrocarbons
enter organisms, they induce poisoning having similar symptoms that
differ in severity. The severity is related to the extent and concen-
tration of the compound in the nervous system, primarily the brain.
Deleterious effects on human health are also suspected to result from
long-term, low-level exposure to this class of compounds (FWPCA, 1968).
The organo-phosphorus pesticide chemicals typically hydrolyze or break
down into less toxic products more rapidly than the halogenated
compounds. Generally, they persist for less than a year; however, some
last for only a few days in the environment. They exhibit a wide range
of toxicity, both more and less damaging to aquatic fauna than the
chlorinated hydrocarbons. Some exhibit a high mammalian toxicity.
IX-26
-------
Accumulation of some of these pesticides results in a dysfunction of the
cholinesterase of the nervous system when ingested in small quantities
over a long period of time (FWPCA, 1968).
The organo-nitrogen pesticide chemicals are also generally less
persistent in the environment than the chlorinated hydrocarbons. They
exhibit a wide range of toxicity. The carbamates are particularly toxic
to mammals. They appear to act on the nervous system in the same manner
as the organo-phosphorus pesticides.
Pesticides which are not classified as pollutants of primary
significance are considered to be of secondary significance due t.o the
lack of analytical methods and/or data availability.
Primary Significance—Alachlor has been monitored in raw waste
loads at declared proprietary concentrations. It is a selective pre-
emergence herbicide (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Inhibition of growth
in the shoots and roots of germinating seedlings is known to occur in
the presence of alachlor (MeEwen and Stephenson, 1979). Alachlor has a
melting point of 40*C to 41°C. Its solubility in water is 240 mg/1 at
23'C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 for rats is
1,200 mg/kg; and a dermally applied lethal dose is 2,000 rag/kg (Martin
and Worthing, 1977). The acute LC50 for the most sensitive organism
reported (rainbow trout; freshwater) is 1.0 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. EPA,
19741). The acute LC50 for the bluegill is 4.3 mg/1 at 96 hours
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF value for
alachlor is 28 (Kenaga, 1979). Alachlor has a residual action lasting
10 weeks to 12 weeks (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Alkylamine hydrochloride has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry. The LC50 for the most sensitive organism reported (bluegill;
freshwater) was 0.064 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. EPA, OPP).
Ametryne has been monitored in raw waste loads at declared proprietary
levels. It is used as a pre- and post-emergence selective herbicide for
the control of broad-leaved and grassy weeds in pineapple, sugar cane,
banana, citrus, corn, and coffee crops. Ametryne forms colorless
crystals with a melting point of 84 to 86*C and vapor pressure of
8.4 x 10~7 torr at 20*C. Its solubility in water is 185 mg/1 at
20°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute dermal LD50 for rabbits is
greater than 8,160 mg/kg. The acute oral LD50 is 935 mg/kg to 965 mg/kg
for mice and 1,405 mg/kg for rats. Rats fed 100 mg/kg/day for 90 days
showed slight histological changes in the liver (Martin and Worthing,
1977). The acute LC50 for the most sensitive organism reported (rainbow
trout; freshwater) is 3.2 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1980). The LC50 for the bluegill is 3.7 mg/1 (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF value for ametryne is 33
(Kenaga, 1979).
Aminocarb has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. It is a
nonsystemic insecticide with acaricidal and molluscicidal activity. It
is used against biting insects, mites, and slugs. Aminocarb is a white
IX-27
-------
crystalline solid with a melting point of 93°C to 94"C, and is only
slightly soluble in water (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Aminocarb is
extremely toxic to mammals. The acute oral LD50 is 30 mg/kg for rats.
The acute intraperitoneal and dermal LD50s for rats are 21 mg/kg and
175 mg/kg, respectively. Aminocarb is highly toxic to honey bees
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute LC50 for the most sensitive
organism reported (Walleye; freshwater) is 0.880 mg/1 at 96 hours
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The acute LC50 value for the
bluegill is 3.1 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980).
For the rainbow trout the LC50 is 5.7 mg/1 at 96 hours (Segna, 1981).
Amoban has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Amobam is a
trade name for the diammonium salt of Nabam in a 4-percent solution
(Martin and Worthing, 1977) (see Nabam for additional environmental and
health effects). Amoban showed positive results in testing for carcin-
ogenicity (NIOSH, 1977). The LD50 for rats is 395 mg/kg (Segna, 1981).
Raw waste load concentrations of AOP have been monitored at levels which
are declared proprietary. AOP is a protective fungicide which, when
applied to the soil, has systemic action.
Atrazine has been detected in raw waste loads at concentrations declared
proprietary. It is used as a selective pre- and post-emergence
herbicide on a variety of crops including maize, sorghum, sugar cane,
and pineapple. It is used in water treatment against algae and
submerged plants (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Atrazine is a colorless
crystal with a melting point of 175°C to 177°C and a vapor pressure of
3.0 x 10~7 torr at 20*C. Its solubility in water is 28 mg/1 at 20*C
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). Its acute oral LD50 is 1,750 mg/kg for
mice and 3,080 mg/kg for rats. The acute dermal LD50 for rabbits is
7,500 mg/kg. The acute LC50 for the most sensitive organism reported
(Catfish; freshwater) is 0.22 mg/1 (Piecuch, 1981). The acute LC50 for
the bluegill is 15 mg/1 at 96 hours (Piecuch, 1979). The acute LC50 for
the rainbow trout is 4.5 mg/1 at 96 hours (Segna, 1981). The predicted
BCF value for atrazine is 86 (Kenaga, 1979). Aquatic life toxicity is
found at 35 mg/1 for the carp and 5.30 mg/1 for the trout (Ludemann and
Kayser, 1965). Toxic levels for the fry of the fish Coreganus fera are
as low as 3 ppm (Little, 1980). In Daphnia magna and Maina
rectorostrisis, increases of embryonic and post-embryonic development
from over 30 days to 45 days have been noted at 1 ppm (Scherban, 1973).
The half-life for atrazine in soil is 26 weeks to 78 weeks (Little,
1980), and it may absorb by clays such as montmorillonite (Little,
1980). The LD50 for fish is considered to be 12.6 mg/1 (Little, 1980).
It was found in low toxicity in tests on rainbow trout and bluegills
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The general use and persistent nature of
atrazine present the possibility for contamination of ground waters that
are drinking water sources for much of the rural population of North
America (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). Traces of atrazine have been
found in finished water in Iowa cities obtaining their supply from wells
and in higher levels in those supplied from surface waters (McEwen and
Stephenson, 1979).
IX-28
-------
Azinphos methyl has been monitored in raw waste loads at concentrations
declared proprietary. It is a nonsystemic insecticide and acaricide
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). It is used against foliage-feeding insects
and has broad spectrum effects (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). Azinphos
methyl is a white crystal with a melting point of 73°C to 74°C. Its
solubility in water is 33 mg/1 at room temperature. It is rapidly
hydrolyzed by cold alkali and acid (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The
acute LD50 is 4 ppb for brown trout and 5 ppb for largemouth bass. Fish
kills have resulted from contamination of azinphos methyl by its use in
vegetable and fruit production (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). Azinphos
methyl has high mammalian toxicity. The acute oral LD50 for female rats
is 16.4 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute LC50 for the most
sensitive organism reported (Gammorus; saltwater) is 0.00015 mg/1 at
96 hours (Segna, 1981). The acute LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow
trout (freshwater) are 0.022 mg/1 and 0.0043 mg/1, respectively, at
96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). Four million pounds of
azinphos methyl were produced in the United States in 1971. Estimated
agricultural use for this same year was 2.7 million pounds (McEwen and
Stephenson, 1979). In the United States, a. 24-hour reentry interval has
been established between the application of azinphos methyl and the time
workers may reenter a field (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). Persistence
in the environment is long, lasting 2 or more weeks (McEwen and
Stephenson, 1979).
Barban has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. It is a
selective post-emergence herbicide used for the control of wild oats.
It is a crystalline solid with a melting point of 75°C to 76°C. Its
solubility in water is 11 mg/1 at 25°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The
acute oral LD50 for rats and mice is 1,300 mg/kg to 1,500 mg/kg, and the
dermal LD50 for rats is 1,600 mg/kg. It has been recommended that skin
contact be avoided by humans to protect against allergic reactions
(Martin and Worthing, 1977).
BBTAC has not been monitored in the pesticide industry, and information
on environmental and health effects was not available at time of
publication.
Benfluralin has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. When
incorporated into the soil, benfluralin acts as a pre-emergence
herbicide for the control of annual grasses and broad-leaved weeds in
lettuce, tobacco, and other forage crops (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Benfluralin is a yellow-orange crystalline solid with a melting point of
65° to 66.58C. Its solubility in water is less than 1 mg/1 at 25°C.
The acute oral LD50 for rabbits, dogs, and chickens is greater than
2,000 mg/kg. It is of low to moderate persistence in the environment
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute EC50 for the most sensitive
organism reported (Gammorus; saltwater) is 1.1 mg/1 at 48 hours (U.S.
EPA, OPP).
Benomyl has not been monitored in raw waste loads in the pesticide
industry. It is a protective and eradicant fungicide with systemic
activity used on a wide range of fungi in fruits, nuts, vegetables, and
IX-29
-------
ornamentals. It is a white crystalline solid with a faint acrid odor.
At 20*C its solubility in water is 3.8 mg/1 (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Benomyl acts in a manner similar to colchicine, and its fungicidal
action is effected by adsorption to spindle fibers involved in cell
division. The LD50 for Daphnia magna (an aquatic vertebrate) is 0.64 ppm
(McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). The acute oral LD50 for rats is greater
than 10,000 ing/kg. The LC50 for mallard ducks and quail is greater than
5,000 mg/kg. Benomyl is highly toxic to earthworms. The acute LC50 for
the most sensitive organism reported (catfish; freshwater) is 0.029 mg/1
at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The acute LCSOs for
the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 0.46 mg/1 and 0.17 mg/1,
respectively, at 96 hours (Segna, 1981).
Raw waste load concentrations of bentazon have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Bentazon, a contact herbicide, is used
for control of Matricaria, Anthemis spp., and other plants in winter and
spring cereals. It is ineffective as a pre-emergence herbicide since it
is absorbed by leaves, and it has little effect on germinating seeds
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). Bentazon is a white odorless crystalline
powder with a melting point of 137°C to 139°C. Its solubility in water
is 500 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977). For rats, the acute oral LD50
is 1,100 mg/kg, and the dermal LD50 is greater than 2,500 mg/kg. Appli-
cation caused severe eye irritation in rabbits (Martin and Worthing,
1977). The predicted BCF value for bentazon is 19 (Kenaga, 1979).
Biphenyl has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. It is a
fungistatic agent used on citrus fruits during transportation and stor-
age. Biphenyl is in the form of colorless leaflets, and its fungistatic
properties are dependent upon the vapor it produces. Because it is not
effective after it is absorbed by the fruit, concentrations of biphenyl
must be maintained throughout the period of transport and storage
(McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). Biphenyl is practically insoluble in
water (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 is 3,280 mg/kg
for rats. Prolonged exposure to human beings of vapor concentrations
greater than 0.005 mg/1 is considered dangerous (Martin and Worthing,
1977). Because persons of low resistance, including children and ill
people, may consume a large amount of citrus fruit, higher safety
factors were used in extrapolating toxicity parameters from animal data
(McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). The acute LCSOs for the bluegill and
rainbow trout (freshwater) are 14.70 mg/1 and 1.85 mg/1, respectively,
at 96 hours (Segna, 1981). The calculated BCF value for biphenyl is 340
(Kenaga, 1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of bolstar have been monitored at declared
proprietary levels. Bolstar is an insecticide. The oral LD50 is
65 mg/kg for rats by body weight (Segna, 1981). The skin LD50 for the
rabbit is 820 mg/kg (NIOSH, 1977). The acute LCSOs for the bluegill and
rainbow trout (freshwater) are 1.0 mg/1 and 29.7 mg/1, respectively, at
96 hours (Segna, 1981).
Raw waste load concentrations of bromacil have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Bromacil is recommended for general
IX-30
-------
weed control on noncrop land such as railroad rights-of-way. It is a
nonselective inhibitor of photosynthesis and is absorbed mainly through
roots. It is also used for annual weed control in established citrus
and pineapple plantations. Bromacil is a white crystalline solid with a
melting point of 158*C to 159°C. Its solubility in water is 815 mg/1 at
25°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 for rats is
5,200 rag/kg. The TLM (48-hour) for bluegill, sunfish, and rainbow trout
is 70 mg/1 to 75 og/1 (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The average half-
life of bromacil is several months, and moderate mobility in the soil
has been observed (MeEwen and Stephenson, 1979).
Busan 40 has not been monitored in the pesticide industry, and
information on environmental and health effects was limited at time of
publication. The acute oral LD50 is 590 mg/kg for rats (Segna, 1981).
Busan 85 has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. It is a
fungicide. The acute oral LD50 is 250 mg/kg for rats (Segna, 1981).
The intraperitoneal LD50 for mice is 350 mg/kg (NIOSH, 1977).
Butachlor has been detected in raw waste loads in concentrations
declared proprietary. It is a pre-emergence herbicide used in the
control of annual grasses and certain broad-leaved weeds in rice. It is
a light yellow oil with a boiling point of 196°C. Its solubility in
water is 20 mg/1 at 20°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral
LD50 is 3,300 mg/kg for rats, and the dermal LD50 for rabbits is
4,000 mg/1. Butachlor is a skin and eye irritant (Martin and Worthing,
1977). The acute LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater)
are 0.072 mg/1 and 4.5 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (Segna, 1981).
Captan has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. It is a
nonsystemic fungicide used mainly for foliage protection. The technical
product is an amorphous solid, white to beige in color with a pungent
odor. Its melting point is 160°C to 170*C (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
The acute oral ID50 is 9,000 mg/kg for rats. Captan may cause skin
irritation (Martin and Worthing, 1977). In the environment, captan
decomposition produces hydrochloric acid and its rapid hydrolysis can
lead to toxic effects on sensitive plants (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979).
Under alkaline conditions, captan produces hydrogen sulfide gas. Captan
is of relatively long persistence in the environment (Vettorazzi, 1979).
The acute LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are
0.072 mg/1 and 4.5 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (Segna, 1981).
Captan showed positive results in testing for carcinogenicity (NIOSH,
1979). The predicted BCF value for captan is greater than 910 (Kenaga,
1979).
Carbam-S has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Carbam-S is
a soil fungicide. Information on environmental and health effects were
not available at time of publication.
Carbaryl has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. It is a
broad spectrum contact insecticide with slight systemic properties.
Carbaryl is used extensively for foliar pests in agriculture, pests in
IX-31
-------
home gardens and lawns, and ectoparasites (fleas and ticks) on livestock
and pets (McEwen, 1979; Martin, 1977). Carbaryl is a white crystalline
solid with a melting point of 142°C. Its solubility in water is 40 mg/1
at 30°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 for male rats
is 850 rag/kg, and the acute dermal LD50 is 2,000 mg/kg for rabbits. It
has been reported that in several animal species carbaryl has adverse
effects on reproductive physiology. An increased ratio of urinary amino
acid to creatinine resulted in man after exposure. Studies have
indicated disturbance in the thyroid gland after short-term treatment,
whereas long-term treatment resulted in disturbances of carbohydrate and
protein metabolism, liver function, and endocrine function. A study of
rats with low survival rates demonstrated that carbaryl produced
sarcomas following its oral administration. Carbaryl can react with
nitrate under mildly acidic conditions, such as in the human stomach, to
produce N-nitrosocarbaryl, which is a proven carcinogen in rats
(Vettorazzi, 1979). More than 44 million pounds of carbaryl were
produced in the United States in 1971, 18 million pounds of which were
used in American agriculture (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). The acute
LC50 for the most sensitive organism reported (Pteronarcella; saltwater)
is 0.0017 mg/1 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The acute LCSOs
for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 6.76 mg/1 and
1.95 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1980). Carbaryl is suspected of being carcinogenic (NIOSH, 1979). The
predicted BCF value for carbaryl is 77 (Kenaga, 1979).
Carbendazim concentrations in raw waste loads have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Carbendazim is a broad-spectrum
systemic fungicide and is absorbed by the roots and the green tissue of
plants. It is a light grey powder with a solubility in water of
5.8 mg/1 at 20°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 for
dogs is more than 2,500 mg/kg, and the acute dermal LD50 for rats is
more than 2,000 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977). In studies of mice
and rats, carbendazim caused testicular damage to males (Vettorazzi,
1979).
Carbofuran concentrations in raw waste loads have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Carbofuran is a broad-spectrum,
systemic insecticide, acaricide, and neraaticide. It is a white,
odorless, crystalline solid with a solubility in water of 700 mg/1 at
25°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The TLM (96-hour) for trout is
0.8 mg/1. Carbofuran is highly toxic to mammals. The acute LD50 is
8 mg/kg to 14 mg/kg for rats and the acute dermal LD50 for rabbits is
3,400 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977). As the preceding toxicity
parameters show, Carbofuran is highly toxic by several routes.
Carbofuran is metabolized to oxidative products which are only slightly
less toxic than the parent compound. High levels administered to test
animals affect reproductive activity (Vettorazzi, 1979). The half life
of carbofuran in the soil ranges from 30 days to 80 days (McEwen and
Stephenson, 1979). The acute LC50 for the most sensitive organisms
reported (bluegill; freshwater) is 0.08 mg/1 at 96 hours (Piecuch,
1974). The acute LC50 for the rainbow trout (freshwater) is 0.38 mg/1
IX-32
-------
at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF
value for carbofuran is 21 (Kenaga, 1979).
Carbophenothion concentrations in raw waste loads have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. It is a nonsystemic insecticide
and acaricide used for preharvest treatments on deciduous and citrus
fruits. It is also used as seed dressing for cereal grains (Vettorazzi,
1979). It is an off-white to amber-colored liquid with a mild
mercaptan-like odor. Its boiling point is 82°C and it is soluble in
water at the rate of 40 mg/1 (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute
oral LD50 for male albino rats is 32.3 mg/kg, and the acute dermal LD50
is 1,270 mg/kg for rabbits. Carbophenothion is toxic to honey bees
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). Several instances of geese poisoning have
been reported. The poisoning occurred while geese were foraging in
fields planted with carbophenothion-treated seed. Analysis of the dead
birds revealed that death was caused by organophosphate poisoning. The
LD50 for Canadian geese is 29 to 35 mg/kg (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979).
The acute LC50 for the most sensitive organism reported (Palaemonetes;
saltwater) is 0.0012 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1980). The acute LC50 for the bluegill (freshwater) is 0.013 mg/1 at
96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF
value for Carbophenothion is 1,140 (Kenaga, 1979).
Chlorobenzilate concentrations in raw waste loads have been monitored at
declared proprietary levels. Chlorobenzilate is a nonsystemic
acaricide, of little insecticidal action, used for the control of mites
on citrus and deciduous fruit. It is a pale yellow solid with a melting
point of 35°C to 37°C and a boiling point of 156eC to 158°C. The
technical product is a brownish liquid of approximately 96 percent
purity and is practically insoluble in water (Martin and Worthing,
1977). The acute oral LD50 for rats ranges from 700 mg/kg to
3,100 rag/kg. The acute dermal LD50 is greater than 5,000 mg/kg for
rabbits. Chlorobenzilate administered by the oral route produced an
increased incidence of hepatornas in males. It has been recommended that
man's daily intake of Chlorobenzilate should not exceed 0.02 mg/kg
(Vettorazzi, 1979). The acute EC50 for the most sensitive organism
reported (Simolephalus; saltwater) is 0.6 mg/1 at 48 hours (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1980). The acute LC50 for the bluegill
(freshwater) is 1.8 mg/1 at 96 hours (Segna, 1981). The acute LC50 for
the rainbow trout (freshwater) is 0.7 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1980). Chlorobenzilate was shown to have positive
carcinogenicity test results (NIOSH, 1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of chloropicrin have been detected in the
pesticide industry at values which are declared proprietary. Chloro-
picrin is an insecticide used as a fumigant on stored grain and for soil
treatment against nematodes. It is a colorless liquid with a boiling
point of 112.4°C. Its solubility in water is 2.27 g/1 at 0°C (Martin
and Worthing, 1977). Chloropicrin is lachrymatory (causing tears) and
highly toxic. At 0.8 mg/1 of air it causes coughing, vomiting, and
suffocation and is lethal in 30 minutes (Martin and Worthing, 1977). A
concentration of 2.4 g/m^ can cause death in man from acute
IX-33
-------
pulmonary edema (Vettorazzi, 1979). The acute oral LD50 is 250 mg/kg
for rats (Segna, 1981). The acute LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow
trout (freshwater) are 0.105 mg/1 and 0.016 mg/1, respectively, at
96 hours (Segna, 1981).
Chlorpropham has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. It is a
selective pre-emergence herbicide and mitotic poison. It has been
generally used to prevent potato sprouting (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Its solubility in water at 25°C is 89 mg/1, and its melting point is
from 38.5°C to 40*C. In an acid or alkaline media chlorpropham will
slowly hydrolyze, although it is stable below 100*C (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). Since chlorpropham is derived from ethylurethane, a
recognized carcinogen, it is also suspected to be carcinogenic. Studies
on the skin of rats have shown it to be weak in tumor initiating
activity (Vettorazzi, 1979). The acute oral LD50 for rats is
5,000 mg/kg to 7,500 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute LC50
for the bluegill (freshwater) is 8.0 mg/1 at 96 hours (EPA, OPP). The
predicted BCF value for chlorpropham is 50 (Kenaga, 1979).
Chlorpyrifos has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. It is a
broad spectrum insecticide and is effective by contact, ingestion, and
vapor action. It is used for the control of larvae and adult mosquitos,
soils, and foliar crop pests, and for ectoparasites on sheep and cattle
(Martin and Worthing, 1977; McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). The acute
oral LD50 is 135 mg/kg for female rats and 32 mg/kg for chicks. The
acute dermal LD50 for rabbits is 2,000 mg/kg. Chlorpyrifos is toxic to
fish and shrimp (Martin and Worthing, 1977). It has been recommended
that the daily intake for man should not exceed 0.001 mg/kg (Vettorazzi,
1979). Chlorpyrifos persists in the soil for 2 months to 4 months
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute LC50 for the most sensitive
organism reported (G_. lacustris; saltwater) is 0.00011 mg/1 at 96 hours
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The acute LCSOs for the
bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 0.0024 mg/1 and 0.0071 mg/1,
respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The
calculated BCF value for Chlorpyrifos is 450 (Kenaga, 1979).
Chlorpyrifos methyl has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
It has a broad range of activity against insects and is effective by
contact, ingestion, and vapor action. Chlorpyrifos methyl is used on
stored grains foliar crop pests. Its form is white crystals with a
slight mercaptan odor and a melting point of 45.5°C to 46.5°C. Its
solubility in water is 4 mg/1 at 25°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The
acute oral LD50 for female rats is 1,630 mg/kg, and the acute dermal
LD50 for rabbits is greater than 2,000 mg/kg. Chlorpyrifos methyl is
toxic to shrimp (Martin and Worthing, 1977). It has been recommended
that man's daily intake of Chlorpyrifos methyl should not exceed
0.01 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979). The predicted BCF value for Chlorpyrifos
methyl is 280 (Kenaga, 1979).
Coumaphos concentrations in raw waste loads have been detected at
declared proprietary levels. Coumaphos is a contact and systemic
insecticide used on animals, including poultry. Application is made by
IX-34
-------
dipping, spraying, adding to feed, and dusting. Based on short-term
studies it is recommended that man's daily intake of coumaphos should
not exceed 0.0005 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979). The acute LC50 for the most
sensitive organism reported (£. fasciatus; saltwater) is 0.000074 mg/1
at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The acute LC50s for
the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 0.340 mg/1 and
0.890 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1980).
Raw waste load concentrations of cyanazine have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Cyanazine is a pre- and post-emergence
herbicide used for general weed control. It is a white crystalline
solid with a melting point of 166.5°C and solubility in water of
171 mg/1 (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute LD50 for rats is
182 mg/kg, and the acute dermal LD50 is 1,200 mg/kg for rats. The oral
LD50 is 750 mg/kg for chickens and 400 mg/kg to 500 mg/kg for quail.
The TLM (48-hour) for the fish Rasbora is 10 mg/1 (Martin and Worthing,
1977). The acute LC50 for the most sensitive organism reported
(£. faaciatus, saltwater) is 2.0 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1980).
Raw waste load concentrations of 2,4-D have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. 2,4-D along with its salts and esters
are systemic herbicides used for the weeding of cereals and other crops.
It is a white powder with a slight phenolic odor. 2,4-D has a melting
point of 140.5°C, and its solubility in water is 620 mg/1 at 25"C
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 of 2,4-D is 375 mg/kg
for rats (Martin and Worthing, 1977). It has been recommended that
man's daily intake of 2,4-D should not exceed 0.3 mg/kg (Vettorazzi,
1979). In the cells of plants, 2,4-D disrupts the normal metabolism of
DNA, RNA, and protein as shown by twisted, coiled, or sharply bent
developing stems. Actual plant death occurs when the xylem and/or
phloem tissues are crushed by abnormal growth of the stems (MeEven and
Stephenson, 1979). 2,4-D persists in the soil for at least 1 month
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute LC50 for the most sensitive
organism reported (cutthroat trout; freshwater) is 0.9 mg/1 at 96 hours
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The acute LCSOs for the
bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 7.5 mg/1 and 2.0 mg/1,
respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The
predicted BCF value for 2,4-D is 13 (Kenaga, 1979). 2,4-D is suspected
of having carcinogenic effects (NIOSH, 1979).
2,4-D isobutyl ester concentrations in raw waste loads have been
monitored at declared proprietary levels. See 2,4-D for environmental
and health effects.
2,4-D isooctyl ester has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
See 2,4-D for environmental and health effects.
2,4-D salt has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. See 2,4-D
for environmental and health effects.
IX-35
-------
Raw waste load concentrations of 2,4-DB have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. 2,4-DB is a translocatable herbicide of
similar effect to 2,4-D. It is more selective because its activity
depends on oxidation to 2,4-D by the plant. It is used on lucerne,
undersown cereals, and grasslands. The acute oral LD50 of 2,4-DB is
700 mg/kg for rats (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The LCSOs for the
bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 16.8 mg/1 and 14.3 mg/1,
respectively, at 96 hours (EPA, OPP).
2,4-DB isobutyl ester has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
See 2,4-DB for environmental and health effects.
2,4-DB isooctyl ester has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
See 2,4-DB for environmental and health effects.
DBCP (dibromochloropropane) has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry. DBCP is a soil fumigant used in the control of nematodes. It
is an amber to dark brown liquid with a mildly pungent odor and a
boiling point of 196°C. Its solubility in water is 1 g/kg at room
temperature (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 for rats
is 170 mg/kg to 300 mg/kg. The acute dermal LD50 is 1,420 mg/kg for
rabbits. The TLM (24-hour) is 30 mg/1 to 50 mg/1 for bass and 50 mg/1
to 125 mg/1 for sunfish (Martin and Worthing, 1977). DBCP is persistent
in the soil, thereby requiring a long aeration time before planting such
crops as potatoes and tobacco (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute
LC50 for the rainbow trout (freshwater) is 36.5 mg/1 at 96 hours (EPA,
OPP). DBCP showed positive test results for carcinogenicity (NIOSH,
1979). The predicted BCF value for DBCP is 11 (Kenaga, 1979).
DCNA (dichloran) has not been monitored in raw waste loads in the
pesticide industry. DCNA is a protectant fungicide which is used for
foliar application and soil treatment. During preharvest it is used on
vegetables and cotton, while at post harvest it is used as a dip for
peaches, nectarines, and carrots (Vettorazzi, 1979). It is a yellow
odorless crystalline solid with a melting point of 195°C. DCNA is
practically insoluble in water (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute
oral LD50 is between 1,500 mg/kg and 4,000 mg/kg for several species
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). Dogs fed DCNA have been known to develop
cataracts when exposed to sunlight. Feeding studies of dogs and rats
resulted in growth retardation accompanied by an increased liver and
kidney size (Vettorazzi, 1979). It has been recommended that man's
daily intake of DCNA should not exceed 0.03 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979).
The acute LC50 for the rainbow trout (freshwater) is 0.56 mg/1 at
96 hours (EPA, OPP).
D-D has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. D-D is a
pre-plant nematicide. It is a clear amber liquid with a pungent odor
and is soluble in water of 2 g/kg at room temperature (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). The mixture is highly pytotoxic, and the usual
application usage is 75 liters of D-D per hectare. In wet or cold
conditions, a longer interval should be allowed (Martin and Worthing,
1977). The acute oral LD50 is 140 mg/kg for rats. The acute dermal
IX-36
-------
LD50 is 2,100 mg/kg for rabbits. It is a known irritant to human skin
(Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Raw waste load concentrations of deet have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Deet is an insect repellent which is
effective against mosquitoes. It is a colorless to amber liquid with a
boiling point of 111°C. Deet is practically insoluble in water (Martin
and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 for male albino rats is
2,000 mg/kg. Daily applications to human face and arms can cause
irritation (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute LC50 for the rainbow
trout (freshwater) is 75.0 mg/1 at 96 hours (EPA, OPP).
Raw waste load concentrations of demeton have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Demeton is a systemic insecticide and
acaricide which has some fumigant action. It rapidly penetrates plants
and is effective against sap-feeding insects and mites. Demeton is a
colorless oil with a boiling point of 123°C. Its solubility in water is
60 mg/1 at room temperature (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral
LD50 of demeton is 2.5 mg/1 to 4 mg/kg for female rats (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). Man's daily intake of demeton should not exceed
0.005 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979). The acute LC50 for the most sensitive
organism reported (Daphnia, saltwater) is 0.014 mg/1 at 96 hours (Segna,
1981). The acute LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater)
are 0.133 mg/1 and 0.14 mg/1 to 0.21 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours
(Segna, 1981).
Demeton-o has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Demeton-o
is a systemic insecticide and acaricide which has some fumigant action.
It is a colorless oil with a boiling point of 123°C. Its solubility in
water is 60 mg/1 at room temperature. The acute oral LD50 of demeton-o
is 30 mg/kg for male rats (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Demeton-s has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Demeton-s
is a systemic insecticide and acaricide which has some fumigant action.
It is a colorless oil with a boiling point of 128°C. Its solubility in
water is 2 g/1 at room temperature. The acute oral LD50 of demeton-s is
1.5 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Raw waste load concentrations of diazinon have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Diazinon is a nonsystemic insecticide
and acaricide used on rice, sugar cane, corn, tobacco, and potatoes. It
is a pale to dark brown liquid with a solubility in water of 40 mg/1.
Traces of water in diazinon promote hydrolysis of diazinon to the highly
poisonous compound tetraethyl monothiopyrophosphate (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 for rats is 66 mg/kg to 600 mg/kg.
The acute dermal LD50 is 379 mg/kg to 1,200 mg/kg. The presence of low
levels of diazinon in water have caused lethal and sublethal effects on
fish and aquatic invertebrates. Diazinon persists on plants for 7 days
to 10 days (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). It has been recommended that
man's daily intake of diazinon should not exceed 0.002 mg/kg of body
weight (Vettorazzi, 1979). The acute LC50 for the most sensitive
organism reported (G_. fasciatus; saltwater) is 0.00020 mg/1 at 96 hours
IX-37
-------
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The acute LC50s for the
bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 0.168 mg/1 and 0.090 mg/1,
respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The
calculated BCF value for diazinon is 35 (Kenaga, 1979).
Dicamba has not been monitored in raw waste loads in the pesticide
industry. Dicamba is a post-emergence, translocateable herbicide used
for weed control in cereals. The pure compound is a white crystalline
solid with a melting point of 114" to 116eC. Its solubility in water is
4.5 g/1 at 25*C. The technical acid is a pale buff crystalline solid of
about 83 percent to 97 percent purity (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The
TLMs (96-hour) are 23 mg/1 for bluegills and 28 mg/1 for rainbow trout.
The acute oral LD50 is 2,900 mg/kg for rats (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
The acute LC50 for the most sensitive organism reported (Daphnia,
saltwater) is 20.0 mg/1 at 96 hours (Segna, 1981). The acute LC50s for
the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are greater than 50 mg/1 and
28 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1980). The predicted BCF value for dicamba is 5 (Kenaga, 1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of dichlofenthion have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Dichlofenthion is a nonsystemic
insecticide and nematicide which is applied to the soil. It is a
colorless liquid with a boiling point of 120° to 1238C. Its solubility
in water is 0.245 mg/1 at 25"C. The technical product is 95 percent to
97 percent pure (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 is
270 mg/kg for male albino rats. The acute dermal LD50 is 6,000 mg/kg for
rabbits (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute LC50 for the most
sensitive organism reported (Pteronarcys; saltwater) is 0.0041 mg/1 at
96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The acute LCSOs for
the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 1.230 mg/1 and
1.250 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1980). The predicted BCF value for dichlofenthion is 5 (Kenaga, 1979).
Dichlorophen salt has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
Dichlorophen salt is the sodium salt form of dichlorophen. Dichlorophen
is a fungicide and bactericide used in the protection of materials from
molds and algae. It is also employed in combating tapeworm infestation
in man and animals as well as being a component in an athlete's foot
preparation. Its solubility in water is 30 mg/1 at 25°C and its melting
point is at least 164°C. For guinea pigs the acute oral LD50 is
1,250 mg/kg and for dogs it is 2,000 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
The acute LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are
3.9 mg/1 and 5.5 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1980).
Dichlorvos has been detected in raw waste loads in the pesticide
industry at values which are declared proprietary. It is a contact and
stomach insecticide which has penetrant and fumigant action. Dichlorvos
is used on crops and as a household and public health fumigant. It is a
colorless to amber liquid with an aromatic odor and has a boiling point
of 35°C and is soluble in water at room temperature at the rate of
10 g/1 (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 is 56 mg/kg for
IX-38
-------
female rats and the acute dermal LD50 for female rats is 75 mg/kg. The
TLM (24-hour) for bluegills is 1 mg/1. Dichlorvos is known to be toxic
to honey bees. The four-hour inhalation LC50 for mice is 13.2 mg/m^
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). It has been recommended that man's daily
intake of dichlorvos should not exceed 0.004 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979).
The EC50 for the most sensitive organism reported (Daphnia; saltwater)
is 0.00007 mg/1 at 48 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The
LC50 for the bluegill (freshwater) is 0.869 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF value for dichlorvos is
3 (Kenaga, 1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of dicofol have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Dicofol is a nonsystemic acaricide
which has little insecticidal activity. It is used to control mites on
a wide range of crops. The technical product is a brown viscous oil
which is practically insoluble in water (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
The acute oral LD50 for female rats is 684 +_ 16 mg/kg of body weight.
The acute dermal LD50 is 1,870 mg/kg for rabbits (Martin and Worthing,
1977). It has been determined that mammals store dicofol in fatty
tissue. Man's recommended daily intake of dicofol should not exceed
0.025 mg/kg of body weight (Vettorazzi, 1979). Because dicofol is
practically insoluble in water and unaffected by light or moisture it
persists in the environment. In the soil, dicofol persists for more
than one year (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). The LC50 for the most
sensitive organism reported (largemouth bass; freshwater) is 0.395 mg/1
at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The LC50 for the
bluegill (freshwater) is 0.520 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1980). Dicofol showed positive results in tests for
carcinogenicity (NIOSH, 1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of dinoseb have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Dinoseb is a contact herbicide used as
a post-emergence annual weed control on peas and cereals. Ammonium and
amine salts are the most widely used form of dinoseb. It is an
orange-brown liquid with a melting point of 30° to 40°C. Dinoseb is
soluble in water at a rate of 100 mg/1 (Martin and Worthing, 1977). It
is highly toxic to mammals with an acute oral LD50 for rats of 58 mg/kg
and an acute dermal LD50 for rabbits of 80 mg/kg to 200 mg/kg (Martin
and Worthing, 1977). The LC50 for the most sensitive organism reported
(lake trout; freshwater) is 0.044 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF value for dinoseb is 68
(Kenaga, 1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of dioxathion have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Dioxathion is a nonsystemic
insecticide and acaricide used on livestock for external parasites and
on fruit trees and ornamentals. The technical product is a brown liquid
which is insoluble in water (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Dioxathion is
very toxic to mammals with an acute oral LD50 of 23 mg/kg and an acute
dernal LD50 of 63 mg/kg for female rats. Ten doses of dioxathion at
0.8 mg/kg fed over 14 days reduced plasma cholinesterase activity in
dogs (Martin and Worthing, 1977). No appreciable decline in dioxathion
IX-39
-------
concentration can be expected during normal storage since dioxathion
residues are very stable. It has been recommended that man's daily
intake of dioxathion should not exceed 0.0015 rag/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979).
The EC50 for the most sensitive organism reported (Daphnia; saltwater)
is 0.00035 mg/1 at 48 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The
LC50 for the rainbow trout (freshwater) is 0.069 mg/1 at 96 hours
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980).
Raw waste load concentrations of disulfoton have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Disulfoton is a systemic
insecticide and acaricide for use in protecting seeds and seedlings. It
is applied as a seed or soil treatment. The technical product is a dark
yellowish oil with a solubility in water of 25 mg/1 at room temperature
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). Disulfoton is extremely toxic to mammals
with an acute oral LD50 for female rats of 2.6 mg/kg and an acute dermal
LD50 of 20 mg/kg for male rats (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The primary
effect of disulfoton is through inhibition of cholinesterase. In cell
cultures, disulfoton inhibits protein synthesis. It has been recom-
mended that man's daily intake should not exceed 0.002 mg/kg of body
weight (Vettorazzi, 1979). When applied in the granular form,
disulfoton is taken up by plants over an extended period of time. In
1971, eight million pounds were produced and about four million pounds
were used by American farmers (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). The LC50
for the most sensitive organism reported (Palaemoretes; saltwater) is
0.0039 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The
LCSOs for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 0.300 mg/1 and
1.850 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1980). The predicted BCF value for disulfoton is 100 (Kenaga, 1979).
Diuron has not been monitored in raw waste loads in the pesticide
industry. Diuron is a herbicide used for general weed control on crops
such as sugar cane, citrus, pineapple, and cotton. Diuron kills weeds
by inhibiting photosynthesis. It is a white, odorless solid with a
melting point of 158° to 159*C. Its solubility in water at 25*C is
42 mg/1 (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 for diuron is
3,400 mg/kg for rats. It may cause irritation to eyes and mucous
membranes (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Diuron is persistent and
immobile in the soil since it is stable to oxidation and moisture
(McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). The LC50 for the most sensitive organism
reported (£. fasciatus; saltwater) is 0.16 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1980). The LCSOs for the bluegill and rainbow
trout (freshwater) are 8.2 mg/1 and 4.9 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF value for
diuron is 75 (Kenaga, 1979).
Dowicil 75 has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. It is a
fungicide and is freely soluble in water (Packer, 1975). The oral LD50
is 500 mg/kg for rats, and the oral LD50 for chickens is 2,000 mg/kg
(NIOSH, 1977).
Ethalfluralin has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
Ethalfluralin is a pre-plant herbicide which kills germinating weeds;
IX-40
-------
however, weeds which are established are tolerant. In soil,
ethalfluralin has residual action on broad-leaved and annual grass weeds
in cotton, dry beans, and soybeans. The pure compound is a yellow-
orange crystalline solid with a melting point of 55° to 56°C, its
solubility in water is 0.2 mg/1 (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute
oral LD50 for rats is greater than 10,000 mg/kg. Skin applications of
2,000 mg/kg caused irritation to rabbits (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
The LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 0.032 mg/1
and 0.193 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (Segna, 1981).
Raw waste load concentrations of ethion have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Ethion is a nonsystemic insecticide and
acaricide used on both plants and animals. Specifically, it is used on
such crops as citrus, deciduous fruit, tea, and some vegetables
(Vettorazzi, 1979). Ethion is a white to amber-colored liquid which is
only slightly soluble in water (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Ethion is
very toxic to mammals with an acute oral LD50 of 24.4 mg/kg for female
rats and an acute dermal LD50 of 915 mg/kg for rabbits. Female rats on
a 28-day feeding program showed evidence of cholinesterase inhibition at
the 10 ppm level. Ethion is phytotoxic to some apple varieties (Martin
and Worthing, 1977). Ethion residues were present in the milk and fatty
tissues of dairy cattle after feeding ethion at a. level which simulates
contaminated fodder. It has been recommended that man's daily intake of
ethion should not exceed 0.05 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979). Ethion is
persistent in the soil for several months (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979).
The EC50 for the most sensitive organism reported (Daphnia; saltwater)
is 0.000056 mg/1 at 48 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980).
The LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 0.210 mg/1
and 0.500 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1980). The predicted BCF value for ethion is 418 (Kenaga,
1979).
t
Raw waste load concentrations of ethoprop have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Ethoprop is a nonsystemic, nonfumigant
nematicide and soil insecticide used on many crops. It is a clear, pale
yellow liquid with a boiling point of 86° to 91*C. Ethoprop is soluble
in water at a rate of 750 mg/1 (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Ethoprop is
highly toxic to mammals with an acute oral LD50 of 62 mg/kg for albino
rats and an acute dermal LD50 of 26 mg/kg for albino rabbits. In a
study of dogs and rats, there was evidence of depression of
cholinesterase levels (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The LC50 for the
rainbow trout (freshwater) is 1.15 mg/1 at 96 hours (Piecuch, 1980).
Etridiazole has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
Etridiazole is a fungicide used for control of some soil-borne diseases
of turf and ornamentals. It is also used as a seed treatment for pre-
and post-emergence cotton seedling diseases. The technical product is a
reddish-brown liquid which is practically insoluble in water. The acute
oral LD50 for mice is 2,000 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The LC50
for the most sensitive organism reported (Daphnia; saltwater) is
4.9 mg/1 at 96 hours (Segna, 1981). The LC50s for the bluegill and
IX-41
-------
rainbow trout (freshwater) are 9.0 mg/1 and 2.52 mg/1, respectively, at
96 hours (Segna, 1981).
Raw waste load concentrations of fensulfothion have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Fensulfothion is an insecticide
and nematicide applied to soil and has long persistence and some
systemic activity. Fensulfothion can penetrate plant tissue. It is an
oily yellow liquid with a boiling point of 138° to 141*C. Fensulfothion
is only slightly soluble in water with a rate of 1.5 g/1 at 258C (Martin
and Worthing, 1977). Fensulfothion is extremely toxic to mammals. In
both plants and animals it is metabolized by oxidation to more toxic
substances (Vettorazzi, 1979). The acute oral LD50 for male rats is
4.7 mg/kg to 10.5 nog/kg and the acute dermal LD50 for female rats is
3.5 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977). It has been recommended that
man's daily intake of fensulfothion should not exceed 0.003 nag/kg.
Fensulfothion persists in the soil for months. In 1971, four million
pounds were produced in the United States (MeEven and Stephenson,
1979). The LC50 for the most sensitive species reported (G_. fasciatus;
saltwater) is 0.01 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1980). The LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are
0.107 mg/1 and 9.06 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (Segna, 1981).
Raw waste load concentrations of fenthion have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Fenthion is a contact and stomach
insecticide with penetrating action used against fruit flies, leaf
hoppers, and cereal bugs. The technical product is a brown, oily liquid
with a weak garlic odor. Fenthion is soluble in water at room
temperature at a rate of 54 mg/1 to 56 mg/1 (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
The acute oral LD50 is 190 mg/kg to 315 mg/kg for male rats. The acute
dermal LD50 is 330 mg/kg to 500 mg/kg for rats. Fenthion is of greater
toxicity to dogs and poultry than to rats. The first metabolites of
fenthion sulphoxide and sulphone, are readily formed in plants by
oxidation and are more toxic to mammals than the pesticide product. The
acute oral LD50 is 125 mg/kg for rats (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Cholinesterase inhibition was suggested as the most sensitive biological
effect from short term studies on rats and dogs. The same tests
indicated that the animals did not respond to any known antidotes. In
both the rats and the dogs, the spleen was affected. It has been
recommended that man's daily intake of fenthion should not exceed
0.005 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979). Fenthion persists in the soil for
several months (Vettorazzi, 1979). The EC50 for the most sensitive
organism reported (Simocephalus; saltwater) is 0.00062 mg/1 at 48 hours
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, 1980).
Fenuron has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Fenuron is a
herbicide which is absorbed through roots and acts by inhibiting photo-
synthesis. It is used especially on woody plants. Fenuron is a white,
odorless crystalline solid with a melting point of 133° to 134°C. Its
solubility in water is 3.85" g/1 at 25°C. The acute oral LD50 of
fenuron is 6,400 mg/kg for rats (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The
predicted BCF value for fenuron is 6 (Kenaga, 1979).
IX-42
-------
Fenuron-TCA has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
Fenuron-TCA is a mixture of the two herbicides, fenuron and TCA. It is
recommended for the control of woody plants on noncrop areas.
Fenuron-TCA is a white, odorless crystalline solid with a melting point
of 65° to 68°C. Its solubility in water is 4.8 g/1 at room temperature.
The acute oral LD50 for female albino rats is 4,000 mg/kg (Martin and
Worthing, 1977).
Ferbam has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Ferbam is a
fungicide used mainly for the protection of foliage by spraying. It is
a black powder with a solubility in water of 130 mg/1 at room tempera-
ture (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 for rats is more
than 17 g/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977). It has been shown that ferbam
increases the skeletal stores of iron in the rat. Ferbam can react with
nitrite under mildly acid conditions, like those in the human stomach,
to produce N-nitrosodimethylamine which has been shown to be carcino-
genic in several animal species (Vettorazzi, 1979). It has been recom-
mended that man's daily intake of ferbam should not exceed 0.02 mg/kg
(Vettorazzi, 1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of fluoneturon have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Fluometuron is a herbicide with
weak foliar activity which can be absorbed through roots. It is used
for control of broad-leaved and grass weeds. Fluometuron is in the form
of white crystals with a melting point of 163° to 164.5°C. Its
solubility in water at 20°C is 105 mg/1 (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
The acute oral LD50 is greater than 8,000 mg/kg for rats (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). The LC50 for the rainbow trout (freshwater) is 3.0 mg/1
at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF
value for fluometuron is 47 (Kenaga, 1979).
Fluoroacetimide has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. It is
used as a rodenticide and insecticide. The oral LD50 for rats is
15 mg/kg (Windholz, 1976). It is very soluble in water. The skin LD50
is 80 mg/kg for rats. The intravenous LD50 is 0.250 mg/kg for rabbits
(NIOSH, 1977).
Glyodin has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Glyodin is
used as a fungicide. Its melting point is from 62 to 68°C (Windholz,
1976). The oral LDlo is 50 mg/kg for humans. The oral LD50 for rats is
6.80 mg/kg (NIOSH, 1977). The LC50 for the rainbow trout (freshwater)
is 0.47 mg/1 at 96 hours (Segna, 1981).
Raw waste load concentrations of glyphosate have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Glyphosate is a relatively
nonselective, post-emergent herbicide used on annual and perennial
grasses, sedges, and broad-leaved weeds. It is a white solid that melts
with decomposition at 230°C. Its solubility in water is 12 g/1 at 25°C
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute dermal LD50 is 4,320 mg/kg for
rabbits and the acute dermal LD50 for rabbits is greater than 8 g/kg
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The LC50 for the most sensitive organism
reported (fathead minnow; freshwater) is 1.0 mg/1 to 2.3 mg/1 at
IX-43
-------
96 hours (Piecuch, 1980). The LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow trout
(freshwater) are 135 mg/1 and 130 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF value for
glyphosate is 3 (Kenaga, 1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of hexazinone have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Hexazinone is a post-emergence
contact herbicide used against many annual, biennial, and perennial
weeds. It is a white, odorless, crystalline solid with a melting point
of 115° to 117°C. Hexazinone is soluble in water at a rate of 33 g/kg
at 25CC (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The TLM (96-hour) for bluegill
sunfish is between 370 mg/1 and 420 mg/1. The acute oral LD50 is
860 mg/kg for guinea pigs and the acute dermal LD50 is more than
5,278 mg/kg. Small doses in rabbit eyes causes irritation and
hexazinone has been classified as an eye irritant (Martin and Worthing,
1977). The LC50 for the most sensitive organism reported (Daphnia;
saltwater) is 145.3 mg/1 at 96 hours (Segna, 1981). The LCSOs for the
bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are greater than 370 mg/1 to
less than 420 mg/1 and greater than 320 mg/1 to less than 420 mg/1,
respectively, at 96 hours (Segna, 1981).
HPTMS has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. It is a
fungicide used for seed treatment and slime control (Packer, 1975). The
oral LD50 for rats is 794 mg/kg (NIOSH, 1977).
Isopropalin has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
Isopropalin is a pre-plant herbicide incorporated in the soil for direct
seeded tomatoes. It is a red-orange liquid with a solubility in water
of 0.1 mg/1. The acute oral LD50 for mice and rats is greater than
5,000 mg/kg. Isopropalin causes skin irritation in rabbits (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). The predicted BCF value for isopropalin is 7,500
(Kenaga, 1979).
KN methyl has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. KN methyl
is a fungicide. The oral TDlo is 129 gm/kg for mice (NIOSH, 1979).
Animal studies have revealed carcinogenic properties for this product
(NIOSH, 1977).
Raw waste load concentrations of linuron have been monitored at declared
proprietary levels. Linuron is a selective pre- and post-emergence
herbicide which inhibits photosynthesis. It is used on soybeans,
cotton, potatoes, carrots, and winter wheat. Linuron is a white
odorless crystalline solid with a melting point of 93° to 94°C. Its
solubility in water is 75 mg/1 at 25eC (Martin and Worthing, 1977) and
the acute oral LD50 of linuron is 500 mg/kg for dogs. Linuron causes
irritation to the skin of guinea pigs (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Linuron decomposes slowly in soil, persisting up to 4 months (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). The LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow trout (fresh-
water) are 2.8 mg/1 and 1.8 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (Segna,
1981). The predicted BCF value for linuron is 54 (Kenaga, 1979).
IX-44
-------
Raw waste load concentrations of malathion have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Malathion is a nonsystemic insecticide
and acaricide. It can be phytotoxic to cucumber, string bean, and
squash. Malathion has a wide range of uses including agricultural,
horticultural, and household pest. It is a clear, amber liquid with a
boiling point of 156° to 157°C. Its solubility in water is 145 mg/1 at
room temperature (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 for
rats is 2,800 rag/kg and the acute dermal LD50 is 4,100 rag/kg for
rabbits. Malathion is highly toxic to honey bees (Martin and Worthing,
1977). It has been recommended that man's daily intake of malathion
should not exceed 0.02 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979). In 1971, the United
States produced 3.5 million pounds of malathion (McEwen and Stephenson,
1979). The LC50 for the most sensitive organism reported (Isoperta;
saltwater) is 0.00069 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1980). The LCSOs for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are
0.103 mg/1 and 0.200 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF values for malathion is 37
(Kenaga, 1979).
Mancozeb has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Mancozeb is
a protective fungicide used against a wide range of foliage diseases.
It is a greyish-yellow powder and is practically insoluble in water
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 for rats is more than
8,000 mg/kg. Mancozeb causes skin irritation on repeated exposure
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). Concentrations of ethylenethiourea (ETU)
have been found in mancozeb. ETU produced thyroid and liver tumors in
experimental animals. In addition, ETU is teratogenic and nmtagenic.
In a three generation study with rats, reduced fertility was noted
(Vettorazzi, 1979). It has been recommended that man's daily intake of
mancozeb should not exceed 0.005 mg/kg of body weight (Vettorazzi,
1979). The LC50 for the rainbow trout (freshwater) is 0.64 mg/1 at
96 hours (EPA, OPP).
Maneb has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Maneb is a
protective fungicide used against many foliage diseases in potatoes and
tomatoes. It is a yellow crystalline solid which is only slightly
soluble in water (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 and
inhalation LD50 for rats are 6,750 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977) and
3,000 mg/kg (Little, 1980), respectively. Toxicity to fish in the
96-hour TLM is 0.1 mg/1 to 1.0 mg/1 (Little, 1980). The chemical
breakdown of maneb produces ethylenethiourea (ETU). ETU has been found
to produce thyroid and liver tumors and is also teratogenic and
mutagenic (Vettorazzi, 1979). It has been recommended that man's daily
intake of maneb should not exceed 0.005 mg/kg of body weight
(Vettorazzi, 1979). This is equal to 0.36 mg per day for a 160 pound
human. The LC50 for the bluegill (freshwater) is 1.0 mg/1 at 96 hours
(EPA, OPP).
Raw waste load concentrations of mephosfolan have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Mephosfolan is a contact and
stomach insecticide which demonstrates systemic activity following root
or foliar absorption. It is used on such crops as cotton, vegetables,
IX-45
-------
fruit, and field crops. It is a yellow to amber liquid with a boiling
point of 120°C. Mephosfolan is moderately soluble in water (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). Mephosfolan is extremely toxic to mammals with an
acute oral LD50 for rats of 8.9 mg/kg of body weight and an acute dermal
LD50 of 9.7 mg/kg for male albino rabbits. In 90-day feeding tests,
male rats fed at rates up to 15 ppm demonstrated a reduction in
erythrocyte and brain cholinesterase activity (Martin and Worthing,
1977).
Merphos has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Merphos is
used to defoliate cotton prior to harvest. It is a colorless to pale
yellow liquid with a boiling point of 115" to 134°C. Merphos has a very
low solubility in water. The acute oral LD50 for male albino rats is
1,272 mg/kg and the acute dermal LD50 is greater than 4,600 mg/kg for
albino rabbits. Dogs and cats fed for 90 days with a diet containing
750 ppm showed depression of cholinesterase levels (Martin and Worthing,
1977). The LC50 for the rainbow trout (freshwater) is 33 mg/1 at
96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980).
Metasol J-26 has not been monitored in the pesticide industry and no
in format ion on toxicity was available at time of publication.
Metham has not been monitored in raw waste loads in the pesticide
industry. Metham is a soil fungicide, nematicide, and herbicide which
has fumigant action. It decomposes to the active component methyl
isothiocyanate. Metham is phytotoxic and is persistent in soil for
approximately two weeks. It is a white, crystalline solid with a
solubility in water of 722 g/1 at 20°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The
acute oral LD50 of metham is 285 mg/kg for albino mice and the acute
oral LD50 of methyl isothiocyanate is 97 mg/kg. The acute dermal LD50
is 800 mg/kg for rabbits. Metham is an irritant to the eyes, skin, and
mucous membranes. Exposure to the skin or eyes should be treated as a
burn (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Methiocarb has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Methiocarb
is a nonsystemic insecticide and acaricide with a broad range of action
which includes effectiveness in killing snails. It is also used as a
bird repellent by seed dressing. Methiocarb is a white crystalline
powder with a melting point of 117° to 118eC. It is practically
insoluble in water. The acute oral LD50 is 100 mg/kg for male rats and
40 mg/kg for guinea-pigs and the acute dermal LD50 is 350 mg/kg to
400 mg/kg for male rats (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The LC50 for the
most sensitive organism reported (Pteronarcys; saltwater) is 0.005 mg/1
at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The LC50 for the
bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) is 0.21 mg/1 and 0.80 mg/1,
respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980).
Raw waste load concentrations of methomyl have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Methomyl is used for control of many
insects by foliar application and has systemic action when incorporated
in the soil. It is a white crystalline solid with a slight sulphurous
odor. The melting point is 78 to 79°C. Methomyl is soluble in water at
IX-46
-------
a rate of 58 g/1 at 25°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The TLM (96-hour)
is 3.4 mg/1 for rainbow trout and 0.1 mg/1 for goldfish. The acute oral
LD50 of 24 percent methomyl liquid is 17 to 214 n»g/kg for rats. The
acute dermal ID50 is greater than 5,000 mg/kg for rabbits for the
24 percent liquid (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The EC50 for the most
sensitive organism reported (Daphnia; saltwater) is 0.0088 mg/1 at
48 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The LCSOs for the
bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 1.050 mg/1 and 1.600 mg/1,
respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The
predicted BCF value for methomyl is 3 (Kenaga, 1979).
Methoxychlor has not been monitored in raw waste loads in the pesticide
industry. Methoxychlor is a nonsystemic contact and stomach insecti-
cide. It has been recommended for fly control in dairy barns, and is
used on many crops near harvest time (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979).
Methoxychlor is a grey, flaky powder which is practically insoluble in
water (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 is 6,000 mg/kg
for rats (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Methoxychlor is highly toxic to
fish. It has been recommended that man's daily intake of methoxychlor
should not exceed 0.1 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979). The LC50 for the most
sensitive organism reported (Oronectes; saltwater) is 0.00050 mg/1 at
96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The LCSOs for the
bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 0.032 mg/1 and 0.062 mg/1,
respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The
calculated BCF value for methoxychlor is 185 (Kenaga, 1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of metribuzin have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Metribuzin is a herbicide used
in soybeans, potatoes, tomatoes, and other crops. The technical product
is white to yellowish and crystalline, and its solubility in water is
1.2 g/1 at 20°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 is
698 mg/kg for male mice. The LCSOs for the bluegill and rainbow trout
(freshwater) are 80.0 mg/1 and 76 mg/1 to 147 mg/1, respectively, at
96 hours (Segna, 1981). The predicted BCF value for metribuzin is 11
(Kenaga, 1979).
Mevinphos has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Mevinphos
is a volatile contact and systemic insecticide and acaricide used
against sap-feeding insects, mites, beetles, and caterpillars. The
technical product is a pale yellow to orange liquid with a mild odor.
The boiling point is 99* to 103°C. Mevinphos is miscible in water
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). Mevinphos is extremely toxic to fish and
mammals. The TLM (24-hour) for mosquito fish is 0.8 mg/1. The acute
oral LD50 is 3 mg/kg to 12 mg/kg for rats, and the acute dermal LD50 is
16 mg/kg to 34 mg/kg for rabbits (Martin and Worthing, 1977). It has
been recommended that man's daily intake of mevinphos should not exceed
0.0015 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979). Reproduction studies of mammals showed
a reduction in milk production at the 1.2 mg/kg/day level (Vettorazzi,
1979). The EC50 for the most sensitive organism reported (Daphnia;
saltwater) is 0.00018 mg/1 at 48 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1980). The LCSOs for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are
IX-47
-------
0.0225 rag/1 and 0.0119 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1980).
Mexacarbate has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. It is
used as a moll useicide and has a very low solubility of 0.01 percent at
25eC. Its melting point is 85°C (Windholz, 1976). The oral LD50 for
female rats is 25 mg/kg (Windholz, 1976). The EC50 for the most
sensitive organism reported (Daphnia; saltwater) is 0.010 mg/1 at
48 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The LCSOs for the
bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 22.9 mg/1 and 12.0 mg/1,
respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The
predicted BCF value for mexacarbate is 42 (Kenaga, 1979).
Mirex has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Mirex is a
stomach insecticide with little contact activity. Its widest use has
been against fire ants. Mirex is a white solid which is practically
insoluble in water (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Mirex is toxic to
birds, fish, and crustaceans. The acute oral LD50 is 306 mg/kg for male
albino rats. The acute dermal LD50 is 800 mg/kg for rabbits (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). Mirex has been shown to produce an increased incidence
of hepatornas in both sexes of two strains of mice (Vettorazzi, 1979). A
large number of workers contracted a severe, debilitating disease at a
plant which manufactured a closely related metabolite of mirex called
chlordecone. The EC50 for the most sensitive organism reported
(Simocephalus; saltwater) is greater than 0.100 mg/1 at 48 hours
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The LC50 for the rainbow trout
(freshwater) is greater than 100 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF value for mirex is 820
(Kenaga, 1979).
Monuron has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Monuron is a
herbicide which is absorbed by roots and is an inhibitor of photosyn-
thesis. It is used on noncrop land such as rights-of-way, industrial
sites, and drainage ditches. Monuron is a white odorless crystalline
solid with a melting point of 174° to 175°C. Its solubility in water is
230 mg/1 at 25 °C. The mammalian toxicity of monuron is moderate (LD50
for rats 3,600 mg/kg); however, it is a suspected carcinogen. In
studies of mice which were fed monuron orally, an increased incidence of
liver and lung tumors was observed. Tumors were observed at various
sites in rats which were fed monuron (Vettorazzi, 1979). The LC50 for
the bluegill (freshwater) is 3.6 mg/1 at 96 hours (Piecuch, 1980). The
predicted BCF value for monuron is 29 (Kenaga, 1979).
Monuron-TCA has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
Monuron-TCA is a general herbicide used for total weed control in
uncropped areas such as rights-of-way, industrial sites, and drainage
ditches. ^Monuron-TCA is a crystalline solid with a melting point of
78° to 81°C. Its solubility in water is 918 mg/1 at room temperature.
The acute oral LD50 of monuron-TCA in corn oil for female rats is
2,300 mg/kg. Monuron-TCA is a skin irritant and harmful to mucous
membranes (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
IX-48
-------
Nabam has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Nabam is a
protective fungicide which, when applied to the soil, has systemic
action. Nabam is too phytotoxic to be applied to foliage. It exists in
the form of colorless crystals. Nabam is 20 percent soluble in water at
room temperature and forms a yellow solution (Martin and Worthing,
1977). The acute LD50 is 395 mg/kg for rats (Martin and Worthing,
1977). The LC50 for the harlequin fish (saltwater) is 0.7 mg/1 at
96 hours (Piecuch, 1981).
Naled has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Naled is a
fast-acting nonsystemic contact and stomach insecticide and acaricide
with fumigant action. It is recommended for use in greenhouses,
mushroom houses, and against adult mosquitoes and flies on crops. Naled
is a yellow liquid with a slightly pungent odor and a boiling point of
110°C. It is practically insoluble in water (Martin and Worthing,
1977). The TLM (24-hour) is 2 mg/1 to 4 mg/1 for goldfish and 0.33 mg/1
for crabs. The acute oral LD50 is 430 mg/kg for rats, and the acute
dermal LD50 is 1,100 mg/kg for rabbits (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The
EC50 for the most sensitive organism reported (Paphnia; saltwater) is
0.0004 mg/1 at 48 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The
LCSOs for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 2.200 mg/1 and
0.195 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1980).
Neburon has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Neburon is a
pre-emergence herbicide which is absorbed through roots and acts by
inhibiting photosynthesis. It is recommended for control of annual
weeds and grasses in wheat, strawberries, and nursery plantings of
certain woody ornamentals. Neburon is a white, odorless, crystalline
solid with a melting point of 102eC to 103°C. Its solubility in water
is 4.8 mg/kg at 24°C. The acute oral LD50 of neburon is greater than
11,000 mg/kg for rats. The predicted BCF value for neburon is 255
(Kenaga, 1979).
Niacide has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Niacide is a
fungicide. The oral LP50 for humans is 500 mg/kg. The intraperitoneal
LD50 is 2,700 kg/mg for rats. The oral LD50 is 4,000 mg/kg for rats
(NIOSH, 1977). The LC50 for the bluegill (freshwater) is 1.8 mg/1 at
96 hours (Piecuch, 1980).
Oxamyl has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Oxamyl is a
contact-type insecticide with residual action. It is applied to foliage
and soil. In plants, oxarayl translocates in both an upward and downward
direction. Oxamyl is applied to soil to control nematodes and to
foliage to control a variety of insects. Oxamyl is a white, crystalline
solid with a slight sulphurous odor. Its melting point is 100°C to
102°C and is soluble in water at a rate of 280 g/kg at 25°C (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). Oxamyl is extremely toxic to fish and mammals. The
TLM (96-hour) is 5.6 mg/1 for bluegill, sunfish, and goldfish and
4.2 mg/1 for rainbow trout. The acute oral LD50 is 5.4 mg/kg for male
rats, and the acute dermal LD50 for male rabbits is 2,960 mg/kg (Martin
and Worthing, 1977). The LC50 for the most sensitive organism reported
IX-49
-------
(Daphnia, saltwater) is 0.49 mg/1 at 96 hours (Segna, 1981). The LCSOs
for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 5.6 mg/1 and
4.2 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (Segna, 1981).
Parathion ethyl has been detected in raw waste loads at declared
proprietary concentrations. The LC50 for the most sensitive organism
reported (Orconectes, saltwater) is 0.00004 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1980). The LCSOs for the bluegill and rainbow
trout (freshwater) are 0.024 mg/1 and 0.750 mg/1, respectively, at
96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980).
Raw waste load concentrations of parathion methyl have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Parathion methyl is a non-
systemic contact and stomach insecticide which has some fumigant action.
Parathion methyl is used as a household spray for ants and cockroaches
(McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). It is a white-crystalline powder with a
melting point of 35° to 36"C. Approximately 60 mg/1 is soluble in water
at 25*C. The technical product is a light to dark tan liquid (Martin
and Worthing, 1977). Parathion methyl is highly toxic to wildlife.
Reproduction studies show disturbance of the physiology of reproduction
(Vettorazzi, 1979). The acute oral LD50 for male rats is 14 mg/kg, and
the acute dermal LD50 for rats is 67 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
It has been recommended that man's daily intake of parathion methyl
should not exceed 0.001 mg/kg of body weight. In 1971, 10 million
pounds of parathion methyl were produced, of which three million pounds
were used in agriculture. The EC50 for the most sensitive organism
reported (Daphnia; saltwater) is 0.00014 mg/1 at 48 hours (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1980). The LCSOs for the bluegill and rainbow trout
(freshwater) are 4.380 mg/1 and 3.700 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980).
Raw waste load concentrations of PCNB have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. PCNB is a fungicide used for seed and
soil treatment. It exists in the form of colorless needles with a
melting point of 146°C. PCNB is practically insoluble in water (Martin
and Worthing, 1977). An increased number of eye abnormalities, cleft
palates, and renal agenesia were observed in mice after exposure to
PCNB. In a 2-year study using dogs, morphological changes occurred in
the liver and bone marrow (Vettorazzi, 1979). The acute oral LD50 for
rats is greater than 12,000 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977). It has
been recommended that man's daily intake of PCNB should not exceed
0.007 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979). The LCSOs for the bluegill and rainbow
trout (freshwater) are 1.40 mg/1 and 0.047 mg/1, respectively, at
96 hours (Segna, 1981). PCNB showed positive results in testing for
carcinogenicity (Residue Reviews, 1975).
PGP salt has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. PCP salt
exists in the form of buff flakes with a solubility in water of 330 g/kg
at 25°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 for rats is
210 mg/kg (NIOSH, 1979). The LC50 for the bluegill and rainbow trout
(freshwater) is 0.044 mg/1 and 0.055 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980).
IX-50
-------
Perthane has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Perthane is
a nonsystemic insecticide with specific applications. It is recommended
for use against pear psylla, leaf hoppers, and various larvae on
vegetable crops. Perthane is also used to control clothes moths and
carpet beetles. The technical product is a wax with a melting point
above 40°C and is practically insoluble in water. The acute oral LD50
is 6,600 mg/kg for mice. Perthane is of moderate persistence in soil.
The LC50 for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) is 0.020 mg/1
and 0.004 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1980).
Raw waste load concentrations of phorate have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Phorate is a systemic and contact
insecticide and acaricide used to protect crops such as root and field
crops, cotton, and coffee. It is also used as a soil insecticide on
corn and sugar beets. Phorate is a clear liquid with a boiling point of
118° to 120°C. Its solubility in water is 50 mg/1 at room temperature
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The major metabolites of phorate in both
plants and animals are sulfoxides, sulfones, and phoratoxon which
demonstrate high cholinesterase activity (Vettorazzi, 1979). Phorate is
extremely toxic to mammals. The acute oral LD50 is 1.6 mg/kg, and the
acute dermal LD50 is 2.5 mg/kg for female rats (Martin and Worthing,
1977). Phorate is very persistent in the environment. It has been
shown that carrots are capable of taking up and storing large quantities
of phorate (Vettorazzi, 1979). The LC50 for the most sensitive organism
reported (bluegill; freshwater) is 0.0018 mg/1 at 96 hours (Segna,
1981). The LC50 for the rainbow trout (freshwater) is 0.013 mg/1 at
96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF
value for phorate is 68 (Kenaga, 1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of profluralin have been monitored at
declared proprietary levels. Profluralin is a preplant herbicide
applied to soil. It is used to control annual and perennial weeds and
grasses in cotton, soybeans, and other crops. It is a yellow- orange
crystalline solid with a melting point of 32°C. At 20eC, 0.1 mg of
profluralin will dissolve in 1 liter of water. The acute oral LD50 is
10,000 mg/kg for rats, and the acute dermal LD50 for rats is greater
than 3,170 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The predicted BCF value
for profluralin is 2,260 (Kenaga, 1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of prometon have been monitored at
declared proprietary levels. Prometon is a nonselective herbicide for
the control of annual and perennial broad-leaved and grass weeds. The
inclusion of prometon in asphalt is under investigation. Prometon is a
white crystalline solid with a melting point of 91° to 92°C. Its
solubility in water is 750 mg/1 at 20°C. The acute oral LD50 is
2,980 mg/kg for rats, and the acute dermal LD50 is 2,200 mg/kg for
rabbits (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The LC50 for the bluegill and
rainbow trout (freshwater) is greater than 32.0 mg/1 and 20 mg/1,
respectively, at 96 hours (Segna, 1981). The predicted BCF value for
prometon is 15 (Kenaga, 1979).
IX-51
-------
Raw waste load concentrations of prometryn have been monitored at
declared proprietary levels. Prometryn is a pre- and post-emergence
herbicide which is used for selective weed control in cotton, peas,
carrots, celery, and potatoes. It is a white crystalline solid with a
melting point of 118° to 120°C. Prometryn is soluble in water at a rate
of 48 mg/1 at 20°C. The acute oral LD50 for rats is 3,150 to
3,750 mg/kg, and the acute dermal LD50 is greater than 10,200 mg/kg for
rabbits. Prometryn persists in the soil from 1 month to 3 months
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The LCSOs for the bluegill and rainbow
trout (freshwater) are 10 mg/1 and 2.5 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours
(Segna, 1981). The predicted BCF value for prometryn is 70 (Kenaga,
1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of propachlor have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Propachlor is a pre-emergence
herbicide used against annual grasses and certain broad-leaved weeds in
corn, cotton, soybeans, and several other vegetable crops. It is a
light tan solid with a melting point of 67° to 76eC. Propachlor is
soluble in water at a rate of 700 mg/1 at 20°C. The acute oral LD50 of
a 65 percent working product is 1,200 mg/kg for rats. The acute dermal
LD50 of a 10.4 percent suspension in water is 380 mg/kg for rabbits.
Propachlor persists in the soil from 4 to 6 weeks (Martin and Worthing,
1977). The LC50 for the bluegill (freshwater) is 3.6 mg/1 at 96 hours
(EPA, OPP). The predicted BCF value for propachlor is 17 (Kenaga,
1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of propazine have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Propazine is a pre-emergence herbicide
used against broad-leaved and grass weeds in millet and carrots. It is
in the form of colorless crystals with a melting point of 212° to 214"C.
Propazine is soluble in water at a rate of 8.6 mg/1 at 20°C. It is
toxic to quail, ducks, trout, bluegills, and mammals. The acute oral
LD50 is greater than 5,000 mg/kg for rats, and the acute dermal LD50 is
greater than 10,200 mg/kg for rabbits (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The
LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are greater than
100 mg/1 and 17.5 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (Segna, 1981). The
predicted BCF value for propazine is 184 (Kenaga, 1979).
Propham has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Propham is a
selective pre-planting, pre-emergence, and post-emergence herbicide used
mainly for the control of annual grass weeds in peas and beets. It is
absorbed by roots and acts by inhibiting cell mitosis (Vettorazzi,
1979). It exists in the form of white crystals with a melting point of
87" to 87.6*C. Prophams' solubility in water has been reported at
various rates including 32 mg/1, 100 mg/1, and 250 mg/1 from 20* to 25°C
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 is 5,000 mg/kg for
rats. It has been shown that propham had a tumor-initiating activity
when applied to the skin of rats and acts as an initiator in 2-stage
carcinogenesis when administered orally to mice (Vettorazzi, 1979). The
EC50 for the most sensitive organism (Daphnia; saltwater) is 8.0 mg/1 at
48 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The LCSOs for the
bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 29 mg/1 and 38 mg/1,
IX-52
-------
respectively, at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The
predicted BCF value for propham is 27 (Kenaga, 1979).
Propoxur has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Propoxur is
a nonsystemic insecticide with rapid knock-down power. It is used
extensively on field crops, fruits, and vegetables, and in the household
against flies and cockroaches. Propoxur has some systemic action in
plants. It is a white crystalline powder with a faint odor and a
melting point of 84° to 87°C. Propoxur is soluble in water at a rate of
2 g/1 at 20°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 is 90 to
128 mg/kg for male rats and 40 mg/kg for guinea pigs. Propoxur is
highly toxic to birds. The acute oral LD50 for red-winged blackbirds is
2 mg/kg to 6 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg for starlings. It is
extremely toxic to honey bees (Martin and Worthing, 1977), Propoxur has
residual activity for several weeks when applied indoors (McEwen and
Stephenson, 1979). The LC50 for the most sensitive organism reported
(Pteronarcys; saltwater) is 0.018 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1980). The LCSOs for the bluegill and rainbow trout
(freshwater) are 4.800 mg/1 and 8.200 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF value for
propoxur is 9 (Kenaga, 1979).
Pyrethrin has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Pyrethrins
are potent, nonsystemic, contact insecticides causing rapid paralysis.
Pyrethrins are practically insoluble in water. They break down in the
presence of sunlight and are rapidly oxidized in air. The acute oral
LD50 is 584 mg/kg to 900 mg/kg, and the acute dermal LD50 is greater
than 1,500 mg/kg for rats (Martin and Worthing, 1977). It has been
recommended that man's daily intake of pyrethrins should not exceed
0.04 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979). The LCSOs for the bluegill and rainbow
trout (freshwater) are 0.049 mg/1 and 0.054 mg/1, respectively, at
96 hours (Segna, 1981).
Ronnel has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Ronnel is a
systemic insecticide which is used as a residual spray for flies and
other household pests. It is also used as a spray for control of
ectoparasites of livestock, poultry, and household pets. Ronnel is a
white, crystalline powder with a melting point of 40° to 42°C. Its
solubility in water is 40 mg/1 (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Ronnel is
phytotoxic to plants. Its most sensitive effect on animals is the
inhibition of cholinesterase activity. It has been recommended that
man's daily intake of ronnel should not exceed 0.01 mg/kg (Vettorazzi,
1979). The acute oral LD50 for rats is 1,740 rog/kg, and the acute
dermal LD50 is 2,000 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The LC50 for
the most sensitive organism reported (rainbow trout; freshwater) is
0.550 ug/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The LC50
for the bluegill (freshwater) is 1.300 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF value for ronnel is 225
(Kenaga, 1979).
Siduron has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Siduron is a
selective herbicide which is used to control crabgrass and annual weed
IX-53
-------
grasses. It is a white, odorless, crystalline, solid with a melting
point of 133" to 138eC. Siduron is soluble in water at a rate of
18 mg/1 at 25°C. The acute oral LD50 for rats is more than 7,500 mg/kg
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The LC50 for rainbow trout (freshwater) is
9.4 mg/1 at 96 hours (EPA, OPP).
Raw waste load concentrations of si 1vex have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Silvex is a hormone-type herbicide
which is absorbed by leaves and stems and demonstrates translocation
properties. It is used for control of brush submergent and emergent
aquatic weeds, and weed control for certain crops. Silvex is a white
powder which is soluble in water at a rate of 140 mg/1 at 25°C. The
acute oral LD50 is 650 mg/kg for rats. Silvex is painful to the eyes
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow
trout (freshwater) are 103 mg/1 and 70.0 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours
(Segna, 1981). The predicted BCF value for silvex is 38 (Kenaga,
1979).
Silvex isooctyl ester has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
See silvex for environmental and health effects. The LC50 for the
rainbow trout (freshwater) is 22.0 mg/1 at 96 hours (EPA, OPP).
Silvex salt has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. See
silvex for environmental and health effects.
Raw waste load concentrations of simazine have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Simazine is a pre-emergence herbicide
used for the control of broad-leaved and grassy weeds in deep-rooted
crops such as citrus, deciduous fruits, and olives. It is a white
crystalline solid with a melting point of 225° to 227eC. Simazine is
soluble in water at a rate of 5 mg/1 at 20° to 22°C. The acute oral
LD50 for rats is greater than 5,000 mg/kg, and the acute dermal LD50 is
greater than 10,200 mg/kg for rabbits (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The
EC50 for the most sensitive organism reported (Daphnia; saltwater) is
1.1 mg/1 at 48 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The LCSOs
for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 16 mg/1 and
5.2 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (Segna, 1981). The calculated BCF
value for simazine is 1 (Kenaga, 1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of simetryne have been monitored at
declared proprietary levels. Simetryne is a herbicide which is used in
combination with S-4-chlorobenzyl diethyldithiocarbamate to control
woodleafed weeds in rice. It is in the form of white crystals with a
melting point of 82° to 838C. Simetryne is soluble in water at a rate
of 450 mg/1 at room temperature. The acute oral LD50 is 1,830 mg/kg for
rats (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Sodium monofluoroacetate has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry. Sodium monofluoroacetate is an extremely strong mammalian
poison. It is a white, hydroscopic powder which is very water soluble
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). Sodium monofluoroacetate is a strong
inhibitor of respiration at the cellular level (McEwen and Stephenson,
IX-54
-------
1979). The acute oral LD50 is 0.22 mg/kg for the Norway rat (Martin and
Worthing, 1977).
Stirofos has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Stirofos is
a selective insecticide used to kill insects on fruit, rice, cotton,
corn, and other vegetables. The technical product is a white crystal-
line solid with a solubility in water of 11 mg/1 at 20°C. The acute
oral LD50 is 2,500 mg/kg for rats and 5,000 mg/kg for mice. The acute
dermal LD50 is greater than 2,500 mg/kg for rabbits. The acute oral
LD50 for mallard ducks is greater than 2,000 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing,
1977). The LCSOs for the bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are
0.05 mg/1 and 0.38 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours (Segna, 1981). Tests
for carcinogenicity were shown to have positive results (NIOSH, 1979).
SWEP has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. SWEP is a pre-
and post-emergence herbicide used to control seedlings of annual weeds
and grasses in rice and large-seeded legumes. It is a white solid with
a melting point of 112* to 114°C. SWEP is practically insoluble in
water. The acute oral LD50 is 552 mg/kg for rats, and the acute dermal
LD50 for rabbits is more than 2,480 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Raw waste load concentrations of 2,4,5-T have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. 2,4,5-T is a herbicide used to kill
woody plants. It is applied as a foliage, dormant shoot, or bark spray.
Two methods of application of 2,4,5-T are girdling and direct plant
injection. 2,4,5-T acid exists in the form of white crystals with a
solubility in water of 278 mg/1 at 25°C. 2,4,5-T salts are water
soluble; however, esters of 2,4,5-T are insoluble in water (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 for dogs is 100 mg/kg (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). An increased incidence of tumors was observed at
various sites in mice when 2,4,5-T was administered orally and dermally
(Vettorazzi, 1979). The LC50 for the most sensitive organism reported
(lobo salmon; freshwater) is greater than 10 mg/1 at 96 hours (Piecuch,
1981). 2,4,5-T is suspected of being carcinogenic (NIOSH, 1979). The
predicted BCF value for 2,4,5-T is 28 (Kenaga, 1979).
Terbacil has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Terbacil is
a herbicide which acts as an inhibitor of photosynthesis. It is
absorbed by roots and translocates to leaves. Terbacil is used for
control of many annual and some perennial weeds in crops such as sugar
cane, apples, peaches, citrus, and mint. It is a white crystalline
solid with a solubility in water of 710 mg/1 at 25°C. The acute oral
LD50 is greater than 5,000 mg/kg for rats (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Terbacil is persistent in the soil and has an average half-life of
several months (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). The LC50 for the rainbow
trout (freshwater) is 54.0 mg/1 at 96 hours (EPA, OPP). The predicted
BCF value for terbacil is 15 (Kenaga, 1979).
Raw waste load concentrations of terbufos have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Terbufos is a soil-applied insecticide
with residual action. It is used on cotton, sugar beets, cabbage, and
onions. The technical product is a clear, colorless to pale yellow
IX-55
-------
liquid with a boiling point of 69°C. Terbufos is soluble in water at a
rate of 10 mg/1 to 15 mg/1 at room temperature. Terbufos is extremely
toxic to mammals. The acute oral LD50 is 1.6 mg/kg to 4.5 mg/kg for
male albino rats, and the acute dermal LD50 is 1.0 mg/kg to 7.4 mg/kg
for albino rats and rabbits. Long-term feeding studies of dogs, mice,
and rats showed depression of cholinesterase activity (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). The LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow trout
(freshwater) are 0.013 mg/1 and 0.068 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours
(Segna, 1981). The predicted BCF value for terbufos is 152 (Kenaga,
1979).
Terbuthylazine has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
Terbuthylazine is a herbicide which is taken up by roots and controls a
wide range of weeds. It is used as a pre-emergence herbicide in sorghum
and for selective weed control in corn, vineyards, and citrus.
Terbuthylazine is a white solid which is soluble in water at a rate of
8.5 mg/1 at 20°C. The acute oral LD50 is 2,160 mg/kg for rats, and the
acute dermal LD50 of an 80 percent formulation is 10,200 mg/kg for
rabbits. Terbuthylazine is toxic to quail, ducks, carp, catfish, and
trout (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The LC50 for the most sensitive
organism reported (Daphnia; saltwater) is 0.013 mg/1 at 96 hours (Segna,
1981).
Terbutryn has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Terbutryn
is a selective pre- and post-emergence herbicide for use on winter
cereals, sunflowers, potatoes, and peas. It is a white powder with a
melting point of 104" to 105°C. Terbutryn is soluble in water at a rate
of 58 mg/1 at 20°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Terbutryn is toxic to
trout, carp, catfish, bluegill, sunfish, and birds. The acute oral LD50
is 2,400 mg/kg to 2,980 mg/kg for rats and 4,000 mg/kg for hens (Martin
and Worthing, 1977). The LC50s for the bluegill and rainbow trout
(freshwater) are 2.70 mg/1 and 0.82 mg/1, respectively, at 96 hours
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The predicted BCF value for
terbutryn is 100 (Kenaga, 1979).
Triademefon has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
Triadeaefon is a systemic fungicide vrfiich has protective action. It is
used against mildew and rusts on vegetables, cereals, coffee, and
grapes. Triademefon is a colorless solid with a melting point of
83.3'C. Its solubility in water is 250 mg/1 at 20°C (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). Triademefon is toxic to fish and mammals. The TLM
(96-hour) for Carassius auratus is 10 mg/1 to 50 mg/1. The acute oral
LD50 is 363 mg/kg for female rats, and the acute dermal LD50 is more
than 1,000 mg/kg for rats (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Tributyltin benzoate has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
Tributyltin benzoate is a fungicide used mainly on leather and textiles
(Packer, 1975). The oral LD50 for rats is 132 mg/kg (NIOSH, 1977). The
LC50 for the bluegill (freshwater) is 0.064 mg/1 at 96 hours (EPA,
OPP).
IX-56
-------
Tributyltin oxide has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
Tributyltin oxide is a fungicide used in lumber, paint, plastics, and
fabrics (Packer, 1975). The oral LD50 is 87 mg/kg for rats (NIOSH,
1977). The LC50 for the most sensitive organism reported (Daphnia;
saltwater) is 0.00167 mg/1 at 96 hours (Segna, 1981). The LC50s for
bluegill and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 0.0076 mg/1 and 0.0056 mg/1,
respectively, at 96 hours (Segna, 1981).
Trichloronate has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
Trichloronate is a nonsystemic insecticide. The acute oral LD50 is
16 mg/kg to 37 mg/kg for rats (Worthing, 1979).
Tricyclazole has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
Tricyclazole is a fungicide used on rice for the control of blast
disease. It is a crystalline solid with a melting point of 187" to
188°C. Tricyclazole is soluble in water at a rate of 1.6 g/1 at 25*C
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). Tricyclazole is very toxic to fish. The
TLMs (96-hour) for rainbow trout and bluegill sunfish are 1.62 mg/1 and
1.96 mg/1, respectively. This compound is also toxic to mammals. The
acute oral LD50 is 250 mg/kg for mice (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Raw waste load concentrations of trifluralin have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Trifluralin is a pre-emergence
herbicide with some post-emergence activity when incorporated in the
soil (Martin and Worthing, 1977). It is absorbed by penetrating shoots
and roots of young seedlings and inhibits growth in the entire seedling,
especially in lateral root formation (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). It
is used to control broad-leaved weeds and annual grasses in cotton
legumes, beans, and orange trees. Trifluralin is an orange, crystalline
solid with a melting point of 48.5* to 49°C. Its solubility in water is
less than 1 mg/1 at 27°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Trifluralin is
toxic to fish. The LC50 for bluegills is 0.058 ppm and for goldfish
0.056 ppm (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). The acute oral LD50 for dogs,
rabbits, and chickens is greater than 2,000 mg/kg (Martin and Worthing,
1977). Trifluralin is very persistent in the environment due to its
immobility in soil caused by its low solubility in water and tendency to
absorb to soil particles (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). Trifluralin is
persistent in soil up to 1 year (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The LC50
for the most sensitive organism reported (rainbow trout; freshwater) is
0.041 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The LC50
for the bluegill (freshwater) is 0.058 mg/1 at 96 hours (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1980). Trifluralin showed positive results in tests
for carcinogenicity (NIOSH, 1979). The calculated BCF value for
trifluralin is 4,570 (Kenaga, 1979).
Vancide 51Z has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Vancide
51Z is a fungicide. The oral LD50 is 540 mg/kg for rats. The
subcutaneous TDlo is 1,000 mg/kg (NIOSH, 1977).
Vancide 51Z dispersion has not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
See vancide 51Z for environmental and health effects.
IX-57
-------
Vancide TH has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Vancide TH
is a fungicide for mold control in coolants and cutting. The acute oral
LD50 is 316 mg/kg for rats (NIOSH, 1977). The LCSOs for the bluegill
and rainbow trout (freshwater) are 39.9 mg/1 and 25.2 rag/1,
respectively, at 96 hours (Segna, 1981).
Raw waste load concentrations of ZA.C have been monitored at levels which
are declared proprietary. ZAC is a nonsystemic fungicide used for
foliage application. Information on environmental and health effects
was not available at time of publication.
Raw waste load concentrations of zineb have been monitored at levels
which are declared proprietary. Zineb is a fungicide used to protect
foliage and is phytotoxic to zinc-sensitive plants. Zineb is a
light-colored powder which is soluble in water at a rate of 10 mg/1 at
room temperature (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 is
more than 5,000 mg/kg for rats (Martin and Worthing, 1977). The
chemical breakdown of zineb produces ethylenethiourea (ETU), ethylene
thiuram monosulfide, and ethylenediamine. ETU has been shown to produce
tumors in the thyroid gland. An increased incidence of lung tumors was
observed in studies of mice which were fed sublethal doses of zineb.
Dermally applied, zineb also produced tumors in mice. It is recommended
that man's daily intake of zineb should not exceed 0.005 mg/kg
(Vettorazzi, 1979). The LCSOs for the bluegill and rainbow trout
(freshwater) are greater than 180 mg/1 and 20.8 mg/1, respectively, at
96 hours (Segna, 1981). Zineb is suspected of being a carcinogen
(NIOSH, 1979).
Ziram has not been monitored in the pesticide industry. Ziram is a
protective fungicide used on fruit and vegetable crops and is phytotoxic
to zinc-sensitive plants. Ziram is a white, odorless powder with a
melting point of 240°C. Its solubility in water is 65 mg/1 at 25*C
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). The acute oral LD50 for rats is
1,400 mg/kg. It has been shown that ziram can cause irritation of the
skin and mucous membranes (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Rats demonstrate
an increase in the skeletal stores of iron when fed sub lethal doses of
ziram. Ziram has caused adenomas in mice and increased incidence of
tumors in the liver and under the skin of rats. Ziram can react with
nitrate under mildly acid conditions to form N-nitrosodimethylamine,
which is a proven carcinogen in several animal species. It has been
recommended that man's daily intake of ziram should not exceed
0.02 mg/kg (Vettorazzi, 1979). The LC50 for the rainbow trout
(freshwater) is greater than 0.3 mg/1 at 96 hours (Segna, 1981). Ziram
is suspected of being a carcinogen (NIOSH, 1979).
Secondary Significance—Nonconventional pesticide pollutants which
currently lack approved analytical methods and/or adequate technical and
economic data are proposed to be excluded from regulation at this time.
However, if approved analytical methods and/or adequate data become
available, it is proposed that regulation of these pollutants be
implemented.
IX-58
-------
Additional Nonconventional Pollutants
Primary Significance—The nonconventional pollutant COD is proposed
to be classified as a pollutant of primary significance. The chemical
oxygen demand (COD) determination provides a measure of the oxygen
equivalent of that portion of the organic matter in a sample that is
susceptible to chemical oxidation. The carbonaceous portion of
nitrogenous compounds can be determined by the COD test, and there is
questionable reduction of the dichrotnate by annnonia. With certain
wastes containing toxic substances, this test or a total organic carbon
(TOC) determination may be the best method for determination of the
organic load. Since the test utilizes chemical oxidation rather than a
biological process, the result is not always exactly related to the BOD
of a wastewater. The test result should be considered as an independent
measurement of organic matter in the sample, rather than as a substitute
for the BOD test (Jett, 1978),
Secondary Significance—The pollutant manganese is proposed to be
designated as a nonconventional pollutant of secondary significance.
Its importance is derived from the fact that it is being considered for
addition to the list of 126 priority pollutants. Therefore, a guidance
number is being proposed to limit its discharge from the pesticide
industry on a case-by-case basis. In the pesticide industry, manganese
can be expected to be present in wastewaters from dithiocarbamate
pesticides such as raaneb. Manganese raw waste load concentrations as
high as 484 mg/1 have been observed in raw waste loads. Manganese may
interfere with water usage since it stains materials, especially when
the pH is raised as in laundering, scouring, or other washing
operations. These stains, if not masked by iron, may be dirty brown,
gray, or black in color, and usually occur in spots and streaks. Waters
containing manganous bicarbonate cannot be used in the textile
industries, in dyeing, tanning, laundering, or in many other industrial
uses. In the pulp and paper industry, waters containing above 0.05 mg/1
manganese cannot be tolerated except for low-grade products. Very small
amounts of manganese (0.2 mg/1 to 0.3 mg/1) may form heavy encrustations
in piping, while even smaller amounts may form noticeable black deposits
(U.S. EPA, 1976g).
It is proposed that ammonia be designated a nonconventional pollutant of
secondary significance. In the pesticide industry, ammonia nitrogen may
be found in raw waste loads up to levels of 1,500 mg/1 at individual
plants. Ammonia is not a universal pollutant for this industry and,
therefore, a guidance number is being proposed to limit its discharge on
an individual basis. Ammonia is a form of nitrogen that readily
fulfills the nutrient requirement of aquatic plants. In those cases
where adequate phosphorus is available, nitrogen may be the limiting
nutrient. In such a case, the discharge of wastewaters containing
ammonia will contribute to eutrophication of the receiving water and
consequent nuisance aquatic plant growth. Ammonia can also be toxic to
aquatic animals (U.S. EPA, 1976g). The toxicity of ammonium solutions
is dependent upon the amount of ammonia, the concentrations of which
vary with the pH of the water. In most natural waters the pH range is
such that ammonium ions predominate; however, in alkaline waters high
IX-59
-------
concentrations of ammonia increase the toxicity. EPA has recommended a
maximum acceptable concentration of ammonia of 0.02 mg/1 in waters
suitable for aquatic life (U.S. EPA, 1976g).
Conventional Pollutants
The conventional pollutants BOD, TSS, and pH are classified as
pollutants of primary significance. There are no conventional
pollutants of secondary significance.
The BOD test is essentially a bioassay procedure involving the measure-
ment of oxygen consumed by living organisms while utilizing the organic
matter present in a wastewater under conditions as similar as possible
to those that occur in nature. Historically, the BOD test has been used
to evaluate the performance of biological wastewater treatment facili-
ties and to establish effluent limitation values. It is important to
note that most state, local, and regional authorities have established
water quality regulations utilizing BOD as the major parameter for
determination of oxygen demand on a water body. When properly
performed, the BOD test measures the actual amount of oxygen consumed by
microorganisms in metabolizing the organic matter present in the waste-
water.
Total suspended solids (TSS) is a measure of suspended solids which are
usually composed of organic and inorganic fractions. These fractions,
in turn, may be made up of readily settleable, slowly settleable, or
nonsettleable materials. The biodegradable organic fraction will exert
an oxygen demand on a receiving water and is reflected in the analyses
for organics.
Suspended solids in water interfere with many industrial processes,
causing foaming in boilers and incrustations on equipment exposed to
such water, especially as the temperature rises. They are undesirable
in process water used in the manufacture of steel, in the textile
industry, in launderies, in dyeing, and in cooling systems.
When solids settle to form sludge deposits on a stream or lake bed, they
are often damaging to the life in water. Sludge deposits may cause
various damage, including blanketing the stream or lake bed and thereby
destroying the living spaces for those benthic organisms that would
otherwise occupy the habitat. Organic materials also serve as a food
source for sludgeworms and associated organisms.
Solids in suspension are aesthetically displeasing. Suspended solids
may kill fish and shellfish by causing abrasive injuries and by clogging
the gills and respiratory passages. Indirectly, suspended solids are
inimical to aquatic life because they screen out light and promote and
maintain the development of noxious conditions through oxygen depletion.
This results in the killing of fish and fish food organisms. Suspended
solids also reduce the recreational value of the water.
The control of suspended solids from biological treatment systems is
especially critical. Not only does the biomass exert an oxygen demand
IX-60
-------
on receiving waters, but for the Pesticide Chemicals Industry there is
evidence that substantial quantities of toxic residues are absorbed on
or in the floe which, if carried over, will potentially cause a toxic
effect in the receiving waters.
The pH is a logarithmic measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a
wastewater stream. It may properly be used as a surrogate to control
both excess acidity and excess alkalinity in water. The term pH is the
negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration in water. A pH of
7 generally indicates neutrality or a balance between free hydrogen and
free hydroxyl ions. A pH above 7 indicates that a solution is alkaline,
while a pH below 7 indicates that the solution is acidic.
Knowledge of the pH of water or wastewater is useful in determining
necessary measures for corrosion control, pollution control, and
disinfection. Waters with a pH below 6.0 are corrosive to water works
structures, distribution lines, and household plumbing fixtures. Also,
corrosion can add constituents such as iron, copper, zinc, cadmium, and
lead to drinking water. Low pH waters not only tend to dissolve metals
from structures and fixtures but also tend to dissolve or leach metals
from sludges and bottom sediments. The hydrogen ion concentration can
affect the "taste" of water and, at a low pH, water tastes "sour."
Extremes of pH or rapid pH changes can exert stress conditions or kill
aquatic life outright. Even moderate changes from "acceptable" criteria
limits of pH are deleterious to some species. The relative toxicity to
aquatic life of many materials is increased by changes in the pH. For
example, metallo-cyanide complexes can increase a thousand-fold in
toxicity with a drop of 1.5 pH units. Similarly, the toxicity of
ammonia is a function of pH. The bactericidal effect of chlorine is
diminished as the pH increases in most cases. In addition, it is
economically advantageous to keep the pH close to 7 (Jett, 1978).
IX-61
-------
Table IX-1. Proposed Pollutants of Primary Significance
Nonconventional Conventional
Priority Pollutants Pollutants Pollutants
Volatile Aromatics Nonconventional BOD
Benzene pesticides listed in TSS
Chlorobenzene Tables XII-1 and XIII-1 pH
Toluene are designated noncon-
Halomethanes ventional pollutants of
Carbon tetrachloride primary significance
Chloroform COD
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Cyanides
Cyanide
Phenols
2,4-Dichloropheno1
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Metals
Copper
Zinc
Chlorinated Ethanes
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Nitrosamines
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Pesticides
BHC-alpha
BHC-beta
BHC-delta
Endosulfan-alpha
Endosulfan-beta
Endrin
Heptachlor
Lindane (BHC-gamma)
Toxaphene
Dienes
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
IX-62
-------
Table IX-2. Proposed Pollutants of Dual Significance
Nonconventional Conventional
Priority Pollutants Pollutants Pollutants
Volatile Aromatics None None
1,2-Dichlorobenzene*
1,4-Dichlorobenzene*
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene*
Haloethers
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ethert
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene
1,3-DichloropropeneT
* Classified as a priority pollutant of primary significance and
proposed for regulation only if it is manufactured as a final product.
Classified as a priority pollutant of secondary significance in other
processes and proposed to be excluded from regulation since it is
controlled by regulation of chlorobenzene,
t Classified as a priority pollutant of primary significance and
proposed for regulation only if it is manufactured as a final product
and has zero discharge. Classified as a priority pollutant of
secondary significance in other processes and proposed to be excluded
from regulation due to a lack of adequate monitoring and control
data.
IX-63
-------
Table IX-3. Proposed Pollutants of Secondary Significance
Nonconventional Conventional
Priority Pollutants Pollutants Pollutants
Volatile Aromatics Nonconventional None
1, 3-Dichlorobenzenet pesticides for vrtiich
Ethylbenzenet approved analytical
Hexachlorobenzenet procedures and/or
Haloraethanes adequate technical
Bromofortnt and economic data
Chlorodibromomethanet Ammonia*
Dichlorobromomethanet Manganese*
Haloethers
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane*
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether*
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether*
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether*
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether*
Phenols
2-Chlorophenolt
2,4-Dimethylphenolt
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresolt
2-Nitrophenolt
Parachlorometa cresolt
2,4,6-Trichlorophenolt
Nitrosubstituted Aroraatics
2,4-Dinitrotoluenet
2,6-Dinitrotoluenet
Nitrobenzenet
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthylene*
Acenaphthene*
Anthracene*
BenzoC a)anthracenet
Benzo(a)pyrenet
3,4-Benzo fluoranthenet
Benzo(ghi)perylenet
BenzoCk)fluoranthenet
2-Chloronaphthalene*
ChryseneT
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracenet
Fluoranthene*
Fluorene*
IndenoCl,2,3-cd)pyrenet
Naphthalene*
Phenanthrene*
Pyrenet
IX-64
-------
Table IX-3.
Proposed Pollutants of Secondary Significance
(Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Priority Pollutants
Priority Pollutants
Metals
AntimonyT
Arsenic*
Berylliumt
Cadmiumt
Chromiumt
Leadt
Mercuryt
Nickelt
Seleniumt
Silvert
Thailiumt
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes
Chloroethanet
1,1-Dichloroethanet
1,1-Dichloroethylenet
Hexachloroethanet
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethanet
1,2-Trans-dichloroethylenet
1,1,1-Trichloroethanet
1,1,2-Tr ichloroethanet
Trichloroethylenet
Vinyl chloridet
Nitrosamines
N-nitrosodimethylaminet
N-nitrosodiphenylaminet
Phthai ate Esters
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalatet
Butyl benzyl phthalate*
Diethyl phthalate*
Dimethyl phthalate*
Di-n-butyl phthalate*
Di-n-octyl phthalatet
Pesticides
Aldrint
Chlordane*
Dieldrint
4,4'-DDDt
4,4'-DDEt
4,4'-DDTt
Endosulfan sulfatet
Endrin aldehydet
Heptachlor epoxidet
Dienes
Hexachlorobutadienet
TCDD
TCDD*
Miscellaneous
Acroleint
Acrylonitrile*
Asbestost
1,2-Diphenylhydrazinet
Isophoronet
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCB-1242t
PCB-1254t
PCB-1221t
PCB-1232t
PCB-1248t
PCB-1260t
PCB-1016t
Benzidines
Benzidinet
3,3 '-Dichlorobenzidinet
Dichloropropane and
Dichloropropene
1,2-Dichloropropane*
* Proposed to be excluded from regulation pending the collection of
adequate monitoring and control data.
t Proposed to be excluded from regulation.
IX-65
-------
1
i
to
.a
.Sj
"1
|i
S -g
ho W
H P^
XJ O
•Q
^^
CO
Chronic
i
x *
sl-1
r
I
OJ CQ
*S 4j
all
ilr
N ^
if
-------
CO
•a
.S
ty
I
01
5
01
g
S
s
*9
J5 QJ
0*8 .9
*s **
4J $ X
5 8 S
5
1
«—I OS p-( ^H ^H t—I *—4
\O
O> O fdi <7* CT^ CT^ CT» <5^
—
-------
ftp co
H 0)
«"a
01 R
0) co
§ J
| |
*
i
CO
.a
.a
o
CN
aj
.1
•2
«
1
•a
u
•aJ
H "
jj « >>
S x S
H
§
in
•
f>
I
I
a
I
*—•
i
.3
a
r-4
-e
S
H
IX-68
-------
cd
• H
hi
a
S
£
I
S
S
S.!
8P '
to
0)
13
.a
CO
S
3
.2
jj «S
all
JJ ,
p p O >> >> S
hi g u a j: 41
O O O 01 •" -C
•m
•2J SC C, r- _C
en M to ep o D
•H •.-! -^ T T T
CN (S tN 0 -< -<
05
IX-69
01
u
£ Q-S
JS §2
8^i
oi "8 s -S
I—I U 4-1
TB O Q *o
•H JU 0) C
CO M hi O
CO fl] fll »rt
™ ~
-------
1
01
I
60 to
Is
i
2
.a
I
s
!
CO
X* 9
S® .^
•a *•
4J
8P
fe
g
y
fi
O in
** fT
QQ *M
r-
es
o —
» A •»
es CM
-H -H 8
8 8 2
Illlfi
| .•§ 11 :§ |
"S
2 3 •§
8 %
IX-70
•a
fc
•.a
• p
^ K g
B oj *a
3 QJ
Q flj CO
2 > «
n II n
-------
s
I
.a
•8
z
£
£
*
.2
bfi CD
I J
fwS
M)
O
«J 2
"8
.a
.a
«^
S
a
1
4J
r
r
|
1
u
.2
£££
ii
t-l kd
•H -^
.5 .5
¥¥
.•S
.a
.s
•o
o
<£3
I e g
a
II It II
• ••rt
tN Ol Z
IX-71
-------
CO
•d
0)
.a
&
j- »i-
£ «
i
0*8.1
S"S u
JJ (D >.
l
^
I
rofnromnmenfnnro en c ro co
oooootooo c!c5 oo ocJ
CO CO 00 CO GO CO CO jtf CO CO CN CO CO «4! CO CO
m S S S Sg S S S * S 8 •* 1 8 g 8 8
OOOOOOOO OC5 OO OO
I
J™ ^
s|
2! -5 g^ S.J •£ 2
9-t
Ui
0)
!J
d) CU
a I
5,JB
IX-7 2
-------
is
X
sp en
s'S
«
•d
tu
hfl Q
•2 if
.a
CO
CO
• fH
0)
I*
o
JS * g
fill
I
s"3 J
£ x S
y 01
g 8>
f b
s s
£
.2
£
w O O
o
". s 3 m. ^ 12
n •— < -
-------
•8
J5
6
a
Ofi ">
s
iJ -H
0) 5
"
.§
S3
w
I
a
s
«
2 .2-3
II
« -O
op r^ >—t
oo
jtf
o s< cs
a"
GO —< ON lA -^ 00 OO
as ^ ss g ae s6
8 I a 811
•^OJB £=^ g
ft 3 u. aj*i^^^iHJZ*3
8 « 8 7 -gl 1 8
^^2S62-a-y8-;2
3 "O
IX-74
•s
•c
l- u
«a «a
«I "8 "8 -S
— I 4J ij
a E g
if H ii n
-------
<0
D
I
I
m
S
g>§
jo s
60 i
I
en
BO
£
•a
<—
a
.2
S
u
Bj-fl
4J (C X
Q O C
J2 M Q
b % ^ y
_c c o«
ij a> i
S-af
111
JS*|
5 8.
•S B
Ey 01
IX-7 5
-------
CO
0)
4^
'5
X
!
^
I
co
S
s
o
.?
"8
.a
.a
£
"81
Is1
«fl
en
01
•d
u
^
• r4
J
o
g
® -9
o c
M 9
£ &
•J ou
Q TO
ll
I
y
I
u
.2
ffi 55
«t A
-H CN
3S
Si
CO C»>
CTi oK o^ ok o^ O^
CN" e«r eC oT oT evT
cn en ft ft ft ft
01
•3
0) 0)
O) CO cfl
Q) 4j ,-^ ,.4
4-1 cfl eg co
01 •" * § li li
'« tn Q Q 'Q Q
00
t-l
01 "8
IX- 7 6
-------
i
•s
"8
in
i
If
un
In
I
u
s
U
i w
>|
5
'"§
.y
a 4rs
I
w gu
U
« s
<£
U
.2
Z 00
8.
JC Ic
o o
IX-7 7
-------
.a
00
£
S
«
I
.3
S
n 4J
£
>,
.3
o o o
o o
o o
o o
o o o
o oo o 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
o o o o o o o
fg CS l£ CO «£ CM
N N SB — S! in
do d d
o o
d°°
.•a
tg a
« i JJ
u E <—>
.S
* 8.8.
•^ D« Cu
•H 0) a)
9 C C
n n n
IX-78
-------
•2
01
u
•1H
i)
X
V4
01
8
*«
1
•l-l
u
o>
VM
S1
_ fi
u
01
-------
.a
co
Wi
0)
a
&a
a
fl
NM/
•S
I
Jl
B
«1
£ t
1
5
"OS
flS-5
a)
« 8 &
i
&
X
.a
u
S
•S ^
It
|i
I £.
ea 18
g'S
II II II
IX-80
-------
iter
09
I
£
J_»
•M
.3
6
a
op
ii
cs S
SSR
*O in
a as
IN
1
w w
•LJ dJ
•s -g s -a
0) O *J -H
P_J ^_. m ^-\
S
CM
"6
'o
•a
•s s s
w "TJ *O
QJ fl)
.Q 5! 5!
H n H
IX-81
-------
co e
4) «
g*
.a
g
S
£
ttttttt
o o o o o o o
ttt jLt tt
O^ ^^ C^ ^^ ^^ C^ C^
^» r"*« r*^ t*** ^^ ^^ ^^
o o o o o o o
fe fe & & & & £
o o o o o o o
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
q q q o o o q
o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
o" o o o d o o
CS ^^ ^*^ ^J 00 ^2 ^D
«^ l/i ^4 fO ^T '^5 •"<
CM CM CM CM CM CM O
cf'C
-£,a
Q) U
uLi T3
**"' $
T3
£ l-i
§-§
11
1-
^J "S .3
•"3 B 8
% jj -
4J t—i n
II II II
IX-82
-------
•<
u
S
S
CO
.•a
N
CS
a
14
CU
u
•d
co e
D 9
\U w
ti g
S's
I M) eg
- Jf
u O
IB
CA
ra
v
cu
4J
•d
u
JS
xj $ X
sgs
It
£
.2
* £"
CO St
—i O
S3
.S
II II II
IX-8 3
-------
SECTION X
EXPANDED BEST PRACTICABLE TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE (BPT)
Sections 301 and 304 of the Act require that there be achieved, not
later than July 1, 1984, effluent limitations for categories and classes
of point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, that
require the application of the Best Practicable Control Technology
currently available.
As stated in Section III of this document, all pesticide manufacturers
were regulated for the direct discharge of conventional pollutants (BOD,
TSS, pH) and COD during the initial BPT rulemaking process except for
23 pesticides and two classes of pesticides which were specifically
excluded from coverage for any parameter (see Section XXI—Appendix 2
for a list of these pesticides). These pesticide products were excluded
from the initial BPT regulation due to lack of adequate monitoring data
and/or EPA/EMSL approved 304(h) analytical methods.
POLLUTANT PARAMETERS PROPOSED FOR REGULATION
The current study has generated additional data such that expanded BPT
effluent limitations guidelines for the direct discharge of three
conventional pollutants and COD are being proposed for 19 of the
previously excluded nonconventional pesticides and two classes of
nonconventional pesticides. Table X-l lists the nonconventional
pesticides proposed for regulation of conventional pollutants and COD
under expanded BPT. Three of the 23 original pesticides will continue to
remain excluded, since two are classified as plant growth regulators
(gibberellic acid and naphthalene acetic acid) and dimethyl phthalate is
expected to be regulated under another industry. One of the original 23
pesticides was erroneously listed under both the trade name,
bisethylxanthogen, and the common name, EXD. This compound will be
regulated under expanded BPT under its common name.
IDENTIFICATION OF EXPANDED BPT LIMITATIONS
The derivation of expanded BPT limitations includes identifying
technology options, selecting options based on economic and technical
aspects of implementing the regulation, selection of long-term averages,
and determining daily and monthly variability.
Expanded BPT Control Technology Options
As presented below, various methods were identified for control of
conventional pollutants and COD under expanded BPT.
X-l
-------
Option 1 —
Option 1 provides that expanded BPT limitations be based on technology
equal to that which formed the basis of the initial BPT regulation
(pesticide removal by hydrolysis or carbon/resin adsorption followed by
biological oxidation). This level of technology is currently installed
and operating at all plants which manufacture the pesticides excluded
from the initial BPT rulemaking; therefore, little or no economic impact
is projected.
Option 2—
Option 2 provides for control of conventional pollutants and COD under
expanded BPT limitations based on the initial BPT technology (pesticide
removal and biological oxidation) followed by multimedia filtration.
Implementation of this option would result in an incremental increase in
annual costs for direct discharge plants manufacturing the pesticides
included in the expanded BPT regulation. Implementation of this option
would result in the following increment of pollutant removal beyond
Option 1.
Pollutant Removal
Pollutant (Ibs/year)
BOD 40,000
COD 460,000
TSS 96,400
Treatment cost estimates for this option are presented below:
Economic Effect for Option 2
Number of Plants Affected 6
Number of Pesticides Affected 13
Capital Cost ($1000s) 1,260
Annual Cost ($1000s) 298
Selection of Expanded BPT Technology
Option 1 is proposed as the basis for expanded BPT effluent limitations.
Implementation of this option would establish a uniform national
guideline for the direct discharge of conventional pollutants and COD
for the pesticide industry. While implementation of Option 2 would
effect greater removal of these pollutants over Option 1, the associated
costs would increase correspondingly, resulting in costs which are
disproportionate to the effluent reduction benefits.
Selection of Long-Term Averages
Expanded BPT long-terra averages for BOD, TSS, pH, and COD are proposed
to be equivalent to BPT. The basis for this proposal is that current
raw waste loads, type of treatment, and effluents achieved were examined
and found to be equivalent for pesticides in both the expanded and
X-2
-------
original BPT coverage. The long-term average for these pollutants is
presented on Table X-2.
Treatment Variability
For the expanded BPT regulation, the variability of daily and monthly
average discharge levels was considered equal to BPT variability. The
basis for these factors is presented on pages 184-186 of EPA report
number 440/1-78/060-e. The proposed factors for the conventional
pollutants BOD and TSS and nonconventional pollutant COD are, therefore,
as follows:
Daily Variability Monthly Variability
Factor Factor
BOD 6.6 1.4
TSS 4.7 1.3
COD 1.6 1.2
Effluent Limitations
The proposed expanded BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, pH, and COD for
nonconventional pesticides listed in Table X-l are provided in
Tables II-l through II-3.
X-3
-------
Table X-l. Nonconventional Pesticides Proposed for Regulation of
Conventional Pollutants and COD Under Expanded BPT
Pesticide Name
Allethrin
Benzyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Chlorophacinone
Coumafuryl
Diphacinone
Endothall acid (Endothall)
EXD (Herbisan) (Bisethylxanthogen)
Glyphosate
Methoprene
1,8-Naphthalic anhydride
Phenylphenol
Piperonyl butoxide
Propargite
Quinomethionate
Resmethrin
Rotenone
Sodium phenylphenate (Phenylphenol sodium salt)
Su If oxide
Triazine compounds (both symmetrical and asymmetrical)
Ametryne
Anilazine
Atrazine
Cyanazine
Hexazinone
Metribuzin
Prometon
Prometryn
Propazine
Simazine
Simetryne
Terbuthylazine
Terbutryn
Vaneide TH
Warfarin and similar anticoagulants
Coumachlor
Coumatetralyl
Warfarin
X-4
-------
Table X-2. Selected Long-Terra Averages for Direct Discharge of BOD,
TSS, pH, and COD
Long-Terra Average
Pollutant Parameter (lb/1,000 Ibs)
BOD 1.12
TSS 1.31
pH *
COD 8.01
* The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0.
X-5
-------
SECTION XII
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE (BAT)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing BAT effluent
limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1984 by the Pesticide
Chemicals Industry. This regulation will be based on the best
economically achievable control and treatment technology employed by a
point source within the industrial category or subcategory, or by
another industry from which technology is readily transferable. BAT may
include process changes or internal controls, even when not common
industry practice.
BAT emphasizes in-process controls, as well as control or additional
treatment techniques employed at the end of the production process. In
developing BAT effluent limitations, EPA considered:
1. The manufacturing processes employed,
2. The age and size of the equipment and facilities employed;
3. The location of manufacturing facilities,
4. Process changes,
5. The engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques,
6. The cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting
from application of the technology,
7. Nonwater quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements), and
8. Other factors as identified in Section VII.
As a result of the Clean Water Act of 1977, the achievement of BAT has
become the principal national means of controlling toxic water
pollution. This level of technology considers those plant processes and
control technologies which, at the pilot plant, semi-works, and other
levels, have demonstrated both technological performances and economic
viability at a level sufficient to reasonably justify investing in such
facilities. It is the highest degree of control technology that has x
been achieved or has been demonstrated to be capable of being designed
for plant-scale operation up to and including "no discharge" of process
wastewater pollutants. Although economic factors are considered in this
development, the costs of this level of control are intended to be for
XII-1
-------
the state-of-the-art of current technology, subject to limitations
imposed by economic and engineering feasibility. There may be some
technical risk, however, with respect to performance and certainty of
costs. Therefore, some process development and adaptation may be
necessary for application of a technology at a specific plant site.
Information presented in this section is being used by the Effluent
Guidelines Division of EPA to propose BAT effluent limitations. The
following items are presented:
1. Nonconventional pesticide parameters proposed to be
regulated are defined.
2. Priority pollutant parameters proposed to be regulated are
defined.
3. Treatment alternatives are defined and evaluated.
4. The economic effects of implementing the proposed BAT
regulation are estimated.
NONCONVENTIONAL PESTICIDE PARAMETERS PROPOSED FOR REGULATION
The nonconventional pesticide parameters to be regulated under BAT are
defined in Table XII-1. This list was developed by considering the
following factors: (1) discharge status, (2) previous BPT regulations
of the pesticide parameter, (3) availability of adequate analytical
methods and technical and economic data, and (4) environmental and
health effects of pesticide exposure. As described below, 101 pesticide
wastewaters are currently proposed to be regulated for the pesticide
parameter.
The first factor considered was discharge status. It was documented in
Section VII that there are 29 pesticide active ingredients which have
attained a zero discharge status for process wastewater. Since 27 of
these 29 pesticides are nonconventional pesticide parameters, they are
proposed for regulation to a zero discharge level.
It should be noted that one of these 27 compounds, barban, was
previously regulated during BPT; however, due to its current zero-
discharge status, it will be re-regulated. The regulation of 6 of the
27 zero-discharge pesticide active ingredients is limited to specific
plants. Biphenyl, chloropicrin, 2,4-D isooctyl ester, sodium
monofluoroacetate, tributyltin oxide, and ziram attain a zero-discharge
status only for specific plants identified in Table XII-1. Producers of
these six pesticides who do discharge wastewater are proposed to be
regulated to levels other than zero if analytical methods are available
(see 2,4-D isooctyl ester and ziram), pending further evaluation of the
feasibility for them to achieve no discharge.
A second factor initially considered in defining nonconventional
pesticide parameters to be regulated under BAT was the status of
regulation under BPT. There are 36 nonconventional pesticides in the
XII-2
-------
scope of this study which were regulated under BPT for direct discharge.
Therefore, these pesticides do not require re-regulation for the
nonconventional pesticide parameter for existing direct discharges;
however, they do require regulation for indirect discharge (see
Section XIV, PSES/PSNS) and new source direct discharges (see
Section XIII, NSPS).
A third factor considered was analytical methods and data availability.
Analytical methods and adequate data are available for 76 nonconven-
tional pollutant pesticides which were not regulated under BPT. Due to
this availability of methods these 76 pesticides become part of the
101 pesticides to be regulated under BAT for the nonconventional
pesticide parameter for direct discharge.
The availability of nonconventional pesticide analytical methods
described above is outlined in Section XXI—Appendix 8. Methods which
were developed by the Agency and its contractors are listed by pesticide
in the first four columns of the appendix table as follows:
1. EPA promulgated 11/73 are those pesticide procedures
identified in Federal Register 38, Number 75, Part II.
2. EPA proposed 12/79 are those pesticide active ingredient
procedures identified in Federal Register 44, Number 233,
Part III.
3. Methods in 304(h) review committee are those pesticides
which will be proposed by EPA in the near future.
4. Verification contractor methods are those pesticide
procedures developed by EPA contractors during this study.
These methods are also being reviewed by the EPA-
EMSL 304(h) committee.
As shown in Section XXI—Appendix 8, industry, literature, and other
analytical methods are under review by the Agency. The Agency is
evaluating industry methods for the regulation nonconventional
pesticides as well as contractor and Agency developed methods.
There are 70 nonconventional pesticides for which analytical methods are
in 304(h) review committee which are proposed for regulation. Six
pesticides with industry methods (alachlor, bentazon, butachlor,
glyphosate, mephosfolan, and terbufos) were evaluated according to
production significance and methods acceptability and are proposed for
regulation. All other pesticides for which only industry methods are
available are not currently proposed for regulation.
In summary, 27 nonconventional pesticides which have attained a
zero-discharge status and 76 previously unregulated pesticides
(103 total) were considered for regulation of the nonconventional
pesticide parameter under BAT. Because two pesticides, 2,4-D isooctyl
ester and ziram, will be regulated both at zero discharge and a level
other than zero for specific plants, the total number of discrete
pesticides proposed for regulation of the nonconventional pesticide
XII-3
-------
parameter is reduced from 103 to 101. All 101 pesticides are listed in
Table XII-1.
Ambient Water Quality Criteria (WQC) are not developed for nonconven-
tional pesticides. However, LC50/EC5Q values (rainbow trout, bluegill
sunfish, and Daphnia), as well as other human health or environmental
risk indicators, have been presented in Section IX of this report for
the above-mentioned nonconventional pesticides proposed for regulation.
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PARAMETERS PROPOSED FOR REGULATION
The priority pollutant parameters to be regulated under BAT are defined
in Table XII-2. This proposal was based on consideration of the
following factors: (1) discharge status, (2) previous regulations of
the priority pollutant pesticide parameter, (3) availability of adequate
analytical methods, and (4) environmental and health effects of priority
pollutant exposure. There are 25 priority pollutants designated as of
primary or dual significance (see Section IX of this report) which are
proposed for regulation under BAT. All pesticide process wastewaters
are subject to the regulation of the priority pollutant parameters.
The first factor considered was discharge status. There are two
priority pollutants, bis(2-chloroethyl) ether and 1,3-dichloropropene,
proposed for regulation which have attained a zero discharge status for
process wastewater only in processes in which it is the manufactured
product. These pollutants are proposed to be excluded from regulation
in all other processes due to lack of adequate monitoring data.
A second factor initially considered in defining priority pollutant
parameters to be regulated under BAT was the status of regulation under
BPT or 307(a) of the Act. There are nine priority pollutants previously
regulated for direct discharge. Therefore, these nine priority
pollutant pesticides do not require re-regulation for existing direct
discharges; however, they do require regulation for indirect discharge
(see Section XIV, PSES/PSNS) and new source direct discharges (see
Section XIII, NSPS).
The third factor considered was analytical methods availability. EPA
analytical methods for the remaining 23 priority pollutants of primary
or dual significance have been proposed under Section 304(h) of the Act
(44 FR_ 69464, 40 CFR 136) and are soon to be promulgated (see
Section XXI, Appendix 8, Column 2). In addition, analytical methods for
all 34 priority pollutants, which have been supplied by the industry,
are available as part of the pesticides Administrative Record. Three
priority pollutants (1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene) are proposed for regulation only in those
processes in which they are the manufactured products. They are
proposed for exclusion from regulation in all other processes where they
are expected to be controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant of
primary significance, chlorobenzene.
XII-4
-------
Ambient Water Quality Criteria (WQC) for the protection of human health
and aquatic life and additional pollutant-specific toxicity data are
available for the all priority pollutants proposed for regulation and
presented in Section IX of this report.
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
This section addresses the derivation of BAT effluent limitations which
includes identifying treatment technology options, selection of
long-term averages, option selection based on economic and technical
aspects of implementing the BAT regulation, and treatment variability.
The selection of long-term averages and treatment variability are
discussed in Section XV (Selection of Effluent Limitations and
Pretreatment Standards).
Four levels of treatment were initially considered based on technical
feasibility and performance data presented in Section VI. The design
effluents of these three systems are presented. One level of treatment
was selected as Best Available Technology, based on an evaluation of
both the economic and technical aspects of implementing the regulation
for each of the four levels.
BAT Technology Options for Manufacturing Facilities
Each of the recommended treatment units has been discussed in Section VI
in terms of design and operating characteristics. These units have been
combined into four levels of treatment options for Subcategories 1
through 10. The definitions of Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 are presented
graphically in Figures XII-1 through XII-10. The design effluents for
the three levels of treatment (Levels 2, 3, and 4) are presented in
Table XII-3. Design effluents are those levels of pollutants
demonstrated or judged achievable for each recommended treatment
technology, based on maximum raw waste loads found in the industry. The
design effluent levels were used for cost analyses and options selection
only and are not proposed effluent limitations. Four technology options
and the rationale for each associated treatment level are given below:
Option 1/Level 1 for Direct Discharge—
This option provides for control of priority and nonconventional
pesticide pollutants on the proper application and operation of the
technologies that formed the basis of the BPT effluent limitations. The
technologies on which the BPT regulation is based include pesticide
removal by adsorption or hydrolysis followed by biological treatment.
There would be no removal of additional pounds of toxic pollutants as
well as no incremental cost for direct dischargers associated with this
option.
Option 2/Level 2 for Direct Discharge—
This option provides combinations of treatment units to reduce groups of
priority, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants detected or
likely to be present to the design levels specified in Section VI. It
XII-5
-------
is recommended that Level 2 treatment (including biological oxidation)
be applied to direct discharges into navigable waters. Level 2
treatment units, and the primary pollutant groups which they have been
designed to remove, are as follows:
1. Steam Stripping—Volatile aromatics, halomethanes,
haloethers, nitro substituted aromatics, chlorinated
ethanes(ylenes), and ammonia removal.
2. Chemical Oxidation—Cyanide removal.
3. Metals Separation—Zinc, copper removal.
4. Activated carbon or resin adsorption—Pesticide phenols,
nitrosamines, and dienes removal.
5. Hydrolysis—Pesticide removal only.
6. Biological Oxidation—Primary removal of BOD, COD, and
TSS, incidental removal of priority pollutant groups and
nonconventional pesticides as shown in Table XII-3.
Additional treatment/disposal options for which cost estimates have been
prepared, but which are not necessary to meet Level 2 effluents, are as
follows:
1. Incineration—Concentrated organic waste removal (for up
to 1 percent of total wastewater flow, although generally
not required).
2. Evaporation Ponds—As an alternative treatment for por-
tions of total wastewater flow from 1,000 to 10,000 gpd,
resulting in no discharge to navigable waters.
3. Contract Hauling—As an alternative treatment for portion
of total wastewater flow from zero to 1,000 gpd, resulting
in no discharge to navigable waters.
Implementation of this option would result in the removal of additional
pounds of toxic pollutants (by priority pollutant/pollutant group)
beyond Option 1, as follows:
Pollutant or Pollutant Removal
Pollutant Group (Ibs/year)
Volatile Aromatics 140,000
Halomethanes 116,000
Cyanide 10,800
Phenols 54,600
Metals 18,500
Nitrosamines 475
Dienes 338
Chlorinated Ethanes 2,000
XII-6
-------
In addition, Option 2 would remove 440,000 Ib of pesticide active
ingredients per year beyond Option 1. There would be an incremental
capital cost of $25,500,000 and an incremental annual treatment cost of
$20,000,000 for direct dischargers associated with this option.
Selection of this option is projected to result in the closure of two
production lines and one plant.
Option 3/Level 3 for Direct Discharge—
Level 3 treatment for direct dischargers provides polishing after
biological oxidation through the use of a dual media filter prior to
discharge into navigable waters. The filter will remove biological
solids, BOD, and COD, as well as any remaining insoluble matter such as
metal particulates. An equally important function of filtration is the
preparation of wastewater for subsequent tertiary treatment.
Implementing this option would result in the removal of 192 Ibs/year of
priority pollutant metals beyond Option 2; it would not incrementally
increase pollutant removal for any other priority pollutant group.
There would be an incremental capital cost of $3,210,000 and an
incremental annual treatment cost of $750,000 for direct dischargers
associated with this option. There will be no additional closures
beyond those projected in Option 2.
Option 4/Level 4 for Direct Discharge—
This option provides tertiary activated carbon adsorption for final
removal of dissolved organics. In particular, compounds such as dienes,
nitrosamines, and pesticides will be reduced. Implementation of this
option would result in the incremental removal of additional pounds of
toxic pollutants beyond Option 3, as follows:
Pollutant or Pollutant Removal
Pollutant Group (Ibs/year)
Cyanides 11
Phenols 497
Chlorinated Ethanes 202
Dienes 44
Metals 95
In addition, Option 4 would remove 1,960 Ibs of pesticide active
ingredient pollutants per year beyond Option 3. There would be an
incremental capital cost of $12,400,000 and an incremental annual
treatment cost of $15,400,000 for direct dischargers associated with
this option. There will be no additional closures beyond those
projected in Option 2.
Economic Effects
A plant-by-plant treatment cost analysis was prepared in order to assess
the effect on the industry of implementing each of the four technology
XII-7
-------
options. The results of this technical analysis were provided to the
EPA pesticide economic contractor, so that the economic impact of the
potential treatment costs on plant pesticide market value could be
estimated.
All 117 manufacturing plants potentially affected by the Pesticide
regulations were reviewed individually. For the BAT regulation, data
from each of the 322 pesticides processes at these plants were evaluated
and treatment units were costed for those priority pollutants and
nonconventional pollutants detected or likely to exist in the wastewater
at levels above the design levels selected in Table XII-3. Information
on the process chemistry, raw waste load, treated waste load, type of
disposal, current treatment practice, and flow were used in this review.
The treatment units costed were selected according to the pollutants
requiring removal as summarized in Table VI-22. The cost curves
presented in Figures VIII-1 through VIII-22 were used in estimating
costs based on actual wastewater flows.
Treatment cost estimates were based on the following criteria.
I. For those plants with effluent data exceeding design
levels for priority pollutants and BPT levels for
pesticides projected treatment was costed to bring the
plant into compliance with the appropriate regulation.
2. For those plants without effluent data, it was assumed
that pollutants germane to each process exist at effluent
levels in excess of the design levels and appropriate
treatment was costed accordingly.
3. Plant waste streams requiring similar treatment were
assumed to use common treatment units.
4. Pesticide costs were proportioned based on pesticide flow.
Where flow was unavailable, costs were proportioned based
on production.
It should be noted that treatment cost estimates may in some cases be
overestimated due to such factors as:
1. Treatment costs for activated carbon were based on the
purchase of the activated carbon system and regeneration
facilities. This is more expensive than the leasing of
activated carbon systems which is prevalent in the
industry.
2. Contract hauling has been costed to handle hazardous waste
at $60/yd^. Disposal costs may be cheaper if wastes
are determined to be nonhazardous.
Based on the above-mentioned analysis, plant costs were provided to the
economic contractor. Those plants determined by the economic contractor
to, have treatment cost impacts greater than 4 percent of the pesticide
XII-8
-------
market value were reviewed in greater depth. At each of these plants
annual treatment costs were reevaluated by basing the calculations on
the actual daily production rather than on previously assumed full year
production. Additionally, capital costs were revised to accommodate only
the largest pesticide flow to be treated over the period of one year
rather than the daily production of all manufactured pesticides as
previously assumed. Treatment costs were estimated only for those
priority pollutants and nonconventional pollutants to be regulated.
The results of this analysis are summarized below and in the following
table. Of the 117 plants and 322 pesticide wastewater streams
considered, it is anticipated that between 10 and 15 direct dischargers
will require additional pollutant removal to reach the design effluent
levels. This could affect between 34 and 35 pesticide wastewater
streams from direct dischargers depending upon the recommended level of
treatment selected for regulation.
Economic Effect of Implementing Design Levels
Direct Discharge
Level 2
Level 3*
Level 4*
Capital Annual
($1000) ($1000)
Capital Annual
($1000) ($1000)
Sub-
category
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
* Level 3 cost is in addition to Level 2 cost.
addition to Level 2 and Level 3 costs.
3500
7320
0
0
0
0
0
0
910
12400
0
0
0
1680
4880
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
11900
0
0
0
263
1290
0
0
64
0
0
0
524
1070
0
0
0
52
300
0
0
16
0
0
0
123
254
0
0
0
Capital Annual
($1000) ($1000)
718
5010
0
0
379
0
0
0
2290
4000
0
0
0
451
6320
0
0
483
0
0
0
2800
5390
0
0
0
Level 4 cost is in
The same treatment costs are summarized for all affected plants in the
industry as follows:
Priority Pollutant and
Nonconventional Pesticide Removal
Direct Discharge
No. of Plants Affected
No. of Pesticide Processes
Capital Cost ($1000s)
Annual Cost ($1000s)
Affected
Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
13 11 10
31 35 34
24,200 3,210* 12,400*
19,100 750* 15,400*
XII-9
-------
* Level 3 costs in addition to Level 2 costs. Level 4 costs in addition
to Level 2 and Level 3 costs.
In order to demonstrate the portion of the total treatment cost estimate
devoted strictly to nonconventional pesticide removal, the following
table is presented.
Nonconventional Pesticide Removal
Direct Discharge
Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
No. of Plants Affected 788
No. of Pesticide Processes Affected 19 32 32
Capital Cost ($1000s) 21,000 2,710* 11,700*
Annual Cost ($1000s) 15,700 647* 15,100*
* Level 3 costs in addition to Level 2 costs. Level 4 costs in addition
to Level 2 and Level 3 costs.
Selection of Best Available Technology for Manufacturing Facilities
Based on the foregoing discussion of treatment options and economic
effects, it was concluded that Option 2 with Level 2 treatment should be
implemented for BAT. [An exception is that BAT for Subpart N
(Subcategory 11) shall be equal to BPT, which is being proposed as no
discharge of process wastewater.]
Direct discharge Level 2 treatment removes approximately 99 percent of
the priority and nonconventional pesticide pollutants at an estimated
capital cost of 24.2 million dollars. The Agency rejected Option 1
because the BPT technologies do not adequately provide for the removal
of certain priority pollutant groups of concern, e.g., volatile
aromatics, halomethanes, chlorinated ethanes, cyanide, and metals. The
Agency rejected Option 3 because it is ineffective in removing priority
pollutants. The Agency rejected Option 4 due to its extremely high
cost.
whereas, direct discharge Levels 2 and 3 remove approximately an
additional 1 percent of all pollutants to be regulated at an estimated
capital cost of 15.6 million dollars, the capital cost required per
percent of pollutant removed is increasingly severe for Levels 2 and 3.
Direct discharge Level 2 was estimated to require capital expenditures
of over 4 percent market value at only 13 of the 117 plants evaluated.
BAT Regulatory Options for Select Metallo-Organic Pesticide
Manufacturers
The metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper,
and arsenic-based products were not researched during the early develop-
ment stages of these regulations. However, at that time, the current
state-of-the-art was such that no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants was being achieved through the application of recycle
XII-10
-------
technology. Therefore, existing direct discharge manufacturers of
metallo-organic pesticides containing mercury, copper, cadmium, or
arsenic were regulated at zero discharge during BPT. Current review of
available information indicates that select metallo-organic manufac-
turers maintain zero discharge. Additional technical and economic data
have been collected for this portion of the industry subsequent to
promulgation of the BPT regulation. EPA has therefore selected the BPT
technology of total recycle or reuse, evaporation, or contract hauling
of process wastewater as the basis for proposed BAT for metallo-organic
pesticide manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based
products. Implementation of this option will establish regulatory
consistency with the BPT effluent limitation and will satisfy the
requirements of the consent decree. Annual and capital costs for this
technology level will vary depending on the treatment used as shown in
Table XII-4. For example, if solar evaporation is used, capital costs
for installation of this technology in a 500-GPD flow will range from
$42,000 to $160,000. Annual costs will range from $10,500 to $28,000.
BAT Regulatory Options for Formulator/Packagers
Direct discharge formulator/packagers were regulated at zero discharge
under BPT. These data, along with current information, show that
approximately 90 percent of all formulator/packagers in that data base
do not generate process wastewater. The remaining plants in the data
base generate low volume, highly concentrated wastewater from such
controls as washout of reaction vessels of air emissions scrubbers.
These plants typically evaporate or contract haul these wastes to meet
the current BPT zero discharge limitation. Additional technical and
economic data have been collected for this portion of the industry
subsequent to promulgation of the BPT regulation. The Agency believes
that formulator/packagers conduct the same types of operations regard-
less of mode of discharge. The Agency solicits any comments from the
industry pertaining to this matter. Accordingly, the Agency is basing
BAT limitations for direct discharger formulator/packagers on the BPT
technology of total evaporation or contract hauling. Implementation of
this option will establish regulatory consistency with the BPT effluent
limitations for direct dischargers and will satisfy the requirements of
the consent decree. Annual and capital costs for implementation of this
technology level shown in Table XII-5 will be the same as the costs for
the metallo-organic portion of the industry.
Selection of Long-Term Averages
The long-term average effluents for direct dischargers are defined in
Section XV for manufacturers, including metallo—organic manufacturers of
mercury, copper, cadmium, and arsenic-based products, and formulator/
packagers.
Effluents Achieved—
The effluents currently achieved by direct dischargers are summarized in
Section XV.
XII-11
-------
Effluents Achievable—
The effluents achievable by direct dischargers are summarized in
Section XV. The purpose of this evaluation is to compare existing
treatment at each plant to treatment recommended for BAT, and to predict
effluents achievable through the application of BAT, if necessary.
Treatment Variability
Effluent variability factors for direct dischargers are defined in
Section XV. Daily and monthly factors are applied to long-term averages
in order to derive effluent limitations.
Effluent Limitations
Effluent limitations guidelines for direct dischargers are presented in
Tables II-7 through 11-19.
XI1-12
-------
Table XII-1. Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutant Regulatory Status
Pesticides to be Regulated Not
for the Nonconventional No Wastewater Previously
Pesticide Parameter Discharge Regulated*
Alachlor — X
Alkylamine hydrochloride X N/A
Anetryne — X
Amobao X N/A
AOP — X
Atrazine — X
Barban X —
BBTAC X N/A
Benfluralin — X
Benorayl — X
Bentazon — X
Biphenyl X1 N/A
Bolstar — X
Bronacil — X
Busan 40 — X
Busan 85 — X
Butachlor — X
Carbam-S — X
Carbendazim — X
Carbofuran — X
Carbophenothion ~ X
Chlorobenzilate — X
Chloropicrin X2 N/A
Chlorpyrifos — X
Chlorpyrifos methyl — X
Counaphos ~ X
Cyanazine — X
* « For Plant 1 only.
2 - For Plants 2, 3, and 4 only.
N/A "Not applicable.
* " For which analytical methods are available
X » Basis for proposed regulation.
— » No basis for proposed regulation.
XII-13
-------
Table XII-1.
Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutant Regulatory Status
(Continued, Page 2 of 5)
Pesticides to be Regulated
for the Nonconventional
Pesticide Parameter
No Wastewater
Discharge
Not
Previously
Regulated*
2,4-D isobutyl ester
2,4-D isooctyl ester
2,4-D salt
2,4-DB
2,4-DB isobutyl ester
2,4-DB isooctyl ester
DBCP
D-D
Deet
Demeton
Dichlofenthion
Dichlorophen salt
Dichlorvos
Dinoseb
Dioxathion
Dowicil 75
Ethalfluralin
Ethion
Ethoprop
Etridiazole
Fensulfothion
Fenthion
X1
X
X
X2
N/A
X
X
X
X
N/A
X
X
X
N/A
X
X
X
N/A
X
X
N/A
X
X
X
1 * For Plant 5 only.
2 - For Plant 6 only.
N/A " Not applicable.
* * For which analytical methods are available.
X * Basis for proposed regulation.
— = No basis for proposed regulation.
XII-14
-------
Table XII-1.
Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutant Regulatory Status
(Continued, Page 3 of 5)
Pesticides to be Regulated
for the Nonconventional
Pesticide Parameter
Ferbam
Fluometuron
Fluoroacet amide
Glyodin
Glyphosate
Hexazinone
HPTMS
Isopropalin
KN Methyl
Mancozeb
Maneb
Mephosfolan
Merphos
Metasol J-26
Met ham
Me thorny 1
Metribuzin
Mevinphos
Nab am
Naled
No Wastewater
Discharge
^.^
—
X
X
—
—
X
—
—
—
—
—
X
X
—
—
—
—
—
^""*
Not
Previously
Regulated*
X
X
N/A
N/A
X
X
N/A
X
X
X
X
X
N/A
N/A
X
X
X
X
X
X
N/A - Not applicable.
* « For which analytical methods are available.
X • Basis for proposed regulation.
— = No basis for proposed regulation.
XII-15
-------
Table XII-1.
Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutant Regulatory Status
(Continued, Page 4 of 5)
Pesticides to be Regulated
for the Nonconventional
Pesticide Parameter
No Wastewater
Discharge
Not
Previously
Regulated*
Niacide
Oxamyl
PCP salt
Phorate
Profluralin
Proneton
Prometryn
Propachlor
Propazine
Pyrethrin
Ronnel
Silvex isooctyl ester
Silvex salt
Simazine
Simetryne
Sodium monofluoroacetate
Stirofos
Terbacil
Terbufos
Terbuthylazine
Terbutryn
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
X
X
N/A
X
X
X
X
X
* For Plant 7 only.
N/A - Not applicable.
* * For which analytical methods are available.
X * Basis for proposed regulation.
— • No basis for proposed regulation.
XII-16
-------
Table XII-1.
Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutant Regulatory Status
(Continued, Page 5 of 5)
Pesticides to be Regulated
for the Nonconventional
Pesticide Parameter
No Wastewater
Discharge
Not
Previously
Regulated*
Triadimefon
Tributyltin benzoate
Tributyltin oxide
Trichloronate
Tricyclazole
Vancide 51Z
Vancide 51Z dispersion
Vancide TH
ZAC
Zineb
only.
X
X1
X
X
X
1 » For Plant 8 only.
2 « For Plant 9 only.
3 = por plants 10 and 11
N/A « Not applicable.
* = For which analytical methods are available.
X = Basis for proposed regulation.
— » No basis for proposed regulation.
X
N/A
N/A
X
X
N/A
N/A
N/A
X
X
Ziram
TOTAL
X2
27
76
XI1-17
-------
Table XII-2. Priority Pollutant Regulatory Status
Priority Pollutants
to be Regulated
No Wastewater
Discharge
Not
Previously
Regulated
Volatile Aromatics
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene*
1,4-Dichlorobenzene*
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene*
Halomethanes
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Cyanide
Cyanide
Haloethers
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ethert
Phenols
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dini trophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N/A
X
X
X
X
X
* ™ Proposed for regulation only in those processes in which it is the
manufactured product; proposed for exclusion from regulation in all
other processes where it is expected to be controlled by regulation
of chlorobenzene.
t • Proposed for regulation only in those processes in which it is the
manufactured product; proposed to be excluded from regulation in
all other processes due to lack of adequate monitoring data.
X " Basis for proposed regulation.
— = No basis for proposed regulation.
N/A - Not applicable.
XII-18
-------
Table XII-2. Priority Pollutant Regulatory Status
(Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Not
Priority Pollutants No Wastewater Previously
to be Regulated Discharge Regulated
Metals
Copper — X
Zinc — X
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes
1,2-Dichloroethane — X
Tetrachloroethylene — X
Nitrosamines
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine — X
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene
1,3-DichloropropeneT X N/A
Dienes
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene — X
TOTAL 2 23
* = Proposed for regulation only in those processes in which it is the
manufactured product; proposed for exclusion from regulation in all
other processes where it is expected to be controlled by regulation
of chlorobenzene.
t * Proposed for regulation only in those processes in which it is the
manufactured product; proposed to be excluded from regulation in
all other processes due to lack of adequate monitoring data.
N/A = Not applicable.
X ™ Basis for proposed regulation.
— = No basis for proposed regulation.
XH-19
-------
*
CO
(—1
01
J5
4J
C
<— 1
V4-I
W
c
60
•H
CO
01
a
60
u
CO
J3J
o
(0
.,•4
O
4-1
U
0)
hi
•H
a
•
CO
i
i— i
i— i
X
0)
^•^
XI
co
H
.
J
u
^
3
•^~
m
i-4
W
^
u
*
CM
h-J
U
u
0)
60
hi
CO
U
(0
• H
O
4J
U
0)
hi
0)
60
M
CO
fj
CO
• I-l
O
u
u
0)
hi
•H
Q
hi
0)
60
hi
CO
XI
O
to
• H
Q
4J
U
0)
hi
• I-l
Q
CO
XI
0
O
O
1—4
**»^
CO
Xi
1— 1
1— 1
60
*^
CO
XI
i— i
0
o
o
^
ca
ft
-
^^
i— i
**^
CO
1— 1
o
§
ca
i— i
^/
^-v
^*
S
^_
a.
3
O
o
j_)
c
CO
4-1
3
«~i
i—l
O
ooooooo* o* oooooo
v v CM r> —
•s^
1^
r~ r-» 1^1 co vo
f^ t^ ^^ »-H CO CO OS CO f^ f*^ O^
OOOOOOO OOO-*CO — i
OOOOOOO OOOO — O CO
OOOOOOO OOOO— < CM <-<
V V CM
-* CO
-- -H CM m m o CM
oooo — --CM — 4 o o m
OOOOOOO OOOOOvOiri
V V CO 00 CO
u^
CO
o
• * 10
ca j_i o)
0 CO C
•H f= (0
4.) ox;
CO hi 4J
B <: w
O co co
hi o) P -a o>
^ C co co 0) ^^ N C* co
CO H 0) 4J CO •!-< 01
0) Xi co 0) «— ^ co cy S *T3
— 4jo)x;"icj ccffl -H
. -J O) T3 4J — < 3CO.HOICOCOO
4J P >H 0) O Ci —^ hi *— I O 0) *H
COOCOC >>cOO^>hiC4J
-Hf-^ CO •— 1 OI—'4J>-HN_^4J 0) COQOC/3
O CO >> CO JM O 0) ^ -H -1^ d) O O CO
>3CU33&iGLi3SU Z Q 0-. CQ O H
§^ ^
B C X
SCO 4_)
CO rH • «
B 0) <0 C 3
(0 J-i O -D
O i-i S •" -rt
hi CO CO
V4-I C "TJ hi
co e •* o
~* ox *«
1-44-1 -rl O
> tO • 4-1 ft
O 4J «0 i-i O
O OJ -H 0 M-"
• «i l_l 1_1 ^ (^
•H H M 9S •"
4J o o) o 60 e
0 «-" 4J O 60
w c <-< <-i -^
en >Q -H co o ca
0) O -H 01
C CO «-i -H XI -O
•H 3 o g
0) ce ca
•O CO t-i X! 3 -i-*
0) 4-1 0) U I-l
u C > C*. co
e cu o) •> xi
o) 3 "-1 eo o» 1-1
« ^ e 4-1
0) M-i 0) -H CO • O
hi »W X! Ou-rt C O
a o> u (i hi o o
CO C 0) M O ~4J -T
CO OO > 4J hi CO ^
^-^ -H O CO Q. hi •— 1
CO XI Q. 4J CO
0) tt) CO g CO ^ M)
-H Q (0 -H
•8 S 2 S^ §
> • co eg iri
0) ^ 4J CO -H • •
x; xi ca "S o
o C 4-i >> 8 xi a)
co o e w 1-1 hi hi
T3 4-1 tt> 0> hi CO O r;
o> o ai g •e 3 ?
60 0) hi 4J >>T3 -O v-^
•o co a co x: a>
3 0) CO 4J —1
"-1 C 0) h< hi 3 to — .
•^ XI 4J O -^ > 60
hi o) a. -i-i B
O -O O M " 4-1
O) 4-1 D. C CM 0 X
•O 4J O Cfl
0) e c ca x> i-i -4-
ij a) c 3 o ai i— i oo
4-1 hi S I-l _J 3
ca (X u hi e X
e 4-1 c o ai -a CO >.T3 •
cu o) oi x; xi co — i
3 — * 13 o 4J "•>.
r* 3 OJ C U I-l 1— 1
ihi-^_i.,-ioa>o> co
*4-l CO CJ *Q >H hi ^ 60
0) O X 4J -H «U
— i a> 4J a. -a i-J • o
0) U hi 0) O
OOOJcacuocacoi— iiri
CO 4J CL hi CO CU 0) XI **
hi OT3-H*OP^'O CO -^
01 ccj O *O CQ 3 3 O
> ft hi i— 1 1— < -H ||
CO 60 hi " O O •— 1
ft O C C C CU ca
P n) 4-1 y-i o -H -H O.X1
hi hi e -H ce -H
0) CO eN 4J PO -*
4J C 4-1 CO 4J O
1 60 3 —• i hi i—4 »-H O CO
00-H — i 0) CO 0) 0) Z O
c to i— i > a. > > ••
OO)OO)0)0)O)H— '
H^ T3 CU i-3 CO nj ^J ***•»
< CO
* -I- * f-o -^ XJ
* -i- Z ^
XI1-20
-------
Table XII-4. Option 1 BAT Costs for Direct Discharge tetallo-Organic Manufacturers
5,000
Average Flow (gpd)
500
50
Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Ehergy Capital Annual Ehergy
Contract Hauling
Hazardous
Norhazardous
Evaporation
$446,000
$186,000
— $44,600
— $18,600
- $4,460
- $1,860
Solar
(5 in/yr IE) $1,200,000
(10 in/yr W) $640,000
(20 in/yr 1C) $350,000
(30 in/yr 1C) $230,000
$170,000
$100,000
$58,000
$46,000
—
$160,000
$92,000
$62,000
$42,000
$28,000
$18,000
$13,000
$10,500
—
$28,000
$16,500
$13,000
$9,200
$6,700
$5,600
$4,400
$4,400
—
Spray
(10
(5
psi)
psi)
$90
$145
,000
,000
$50,000
$66,000
$13,000
$20,000
$16,400
$24,000
$11,000
$11,900
$240
$400
$10,700
$12,000
$4,200
$4,600
$150
$165
NE - Met evaporation.
psi * Founds per square inch.
XI1-21
-------
Table XII-5. Option 1 BAT Costs for Direct Discharge Formulator/Packagers
Average Flow (gpd)
5,000 500 50
Capital Annual Ehergy Capital Annual Ehergy Capital Annual Energy
Contract Hauling
Hazardous — $446,000 — — $44,600 — — $4,460 —
Nonhazardous — $186,000 — — $18,600 — — $1,860 —
Evaporation
Solar
(5 in/yr
(10 in/yr
(20 in/yr
(30 in/yr
Spray
(10 psi)
(5 psi)
NE -Net
1C) $1,200,000 $170,000 — $160,000 $28,000
IE) $640,000 $100,000 — $92,000 $18,000
1C) $350,000 $58,000 — $62,000 $13,000
NE) $230,000 $46,000 — $42,000 $10,500
$90,000 $50,000 $13,000 $16,400 $11,000
$145,000 $66,000 $20,000 $24,000 $11,900
evaporation.
— $28,000 $6,700 —
— $16,500 $5,600 —
— $13,000 $4,400 —
— $9,200 $4,400 —
$240 $10,700 $4,200 $150
$400 $12,000 $4,600 $165
psi * Pounds per square inch.
XII-22
-------
H.
2
i
3
<
S
^
i
i
UU
~l
3
o o
e o-
u C9
-* i§ -*•
-i O
u> f-
§i
- I! -
ig
• M
i
— _ s* _^
«— •• p o <~*>
i
S o
^
3i
CC j
t 3
§5
i
(0
Ul
5
CM
_J
Ul
Ul
_1
—
~*"
PESTICIDE
REMOVAL
3l
si
5 ®
1
c
1-
^
£
Ul -I
0 <
u g
&i
S c
<0
§» z"5b-
>i 205
I — t~ -9
*< Soz
-*• *2 *P2
< I- 5 < K
r/> i *^ .3 »/»
ffi^ 25"
££ 2<2
bo S y o
22 S2|
£S §t8
S5 |§£
a
o —
1 o
c 3!
_J
S!
Ul
-1
— «>
M
§i
li
S u
S u
y o
h- -J
_ co o
& GO
H
LU
i3E
1^^^
<
Ul
cc
1—
uu
o
12
UJ
Si
Ul
o
Hj *"•
Q>-
Zff
UJO
so
Is
og
og
LUg
CCCO
^.
1
X
S
3
••^K
S
ll
UL
XII-23
-------
1
i
co
I
-\
CO
*n
3
ALL LEVELS
i
3
"
>
3
ss
N a
§i
— i§- —
io
ii
- I -
5 o
9 K
s O
—
—
STEAM
STRIPPING
STEAM
STRIPPING
1
PESTICIDE
REMOVAL
1
§>
"^ II "*
*S
I*
§s
i
< 8
>
Uf
1
BIOLOGICAL
OXIDATION
BIOLOGICAL
OXIDATION
!
Q
LU
i i
5 £S
s, M
z2 |£z
i ii n *n
"* i —II— ?§ §*J
< ' gj 35*
»-g =51
«S t a 3
io 2i«
i . O Z Z CC >
g; «3o
! §1 |S'.
- i - II sSl
i ^ ;<•<>-
S* Ifs
~
>
I
«^
TEAM
RIPPING
Ul _J
Q <
— 11 —
S K
LOGICAL
IDATION
O X
£0
Z Z o ° -
OC O 9 P OD
UJ OD 3 — O
5S «§£
AMENDED LE
EGORY 2
^S
°S
00
CD
LUg
OC CO
CM
X
S
3
O)
LL
XII-24
-------
Lm
i
Ul
_1
i
§
3
i
>
UJ
3
*
§!
Ul
o o
IM a
^ M ^ M^^to
5 o
u. »-
ll
o °*
io
M
O w
5*
53
— K
s 0
—
u»
o
2 x
S 2
T-
Ul
Ul
— »-
I— — ^ -^
M
si
0 S
a Q
s s
1 3
-*• {32
& CD
i
»
5
UJ
oc
1-
UL
0
€0
UJ
s«
9>
Zoc
mo
|2
o5
*C ti
a§
CC (O
CO
1
X
0)
3
0)
LL
XII-25
-------
5
a
i
3
3
I
i
•
3
0 0
E »;
u O
N o
2 O
It K
U
"* if *
X **
— I! —
** ?
if
X §
ii
81
i
H- M
< s
1
i
2
1
0
Ul
< °*
| *l
9 =i
?» t E
i
—
STEAM
STRIPPING
O C
Q Q
O S
PESTICIDE
REMOVAL
9 S 2 UJ 2
-i!-!-l!-jifj!
w W oc Q
o rf
w 5
ac ^!
^
Ul
Ul
~~*~
<§
o y
§1
5 o
LU Q
O —
5 8
co o
a. OQ
UJ
s
H
g
k»
U.
O
UJ
UJ
J
a_,
Zff
LLIO
SS
UJ§
flCca
^
1
X
0
3
0)
n
A1J.-ZO
-------
s
2
u
3
3
§
g
p
a
a
*
2
-j
0 0
-*. si -*•
3 o
u. I-
§i
— i§ —
K O
ii
—
ii
5 5
i §
Si
"S
if
Si
ii
*s
i
< s
HI
,
1
K
5
-
o
LU
< o
> z
P L_ Z
9 c T
9<
Si
$ z 5 h-
38 § a. Si z'l|
-* §1 — i -~ i! — 11 p^g
ii 5 §s E| <£t]
— 9 J O H
.. . -? < 1- 5
f/j ^^ (""" ^J ^5
CC ^"> "Si ""^
'I 0 LU "• "
UI
""*'
«P
^ 9
IS
CC ^
o O
o §
^ H- — 1
C/3 O
LU —
0. 00
Z
LU
SE
^"
^
LU
CC
U.
O
j
LU
LU
^j
ujin
9>
Zee
LUO
SO
is
0<
og
CC CO
U)
x
0)
3
0)
ii
XII-27
-------
H-
ffl
M
UJ
>
UJ
_J
_J
M
.J
UJ
>
UJ
j
co
si
>
UJ
-J
*
o a
w 0
§5
i s
§ 2
io
Bg
is
£ z
— 5s —
SI
if
s 0
0 0
< z
= j
J 3
° Z
z
< s
>
Ul
£
<
s
w
Z
Ul
5 0
> 1
& £*
< *S
1 1 . . ° ? =
*
u
is
—
CHEMICAL
OXIDATION
Q^
— 11 «^
si
BIOLOGICAL
OXIDATION
z2 iuj 2
2 0 Q K - O O
- -!!_ ll !§I
1 i» 11 |5!
— — _i O u.
= < C s
^^ iSS
"1 r\ 01 "• ^
m
UJ
Ul
CM
J
UJ
UJ
—
~
CHEMICAL
OXIDATION
1 2o|
-I - ii III
ii HI
— OC lil "• —
to OT 2 Q
22 go"
0=O ^ K m
uj a H C o
K OC H Q QC
-J < 5 Q uj
< 0 = < <
2
J K
> Q
«; X
2 o
UJ
u
— *•
U
51
§I
-j a
0 X
03 O
uj s
Q —
3 §
h- -i
J2 2
a. m
2
UJ
<
UJ
CC
L|_
LL
0
CO
UJ
UJ
.J
RECOMMENDED
SUBCATEGORY 6
(O
i
i^^_
X
o
3
O)
u.
XII-28
-------
a
Ul
i
M
UJ
§
o a
e %
UJ C
- sl -
U. P-
2
ALL LEV
§i
— il —
1«
Go
[CONTRA
HAULIN
< o
> z
K K Z
u 5 uJ
o 5 =
2 2 Z "* ^
K c o ° ^
_« _. I? S P rri *
1
Ul
i< NZd
Es ips
52 LU ™" ^ «D
to *^ ^ O ^
*v c w ji ^
o z z E >
n •• Z" ^ O
|o £ 2«f
3! u5 b 5 o: Q — p O
1 1? iiifi
in in
p £ 5 2 3 - o
55 i- a S H o or
tu -i < 2 y o ui
o- < o eo 5 < <
-IHH •*!!•"
i 5
-IHI-I -
STEAM
STRIPPING
— ^ i < ^^fc-
£ a
X x
og
METALS
SEPARATION
i$ M
"*Ii^l| ^
z
UJ
Si
31
is
^—
^
TREATMEr
IL
O
2
UJ
§
s^
Zff
UJO
IIJC W
o ^
OCco
X
o
3
01
E
XII-29
-------
i
(O
_J
UJ
Ul
_l
J
^
(O
is
3
_l
^
0>
^
-1
*
»
Ul
Ul
0 D
tc a.
ui U
N 0
^^^•^B. V) 3 ^^^^^_
^^^•^^ £ ®. ^^^^^
-) 0
U. K
|i
1 2
io
^
is
u I
— *• * a "•*•
if
o 3
i§
§i
cc 3
t- 3
Z <
O x
o
ii
UJ
i
K
<
c
z
M
Q
Ul
< o
> 5
g ^5
< 5g
9 «5
i i ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^s ^^ »^ *—
—
PESTICIDE
REMOVAL
"^
BIOLOGICAL
OXIDATION
—
FILTRATION
rf *• •"> ^~
-. o 5 ui z
g p * o o
&• z o c
-If- i| |M
§s g| §§1
.— < K 5
^S §2s
SO ait S
^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ -^ H* ^
0
W X.X
^ x
3 o
i 1 i— - nc — '
T*
Ul
111
UJ
_i
-^
Ul ^
a <
E i
ul ui
jj* ff
Q. E
— »
< i
»i
32
•J V
O X
So
s s
— 3
y §
••^ e/> o
LU —
0. CO
UJ
•5
2
S
OC
u.
o
(0
UJ
UJ
«J
gco
Q>-
Zff
LUO
SO
Ir
8«
W CQ
UJ°
OCco
00
1
X
0)
^^
5*
rr
•B^Bl
XII-30
-------
i
!3
si
UJ
^
3
9
Uj
i
a
gj
g
111
III
g£
^^^ta ** D ^^^^>
^^^^ S •
3 o
U. H
§1
-^ i§ -*
5 2'
ig
5a
| X
M Z
i§
« i
ec j
5 3
Ss
i ^
I1
Ul
S
"
Q
< o'
^ z
Q | 5
—
STEAM
STRIPPING
—
PESTICIDE
REMOVAL
—
BIOLOGICAL
OXIDATION
^2 Z UJ Z
» — ^ P S
»« £/l «• ^- —
WB! t: w 5
v —' IT o
u
in
M
111
—
STEAM
STRIPPING
STEAM
STRIPPING
—
PESTICIDE
REMOVAL
PESTICIDE
REMOVAL
—
. _ — _ •• ~ ^
BIOLOGICAL
OXIDATION
BIOLOGICAL
OXIDATION
ff < _- < Q
S >1 gjjaf
iu — 2 5 uj
^^ ^^ ^3 ^< ^D
^0 M Z f
zz o 2 -
£ S => t o
i- tr jj a oc
_l < SOU!
< u 5 < <
0
> Q
¥ X
5 o
rr — 1
j
111
m
.4
_».
0<
S S
•> S
£g
_,».
i
•~-
X
2
3
O>
miffrnm
U.
XII-31
-------
k_
<
CO
Ul
Ul
_J
i
a
§
2
<
3
Hi
o a
e a.
u O
Ifl § _^
3 o
U. K
§1
If
_ *»
ii
5s
-^ IsS -*-
M 2
11
H ,.
5"
OC _j
H
?• IA
>i
2 9
Is
Ul
i
K
Ul
0
UJ
i i
S3 £5
< 5g
0 e= =
2-r pi
»
UJ
Sj
«
UJ
w
_j
UJ
§
(9 -i £
3 Z < 2
9 IT UP
SfE ^|
C Og
Ul -I
O <
oc
ii i Ii 1 |i
2o = a: S N — o
§8 5 ^ S<2
i| ii'I
5I
£g
UIO
^5 C9
= m
og
00
. CD
Ujg
CCco
O
1
•^B
X
0
O)
UL
XII-32
-------
SECTION XIII
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The basis for new source performance standards (NSPS) under Section 306
of the Act is the best available demonstrated technology (BADT). New
direct discharge manufacturers, formulator/packagers, and metallo-
organic pesticide manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper, and
arsenic-based products have the opportunity to design the best and most
efficient pesticide processes and wastewater treatment technologies.
Therefore, Congress directed EPA to consider the best demonstrated
process changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment techno-
logies which reduce pollution to the maximum extent feasible. A major
difference between NSPS and BAT is that the Act does not require
evaluation of NSPS in light of a cost-effectiveness test.
It is proposed that NSPS for pesticide manufacturers include 101
nonconventional pesticide and 25 priority pollutants proposed for
regulation under BAT, and conventional pollutants and COD proposed for
regulation under expanded BPT. In addition, 36 nonconventional
pesticide and 9 priority pollutant pesticides previously regulated for
direct discharge under BPT are also proposed for regulation under NSPS.
The effluent limitations guidelines for pesticide manufacturer NSPS are
listed in Tables 11-20 through 11-30.
It is also proposed that NSPS for pesticide formulator/packagers and
select metallo-organic manufacturers be proposed as zero discharge of
all process wastewater. The proposed NSPS effluent limitation for
select metallo-organic manufacturers and formulator/packagers is listed
in Tables 11-31 and 11-32, respectively.
POLLUTANT PARAMETERS PROPOSED FOR REGULATION
Nonconventional pesticides proposed for regulation under NSPS include
those listed under BAT in Table XII-1. In addition, 36 nonconventional
pesticide pollutants listed in Table XIII-1, which were previously
regulated in BPT for direct discharge, are also proposed for NSPS
regulation.
Priority pollutants proposed for regulation under NSPS include those
listed under BAT in Table XII-2. In addition, 9 priority pollutant
pesticides listed in Table XIII-2, which were previously regulated in
BPT for direct discharge, are also proposed for NSPS regulation for the
priority pollutant parameter.
It is proposed that NSPS equal expanded BPT for the regulation of the
conventional pollutants BOD, TSS, pH, and COD.
XIII-1
-------
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TECHNOLOGY
Data from existing pesticide manufacturing plants were used to define a
model direct discharger for each subcategory. Average subcategory
production and discharge flow rates were used to define the model plant.
The derivation of NSPS includes identifying technology options, option
selection based on economic and technical aspects of implementing the
regulation, and determining long-term averages and variability. The
selection of long-term averages and treatment variability are discussed
in Section XV (Selection of Effluent Limitations and Pretreatment
Standards).
NSPS Technology Options for Manufacturing Facilities
Three technology options have been developed for new source performance
standards for pesticide manufacturers. The options are the same as
Options 2, 3, and 4 listed in Section XII under BAT and are also
summarized in the following paragraphs.
Option 1—
Option 1 £ases effluent limitations for control of priority, nonconven-
tional, and conventional pollutants on the selected BAT Option 2
technologies of pesticide removal followed by biological treatment, in
addition to steam stripping, chemical oxidation, and/or metals
separation, as required. Implementation of this option would achieve
significant removal of the pollutants of concern expected to be
generated by a representative new source. The pollutant removal
percentages that would be achieved by a representative new source are as
follows:
Pollutant or Pollutant Removal
Pollutant Group (Ibs/year)
Volatile Aromatics 3,330
Halomethanes 2,760
Cyanide 257
Phenols 1,300
Metals 440
Chlorinated Ethanes (ethylenes) 48
Nitrosamines 11
Dienes 8
Pesticides
Priority Pollutant 759
Nonconventional 10,500
BOD 209,000
COD 478,000
TSS 33,600
Capital costs for installation of this technology level will range from
zero dollars (no direct discharger in a subcategory) to 8 million
dollars (maximum treatment) per plant. Annual operation and maintenance
XIII-2
-------
costs will range from 0.042 to 4.6 million dollars per plant. These
costs do not represent incremental costs from BAT.
Option 2—
Option 2 bases effluent limitations for control of priority, noncon-
ventional, and conventional pollutants on the Option 1 technologies
followed by multi-media filtration. Implementation of this option would
result in additional removal of specific pollutants beyond Option 1 by a
representative new source, as follows:
Pollutant or Pollutant Removal
Pollutant Group (Ibs/year)
Metals 4
BOD 1,430
COD 17,100
TSS 150,000
Capital costs for installation of this technology level will range from
zero to $250,000 per plant. Annual operation and maintenance costs will
range from zero to $57,000 per plant.
Option 3—
Option 3 bases effluent limitations for control of priority, noncon-
ventional, and conventional pollutants on the Option 2 technologies
followed by tertiary activated carbon treatment. Implementation of this
option would result in additional removal of specific pollutants beyond
Option 2 by a representative new source, as follows:
Pollutant Or Pollutant Removal
Pollutant Group (Ibs/year)
Cyanide 0.2
Phenols 12
Metals 2
Chlorinated Ethanes (Ethylenes) 5
Dienes 0.1
Pesticides
Priority Pollutant 4
Nonconventional 47
BOD 1,430
COD 34,300
TSS 714
Capital cost for installation of this technology level will range from
zero to $780,000 per plant. Annual operation and maintenance costs will
range from zero to $950,000 per plant.
XIII-3
-------
Selection of New Source Performance Standards Technology for
Manufacturing Facilities
Option 1 treatment technology (physical/chemical and biological
treatment) is recommended for control of priority, nonconventional, and
conventional pollutants at new source pesticide plants. An exception is
that NSPS for Subpart N (Subcategory 11) shall be equal to BPT, which is
being proposed as no discharge of process wastewater.
Option 1 ensures that the discharge of 34 priority pollutants,
137 nonconventional pollutant pesticides, 3 conventional pollutants,
and COD will be adequately controlled without resulting in an adverse
economic impact on the industry. These proposed NSPS would not result
in any economic barriers to industry entry. Option 2 was rejected
because it is ineffective in removing priority pollutants and the
majority of nonconventional pollutant pesticides. The Agency rejected
Option 3 due to its extremely high cost.
NSPS Regulatory Options for Select Metallo-Organic Manufacturers
New metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper,
and arsenic-based products have the opportunity to incorporate the best
available pesticide processes and wastewater treatment facilities.
Existing manufacturers of these pesticides were required to achieve zero
discharge of process wastewater under existing BPT.
EPA has selected the BPT technology of total recycle and reuse,
evaporation, or contract hauling of all process wastewater as the basis
for NSPS for new select metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers. The
Agency believes that the processes used to manufacture pesticides in
this subcategory at new sources will be identical or comparable to those
used by facilities which achieve the BPT limitations. Selection of this
technology level ensures the use of the most efficient wastewater
control technologies at new sources. Since the NSPS are identical to
standards for existing sources, there will be no barriers to entry by
new sources. Capital costs for installation of this technology level
will range from $16,400 for spray evaporation to $160,000 for solar
evaporation per plant for an average flow of 500 GPD. Corresponding
annual operation and maintenance costs will range from $10,500 for spray
evaporation to $28,000 for solar evaporation per plant. There are no
capital costs associated with contract hauling.
NSPS Regulatory Options for Formulator/Packagers
At new formulating/packaging facilities, the opportunity also exists to
design the best and most efficient pesticide processes and wastewater
treatment facilities such that reductions in the use of and/or discharge
of both water and toxic pollutants will be maximized.
XII1-4
-------
The BPT effluent limitation currently being applied to existing
formulating/packaging facilities is zero discharge of process
wastewater.
EPA has selected the BPT technology of total evaporation or contract
hauling of all process wastewater as the basis for NSPS effluent
limitations for new formulating/packaging facilities. The Agency
believes that the volume and nature of pollutants to be generated at new
sources are comparable to those generated at existing sources because
there are only three basic types of formulations operations: dry,
solvent, and water based with vessel wash out being the major source of
pollutants. Selection of this technology level ensures the use of the
most efficient pesticide formulating/packaging processes and wastewater
treatment technologies at new sources. Since the NSPS are identical to
the standards for existing sources, there will be no barriers to entry
by new sources. Capital costs for installation of this technology level
will range from $16,400 for spray evaporation to $160,000 for solar
evaporation per plant, for an average flow of 500 GPD. Corresponding
annual operation and maintenance costs will range from $10,500 for spray
evaporation to $28,000 for solar evaporation per plant. There are no
capital costs associated with contract hauling.
Selection of Long-Term Averages
The long-term average effluents for direct dischargers are defined in
Section XV for manufacturers, including metallo-organic manufacturers of
mercury, copper, cadmium, and arsenic-based products, and formulator/
packagers.
Treatment Variability
Effluent variability factors for direct dischargers are defined in
Section XV. Daily and monthly factors are applied to long-term averages
in order to derive effluent limitations.
Effluent Limitations
NSPS effluent limitations guidelines for direct dischargers are
presented in Tables 11-20 through 11-32.
XIII-5
-------
Table XIII-1. Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutants to be Regulated Only
by NSPS*
Aminocarb
Azinphos methyl
Captan
Carbaryl
Chlorpropham
2,4-D
DCNA
Demeton-o
Deraeton-s
Diazinon
Dicamba
Dicofol
Disulfoton
Diuron
Fenuron
Fenuron-TCA
Linuron
Malathion
Methiocarb
Methoxychlor
Hex acar bate
Mirex
Monuron
Monuron-TCA
Neburon
Parathion ethyl
Parathion methyl
PCNB
Perthane
Propham
Propoxur
Siduron
Silvex
SWEP
2,4,5-T
Trifluralin
Additional nonconventional pesticide pollutants proposed for
regulation under NSPS include pollutants to be regulated under BAT
(see Table XII-1).
XIII-6
-------
Table XIII-2. Priority Pollutants to be Regulated Only by NSPS*
BHC-alpha
BHC-beta
BHC-delta
Endosulfan-alpha
Endosulfan-beta
Endrin
Heptachlor
Lindane (BBC-gamma)
Toxaphene
* Additional priority pollutants proposed for regulation under NSPS
include pollutants to be regulated under BAT (see Table XII-2).
XIII-7
-------
Table XIII-3. Option 1 NSPS Costs for Manufacturers
Cost
Capital
Subcategory
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lit
High
2,200
2,500
8,000
2,700
4,200
0
2,200
2,800
3,200
5,200
0
Low
1,300
1,500
3,300
1,700
2,300
0
1,600
1,600
1,800
2,800
0
($l,OOOs)*
Annual
High
800
1,000
4,600 1
1,300
2,300
100
1,100
1,100
1,300
2,600 1
0
Low
410
530
,300
800
900
42
650
500
680
,500
0
* High and low costs reflect differences in degree of treatability or
differences in recoveries obtainable.
t Proposed for regulation at zero discharge.
XIII-8
-------
Table XLII-4. Option 1 KJPS Costs for Direct Discharge Metallo-Orgaiic Manufacturers
Average Flow (gpd)
5.000 500 __j 50
Capital Annual Energy CapitalAnnualEnergy CapitalAnnualEnergy
Contract Hauling
Hazardous — $446,000 — — $44,600 — — $4,460 —
Nonhazardous — $186,000 — — $18,600 — — $1,860 —
Evaporation
Solar
(5 in/yr IE) $1,200,000 $170,000 — $160,000 $28,000
(10 in/yr IE) $640,000 $100,000 — $92,000 $18,000
(20 in/yr IE) $350,000 $58,000 — $62,000 $13,000
(30 in/yr IE) $230,000 $46,000 — $42,000 $10,500
Spray
(lOpsi) $90,000 $50,000 $13,000 $16,400 $11,000
(5psi) $145,000 $66,000 $20,000 $24,000 $11,900
NE * Net Evaporation.
psi * pounds per square inch.
— $28,000 $6,700 —
— $16,500 $5,600 —
— $13,000 $4,400 —
— $9,200 $4,400 —
$240 $10,700 $4,200 $150
$400 $12,000 $4,600 $165
XIII-9
-------
Table XHI-5. Option 1 NSPS Costs for Direct Discharge Formulator/Packagers
Average Flew (gpd)
5,000 500 50
Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy
Contract Hauling
Hazardous — $446,000 — — $44,600 — — $4,460 —
Nonhazardous — $186,000 — - $18,600 — — $1,860 —
Evaporation
Solar
(5 in/yr IE) $1,200,000 $170,000 — $160,000 $28,000
(10 in/yr IE) $640,000 $100,000 — $92,000 $18,000
(20 in/yr NE) $350,000 $58,000 — $62,000 $13,000
(30 in/yr IE) $230,000 $46,000 — $42,000 $10,500
Spray
(lOpsi) $90,000 $50,000 $13,000 $16,400 $11,000
(5 psi) $145,000 $66,000 $20,000 $24,000 $11,900
NE » Net Evaporation.
psi = pounds per square inch.
— $28,000 $6,700 —
— $16,500 $5,600 —
— $13,000 $4,400 —
— $9,200 $4,400 —
$240 $10,700 $4,200 $150
$400 $12,000 $4,600 $165
XIII-10
-------
SECTION XIV
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
The effluent standards that must be achieved by new and existing sources
in the Pesticide Chemicals Industry that discharge into a POTW are
termed pretreatment standards. Sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act
require EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards for existing sources
(PSES) and new sources (PSNS) to prevent the discharge of pollutants
which pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with
the operation of POTWs. The 1977 amendments to the Act also require
pretreatraent for pollutants, such as heavy metals, that limit POTW
sludge management alternatives, including the beneficial use of sludges
on agricultural lands.
The priority pollutant and nonconventional pesticide pollutant
parameters to be regulated under PSES and PSNS are equivalent to those
proposed for regulation under NSPS. These pollutants were proposed for
regulation based on the same rationale provided under NSPS,
Section XIII. The PSES and PSNS regulations will cover indirect
discharge pesticide manufacturers, forraulator/packagers, and
metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper, and
arsenic-based products.
POLLUTANT PARAMETERS PROPOSED FOR REGULATION UNDER PSES AND PSNS
The nonconventional pesticide pollutants proposed for regulation under
PSES and PSNS include 101 pollutants listed under BAT with the addition
of 36 nonconventional pesticides, which were previously regulated for
direct discharge in BPT, listed under NSPS (see Tables XII-1 and XIII-1)
for a total of 137 nonconventional pesticides.
The priority pollutants proposed for regulation under PSES and PSNS
include 25 pollutants listed under BAT in Table XII-2 and 9 pollutants,
which were previously regulated for direct discharge in BPT, listed
under NSPS (see Table XII1-2).
IDENTIFICATION Of PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
The derivation of pretreatment standards is similar to the derivation of
effluent limitations presented in Section XII. This approach includes
identifying technology options, option selection based on economic and
technical aspects of implementing the regulation, identifying long-terra
averages, and calculating daily and monthly variability. The selection
of long-terra averages and treatment variability are discussed in
Section XV (Selection of Effluent Limitations and Pretreatraent
Standards). The environmental significance of implementing PSES
XIV-1
-------
standards for priority pollutants and nonconventional pesticides is
discussed in Section XVI.
PSES Technology Options for Manufacturing Facilities
Two technology options have been developed for pretreatment standards
for pesticide manufacturers. These options are presented in the
following paragraphs.
Option 1—
Option 1 bases pretreatment standards for control of priority pollutants
and nonconventional pesticide pollutants on pretreatment technology of
pesticide removal (primarily adsorption or hydrolysis) and priority
pollutant removal (primarily steam stripping, chemical oxidation, or
metals separation, as required). The bulk of the priority pollutants
and nonconventional pesticides would be removed prior to discharge to a
POTW. The amount removed by pollutant/pollutant group is as follows:
Pollutant or Pollutant Removal
Pollutant Group (Ibs/year)
Volatile Aromatics 95,100
Halomethanes 87,000
Cyanide 8,117
Phenols 37,440
Metals 13,620
Dienes 249
In addition, 3.331 x 10^ pounds of priority pollutants (other than
those listed above) and nonconventional pesticides would be removed per
year through implementation of this option.
There would be an incremental capital cost of $12.3 million and an
incremental annual treatment cost of $5.9 million for indirect
dischargers associated with this option. Selection of this option is
projected to result in the closure of two plants and two production
lines.
This method is currently employed by well-operated plants in this
industry and has been demonstrated to eliminate upset and interference
at the POTW. Option 1, however, may not eliminate the pass-through
potential.
Option 2—
Option 2 bases pretreatment standards for control of priority pollutants
and nonconventional pesticides on Option 1 technology followed by
biological treatment. Implementation of this option would result in the
removal of additional pounds of priority pollutants by pollutant or
pollutant group beyond Option 1 as follows:
XIV-2
-------
Pollutant or Pollutant Removal
Pollutant Group (Ibs/year)
Volatile Aromatics 10,380
Halomethanes 8,900
Cyanide 16.5
Phenols 3,744
Metals 360
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes 1,526
Dienes 6
In addition, 1,500 pounds of priority pollutants (other than those
listed) and of nonconventional pesticides per year would be removed
beyond Option 1.
There would be an incremental capital cost of $37,000 and an incremental
annual treatment cost of $6.4 million for indirect dischargers
associated with this option. Selection of this option is projected to
result in the closure of 9 plants and 5 production lines.
Additional pollutant removal would be effected which might eliminate
pass-through at the POTW. However, at present only one indirect
discharger in the industry employs this level of treatment.
Economic Effects
A plant-by-plant treatment cost analysis was prepared in order to assess
the effect on the industry of implementing two technology options. The
results of this technical analysis were provided to the EPA pesticide
economic contractor, so that the economic impact of the potential
treatment costs on plant pesticide market value could be estimated.
All 117 manufacturing plants potentially affected by the Pesticide
regulations were reviewed individually. For the PSES regulation, data
from each of the 322 pesticides processes at these plants were evaluated
and treatment units were costed for those priority pollutants and
nonconventional pollutants detected or likely to exist in the wastewater
at levels above the design levels recommended in Table XIV-1.
Information on the process chemistry, raw waste load, treated waste
load, type of disposal, current treatment practice, and flow were used
in this review. The treatment units costed were selected according to
the pollutants requiring removal as summarized in Table VI-22. The cost
curves presented in Figures VIII-1 through VIII-22 were used in
estimating costs based on actual wastewater flows.
Treatment cost estimates were based on the following criteria.
1. For those plants with effluent data exceeding design
levels for priority pollutants and BPT levels for
pesticides projected treatment was costed to bring the
plant into compliance with the appropriate regulation.
XIV-3
-------
2. For those plants without effluent data, it was assumed
that pollutants germane to each process exist at effluent
levels in excess of the design levels and appropriate
treatment was costed accordingly.
3. Plant waste streams requiring similar treatment were
assumed to use common treatment units.
4. Pesticide costs were proportioned based on pesticide flow.
Where flow was unavailable, costs were proportioned based
on production.
It should be noted that treatment cost estimates may in some cases be
overestimated due to such factors as:
1. Treatment costs for activated carbon were based on the
purchase of the activated carbon system and regeneration
facilities. This is more expensive than the leasing of
activated carbon systems which is prevalent in the
industry.
2. Contract hauling has been costed to handle hazardous waste
at $60/yd^. Disposal costs may be cheaper if wastes
are determined to be nonhazardous.
Based on the above-mentioned analysis, plant costs were provided to the
economic contractor. Those plants determined by the economic contractor
to have treatment cost impacts greater than 4 percent of the pesticide
market value were reviewed in greater depth. At each of these plants
annual treatment costs were re-evaluated by basing the calculations on
the actual daily production rather than on previously assumed full year
production. Additionally, capital costs were revised to accommodate
only the largest pesticide flow to be treated over the period of one
year rather than the daily production of all manufactured pesticides as
previously assumed. Treatment costs were estimated only for those
priority pollutants and nonconventional pollutants to be regulated.
The results of this analysis are summarized below and in the following
table. Of the 117 plants and 322 pesticide wastewater streams
considered, it is anticipated that between 17 and 30 POTW dischargers
will require additional pollutant removal as a result of implementing
the design effluents. This could affect between 45 and 78 pesticide
wastewater streams from POTW dischargers depending upon the recommended
level of treatment selected for regulation.
XIV-4
-------
Economic Effect of Implementing Design Levels
POTW
Level 1
Level 2*
Capital Annual
($1000s) ($1000s)
Capital Annual
($1000s) ($1000s)
Sub-
Category
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
* Level 2 cost is in addition to Level 1 cost.
The same treatment costs are summarized for all affected plants in the
industry as follows:
Priority Pollutant and
Nonconventional Pesticide Removal
POTW
1,790
4,930
2,920
0
0
0
0
0
3,140
174
0
0
0
1,290
3,110
1,770
15
0
0
0
0
1,920
85
0
0
0
4,040
11,200
5,790
1,890
1,580
124
139
3,100
5,550
456
0
0
0
1,130
3,560
2,780
510
462
32
37
1,150
1,640
118
0
0
0
No. of Plants Affected
No. of Pesticide Processes Affected
Capital Cost ($1000s)
Annual Cost ($1000s)
Level 1
17
45
12,900
8,190
Level 2*
30
78
33,900*
11,400*
* Level 2 costs in addition to Level 1 costs.
In order to demonstrate the portion of the total treatment cost estimate
devoted strictly to nonconventional pesticide removal, the following
table is presented.
Nonconventional Pesticide Removal
POTW
No. of Plants Affected
No. of Pesticide Processes Affected
Capital Cost ($1000s)
Annual Cost ($1000s)
Level 1
8
14
6,430
4,220
Level 2*
19
38
9,220*
3,240*
* Level 2 costs in addition to Level 1 costs.
XIV-5
-------
Option 1 for PSES includes Level 1 technology. The total incremental
costs associated with this option would be 12.9 million dollars capital
and 8.2 million dollars annual.
Option 2 for PSES includes Level 2 technology. This option is consider-
ably more expensive with an incremental cost of 33.9 million dollars
capital and 11.4 million dollars annual for indirect dischargers.
PSNS Technology Options for Manufacturing Facilities
New indirect discharge manufacturers have the opportunity to incorporate
the best available demonstrated technologies including process changes,
in-plant control measures, and end-of-pipe treatment, and to use plant
site selection to ensure adequate treatment system installation. The
pretreatment options available for new dischargers to POTWs are the same
as those presented for PSES. PSNS treatment costs were projected for
model manufacturing facilities in each subcategory for Options 1 and 2.
These treatment cost estimates may in some cases be overestimated since
it is assumed that a plant would require all technologies recommended
for each subcategory. Tables XIV-2 and XIV-3 present the PSNS estimated
costs for Option I/Level 1 (physical/chemical treatment) and Option 2/
Level 2 (physical/chemical and biological treatment), respectively.
Selection of Pretreatment Technology for Manufacturing Facilities
Option I/Level 1 treatment technology (physical/chemical treatment) is
proposed for control of priority pollutants and nonconventional
pesticides for indirect dischargers under PSES and PSNS regulations. An
exception is that PSES/PSNS for Subpart N (Subcategory 11) shall be
equal to BPT, which is being proposed as no discharge of process
wastewater.
Although Option 1 may present a pass-through potential, Option 2, with
decreased pass-through potential, would have high costs and considerable
economic impacts. In addition, biological treatment prior to treatment
at a POTW (Level 2 for Option 2) is not proposed at this time. The
implementation of Level 1 control technology ensures minimal discharge
of the priority pollutant metals copper and zinc, minimizing such
problems as sludge disposal and pass-through. Discharge of priority
pollutant volatile organics and cyanide is also greatly decreased. Many
plants in this industry are currently achieving Option 1 levels of
control.
PSES Regulatory Options for Select Metallo-Organic Pesticide
Manufacturers
The metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper,
and arsenic-based products were not researched during the early develop-
ment stages of these regulations. However, at that time, the current
state-of-the-art was such that no discharge of process wastewater pollu-
tants was being achieved through the application of recycle technology.
Therefore, existing direct discharge manufacturers of metallo-organic
pesticides containing mercury, copper, cadmium, or arsenic were
XIV-6
-------
regulated at zero discharge during BPT. Current review of available
information indicates that select tnetallo-organic manufacturers maintain
zero discharge. Additional technical and economic data have been
collected for this portion of the industry subsequent to promulgation of
the BPT regulation. However, since manufacturers of these pesticides
conduct the same types of process operations regardless of mode of
discharge, the BPT data base can be applied to the indirect discharge
metallo-organic manufacturers. EPA has therefore selected the BPT
technology of total recycle or reuse, evaporation, or contract hauling
of process wastewater as the basis for proposed PSES for metallo-organic
pesticide manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based
products. Implementation of this option will establish regulatory
consistency with the BPT effluent limitation. Annual and capital costs
for this technology level will vary depending on the treatment used as
shown in Table XIV-4. For example, if Solar Evaporation is used,
capital costs for installation of this technology in a 500-GPD flow will
range from $42,000 to $160,000. Annual costs will range from $10,500 to
$28,000.
PSES Regulatory J)ptions for Formulator/Packagers
The indirect discharge formulator/packager segment of the industry was
not researched during the early development stages of these regulations.
However, direct discharge formulator/packagers were regulated at zero
discharge under BPT, based in part on data supplied by indirect
discharge formulators. These data, along with current information, show
that approximately 90 percent of all formulator/packagers in that data
base do not generate process wastewater. The remaining plants in the
data base generate low volume, highly concentrated wastewater from such
controls as washout of reaction vessels or air emissions scrubbers.
These plants typically evaporate or contract haul these wastes to meet
the current BPT zero discharge limitation. Additional technical and
economic data have been collected for this portion of the industry
subsequent to promulgation of the BPT regulation. The Agency believes
that forraulator/packagers conduct the same types of operations regard-
less of mode of discharge. The Agency solicits any comments from the
industry pertaining to this matter. Accordingly, the Agency is basing
pretreatraent standards for indirect discharger forraulator/packagers on
the BPT technology of total evaporation or contract hauling.
Implementation of this option will establish regulatory consistency with
the BPT effluent limitations for direct dischargers. Annual and capital
costs for implementation of this technology level shown in Table XIV-5
will be the same as the costs for the metallo-organic portion of the
industry.
Selection of Long-Term Averages
The long-term average effluents for indirect dischargers are defined in
Section XV for manufacturers, including raetallo-organic manufacturers of
mercury, copper, cadmium, and arsenic-based products, and formulator/
packagers.
XIV-7
-------
Treatment Variability
Effluent variability factors for indirect dischargers are defined in
Section XV. Daily and monthly factors are applied to long-term averages
in order to derive pretreatment standards.
Pretreatment Standards
PSES and PSNS pretreatment standards guidelines for indirect dischargers
are presented in Tables 11-33 through 11-45.
XIV-8
-------
Table XIV-1. Indirect Discharge Design Effluent Levels*
LEVEL 1**
LEVEL 2tT
Pollutant Groupt
Indirect Discharger
(mg/1)(lbs/1,000 Ibs)
Indirect Discharger
(mg/1)(lbs/1,000 Ibs)
Volatile Aroma tics
Halotnethanes
Cyanides
Haloethers
Phenols
Polynuclear Aromatic s
Metals
Chlorinated Ethanes
(ylenes)
Nitrosamines
Dienes
Pesticides
BOD
COD
TSS
1.0
1.0
0.04
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.001
0.045
1.0
1,470
3,890
N/A
0.037
0.037
0.0015
0.037
0.037
0.037
0.019
0.037
0.000037
0.0017
0.037
55.2
146
«»•
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.25
0.1
0.001
0.023
0.5
30
586
35
<0.00037
<0. 00037
0.00075
0.0019
0.0037
0.0037
0.0094
0.0037
0.000037
0.00086
0.019
1.13
22.0
1.31
* Long-term average effluents demonstrated or judged achievable (as presented
in Section VI) from maximum design raw waste load levels (as presented in
Section V). Design effluents used for cost analyses only.
T Pollutant groups excluded are not known to be present at or above the level
of interest.
** Level 1 for indirect dischargers (POTW, etc.) includes pretreatraent by steam
stripping, chemical oxidation, metals separation, adsorption by resin or
carbon, or hydrolysis as appropriate.
Tt Level 2 includes indirect discharge Level 1 plus biological oxidation.
N/A - Not applicable.
lbs/1,000 Ibs = 4,500 gal/1,000 Ibs x 8.34 x mg/1 (where 4,500 gal/1,000 Ibs is
design flow for industry).
XIV-9
-------
Table XIV-2. Option 1 PSNS Costs for Manufacturers
Cost ($l,OOOs)*
Capital
Subcategory
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lit
High
1,150
1,730
6,000
1,700
3,000
0
1,400
1,800
2,100
3,600
0
Low
360
600
1,420
800
1,000
0
800
500
710
1,400
0
Annual
High
560
770
4,000
1,000
1,900
100
900
850
1,000
2,200
0
Low
190
270
800
540
520
42
460
260
370
1,100
0
* High and low costs reflect differences in degree of treatability or
differences in recoveries obtainable.
t Proposed for regulation at zero discharge.
XIV-10
-------
Table XIV-3. Option 2 PSNS Costs for Manufacturers
Cost ($l,OOOs)*
Capital
Sub category
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lit
High
2,200
2,500
8,000
2,700
4,200
0
2,200
2,800
3,200
5,200
0
Low
1,300
1,500
3,300
1,700
2,300
0
1,600
1,600
1,800
2,800
0
Annual
High
800
1,000
4,600
1,300
2,300
100
1,100
1,100
1,300
2,600
0
Low
410
530
1,300
800
900
42
650
500
680
1,500
0
* High and low costs reflect differences in degree of treat ability or
differences in recoveries obtainable.
t Proposed for regulation at zero discharge.
XIV-11
-------
Table HV-4. Option 1 PSES Costs for Indirect Discharge tetallo-Organic Manufacturers
Average Flow (gpd)
5,000 500 50
Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy
Contract Hauling
Hazardous — $446,000 - - $44,600 - - $4,460 —
Nonhazardous — $186,000 — — $18,600 — — $1,860 —
Evaporation
Solar
(5 in/yr
(10 in/yr
(20 in/yr
(30 in/yr
Spray
(10 psi)
(5 psi)
IE)
1C)
1C)
NE)
$1,200
$640
$350
$230
$90
$145
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
$170,000
$100,000
$58,000
$46,000
$50,000
$66,000
—
—
—
—
$13,000
$20,000
$160,000
$92,000
$62,000
$42,000
$16,400
$24,000
$28,000
$18,000
$13,000
$10,500
$11,000
$11,900
—
—
—
•^
$240
$400
$28,000
$16,500
$13,000
$9,200
$10,700
$12,000
$6,700
$5,600
$4,400
$4,400
$4,200
$4,600
—
—
—
*•_
$150
$165
IE - Net evaporation.
psi = Pounds per square inch.
XIV-12
-------
Table XIV-5. Option 1 PSES Costs for Indirect Discharge R>rmulator/Packagers
Average Flew (gpd)
5.000 500 50
Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy
Contract Hauling
Hazardous — $446,000 — — $44,600 — — $4,460 —
Nonhazardous — $186,000 — — $18,600 — — $1,860 —
Evaporation
Solar
(5 in/yr
(10 in/yr
(20 in/yr
(30 in/yr
Spray
(10 psi)
(5 psi)
NS)
IE)
NE)
IE)
$1,200
$640
$350
$230
$90
$145
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
$170,000
$100,000
$58,000
$46,000
$50,000
$66,000
— $160,000
- $92,
- $62,
- $42,
$13,000 $16,
$20,000 $24,
000
000
000
400
000
$28,000
$18,000
$13,000
$10,500
$11,000
$11,900
— $28,000
- $16,
- $13,
$9,
$240 $10,
$WX) $12,
500
000
200
700
000
$6,700
$5,600
$4,400
$4,400
$4,200
$4,600
—
—
—
"~"
$150
$165
NE * Net evaporation.
psi * Pounds per square inch.
XIV-13
-------
SECTION XV
SELECTION OF BAT AND NSPS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING (PSES) AND NEW SOURCES (PSNS)
BAT and NSPS effluent limitations and PSES and PSNS pretreatment
standards were derived by selecting the long-term averages for each
regulated pollutant (nonconventional pesticides, priority pollutants,
BOD, TSS, pH, or COD as appropriate for each regulation) and by applying
daily and monthly variability factors to determine the daily and 30-day
average maximum levels.
Information presented in this section includes: (1) the selection of
long-term averages, which is based on an evaluation of effluents
actually achieved in the industry and those estimated to be achievable
through the application of best available technology, and (2) the
development of effluent variability factors.
SELECTION OF LONG-TERM AVERAGES
The first step in selecting long-term averages was to determine which
treatment technology option should be implemented for each regulation.
Based on the previous discussion of treatment options and economic
effects, the selection of long-term averages was derived for BAT and
NSPS by utilizing the selected option of pretreatment by steam
stripping, chemical oxidation, metals separation, pesticide removal by
activated carbon, resin adsorption, or hydrolysis, followed by
biological treatment. Whereas the selection of long-term averages was
derived for PSES and PSNS by utilizing the selected option of pretreat-
ment by steam stripping, chemical oxidation, metals separation,
pesticide removal by activated carbon, resin adsorption, or hydrolysis
with no biological treatment.
The second step in selecting long-term averages is to determine the
effluents achieved and achievable as described below.
Effluents Achieved
The actual effluents achieved by plants in the industry are summarized
in Tables XV-1 through XV-18. The pesticide code name and associated
plant, subcategory for the pesticide, number of data points available,
and existence of the recommended activated carbon, resin adsorption,
hydrolysis, steam stripping, chemical oxidation, or metals separation
treatment technology for direct and indirect dischargers are all
presented for evaluation. These data will be used for comparison with
the long-term averages judged achievable as the basis for effluent
limitations or pretreatment standards.
XV-1
-------
Effluents Achievable
It is the purpose of this subsection to define the effluent achievable
for each parameter to be regulated at both indirect and direct discharge
levels. To do this the effluents currently being achieved were compared
to design effluent level concentrations and/or lbs/1,000 Ibs. If
effluents achieved were larger than design effluents, then transfer
technology and treatability data for recommended technologies were used
in order to estimate the effluent achievable. If effluents achieved
were less than design effluents, then no estimation was necessary.
These evaluations are presented first for 34 priority pollutants, then
the 137 nonconventional pesticides to be regulated (see individual
regulation sections for pollutants to be regulated).
Priority Pollutants—Priority pollutant effluents achievable are
defined by group as follows:
Volatile Aromatics—Benzene is one of the six volatile aromatic
priority pollutants proposed to be regulated. Although there are no
full-scale data in the pesticide industry which document the removal
efficiency of benzene via the recommended steam stripping treatment
system, treatability evaluations by Hwang and Fahrenthold (1980) predict
that benzene can be stripped from 2,600 to 0.05 mg/1. A steam stripping
pretreatment effluent of 1.0 mg/1 is predicted to be achievable, based
on the assumption that the system designed in Section VI of this report
will operate less efficiently than that of Hwang.
Based on full-scale data from biological treatment systems operating at
Plants 1, 2, and 3 benzene has been shown to be reduced from levels of
2.68 mg/1 to less than 0.01 mg/1. It is therefore concluded that a
combination of steam stripping and biological oxidation can reduce
benzene to the direct discharge effluent achievable value of less than
0.01 mg/1.
Chlorobenzene is produced as a pesticide by three manufacturers in the
pesticide industry; however, there are no data available which document
the removal of Chlorobenzene via the recommended pretreatment of steam
stripping. As a result of a treatability evaluation, Hwang and
Fahrenthold (1980) have reported that Chlorobenzene can be reduced to
0.05 mg/1 following steam stripping. This system has an overall column
efficiency rating of 100 percent. A pretreatment effluent achievable
value for Chlorobenzene in the pesticide industry is 1.0 mg/1, based on
a 12-percent column efficiency as assumed in this report.
Full-scale operating data from Plants 4 and 5 have shown that chloro-
benzene can be reduced to <0.01 mg/1, a >99.7 percent removal, following
biological oxidation. It is therefore concluded that Chlorobenzene
pretreated to 1.0 mg/1 via steam stripping can be further reduced to a
direct discharge effluent achievable value of <0.01 mg/1 following
biological oxidation.
XV-2
-------
The recommended pretreatment for toluene is steam stripping. Plant 229
operates a full-scale vacuum stripper, as opposed to a steam stripper,
in order to minimize the amount of toluene present during regeneration
of their subsequent resin system. This system is designed to achieve an
effluent level of 10 mg/1 toluene; however, plant monitoring shows that
toluene is routinely reduced to only 24.2 to 29.1 mg/1. A treatability
evaluation by Hwang and Fahrenthold (1980) predicted that toluene can be
reduced from 535 mg/1 to 0.05 mg/1 via steam stripping at 100-percent
overall efficiency. Based on the 12-percent tray efficiency level of
the steam stripper designed in this report, the pretreatment effluent
achievable for toluene is predicted to be 1.0 mg/1.
Full-scale biological treatment systems at Plants 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10
have reduced toluene concentrations to <0.01, <0.01, 0.009, <0.01, and
0.005 mg/1, respectively. Therefore, it is concluded that following
steam stripping and biological oxidation, the effluent achievable value
for direct discharges of toluene in the pesticide industry is
<0.01 mg/1.
The three remaining volatile aromatic priority pollutants proposed for
regulation are 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene. Since these pollutants are proposed for
regulation only in those processes in which it is the manufactured
pesticide product, the effluents achievable are presented under
Subcategory 2 for the nonconventional pesticide parameter.
Halomethanes—Although no full-scale data are available in the
pesticide industry to document the removal of carbon tetrachloride
(CCl4) via the recommended treatment system of steam stripping,
treatability evaluations compiled by Hwang and Fahrenthold (1980)
demonstrate that CC14, like other halomethanes, can be reduced to
0.05 mg/1 following steam stripping operating at 100-percent overall
efficiency. Based on the lower efficiency rate of the steam stripper
designed in this report, a pretreatment effluent of 1.0 mg/1 for
CC14 is therefore judged to be achievable.
In the pesticide industry, only data from Plant 11 have been supplied
which document the removal of CCl4 through biological oxidation. A
removal efficiency of 73 percent with an influent of 1.0 mg/1 and an
effluent of 0.270 mg/1 was reported for CC14 at Plant 11. A treat-
ability study by Coco (1978) revealed that CC14 can be reduced to
<0.01 mg/1 following air stripping in biological treatment. Effluent
data from biological systems for similar halomethanes show levels equal
to or less than 0.01 mg/1 for methylene chloride (Plant 23) and chloro-
form (Plants 14, 15, and 16). It is therefore concluded that the efflu-
ent achievable value for CC14 is <0.01 mg/1 for direct dischargers.
Treatability evaluations by Hwang and Fahrenthold (1980) show that
chloroform can be reduced to 0.05 mg/1 following the recommended pre-
treatment of steam stripping operating at 100-percent overall effi-
ciency. Chloroform has been reduced by 98.4 percent to <0.001 mg/1 at
Plant 12 utilizing steam stripping. However, the value of <0.001 mg/1
XV-3
-------
reported for Plant 12 was not conducted per protocol. Full-scale
operating data from Plant 13 show that chloroform can be reduced to the
plant detection limit of <5.0 mg/1 via steam stripping treatment. The
steam stripping treatment system designed in this report provides more
capacity (tray efficiency of 12 percent versus 25 percent) than the
system utilized by Plant 13. Therefore, it is judged that the
pretreatment effluent achievable for chloroform following stream
stripping is 1.0 mg/1 for indirect dischargers.
Based on full-scale operating data from Plants 14, 15, and 16, chloro-
form can be further removed to <0.01 mg/1 following biological
oxidation. It is concluded that the effluent achievable value for
chloroform is <0.01 mg/1 following steam stripping pretreatment and
biological oxidation for direct dischargers.
Methyl bromide is produced by Plants 17 and 18; however, there are no
data available which document the removal of methyl bromide via the
recommended pretreatment of steam stripping. Hwang and Fahrenthold
(1980) have reported that methyl bromide can be reduced to 0.05 mg/1
following steam stripping using an overall column efficiency rating of
100 percent. The pretreatment effluent achievable value for methyl
bromide in the pesticide industry is 1.0 mg/1, based on a 12-percent
column efficiency as assumed in this report.
Full-scale operating data from Plant 18 have shown that methyl bromide
can be reduced from 1.110 mg/1 to 0.011 mg/1, a 99 percent removal,
following biological oxidation. Plant 17 deep well injects methyl
bromide wastewater. It is concluded that methyl bromide pretreated to
1.0 mg/1 via steam stripping can be further reduced to a direct
discharge effluent achievable value of <0.01 mg/1, as demonstrated by
Plants 19, 20, and 21 for other halomethanes, following biological
oxidation.
There are no data available in the pesticide industry which document the
removal of methyl chloride via the recommended steam stripping treatment
system. However, a treatability evaluation by Hwang and Fahrenthold
(1980) has predicted that methyl chloride can be reduced to 0.05 mg/1
following steam stripping utilizing six actual trays and aqueous reflux,
at 100-percent efficiency. Based on the assumption that the steam
stripping system designed in this report is less efficient than Hwang
and Fahrenthold, the pretreatment effluent achievable for indirect
dischargers is 1.0 mg/1 methyl chloride following steam stripping.
Treatability studies by Coco (1978) have demonstrated that methyl
chloride can be reduced to <0.01 mg/1 following air stripping in
biological treatment systems. In the pesticide industry there are no
data available to document the removal of methyl chloride through
biological oxidation. However, effluent data from biological systems
for similar halomethanes show levels equal to or less than 0.01 mg/1 for
methylene chloride (Plant 23) and chloroform (Plants 14, 15, and 16).
The effluent achievable for methyl chloride is therefore <0.01 mg/1
XV-4
-------
following steam stripping pretreatment and biological oxidation for
direct dischargers.
A full-scale system removing methylene chloride is demonstrated to
achieve <0.01 mg/1 at Plant 22, using the recommended treatment of steam
stripping. Although these data were not conducted per protocol, the
percent removal conforms to plant design. Treatability studies by Hwang
and Fahrenthold (1980) have demonstrated that methylene chloride can be
reduced to 0.05 mg/1 via steam stripping at 100-percent efficiency.
Based on the above, the pretreatment effluent achievable for raethylene
chloride in the pesticide industry is 1.0 mg/1 for indirect dischargers,
assuming that the stream stripping system designed in this report is
less efficient than that of Hwang and Fahrenthold.
A value of 0.01 mg/1 methylene chloride has been reported for Plant 23
following biological oxidation. Coco's (1978) treatability study has
demonstrated that air stripping in biological treatment can reduce
raethylene chloride to <0.01 mg/1. The combination of steam stripping
and biological oxidation is therefore predicted to achieve a direct
discharge effluent value of <0.01 mg/1 in the pesticide industry.
Cyanide—Chemical oxidation pretreatment for cyanide in the
pesticide industry is in operation at Plant 24. This treatment system
was designed by the plant to reduce cyanide levels to less than
1.0 mg/1. The only data available from this system were not conducted
according to protocol. Transfer technology from the electroplating
industry demonstrates that 36 percent of all plants with this technology
achieve total cyanide effluent of less than 0.04 mg/1. It is concluded
that a proposed effluent of 0.04 mg/1 is similarly achievable in the
pesticide industry.
Data from full-scale biological treatment systems at Plants 25, 26, and
27 have shown an average reduction of 50 percent achievable for cyanide.
The proposed effluent achievable for direct dischargers following
pretreatment (chemical oxidation) and biological oxidation is therefore
0.02 mg/1.
Haloethers—Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether (dichloroethyl ether) is
proposed for regulation only in those processes in which it is the
manufactured product. No process wastewater discharge via total
evaporation has been reported by the one manufacturer, Plant 28.
Therefore, a zero discharge effluent is achievable. In all other
processes, bis(2-chloroethyl) is proposed to be excluded from regulation
pending the collection of adequate monitoring data.
Phenols—The priority pollutant 2,4-dichlorophenol is one of the
five phenols proposed to be regulated. Full-scale systems removing
2,4-dichlorophenol are demonstrated to achieve <0.022 and 0.82 mg/1 at
Plants 29 and 30, respectively, using the recommended treatment of acti-
vated carbon. Plant 31 has shown an effluent of <0.462 mg/1 using the
recommended resin adsorption treatment. Considering maximum raw waste
XV-5
-------
loads throughout the industry for all phenols (100 to 42,000 tng/1), it
is concluded that a pretreatment effluent of 1.0 mg/1 is achievable in
the pesticide industry.
Full-scale biological treatment system data from Plants 32 and 33 show
that 2,4-dichlorophenol can be reduced by 93.8 and >97.6 percent,
respectively. Assuming a reasonable 90-percent removal of
2,4-dichlorophenol through biological oxidation, the effluent achievable
for direct dischargers following activated carbon or resin adsorption
pretreatment and biological oxidation is therefore 0.1 mg/1.
Although no full-scale data are available in the pesticide industry to
document the removal of 2,4-dinitrophenol via the recommended treatment
systems of activated carbon or resin adsorption, carbon adsorption
isotherm data compiled by Dobbs, £££!.. (1978) demonstrated that
2,4-dinitrophenol can be reduced to 1.0 mg/1 following activated carbon
adsorption. Resin adsorption pilot scale data from Plant 34 have shown
that another nitrated phenol priority pollutant, 4-nitrophenol, can be
reduced from 1,000 to 1.0 mg/1. Therefore, the pretreatment effluent
achievable for 2,4-dinitrophenol is 1.0 mg/1.
Plant 35 has reported that 2,4-dinitrophenol can be reduced by
95 percent from 7.91 to 0.397 mg/1 following biological treatment. It
is therefore concluded that 2,4-dinitrophenol pretreated to 1 mg/1 can
be further reduced by a reasonably estimated 90 percent to a direct
discharge achievable effluent of 0.1 mg/1, following activated carbon or
resin adsorption and biological oxidation.
Resin adsorption pilot scale data provided by Plant 36 have shown
4-nitrophenol to be reduced from 1,000 to 1.0 mg/1. Activated carbon
adsorption isotherm data by Calgon (1980) indicate that 4-nitrophenol
can be reduced to a concentration of 1.0 mg/1 following carbon
adsorption. Based on the above, the pretreatment effluent achievable
for 4-nitrophenol is 1.0 mg/1.
Full-scale biological treatment operating data from Plants 37 and 38
have shown that greater than 94 and 99 percent removal of 4-nitrophenol
respectively, can be achieved. Therefore, it is judged that a
combination of resin adsorption or activated carbon followed by biolog-
ical oxidation can conservatively reduce 4-nitrophenol to an effluent
achievable value of 0.1 mg/1 for discharges to navigable waters.
As shown by Dobbs, et_ j_K (1978), carbon isotherm data for pentachloro-
phenol (PCP) indicated that PCP can be reduced to 1.0 mg/1 following
carbon adsorption. PCP is produced as a pesticide by three
manufacturers in the pesticide industry; however, neither activated
carbon nor resin adsorption has been utilized as a method of wastewater
treatment. A removal rate of 90 percent for PCP from <0.10 rag/1 via
activated carbon has been reported for Plant 39; however, these analyses
were not conducted per protocol. Data from activated carbon systems
(Plants 40 and 41) and a resin adsorption system (Plant 42) showed that
other chlorinated phenols, such as 2-chlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol,
XV-6
-------
and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, were reduced to less than 1.0 mg/1. Based on
the above, the pretreatment effluent achievable for PCP is 1.0 mg/1.
Full-scale data from biological treatment systems operating at Plants 43
and 44 have shown that PCP can be reduced to less than 0.4 mg/1—a
40-percent removal efficiency. Transfer technology from the timber
industry demonstrates that PCP can be reduced through biological oxida-
tion by 97.3 percent and greater for wood preserving plants. It is
concluded that an effluent for direct dischargers of 0.1 mg/1 is
achievable in the pesticide industry, based on 90-percent re«oval in
biological systems as demonstrated for other chlorinated phenols.
Activated carbon operating data from Plants 45 and 46 in the pesticide
industry have shown that phenol concentrations can be reduced to <0.081
and 0.029 mg/1, respectively. A pretreatment effluent of 1.0 mg/1 can
therefore be conservatively achieved.
Full-scale biological systems treating phenolic wastes are operating at
Plants 47, 48, 49, and 50. Data from all four plants have shown a
90 percent or greater average reduction for phenol, with an influent
value as high as 1,100 mg/1 reported for Plant 49. The effluent
achievable for direct dischargers is therefore 0.1 mg/1 for phenol.
Metals—Full-scale data from Plant 51 demonstrate that copper can
be reduced to 2.2 mg/1. The metals separation treatment system at
Plant 52 uses hydrogen sulfide precipitation, as described in Section VI
of this report. The recommended treatment system for metals removal in
the pesticide industry consists of high pH chemical precipitation
followed by a filter press. This system is comparable to copper removal
systems used in the electroplating industry. Transfer technology data
from 25 plants in the electroplating industry show that copper can be
reduced to an average of 0.49 mg/1 following pH adjustment (at an opti-
mum pH of 9.0) and clarification. It is concluded that a pretreatment
effluent of 0.5 mg/1 is similarly achievable in the pesticide industry.
Full-scale data from biological treatment systems operating at
Plants 53, 54, and 55 show that copper can be reduced by approximately
50 percent following biological oxidation. The effluent achievable for
direct dischargers is therefore 0.25 mg/1 copper following the
recommended treatment of metals separation and biological oxidation.
Although there are no full-scale data available in the pesticide
industry to document the removal efficiency of zinc via a metals
separation treatment system, transfer technology data from the coil
coating industry demonstrate that zinc can be reduced to 0.5 iig/1
following lime settling precipitation and to 0.25 mg/1 following lime
settling/filtration (Hall, 1980). Transfer technology data from
25 plants in the electroplating industry demonstrate that zinc can be
reduced to 0.72 mg/1 following pH adjustment and clarification. The
recommended metals separation treatment system for the pesticide
industry, as described in Section VI of this report, is comparable to
the systems used in the battery and electroplating industries with the
XV-7
-------
addition of a filter press. Plant 56 has in place ferric sulfate and
lime precipitation treatment, which is designed primarily for the
removal of arsenic and zinc from surface water runoff. There are no
data available to document the removal of zinc through the chemical
precipitation treatment step of the surface water treatment system.
However, an evaporator/crystallizer treatment system is also used at
Plant 56 for the removal of pesticides and metals from process
wastewater. This evaporator/crystallizer system concentrates pesticide
wastewater to a slurry of 25 percent suspended solids by a Swenson
double effect evaporator. The influent zinc concentration was found to
be 248 mg/1 during verification sampling. The evaporator condensate or
effluent concentration was 0.18 mg/1 zinc, with a removal efficiency of
99.9 percent. It is concluded that the evaporator/crystallizer treat-
ment system achieves the same result as the metals separation system
designed in this report. Based on the above, the pretreatment effluent
achievable for zinc in the pesticide industry is judged to be 0.5 mg/1.
Plant 57 has a full-scale biological treatment system in operation.
Data from this plant show a removal efficiency of 77.4 percent for zinc
through biological oxidation to a level of 0.120 mg/1. Based on a
reasonable assumption of 50 percent removal through biological
oxidation, the zinc effluent achievable for the pesticide industry is
therefore 0.25 mg/1, following the recommended treatment of metals
separation and biological oxidation.
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes—At Plant 58 a full-scale steam
stripping system, which is the recommended pretreatment for chlorinated
ethanes, was recently installed to remove 1,2-dichloroethane from
pesticide and pesticide intermediate process wastewater. However, no
data are currently available to document the removal of this solvent via
steam stripping for Plant 58. Treatability evaluations by Walk and
Haydell (1978) established that steam stripping is theoretically
feasible for 1,2-dichloroethane due to its 9,000-mg/l solubility in
water and boiling point of 83.5°C. Similarly, Hwang and Fahrenthold
(1980) reported that 1,2-dichloroethane, with an activity coefficient of
173 and a vapor pressure of 167 kPa, at 100"C, can be reduced to
0.05 mg/1 following steam stripping treatment operating at 100-percent
overall efficiency. It is therefore predicted that the pretreatment
effluent achievable for indirect dischargers is 1.0 mg/1 for 1,2-
dichloroethane, assuming that the steam stripping system designed in
this report is only 12 percent tray efficient.
Full-scale operating data for Plants 59 and 60 show approximately
50 percent removal of 1,2-dichloroethane through biological oxidation to
effluent levels of 0.58 and 0.18 mg/1, respectively. Other priority
pollutant chlorinated ethanes and ethylenes have been reduced by greater
than 90 percent through biological oxidation. For example, full-scale
data from Plant 61 demonstrate that 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 1,1-
dichloroethylene can achieve effluent levels of 0.022 mg/1 (94.9 percent
removal) and 0.041 mg/1 (96.3 percent removal), respectively, following
biological oxidation. Assuming a 90-percent removal of 1,2-dichloro-
ethane through biological oxidation, as has been demonstrated for other
XV-8
-------
chlorinated ethanes and ethylenes, the effluent achievable for direct
dischargers following steam stripping pretreatment and biological
oxidation is therefore 0.1 mg/1.
Although there are no full-scale data to document the removal of
tetrachloroethylene via the recommended pretreatment of steam stripping,
treatability evaluations by Walk, Haydel, and Associates (1978) and
Hwang and Fahrenthold (1980) have demonstrated the feasibility of steam
stripping as a method of removing tetrachloroethylene from industrial
wastewater. Hwang and Fahrenthold indicate that at a vapor pressure of
53.3 kPa, at 100'C, tetrachloroethylene can be theoretically reduced to
0.05 mg/1 via steam stripping treatment operating at 100 percent overall
efficiency. A pretreatment effluent value of 1.0 mg/1 is predicted to
be achievable for tetrachloroethylene for indirect dischargers via steam
stripping technology designed in this report at 12 percent tray
efficiency.
Based on full-scale data from a biological treatment system operating at
Plant 62, tetrachloroethylene has been shown to be reduced by 89 percent
to a concentration of 0.037 mg/1. An effluent for direct dischargers of
0.1 mg/1 tetrachloroethylene is therefore achievable in the pesticide
industry, based on 90-percent removal in biological systems.
Nitrosamines—Plant 63 has in place the recommended carbon
pretreatment for N-nitrosodi-n-propylaroine. Activated carbon effluent
concentrations of 0.0067 mg/1 (0.000038 ib/1,000 Ibs) from 20 months of
plant monitoring and 0.0041 mg/1 from verification monitoring for
n-nitrosodi-n-propylamine have been reported for Plant 63. The accuracy
of the plant data is judged acceptable. Therefore, the pretreatment
effluent achievable is 0.000038 lb/1,000 Ibs (equivalent to 0.001 mg/1
at the design flow for the industry).
Full-scale biological treatment and tertiary sand filtration at Plant 64
have shown an effluent n-nitrosodi-n-propylamine level from all plant
sources of <0.00024 lb/1,000 Ibs. This is an apparent increase in pol-
lutant from the activated carbon effluent of 0.000038 lb/1,000 Ibs due
to an unknown amount of n-nitrosodi-n-propylamine being generated by
nonpesticide process wastewater sources, and due to reduced analytical
sensitivity at the final plant discharge where flow is greatly diluted.
Until additional data are gathered it is recommended that the direct
discharge effluent achievable for n-nitrosodi-n-propylamine from
pesticide active ingredient be considered equal to the pretreatment
level of 0.000038 lb/1,000 Ibs and that monitoring of the segregated
carbon effluent be required.
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene—The pollutant 1,3-dichloro-
propene is proposed for regulation only in those processes in which it
is the manufactured product. No process wastewater discharge has been
reported by the manufacturers Plant 65 and Plant 66. Therefore, a
zero-discharge effluent is achievable.
XV-9
-------
In all other processes, 1,3-dichloropropene is proposed to be excluded
from regulation pending the collection of adequate monitoring data.
Based on previously-mentioned treatability studies by Walk and Haydell
(1978) and,full-scale data reported for Plant 67, as with 1,2-dichloro-
propane, 1,3-dichloropropene can similarly achieve an effluent value of
0.1 mg/1 for direct dischargers following steam stripping and biological
oxidation.
Dienes—The recommended pretreatment for hexach1orocyc1opent ad iene
(HCCPD) in the pesticide industry is activated carbon or resin
adsorption. Plant 68 uses a resin adsorption treatment system to reduce
levels of HCCPD. Resin effluent data have shown that HCCPD can be
reduced to 0.123 mg/1 according to verification data and 0.034 mg/1
(0.0017 lb/1,000 Ibs) according to plant monitoring during the December
1976 to June 1977 EPA demonstration grant at Plant 68. Treatability
studies by Aware (1979) have shown 99.5 percent removal of HCCPD to an
average effluent concentration of 0.0055 mg/1 following resin adsorption
of a larger flow than the demonstration grant. Based on the full-scale
data described above, the pretreatment effluent achievable for HCCPD in
the pesticide industry is 0.0017 lb/1,000 Ibs (equivalent to 0.045 mg/1
at the design flow for the industry).
There are no plants in the pesticide industry which currently use
biological oxidation to treat priority pollutant dienes. Dienes have
low solubility in water and like metals will adsorb on sludge rather
than biodegrade or volatilize. The removal rate of metals through bio-
logical oxidation has been documented in the pesticide industry and is
approximately 50 percent. The effluent achievable for direct discharge
of HCCPD in the pesticide industry is therefore predicted to be
0.023 mg/1 (0.00085 lb/1,000 Ibs) following activated carbon or resin
adsorption pretreatment and biological oxidation.
Priority Pollutant Pesticides—The BPT effluent long-term average
for BHC-alpha is 0.0344 mg/1 for direct dischargers using pesticide
removal. The pretreatment effluent achievable for BHC-alpha is
therefore 0.0344 mg/1 for indirect dischargers following the recommended
pesticide removal pretreatment of activated carbon, resin adsorption, or
hydrolysis. This compound is not currently manufactured and has not
been monitored in the pesticide industry.
The BPT effluent long-term average for BHC-beta is 0.0344 mg/1 for
direct dischargers using pesticide removal. The pretreatment effluent
achievable for BHC-beta is therefore 0.0344 mg/1 for indirect
dischargers following the recommended pesticide removal pretreatment of
activated carbon, resin adsorption, or hydrolysis. This compound is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry.
The BPT effluent long-term average for BHC-delta is 0.0344 mg/1 for
direct dischargers using pesticide removal. The pretreatment effluent
achievable for BHC-delta is therefore 0.0344 mg/1 for indirect
XV-10
-------
dischargers following the recommended pesticide removal pretreatment of
activated carbon, resin adsorption, or hydrolysis. This compound is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry.
The BPT effluent long-term average for endosulfan-alpha is 0.0344 mg/1
for direct dischargers using pesticide removal. The pretreatment
effluent achievable for endosulfan-alpha is therefore 0.0344 mg/1 for
indirect dischargers following the recommended pesticide removal
pretreatment of activated carbon, resin adsorption, or hydrolysis. This
compound is not currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the
pesticide industry.
The BPT effluent long-term average for endosulfan-beta is 0.0344 mg/1
for direct dischargers using pesticide removal. The pretreatment
effluent achievable for endosulfan-beta is therefore 0.0344 mg/1 for
indirect dischargers following the recommended pesticide removal
pretreatment of activated carbon, resin adsorption, or hydrolysis. This
compound is not currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the
pesticide industry.
Endrin was previously regulated for direct discharge under 307(a) of the
Act in 1977 and under BPT in 1978. The BPT effluent long-term average
for endrin is 0.0344 mg/1 using pesticide removal. The BAT recommended
pretreatment for pesticides is activated carbon, resin adsorption, or
hydrolysis. Full-scale plant data from Plant 69 have shown that endrin
is reduced to <0.015 mg/1 «0.0016 lb/1,000 Ibs) following resin
adsorption. However, a pretreatment effluent of 0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs is
judged achievable by upgrading the resin treatment system currently in
place by installing a filter prior to the resin unit.
The BPT pesticide effluent long-term average for the priority pollutant
pesticide heptachlor for direct dischargers is 0.0344 mg/1 for all
pesticides regulated. The BAT recommended pretreatment for pesticides
is activated carbon, resin adsorption, or hydrolysis. Full-scale plant
data from Plant 70 have shown that heptachlor can be reduced to
0.010 mg/1 (0.00082 lb/1,000 Ibs) following resin adsorption. The
pretreatment effluent achievable for heptachlor is therefore
0.00082 lb/1,000 Ibs (equivalent to 0.022 mg/1 at the design flow for
the industry) for indirect dischargers.
The BPT effluent long-term average for lindane (BHC-gamma) is
0.0344 mg/1 for direct dischargers using pesticide removal. The
pretreatment effluent achievable for lindane is therefore 0.0344 mg/1
for indirect dischargers following the recommended pesticide removal
pretreatment of activated carbon, resin adsorption, or hydrolysis. This
compound is not currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the
pesticide industry.
Toxaphene was previously regulated for direct discharge under 307(a) of
the Act in 1977 and under BPT in 1978. The BPT effluent long-term
average for toxaphene is 0.0344 mg/1 using pesticide removal. The BAT
XV-11
-------
recommended pretreatment for pesticides is activated carbon, resin
adsorption, or hydrolysis. At present, there are no indirect
dischargers of toxaphene process wastewater; however, in the event of an
indirect discharger, the recommended pretreatment long-term average is
0.0344 mg/1.
Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutants—Effluents achievable are
presented below for each of the 137 pesticides to be regulated, in
alphabetical order within each subcategory. Pretreatment effluents
achievable are presented for nonconventional pesticides whose wastewater
is currently discharged to a POTW. Both pretreatment and direct
discharge effluents achievable are presented for all other nonconven-
tional pesticides proposed for regulation.
The methodology used to estimate effluents achievable for pesticides was
different from that used for priority pollutants. Because many pesti-
cides had been regulated in BPT for direct discharge (a 0.00129 lb/
1,000 Ibs long-term average was utilized in BPT), current effluents at
each plant were compared to the previously regulated effluent rather
than to the design effluent. If current effluents achieved were greater
than 0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs, then an estimated effluent achievable was
calculated for direct and indirect discharge by using available
treatability data for pesticide removal.
It was necessary to estimate pesticide effluents achievable on a
piant-by-piant basis, because individual pesticides and not individual
priority pollutants are normally found at only one plant in the indus-
try. This approach allowed an evaluation to be made of the adequacy of
pesticide analytical detection limits. The estimated pesticide effluent
achievable, converted from lbs/1,000 Ibs to mg/1 at actual plant final
discharge flow was compared to the lowest known published detection
limit as follows:
1. If the estimated mg/1 achievable was greater than the
detection limit, then no further calculation was
necessary.
2. If the estimated mg/1 achievable was less than the
detection limit, then it was recommended that monitoring
be conducted at an in-plant, segregated stream where
analytical sensitivity was sufficient to detect effluents
achievable. In these cases the indirect and direct
discharge effluents achievable are the same.
Subcategory 1—Atrazine is a pesticide in the triazine structural
group. Plant 71, an atrazine manufacturer, uses granular activated
carbon for its removal. At this plant, which discharges to a POTW,
levels of 1.22 lbs/1,000 Ibs are being achieved. Treatability studies
by Little, e£ a\_. (1980), Lowenback (1977), Armstrong, et_ _a_l. (1967),
and Brown, et^ _a_l. (1972) have shown that hydrolysis of atrazine is
accomplished at rates similar to triazines such as cyanazine, which is
being hydrolized on a full-scale basis at Plant 185 to levels which are
XV-12
-------
declared proprietary. Based on available information, it is concluded
that atrazine can be treated to the same concentration as cyanazine,
after the existing system at Plant 71 has been upgraded with additional
hydrolysis or activated carbon, therefore a pretreatment level of
0.00803 lb/1,000 Ibs is judged to be feasible.
Benomyl is one of the carbamate pesticides. Plant 72, the only manufac-
turer of this pesticide, uses activated carbon to treat its carbendazim
carbamate wastewater. Activated carbon pretreatment effluent levels
which are declared proprietary for carbendazim have been reported, but
according to additional data submitted by Plant 72, subsequent activated
sludge treatment will remove an additional declared proprietary
percentage of the carbendazim, thereby making a final effluent of
0.000266 lb/1,000 Ibs achievable. Hydrolysis of carbamates such as
carbaryl, propoxur, and chlorpropram has been extensively reported by
Jett (1978) as an effective alternative to treatment by activated
carbon. Although no data on benomyl are currently available from the
plant (a sampling program is underway), the treatability of carbamates
by activated carbon or hydrolysis has been demonstrated, and it is
judged that benomyl will react similarly to achieve pretreatment and
direct discharge levels equivalent to those achievable for carbendazim.
Susan 40 is manufactured by Plant 73, which discharges process waste-
water without treatment to a POTW. Treatability studies at this plant
show that hydrolysis of KN methyl, a thiocarbamate like busan 40 is,
under alkaline conditions, an effective pesticide removal technique.
Activated carbon is also a good alternative to treat this pesticide
since raetham, also a thiocarbamate, is treated by activated carbon at
Plant 88, achieving POTW discharge concentrations of 0.002 mg/1
(0.0000214 lb/1,000 Ibs). Based on these treatability and full-scale
data and the similarity of these two pesticides, it is judged that a
hydrolysis system designed under conditions presented above, or an acti-
vated carbon system similar to the one currently employed by Plant 88,
can achieve the detection limit of 0.05 mg/1 (0.0000133 lb/1,000 Ibs)
for pretreatment regulations.
Busan 85 is manufactured by Plant 74, which discharges process
wastewater without treatment to a POTW. Treatability studies at this
plant show that hydrolysis of KN methyl, a thiocarbamate like Busan 85,
is under alkaline conditions an effective pesticide removal technique.
Activated carbon is also a good alternative to treat this pesticide
since metham, also a thiocarbamate, is treated by activated carbon at
Plant 88, achieving POTW discharge concentrations of 0.002 mg/1
(0.0000214 lb/1,000 Ibs). Based on these treatability and full-scale
data, and the similarity of these pesticides, it is judged that a
hydrolysis system designed under conditions presented above, or an
activated carbon system similar to the one currently employed by
Plant 88, can achieve the detection limit of 0.05 mg/1 (0.0000146 lb/
1,000 Ibs) for pretreatment regulations.
XV-13
-------
Plant 75, the only manufacturer of carbofuran, treats this pesticide in
an activated carbon unit. Pretreatraent levels from activated carbon are
reported to be at concentrations which are declared proprietary.
Carbam-S is manufactured by Plant 76. There are no data available on
the removal of this pesticide prior to POTW discharge. Metham, a
structurally similar compound, is manufactured at Plant 88, which uses
activated carbon in its treatment system and reports that levels
achievable for this carbamate pesticide in its direct discharge final
effluent are as low as 0.002 mg/1 (0.0000214 lb/1,000 Ibs).
Based on this information, it is judged that an activated carbon system
designed similar to that being used in Plant 88 can achieve carbam-S
concentrations of 0.002 mg/1 equivalent to pretreatraent levels of
1.51 x 10~8 lb/1,000 Ibs for Plant 76.
Coumaphos, a phosphorothioate, is manufactured by Plant 77. The plant
reports that effluent levels which are declared proprietary are
achievable through hydrolysis, the recommended pretreatment technology.
Additional removal by hydrolysis to pretreatment levels less than
0.01 mg/1 (equivalent to <0.00108 lb/1,000 Ibs) is technically feasible,
according to plant data, by upgrading the existing hydrolysis system
(increasing the detention time from 1 hour to 2.5 hours).
According to plant data there is a declared proprietary percent removal
of coumaphos through biological treatment. Therefore, based on this
information, direct discharge levels achievable are judged to be the
same as pretreatment levels of <0.00108 lb/1,000 Ibs.
Plant 78, the only manufacturer of DBCP, reports DBCP has not been
detected in the combined final effluent following hydrolysis pretreat-
ment and biological oxidation at detection limits of 0.5 mg/1. Based on
this information, Plant 78 is achieving direct discharge levels lower
than 0.0462 lb/1,000 Ibs. At a plant estimated flow for a segregated
DBCP stream, the pretreatment level after the recommended treatment is
estimated to be 0.00045 lb/1,000 Ibs.
Because of the large dilution in biological treatment at Plant 78,
monitoring in a segregated DBCP stream is recommended. Therefore, a
direct discharge effluent level achievable will be the same as the
above-mentioned pretreatment level (0.00045 lb/1,000 Ibs).
Dichlorvos (DDVP) is manufactured by Plants 79, 80, and 81. Plant 80
uses hydrolysis and biological oxidation to treat its dichlorvos
wastewater, which is reported to contain less than 0.01 mg/1
(0.00871 lb/1,000 Ibs) of pesticide in its final effluent. Although
Plant 80 does not monitor pesticide levels immediately after hydrolysis
pretreatment, it is estimated by plant personnel that dichlorvos levels
which are declared proprietary are achieved. It is predicted that a
similar hydrolysis system at Plant 81 can achieve pretreatment levels
equivalent to 0.01 mg/1 (0.0002 lb/1,000 Ibs). Plant 79, which contract
hauls its process wastewater after pretreatraent by neutralization,
XV-14
-------
stripping, and metal separation, reports pretreated effluent levels of
<0.1 mg/1 (equivalent to <0.00574 lb/1,000 Ibs).
Dinoseb (DNBP) is manufactured by Plant 82, which reports a removal of
DNBP greater than a declared proprietary percentage through its tertiary
activated carbon treatment system to effluent levels less than 0.92 mg/1
«0.555 lb/1,000 Ibs). Hood (1979) reported pilot plant data from
studies of DNBP which showed a removal of a declared proprietary
percentage achievable by activated carbon pretreatment to levels of
0.0676 lb/1,000 Ibs.
Based on a declared proprietary percent removal which is achievable
through tertiary carbon, the pretreatment effluent can be further
reduced to a detection limit of 0.01 mg/1, and a direct discharge
effluent level of 0.0061 lb/1,000 Ibs will be achievable.
The only manufacturer of dioxathion, Plant 83, uses hydrolysis to reduce
the pesticide by a percentage which is declared proprietary to a
concentration which is declared proprietary. Since dioxathion, a
phosphorodithioate, is structurally similar to parathion (which is
hydrolyzed by a declared proprietary percentage at Plant 161) a similar
reduction to 0.72 mg/1 (0.00751 lb/1,000 Ibs) for a pretreatment
effluent is judged to be achievable.
Because of the large amount of dilution in the biological treatment at
this plant, the direct discharge effluent is estimated to be the same as
the pretreatment effluent.
Ferbam is manufactured by Plant 84, which uses evaporation/crystalliza-
tion prior to POTW discharge to treat ferbam process wastewater. Other
thiocarbamate pesticides like ferbam are being successfully treated by
activated carbon on a full-scale basis (e.g., metham in Plant 88).
Based on this information it is judged that if the wastewaters from the
ferbam process are treated by an activated carbon system similar to the
system currently employed by Plant 88, POTW discharge levels of
0.05 mg/1 (detection limit for dithiocarbamates, ESE and EPA Method 630)
equivalent to 0.0027 lb/1,000 Ibs are technically feasible.
Isopropalin, a nitro pesticide, is manufactured only by Plant 85, which
incinerates its wastewater and discharges scrubber effluent to the
tertiary treatment system. Pesticide data from this scrubber effluent
are not available. Other pesticides with structures similar to
isopropalin have been demonstrated on full and pilot-scale basis to be
treatable by activated carbon. Trifluralin, a nitro pesticide, is being
treated by activated carbon in Plant 85, and effluent pretreatment
levels which are declared proprietary have been reported. Based on
structural similarities of isopropalin and trifluralin, it is judged
that an activated carbon system will reduce isopropalin to the same
concentrations and a pretreatment level of 0.00123 lb/1,000 Ibs is
judged to be achievable.
XV-15
-------
There is an apparent increase in pesticide levels at the direct dis-
charge of Plant 85 due to the lack of analytical sensitivity at greatly
diluted flows. It is concluded, therefore, that direct discharge and
pretreatment levels of 0.00123 lb/1,000 Ibs are achievable.
KN methyl is manufactured by Plant 86, which discharges process
wastewater without treatment to a POTW. Treatability studies at this
plant show that hydrolysis of KN methyl is, under alkaline conditions,
an effective pesticide removal technique. Activated carbon is also a
good alternative to treat this pesticide since metham, a thiocarbamate
like KN methyl, is treated by activated carbon at Plant 88, achieving
POTW discharge concentrations of 0.002 mg/1 (0.0000214 lb/1,000 Ibs).
Based on these treatability and full-scale data and the similarity of
these two pesticides, it is judged that a hydrolysis system designed
under conditions presented above, or an activated carbon system similar
to the one currently employed by Plant 88, can achieve the detection
limit of 0.05 mg/1 (0.0000077 lb/1,000 Ibs) for pretreatment
regulations.
Metham is manufactured by Plants 87 and 88. Plant 88, which uses
activated carbon in its treatment system, reports that levels achievable
for this carbarnate pesticide in its direct discharge final effluent are
as low as 0.002 mg/1 (0.0000214 lb/1,000 Ibs).
Based on this information, it is judged that an activated carbon system
designed similar to that being used in Plant 88 can achieve metham
concentrations of 0.002 mg/1 equivalent to pretreatment levels of
0.00002 lb/1,000 Ibs for Plant 87.
Mevinphos is manufactured by Plants 89 and 90. Plant 89 uses hydrolysis
and biological oxidation and reports no mevinphos detected at limits of
0.1 mg/1 in the final effluent. Based on this information, Plant 89 is
achieving direct discharge levels less than 0.026 lb/1,000 Ibs. At a
plant estimated flow for a segregated stream the pretreatment level
after the recommended treatment is 0.00105 lb/1,000 Ibs. For Plant 90,
it is judged that a similar hydrolysis treatment system will achieve
POTW discharge levels of 0.00296 lb/1,000 Ibs. Because of the large
dilution in the biological treatment at Plant 89, monitoring in a
segregated mevinphos stream is recommended and a direct discharge
effluent level achievable therefore will be the same as the
abovementioned pretreatment level (0.0015 lb/1,000 Ibs).
Plant 91, the only manufacturer of niacide, produces this pesticide only
10 days per year. Niacide, which is a metallo-organic pesticide, is
treated in this plant by evaporation and crystallization prior to dis-
charge to a POTW. Monitoring of the evaporator discharge (condensate)
has shown levels of similar metallo-organics, such as zineb, to be
0.35 mg/1 (0.0213 lb/1,000 Ibs).
The reduction of maneb, another metallo-organic pesticide like niacide,
by activated carbon to a level less than 0.15 mg/1 was reported by
XV-16
-------
Little, et al. (1980). Based on these data, the reduction of niacide by
activated~carbon to a pretreatment level of 0.15 mg/1 (0.0302 lb/
1,000 Ibs) in comingled pesticide streams is judged to be technically
feasible.
Oxaroyl is manufactured only by Plant 92. No data on the removal of this
pesticide through biological oxidation are available from the plant.
Pesticides with structures similar to oxamyl, such as methomyl, are
being treated at Plant 136 through chemical oxidation and biological
treatment. Removal of methomyl has been reported to be a declared
proprietary percentage through chemical oxidation and a declared
proprietary percentage by biological oxidation. Based on these data and
the similarity of these two pesticides, it is judged that oxamyl can be
similarly removed by these treatment technologies to the same level as
methomyl. Therefore, concentrations of <0.01 mg/1 (0.0084 lb/1,000 Ibs)
for direct discharge and 0.1 mg/1 (0.0872 lb/1,000 Ibs) for pretreatment
are judged to be achievable for oxamyl.
PGP salt is manufactured by Plant 93, which treats its wastewater by a
series of units including skimming, flocculation, and sludge thickening.
No treated effluent data are available from the plant. PCNB, a
halogenated aromatic pesticide structurally similar to PCP salt, is
being treated by activated carbon at Plant 179 to levels which are
declared proprietary. Based on this information, it is judged that PCP
salt can be successfully treated by activated carbon to detection limits
of 0.05 mg/1 (EPA Method 625 for pentachlorophenol) to achieve
pretreatment levels of 0.000376 lb/1,000 Ibs.
Phorate is manufactured by Plant 94. Plant 95 ceased production of this
pesticide. Plant 94 employs hydrolysis in the treatment of its waste-
water. Final treated effluent data for this pesticide are not available
from the plant, although a declared proprietary percent removal through
hydrolysis has been reported, achieving concentrations which are
declared proprietary. Diazinon and parathion, also phosphorothioate
pesticides like phorate, are being treated on full-scale basis by
hydrolysis at Plants 172 and 161, respectively, and effluent concentra-
tions for this pesticide after hydrolysis are declared to be proprietary
for diazinon and parathion. Based on plant data, additional hydrolysis
of phorate from a declared proprietary level to 0.01 mg/1 is achievable
by increasing the detention time from 1 hour to 2 hours. It is
predicted that this additional hydrolysis will reduce phorate to
pretreatment and direct discharge effluent levels equivalent to those
achievable for fensulfothion, also a phosphorothioate. Because of the
large dilution in the final effluent, pretreatment and direct discharge
achievable effluent levels for fensulfothion are the same—0.00167 lb/
1,000 Ibs.
Terbacil, manufactured only by Plant 96, is in the uracil structural
group along with bromacil. Terbacil data available from the plant
showed a declared proprietary percent removal of terbacil in a comingled
waste stream by chemical oxidation, compared to the declared proprietary
percent removal of bromacil through the same system. Based on these
XV-17
-------
proprietary data and the structural similarity of these two pesticides,
it is predicted the removal of terbacil by chemical oxidation and bio-
logical treatment will achieve levels equivalent to those for bromacil
of 0.0261 lb/1,000 Ibs for direct discharge and 0.149 lb/1,000 Ibs for
pretreatment.
The phosphorothioate pesticide terbufos is manufactured by Plants 97 and
98. Plant 97, which direct discharges its wastewater without treatment,
reports final effluent levels of 4,320 mg/1 (4.0 Ibs/1,000 Ibs) for
terbufos. Plant 98 disposes its wastewater by incineration, which
generates a scrubber effluent that is treated by chemical oxidation and
biological treatment prior to direct discharge. No data are available
from the plant on the incinerator or final effluent pesticide content.
In general, incineration has been demonstrated to achieve nearly com-
plete destruction of pesticides. Hydrolysis has also been extensively
reported (Jett, 1978) to be an effective treatment for the removal of
phosphorothioates. It is predicted that through hydrolysis, detection
limits of 0.001 mg/1 (equivalent to 0.000013 lb/1,000 Ibs) at Plant 98
and 1.0 mg/1 (0.000926 lb/1,000 Ibs) at Plant 97 can be achieved for
pretreatment regulations.
Because of the large dilution in the final effluent of these plants,
direct discharge levels achievable are the same as pretreatment levels.
Tricyclazole is manufactured by Plant 99, which treats its wastewater by
thermal oxidation. The incinerator scrubber effluent is further treated
by aerated lagoon and multimedia filtration prior to disposal to
navigable waters. No data are available from the plant to determine the
effluent levels of this pesticide in the scrubber discharge, although
the plant has estimated that the scrubber effluent pesticide discharge
is less than the BPT level of 0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs long-term average.
Based on data presented in this document for the pesticide industry, a
50 percent removal of tricyclazole by biological treatment is predicted.
A direct discharge level of 0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs is predicted to be
achievable after the pesticide removal in the biological system;
therefore, pretreatment levels of 0.00258 lb/1,000 Ibs are judged to be
feasible.
Subcategory 2—Alachlor is manufactured by Plants 100 and 101.
Plant 100, which treats its wastewater by gravity separation prior to
POTW discharge, reports alachlor raw waste load data of a concentration
which is declared proprietary. Plant 101 treats alachlor wastewater by
biological oxidation, achieving effluent levels of 10.3 mg/1 (0.556 lb/
1,000 Ibs)—a declared proprietary percent removal.
Propachlor, an amide pesticide like alachlor, is removed by activated
carbon in Plant 140 up to a declared proprietary percentage. Also,
studies done by Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1979) showed that activated
carbon removed 99.8 percent of alachlor. Based on these data it is
predicted that an activated carbon system will achieve pretreatment
effluent levels of 0.0938 lb/1,000 Ibs in Plant 100 and of 0.00142 lb/
1,000 Ibs in Plant 101.
XV-18
-------
Based on Plant 101 data, additional treatment by biological oxidation
will achieve direct discharge levels of 0.00112 lb/1,000 Ibs at
Plant 101.
AOP is manufactured by Plant 102 which uses evaporation/crystallization
prior to POTW discharge. Effluent levels for AOP of 0.35 mg/1
(0.0213 lb/1,000 Ibs) in comingled pesticide streams have been reported
by the plant. Other thiocarbamate pesticides like AOP are being
successfully treated by activated carbon on a full-scale basis (e.g.,
metham in Plant 88). Based on this information, it is judged that if
the wastewater from the AOP process combined with other dithiocarbamates
process wastewaters is treated by an activated carbon system similar to
the system currently employed by Plant 88, POTW discharge levels of
0.05 mg/1 (detection limit for dithiocarbamates, ESE and EPA Method 630)
equivalent to 0.0037 lb/1,000 Ibs are technically feasible.
Plant 103, the only manufacturer of benfluralin, uses activated carbon
to treat process wastewater. No data are available from the plant on
removal; however, this pesticide has a structure similar to other nitro
pesticides like trifluralin, which is treated at Plant 103 by activated
carbon to levels which are declared proprietary. It is judged then,
based on the similarity of these two pesticides, that the reduction of
benfluralin to pretreatment levels of 0.00123 lb/1,000 Ibs is
technically feasible.
There is an apparent increase in pesticide levels at the direct dis-
charge of Plant J03, due to the lack of analytical sensitivity at
greatly diluted flows. It is concluded, therefore, that direct
discharge and pretreatment levels of 0.00123 lb/1,000 Ibs are
achievable.
Bentazon is manufactured only by Plant 104. Process wastewater is
treated by activated carbon, chemical oxidation, and biological
treatment after it is combined with the remainder of plant wastewater.
Available plant data show an estimated bentazon direct discharge
effluent level of 0.09 mg/l (0.0054 lb/1,000 Ibs), based on the plant
permit application. It is therefore predicted that direct discharge
levels of 0.0054 lb/1,000 Ibs are achievable.
Based on data presented in this document for the pesticide industry, a
50 percent removal of bentazon by biological treatment is predicted. A
direct discharge level of 0.0054 lb/1,000 Ibs is predicted to be
achievable after the pesticide removal in the biological system;
therefore pretreatment levels of 0.0108 lb/1,000 Ibs are judged to be
feasible.
Plant 105, the only manufacturer of bolstar, has demonstrated a declared
proprietary percent removal using hydrolysis as treatment. Diazinon and
parathion, also phosphorothioate pesticides like Bolstar, are being
treated on full-scale basis by hydrolysis at Plants 172 and 161, respec-
tively. Pretreatment effluent levels which are declared proprietary for
diazinon and parathion methyl are being achieved.
XV-19
-------
Based on plant data, additional hydrolysis of bolstar from approximately
a declared proprietary value to 0.03 mg/1 is achievable by increasing
detention time (8 hours detention versus the current 4 hours) and
pretreatment levels of 0.00112 lb/1,000 Ibs (assuming average flow for
the pesticide industry) will be feasible.
Because of the large amount of dilution in the biological treatment
system of Plant 105, the direct discharge effluent achievable is
estimated to be the same as the pretreatment achievable effluent, and it
is recommended that monitoring be conducted in segregated wastewater
after pretreatment.
The uracil pesticide, bromacil, is produced only by Plant 106. The raw
waste load for bromacil has been reported by the plant to be a declared
proprietary value. The effluent achieved following biological treatment
was reported to be 3.2 mg/1 (equivalent to 3.71 lbs/1,000 Ibs). The
same plant also reported that a declared proprietary percent removal of
this pesticide is achievable through chemical oxidation (chlorination)
of a separate waste stream. It is judged that if a similar chlorination
system were used to pretreat the bromacil raw waste load, the
achievement of pretreatment levels of 0.149 lb/1,000 Ibs (0.14 mg/1) is
technically feasible. The degradation of bromacil by sulfuric acid was
reported by Kennedy, jejt £l_. (1969), who reported a complete structural
change of bromacil with the addition of the acid. The study does not
present removal data, but it clearly stated that the treatment of
bromacil by this method is a successful treatment alternative.
Plant 106 reports a declared proprietary percent removal of bromacil
through biological oxidation. Based on these proprietary data, a
concentration of 0.0261 lb/1,000 Ibs is judged to be achievable for
direct discharge.
Butachlor is manufactured by Plant 107, which treats butachlor waste-
water by biological oxidation, achieving effluent levels of 2.08 mg/1
(1.34 lbs/1,000 Ibs)—a declared proprietary percent removal.
Propachlor, an amide pesticide like butachlor, is removed by activated
carbon in Plant 140 up to a declared proprietary percentage. Studies
done by Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1979) showed that activated carbon
removed 99.8 percent of alachlor, also an amide pesticide. Based on
these data it is predicted that an activated carbon system will achieve
pretreatment effluent levels of 0.00548 lb/1,000 Ibs for butachlor.
Based on plant data, additional treatment by biological oxidation will
achieve direct discharge levels of 0.00268 lb/1,000 Ibs.
The carbamate pesticide, carbendazim, is manufactured by Plant 108. The
activated carbon system in this plant achieves up to a declared
proprietary percent removal of this pesticide with pretreatment effluent
levels which are declared proprietary.
XV-20
-------
Additional data provided by Plant 108 show subsequent removal of
carbendazim up to a declared proprietary percentage by activated sludge.
Based on these proprietary data, it can be predicted that an activated
carbon/activated sludge combination system will technically achieve a
direct discharge effluent level of 0.000266 lb/1,000 Ibs for
carbendazim.
Carbophenothion is manufactured by Plant 109, which contract hauls
portions of its wastewater and evaporates the remainder. Carbo-
phenothion, a phosphorodithioate, will hydrolyze under conditions and
rates (Jett, 1978) equivalent to those for parathion at Plant 161.
Effluent levels of parathion methyl after hydrolysis have been reported
by Plant 161, and are declared to be proprietary values. Based on these
data and the structural similarity of carbophenothion and parathion, it
is judged that a hydrolysis treatment system will reduce carbophenothion
to the same concentrations and a pretreatment effluent level of
0.0000229 lb/1,000 Ibs will be feasible.
Chlorobenzilate, a DDT-type pesticide, is manufactured by Plants 110 and
111. Plant 110 reports treated effluent levels of <0.554 mg/1
«0.0827 lb/1,000 Ibs) after biological treatment. No data are avail-
able from Plant 111 to show removal of this pesticide through chemical
oxidation.
Literature studies (Love, 1977; Whitehouse, 1967; Eichelberger, 1971;
and Hager, 1976) have extensively reported up to 95 to 99 percent
removal of DDT, methoxychlor, and other DDT-type pesticides by activated
carbon. Treatment of chlorobenzilate by this technology is predicted to
remove the pesticide to the detection limit (0.25 mg/1). Therefore, a
pretreatment effluent of 0.0124 lb/1,000 Ibs in Plant 110 is achievable.
Additional data provided by Plant 110 show removal of chlorobenzilate up
to a declared proprietary percentage by biological treatment. Based on
these data it is predicted that an activated carbon/biological treatment
combination system will technically achieve direct discharge effluent
levels of 0.00112 lb/1,000 Ibs at Plant 110.
Chlorpyrifos, a phosphorothioate, is manufactured by Plant 111.
Wastewater from this process is disposed by deep well injection. No raw
waste or treated effluent data are available from the plant. Hydrolysis
has been proven on a full-scale basis to be successful in removing
pesticides in the phosphorothioate and phosphorodithioate group. For
example, parathion and diazinon are removed by hydrolysis in Plants 161
and 172, respectively, to concentrations which are declared proprietary.
Based on the structural similarity of these pesticides with
chlorpyrifos, it is predicted that a hydrolysis system will remove this
pesticide to equivalent concentrations, and pretreatment levels of
0.00104 lb/1,000 Ibs in Plant 111 will be feasible.
Because of the large amount of dilution in the biological treatment of
this plant, the direct discharge effluent achievable at this plant is
estimated to be the same as the pretreatment effluent.
XV-21
-------
Chlorpyrifos methyl, a phosphorothioate, is manufactured by Plant 112.
Wastewater from this process is disposed by deep well injection. No raw
waste or treated effluent data are available from the plant. Hydrolysis
has been proven on a full-scale basis to be successful in removing
pesticides in the phosphorothioate and phosphorodithioate group. For
example, parathion and diazinon are removed by hydrolysis in Plants 161
and 172, respectively, to concentrations which are declared proprietary.
Based on the structural similarity of these pesticides with chlorpyrifos
methyl, it is predicted that a hydrolysis system will remove this
pesticide to equivalent concentrations, and pretreatment levels of
0.00104 lb/1,000 Ibs in Plant 112 will be feasible.
Because of the large amount of dilution in the biological system of this
plant, the direct discharge effluent limitation achievable at this plant
is therefore estimated to be the same as the above-mentioned pretreat-
ment level.
Plant 169, the only manufacturer of 2,4-D isobutyl ester, uses activated
carbon to pretreat the wastewater from this pesticide process prior to
POTW discharge. Final effluent levels of 0.0359 mg/1 have been reported
for the acid, and it is predicted that equivalent levels will be
achievable for this ester. Therefore, POTW discharge levels of
0.00105 lb/1,000 Ibs are achievable.
2,4-D isooctyl ester is manufactured by Plant 170. This plant uses
activated carbon to pretreat the wastewater from this pesticide process
prior to POTW discharge. Final effluent levels of 0.0359 mg/1 have been
recently reported for the acid, and it is predicted that equivalent
levels will be achievable for this ester. Therefore, POTW discharge
levels of 0.00105 lb/1,000 Ibs are achievable.
Plant 113, the only manufacturer of 2,4-DB, uses activated,carbon to
treat the wastewater from this pesticide process prior to POTW
discharge. Final effluent levels after treatment are reported to be
<0.0084 mg/1 «0.00102 lb/1,0001bs). Additional sampling is being
conducted at this plant to determine exact effluents achievable.
Plant 114, the only manufacturer of 2,4-DB isobutyl ester, uses
activated carbon to treat the wastewater from this pesticide process
prior to POTW discharge. Data are not available from the plant to show
final effluent levels after treatment by activated carbon. 2,4-DB is
currently being removed to final effluent levels of <0.0084 mg/1
«0.00102 lb/
1,000 Ibs).
Based on these data and the structural similarity of these two
pesticides, it is judged that POTW discharge levels for 2,4-DB isobutyl
ester will be equivalent to those achievable for 2,4-DB. Additional
sampling is being conducted at this plant to determine exact effluents
achievable.
Plant 115, the only manufacturer of 2,4-DB isooctyl ester, uses
activated carbon to treat the wastewater from this pesticide process
XV-22
-------
prior to POTW discharge. Data are not available from the plant to show
final effluent levels after treatment by activated carbon. 2,4-DB is
currently being removed to final effluent levels of <0.0084 mg/1
«0.00102 lb/1,000 Ibs).
Based on these data and the structural similarity of these two
pesticides, it is judged that POTW discharge levels for 2,4-DB isooctyl
ester will be equivalent to those achievable for 2,4-DB. Additional
sampling is being conducted at this plant to determine exact effluents
achievable.
Plants 116 and 117 are the manufacturers of deet. Plant 116 reports a
declared proprietary percent removal of this pesticide by activated
carbon to pretreatment levels which are declared proprietary. Plant 117
treats this pesticide by chemical oxidation prior to POTW discharge but
data on removal are not available. It is predicted that an activated
carbon system similar to that in Plant 116 will achieve pretreatment
levels of 1.26 mg/1 (0.00158 lb/1,000 Ibs) in Plant 117.
Because of the large amount of dilution in the biological treatment
systems of Plant 116, the direct discharge effluent achievable is
therefore estimated to be the same as the pretreatment level of
1.26 mg/1 (0.031 lb/1,000 Ibs) judged to be achievable.
Demeton, a phosphorothioate, is manufactured by Plant 118. The plant
reports that effluent levels which are declared proprietary are
achievable through hydrolysis, the recommended pretreatment technology.
Additional removal by hydrolysis to pretreatment levels less than
0.01 mg/1 (equivalent to 0.00062 lb/1,000 Ibs) is technically feasible,
according to plant data, by upgrading the existing hydrolysis system
(increasing the detention time from 5 hours to 10 hours).
According to plant data, there is a declared proprietary percent removal
of demeton through biological treatment. Based on these proprietary
data, the direct discharge levels achievable will be the same as
pretreatment levels—0.00062 lb/1,000 Ibs.
The only manufacturer of dichlofenthion is Plant 119, which disposes the
wastewater from this pesticide process by deep well injection with no
pretreatment. Raw wasteload concentrations of this pesticide have been
reported, and are declared to be proprietary. Hydrolysis is known to be
an effective treatment for phosphorothioates like dichlofenthion, to
reach levels which are declared proprietary (e.g., diazinon in Plant 172
and parathion methyl in Plant 161). It is predicted that similar
hydrolysis systems can reduce dichlofenthion to equivalent pretreatment
levels resulting in a pretreatment achievable value of 0.05 mg/1
(0.0000809 lb/1,000 Ibs).
Dichlorobenzene, ortho (1,2-dichlorobenzene) is manufactured by
Plants 120, 121, 122, and 123. Plant 121 reports a declared proprietary
percent removal of this pesticide through biological treatment. These
data result from combined dichlorobenzenes (ortho, meta, and para) in
comingled waste streams. Plant 120, which uses gravity separation and
XV-23
-------
neutralization as treatment, reports a final effluent concentration for
total chlorobenzenes < 0.081 mg/1 (0.09 lb/1,000 Ibs). No data for
Plants 122 and 123 are available. Other halogenated aromatic pesticides
like dichlorobenzene, ortho are being treated on a full-scale basis by
activated carbon. PCNB, which is a pesticide with structures similar to
dichlorobenzene, ortho, is treated by activated carbon at Plant 179 to
effluent levels which are declared proprietary—a declared proprietary
percent removal. Based on these data it is predicted that pretreatment
of dichlorobenzene, ortho with activated carbon and additional treatment
by biological oxidation will achieve direct discharge levels of
0.0000765 lb/1,000 Ibs.
Dichlorobenzene, para (1,4-dichlorobenzene) is manufactured by
Plants 124, 125, 126, and 127. Plant 125 reports a declared proprietary
percent removal of this pesticide through biological treatment. These
data result from combined dichlorobenzenes (ortho, meta, and para) in
comingled waste streams. Plant 124, which uses gravity separation and
neutralization as treatment, reports final effluent concentration for
total chlorobenzenes <0.081 mg/1 (0.09 lb/1,000 Ibs). No data are
available for Plants 126 and 127. Other halogenated aromatic pesticides
like dichlorobenzene, para are being treated on a full-scale basis by
activated carbon. PCNB, which is a pesticide with structures similar to
dichlorobenzene, para, is treated by activated carbon at Plant 179 to
effluent levels which are declared proprietary—a declared proprietary
percent removal. Based on these data it is predicted that pretreatment
of dichlorobenzene, para with activated carbon and additional treatment
by biological oxidation will achieve direct discharge levels of
0.0000765 lb/1,000 Ibs.
Plant 128, the only manufacturer of ethalfluralin, uses activated carbon
to treat process wastewater. No data are available from the plant on
removal; however, this pesticide has a structure similar to other nitro
pesticides like trifluralin, which is treated at Plant 128 by activated
carbon to levels which are declared proprietary. It is judged, then,
based on the similarity of these two pesticides, that the reduction of
ethalfluralin to pretreatment levels of 0.00123 lb/1,000 Ibs is
technically feasible. There is an apparent increase in pesticide levels
at the direct discharge of Plant 128, due to the lack of analytical
sensitivity at greatly diluted flows. It is concluded, therefore, that
direct discharge and pretreatment levels of 0.00123 lb/1,000 Ibs are
achievable.
Plant 129, the only manufacturer of ethion, reports an average raw waste
load which is declared proprietary for ethion prior to discharge to a
POTW. This pesticide is in the phosphorodithioate structural group.
The effectiveness of hydrolysis on pesticides with structures similar to
ethion has been extensively reported (Jett, 1978). It is therefore
predicted that a hydrolysis system at Plant 129 can remove ethion to
nondetectable concentrations of 0.001 mg/1 (EPA Method 614), and
pretreatment levels of 0.000138 lb/1,000 Ibs can be achievable.
XV-24
-------
Because of the large dilution in the combined discharge of this plant,
direct discharge levels achievable are estimated to be the same as
pretreatment levels.
The only manufacturer of etridiazole, Plant 130, uses activated carbon
to treat this pesticide wastewater. No data are available from the
plant to show how much etridiazole is removed by the activated carbon
system, since the product has been temporarily discontinued. Isotherm
data used in the activated carbon column design showed that etridiazole
and PCNB were similarly treatable; therefore, direct discharge levels
judged to be achievable for PCNB of 0.0182 mg/1 (0.0000765 lb/1,000 Ibs)
are also judged to be achievable for etridiazole.
Fenthion, a phosphorothioate, is manufactured by Plant 131. The plant
reports that effluent levels which are declared proprietary are
achievable through hydrolysis, the recommended pretreatment technology.
Additional removal by hydrolysis to pretreatment levels less than
0.01 mg/1 (equivalent to 0.0006 lb/1,000 Ibs) is technically feasible,
according to plant data, by upgrading the existing hydrolysis system
(increasing the detention time from 1 hour to 2.5 hours).
Data from Plant 131 show that an additional declared proprietary per-
centage of the pesticide is removed via biological oxidation; therefore,
it is judged that a direct discharge effluent of 0.0003 lb/1,000 Ibs is
achievable.
The only manufacturer of glyphosate, Plant 132, treats this pesticide
wastewater by biological oxidation. Literature information for other
pesticides in the phosphorus-nitrogen pesticide shows hydrolysis to be
feasible in alkali or acid conditions (2> pH >9). It is judged that
treatment by a hydrolysis system, similar to that presented in this
document, can remove glyphosate to an achievable effluent of 1.0 mg/1,
and an achievable pretreatment level of 0.0676 lb/1,000 Ibs at
Plant 132.
According to plant data, a declared proprietary percentage of the
glyphosate is removed via biological oxidation. Based on these data,
the direct discharge effluent achievable at final plant flow is judged
to be 0.00703 lb/1,000 Ibs.
Hexazinone, a triazine pesticide, is manufactured only by Plant 133,
which incinerates hexazinone process wastewater and treats the
incinerator scrubber effluent by biological oxidation. Plant data show
a declared proprietary percent removal of the pesticide through
biological treatment. Hydrolysis and activated carbon have been proven
on a full-scale basis to be successful in removing triazines to levels
of 1 mg/1.
Based on these data, it is judged that an activated carbon or hydrolysis
system similar to that presented in this document can achieve a
pretreatment effluent of 1 mg/1 (0.00606 lb/1,000 Ibs). Based on plant
data presented above, additional removal of hexazinone by biological
XV-25
-------
oxidation after pretreatment is predicted to achieve direct discharge
levels of 0.000551 lb/1,000 Ibs.
Mephosfolan is manufactured by Plant 134, which ocean discharges its
wastewater without treatment. Data from the plant show mephosfolan
discharge levels of 1,630 mg/1 (17.9 lbs/1,000 Ibs). This phosphorus-
nitrogen pesticide, according to plant personnel, will hydrolyze easily.
It is therefore predicted that hydrolysis pretreatment effluent of
1.0 mg/1 (0.011 lb/1,000 Ibs) is achievable.
Because of the large dilution in the combined discharge at this plant,
direct discharge levels achievable are the same as pretreatment levels.
Methomyl is an amide-type pesticide manufactured by Plants 135, 136, and
137, none of which has the recommended pesticide removal treatment.
Plant 136, which uses chemical oxidation to treat portions of its
methomyl wastewater, reports up to a declared proprietary percent
removal of this pesticide through chemical oxidation. Pretreatment
levels of 0.0872 lb/1,000 Ibs are judged to be technically feasible in
Plant 136 if all portions of the methomyl wastewater are pretreated by
chemical oxidation.
Plant 136 also reports up to a declared proprietary percent removal of
methomyl through biological oxidation. It is judged that pretreatment
by chemical oxidation followed by biological oxidation will achieve
nondetectable concentrations « 0.01 mg/1) in the final discharge equal
to 0.0084 lb/1,000 Ibs.
It is also predicted that a chemical oxidation/biological treatment
combination system at Plants 135 and 137 will achieve equivalent
effluent levels to those achievable by Plant 136.
Naled is manufactured by Plant 138, which uses hydrolysis and biological
oxidation to treat the wastewater to less than 0.1 mg/1 (0.061 lb/
1,000 Ibs) of pesticide in its combined final effluent. Although
Plant 138 does not monitor pesticide levels immediately after hydrolysis
pretreatment, it is estimated by plant personnel that naled pretreatment
levels which are declared proprietary are achieved. Because of the
large dilution in the combined discharge at this plant, it is recom-
mended that monitoring be conducted in segregated wastewater after
pretreatment. Therefore, the recommended pretreatment and direct dis-
charge achievable values are the same—0.1 mg/1 (0.00069 lb/1,000 Ibs).
Profluralin, a nitro pesticide, is manufactured by Plant 139. This
plant has reported effluent levels of less than 1.62 mg/1 «1.05 Ibs/
1,000 Ibs) of profluralin when treated by biological oxidation (aerated
lagoons). Pesticides with structures similar to profluralin have been
reported to be treatable by activated carbon. Trifluralin is treated in
a full-scale activated carbon system (Plant 162) to effluent levels
which are declared proprietary. Based on these data and the structural
similarity of these pesticides, it is expected that profluralin, if
pretreated by activated carbon, can achieve pretreatraent levels of
0.13 lb/1,000 Ibs.
XV-26
-------
Data from Plant 139 show an additional declared proprietary percent of
the pesticide is removed via biological oxidation. Based on these data,
the the estimated direct discharge effluent achievable is 0.0525 lb/
1,000 Ibs.
Propachlor, an amide pesticide, is manufactured by Plants 140 and 141.
Plant 140 uses activated carbon for pretreatment and reports effluent
concentrations which are declared proprietary—a declared proprietary
percent removal. Biological treatment at Plant 141 removes this
pesticide to effluent levels of 0.012 mg/1 (0.0029 lb/1,000 Ibs)—a
declared proprietary percent removal.
No data are available for Plant 140 to show the extent of propachlor
removal through biological treatment. Based on data from Plant 140 it
is predicted that 99.9 percent additional pretreatment of propachlor by
activated carbon at Plant 141 can achieve pretreatment effluent levels
of 0.0069 lb/1,000 Ibs.
Due to the large amount of dilution in biological systems at these two
plants, the direct discharge effluent achievable is estimated to be the
same as the pretreatment effluent, and it is recommended that monitoring
be conducted in segregated wastewater after pretreatment.
Ronnel, a phosphorothioate, is manufactured by Plant 142. Wastewater
from this process is disposed by deep well injection. No raw waste or
treated effluent data are available from the plant. Hydrolysis has been
proven on a full-scale basis to be successful in removing pesticides in
the phosphorothioate and phosphorodithioate group. For example,
parathion and diazinon are removed by hydrolysis in Plants 161 and 172,
respectively, to concentrations which are declared proprietary. Based
on the structural similarity of these pesticides to ronnel, it is pre-
dicted that a hydrolysis system will remove this pesticide to equivalent
concentrations, and pretreatment levels of 0.00047 lb/1,000 Ibs in
Plant 142 will be feasible.
Because of the large anount of dilution in the biological treatment of
this plant, direct discharge effluent is estimated to be the same as the
pretreatment effluent, and it is recommended that monitoring be
conducted in segregated wastewater after pretreatment.
Stirofos is a phosphate pesticide manufactured by Plant 143, where
hydrolysis and biological oxidation are utilized. The plant reports
that no stirofos has been detected over 0.01 mg/1 in the final effluent.
Based on this information, Plant 143 is achieving direct discharge
levels lower than 0.0026 lb/1,000 Ibs.
Based on data presented in this document for the pesticide industry, a
50 percent removal of stirofos by biological treatment is predicted. A
direct discharge level of 0.0026 lb/1,000 Ibs is predicted to be achiev-
able after the pesticide removal in the biological system; therefore
pretreatment levels of 0.0052 lb/1,000 Ibs are judged to be feasible.
XV-27
-------
Triaditnefon, an organo-nitrogen pesticide, is manufactured by Plant 144;
however, effluent levels are not available from the plant. Some plants
producing similarly-structured pesticides generate no wastewater.
Final effluent levels of lethane 384, also an organo-nitrogen, have been
reported at less than 0.00183 mg/1 (0.00392 lb/1,000 Ibs) after
biological treatment. Because of the presence of aroino subtituents in
most of the pesticides in this group, hydrolysis is predicted to be the
most feasible technology for their degradation. Based on data from
lethane 384, an effluent of 0.00392 lb/1,000 Ibs is also predicted to be
achievable for triademefon at Plant 144.
Trichlorobenzene (TCB), specifically 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, is
manufactured by Plant 145, which treats its TCB wastewater by biological
oxidation. Plant data show concentrations of TCB in the influent to
biological treatment, and are declared proprietary values. Activated
carbon has been demonstrated to remove halogenated aromatic pesticides
on a full-scale basis. Effluent levels for PCNB at Plant 179, where
activated carbon is used for treatment, are reported and are declared to
be proprietary—a declared proprietary percent removal of the pesticide.
Based on these data and the structural similarities of these two com-
pounds (TCB and PCNB), it is predicted that an activated carbon system
similar to the one employed by Plant 179 will achieve an equivalent
removal of the pesticide, and pretreatment effluent levels 0.0036 mg/1
(0.00018 lb/1,000 Ibs) will be feasible.
Although no data describing the extent of TCB removal through biological
treatment are available from Plant 145, the plant reports that removal
of a declared proprietary percentage or greater is being achieved for
other halogenated aromatic pesticides. Based on this, it is judged that
direct discharge levels of 0.0036 mg/1 (0.00018 lb/1,000 Ibs) are
technically feasible.
Trichloronate is manufactured by Plant 146, which uses steam stripping,
activated carbon, and biological oxidation to treat trichloronate
process wastewater prior to discharge to a navigable waterway. Although
no pretreatment data are available to demonstrate the efficiency of the
steam stripping or activated carbon units, trichloronate final effluent
levels in a comingled waste stream have been reported to be 0.0143 mg/1
(0.0642 lb/1,000 Ibs).
Plant data for similar phosphorothioate pesticides show pesticide
removal by hydrolysis to pretreatment levels less than 0.01 mg/1
(0.0444 lb/1,000 Ibs). Data from Plant 146 also show removal of
trichloronate through biological oxidation at a declared proprietary
percentage. Therefore, if the treatment system at Plant 146 was
upgraded to effect an additional declared proprietary percent pollutant
removal, the theoretical direct discharge effluent achievable based on
the above-mentioned pretreatment level of 0.01 mg/1 is 0.0040 lb/
1,000 Ibs following pretreatment and biological oxidation.
Subcategory 3—Mancozeb, manufactured by Plant 147, is one of the
similarly-structured compounds known as metallo-organics. Little,
^_t _a_l. (1980) reported the reduction of maneb, another metallo-organic
XV-28
-------
pesticide, by activated carbon to a level less than 0.15 mg/1. Based on
these data and the similarity of these two pesticides, the reduction of
mancozeb by activated carbon to the equivalent level of 0.15 mg/1
(0.0125 lb/1,000 Ibs) is judged to be technically feasible for
pretreatment.
Maneb is manufactured by Plants 148 and 149. Little, et al. (1980)
reported the treatment of this pesticide to levels less than 0.15 mg/1
by activated carbon. Based on these data, it is judged that levels of
0.15 mg/1 (0.00473 lb/1,000 Ibs) at Plant 148 and 0.15 mg/1 (0.0125 lb/
1,000 Ibs) at Plant 149 are technically feasible for pretreatment. A
metal separation unit (once used by Plant 148) is an alternative
treatment to remove pesticides and heavy metals like zinc and manganese
present in the wastewater.
Little, et_ a±. (1980) also reported the reduction of 50 percent of maneb
by biological treatment. Because of the large amount of dilution in the
biological treatment of Plant 148, maneb concentrations in the final
effluent would not be detectable (<0.05 mg/1), therefore by monitoring
in a segregated stream, pretreatment achievable value of 0.00473 lb/
1,000 Ibs would be feasible.
Zineb is manufactured by Plant 150. No data for this pesticide are
available from this plant. Little, ££ .al.• (1980) reported the reduction
of maneb, a metallo-organic pesticide like zineb, by activated carbon to
levels less than 0.15 mg/1. Based on these data and the similarity of
these two pesticides, the reduction of zineb by activated carbon to the
equivalent pretreatment level of 0.15 mg/1 (0.0077 lb/1,000 Ibs) in
Plant 150 is judged to be technically feasible.
Ziram is manufactured by Plants 151 and 152. Plant 152 uses biological
oxidation to treat the wastewater, but removal data are not available.
Monitoring of the evaporator discharge (condensate) at Plant 156 has
shown levels of zineb to be 0.35 mg/1 (0.0213 lb/1,000 Ibs) before
discharge to a POTW. Little, et_ _a_K (1980) reported the reduction of
maneb, a metallo-organic pesticide like ziram, by activated carbon to
levels less than 0.15 mg/1. Based on these data and the similarity of
these two pesticides, the reduction of ziram by activated carbon to the
equivalent pretreatment level of 0.15 mg/1 (0.0145 lb/1,000 Ibs in
comingled pesticide streams at Plant 151 and 0.00078 lb/1,000 Ibs in
Plant 152) is judged to be technically feasible.
It was also reported by Little, _e_t _a_l., (1980) that maneb and related
compounds are removed in biological treatment systems by approximately
50 percent. Therefore, a direct discharge effluent of 0.075 mg/1
(0.00039 lb/1,000 Ibs) in Plant 152 is judged to be technically
feasible.
Subcategory 4—Fluometuron is a urea pesticide manufactured by
Plant 153. The effluent currently discharged, without pesticide
removal, is less than 27 mg/1 (less than 30.5 lbs/1,000 Ibs). Enzymatic
hydrolysis has been reported by Mennecke (1976) and Plimmer (1971) to be
effective in removing urea pesticides. Levels of decomposition were not
XV-29
-------
discussed but the authors stated that completed degradation of these
pesticides may be demonstrated in full-scale applications. Two
similarly-structured urea pesticides, diuron and linuron, were
previously regulated in BPT to 0.0018 lb/1,000 Ibs (30-day maximum) and
0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs (long-term average). It is currently predicted
that 0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs is an achievable effluent via enzymatic
hydrolysis, although further treatability studies are recommended.
A percent removal which is declared proprietary of linuron and dinuron
has been reported through biological treatment. The direct discharge
level of 0.00129 lb/ 1,000 Ibs is predicted to be achievable after
pesticide removal in the biological system, therefore a pretreatment
level of 0.00243 lb/1,000 Ibs is judged to be feasible.
Subcategory 5—Fensulfothion is a phosphorothioate pesticide which
receives hydrolysis pretreatment at Plant 154. Plant data show that
hydrolysis effluent down to levels which are declared proprietary can be
achieved. Based on these proprietary data, 1 mg/1 (0.00167 lb/
1,000 Ibs) is judged to be achievable by application of the recommended
pretreatment technology for fensulfothion.
Data from Plant 154 show that an additional declared proprietary percent
of the pesticide is removed via biological oxidation. Because of the
large dilution in the final effluent of this plant, fensulfothion
concentrations would not be detectable «0.0015 mg/1) therefore
monitoring in a segregated stream using the pretreatment achievable
level of 0.00167 lb/1,000 Ibs would be feasible.
ZAC is manufactured by Plant 155, which uses evaporation/crystallization
to treat ZAC process wastewater prior to POTW discharge. Levels in the
comingled pesticide streams discharged to the POTW have been reported to
be 0.35 mg/1 (0.0213 lb/1,000 Ibs).
ZAC can be considered to be similar to the thiocarbarnates which have
been demonstrated to be removed by activated carbon (e.g., metham in
Plant 88). It is therefore judged that if the wastewaters from the ZAC
process combined with the other dithiocarbamates process wastewaters are
treated by an activated carbon system similar to that currently employed
by Plant 88, POTW discharge levels of 0.05 mg/1 (detection limit for
dithiocarbamates, ESE and EPA Method 630), equivalent to 0.003 lb/
1,000 Ibs, are technically feasible.
Zineb is manufactured by Plant 156. This plant uses evaporation/
crystallization to treat zineb process wastewater prior to POTW dis-
charge. Effluent levels of 0.35 mg/1 (0.0213 lb/1,000 Ibs) for zineb in
comingled pesticide streams have been reported by Plant 156. Little,
et al. (1980) reported the reduction of maneb, a metallo-organic
pesticide like zineb, by activated carbon to levels less than 0.15 mg/1.
Based on these data and the similarity of these two pesticides, the
reduction of zineb by activated carbon to the equivalent pretreatment
level of 0.15 mg/1 (0.0182 lb/1,000 Ibs) in comingled pesticide streams
in Plant 156 is judged to be technically feasible.
XV-30
-------
Subcategory 6—No pesticide active ingredients to be regulated.
Subcategory 7—No pesticide active ingredients to be regulated.
Subcategory 8—Aminocarb is one of the carbamate pesticides. This
pesticide is not currently manufactured and has not been monitored in
the pesticide industry; therefore, treatability information for it is
not available. Other carbarnate pesticides similar to aminocarb, such as
carbendazim which is currently manufactured by Plant 108, are being
removed from wastewaters by activated carbon or hydrolysis to pretreat-
ment levels which are declared proprietary and further reduced by a
declared proprietary percentage by activated sludge. It is judged that
if treatment of aminocarb wastewaters is required, this pesticide will
react similarly in those above-mentioned technologies to achieve
pretreatment and direct discharge levels equivalent to those achievable
for carbendazim—0.000226 lb/1,000 Ibs direct discharge.
Fenuron is a urea herbicide in Subcategory 8. This pesticide is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry; therefore, treatability information for it is not available.
Literature studies done by Mennecke (1976) and Plimmer (1971) reported
enzymatic hydrolysis as an effective method to remove urea pesticides
from wastewaters. Levels of decomposition were not discussed, but the
authors stated that completed degradation of these pesticides may be
demonstrated in full-scale applications. It is predicted that if
treatment of fenuron wastewaters is required, pesticide effluent levels
of 0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) for this Subcategory will be
achievable via enzymatic hydrolysis, although further treatability
studies are recommended.
Malathion is manufactured by Plant 157 which ocean discharges pesticide
wastewater. Plant 172 uses hydrolysis to treat diazinon (a phosphoro-
dithioate structurally similar to malathion) wastewater to a concentra-
tion which is declared proprietary. It is predicted that a hydrolysis
system similar to the one employed at Plant 172 will remove malathion to
equivalent concentrations and a pretreatment level of 0.000037 lb/
1,000 Ibs in Plant 157 will be achievable.
Methiocarb is one of the carbamate pesticides. This pesticide is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry; therefore, treatability information for it is not available.
Other carbamate pesticides similar to methiocarb, such as carbendazim
which is currently manufactured by Plant 108, are being removed from
wastewaters by activated carbon or hydrolysis to pretreatraent levels
which are declared proprietary and further reduced by a declared
proprietary percentage by activated sludge. It is judged that if
treatment of methiocarb wastewaters is required, this pesticide will
react similarly in those above-mentioned technologies to achieve
pretreatment and direct discharge levels equivalent to those achievable
for carbendazim—0.000226 lb/1,000 Ibs direct discharge.
Mexacarbate is one of the carbamate pesticides. This pesticide is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
XV-31
-------
industry; therefore, treatability information for it is not available.
Other carbamate pesticides similar to mexacarbate, such as carbendazim
which is currently manufactured by Plant 108, are being removed from
wastewaters by activated carbon or hydrolysis to pretreatment levels
which are declared proprietary and further reduced by a declared
proprietary percentage by activated sludge. It is judged that if
treatment of mexacarbate wastewaters is required, this pesticide will
react similarly in those above-mentioned technologies to achieve
pretreatment and direct discharge levels equivalent to those achievable
for carbendazim—0.000226 lb/1,000 Ibs direct discharge.
Mirex is an aldrin-toxaphene pesticide in Subcategory 8 that is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry; therefore, treatability information for it is not available.
Other compounds which are structurally similar to rairex, such as
heptachlor, are being removed from wastewaters by resin adsorption to
levels which are declared proprietary. It is predicted that if treat-
ment of mirex wastewaters is required, a resin adsorption system will
reduce the pesticide to effluent levels of 0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/
1,000 Ibs) recommended for Subcategory 8.
Monuron is a urea herbicide in Subcategory 8. This pesticide is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry; therefore, treatability information for it is not available.
Literature studies done by Mennecke (1976) and Plimraer (1971) reported
enzymatic hydrolysis as an effective method to remove urea pesticides
from wastewaters. Levels of decomposition were not discussed but the
authors stated that completed degradation of these pesticides may be
demonstrated in full-scale applications. It is predicted that if
treatment of monuron wastewaters is required, pesticide effluent levels
of 0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) for this Subcategory will be
achievable via enzymatic hydrolysis, although further treatability
studies are recommended.
Parathion ethyl is manufactured by Plant 158, which uses hydrolysis to
treat its parathion ethyl wastewater prior to indirect discharge.
Plant 158 is currently achieving an average concentration which is
declared proprietary following hydrolysis pretreatment. Based on these
proprietary data a level of <0.00066 lb/1,000 Ibs is judged to be
achievable for parathion ethyl for indirect dischargers.
Parathion methyl is manufactured by Plants 159, 160, and 161. Plant 159
treats parathion methyl process wastewater by resin adsorption and
activated carbon. No data are available to show effluent concentrations
achieved at this plant. Plant 160 is achieving levels which are
declared proprietary after pretreatment by hydrolysis. It is predicted
that Plant 159 can achieve similar levels for parathion methyl as those
reported by Plant 160. Plant 161 is achieving concentrations which are
declared proprietary following hydrolysis pretreatment. Based on these
proprietary data it is judged that Plants 159 and 160 can achieve a
pretreatment effluent of <0.0183 lb/1,000 Ibs and Plant 161 can achieve
a pretreatment effluent of <0.00066 lb/1,000 Ibs.
XV-32
-------
Parathion methyl was previously regulated to the BPT long-term average
of 0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) for direct dischargers, and no
additional removal has been technically demonstrated or economically
warranted for new source direct dischargers.
Propham is one of the carbamate pesticides. This pesticide is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry; therefore, treatability information for it is not available.
Other carbamate pesticides similar to propham, such as carbendazim which
is currently manufactured by Plant 108, are being removed from waste-
waters by activated carbon or hydrolysis to pretreatment levels which
are declared proprietary and further reduced by a declared proprietary
percentage by activated sludge. It is judged that if treatment of
propham wastewaters is required, this pesticide will react similarly in
those above-mentioned technologies to achieve pretreatment and direct
discharge levels equivalent to those achievable for carbendazim—
0.000226 lb/1,000 Ibs direct discharge.
Propoxur is one of the carbamate pesticides. This pesticide is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry; therefore, treatability information for it is not available.
Other carbamate pesticides similar to propoxur, such as carbendazim
which is currently manufactured by Plant 108, are being removed from
wastewaters by activated carbon or hydrolysis to pretreatment levels
which are declared proprietary and further reduced by a declared
proprietary percentage by activated sludge. It is judged that if
treatment of propoxur wastewaters is required, this pesticide will react
similarly in those above-mentioned technologies to achieve pretreatment
and direct discharge levels equivalent to those achievable for
carbendazim—0.000226 lb/1,000 Ibs direct discharge.
Trifluralin is manufactured by Plant 162, which treats pesticide waste-
water by activated carbon adsorption. Pesticides removed by this
treatment have been reported to be greater than a declared proprietary
percentage at Plant 162. Based on these proprietary data, a pretreat-
ment level of 0.468 mg/1 (0.00123 lb/1,000 Ibs) is judged to be
achievable.
Trifluralin was previously regulated to the BPT long-term average of
0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) for direct dischargers, and no
additional removal has been technically demonstrated or economically
warranted for new source direct dischargers.
Subcategory 9—Azinphos methyl is manufactured by Plant 163. The
plant reports that effluent levels which are declared proprietary are
achievable after hydrolysis, the recommended technology. Additional
removal by hydrolysis to pretreatment levels less than O.I mg/1
(equivalent to 0.00107 lb/1,000 Ibs) is technically feasible, according
to plant data, by upgrading the existing hydrolysis system (increasing
the detention time from 2 to 4 hours). Therefore, the pretreatment
value of 0.00107 lb/1,000 Ibs is technically achievable.
XV-33
-------
Azinphos methyl was previously regulated to the BPT long-term average of
0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) for direct dischargers, and no
additional removal has been technically demonstrated or economically
warranted for new source direct dischargers.
Captan is manufactured by Plant 164 which disposes its process waste-
water by deep well injection. Wolfe, et_ al_. (1976) reported that this
pesticide readily undergoes hydrolysis in water with a maximum half-life
of 155 min at 20°C and pH of 7. Based on this information it is
predicted that a hydrolysis system at Plant 164 can reduce captan to its
detection limit concentration (0.001 mg/1) and pretreatment level of
0.0000107 lb/ 1,000/lbs will be achievable.
Carbaryl—is manufactured at Plant 165 which treats its process
wastewater by gravity separation and biological oxidation before it is
direct discharged. No data are available from the plant on removal of
this pesticide or on effluents achieved after treatment. The removal of
this carbamate pesticide by activated carbon and hydrolysis has been
extensively reported. Metham, also a carbarnate pesticide, is being
treated by activated carbon at Plant 88 to effluent levels which are
declared proprietary. Based on these proprietary data a pretreatment
level of 0.0000214 lb/1,000 Ibs is judged to be achievable for carbaryl
at Plant 165.
Carbaryl was previously regulated to the BPT long-term average of
0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) for direct dischargers, and no
additional removal has been technically demonstrated or economically
warranted for new source direct dischargers.
Chlorpropham is one of the carbamate pesticides. This pesticide is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry; therefore, treatability information for it is not available.
Other carbamate pesticides similar to chlorpropham, such as carbendazim
which is currently manufactured by Plant 108, are being removed from
wastewaters by activated carbon or hydrolysis to pretreatment levels
which are declared proprietary and further reduced by a declared
proprietary percentage by activated sludge. It is judged that if
treatment of chlorpropham wastewaters is required, this pesticide will
react similarly in those above-mentioned technologies to achieve
pretreatment and direct discharge levels equivalent to those achievable
for carbendazim—0.000226 lb/1,000 Ibs direct discharge.
2^4-0 is manufactured by Plants 166, 167, and 168. Plant 166 uses
activated carbon to pretreat the wastewater from the pesticide process
prior to POTW discharge. Activated carbon effluent levels of
<0.0359 mg/1 «0.00109 lb/1,000 Ibs) have been recently reported. It is
predicted that an activated carbon system similar to the one employed by
Plant 166 will remove this pesticide to equivalent concentrations
«0.0359 mg/1) and pretreatment levels of 0.000248 lb/1,000 Ibs in
Plant 167 will be feasible. Plant 168 uses resin adsorption to pretreat
this pesticide wastewater. POTW discharge levels are reported to be
<2.14 mg/1 «0.0385 lb/1,000 Ibs). It is predicted that by upgrading
the existing resin adsorption system, effluent concentrations of
XV-34
-------
<0.0359 mg/1 at Plant 168 will be feasible and pretreattnent levels of
<0.000686 lb/1,000 Ibs will be achievable.
DCNA—This pesticide is manufactured by Plant 171. Part of this
pesticide process wastewater is discharged to a POTW, the other portion
is direct discharged. Pretreatment levels prior to POTW discharge have
been reported by the plant to be <1.0 mg/1 (0.281 lb/1,000 Ibs).
Activated carbon has been demonstrated to remove propachlor (an amide
pesticide structurally similar to DCNA) at Plant 140 to concentrations
which are declared proprietary. It is predicted that an activated
carbon system similar to the one employed by Plant 140 will remove DCNA
to equivalent concentrations and pretreatment levels of 0.00035 lb/
1,000 Ibs will be achievable by monitoring in a segregated stream.
DCNA was previously regulated to the BPT long-term average of
0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) for direct dischargers, and no
additional removal has been technically demonstrated or economically
warranted for new source direct dischargers.
Demeton~o is one of the phosphorothioate pesticides in Subcategory 9.
This pesticide is not currently manufactured and has not been monitored
in the pesticide industry; therefore, treatability information for it is
not available. Other phosphorothioate pesticides similar to demeton-o,
such as parathion and diazinon, are being removed from wastewaters by
hydrolysis to concentrations which are declared proprietary. It is
predicted that if treatment of demeton-o is required, a hydrolysis
treatment system will technically reduce the pesticide to effluent
levels of 0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) recommended for
Subcategory 9.
Demeton-s is one of the phosphorothioate pesticides in Subcategory 9.
This pesticide is not currently manufactured and has not been monitored
in the pesticide industry; therefore, treatability information for it is
not available. Other phosphorothioate pesticides similar to demeton-s,
such as parathion and diazinon, are being removed from wastewaters by
hydrolysis to concentrations which are declared proprietary. It is
predicted that if treatment of demeton-s is required, a hydrolysis
treatment system will technically reduce the pesticide to effluent
levels of 0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) recommended for
Subcategory 9,
Diazinon is manufactured by Plants 172 and 173. Plant 172 pretreats its
diazinon wastewaters by hydrolysis. Plant data show that a hydrolysis
effluent down to levels which are declared proprietary is achievable.
Based on these proprietary data, the achievable pretreatment level for
diazinon at Plant 172 is judged to be 0.000977 lb/1,000 Ibs. It is also
predicted that a hydrolysis system similar to the one employed at
Plant 172 will remove diazinon at Plant 173 to equivalent concentrations
and pretreatment levels of 0.00613 lb/1,000 Ibs in Plant 173 will be
achievable.
Diazinon was previously regulated to the BPT long-terra average of
0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) for direct dischargers, and no
XV-35
-------
additional removal has been technically demonstrated or economically
warranted for new source direct dischargers.
Dicamba is manufactured by Plant 174, which disposes its pesticide
wastewater by deep well injection. PCNB, a halogenated aromatic
pesticide like dicamba is being treated by activated carbon at Plant 179
to concentrations which are declared proprietary. It is predicted that
an activated carbon system similar to the one employed by Plant 179 will
remove dicamba to equivalent concentrations and a pretreatment level
lower than 0.00322 lb/1,000 Ibs in Plant 174 will be achievable.
Dicofol is a DDT-type pesticide in Subcategory 9. This pesticide is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry, but literature studies (Love, 1977; Whitehouse, 1967;
Eichelberger, 1971; and Hager, 1976) have extensively reported up to 95
to 99 percent removal of DDT, methoxychlor, and other DDT-type
pesticides by activated carbon. Chlorobenzilate, a DDT-type pesticide
similar to dicofol, is treated in Plant 110 by biological treatment, and
removal rates which are declared proprietary have been reported. Based
on these proprietary data, it is predicted that if treatment of dicofol
wastewaters is required, an activated carbon/biological treatment
combination system will technically achieve effluent levels of
0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) recommended for Subcategory 9.
Disulfoton is manufactured by Plant 175, which treats its process
wastewater by hydrolysis. Removal of disulfoton by hydrolysis has been
reported to be up to a declared proprietary percentage, achieving
pretreatment levels which are declared proprietary. Additional removal
by hydrolysis to pretreatment levels less than 1 mg/1 (equivalent to
0.0312 lb/1,000 Ibs) is technically feasible based on plant data, by
upgrading the existing hydrolysis system (increasing the detention time
from 2 to 4 hours). Therefore the pretreatment value of 0.0312 lb/
1,000 Ibs is technically achievable for disulfoton.
Disulfoton was previously regulated to the BPT long-term average of
0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) for direct dischargers, and no
additional removal has been technically demonstrated or economically
warranted for new source direct dischargers.
Diuron is manufactured by Plant 176. This pesticide was previously
regulated under BPT for direct dischargers to levels of 0.00129 lb/
1,000 Ibs (a long-term average). Data from Plant 176 show that a
declared proprietary percent removal of diuron is achievable through
biological oxidation. Based on these data, a pretreatment level of
0.00243 lb/1,000 Ibs is judged to be achievable.
Fenuron-TCA is a urea herbicide in Subcategory 9. This pesticide is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry; therefore, treatability information for it is not available.
Literature studies done by Mennecke (1976) and Plimmer (1971) reported
enzymatic hydrolysis as an effective method to remove urea pesticides
from wastewaters. Levels of decomposition were not discussed but the
authors stated that completed degradation of these pesticides may be
XV-36
-------
demonstrated in full-scale applications. It is predicted that if
treatment of fenuron-TCA wastewaters is required, pesticide effluent
levels of 0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) for this subcategory will
be achievable via enzymatic hydrolysis, although further treatability
studies are recommended.
Linuron is manufactured by Plant 177. This pesticide was previously
regulated under BPT for direct dischargers to levels of 0.00129 lb/
1,000 Ibs (a long-term average). Data from Plant 177 show that a
declared proprietary percent removal of linuron is achievable through
biological oxidation. Based on these data, a pretreatment level of
0.00243 lb/1,000 Ibs is judged to be achievable.
Methoxychlor is 'a DDT-type pesticide which is manufactured by Plant 178,
which discharges the methoxychlor process wastewater, without pretreat-
ment, to a POTW. The removal of DDT-type pesticides (up to 95 to
99 percent by activated carbon) has been extensively reported (Love,
1977; Whitehouse, 1967; Eichelberger, 1971; and Hager, 1976). It is
predicted that treatment by this technology will remove methoxychlor to
the detection limit of 0.001 mg/1 (Method for Organochlorine Pesticides,
Federal Register, 11/28/73). Based on these data, it is judged that a
system designed similarly to those reported in the literature will
achieve pretreatment levels of 3.75 x 10"^ lb/1,000 Ibs (assuming
average flow for the pesticide industry) at Plant 178.
Monuron-TCA is a urea herbicide in Subcategory 9. This pesticide is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry; therefore, treatability information for it is not available.
Literature studies done by Mennecke (1976) and Plimmer (1971) reported
enzymatic hydrolysis as an effective method to remove urea pesticides
from wastewaters. Levels of decomposition were not discussed, but the
authors stated that completed degradation of these pesticides may be
demonstrated in full-scale applications. It is predicted that if
treatment of monuron-TCA wastewaters is required, pesticide effluent
levels of 0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) for this subcategory will
be achievable via enzymatic hydrolysis, although further treatability
studies are recommended.
Neburon is a urea herbicide in Subcategory 8. This pesticide is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry; therefore, treatability information for it is not available.
Literature studies done by Mennecke (1976) and Plimmer (1971) reported
enzymatic hydrolysis as an effective method to remove urea pesticides
from wastewaters. Levels of decomposition were not discussed but the
authors stated that completed degradation of these pesticides may be
demonstrated in full-scale applications. It is predicted that if
treatment of neburon wastewaters is required, pesticide effluent levels
of 0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) for this subcategory will be
achievable via enzymatic hydrolysis, although further treatability
studies are recommended.
PCNB is manufactured by Plant 179, which treats its process wastewater
by activated carbon. Pesticide removal greater than a declared
XV-37
-------
proprietary percentage has been reported, achieving levels of
0.0182 mg/1 (0.0000765 lb/1,000 Ibs) in the final discharge. Based on
these data, a level of 0.0000765 lb/1,000 Ibs is judged to be achievable
for direct dischargers of PCNB.
Perthane is a DDT-type pesticide in Subcategory 9. This pesticide is
not currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry, but literature studies (Love, 1977; Whitehouse, 1967;
Eichelberger, 1971; and Hager, 1976) have extensively reported up to 95
to 99 percent removal of DDT, methoxychlor, and other DDT-type pesti-
cides by activated carbon. Chlorobenzilate, a DDT-type pesticide
similar to perthane, is treated in Plant 110 by biological treatment,
and removal rates up to a declared proprietary percentage have been
reported. Based on these proprietary data, it is predicted that if
treatment of perthane wastewaters is required, an activated carbon/
biological treatment combination system will technically achieve
effluent levels of 0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) recommended for
Subcategory 9.
Silvex is manufactured by Plant 180, which discharges its process
wastewater to a POTW. 2,4-D, a chlorinated aryloxyalkanoic pesticide
structurally similar to silvex, is being treated in a full scale
activated carbon system at Plant 166 to concentrations <0.05 mg/1. It
is predicted that an activated carbon system similar to the one employed
by Plant 166 will remove this pesticide to equivalent concentrations
«0.05 mg/1) and pretreatment levels of 0.000469 lb/1,000 Ibs in
Plant 180 will be achievable.
SWEP is one of the carbamate pesticides. This pesticide is not
currently manufactured and has not been monitored in the pesticide
industry; therefore, treatability information for it is not available.
Other carbamate pesticides similar to SWEP, such as carbendazim which is
currently manufactured by Plant 108, are being removed from wastewaters
by activated carbon or hydrolysis to pretreatment levels which are
declared proprietary and further reduced by a declared proprietary
percentage by activated sludge. It is judged that if treatment of SWEP
wastewaters is required, this pesticide will react similarly in those
above-mentioned technologies to achieve pretreatment and direct
discharge levels equivalent to those achievable for carbendazim—
0.000226 lb/1,000 Ibs direct discharge.
2,4,5-T is manufactured by Plant 181, which discharges its process to a
POTW. 2,4-D, a chlorinated aryloxyalkanoic pesticide like 2,4,5-T, is
being treated in a full scale activated carbon system at Plant 166 to
concentrations <0.05 mg/1. It is predicted that an activated carbon
system similar to the one employed by Plant 166 will remove 2,4,5-T to
equivalent concentrations (<0.05 mg/1) and pretreatment levels of
0.000458 lb/1,000 Ibs in Plant 181 will be achievable.
Subcategory 10—Ametryne is one of 14 similarly-structured
pesticides known as triazines. The removal of triazine pesticides has
been established on a full-scale basis by two plants using hydrolysis,
and by three plants using granular activated carbon. Treatability
XV-38
-------
studies by Lai (1977) have shown that ametryne can be hydrolyzed under
acid conditions at rates equivalent to those for triazines being treated
on a full-scale basis. Data for Plant 182, the only manufacturer of
ametryne, show that the raw waste load for this pesticide is a declared
proprietary value. Based on the full-scale and treatability data pre-
sented previously, it is judged that an activated carbon or hydrolysis
system, similar to that presented in this document, can achieve a
pretreatment effluent of 1 mg/1 (0.0126 lb/1,000 Ibs).
Data from Plant 182 show that approximately a declared proprietary
percentage of the pesticide is removed in biological oxidation. Based
on these data, a direct discharge effluent of 0.0116 lb/1,000 Ibs is
judged to be achievable.
Atrazine is a pesticide in the triazine structural group. Plants 183
and 184, manufacturers of this pesticide, use granular activated carbon
for its removal. Data show that for these plants which discharge to
navigable waters, levels which are declared proprietary are being
achieved. Treatability studies by Little, et^ _a_l. (1980), Lowenback
(1977), Armstrong, et_ a±. (1967), and Brown, et^ al_. (1972), have shown
that hydrolysis of atrazine is accomplished at rates similar to
triazines such as cyanazine, which is hydrolized on a full-scale basis
at Plant 185 to levels which are declared proprietary. Based on
available information, it is concluded that atrazine can be treated to
the same concentration level as cyanazine, after existing systems at
Plants 183 and 184 have been upgraded with additional hydrolysis or
activated carbon, therefore pretreatment levels of 0.0441 lb/1,000 Ibs
for Plant 183 and 0.00394 lb/1,000 Ibs for Plant 184 are judged to be
feasible.
Removal of triazine pesticides by biological treatment has been reported
to be in a range of 8.23 to 40 percent. Based on these data it is
predicted that a 30 percent removal of atrazine by biological treatment
can be achieved and direct discharge levels of 0.0309 lb/1,000 Ibs at
Plant 183 and 0.00276 lb/1,000 Ibs at Plant 184 will be feasible.
Cyanazine, a triazine pesticide, is currently manufactured by Plant 185
and in the past was manufactured by Plant 186. Plant 185 uses hydroly-
sis to treat the wastewater from the cyanazine process and reports
greater than a declared proprietary percent removal of cyanazine through
hydrolysis, achieving a final effluent level of <0.1 mg/1 «0.00267 lb/
1,000 Ibs). Plant 186 formerly treated this pesticide wastewater only
by biological oxidation, with a raw waste load which is declared
proprietary.
Based on the data available, it is judged if Plant 186 resumed
production of cyanazine that a hydrolysis system designed similar to
that in Plant 185 can achieve a pretreatment effluent of 0.1 mg/1
(0.0042 lb/1,000 Ibs).
According to Plant 186 data, there is a declared proprietary percent
removal of cyanazine through biological treatment. Based on these
proprietary data, direct discharge levels of 0.0042 lb/1,000 Ibs for
XV-39
-------
Plant 186 and 0.00267 lb/1,000 Ibs for Plant 185 are judged to be
achievable.
Metribuzin is a triazine pesticide manufactured by Plant 187, which uses
hydrolysis as a pretreatment system. Plant data show the hydrolysis
effluent levels which are declared proprietary. Final effluent levels
of less than 0.49 mg/1 (0.234 lb/1,000 Ibs) have been reported. Based
on plant data, additional hydrolysis of metribuzin to 0.01 mg/1 (which
is higher than the detection limit for metribuzin, per EPA Method
633—0.7 ug/1) equivalent to 0.000135 lb/1,000 Ibs is achievable by
increasing the detention time from 3 hours to 5.5 hours.
According to plant data, metribuzin is removed an additional declared
proprietary percentage through biological oxidation. Because of the
large amount of dilution in the biological treatment of this plant, the
direct discharge effluent is estimated to equal pretreatment effluent
levels of 0.000135 lb/1,000 Ibs. It is recommended that monitoring be
conducted in segregated wastewater after pretreatment.
Prometon is one of 14 similarly-structured pesticides known as tria-
zines. The removal of triazine pesticides has been established on a
full-scale basis at two plants using hydrolysis, and at three plants
using granular activated carbon. Data for Plant 188, the only manufac-
turer of prometon, show that the raw waste load for this pesticide is a
declared proprietary value. Based on the full-scale information
presented above, it is judged that an activated carbon or hydrolysis
system designed similarly to that presented in this document can achieve
an effluent of 1 mg/1 (0.00501 lb/1,000 Ibs) for pretreatment.
Data from Plant 188 show that approximately a declared proprietary
percentage of the pesticide is removed in biological oxidation. Based
on these proprietary data, a direct discharge effluent of 0.00305 lb/
1,000 Ibs is judged to be achievable.
Prometryn is one of 14 similarly-structured pesticides known as
triazines. The removal of triazine pesticides has been established on a
full-scale basis at two plants using hydrolysis, and at three plants
using granular activated carbon. Treatment studies by Kearney (1969)
have shown that prometryn can be hydrolyzed under acid conditions at
rates equivalent to those for triazines being treated on a full-scale
basis. Data for Plant 189, the only manufacturer of prometryn show that
the raw waste load for this pesticide is a declared proprietary value.
Based on the full-scale and treatability data presented, it is judged
that an activated carbon or hydrolysis system similar to that presented
in this report can achieve an effluent of 1 mg/1 (0.00907 lb/1,000 Ibs)
for pretreatment regulations.
Data from Plant 189 show that approximately a declared proprietary
percentage of the pesticide is removed in biological oxidation. Based
on these proprietary data, a direct discharge effluent of 0.00643 lb/
1,000 Ibs is judged to be achievable.
XV-40
-------
Propazine is one of 14 similarly-structured pesticides known as tria-
zines. The removal of triazine pesticides has been established on a
full-scale basis at two plants using hydrolysis, and at three plants
using granular activated carbon. Data for Plant 190 show that the raw
waste load for this pesticide is a declared proprietary value.
Plant 191 reports propazine levels which are declared proprietary in
comingled pesticide streams after pretreatment by activated carbon.
Based on the full-scale and treatability data presented for similar
triazines, it is judged that an activated carbon or hydrolysis system
similar to that presented in this document can achieve an effluent of
1 mg/1 (0.0583 lb/1,000 Ibs at Plant 190 and 0.0394 lb/1,000 Ibs in
comingled streams at Plant 191) for pretreatment regulations.
Data from Plant 190 show that approximately a declared proprietary
percentage of the pesticide is removed in biological oxidation. Based
on these proprietary data, direct discharge effluents of 0.0493 lb/
1,000 Ibs at Plant 190 and 0.0333 lb/1,000 Ibs in comingled streams at
Plant 191 are judged to be achievable.
Simazine is one of 14 similarly-structured pesticides known as
triazines. The removal of triazine pesticides has been established on a
full-scale basis at two plants using hydrolysis, and at three plants
using granular activated carbon. Treatability studies by Lai (1977)
have shown that simazine can by hydrolyzed under acid conditions at
rates equivalent to those for triazines being treated on a full-scale
basis. Plant 192 reports that the raw waste load for this pesticide is
a declared proprietary value. Plant 193 reports simazine of a declared
proprietary value in comingled pesticide streams after pretreatraent by
activated carbon. Based on the full-scale and treatability data
presented for similar triazines, it is judged that an activated carbon
or hydrolysis system similar to that presented in this document can
achieve a pretreatment effluent of 1 mg/1 (0.0577 lb/1,000 Ibs at
Plant 192 and 0.0394 lb/1,000 Ibs in comingled streams at Plant 193).
Data from Plant 192 show that approximately a declared proprietary
percentage of similar triazine pesticides is removed in biological
oxidation. Based on these proprietary data, direct discharge effluents
of 0.0364 lb/1,000 Ibs at Plant 192 and 0.0249 lb/1,000 Ibs in comingled
pesticide streams at Plant 193 are judged to be achievable.
Simetryne is one of 14 similarly-structured pesticides known as
triazines. The removal of triazine pesticides has been established on a
full-scale basis at two plants using hydrolysis, and at three plants
using granular activated carbon. Plant 194, the only manufacturer of
simetryne, reports that the raw waste load for this pesticide is a
declared proprietary value. Based on the full-scale and treatment data
presented for similar pesticides, it is judged that an activated carbon
or hydrolysis system similar to that presented in this document can
achieve a pretreatraent effluent of 1 mg/1 (0.00453 lb/
1,000 Ibs).
XV-41
-------
Data from Plant 194 show that approximately a declared proprietary
percentage of the pesticide is removed in biological oxidation. Based
on these proprietary data, a direct discharge effluent of 0.00326 lb/
1,000 Ibs is judged to be achievable.
Terbuthylazine is one of 14 similarly-structured pesticides known as
triazines. The removal of triazine pesticides has been established on a
full-scale basis at two plants using hydrolysis, and at three plants
using granular activated carbon. Plant 195, the only manufacturer of
terbuthylazine, has no raw waste load data for this pesticide. Based on
the full-scale and treatability data presented for similar triazines, it
is judged that an activated carbon or hydrolysis system similar to that
presented in this document can achieve a pretreatment effluent of 1 mg/1
(0.0200 lb/1,000 Ibs).
Data from Plant 195 show that approximately a declared proprietary
percentage of similar triazine pesticides is removed in biological
oxidation. Based on these proprietary data, a direct discharge effluent
of 0.0144 lb/1,000 Ibs is judged to be achievable.
Terbutryn is one of 14 similarly-structured pesticides known as
triazines. The removal of triazine pesticides has been established on a
full-scale basis at two plants using hydrolysis, and at three plants
using granular activated carbon. Plant 196, the only manufacturer of
terbutryn, has no raw waste load data for this pesticide. Based on the
full-scale and treatability data presented for similar triazines, it is
judged that an activated carbon or hydrolysis system similar to that
presented in this document can achieve a pretreatment effluent of 1 mg/1
(0.00755 lb/1,000 Ibs).
Data from Plant 196 show that approximately a declared proprietary
percentage of similar triazine pesticides is removed in biological
oxidation. Based on these proprietary data, a direct discharge effluent
of 0.00544 lb/1,000 Ibs is judged to be achievable.
Subcategory 11—Because the only known manufacturer of alkylamine
hydrochloride, Plant 197, does not generate any wastewater, a zero
discharge effluent is achievable.
Because Plant 198, the only known manufacturer of amobam does not
generate any wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because Plant 199, the only known manufacturer of barban, totally
evaporates all process wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is
achievable.
Because the only known manufacturer of BBTAC, Plant 200, does not
generate any wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because Plant 201, a manufacturer of biphenyl, has stated it does not
discharge any wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
XV-4 2
-------
Because three of the four plants (Plants 202, 203, and 204) known to
manufacture chloropicrin recycle or reuse all process wastewater, a zero
discharge is achievable by those three plants.
Because Plant 205, a manufacturer of 2,4-D isooctyl ester does not
generate any wastewater, a zero discharge is achievable for this plant.
Because Plant 206, the only manufacturer of 2,4-D salt, does not
generate wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because the manufacturers of D-D (Plants 207, 208, 209) do not generate
any wastewater or recycle/reuse, a zero discharge effluent is
achievable.
Because the only manufacturer of dichlorophen salt, Plant 210, does not
generate any wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because the only manufacturer of dovicil 75, Plant 211, totally evapor-
ates all process wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because the only manufacturer of ethoprop, Plant 212, totally evaporates
all process wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because the only manufacturer of fluorQacetamide, Plant 213, does not
generate any wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because Plant 214, the only manufacturer of glyodin, does not generate
any wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because Plant 215, the only manufacturer of HPTMS, totally evaporates
all process wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because the only manufacturer of tnerphos, Plant 216, totally evaporates
all process wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because the only manufacturer of metasol J-26, Plant 217, does not
generate any wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because the only manufacturer of pyrethrin, Plant 218, does not generate
any wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because Plant 219, the only manufacturer of silvex isooctyl ester, does
not generate any wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because the only manufacturer of silvex salt, Plant 220, does not
generate wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Plant 221, a manufacturer of sodium monofluoroacetate evaporates all the
wastewater that is generated from this pesticide process; therefore, a
zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because the only manufacturer of tributyltin benzoate, Plant 222, does
not generate wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is available.
XV-43
-------
Because Plant 223, a manufacturer of tributyltin oxide does not generate
any wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Because the only manufacturer of Vancide TH, Plant 224, does not
generate wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is available.
Because the only manufacturer of Vancide 51Z, Plant 225, does not
generate wastewater, a zero -discharge effluent is available.
Because the only manufacturer of Vancide 51Z dispersion, Plant 226, does
not generate wastewater, a zero discharge effluent is achievable.
Ziram is manufactured by Plant 227. Because this plant does not
generate any wastewater, a zero discharge is achievable.
Subcategory 12—Based on the BPT regulation of zero discharge for
direct discharge metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of mercury,
cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based products, a zero discharge effluent
is judged achievable for indirect dischargers and direct dischargers.
There is no process distinction between direct and indirect discharge
metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers.
Subcategory 13—Based on the BPT regulation of zero discharge for
direct discharge pesticide forraulator/packagers, a zero discharge
effluent is judged achievable for indirect dischargers and direct
dischargers. There is no process distinction between direct and
indirect discharge pesticide forraulator/packagers.
Method of Calculating Long-Term Averages
The following discussion presents the method of calculating the effluent
long-term average for priority pollutants, nonconventional pesticides,
BOD, TSS, and COD for appropriate regulations.
The pollutant parameters which are subject to each regulation are
presented below.
Parameters Proposed for Regulation
Pollutant Regulation BAT NSPS PSES PSNS
Priority Pollutants X* X X X
Nonconventional Pesticides Xt X X X
Conventional Pollutants BOD, TSS, pH X
Nonconventional Pollutant COD X
X Subject to regulation.
- Not subject to regulation.
* Excluding 9 priority pollutant pesticides previously regulated for
direct discharge under BPT.
t Excluding 36 nonconventional pesticides previously regulated for
direct discharge under BPT.
XV-44
-------
The long-term average effluents for each pollutant were selected based
on the previously presented evaluations of effluent levels achieved and
effluent levels achievable. The results of this selection process are
presented in Tables XV-19 through XV-21. These long-term averages will
be subsequently combined with treatment variability factors to define
the 30-day maximum and daily maximum effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards.
The selection process insured that the proposed long-term averages were
based on the best available treatment technology, by consideration of
data from the following four sources:
1. Effluents currently achieved in the industry,
2. Effluents currently achieved outside the industry
(transfer technology),
3. Design effluents achievable by applying recommended
technology to maximum design raw waste loads for the
industry, and
4. Effluents achievable by applying recommended technology to
raw waste loads at specific plants.
Priority Pollutant Long-Term Average for Direct Discharge
(BAT/NSPS)—The selectionof priorit^ pollutant long-term averages is
presented below by priority pollutant group.
Volatile Aromatics—The proposed long-terra average effluent for
benzene, chlorobenzene, and toluene is <0.01 rag/1 «0.00037 lb/
1,000 Ibs) based on effluents currently achieved in the industry for
biological treatment. Based on available data for pesticide processes
with the recommended treatment, four discrete pesticide processes are
currently achieving the average of <0.00037 lb/1,000 Ibs for both
benzene and toluene whereas one pesticide is achieving the average for
chlorobenzene.
The proposed long-term average effluent for 1,2-dichlorobenzene,
1,4-dichlorobenzene, and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene is 0.0525 lb/1,000 Ibs
for only those processes in which they are the manufactured product. In
all other processes these pollutants are expected to be controlled by
regulation of chlorobenzene. The long-term average of
0.0525 lb/1,000 Ibs is the same as that selected for the Subcategory 2
nonconventional pesticide parameter since 1,2-dichlorobenzene,
1,4-dichlorobenzene, and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene are only proposed for
regulation as the manufactured product. As previously stated in this
section, the effluents achieved and predicted effluents achievable for
the plants which manufacture these compounds have been provided and were
considered in the selection of the nonconventional pesticide parameter
for Subcategory 2.
Halomethanes—The proposed long-term average effluent for carbon
tetrachloride, chloroform, methyl bromide, methyl chloride, and
XV-45
-------
methylene chloride is <0.01 mg/1 «0.00037 lb/1,000 Ibs) based on design
effluents for steam stripping and effluents currently achieved in the
industry for biological treatment. Based on available data for
pesticide processes with the recommended treatment, one pesticide
process is currently achieving the average of <0.00037 lb/1,000 Ibs for
chloroform and methylene chloride. However, no pesticides are currently
achieving the average for methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride, and
methyl chloride.
Cyanide—The proposed long-term average effluent for cyanide is
0.02 mg/1 (0.00075 lb/1,000 Ibs) based on transfer technology from the
electroplating industry for chemical oxidation, and effluents currently
achieved in the industry for biological treatment. Based on available
data for pesticide processes with the recommended treatment, four
discrete, direct discharge pesticide processes are currently achieving
this average.
Haloethers—The proposed long-term average effluent for
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether (dichloroethyl ether) is zero for only those
processes in which it is the manufactured product. These processes are
currently achieving zero discharge of all process wastewater pollutants.
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether is proposed to be excluded from regulation in
all other processes pending the collection of adequate monitoring data.
Phenols—The proposed long-terra average effluent for
2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,4-dinitrophenol, 4-nitrophenol, PGP, and phenol is
0.1 mg/1 (0.0037 lb/1,000 Ibs) based on effluents currently achieved in
the industry for activated carbon and biological treatment. Based on
available data for pesticide processes with the recommended treatment,
two discrete pesticide processes are currently achieving this average
for 2,4-dichlorophenol and phenol. However, no direct discharge
pesticides are currently achieving the effluent average for
2,4-dinitrophenol, 4-nitrophenol, and PCP.
Metals—The proposed long-term average effluent for copper and zinc
is 0.25 mg/1 (0.0094 lb/1,000 Ibs) based on transfer technology from the
electroplating and battery industries for metals separation, and percent
removal currently achieved in the pesticide industry for biological
treatment. Based on available data for pesticide processes with the
recommended treatment, one pesticide is currently achieving the selected
effluent average of 0.0094 lb/1,000 Ibs for copper. However, the
selected effluent average of 0.0094 lb/1,000 Ibs for zinc is not
currently being achieved by any direct discharger.
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes—The proposed long-term average
effluent for 1,2-dichloroethane and tetrachloroethylene is 0.1 mg/1
(0.0037 lb/1,000 Ibs) based on design effluents for steam stripping and
percent removal currently achieved in the industry for biological
treatment. Based on available data for pesticide processes with the
recommended treatment, there is one direct discharge pesticide is
currently achieving the effluent average for 1,2-dichloroethane and
tetrachloroethylene.
XV-46
-------
Nitrosamines—The proposed long-term average effluent for
n-nitrosodi-n-propylamine is 0.001 mg/1 (0.000037 lb/1,000 Ibs) based on
effluents currently achieved in the industry for activated carbon
treatment. According to current data, there is an apparent increase in
this pollutant across biological treatment; therefore, monitoring after
activated carbon pretreatment is recommended. Based on available data
for pesticide processes with the recommended treatment, the selected
effluent average of 0.000037 lb/1,000 Ibs is currently being achieved by
one direct discharge pesticide.
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene—The proposed long-terra average
effluent for 1,3-dichloropropene is zero for only those processes in
which it is the manufactured product. These processes are currently
achieving zero discharge of all process wastewater pollutants.
1,3-Dichloropropene is proposed to be excluded from regulation in all
other processes pending the collection of adequate monitoring data.
Dienes—The proposed long-terra average effluent for hexachloro-
cyclopentadiene (HCCPD) is 0.023 mg/1 (0.00086 lb/1,000 Ibs) based on
effluents currently achieved by resin adsorption and percent removal
achievable from biological treatment. There are no available data for
pesticide processes with the recommended treatment which document
effluent levels achieved for HCCPD for direct dischargers.
Priority Pollutant Pesticides—The priority pollutant pesticides
BHC-alpha, BHC-beta, BHC-delta, endosulfan-alpha, endosulfan-beta,
endrin, heptachlor, lindane (BHC-garoma), and toxaphene were previously
regulated for existing direct discharge and, therefore, do not apply to
the BAT regulation. However, these pollutant parameters are subject to
the NSPS regulation where the BPT direct discharge long-terra average of
0.0344 mg/1 (0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs) was selected.
The selected long-terra averages for direct discharge of priority
pollutants is presented in Table XV-19.
Nonconventional Pesticide Long-Terra Average for Direct Discharge
OSAT/NSPS)—The long-terra average effluents for nonconventional pesti-
cides were derived by first evaluating the effluent levels achievable
for only those direct discharge pesticides to be regulated in a given
subcategory; second, by determining the maximum effluent achievable
value for each subcategory; and third, by using this maximum value as
the long-term average for that subcategory. The long-terra average
effluents were selected from achievable values for direct dischargers
utilizing pesticide removal and biological treatment. EPA chose the
least treatable pollutant as the defining standard for that parameter.
Accordingly, the number selected for the subcategory represented the
highest effluent achievable value. This selection process insured that
the average for each subcategory could be achieved by each pesticide
within that subcategory. Table XV-20 lists the long-terra average
effluents for nonconventional pesticides by subcategory.
XV-47
-------
The selection of pesticide long-terra average effluents is presented
below by subcategory.
Subcategory 1—The highest effluent achievable value of 15 discrete
direct discharge pesticide processes was found to be 0.0261 lb/1,000 Ibs
(0.0243 mg/1) for terbacil at Plant 96 following pesticide removal and
biological treatment. This value was therefore selected as the
pesticide long-terra average effluent for Subcategory 1. Based on
available data, five pesticides to be regulated in Subcategory 1 show
that the selected long-term average effluent is currently being
achieved.
Subcategory 2—The highest effluent achievable of 37 discrete
direct discharge pesticide processes was found to be 0.0525 lb/1,000 Ibs
(0.185 mg/1) for profluralin at Plant 139 following pesticide removal
and biological treatment. This value was therefore selected as the
pesticide long-term average effluent of Subcategory 2. Based on
available data, the long-term average effluent is currently being
achieved by eleven pesticides which are proposed for regulation.
Subcategory 3—The highest effluent achievable of two direct
discharge pesticide processes was found to be 0.00473 lb/1,000 Ibs
(0.15 mg/1) for maneb at Plant 148 following pesticide removal and
biological treatment. This value was therefore selected as the
pesticide long-term average effluent for Subcategory 3. There are no
data available which document the effluent levels achieved for
pesticides to be regulated in Subcategory 3.
Subcategory 4—Only one pesticide, fluometuron, is proposed to be
regulated in Subcategory 4 for the pesticide parameter. Therefore the
effluent achievable value of 0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs (0.00134 mg/1) for
fluometuron at Plant 153 was selected as the long-terra average effluent
for this subcategory. Based on available data, Plant 153 is not
currently achieving the selected pesticide long-terra average.
Subcategory 5—Fensulfothion is the only pesticide in Subcategory 5
which is proposed for regulation for the pesticide parameter and from
which wastewater is directly discharged. Therefore, the effluent
achievable value of 0.00167 lb/1,000 Ibs (1.0 mg/1) for fensulfothion at
Plant 154 was selected as the long-terra average effluent for this
subcategory. Based on available data, Plant 154 is not currently
achieving the selected pesticide long-terra average.
Subcategory 6—All pesticides listed in Subcategory 6 are not
proposed for regulation due to lack of acceptable analytical methods;
therefore, no pesticide long-term average effluent has been selected.
Subcategory 7—All pesticides listed in Subcategory 7 are not
proposed for regulation due to lack of acceptable analytical methods;
therefore, no pesticide long-term average effluent has been selected.
Subcategory 8—All pesticides in Subcategory 8 were regulated for
the pesticide parameter during BPT for direct dischargers; therefore no
XV-48
-------
BAT long-term average effluent has been selected. However, these
pesticides are subject to the NSPS regulation where the BPT direct
discharge long-term average effluent of 0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs is
applicable.
Subcategory 9—All pesticides in Subcategory 9 were regulated for
the pesticide parameter during BPT for direct dischargers; therefore no
BAT long-term average effluent has been selected. However, these
pesticides are subject to the NSPS regulation where the BPT direct
discharge long-term average of 0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs is applicable.
Subcategory 10—The highest effluent achievable value of
15 discrete, direct discharge pesticide processes was found to be
0.0493 lb/1,000 Ibs (0.163 mg/1) for propazine at Plant 190 following
pesticide removal and biological treatment. This value was therefore
selected as the pesticide long-term average effluent for Subcategory 10.
Based on available data, one pesticide process to be regulated in
Subcategory 10 show that the selected long-term average effluent is
currently being achieved.
Subcategory 11—All pesticides in Subcategory 11 are proposed for
regulation to a zero discharge effluent limitation since there is no
discharge of pesticide process wastewater.
Subcategory 12—All existing nietallo-organic pesticide
manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based products
were regulated during BPT for direct dischargers; therefore, no BAT
long-term average effluent has been selected. However, these pesticides
are subject to the NSPS regulation where the BPT direct discharge
effluent limitation of zero discharge is proposed.
Subcategory 13—All existing pesticide formulator/packagers were
regulated during BPT for direct dischargers; therefore, no BAT long-term
average effluent has been selected. However, formulator/packagers are
subject to the NSPS regulation where the BPT direct discharge effluent
limitation of zero discharge is proposed.
Conventional Pollutants BOD and TSS Long-Term Average for Direct
Discharge (NSPS)--
BOD and TSS are not applicable to the BAT regulation; however, they are
proposed for regulation under NSPS and are judged to be equivalent to
the BPT limitation, since the biological treatment recommended to remove
these pollutants is common to both NSPS and BPT. The long-term average
for BOD and TSS is therefore 1.12 lbs/1,000 Ibs and 1.31 lbs/1,000 Ibs,
respectively, as shown in Table XV-21.
Nonconventional Pollutant COD Long-Term Average for Direct
Discharge (NSPS)—
COD is not applicable to the BAT regulation; however, it is proposed for
regulation under NSPS and is judged to be equivalent to the BPT
XV-49
-------
limitation since the biological treatment recommended to remove this
pollutant is common to both these regulations and BPT. The long-term
average for COD is therefore 8.01 lbs/1,000 Ibs, as shown in
Table XV-21.
Priority Pollutant Long-Term Average for Indirect Discharge
(PSES/PSNS)--
The selection of priority pollutant long-terra averages for pretreatment
standards was based on the same rationale as selection of long-term
averages for effluent limitations. This rationale includes a review of
effluents achieved and effluents achievable. For indirect dischargers,
however, the effluents achievable were derived by utilizing such pre-
treatraent as steam stripping, chemical oxidation, and metals separation.
The selected long-term averages for indirect discharge of priority
pollutants is presented in Table XV-19.
Nonconventional Pesticides Long-Term Average for Indirect Discharge
(PSES/PSNS)--
The process by which the nonconventional pesticide standards were
derived included first, an evaluation of the effluent levels achievable
for only those pesticides to be regulated in a given subcategory. Only
achievable values for indirect dischargers utilizing pesticide removal
were considered. Second, the maximum effluent achievable value for each
subcategory was selected as the standard for that subcategory. Using
the maximum effluent achievable for each subcategory ensures that all
plants in the subcategory are capable of meeting the selected long-terra
average. Table XV-20 lists the long-term average effluents for
nonconventional pesticides by subcategory. The selection of
nonconventional pesticide standards is presented as follows by
subcategory.
Subcategory 1—The highest effluent achievable value of 11 discrete
indirect discharge pesticide processes was found to be 0.0302 lb/1,000
Ibs (0.15 mg/1) for niacide at Plant 91 following pesticide removal.
This value was therefore selected as the pesticide long-terra average
effluent for Subcategory 1. Based on available data, one pesticide
process to be regulated in Subcategory 1 show that the selected
long-terra average effluent standard is not currently being achieved. No
data are available for the other 10 indirect discharge pesticide
processes.
Subcategory 2—The highest effluent achievable of 11 discrete
indirect discharge pesticide processes was found to be 0.0938 lb/1,000
Ibs (1.95 mg/1) for alachlor at Plant 100 following pesticide removal.
This value was therefore selected as the pesticide long-terra average
effluent for Subcategory 2. Based on available data, the long-
terra average effluent is currently being achieved by three pesticides
which are proposed for regulation.
XV-50
-------
Subcategory 3—The highest effluent achievable value of six
discrete indirect discharge pesticide processes was found to be
0.0145 lb/1,000 Ibs (0.15 mg/1) for ziram at Plant 151 following
pesticide removal. This value was therefore selected as the pesticide
long-term average effluent for Subcategory 3. There are no data
available which document the effluent levels achieved for pesticides to
be regulated in Subcategory 3.
Subcategory 4—Only one pesticide, fluometuron, is proposed to be
regulated in Subcategory 4 for the pesticide parameter. Therefore, the
pretreatment effluent achievable value of 0.00243 lb/1,000 Ibs
(0.0537 mg/1) for fluometuron at Plant 153 was selected as the long-term
average effluent for this Subcategory. Based on available data,
Plant 153 is not currently achieving the selected pesticide long-term
average.
Subcategory 5—The highest effluent achievable of two discrete
indirect discharge pesticide processes was found to be 0.0182 lb/1,000
Ibs (0.15 mg/1) for zineb at Plant 156 following pesticide removal.
This value was therefore selected as the pesticide long-term average
effluent of Subcategory 5. Based on available data, the long-term
average effluent is not currently being achieved by pesticides which are
proposed for regulation in this Subcategory.
Subcategory 6—All pesticides listed in Subcategory 6 are not
proposed for regulation due to lack of acceptable analytical methods and
technical and economic data; therefore, no pesticide long-term average
effluent has been selected.
Subcategory 7—All pesticides listed in Subcategory 7 are not
proposed for regulation due to lack of acceptable analytical methods and
technical and economic data; therefore, no pesticide long-term average
effluent has been selected.
Subcategory 8—All pesticides in Subcategory 8 were regulated for
the pesticide parameter during BPT for direct dischargers since the
recommended treatment technology for pesticides is equal to adsorption
or hydrolysis pretreatment for both the BPT direct dischargers and
PSES/PSNS indirect dischargers; therefore, the pretreatment long-terra
average for PSES/PSNS is equal to the BPT long-term average of
0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs (0.0344 mg/1). Currently, there are no indirect
discharge pesticides in Subcategory 8 which are being proposed for
regulation.
Subcategory 9—All pesticides in Subcategory 9 were regulated for
the pesticide parameter during BPT for direct dischargers since the
recommended treatment technology for pesticides is equal to adsorption
or hydrolysis pretreatment for both the BPT direct discharge and
PSES/PSNS indirect dischargers; therefore, the pretreatment long-terra
average for PSES/PSNS is equal to the BPT long-term average of
0.00129 lb/1,000 Ibs (0.0344 mg/1). Data from three pesticides to be
regulated in Subcategory 9 show that the selected long-terra average
effluent is currently being achieved.
XV-51
-------
Subcategory 10—Since no indirect dischargers are proposed for
regulation in this subcategory, the direct discharge highest
pretreatraent effluent achievable value was selected and was found to be
0.0583 lb/1,000 Ibs (1.0 mg/l) for propazine at Plant 190 following
pesticide removal. This value was therefore selected as the pesticide
long-term average effluent for Subcategory 10.
Subcategory 11—All pesticides in Subcategory 11 are proposed for
regulation to a zero discharge effluent standard since there is no
discharge of pesticide process wastewater.
Subcategory 12—All metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of
mercury, cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based products which were not
previously regulated under BPT are proposed for regulation to a zero
discharge effluent standard. This proposal is based on the BPT direct
discharge limitation of zero discharge and the fact that there is no
process difference between direct and indirect discharge metallo-organic
manufacturers.
Subcategory 13—All pesticide formulator/packagers which were not
previously regulated under BPT are proposed for regulation to a zero
discharge effluent standard. This proposal is based on the BPT direct
discharge limitation of zero discharge and the fact that there is no
process difference between direct and indirect discharge formulator/
packagers.
TREATMENT VARIABILITY
In the development of effluent limitations guidelines, the variability
of daily and monthly average discharge levels must be considered. The
derivation of variability factors is based on a statistical analysis of
the effluent levels from plants with long-term data available. The
purpose in deriving variability factors is to define daily and 30-day
maximum levels for pollutant discharges which statistical evaluations
predict can be achieved by well operated plants a high proportion of the
time. The daily and 30-day maximum levels are determined by multiplying
the daily and 30-day variability factors times the long-term average
effluent discharge in pounds of pollutant per thousand pounds of
product.
The data sets were initially reviewed to screen out data without
adequate production and flow documentation. Subsequent screening
resulted in excluding data which are unrepresentative of a properly
designed and operated treatment system. Operating conditions such as
adsorber breakthrough, stripper malfunction, and flow in excess of
design were considered unrepresentative. Outliers were excluded from
the statistical analysis.
Daily and monthly average effluent concentration values, provided by the
plants, were converted to pounds per day for the analysis. The number
of pollutants, plants, and observations available at this time are
presented in Table XV-22.
XV-52
-------
The first step in the statistical analysis was to determine if the data
could be assumed to fit a normal or log-normal distribution. For the
daily and monthly data, goodness-of-fit tests were conducted using
procedures derived by Shapiro-Wilk (Shapiro, 1965) and Kolmogorov-
Smirnov (as modified by Stephens, 1974). For data sets consisting of
50 values or less, the Shapiro-Wilk test was used; for sets containing
greater than 50 values, the modified Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used.
This convention was adopted because the Shapiro-Wilk procedure has high
power for small samples, but requires extensive tables to determine
significance levels (see Stephens, 1974, for details). The modified
Kolomogrov-Smirnov test has good power for large samples, and
approximate significance levels can be calculated without tables.
The results of the tests indicate that, with one possible exception, the
daily data consistently failed the tests for normality/log-normality at
a 5 percent level of significance. Therefore, three other methods of
estimating variability were investigated based on nonparametric,
partially nonparametric, and delta distribution techniques. The
non-parametric method of analysis makes no restrictive assumptions
regarding the distributional form of the data set, and can be used to
predict effluent loadings in a manner completely analagous to that which
would be used if the data fit a particular distribution such as the
normal or lognormal. Therefore a nonparametric method was chosen to
estimate the variability (Gibbons, 1971).
Several data sets contained data reported to be less than the detection
limit. For these data it was necessary to assume a real value. Three
alternatives were considered for such cases: (1) assign these data
values of the detection limit, (2) assign these data values of one-half
the detection limit, and (3) assign these data values of zero. A
decrease in the assigned value results in a corresponding decrease in
the mean and increase in the variability. Statistical analyses were
made of each alternative but the first alternative, assigning these data
values of the detection limit, was chosen for use in calculating the
daily and monthly limitations because this technique is familiar to the
industry since it was previously used during the pesticide BPT
regulation.
Daily Variability Factors
The daily maximum variability factor is defined as an estimate (U^)
of the 99th percentile of the daily pollutant discharge divided by the
average daily pollutant discharge. This estimate is obtained by using
the following binomial equation to establish the value of k such that
11^ has a probability of at least 50 percent of exceeding the 99th
percentile of the distribution of daily discharges.
k-1 / N \ j N-j
Confidence coefficient = 1- I ((j)J(O.Ol) (0.99)
j-0 V '
where k = rank of each observation
N = total number of values available
XV-53
-------
U^ therefore represents a value below which at least 99 percent of
the values of a future samples of size N will fall at least 50 percent
of the time. The daily variability factor is then calculated by the
equation
where U^ ™ the observation used to estimate the 99th
percentile which has a confidence coefficient most
closely approximating, but not less than,
50 percent.
x = arithmetic average of the daily observations
Daily variability factors were calculated on 7 priority pollutant data
sets of sample sizes greater than 56 data points and on 7 nonconven-
tional pollutant pesticides of sample sizes greater than 79 data
points.
The results of this analysis for each of the available plant/pollutant
data sets are presented in Table XV-22.
30-Day Variability Factors
The monthly average variability factor is defined as the estimate of the
99th percentile of the average monthly pollutant discharge divided by
the average monthly pollutant discharge. The estimated 99th percentile
of the monthly averages, based on daily values, is derived from the
equation
Md = "x + 2.33s
where m = number of sample days/month to which the maximum is
applied
s = standard deviation of the daily observations
x" = arithmetic average of the daily observations
This equation assumes the approximate normality of the monthly average.
When the monthly average consists of a sufficient number of daily
observations, the central limit theorem assures their normality. What
represents a sufficient number of observations varies according to the
underlying distribution of the data.
For data reported as monthly averages (where all monthly averages
consist of 30 observations), the daily standard deviation may be
approximated by >/30 s~x where sx" is the standard deviation of the
monthly averages. Therefore the equation for the estimated 99th
percentile of the monthly averages, based on monthly values, becomes
XV-54
-------
Mn, = x + 2.33 J/30~ s-
where s]£ = standard deviation of the monthly averages
>T = arithmetic average of monthly averages
The resulting estimate represents an estimate of the 99th percentile of
the monthly averages assuming that:
1. The observations are statistically independent,
2. The number of days sampled per month is large enough to
warrant the use of the Central Limit Theorem to assure
approximate normality of the monthly means,
3. The number of observations used to compute each monthly
average is equal to 30 if 1%, is being calculated.
The monthly variability factor is then calculated by the following
equations depending on whether monthly or daily data are available.
VFm = Md or Nfo
Monthly variability factors were calculated on both monthly average data
and on daily data. The monthly variability factors, based on monthly
averages, were calculated on 5 priority pollutants with sample sizes
of at least 12 data points. The monthly variability factors, based on
daily data, were calculated on 7 priority pollutants of sample sizes
greater than 56 data points and on 7 nonconventional pollutant
pesticides of sample sizes greater than 79 data points.
The results of this analysis for each of the available plant/pollutant
data sets are presented in Table XV-22.
The monthly average variability factors shown on this table are based on
a sampling schedule of 30 days per month.
Application of Variability Factors
There were insufficient data available for the statistical analysis of
each pesticide and priority pollutant to be regulated. A mechanism by
which variability factors could be combined and transferred was there-
fore developed. The following criteria were established for the assign-
ment of variability factors to each priority pollutant to be regulated.
1. Variability factors calculated for a priority pollutant,
other than priority pollutant pesticides, were applied to
that priority pollutant.
2. Where variability factors were not available for a
priority pollutant other than priority pollutant
XV-55
-------
pesticides, variability factors from other priority
pollutants from the same pollutant group were applied.
3. Where variability factors were not available for any
priority pollutant within the pollutant group other than
priority pollutant pesticides, variability factors from
similar priority pollutant groups were applied.
4. For priority pollutant pesticides, the pesticide BPT
variability factors of 7.6 (daily) and 1.4 (monthly) were
applied to the priority pollutant pesticide compounds.
5. The following pesticide BPT and metal transfer technology
variability factors were applied to the conventional
pollutants BOD and TSS, the nonconventional pollutant COD,
and the metal zinc.
Daily Variability Monthly Variability
Factor Factor
BOD 6.6 1.4
TSS 4.7 1.3
COD 1.6 1.2
Zinc 3.00 1.30
In cases where more than one variability factor was available, a
weighted average variability factor was calculated and applied based on
the number of data points available.
The following criteria were established for the assignment of
variability factors to nonconventional pesticides to be regulated.
1. The variability factors calculated for a pesticide within
a pesticide subcategory were applied to that pesticide and
all other pesticides in that subcategory.
2. In cases where more than one variability factor was
available, the average variability factor, weighted based
on the number of data points, was applied to all
pesticides in the subcategory.
3. Where variability factors were not available for any
pesticide within a pesticide subcategory, the pesticide
BPT variability factor was applied to all pesticides in
that subcategory.
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
BAT
BAT effluent limitations guidelines for direct dischargers are presented
in Tables II-7 through 11-19.
XV-56
-------
NSPS
NSPS effluent limitations guidelines for direct dischargers are
presented in Tables 11-20 through 11-32.
PSES and PSNS
PSES and PSNS pretreatraent standards guidelines for indirect dischargers
are presented in Tables 11-33 through 11^45.
XV-57
-------
Table XV-1. Effluent Levels Achieved
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
PESTICIDES
D
P
NA
ND
*
(E)
(n)
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
= Direct discharge of
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01 -D
2/01-D
3/01 -D
4/0 1-D
5/01
6/0 1-D
7/01
8/01
9/01
10/01
11/01
12/01
13/0 1-D
14/0 1-D
15/01-D
16/01-D
17/01-D
18/01
19/0 1-D
20/01
21/01
22/01-P
23/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02-D
7/02
m£/l lbs/1000 Ibs
0.00602
0.002 0
<0.01
0.01
<0.023*
<0.025 <0
<0.0394
<0.050
<0.10
0.101
<0.112
<0.2
<0.342
0.362*
0.378*
0.807*
<0.92
1.58
3.37
5.52
10.0
15.2
50.0
ND
ND
ND
<0. 00010
0.000953
0.002 0
0.008
wastewater after recommended
= POTW discharge of wastewater after
• Not available.
= Not detected.
= Data from comingled
= Plant estimate.
0.0381
.0000214
<0. 00871
0.0017
<0.00016*
.0000159
<0.570
<0.0289
<0.00574
0.124
<0.478
<0.174
<0.30
NA
0.317*
0.228*
<0.555
1.75
0.00411
0.0961
0.57
1.22
0.0448
NA
NA
NA
0.0014
0.00124
.0000559
0.0076
treatment .
(n)
(24)
(5)
(1)
(5)
(14)
(3)
(26)
(1)
(1)
(7)
(6)
(NA)
(4)
(11)
(19)
(3)
(221)
(6)
(163)
(82)
(E)
(147)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(1)
(3)
(29)
(7)
(20)
recommended treatment .
pesticide streams.
• Number of data points available.
XV-58
-------
Table XV-1. Effluent Levels Achieved
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
PESTICIDES (Continued)
D
P
NA
*
(n)
Pesticide
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
12
J2
K2
L2
M2
N2
02
P2
= Direct discharge of
Plant/
Subcategory
8/02-P
9/02-D
10/02
11/02
12/02
13/02
14/02
15/02
16/02-P
17/02
18/02-D
19/02
20/02
21/02
22/02-D
23/02-D
24/02
25/02
26/02
27/02-D
28/02
29/02
30/02-D
31/02
32/02-D
33/02
34/02
35/02
36/02
37/02
38/02-P
39/02-D
40/02-D
41/02
42/02
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
<0.0084
<0.01*
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.011
0.012
0.012
<0.0186
<0.0197
<0 . 02 7
0.0452*
<0.05
0.0554
<0.067
0.08*
<0.081*
<0.081*
<0.081*
<0.0836
0.09
<0.105
<0.148
0.164
0.170
0.184
<0.20
0.255
<0.279
0.35
0.350*
0.362
0.378
<0.5
<0.533
wastewater after recommended
=* POTW discharge of wastewater after
a Not available.
= Data from comingled
<0.00102
<0.0026*
<0. 00474
<0.0318
<0.0405
0.000546
0.0114
0.0029
<0. 00321
<0.0683
<0.205
0.00293*
<0.0752
0.0827
<0.0850
0.0665*
<0.09*
<0.09*
<0.09*
<0.40
0.0054
<0.187
<0 . 604
0.36
0.1615
0.0502
<0.245
1.03
<0.562
0.00549
0.0213*
NA
0.317
<0.0179
<0.961
treatment .
(n)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(20)
(61)
(59)
(33)
(10)
(40)
(1)
(3)
(105)
(1)
(208)
(208)
(208)
(21)
(E)
(59)
(16)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(14)
(6)
(8)
(2)
(5)
(19)
(1)
(109)
recommended treatment .
pesticide streams.
a Number of data points available.
XV-59
-------
Table XV-1. Effluent Levels Achieved
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
PESTICIDES (Continued)
Pesticide
Q2
R2
S2
T2
U2
V2
W2
X2
Y2
Z2
A3
B3
C3
D3
E3
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
D = Direct discharge of
Plant/
Subcategory
43/02-D
44/02
45/02-D
46/02-D
47/02
48/02
49/02
50/02
51/02
52/02-D
53/02-P
54/02
55/02
56/02-P
57/02
1/04
2/04
3/04
4/04
5/04-D
1/05
2/05
3/05-D
4/05-P
5/05-P
1/0 8-D
2/08-D
3/08-D
4/08-D
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
0.807*
<1.0
1.26
1.37
2.08
<1.62
1.667
2.00
3.20
5.0
<9.24
10.3
15.3
<18.3
114.0
<0. 00183
0.0452*
<27.0
60.0
<314.0
ND
<0.10
<0.254
0.350*
0.350*
<0.0013**
<0.0048**
0.005**
0.0093
wastewater after recommended
P = POTW discharge of wastewater after
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
* = Data from comingled
** = Final plant effluent
(E) = Plant estimate.
0.228* (3)
<0.71 (1)
0.031 (5)
0.041 (E)
1.34 (365)
<1.05 (74)
1.43 (3)
0.20 (E)
3.71 (3)
0.0367 (3)
<0.238 (140)
0.556 (365)
16.6 (22)
<0.291 (156)
12.2 (274)
<0. 00392 (12)
0.00293* (40)
<30.5 (55)
NA (1)
<44.0 (4)
NA (12)
<0. 00106 (1)
<0.329 (21)
0.0213* (2)
0.0213* (2)
<0. 000220** (3)
<0.0034** (217)
0.0035** (137)
0.00031 (18)
treatment.
recommended treatment .
pesticide streams.
.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-60
-------
Table XV-1. Effluent Levels Achieved
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
PESTICIDES (Continued)
Pesticide
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
C2
Plant/
Subcategory
5/08-P
6/08-P
7/08-D
8/08-D
9/08-D
10/08-D
1/09-D
2/09-D
3/09-D
4/09-D
5/09-D
6/09-D
7/09-D
8/09-D
9/09-D
10/09-P
11/09-P
12/09-P
1 3/09-D
14/09
15/09-P
16/09-P
17/09-P
18/09-D
1 9/09-D
20/09-P
21/09
22/09
23/09
24/09
25/09
26/09-P
27/09-P
28/09
29/09
ng/1
<0.01*
<0.01*
0.0169
0.0713tt
0.468tt
2.82tt
<0. 00010
0.00067
<0.001
0.00123
0.00149
0.00175
0.005
0.0055
0.01
<0.010
0.010
<0.015
0.0182
<0.023*
0.024
0.0428
0.059
<0.0685
<0.0946
<0.0984*
<0.1
<0.5
<0.50
0.783
0.783
11.0
18.6
2.14
2.19
lbs/1000 Ibs
<0. 00066*
<0. 00066*
0.000645
0.000223tt
0.00123TT
0.017tt
<0.00094
0.0000060
<0. 00000 19
0.00000974
0.000437
0.000724
0.001
0.0016
0.002
<0. 00013
0.00081
<0.0016
0.0000765
<0.00016*
0.028
0.00117
0.089
<0.0274
<0.129
<0. 00290*
<0.281
<0.25
NA
0.675
0.675
0.0107
0.314
0.0385
0.0394
(n)
(606)
(606)
(85)
(3)
(420)
(26)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(84)
(3)
(684)
(4)
(154)
(40)
(3)
(174)
(171)
(25)
(14)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(75)
(129)
(63)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(17)
(265)
(4)
(4)
D a Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
P = POTW discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
NA = Not available.
* m Data from comingled pesticide streams.
tt " After pretreatment.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-61
-------
Table XV-1. Effluent Levels Achieved
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
PESTICIDES (Continued)
Pesticide
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
12
J2
K2
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
D = Direct discharge of
Plant/
Subcategory
30/09-P
31/09-P
32/09
33/09
34/09
35/09
36/09
37/09-P
1/10
2/10-D
3/10-D
4/10-D
5/10-D
6/10
7/10
8/10
9/10
10/10-D
11/10-D
12/10-D
13/10
14/10-D
15/10-D
16/10-D
17/10-D
18/10
19/10
wastewater after
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
<19.5
24.0
32.3
49.7
66.5
190°
330
2.14
<0.01
<0.10
<0.012
<0.49
0.68
<4.17
<4.19
<4.31
<4.67
4.7*
4.7*
4.7*
<5.37
<5.84
12.4*
12.4*
12.4*
<14.5
<18.4
recommended
<0.373
0.472
0.296
0.344
0.623
0.215°
53.1
0.0385
<0.0210
<0. 00267
<0.00017
<0.234
0.3
<1.26
<1.56
<2.35
<1.09
0.185*
0.185*
0.185*
<1.15
<1.81
0.479*
0.479*
0.479*
<5.65
<3.65
treatment .
(n)
(352)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(24)
(3)
(153)
(81)
(4)
(22)
(29)
(27)
(9)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(42)
(154)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(28)
(87)
P = POTW discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
* = Data from comingled
0 = o,p' and p,p' DDT.
(E) = Plant estimate.
pesticide streams
.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-62
-------
Table XV-1. Effluent Levels Achieved
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
COD
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
D = Direct discharge of
NA = Not available.
W = Deep well injection
* = Data from comingled
T = Data from comingled
= Pilot plant data.
(E) = Plant estimate.
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01
3/01 -D
4/01-D
5/01-D
6/01-W
7/01-D
8/01-D
9/01-D
10/01
11/01
12/01-D
13/01
14/01
15/01
16/01
17/01
18/01
19/01
20/01
21/01
1/02
2/02
3/02-D
4/02-D
5/02-D
6/02-D
7/02-D
8/02-D
9/02-D
10/02-D
wastewater after
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
31.2
<50.0t
<60.3t
<336t
<336t
<515*
<519T
<519t
<770°t
808*
819*
-------
Table XV-1. Effluent Levels Achieved
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
COD (Continued)
D
P
*
t
(E)
(n)
Pesticide
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
Al
Bl
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
a Direct discharge of
Plant/
Subcategory
11/02
12/02-P
13/02-D
14/02-D
15/02-D
16/02-D
17/02
18/02-D
19/02-D
20/02-D
21/02-D
22/02-D
23/02-D
24/02
25/02
26/02
27/02
28/02
1/04-D
2/04
1/05 -D
1/08-P
2/08-P
3/08
4/08-D
5/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09-D
wastewater after
m£/l lbs/1000 Ibs
360
<394t
<515*
<515*
<515*
<519t
808*
-------
Table XV-1. Effluent Levels Achieved
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
COD (Continued)
Plant/
Pesticide Subcategory
El 5/09-D
Fl 6/09
Gl 7/09
HI 8/09-D
11 9/09-D
Jl 10/09-D
Kl 11/09
LI 12/09
Ml 13/09
Nl 14/09
Al 1/10
Bl 2/10
Cl 3/10
Dl 4/10-D
El 5/10-D
Fl 6/10-D
Gl 7/10-D
HI 8/10
11 9/10-D
Jl 10/10-D
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
<290T
576
819*
<1,280T
<1,280T
<2,320t
2,580*
2,580*
18,900*
109,000
<285*
<285*
<285*
420*
420*
420*
537
819*
890
<2,320t
<77.3t
4.60
152*
<59.7t
<59.7t
<41.1t
31.9*
31.9*
214*
NA
<11.2*
<11.2*
<11.2*
32.2*
32.2*
32.2*
14.0
152*
26.9
<41.1T
(n)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(444)
(444)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(12)
(6)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(540)
(540)
(540)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
D = Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
NA = Not available.
* = Data from coraingled pesticide streams.
T = Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-65
-------
Table XV-1. Effluent Levels Achieved
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
TOC
D
NA
*
t
(n)
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
Hi
11
Jl
Kl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
Al
Bl
Al
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
= Direct discharge of
= Not available.
= Data from comingled
= Data from coraingled
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01-D
3/01-D
4/0 1-D
5/01-D
6/01
7/01
8/01
9/01
10/01
11/01
1/02-D
2/02-D
3/02-D
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
1/04-D
2/04
1/05
1/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
7/09
wastewater after
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
15.4
<100T
<100t
<136T
<136t
153*
<245T
2,000*
5,850*
50,000*
50,000*
<100t
104*
<136T
153*
2,000*
50,000*
50,000*
50,000*
104*
165
2,000*
50,000*
40.3
59.0
105*
105*
2,590
5,850*
66,700
recommended
NA
<25.8T
<25.8t
<35.2t
<35.2t
4.82*
NA
373*
66.2*
36.4*
36.4*
<25.8t
6.74*
<35.2t
4.82*
373*
36.4*
36.4*
36.4*
6.74*
35.1
373*
36.4*
0.072
0.50
68.4*
68.4*
33.9
66.2*
NA
treatment .
(n)
(5)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(5)
(19)
(1)
(12)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(34)
(3)
(5)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(34)
(455)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(12)
(6)
pesticide streams.
pesticide/ other
product streams.
= Number of data points available.
XV-6 6
-------
Table XV-1. Effluent Levels Achieved
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
TOG (Continued)
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10-D
5/10-D
6/10-D
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
81.0*
81.0*
81.0*
126*
126*
126*
<3.19*
<3.19*
<3.19*
9.66*
9.66*
9.66*
(n)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(540)
(540)
(540)
D =• Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
* * Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) • Number of data points available.
XV-67
-------
Table XV-1. Effluent Levels Achieved
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
TOD
Pesticide
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Al
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01 -D
1/02-D
2/02-D
3/02
4/02-D
5/02-D
1/03-D
1/04-D
1/09
2/09
3/09-D
1/10-D
2/10-D
3/10-D
4/10-D
5/10-D
6/10-D
7/10-D
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
<408T
<408t
<408t
<408t
<3,094T
<3,094t
<408t
<3,094T
<408t
<408T
<3,094t
<3,094T
<3,094t
<3,094t
<3,094T
<3,094t
<3,094T
<3,094t
<35.9t
<35.9t
<35.9t
<35.9t
<42.7T
<42.7t
<35.9t
<42.7t
<35.9t
<35.9t
<42.7t
<42.7t
<42.7T
<42.7t
<42.7t
<42.7t
<42.7t
<42.7t
(n)
(246)
(246)
(246)
(246)
(743)
(743)
(246)
(743)
(246)
(246)
(743)
(743)
(743)
(743)
(743)
(743)
(743)
(743)
D = Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
t = Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-68
-------
Table XV-2. Effluent Levels Achieved
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
BOD
D
W
*
t
O
(n)
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
= Direct discharge of
= Deep well injection
= Data from com ing led
= Data from com ing led
= Pilot plant data.
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01-D
2/01
3/01-D
4/01-D
5/01-D
6/01-W
7/01-D
8/01-D
9/01-D
10/01
11/01
12/01
13/01
14/01
15/01
1/02
2/02-D
3/02-D
4/02-D
5/02-D
6/02-D
7/02-D
8/02-D
9/02-D
10/02-D
11/02-D
12/02-D
13/02-D
14/02-D
15/02-D
16/02-D
17/02-D
18/02-D
wastewater after
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
<1.0t <0
<1.92 <0.
8. Ot
<50.0°t
<73.6t
<74.3*
<114t
<114T
<253*
319*
889*
6,600*
6,000*
16,000
60,000*
<1 . Ot <0
<7.0t
<7.0t
8.0t
8.0t
8.0t
8.0t
8.0T
8.0T
8.0T
12.2*
12.2*
12.2*
15.3*
39.0*
<73.6T
<73.6t
<73.6t
.0204t (3)
00126 (3)
2.98t (3)
<4.74°T (1)
<3.44t (171)
<7.28* (42)
<29.5t (3)
<29.5t (3)
<1.74* (3)
59.0* (3)
28.0* (5)
74.7* (12)
43.7* (1)
300 (1)
43.7* (1)
.0204t (3)
1.87t (4)
1.87T (4)
2.98t (3)
2.98T (3)
2.98t (3)
2.98T (3)
2.98T (3)
2.98T (3)
2.98T (3)
0.438* (202)
0.438* (202)
0.438* (202)
0.708* (103)
2.53* (34)
<3.44T (171)
<3.44t (171)
<3.44T (171)
recommended treatment .
of wastewater after recommended
treatment .
pesticide streams.
pesticide/other
product streams.
= Number of data points available.
XV-6 9
-------
Table XV-2. Effluent Levels Achieved
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
BOD (Continued)
D
P
*
t
(n)
Pesticide
SI
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
Al
Bl
Cl
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
» Direct discharge of
Plant/
Subcategory
19/02-D
20/02-D
21/02-D
22/02-D
23/02-D
24/02-D
25/02-D
26/02-D
27/02-D
28/02
29/02
30/02
31/02
32/02
1/04 -D
2/04-D
3/04-D
1/05-D
1/08-P
2/08-P
3/08
4/08-D
5/08
1/0 9-D
2/09-D
3/09-D
4/09
5/09
6/09
7/0 9-D
8/0 9-D
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
<73.6T
<74.3*
<74.3*
<74.3*
<96.5t
<96.5t
114T
<122t
<122t
889*
4,136*
60,000*
60,000*
60,000*
15.3*
39.0*
<122T
<73.6t
12.7*
12.7*
316
1,820
60,000*
<7.0T
<7.0t
8.0t
54.1*
54.1*
55.0
<73.6t
<73.6t
wastewater after recommended
= POTW discharge of wastewater after
* Data from com ing led
= Data from com ing led
<3.44T (171)
<7.28* (42)
<7.28* (42)
<7.28* (42)
<1.71t (3)
<1.71t (3)
<29.5t (2)
<1.68T (762)
<1.68t (762)
28.0* (5)
51.2* (3)
43.7* (1)
43.7* (1)
43.7* (1)
0.708* (103)
2.53* (34)
<1.68t (762)
<3.44t (171)
0.791* (450)
0.791* (450)
1.02 (3)
69.4 (85)
43.7* (1)
<1.87t (4)
<1.87T (4)
2.98t (3)
35.4* (3)
35.4* (3)
0.47 (3)
<3.44T (171)
<3.44t (171)
treatment .
recommended treatment .
pesticide streams.
pesticide /other
product streams.
= Number of data points available.
XV-70
-------
Table XV-2. Effluent Levels Achieved
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
BOD (Continued)
Pesticide
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
D = Direct discharge of
NA = Not available.
* = Data from comingled
t = Data from comingled
Plant/
Subcategory
9/09-D
10/09-D
11/09-D
12/09
13/09
14/09
15/09
16/09
17/09
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10-D
5/10-D
6/10-D
7/10-D
8/10-D
9/10-D
10/10-D
11/10-D
12/10-D
13/10-D
14/10-D
15/10-D
16/10-D
17/10
wastewater after
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
<96.5T
<122T
<253*
319*
2,104
4,136*
4,136*
6,600*
37,400
<20.0*
<20.0*
<20.0*
29.6
48.9*
48.9*
48.9*
78.8
<96.5t
<122t
<122t
<122t
<122T
<122t
<122t
<122t
319*
recommended
<1.71t
<1.68t
<1 . 74*
59.0*
27.5
51.2*
51.2*
74.7*
NA
<0.787*
<0.787*
<0.787*
0.772
3.75*
3.75*
3.75*
2.37
<1.71t
<1.68t
<1.68t
<1.68T
<1.68t
<1.68T
<1.68T
<1.68T
59.0*
treatment .
(n)
(3)
(762)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(12)
(6)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(3)
(540)
(540)
(540)
(1)
(3)
(762)
(762)
(762)
(762)
(762)
(762)
(762)
(3)
pesticide streams.
pesticide/ other
product streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-71
-------
Table XV-2. Effluent Levels Achieved
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
TSS
D
NA
W
*
t
O
(n)
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
= Direct discharge of
= Not available.
= Deep well injection
= Data from com ing led
= Data from com ing led
= Pilot plant data.
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01-D
3/01-D
4/01
5/0 1-D
6/01
7/01-D
8/01
9/01 -D
10/01-D
11/01-D
12/01-W
13/01-D
14/0 1-D
1/02-D
2/02-D
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02-D
9/02-D
10/02-D
11/02-D
12/02-D
13/02-D
14/02-D
15/02-D
16/02-D
17/02-D
18/02-D
19/02-D
20/02-D
wastewater after
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
<5.0
<27.3t
<27.3t
32.3
<35.0T
35.0*
39. OT
46.6*
<64.0t
<64.0t
<68.5T
<81.2*
92. 08
<117t
<0.69t
<0.69t
2.0*
2.0*
3.2T
3.2T
3.2t
18.0*
22.8*
<27.3T
28.4*
28.4*
28.4*
<35.0t
39. Ot
39. Ot
39. Ot
39. Ot
39. Ot
39. Ot
recommended
<0. 00329
<7.10t
<7.10t
2.59
<0.714t
6.50*
14.5
1.47*
<16.5t
<16.5t
<3.2t
<8.72*
8.72°
NA
<0.184
<0.184
0.000162*
0.000162*
<3.0t
<3.0t
<3.0t
1.17*
1.05*
<7.10t
0.983*
0.983*
0.983*
<0.714t
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
treatment .
(n)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(148)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(5)
(1)
(1)
(455)
(46)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(23)
(23)
(23)
(28)
(102)
(3)
(365)
(365)
(365)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
of wastewater after recommended treatment.
pesticide streams.
pesticide /other
product streams.
= Number of data points available.
XV-72
-------
Table XV-2. Effluent Levels Achieved
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
TSS (Continued)
D
P
*
t
(n)
Pesticide
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
12
J2
Al
Bl
Cl
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
= Direct discharge of
Plant/
Subcategory
21/02-D
22/02
23/02-D
24/02-D
25/02-D
26/02-D
27/02-D
28/02
29/02
30/02
31/02
32/02
33/02-D
34/02-D
35/02-D
36/02
1/04 -D
2/04-D
3/04-D
1/05
1/08-P
2/08-P
3/08
4/08-D
5/08
1/0 9-D
2/09-D
3/09
4/09
5/09-D
6/0 9-D
7/09-D
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
39. Ot
46.6*
<50.1T
<50.1t
<64.0t
<66.8t
<66.8t
<68.5T
<68.5T
<68.5T
<68.5t
78.0
<81.2*
<81.2*
<81.2*
185*
18.0*
22.8*
<66.8t
<68.5t
20.8*
20.8*
34.0
501
29,600t
<0.69t
<0.69t
19.0
35.0*
39. Ot
<50.1t
<66.8t
wastewater after recommended
= POTW discharge of wastewater after
= Data from coining led
= Data from com ing led
14.5 (3)
1.47* (5)
<0.888t (3)
<0.888t (3)
<16.5t (1)
<0.923t (532)
<0.923T (532)
<3.20t (455)
<3.20t (455)
<3.20t (455)
<3.20t (455)
1.09 (30)
<8.72* (46)
<8.72* (46)
<8.72* (46)
2.29* (3)
1.17* (28)
1.05* (102)
<0.923t (523)
<3.2t (455)
1.30* (360)
1.30* (360)
0.111 (3)
19.1 (1)
-------
Table XV-2. Effluent Levels Achieved
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (Continued)
TSS (Continued)
D
*
t
(n)
Pesticide
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
= Direct discharge of
= Data from comingled
= Data from comingled
Plant/
Subcategory
8/09
9/09
10/09
11/09
12/09
13/09
14/09
15/09
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10-D
6/10-D
7/10-D
8/10-D
9/10-D
10/10-D
11/10-D
12/10-D
13/10-D
14/10-D
15/10-D
16/10-D
17/10-D
wastewater after
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
<68.5t
<68.5t
150
185*
185*
280*
280*
2,600
25.7*
25.7*
25.7*
35.0*
<50.1t
<66.8t
<66.8t
<66.8t
<66.8t
<66.8T
<66.8t
<66.8t
101
140*
140*
140*
178
<3.20t
<3.20T
0.290
2.29*
2.29*
183*
183*
NA
<1.01*
<1.01*
<1.01*
6.50*
<0.888t
<0.923t
<0.923t
<0.923t
<0.923t
<0.923t
<0.923t
<0.923t
2.63
10.7*
10.7*
10.7*
5.37
(n)
(455)
(455)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(6)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(3)
(3)
(532)
(532)
(532)
(532)
(532)
(532)
(532)
(3)
(17)
(17)
(17)
(1)
recommended treatment .
pesticide streams.
pesticide/other
product streams
•
= Number of data points available.
XV-74
-------
Table XV-3. Effluent Levels Achieved
VOLATILE AROMATICS
BENZENE
D
NA
ND
*
t
(n)
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Al
Al
Bl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Al
= Direct discharge of
= Not available.
= Not detected .
= Data from comingled
= Data from comingled
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02-D
1/05-D
1/08
2/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09-D
1/10
wastewater after
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
ND
<0.010t
-------
Table XV-3. Effluent Levels Achieved
VOLATILE AROMATICS (Continued)
TOLUENE
D
NA
ND
P
*
t
O
(n)
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
Hi
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
Al
Al
Bl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
= Direct discharge of
= Not available.
= Not detected .
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
10/02
11/02-D
12/02-P
13/02-P
14/02-P
1/05-D
1/08
2/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
7/09
8/09-P
9/09-D
10/09-P
11/09-P
wastewater after
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
<0.007T
<9.6
NDt
ND
<0.007t
<0.010T
<0.010t
<0.010t
<0.010T
<0.010t
<0.01t
<0.010t
0.021*
<79.6*°
<79.6*°
<79.6*°
0.021*
0.009*
0.009*
ND*
NDt
<0 . 006
<0.010t
<0.010t
<0.010t
<0.01T
0.0194*
0.021*
5.73
21.9°
recommended
<0. 00043 t
<0.15
NA
NA
<0. 00043 t
<0.00512t
<0.000179t
<0.00512t
<0.00512t
<0.00512t
<0.0081T
<0.0142t
0.00596*
<1.30*°
<1.30*°
<1.30*°
0.00596*
0.000562*
0.000562*
NA
NA
<0. 00003
<0.00512T
<0.000179T
<0.0142t
<0.0081t
0.00024*
0.00596*
0.103
0.394°
treatment .
(n)
(1)
(48)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(4)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(318)
(318)
(318)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(4)
(4)
= POTW discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
= Data from coming led
= Data from comingled
pesticide streams.
pesticide/ other
product streams.
31 Prior to final treatment step.
™ Number of data points available.
XV-76
-------
Table XV-3. Effluent Levels Achieved
VOLATILE AROMATICS (Continued)
TOLUENE (Continued)
Pesticide
LI
Ml
Nl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
Plant/
Subcategory
12/09
13/09
14/09
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
6/10
7/10
mg/1
28.5*
28.5*
28.5*
<0.01t
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
1.77*
1.77*
1.77*
lbs/1000 Ibs
2.38*
2.38*
2.38*
<0.000179t
<0.0039*
<0.0039*
<0.0039*
0.136*
0.136*
0.136*
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(540)
(540)
(540)
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t = Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-77
-------
Table XV-3. Effluent Levels Achieved
VOLATILE AROMATICS (Continued)
CHLOROBENZENE
NA
ND
*
t
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
Hi
11
Jl
Al
Bl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
Hi
= Not available.
= Not detected.
= Data from comingled
= Data from comingled
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
10/02
1/08
2/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
7/09
8/09
mg/1
NDt
<0.010T
<0.010t
<0.010t
<0.010t
<0.01t
<0.01t
<0.081*°
<0.081*e
<0.081*°
0.76*
0.76*
<0.010t
<0.01T
<0.01t
<0.01*
<0.02t
<0.02t
0.030t
0.151
lbs/1000 Ibs
NA
<0. 00474 T
<0.00474t
<0.00474t
<0.00474t
<0.00474T
<0.00474t
<0.090*°
<0.090*°
<0.090*°
0.0474*
0.0474*
<0.00474t
<0.0053t
<0.0053T
<0. 0000 19*
<0.011t
<0.011T
0.0208t
0.0013
(n)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(208)
(208)
(208)
(1)
(1)
(4)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
pesticide streams.
pesticide/other
product streams.
= Total chlorobenzenes.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-78
-------
Table XV-3. Effluent Levels Achieved
VOLATILE AROMATICS (Continued)
DICHLOROBENZENE
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
1/09
mg/1
<0.01*
<0.01*
0.02*
0.02*
<0.0167
lbs/1000 Ibs
NA
NA
0.019*
0.019*
<0. 000032
(n)
(4)
(4)
(20)
(20)
(3)
NA • Not available.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
VOLATILE AROMATICS (Continued)
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
Pesticide
Al
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02-D
1/09
mg/1
0.007
<0.001
lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
NA (5)
0.0000019 (3)
D - Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
NA * Not available.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-79
-------
Table XV-3. Effluent Levels Achieved
VOLATILE AROMATICS (Continued)
1 .2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
Pesticide
Al
Al
Bl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02-D
1/09
2/09
mg/1
NDt
<0.00133
9.0
lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
NA (3)
<0.0000025 (3)
1.45 (3)
D = Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment
NA " Not available.
ND » Not detected.
T = Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-80
-------
Table XV-4. Effluent Levels Achieved
HALOMETHANES
METHYL CHLORIDE (CHLOROMETHANE )
NA
ND
t
O
(n)
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Al
Al
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01
1/02
1/08
1/09
mg/1
NDt
<1.0t
NDt
ND
NDf
lbs/1000 Ibs
NA
<0.0296t
NA
NA
NA
(n)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(3)
= Not available.
= Not detected.
= Data from
* Analysis
= Number of
comingled pesticide/other
not conducted per protocol.
data points available.
product
streams.
HALOMETHANES (Continued)
METHYLENE CHLORIDE (DICHLOROMETHANE )
Pesticide
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02-D
5/02
6/02-P
7/02-P
mg/1
<0.10e
<0.010
<0.10f
0.020*
0.24
<1 . It
1.49*
<1.42*
lbs/1000 Ibs
<0. 000066'
<0. 00848
<0. 00204 t
0.00077*
0.979
<0.860t
0.147*
<0.260*
(n)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(56)
D " Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
P = POTW discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t = Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
a Analysis not conducted per protocol.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-81
-------
Table XV-4. Effluent Levels Achieved
HALOMETHANES (Continued)
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE (TETRACHLOROMETHANE)
NA
ND
P
*
(n)
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
Al
Bl
Cl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
= Not available.
= Not detected.
= POTW discharge
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
3/02-P
4/02
5/02
6/02-P
7/04
1/09
2/09
3/09
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
6/10
7/10
of wastewater after
mg/1
ND*
Trace
<0.0010*
<0.010
<0.010
<0.140*
ND*
5.49
44.5*
44.5*
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
0.216*
0.216*
0.216*
2.32*
recommended
lbs/1000 Ibs
NA
NA
<0. 0000 18*
<0.0229
<0.0229
<0.0256*
NA
0.048
2.10*
2.10*
<0.0039*
<0.0039*
<0.0039*
0.0166*
0.0166*
0.0166*
0.50*
treatment .
(n)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(56)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(540)
(540)
(540)
(3)
= Data from com ing led pesticide streams.
3 Number of data
points available.
HALOMETHANES (Continued)
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
Pesticide
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
mg/1
0.067
lbs/1000 Ibs
0.00046
(n)
(3)
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-82
-------
Table XV-4. Effluent Levels Achieved
HALOMETHANES (Continued)
CHLOROFORM (TRICHLOROMETHANE)
C
D
NA
ND
P
*
t
0
(n)
Pesticide
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Al
Bl
Al
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
= Contract hauling of
= Direct discharge of
= Not available.
= Not detected .
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
1/02-D
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02-P
9/02-D
10/02-D
11/02-D
12/02-P
13/02-C
1/04
2/04
1/05-C
1/08
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
wastewater after
wastewater after
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
<0.30°
NDt
-------
Table XV-4. Effluent Levels Achieved
HALOMETHANES (Continued)
BROMOFORM (TRIBROMOMETHANE)
Pesticide
No data available
Plant/
Subcategory
mg/1
lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
(n) = Number of data points available.
HALOMETHANES (Continued)
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
Pesticide
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
<0.005 <0.000056 (3)
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-84
-------
Table XV-5. Effluent Levels Achieved
CYANIDE
CYANIDE
D
*
t
0
(n)
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
= Direct discharge of
- Data from comingled
™ Data from comingled
Plant/
Subcategory
1/10-D
2/10-D"
3/10-D"
4/10-0°
5/10
6/10
7/10
8/10
9/10
10/10-D
11/10
12/10
wastewater after
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
<0.0125 <0. 000222
0.0192*
0.0192*
0.0192*
<0.02*
<0.02*
<0.02*
0.065t
0.065t
<0.0710
0.337T
0.682t
recommended
0.000639*
0.000639*
0.000639*
<0. 00079*
<0. 00079*
<0. 00079*
0.0252T
0.0252T
<0. 00184
0.0103t
0.0228T
treatment .
(n)
(25)
(540)
(540)
(540)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(700)
pesticide streams.
pesticide/ other
- Recommended treatment for pesticide
only.
product streams.
intermediate
waste streams
* Number of data points available.
XV-85
-------
Table XV-6. Effluent Levels Achieved
HALOGENATED ETHERS
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
Plant/
Pesticide Subcategory mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
Al 1/04 0.0527 0.113 (3)
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-86
-------
Table XV-7. Effluent Levels Achieved
PHENOLS
PHENOL
D
P
*
t
**
(n)
Pesticide
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
= Direct discharge of
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01-D
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02-P
8/02-P
9/02
1/0 9-D
2/09
3/09-P
4/09-P
5/09-P
6/09
wastewater after
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
0.120**
0.002**T
<0.010t
<0.010t
-------
Table XV-7. Effluent Levels Achieved
PHENOLS (Continued)
2 ,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
D
P
*
t
O
(n)
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Tl
• Direct discharge of
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02-D
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02-P
8/02-P
9/02-P
10/02-P
11/02-P
12/02-P
13/02
1/0 9-D
2/09-P
3/09-P
4/09-P
5/09-P
6/09-P
7/09-P
8/09-P
9/09
10/09-P
11/09
12/09
13/09
14/09
15/09
16/09
17/09
18/09
19/09
20/09
fflg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
<0.0010T
<0.0010t
0.018T
0.018T
0.018T
0.018!
<0.022*
<0.0692*
0.482°
0.498°
<4.32
<4.32
74.3
o.oist
<0.022*
<0.0692*
<0.0978
<0.129
0.482°
0.498°
0.523
0.82
<4.32
36.0t
42.3°*
42.3°*
42.3°*
<110°*
<110°*
<110°*
200°*
200°*
200°*
wastewater after recommended
* POTW discharge of wastewater after
» Data from com ing led
» Data from com ing led
<0.0014t
<0.0014T
0.0116T
0.0116T
0.0116T
0.0116T
<0 . 00048*
<0.00173*
0.00627°
0.00745°
<0.0752
<0.0752
0.275
0.0116t
<0 . 00048*
<0.00173*
<0.00176
<0. 00232
0.00627°
0.00745°
0.0201
0.0041
<0.0752
5.80t
3.53°*
3.53d*
3.53°*
<7.0°*
<7.0°*
<7.0"*
16.7°*
16.7°*
16.7°*
treatment .
(n)
(2)
(2)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(67)
(46)
(661)
(298)
(298)
(6)
(4)
(3)
(67)
(4)
(4)
(46)
(661)
(3)
(3)
(298)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(337)
(337)
(337)
(312)
(312)
(312)
recommended treatment .
pesticide streams.
pesticide/other
product streams.
* Reported as total phenol with 2,4-dichlorophenol
constituent .
as principal
• Number of data points available.
XV-88
-------
Table XV-7. Effluent Levels Achieved
PHENOLS (Continued)
2 ,4 ,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
D
P
*
t
(n)
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
- Direct discharge of
Plant/
Subcategory mg/1
1/02-P <0.010*
2/02-P <0.0154*
3/02 0.021T
4/02 O.lSOt
5/02 0.180T
6/02 O.lSOt
7/02 O.lSOt
1/0 9-P <0.010*
2/09-P <0.0154
3/0 9-P <0.0323
4/09-P <0.0978
5/09-P <0.163
6/09-D O.lSOt
lbs/1000 Ibs
<0. 000223*
<0. 000375*
0.0373t
0.116t
0.116t
o.iiet
o.net
<0. 000223*
<0. 0003 75
<0. 000581
<0.00176
<0. 00626
0.116t
(n)
(3)
(68)
(2)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(68)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(4)
wastewater after recommended treatment.
= POTW discharge of wastewater after recommended
= Data from com ing led
= Data from comingled
pesticide streams.
treatment .
pesticide/other product streams.
= Number of data points available.
PHENOLS (Continued)
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
Pesticide
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Plant/
Subcategory mg/1
1/01 1.58
1/02 0.230t
2/02 0.230t
3/02 0.35t
lbs/1000 Ibs
1.75
0.174T
0.174t
0.00921t
(n)
(6)
(3)
(3)
(8)
t = Data from coraingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-89
-------
Table XV-7. Effluent Levels Achieved
PHENOLS (Continued)
4-NITROPHENOL
Plant/
Pesticide Subcategory
Al 1/08
Bl 2/08
Cl 3/08
Dl 4/08
rag/1
<1.0
<1.0
<7.84
10.7
lbs/1000 Ibs
<0.066
<0.066
<0.298
0.408
(n)
(610)
(610)
(154)
(210)
(n) = Number of data points available.
PHENOLS (Continued)
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
Pesticide
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
0.397T 0.489t (4)
T = Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-90
-------
Table XV-7. Effluent Levels Achieved
PHENOLS (Continued)
2-CHLOROPHENOL
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02-D
2/02-D
3/02-P
4/02-P
1/08-D
1/09-P
2/09-P
3/09-P
4/0 9-P
5/09-P
mg/1
<0.01*
<0.01*
<0.0212*
<2.70
<0.01
<0.010*
<0.01
<0.0212*
0.0340
0.396*
lbs/1000 Ibs
NA
NA
<0. 00051 6*
<0.076
<0. 00003 2 8
<0. 000223*
<0. 00013
<0. 0005 16*
0.000611
0.0049*
(n)
(4)
(4)
(68)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(68)
(4)
(3)
D = Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
NA = Not available.
P = POTW discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) - Number of data points available.
PHENOLS (Continued)
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
Pesticide
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/10
lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
NA (3)
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-91
-------
Table XV-8. Effluent Levels Achieved
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
NAPHTHALENE
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02
1/09
mg/1
<0.010t
<0.010t
0.297*
lbs/1000 Ibs
<0.0814t
<0.0814t
0.014*
(n)
(4)
(4)
(3)
* = Data from coraingled pesticide streams.
t - Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-92
-------
Table XV-9. Effluent Levels Achieved
METALS
Al
COPPER
Pesticide
Al
Al
Al
Bl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
1/02-D
1/05 -C
2/05-C
rag/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
0.18T
0.061
2.2*
2.8*
0.0153T
0.0589t
0.0114*
0.011*
(n)
(1)
(6)
(325)
(57)
1/09
0.114t
0.00202t
(3)
C = Contract hauling of wastewater after recommended treatment.
D = Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
T = Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
METALS (Continued)
ZINC
p
*
(n)
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/05-P
2/05-P
3/05
4/05
mg/1
0.18*
0.18*
1.77
<3.50
= POTW discharge of wastewater after recommended
= Data from comingled pesticide streams.
= Number of data points available.
lbs/1000 Ibs
0.011*
0.011*
0.142
<0.489
treatment .
(n)
(2)
(2)
(74)
(23)
XV-9 3
-------
Table XV-10. Effluent Levels Achieved
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Al
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02-D
2/02-D
1/08
1/09-D
rcg/1
NDt'
0.18
<0.012
0.18
lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
NA
0.118
<0.000038
0.118
(1)
(1)
(3)
(1)
D = Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
t = Data from coraingled pesticide/other product streams.
= Analysis not conducted per protocol.
(n) = Number of data points available.
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
VINYL CHLORIDE (CHLOROETHYLENE)
Pesticide
No data available
Plant/
Subcategory
rag/1
lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-94
-------
Table XV-10. Effluent Levels Achieved
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES (Continued)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02
2/02-D
3/02
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09-D
1/10
mg/1
0.051T
6.90*
<98.0
0.018
0.810*
0.810*
1.45*
1.45*
lbs/1000 Ibs
1.52t
3.89*
<0.92
0.00017
0.038*
0.038*
0.818*
0.818*
(n)
(3)
(1)
(6)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
D = Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t = Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES (Continued)
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Pesticide
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02-D
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
NDt NA (3)
D = Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
t = Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-95
-------
Table XV-10. Effluent Levels Achieved
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES (Continued)
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Pesticide
Al
Al
Bl
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02-D
1/0 9-D
2/09-D
1/10
mg/1
0.54*
0.54*
0.54*
0.54*
lbs/1000 Ibs
NA
NA
NA
NA
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
D = Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
NA = Not available.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES (Continued)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/02-D
2/09
3/02-P
mg/1
NDt
<0.01
<0.04
lbs/1000 Ibs
NA
<0. 000084
<0.0011
(n)
(3)
(3)
(3)
D = Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
P = POTW discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
t = Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-96
-------
Table XV-11. Effluent Levels Achieved
NITROSAMINES
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/08-D
2/08-D
3/08-D
4/08-D
5/08-D
6/08-D
<0.00034*
0.000384*'
<0.0015tt
0.0041**
0.0067**
0.0276**
lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
<0.00024*
0.000265*°
<0.000282Tt
0.000013**
0.000038**
0.0000723**
(229)
(57)
(2)
(3)
(85)
(420)
D
*
**
tt
(n)
" Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
= Data from final effluent which is com ing led pesticide/other
product streams.
= After pretreatment.
= Effluent from tertiary treatment which is comingled
pesticide/other product streams.
= Total nitrosamines.
= Number of data points available.
NITROSAMINES (Continued)
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
Pesticide
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/08-D
lbs/1000 Ibs
(n)
0.000330** 0.000000865** (330)
D = Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
** = After pretreatment.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-9 7
-------
Table XV-12. Effluent Levels Achieved
PHTHALATES
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
Pesticide
No data available
Plant/
Subcategory
rag/1
lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
(n) = Number of data points available.
PHTHALATES (Continued)
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
Pesticide
Al
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01-D
tng/1 lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
0.36 NA (1)
D = Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
NA = Not available.
(n) = Number of data points available.
PTHALATES (Continued)
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
Pesticide
Al
Plant/
Subcategory mg/1
1/02-D ND
lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
NA (1)
D = Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment,
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-9 8
-------
Table XV-13. Effluent Levels Achieved
DICHLOROPROPANE-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
Plant/
Pesticide Subcategory mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
No data available
(n) = Number of data points available.
DICHLOROPROPANE-DICHLOROPROPENE (Cont inued)
1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPYLENE)
Plant/
Pesticide Subcategory mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
No data available
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-99
-------
Table XV-14. Effluent Levels Achieved
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDES
CHLORDANE
Plant/
Pesticide Subcategory mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
No data available
(n) = Number of data points available.
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDES (Continued)
4 ,4 ' -DDT
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/0 9-P
2/09
mg/1
<0.195
112
lbs/1000 Ibs
<0. 000 189
0.127
(n)
(32)
(1)
P « POTW discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-100
-------
Table XV-14. Effluent Levels Achieved
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDES (Continued)
ENDRIN
Plant/
Pesticide Subcategory tng/1 lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
Al 1/09-P <0.015 <0.0016 (171)
Bl 2/09-P 0.539 0.0586 (3)
P = POTW discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
(n) = Number of data points available.
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDES (Continued)
HEPTACHLOR
Plant/
Pesticide Subcategory mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs (n)
Al 1/09-P 0.010 0.00082 (174)
Bl 2/09-P 0.038 0.00315 (3)
P = POTW discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-101
-------
Table XV-14. Effluent Levels Achieved
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDES (Continued)
TOXAPHENE
Plant/
Pesticide Subcategory
Al 1/09-D
Bl 2/09-D
Cl 3/09-D
Dl 4/09-D
mg/1
0.00067
0.00123
0.005
0.01
lbs/1000 Ibs
0.0000060
0.00000974
0.001
0.002
(n)
(3)
(84)
(4)
(40)
D « Direct discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
(n) * Number of data points available.
XV-102
-------
Table XV-15. Effluent Levels Achieved
DIENES
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09-P
2/09-P
3/09-P
4/09-P
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
0.034*
0.034*
0.123*
0.123*
0.0017*
0.0017*
0.0060*
0.0060*
(n)
(104)
(104)
(3)
(3)
P = POTW discharge of wastewater after recommended treatmen
* ™ Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) - Number of data points available.
DIENES (Continued)
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Plant/
Subcategory
1/09-P
2/09-P
mg/1
0.01*
0.01*
lbs/1000 Ibs
0.0016*
0.0016*
(n)
(3)
(3)
P = POTW discharge of wastewater after recommended treatment.
* « Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) » Number of data points available.
XV-103
-------
Table XV-16. Effluent Levels Achieved
TCDD
TCDD
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Plant/
Subcategory mg/1
1/09
2/09
3/09
4/09
5/09
6/09
<0. 000002*
<0. 000002*
<0. 000002*
0.022*
0.022*
0.022*
lbs/1000 Ibs
<0. 0000000167*
<0. 0000000167*
<0. 0000000167*
0.00018*
0.00018*
0.00018*
(n)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)
TCDD * 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
* a Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) » Number of data points available.
XV-104
-------
Table XV-17. Effluent Levels Achieved
AMMONIA
AMMONIA
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
Al
Al
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
D = Direct discharge of
* = Data from com ing led
T = Data from comingled
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02-D
5/02-D
6/02
7/02
1/04
1/05
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
6/10
7/10
8/10
9/10
10/10
11/10
12/10
13/10
wastewater after
mg/1 lbs/1000 Ibs
77.9*
<125*
77.9*
77.9*
77.9*
95.0
103
163
163
163
<125
<4.0*
<4.0*
<4.0*
4.44*
4.44*
4.44*
163T
163t
163t
163t
163t
163T
163T
recommended
<6.75*
<17.5*
<6.75*
<6.75*
<6.75*
0.91
0.793
2.25t
2.25T
2.25T
<17.5*
<0.157*
<0.157*
<0.157*
0.34*
0.34*
0.34*
2.25T
2.25t
2.25t
2.25t
2.25t
2.25T
2.25t
treatment .
(n)
(42)
(15)
(42)
(42)
(42)
(1)
(3)
(631)
(631)
(631)
(15)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(540)
(540)
(540)
(631)
(631)
(631)
(631)
(631)
(631)
(631)
pesticide streams.
pesticide/ other
product streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-105
-------
Table XV-18. Effluent Levels Achieved
ASBESTOS
ASBESTOS
Pesticide
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
Fl
Gl
HI
11
Jl
Kl
LI
Ml
Nl
01
PI
Ql
Rl
SI
Plant/
Subcategory
1/01
2/01
3/01
4/01
5/01
6/01
7/01
8/01
9/01
10/01
11/01
12/01
13/01
14/01
15/01
16/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
7/02
8/02
9/02
10/02
11/02
12/02
13/02
14/02
15/02
16/02
17/02
18/02
19/02
mg/1
NDt
NDT
NDt
NDt
NDt
NDt
NDt
NDt
0.00000 It
0.00000 It
0.00000 It
0.000003t
0. 000003 t
0.0000 78 t
o.ooomt
o.ooomt
NDt
NDt
NDt
ND*
NDt
NDt
NDt
NDt
NDt
0.00000 It
0.00000 It
0.00000 It
0. 000001 t
0.00000 It
0. 000001 t
0.00000 It
0.00000 It
0.00000 It
0.00000 It
lbs/1000 Ibs
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
NA - Not available.
ND • Not detected.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
t " Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points available.
XV-106
-------
Table XV-18. Effluent Levels Achieved
ASBESTOS (Continued)
ASBESTOS (Continued)
NA
ND
*
t
(n)
Pesticide
Tl
Ul
VI
Wl
XI
Yl
Zl
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
12
J2
Al
Bl
Al
Al
a Not available.
= Not detected.
= Data from com ing led
= Data from coraingled
= Number of data point
Plant/
Subcategory
20/02
21/02
22/02
23/02
24/02
25/02
26/02
27/02
28/02
29/02
30/02
31/02
32/02
33/02
34/02
35/02
36/02
1/03
2/03
1/04
1/05
mg/1
0.00000 IT
0.00000 It
0.00000 It
0. 000001 t
0. 000001 t
0. 000001 t
0. 000003 t
0.000025*
0.000025*
0.0000 78 t
0.0001 71 t
0.0006t
0.0006t
0.0006t
0.0006t
0.0006t
0.0006t
0. 000003 t
0. 00001 t
NDt
0. 000003 t
lbs/1000 Ibs
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
pesticide streams.
pesticide/ other
:s available.
product
streams .
XV-107
-------
Table XV-19. Selected Long-Terra Averages for Priority Pollutants
Long-Term
Average
(lb/1,000 Ibs)
Priority Pollutants by Groups
Volatile Aromatics
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene*
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene*
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene*
Ha lome thanes
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Cyanide
Cyanide
Indirect
Discharge
< 0.037
< 0.037
< 0.037
0.0938
0.0938
0.0938
< 0.037
< 0.037
< 0.037
< 0.037
< 0.037
0.0015
Direct
Discharge
< 0.00037
< 0.00037
< 0.00037
0.0525
0.0525
0.0525
< 0.00037
< 0.00037
< 0.00037
< 0.00037
< 0.00037
0.00075
Haloethers
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ethert Zero
Phenols
2,4-Dichlorophenol 0.037
2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.037
4-Nitrophenol 0.037
Pentachlorophenol 0.037
Phenol 0.037
Metals
Copper 0.019
Zinc 0.019
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.037
Tetrachloroethylene 0.037
Nitrosamines
N-nitrosodi-n-propylaraine 0.000037
Zero
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0094
0.0094
0.0037
0.0037
0.000037
XV-108
-------
Table XV-19.
Selected Long-Term Averages for Priority Pollutants
(Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Priority Pollutants by Groups
Long-Term Average
(lb/1,000 Ibs)
Indirect
Discharge
Direct
Discharge
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene
1,3-Dichloropropenet Zero
Dienes
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.0017
Zero
0.00086
Pesticides
BHC-Alpha**
BHC-Beta**
BHC -Delta**
Endo su 1 f an-Al pha**
Endosul fan-Beta**
Endrin**
Heptachlor**
Lindane ( BBC-Gamma) **
Toxaphene**
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
0.00129
* Proposed for regulation only in those processes in which it is
the manufactured product; proposed for exclusion from regulation in
all other processes where it is expected to be controlled by
regulation of chlorobenzene.
t Proposed for regulation only in those processes in which it is
the manufactured product; proposed to be excluded from regulation in
all other processes due to lack of adequate monitoring data.
** Regulation applies to only direct discharge from new sources (NSPS).
XV-109
-------
Table XV-20. Selected Nonconventional Pesticide Long-Term
Averages by Subcategory
Long-Term Average
(lb/1,000 Ibs)
Subcategory
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Indirect
Discharge
0.0302
0.0938
0.0145
0.00243
0.0182
*
*
0.00129
0.00129
0.0583
Zero
Zero
Zero
Direct
Discharge
0.0261
0.0525
0.00473
0.00129
0.00167
*
*
0.00129T
0.00129t
0.0493
Zero
ZeroT
Zerot
* No pesticides are proposed for regulation in this Subcategory.
t Regulation applies to only direct discharge from new sources (NSPS)
XV-110
-------
Table XV-21. Selected Long-Terra Averages for Direct Discharge of BOD,
TSS, pH, and COD
Long-Terra Average
Pollutant Parameter (lb/1,000 Ibs)
BOD 1.12
TSS 1.31
pH *
COD 8.01
* The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0.
XV-111
-------
Table XV-22. Effluent Variability Factors
Plant
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Parameter
Volatile
Aroma tics
Phenol
Copper
Atrazine
Dinoseb
Chlorobenzilate
Cyanide
Hexachloro-
cyclopentadiene
Nitrophenol
Metribuzin
Toluene
Carbon
Tetrachloride
Cyanide
n-Nitrosodi-n-
propylamine
Alachlor
Phenol
Toluene
Data
Type
Monthly
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
No. of
Data
Points
21
334
56
154
221
109
700
68
12
79
24
24
24
60
364
61
317
Monthly
Variability
Factor
(30-day/mo)
2.75
1.26
1.25
1.54
1.75
1.33
1.33
1.42
2.66
2.02
2.35
3.00
1.85
1_.31
1.38
1.38
1.56
Daily
Variability
Factor
N/A
2.92
3.86
7.64
9.89
5.95
3.25
3.78
N/A
11.36
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.56
4.09
7.24
7.51
XV-112
-------
SECTION XVI
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An assessment of the environmental effects of implementing the proposed
standards and limitations is presented in a separate document prepared
by EPA/Monitoring and Data Support Division. This assessment projects
the significance of post-regulatory discharges of nonconventional
pesticides and priority pollutants on human health, aquatic life, and
the operation of POTWs.
The basis for determining the environmental significance of direct
discharger priority pollutants to both freshwater and estuarine systems
is a comparison of proposed limitations with water quality criteria
(WQC) (U.S. EPA, 1980f) or pollutant-specific toxicity data. Plant-
specific priority pollutant limitations (expressed as concentrations)
were supplied by the technical contractor.
The environmental significance of indirect discharge priority pollutants
to both freshwater and estuarine systems is determined through the use
of a predictive POTW computer model. Contractor-provided data, in the
form of proposed standards (expressed as plant-specific concentrations),
average daily plant production, total plant discharge flow, and size of
the receiving POTW were also used in the model.
Plant-specific effluent limitations and pretreatment standards
(expressed as concentrations) for 150 nonconventional pesticides were
compared to available pesticide LC5Q/EC5Q values in order to determine
the potential environmental significance. This information was gathered
by the technical contractor for use by the Agency. Available LC5Q/EC5Q
values are presented in Section IX of this report.
Information gathered for additional consideration included pesticide
use, carcinogenicity, oral 1059 in rats, and solubility in water
(see Section IX).
Whenever possible, the procedure used by the technical contractor in
selecting appropriate data for this assessment was consistent with the
EPA protocol used in screening data to determine the 1980 WQC (see
U.S. EPA, 1980f). For example, data were rejected for formulated
mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates but were included for technical
grade products.
XVI-1
-------
SECTION XVII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project was conducted under the supervision and guidance of
Mr. George M. Jett, who served as Project Officer for the development of
these regulations. EPA/EGD key personnel included Mr. Devereaux Barnes,
Mr. Scott Saavedra, Ms. Linda Wilbur, and Ms. Nancy Parkinson. Other
Agency key personnel who assisted on this document were Mr. Chip Lester,
Ms. Ellen Warhit, and Dr. Henry Kahn, of the Office of Analysis and
Evaluation; Mr. John Segna, of the Office of Monitoring and Data
Support; Mr. Mehesh Podar, of the Office of Program Resources and
Management; Ms. Susan Lepow and Ms. Susan Schmedes of the Office of
General Counsel.
The project was initially sponsored by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Technical guidance and
direction were provided by: Dr. Don Francisco, Dr. Max Samfield,
Mr. Dave Sanchez, Dr. Ron Venezia, Dr. Atley Jefcoat, Mr. Dave
Oestreich, and Mr. John Fincke. Additional technical assistance was
provided by Dr. Robert Booth, Mr. Edward Kearns, and Dr. James
Longbottom, of the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory in
Cincinnati, Ohio.
This document was prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency on the
basis of a comprehensive study performed by Environmental Science and
Engineering, Inc., under Contract Number 68-01-6024. That project was
managed by Ms. Barbara Brown, under the direction of Mr. James B.
Cowart, P.E. Analytical work was managed by Mr. Stuart A. Whitlock.
Key personnel included Mr. Manuel de Zarraga, Mr. Perry Brake, Ms. Pam
Krauss, Mr. Peter Beck, Mr. Robert Wright, Ms. Paula Anderson, Mr. Lou
Bilello, Dr. John Mousa, Mr. Ed Kellar, Mr. Bill Beckwith, Ms. Pam
Dickinson, Ms. Karen Hat field, and Mr. Larry Shroads. Ms. Patricia
McGhee coordinated the editing and production of the document, which was
typed in its entirety by Ms. Kathleen Crase. Additional assistance was
provided by Mr. Forrest Dryden, Mr. Fred Zak, and Dr. Leonard Kieffer of
Walk, Haydel, and Associates.
Sampling and analysis assistance for the verification program was
provided by three contractors. Their efforts are acknowledged as
follows: Dr. Herbert C. Miller and Ms. Ruby James of Southern Research
Institute; Mr. John Clausen, Mr. Bob Beimer, Mr. Mike O'Rell, and
Mr. Bill Coleman of TRW Systems, Inc.; and Mr. Farrel Hobbs and Mr. Dick
Florence of Hydroscience.
The quality assurance/quality control program was implemented by
Dr. R.K.M. Jayanty, Research Triangle Institute.
XVII-1
-------
Consultants who provided input to the study were Dr. James Mayes, P.E.,
(incineration and steam stripping), Dr. James McClave (statistics), and
Dr. Alan Beech (environmental and health effects).
The time and effort devoted by personnel at the 16 plants participating
in the verification sampling program was an important contribution to
the study. Acknowledgement is also made of the cooperation of personnel
in many plants in the Pesticide Chemicals Industry who provided valuable
assistance in the collection of data relating to process raw waste loads
and treatment plant performances.
XVII-2
-------
SECTION XVIII
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, D., and Gloyna, E.F. 1980. Effect of Powdered Activated Carbon
on Biodegradation of Benzene. University of Texas at Austin.
Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Industrial Pollution Conference,
371-389.
American Public Health Association, AWWA, and WPCF. 1975. Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 14th Edition.
Washington, B.C.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Research Committee on
Industrial Wastes. Incineration of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons with
Recovery of HCL at E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company. Louisville,
Kentucky.
Amron Corporation. 1979. Hydroxide/Modified Sulfide Precipitation
Systems Remove Heavy Metals from Effluent. Chemical Processing,
September.
Armstrong, D.E., and Chesters, G. 1968. Adsorption Catalyzed Chemical
Hydrolysis of Atrazine. Environmental Science and Technology,
2(9):683-689.
Armstrong, D.E., Chesters, G., and Harris, R.F. 1967. Atrazine
Hydrolysis in Soil. Soil Science Soc. Amer. Proc., 31:61-66.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1978. Economic Analysis of Effluent Limitations
Guidelines for the Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source
Category. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Water Planning and
Standards, Washington, D.C., EPA 230/2-78-065f.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1976a. Sampling Program to Obtain Information
on the Treatability of Wastewater by Activated Carbon Absorption
Systems. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Interim Report, Effluent
Guidelines Development Branch, Washington, D.C.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1976b. Economic Analysis of Interim Final
Effluent Guidelines for the Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals
Industry, Draft Report. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Water
Planning and Standards, EPA 230/l-76-065f.
Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc. 1979. Considera-
tions Relating to the Design of Best Available Treatment for a
Chlorinated Pesticides Manufacturing Plant. Prepared for Velsicol
Chemical Corporation. Chicago, Illinois. Nashville, Tennessee.
XVIII-1
-------
Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc. 1973. Evaluation of
Biological Treatment Feasibility for a Wastewater from Herbicide
Production. Prepared for Ciba Geigy Corporation.
Nashville, Tennessee.
Atkins, P.A. 1972. The Pesticide Manufacturing Industry—Current Waste
Treatment and Disposal Practices. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Monitoring, Project Number 12020.
Ballinger, D.G. 1979. Methods for Organic Compounds in Municipal and
Industrial Wastewater. U.S. EPA, Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Ballinger, D.G. 1978. Test Procedures for Priority Organics in
Municipal Wastewater and Sludges. U.S. EPA, Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Barnes, D. 1978. Development Document for Proposed Existing Source
Pretreatment Standards for the Electroplating Point Source
Category. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
EPA 440/1-78/085.
BASF Wyandotte Corporation, et_ al_. 1976. Petition for Rehearing, BASF
Wyandotte Corporation, et_ al_., v. U.S. EPA.
Beaudet, B.A. 1979a. Study of the Effectiveness of Activated Carbon
Technology for the Removal of Specific Materials from Organic
Chemicals Processing Wastewater. Prepared for U.S. EPA Draft
Report on Pilot Operations at Dow Chemicals USA Plaquemine,
Louisiana Plant. Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.,
Gainesville, Florida.
Beaudet, B.A. 1979b. Study of the Effectiveness of Activated Carbon
Technology for the Removal of Specific Materials from Organic
Chemicals Processing Wastewater. Prepared for U.S. EPA Draft Repor
on Pilot Operations at Ethyl Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Plant. Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., Gainesville,
Florida.
Beaudet, B.A. 1979c. Study of the Effectiveness of Activated Carbon
Technology for the Removal of Specific Materials from Organic
Chemical Processes. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Final Report on Pilot
Operations at USS Chemicals, Neville Island Plant. Environmental
Science and Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, Florida.
Bell, H.L. 1974. An Appraisal of Pesticide Usage and Surface Waste
Quality Effects in the United States. U.S. EPA, Office of
Enforcement, National Field Investigations Center, Denver,
Colorado.
Bender, M.L. and Homer, R.B. 1965. The Mechanism of the Alkaline
Hydrolysis of the p-Nitrophenyl n-Methylcarbamate. Journal of
Organic Chemistry, November, 30:3975.
XVIII-2
-------
Berg, G.L., Editor. 1973. Farm Chemicals Handbook. Meister Publishing
Company, Willoughby, Ohio.
Bernardin, F.E., Jr. 1976. Selecting and Specifying Activated Carbon-
Adsorption Systems. Chemical Engineering, October, 18:77-82.
Bernardin, F.E., Jr. and Froelich, E.M. 1975. Practical Removal of
Toxicity by Adsorption. Thirtieth Annual Purdue Industrial Waste
Conference.
Berndt, C.L. and Polkowski, L.B., Dr. 1978. PAC Upgrades Wastewater
Treatment. Water and Wastewater Engineering, May, 48-50.
Birkmeier, J.L., LaRocca, S.A., and Haulsee, R.E. 1978. Activated
Carbon Removes Pesticides from Wastewater at Research Facility.
Industrial Wastes, September/October, 20-24.
Boyle, H. January 1971. Analysis of Raw Sewage Sludge and Effluent for
.Chlorinated Insecticides for the Los Angeles County Sanitation
District. Waste Identification and Analysis. U.S. EPA, AWTRL,
NERC-Cincinnati, Ohio.
Bridger, T.T., Jr., and Hill, D.O. 1978. Methyl Parathion Wastewater
Treatment Program Status Report. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation,
Hamilton, Mississippi.
Brown, N.P.H., Furmidge, C.G.L., and Grayson, B.T. 1972. Hydrolysis of
the Triazine Herbicide, Cyanazine. Pesticide Science, 3:669-678.
Buesche, C.A. , ^_t^ al^. 1964. Chemical Oxidation of Selected Organic
Pesticides. Journal WPCF, 36(8):1005-1014.
Cabasso, I., Eyer, C.S., Klein, E. , and Smith, J.K. 1975. Evaluation
of Semipermeable Membranes for Concentration of Organic
Contaminants in Drinking Water. Gulf South Research Institute.
Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development.
Calgon Corporation. 1980. Adsorption Technology Using Granular
Activated Carbon. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Calgon Corporation. 1974. Basic Concepts of Adsorption of Activated
Carbon. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Camisa, A.G. 1975. Analysis and Characteristics of Trichloroethylene
Wastes. Journal WPCF, 47(5):1021-1031.
Carnes, R.A. and Oberacker, D.A. 1976. Pesticide Incineration. News of
Environmental Research in Cincinnati. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
CCI Environmental Systems Division. 1974. Incineration of DDT
Solutions. Prepared for the Sierra Army Depot, Report S-1276,
Herlon, California.
XVIII-3
-------
Centec. 1979. Contractor Report for Development of Effluent
Limitations Guidelines for Paint Application Processes Used in the
Mechanical and Electrical Products Industries. Prepared for
U.S. EPA, Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C.
Chemical Week. May 7, 1980. Pesticides: 6 Billion by 1990.
Patrick P. McCuroy, Editor. McGraw Hill, New York.
Cheremisinoff, P.N. and Ellerbusch, F. 1978. Carbon Adsorption
Handbook. P.N. Cheremisinoff, Editor. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
City of Jacksonville, Arkansas. 1971. Biological Treatment of
Chlorophenolic Wastes. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Water
Quality, Project Number 12130.
Coco, J.H., e_t^ al^. 1978. Development of Treatment and Control
Technology for Refractory Petrochemical Wastes. Prepared for
U.S. EPA, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada,
Oklahoma. Gulf South Research Institute, New Orleans, LA.
Coley, G. and Stutz, C.H. 1966. Treatment of Parathion Wastes and
Other Organics. Journal WPCF, 38(8).
Colley, J.D., et al. 1978. Assessment of Technology for Control of
Toxic Effluents from the Electric Utility Industry. Prepared for
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.,
EPA 600/7-78-090. Radian Corporation, Austin, Texas.
Conservation and Resource Recovery Engineering. 1977. Compilation of
Toxic Rejection Data for Membranes. Prepared for U.S. EPA.
Considine, D.M. 1974. Chemical and Process Technology Encyclopedia.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Conway, R.A. 1974. Treatability of Wastewater from Organic Chemicals
and Plastics Manufacturing—Experience and Concepts. Union Carbide
Corporation, Research and Development Department, Chemicals and
Plastics, South Charleston, West Virginia.
Cooper, W.J. and Dennis, W.H., Jr. 1978. Catalytic Dechlorination of
Organochlorine Compounds IV. Mass Spectral Identification of DDT
and Heptachlor Products. Cheraosphere, No. 4, 299-305.
Cooper, W.J., Dennis, W.H., Jr., DeLeon, I.R., and Laseter, J.L. 1979.
Catalytic Dechlorination of Organochlorine Compounds VI. Mass
Spectral Identification of Aldrin and Dieldrin Products.
Chemosphere, No. 4, 191-199.
Cowart, R.P., et_ al_. 1971. Rate of Hydrolysis of Seven Organophos-
phate Pesticides. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, 6(3).
XVIII-4
-------
Cristol, S.J. 1947. The Kinetics of the Alkaline Dehydrochlorination
of the Benzene Hexachloride Isomers. The Mechanism of Second-Order
Elimination Reactions. Journal of American Chemical Society,
69:338.
Cronan, C.S., Editor-in-Chief. 1971. A System for Removing Trace
Amounts of Pesticide from Wastewater. Chemical Engineering,
August 9th.
Crook, E.H., et al. 1975. Removal and Recovery of Phenols from
Industrial Waste Effluent with Amberlite XAD Polimeric Adsorbents I
and EC. Prod., 14(2):113.
Davis, E.M., Petros, J.K., and Power, E.L. 1977. Organic
Biodegradation in Hypersaline Wastewater. Manufacturing,
January/February.
Davis, K.E. and Funk, R.J. 1975. Deep Well Disposal of Industrial
Waste, January/February.
Dean, J.A., Editor. 1973. Lange's Handbook of Chemistry. llth
Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
DeFilippi, R.P., _et_ £!_• 1980. Supercritical Fluid Regeneration of
Activated Carbon Adsorption of Pesticides. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, March. EPA 600/2-80-054.
DeJohn, P.B. and Adams, A.D. 1975. Activated Carbon Improves
Wastewater Treatment. Hydrocarbon Processing, October.
Dennis, W.H., Jr. and Cooper, W.J. 1977. Catalytic Dechlorination of
Organochlorine Compounds III. Lindane. Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology, 18(l):57-59.
Dennis, W.H., Jr. and Cooper, W.J. 1976. Catalytic Dechlorination of
Organochlorine Compounds II. Heptachlor and Chlordane. Bulletin
of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 16(4):425—430.
Dennis, W.H., Jr., et al. 1979. Degradation of Diazinon by Sodium
Hypochlorite. Chemistry and Aquatic Toxicity. Environmental
Science and Technology, 13(5):594-598.
Dillion, A.P. 1981. Pesticide Disposal and Detoxification Processes
and Techniques. Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, N.J.
Dobbs, R.A., et al. May 1978. Carbon Adsorption Isotherms for Toxic
Organics. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Dryden, F.E., et_ al^. 1979. Assessment of Dioxin-Forming Chemical
Processes. Prepared for U.S. EPA, IERL, Cincinnati, Ohio. Walk,
Haydel and Associates, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana.
XVIII-5
-------
Duolite International. Carbonaceous Adsorbents. Diamond Shamrock
Corporation, Redwood City, CA.
Earhart, J.P., Won, K.W., Wong, H.Y., Praunnitz, J.M., and King, C.J.
1977. Recovery of Organic Pollutants via Solvent Extraction.
Chemical Engineering Progress, May, 67-73.
Ebon Research System. 1977. Catalytic Hydrodechlorination of
Polychlorinated Pesticides and Related Substances. Prepared for
U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio, EPA 600/8-77-013.
Eichelberger, J.W. and Lichtenberg, J.J. 1971. Carbon Adsorption for
Recovery of Organic Pesticides. Journal WPCF, 63(1).
Eichers, T.R., Andrilenas, P.A., and Anderson, T.W. 1978. Farmers' Use
of Pesticides in 1976. U.S. Economics, Statistics, and'Cooperative
Service. Agricultural Economic Report No. 418. Washington, B.C.
Eisenhauer, H.R. 1964. Oxidation of Phenolic Wastes, Part I:
Oxidation with Hydrogen Peroxide and a Ferrous Salt Reagent.
Journal WPCF, 36(9).
El-Dib, M.A. and Aly, 0. 1975. Persistence of Some Phenylamine
Pesticides in the Aquatic Environment-I, Hydrolysis. Water
Research, 10:1047-1050.
Engineering-Science, Inc. 1979. Evaluation of the Potential for Air
Stripping of Hydrocarbons During Activated Sludge Wastewater
Treatment. Prepared for Petro-Tex Chemical Corp., Denka Chemical
Corp., and the Industrial Advisory Council for the Washburn Tunnel
Plant of the Gulf Coast Disposal Authority, Austin, Texas.
Entomological Society of America. 1974. Pesticide Handbook.
Twenty-Fourth Edition.
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE). 1979. Pesticide BAT
Review Verification Sampling Protocol. Prepared for U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE). 1978. Revised
Technical Review of the Best Available Technology, Best
Demonstrated Technology, and Pretreatment Technology for the Timber
Products Processing Point Source Category. Prepared for U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C.
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 1975. Feasibility
Evaluation of Advanced Wastewater Treatment. Prepared for Gulf Oil
Chemicals Company, St. James Plant. Environmental Science and
Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, Florida.
XVIII-6
-------
Environmental Science and Technology. 1977. Putting Powdered Carbon in
Wastewater Treatment, 11(9):854-855.
Environmental Science and Technology. 1974. In Roads to Activated
Carbon Treatment, 8(1):14-15.
Environmental Studies Board. 1978a. Chloroform, Carbon Tetrachloride,
and Other Halomethanes: An Environmental Assessment. National
Academy of Sciences.
Environmental Studies Board. 1978b. Kepone/Mirex/Hexachlorocyclopen-
tadiene: An Environmental Assessment. National Academy of
Sciences.
Epstein, E. and Chaney, R.L. 1978. Land Disposal of Toxic Substances
and Water-Related Problems. Journal WPCF, August, 2037-2042.
Farmer, J.D. 1978. Treatability of a Phenolic Waste in a Saline
Environment. Thesis Submitted to Mississippi State University,
State College, Mississippi.
Farmer, W.J. and Letey, J. 1974. Volatization Losses of Pesticides
from Soils. U.S. EPA, Environmental Protection Technology Series,
EPA 660/2-74-054.
Faust, S.D. and Aly, O.M. 1964. Water Pollution by Organic Pesticides.
Journal AWWA, 56(3).
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1968. Report of the
Committee on Water Quality Criteria, U.S. Government Printing
Office, June.
Feiler, H. 1980. Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned
Treatment Works. Interim Report. Prepared for U.S. EPA Effluent
Guidelines Division. Office of Water and Waste Management,
Washington, D.C. EPA-440/1-80-301.
Feiler, H.D., Storch, P.J., and Shattuck, A. 1979. Treatment and
Removal of Priority Industrial Pollutants at Publicly Owned
Treatment Works. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
Ferguson, T.L. 1975. Pollution Control Technology for Pesticide
Formulators and Packagers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA 660/2-74-094.
Flynn, B.P. and Stadnik, J.G. 1979. Start-up of a Powdered Activated
Carbon-Activated Sludge Treatment System. Journal WPCF,
51(2):358-369.
Ford, D.L. and Eckenfelder, W.W. 1979. Design and Economics of
Powdered Activated Carbon in the Activated Sludge Process.
Presented at International Association on Water Pollution Research,
Vienna/Austria, September 3-7.
XVIII-7
-------
Fornwalt, H.J. and Hutchins, R.A. 1966. Purifying Liquids with
Activated Carbon. Chemical Engineering, April llth.
Fowler, D., Witham, C. , _et_ _al_., 1979. Pesticides Engineering Control
Technology Assessment Survey. Prepared for NIOSH, Washington, B.C.
Southern Research Institute. Birmingham, Alabama.
Fox, R.D. 1973. Pollution Control at the Source. Chemical
Engineering, 80(18), August 6th.
Frohlich, G. , Ely, R.B., and Vollstedt, T.J. 1976. Performance of a
Biophysical Treatment Process on a High Strength Industrial Waste.
Presented to 31st Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Zimpro, Inc., Rothschild, Wisconsin.
Gaddis, L., PhD. 1978. Rejection of Chemical Species by Membrane,
Clemson University.
Gibbons, J.D. 1971. Nonparametric Statistical Interference.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Giusti, et al. 1974. Study to Determine the Applicability of Activated
Carbon Adsorption to Organic Chemicals. Journal WPCF.
Gomaa, H.M. and Faust, S.D. 1971. Chemical Hydrolysis and Oxidation of
Parathion and Paraoxon in Aquatic Environments. Fate of Organic
Pesticides in the Aquatic Environment. American Chemical Society,
Advances in Chemistry Series III, Washington, D.C.
Gomaa, H.M., Suffet, I.M., and Faust, S.D. 1969. Kinetics of
Hydrolysis of Diazinon and Diazoxon. Residue Review, 29.
Goodrich, P.R. and Monke, E.J. 1970. Insecticide Adsorption on
Activated Carbon. Transactions of American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, 13(1), January/February.
Gould, J.D. and Weber, W.J. 1976. Oxidation of Phenols by Ozone.
Journal WPCF, January, 48(1):47-60.
Gupta, S.K. and Chen, K.Y. 1978. Arsenic Removal by Adsorption.
Journal WPCF, March, 493-506.
Hager, D.G. 1976. Wastewater Treatment via Activated Carbon. Chemical
Engineering Progress, October, 57-60.
Hager, D.G. 1974. Industrial Wastewater Treatment by Granular
Activated Carbon. Industrial Water Engineering, January/February.
Hagar, and Rizzo. 1974. Removal of Toxic Organics from Wastewater by
Adsorption with Granular Carbon. Presented at EPA, Technical
Transfer Session, Athens, Georgia, April 19th.
XVIII-8
-------
Hall, C.V. 1980. Holding and Evaporation of Pesticide Wastes. Iowa
State University. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Research
Symposium: Treatment of Hazardous Waste, 86-87.
Hall, E. 1980. Personal Communication. U.S. EPA Effluent Guidelines
Division, Washington, D.C.
Hannah, S.A., Jelus, M., and Cohen, J.M. 1976. Removal of Uncommon
Trace Metals by Physical and Chemical Treatment Processes.
U.S. EPA, Wastewater Research Division.
Heath, Harry W., Jr. 1980. The Pact® Process to Treat 40 MGD of
Industrial Waste. Presentation at WWEMA Industrial Pollution
Conference at Houston, Texas, June 4. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Co., Inc.
Hill, D.O., Bryant, J.L. 1979. A Summary of Activated Sludge
Treatability Studies. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, Hamilton,
Mississippi.
Hill, D.W. and McCarty, P.L. 1967. Anaerobic Degradation of Selected
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticides. Journal WPCF, 39(8).
Horrobin, S. 1963. The Hydrolysis of Some Chloro-1,3,5-Tnazines.
Mechanism: Structure and Reactivity. Journal Chemical Society,
England.
Hosier, C.F., Jr. 1974. Degradation of Zectran in Alkaline Water.
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology,
12(5):599-605.
Huang, J.C. and Liao, C.S. 1970. Adsorption of Pesticides by Clay
Minerals. Journal Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, 96(SA5).
Huang, J. and Steffens, C.T. 1977. Competitive Adsorption of Organic
Materials by Activated Carbon. Proceedings of the Industrial Waste
Conference, 31:107-121.
Hutchins, R.A. 1973a. Activated Carbon-Economic Factors in Granular
Carbon Thermal Regeneration. Chemical Engineering Process, 69(11).
Hutchins, R.A. 1973b. New Method Simplifies Design of Activated-Carbon
Systems. Chemical Engineering, August 20th.
Hwang, S.T. and Fahrenthold, P. 1980. Treatauility of the Organic
Priority Pollutants by Steam Stripping. American Institute of
Chemical Engineers. Water—1979, 197(76):37-60.
I.C.I. America, Inc. 1975. Evaluation of Granular Carbon for Chemical
Process Applications. Pollution Control Review, May.
I.C.I. America, Inc. 1972. Evaluation of Granular Activated Carbon in
Columns for Wastewater Treatment. Pollution Control Review, May.
XVII1-9
-------
I.C.I. America, Inc. 1968. A Symposium on Activated Carbon.
I.C.I. United States, Inc. 1972. Adsorption Isotherm of Granular
Carbon for Wastewater. Pollution Control Review, May.
I.C.I. United States, Inc. Gro-Safe Activated Charcoal References.
Specialty Chemical Division, Wilmington, Delaware.
Ingols, R.S., et_ al_. 1966. Biological Activities of Halophenols.
Journal WPCF, 38(4).
Ingram, W.T., et al., Editorial Board. 1969. Glossary of Water and
Wastewater Control Engineering. APHA, ASCE, AWWA, and WPCF,
New York.
Iowa State University, Department of Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Research Institute. 1973. Estimating Staff and Cost
Factors for Small Wastewater Treatment Plants Less than 1 MGD,
Parts I and II. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Grant Number
5P2-WP-195-0452.
Jayanty, R.K. and Gutknecht, W.F. 1979. A Program of Quality Control/
Quality Assurance for the Determination of Priority Pollutants in
Pesticide Industry Wastewaters. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Process
Measurements Branch, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Research Triangle
Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Jelen, F.C. 1970. Cost and Optimization Engineering. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York.
Jett, G.M. 1980. Unreferenced Data Provided to Environmental Science
and Engineering, Inc. Entitled The Environmental and Health Effects
of Certain Priority Pollutants and Their Effects on the Operation
of Publicly-Owned Treatment Works.
Jett, G.M. 1978. Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines for the Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source
Category. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Effluent Guidelines
Division, Washington, D.C., EPA 440/l-78-060e.
Johnson, W.W. 1980. Handbook of Acute Toxicity of Chemicals to Fish
and Aquatic Invertebrates. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Services, Washington, D.C.
Johnson, W.W. and Finley, M.T. 1980. Handbook of Acute Toxicity of
Chemicals to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates. Prepared for
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Publication
No. 137.
XVIII-10
-------
JRB Associates. 1981. Assessment of the Impacts of Industrial
Discharges on Publicly Owned Treatment Works. Prepared for
U.S. EPA. Nov.
Karnofsky, B., et_ al_. 1981. Chemical Information Resources Handbook.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Washington, B.C.
EPA 560/TIIS-81-001.
Kearney, P.O. and Kaufman, D.D., Editors. 1975. Herbicides, Chemistry,
Degradation, and Mode of Action. Second Edition, Volumes 1 and 2.
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Kearney, P.C. and Kaufman, D.D. 1969. Degradation of Herbicides.
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Keinath, T.M. 1976. Design and Operation of Activated Carbon Adsorbers
Used for Industrial Wastewater Decontamination. Water,
73(166):l-8.
Kenaga, E.E. 1979. Predicted Bioconcentration Factors of Soil Sorption
Coefficients of Pesticides and Other Chemicals, Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety. 4:26-38.
Kennedy, D.C. 1973. Treatment of Effluent from Manufacture of
Chlorinated Pesticides with a Synthetic, Polymeric, Adsorbent,
Amberlite XAD-4. Environmental Science and Technology, 1(2).
Kennedy, M.V. , _et_ £l_. 1969. Chemical and Thermal Methods for Disposal
of Pesticides. Residue Reviews, 29.
Kernan, J.R. and Fincke, J.K. 1978. Removal of Pollutants from
Wastewater by Activated Carbon Adsorption. U.S. EPA, Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
Kessick, M.A. and Manchen, K.L. 1976. Salt Water Domestic Waste
Treatment. Journal WPCF, 48(9):2131-2135.
Kim, B.R., Snoeyink, V.L., and Saunders, F.M. 1976. Adsorption of
Organic Compounds by Synthetic Resins. Journal WPCF,
48(1):120-133.
Kinglle, M.G. and Stuart, A. 1961. The Advanced Theory of Statistics.
Charles Griffin and Co., LTD., 11:452-457.
Kincannon, D.F., Stover, E.L., and Chung, Y. 1981. Biological
Treatment of Organic Compounds Found in Industrial Aqueous
Effluents. Presented at the American Chemical Society National
Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,
Oklahoma.
XVIII-11
-------
Kirk-Othmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Second Edition. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., Interscience Publishers Division.
Klancko, R.J., Jones, R.B., and Michalak, M. 1976. Industrial Waste
Treatment System Reduces Pollution. Industrial Wastes, January/
February, 27-29.
Klieve, J.R. and Rawlings, G.D. 1979. Source Assessment: Textile
Plant Wastewater Toxics Study, Phase II. Prepared for U.S. EPA
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry. Monsanto Research
Corporation, Dayton, Ohio.
Klinkowski, P.R. 1978. Ultrafiltration: An Emerging Unit-Operation:
Chemical Engineering, May, 8:165-173.
Kraybill, H.F. and Helmes, C.T. 1977. Biomedical Aspects of
Biorefractories in Water. Presented to the Second International
Symposium on Aquatic Pollutants, Noordwijkerhout, Amsterdam.
Kunin, R. 1980. Porous Polymers as Adsorbents—A Review of Current
Practice. Amber-Hi-Lites, Rohm and Haas Company, No. 163, Winter.
Lafornara, J.P. 1978. Cleanup After Spills of Toxic Substances.
Journal WPCF, April, 617-627.
Lai, R.J. 1977. Letter to N.L. Wolfe, U.S. EPA. Hydrolysis Data on
Some S-Triazine Studies. Environmental Science and Engineering,
Inc., Gainesville, Florida.
Lambden, A.E. and Sharp, D.H. 1960. Treatment of Effluent from the
Manufacture of Weedkillers and Pesticides. Manufacturing Chemist,
31:198-201.
Lanquette, K.H. and Paulson, E.G. 1976. Treatment of Heavy Metals in
Wastewater. Pollution Engineering, October.
Larson, E. 1980. TCE, Solvent Suspected as Cancer Cause, Frequently
Shows up in Drinking Water. The Wall Street Journal. Tuesday,
August 12.
Lawless, E.W., et^ al_. 1974. Production, Distribution, Use and
Environmental Impact Potential of Selected Pesticides. Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri.
Leigh, G.M. 1969. Degradation of Selected Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Insecticides. Journal WPCF, 41(11)=450-459.
Leshendok, T.V. 1976. Hazardous Waste Management Facilities in the
United States. U.S. EPA, EPA 530-SW-146.2
Lewis, R.J. and Tatkein, R.L. 1979. Registry of Toxic Effects of
Chemical Substances. Volumes I and II. Prepared for
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.
XVIII-12
-------
Liptak, B.C., Editor. 1974. Environmental Engineers' Handbook,
Volume 1, Water Pollution. Chilton Book Company, Radnor,
Pennsylvania.
Little, L.W., Zweidinger, R.A., Monnig, E.G., and Firth, W.J. 1980.
Treatment Technology for Pesticide Manufacturing Effluents:
Atrazine, Maneb, MSMA, and Oryzalin. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office
of Research and Development, EPA 600/2-80-043. Research Triangle
Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Little, L.W. and Firth, W. 1977. Use of Activated Carbon for Removal
of Pesticides from Water and Wastewaters. Literature Review,
October. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development.
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Loos, et al. 1967. Phenoxyacetate Herbicide Detoxication by
Bacterial Enzymes. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry,
15(5).
Lowenback, W. and Schlesinger, J. 1977. Pollution Source Information
for Organo-Nitrogen Manufacturing Processes. Draft Contractor
Proprietary Report Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C. Mitre Corporation, Washington, D.C.
Mabey, W.R., et_ al_. 1981. Aquatic Fate Process Data for Organic
Priority Pollutants. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA 440/4-81-014.
Manufacturing Chemists Association, Inc. 1972. Guidelines for Chemical
Plants in the Prevention, Control and Reporting of Spills.
Washington, D.C.
Marck, A. 1978. Personal Communication. American Cyanamid Company,
Bound Brook, NJ.
Marks, D.R. 1980. Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticide Removal from
Wastewater. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Chemical Processes Branch,
Industrial Processes Division, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Velsicol
Chemical Corporation, Memphis, Tennessee.
Marquardt Company. 1974. Report on the Destruction of "Orange"
Herbicide by Incineration. Prepared for U.S. Air Force,
Environmental Health Laboratory, Kelly Air Force Base, Texas.
Martin, H., Worthing, C.R., Editors. 1977. Pesticide Manual. Fifth
Edition. British Crop Protection Council, Worcestershire, England.
Maruyama, T., Hannah, S.A., and Cohen, J.M. 1975. Metal Removal by
Physical and Chemical Treatment Processes. Journal WPCF,
47(5):962-975.
XVIII-13
-------
McCreary, J.J. and Snoeyink, V.L. 1977. Granular Activated Carbon in
Water Treatment. Journal AWWA, 69(8):437-444.
McEwen, F.L. and Stephenson, G.R. 1979. The Use and Significance of
Pesticides in the Environment. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Midwest Research Institute. 1976a. Wastewater Treatment Technology
Documentation for Aldrin/Dieldrin, Manufacture and Formulation.
Prepared for U.S. EPA, Hazardous and Toxic Substances Regulation
Office.
Midwest Research Institute. 1976b. Wastewater Treatment Technology
Documentations for DDT, Manufacture and Formulation. Prepared for
U.S. EPA, Hazardous and Toxic Substances Regulation Office.
Midwest Research Institute. 1976c. Wastewater Treatment Technology
Documentations for Endrin, Manufacture and Formulation. Prepared
for U.S. EPA, Hazardous and Toxic Substances Regulation Office.
Midwest Research Institute. 1976d. Wastewater Treatment Technology
Documentations for Toxaphene, Manufacture and Formulation. Prepared
for U.S. EPA, Hazardous and Toxic Substances Regulation Office.
Miller, D.W., Geraghty, J.J., and Collins, R.S. 1963. Water Atlas of
U.S. Water Information Center, Inc., Port Washington, L.I., New
York.
Mills, R.E. 1959. Development of Design Criteria for Biological
Treatment fo 2,4-D Wastewater. Canadian Journal of Chemical
Engineering, 37(55).
Modell, M. 1978. Process for Regenerating Adsorbents with
Supercritical Fluids. U.S. Patent Number 4,124,528, November 7.
Modell, M. 1977. Process Using a Supercritical Fluid for Regenerating
Synthetic Organic Polymeric Adsorbents and Wastewater Treatment
Embodying the Same. U.S. Patent Number 4,061,566, December 6.
Monnig, E.G. and Zweidinger, R.A. 1979. Treatment Technology for
Pesticide Manufacturing Effluents: Dinoseb and Atrazine. Prepared
for U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park,
N.C.
Monnig, E., Murphy, M., Zweidinger, R., and Little, L. 1979.
Treatability Studies of Pesticide Manufacturing Wastewaters:
Carbaryl. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Research Triangle
Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Moore, F.L. , et_ al^. 1973. Recovery of Toxic Metals from Industrial
Effluent Solutions by Solvent Extraction, Ecology, and Analysis of
Trace Contaminants. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
XVIII-14
-------
Morrison, R.T. and Boyd, R.N. 1975. Organic Chemistry. Allyn and
Bacon, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts.
Mowat, A. 1976. Measurement of Metal Toxicity by Biochemical Oxygen
Demand. Journal WPCF, 48(5):853-866.
Moyer, J.R. and Parmele, C.S. Demonstration of Ultraviolet Chlorination
of Organic Acids in Waste Brines. U.S. EPA, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Athens, Georgia.
Mulligan, T.J. and Fox, R.D. 1976. Treatment of Industrial
Wastewaters. Chemical Engineering/Deskbook Issue, October, 49-66.
Munnecke, D.M. 1978. Detoxification of Pesticides Using Soluble or
Immobilized Enzymes. Journal of Process Biochemistry, 13(2).
Munnecke, D.M. 1976. Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Organophosphate
Insecticides, A Possible Pesticide Disposal Method. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 32(1):7-13.
National Agricultural Chemical Associate (NACA). 1978. Pesticides
Industry Profile Study for 1977. Washington, D.C.
Nemerow, N.L. 1971. Liquid Waste of Industry—Theories, Practices, and
Treatment. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA.
Neufeld, R.D. and Spinola, A.A. 1978. Ozonation of Coal Gasification
Plant Wastewater. American Chemical Society, 12(4):470-472.
NIOSH. 1978. Occupational Exposure During the Manufacture and
Formulation of Pesticides. Prepared for U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Cincinnati, OH. No. 78-174.
Nippon Soda Company, Tokyo, Japan. 1975. Adsorbents Win Heavy Metals
from Process Streams and Wastes. Chemical Engineering, September,
29:49-50.
Novak, F.C. 1980. Ozone for Industrial Wastewater Treatment.
Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual
Industrial Pollution Conference, 415-429.
O'Brien, R.M. and DeFilippi, R.P. 1981. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide
Regeneration of Activated Carbon Loaded with Contaminants from
Rocky Mountain Arsenel Well Water. Submitted to USATHAMA, Aberdeen
Proving Ground (Edgewood), MD, December.
Oswald, E.O. 1978. Summary of Results for Analyses of Samples of Fish
from Michigan—EPA Region V—for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzopara-
dioxin (TCDD). U.S. EPA, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environ-
mental Toxicology Division, Health Effects Research Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
XVIII-15
-------
Overcash, M.R., Gilliam, J.W., Humenik, F.J., and Westerman, P.W. 1978.
Lagoon Pretreatment: Heavy Metal and Cation Removals. Journal
WPCF, August, 2029-2036.
Owen, W.J. and DeRouen, T.A. 1980. Estimation of the Mean for
Lognorraal Data Containing Zeroes and Left-Censored Values, with
Applications to the Measurement of Worker Exposure to Air
Contaminants. Biometrics. 36:707-719.
Packer, K., Editor. 1975. Nanogen Index. Nanogens International,
Freedom, CA.
Paris, D.F. and Lewis, D.L. 1973. Chemical and Microbial Degradation
of Ten Selected Pesticides in Aquatic Systems. Residue Reviews,
45:95-124.
Patterson, J.W. 1975. State-Of-The-Art for the Inorganic Chemicals
Industry: Inorganic Pesticides. U.S. EPA Office of Research and
Development, EPA 600/2-74-009a.
Perry, J.H., jejt al_. 1973. Chemical Engineer's Handbook. Fifth
Edition. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.
Piecuch, P. 1981. Literature Review. Journal WPCF. June.
Piecuch, P. 1980. Literature Review. Journal WPCF. June.
Piecuch, P. 1979. Literature Review. Journal WPCF. June.
Piecuch, P. 1978. Literature Review. Journal WPCF. June.
Piecuch, P. 1974. Literature Review. Journal WPCF. June.
Pittsburgh Activated Carbon. The Laboratory Evaluation of Granular
Activated Carbons for Liquid Phase Applications, Division of
Calgon Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Prengle, H.W., Jr., Mauk, C.E., Legan, R.W., and Hewes, C.G., III. 1975.
Ozone/UV Process Effective Wastewater Treatment. Hydrocarbon
Processing, October, 82-87.
Randall, T.L. and Knopp, P.V. 1978. Detoxification of Specific Organic
Substances by Wet Oxidation. Presented to 51st Annual Conference
of Water Pollution Control Federation. Zimpro, Inc., Rothschild,
Wi.
Rawlings, G.D. 1978. Textile Plant Wastewater Toxics Study. Phase I.
Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry.
Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Ohio.
Reid, F., et al. 1977. Carbon Advanced Waste Treatment. Industrial
Wastes, July/August, 40-41.
XVIII-16
-------
Reynolds, T.D. and Shack, P.A. 1976. Treatment of Wood Preserving
Wastewater. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Office
of Water Research and Technology, Washington, D.C. Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas.
Rice, R.G. 1980a. Ozone Gives Boost to Activated Carbon. Water and
Sewage Works, April, 40-42, 80-82.
Rice, R.G. 19805. Ozone for Industrial Water and Wastewater Treatment.
Jacobs Engineering Group. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual
Industrial Pollution Conference, 391-413.
Riley, B.T., Jr. 1975. The Relationship Between Temperature and the
Design and Operation of Biological Waste Treatment Plants.
Prepared for U.S. EPA, Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington,
D.C.
Rizzo, J.L. 1974. Use of Granular Activated Carbon for Industrial
Wastewater Treatment. Ohio Water Pollution Control Conference,
Forty-Eighth Annual Meeting, Toledo, Ohio, June 14th.
Rizzo, J.R. and Shepherd, A.R. 1977. Treating Industrial Wastewater
with Activated Carbon. Chemical Engineering, January 3rd.
Robeck, G.G., _et_ ^1_. 1965. Effectiveness of Water Treatment Process in
Pesticide Removal. Journal AWWA, 57(8).
Rohm and Haas Company. 1977. Ambersorb Carbonaceous Adsorbents.
Philadelphia, PA, August.
Rosfjoro, R.E., Trattner, R.B., and Cheremisinoff, P.N. 1976.
Phenols—A Water Pollution Control Assessment. Water and Sewage
Works, March.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1974. Draft Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards of Performance—Organic
Chemicals Industry, Phase II. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Air
and Water Programs, Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C.
Saldick, J. 1975. Biological Treatment of Plant Waste Streams to
Remove Cyanuric Acid. U.S. Patent Number 3,927,795.
Saleh, F.Y., Lee, F.G., and Wolf, H.W. 1982. Selected Organic
Pesticides, Behavior and Removal from Domestic Wastewater by
Chemical and Physical Processes. Water Research, 16(4).
Schweitzer, P.A. 1979. Handbook of Separation Techniques for Chemical
Engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York. 1-416 to 1-417.
Shapiro, B.S. and Wilk, M.B. 1965. An Analysis of Variance Test for
Normality. Biometrika, 591-611.
XVIII-17
-------
Sherma, J., Dr. 1981. Manual of Analytical Quality Control for
Pesticides and Related Compounds, In Human and Environmental
Samples—Second Revision. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research
Triangle Park, NC. EPA 600/2-81-059.
Simpson, R.M. 1972. The Separation of Organic Chemicals from Water.
Presented at the Third Symposium of the Institute of Advanced
Sanitation Research, International, April 13.
Sittig, M. 1980. Pesticide Manufacturing and Toxic Materials Control
Encyclopedia. Noyes Data Corporation. Park Ridge, New Jersey.
Sittig, M. 1977. Pesticides Process Encyclopedia. Chemical Technology
Review No. 81. Noyes Data Corporation. Park Ridge, New Jersey.
Skipper, H.D., Volk, V.V., and Freeh, R. 1976. Hydrolysis of a
Chloro-S-Triazine Herbicide. Journal of Agriculture and Food
Chemistry, 24(1).
Spiller, D. 1961. A Digest of Available Information on the Insecticide
Malathion. Adv. Pest Control Research, 4:249-335.
SRI International. 1979. Water Related Environmental Fate of
129 Priority Pollutants. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Water
Planning and Standards, Monitoring and Data Support Division,
Washington, D.C.
Stanford Research Institute International. February 1977. Chemical
Economics Handbook. Pesticides Proprietary Information. SRI,
Menlo Park, CA.
Stephens, M.A. 1974. EOF Statistics for Goodness of Fit. Journal of
American Statistical Association. 6:730-737.
Stevens, B.W. and Kerner, J.W. 1975. Recovery Organic Materials from
Wastewater. Chemical Engineering, February, 3:84-87.
Strier, M.P. 1979. Treatability of Organic Priority Pollutants—
Part E—The Relationship of Estimated Theoretical Treatability with
Water Solubility, Partition Coefficient, Bioconcentration and
Aquatic Life Toxicity. U.S. EPA, Office of Quality Review,
Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C.
Strier, M.P. 1978a. Treatability of Organic Priority Pollutants—
Part D—The Pesticides—Their Estimated (30-Day Average) Treated
Effluent Concentration. U.S. EPA, Office of Quality Review,
Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C.
Strier, M.P. 1978b. Treatability of Pentachlorophenol. U.S. EPA,
Office of Quality Review, Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington,
D.C.
XVIII-18
-------
Strier, M.P. 1978c. Treatability of Organic Priority Pollutants—
Part C—Their Estimated (30-Day Average) Treated Effluent
Concentration—A Molecular Engineering Approach. U.S. EPA, Office
of Quality Review, Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C.
Strier, M.P. 1977. Treatability of "65" Chemicals, Part B—Adsorption
of Organic Compounds on Activated Carbon. U.S. EPA, Office of
Quality Review, Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C.
Strunck, W.G. 1979. Hydrogen Peroxide Treats Diverse Wastewaters.
Industrial Wastes, January/February, 32-35.
Stutz, C.N. 1966. Treating Parathion Wastes. Chemical Engineering
Progress, 62(10).
Sublette, K.L., Snider, E.H., Sylvester, N.D. 1980. Powdered Activated
Carbon Enhancement of the Activated Sludge Process: A Study of the
Mechanism. University of Tulsa, Chemical Engineering Department.
Part of the Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Industrial Pollution
Conference, 351-369.
Sweeny, K.H. 1979. Reductive Degradation: Versatile, Low Cost Water
and Sewage Works, January, 40-42.
Szalkowski, M.B. and Stallard, D.E. 1977. Effect of pH on the
Hydrolysis of Chlorothalonil. Journal AFC, 25(1):208-210.
Thompson, J.F. and Watts, R.R. 1978. Analytical Reference Standards
and Supplemental Data for Pesticides and Other Organic Compounds.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
EPA 600/9-78-012.
Thompson, W.S. 1974. Wood Preservatives and the Environment:
Detreating Plant. American Wood Preservers Association, 107.
Thompson, J.F. 1976. Analytical Reference Standards and Supplemental
Data for Pesticides and Other Organic Compounds. U.S. EPA, Office
of Research and Development, EPA 600/9-76-012.
Toxler, W.L., Parmele, C.S., and Barton, D.A. 1980. Survey of
Activated Carbon Use in the Organic Chemical Industries. Volumes I
and II. Prepared for U.S. EPA Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory. Hydroscience.
TRW Systems. 1973. Recommended Methods of Reduction, Neutralization,
Recovery or Disposal Hazardous Waste, Volume V, National Disposal
Site Candidate Waste Stream Constituent Profile Reports—Pesticide
and Cyanide Compounds. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Research
and Development.
XVIII-19
-------
Union Carbide Corporation. Experimental Procedure for Obtaining Data
Required for Sizing Liquid Absorption Systems Using Granular
Carbon. Carbon Products Division, New York.
U.S. Congress. October 18, 1972. Public Law 92-500. Ninety-Second
Congress, S.2770.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. 1979. Opinion of the
Court on Petition for Review by BASF Wyandotte Corporation, et al.
v. U.S. EPA.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1970. Phenolic Waste Reuse by
Diatomite Filtration. Water Pollution Control Research Series.
Federal Quality Administration, Washington, D.C.
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia. 1980. Opinion of the Court
on Petition for Writ of Certiorari by Eli Lilly and Company,
et al^., v. Douglas Costle, Administrator. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia. 1976. Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Russell E. Train.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Environmental Assessment
Tab for the Pesticides Development Document, Washington, D.C.
December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981a. Water Pollution
Regulations. Bis(chloromethyl) ether Removal from Priority
Pollutant List. Federal Register, 46(23):10723-10724.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981b. Water Pollution
Regulations. Trichlorofluoromethane and Dichlorodifluoromethane
Removal from Priority Pollutant List. Federal Register,
46(5):2266.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Treatability Manual—
Volumes 1-5. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
EPA 600/8-80-042a-e.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980a. Storage and Disposal of
Waste Material; Prohibition of Disposal of Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin. Federal Register, 45(98):32676-32686.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980b. Hazardous Waste and
Consolidated Permit Regulations. Federal Register,
45(98):33084-33135.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980c. Development Document for
BAT, Pretreatment Technology, New Source Performance Technology,
and BCT in the Coil Coating Industry (Draft). Effluent Guidelines
Division.
XVIII-20
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980d. TSCA Chemical Assessment
Series, Chemical Screening: Initial Evaluations of Substantial
Risk Notices, Section 8(E). January 1, 1977 to June 30, 1979.
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C.
EPA 560/11-80-008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980e. TSCA Chemical Assessment
Series, Chemical Hazard Information Profiles (CHIPS). April 1,
1976 to November 20, 1976. Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, Washington, D.C. EPA 560/11-80-011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980f. Part V. Water Quality
Criteria Documents; Availability. Federal Register,
45(231):79318-79370.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979a. Part II. Best
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology; Reasonableness of
Existing Effluent Limitation Guidelines. Federal Register,
44(169).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979b. Part III. Guidelines
Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants;
Proposed Regulations. Federal Register, 44(233):69464-69575.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979c. Water Quality Criteria;
Availability. Federal Register, 44(144).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979d. Water Quality Criteria;
Availability. Federal Register, 44(191).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979e. Water Quality Criteria
Request for Comments. Federal Register, 44(52).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979f. Draft Development
Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines, New Source
Performance Standards and Pretreatment Standards for the Textile
Mills Point Source Category. Effluent Guidelines Division, Office
of Water and Waste Management, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979g. Indicatory Fate Study.
Industrial Sources Section, Source Management Branch. Robert
S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory. Ada, Oklahoma.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979h. Brief for Respondent.
BASF Wyandotte Corporation, et_ al_. v. U.S. EPA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979i. Revised July 1. Toxic
Pollutant Effluent Standards. Code of Federal Regulations,
40(129)-.244-255.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979j. Toxicology Handbook,
Mammalian and Aquatic Data. EPA 540/9-79-003.
XVIII-21
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978a. Comparative Cost Analysis
and Environmental Assessment for Disposal of Organochlorine Wastes.
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. EPA 600/2-78-190.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978b. Innovative and Alterna-
tive Technology Assessment Manual. Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 430/9-78-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978c. Source Assessment:
Textile Plant Wastewater Toxics Study Phase 1. Environmental
Protection Technology Series. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. EPA 600/2-78-004h.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978d. Part IV. Hazardous Waste
Proposed Guidelines and Regulations and Proposal on Identification
and Listing. Federal Register, 43(243).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978e. Analytical Reference
Standards and Supplemental Data for Pesticides and Other Organic
Compounds. Health Effects Research Laboratory, Environmental
Toxicology Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA 600/9-78-012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978f. Response to Interagency
Testing Committee Recommendations. Federal Register, 43(208).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 1978g. Organic
Compounds in Organophosphorus Pesticide Manufacturing Wastewaters.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia.
EPA 600/4-78-056.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 1978h. Sludge Treatment
and Disposal. Number 2. EPA Technology Transfer. Environmental
Research Information Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 625/4-78-012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 31, 1978i. Listing of
Toxic Pollutants. Federal Register, 43(21).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978J. Economic Analysis of
Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Pesticide Chemicals
Manufacturing Point Source Category. Office of Water Planning and
Standards. EPA 230/2-78-065f.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977a. Controlling Pollution
from the Manufacturing and Coating of Metal Products, Water
Pollution Control. EPA Technology Transfer Seminar Publication.
Washington, D.C., EPA 625/3-77-009.
XVIII-22
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977b. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter 8. Pesticides Industry.
Environmental Protection Technology Series. Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA 600/2-77-023h.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 1977c. Controlling Pollution
from the Manufacturing and Coating of Metal Products. Water
Pollution Control. 3. EPA Technology Transfer Seminar Series.
Environmental Research Information Center, Washington, D.C.,
EPA 625/3-77-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 24, 1977d. Pesticide
Products Containing Nitrosamines. Federal Register, 42(37).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977e. Council on Environmental
Quality, TSCA Interagency Committee. Federal Register, 42(197).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977f. PCB's Removal in
Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. Criteria and Standard Division.
EPA 440/5-77-017.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977g. Sampling and Analysis
Procedures for Survey of Industrial Effluents for Priority
Pollutants. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 12, 1977h. Listing of
Toxic Pollutants. Federal Register, 42.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2, 1977i. Listing of
Toxic Pollutants. Federal Register, 42.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976a. Development Document for
Interim Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-75-060d.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976b. Process Design Manual for
Carbon Adsorption, U.S. EPA Technology Transfer. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976c. Development Document for
Interim Final Effluent Limitations, Guidelines, and Proposed New
Source Performance Standards for the Pesticide Industry. Office of
Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976d. Initial Scientific and
Mini Economic Review of Carbofuran, Substitute Chemicals Program.
Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 540/1-76-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976e. Pesticides and Pesticides
Containers, Port IV. Federal Register, 39(85). Washington, D.C.
XVIII-23
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976f. Initial Scientific Review
of PCNB, Substitute Chemical Program. Office of Pesticide
Programs, EPA 540/1-75-016.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976g. Quality Criteria for
Water. Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976h. Technical and
Microeconomic Analysis of Arsenic and Its Compounds. Office of
Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C., EPA 560/6-76-016.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976i. Economic Analysis of
Final Interim Final Effluent Guidelines for the Pesticides and
Agricultural Chemicals Industry—Group II. Office of Water
Planning and Standards. EPA 230/l-76-065f.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Review of Toxicology of
Organo Halogenated Pesticides. Residue Reviews, 56:75-107.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975a. Initial Scientific Review
of Cacodylic Acid, Substitute Chemical Program. Office of
Pesticide Programs, EPA 540/1-75-021.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975b. Initial Scientific Review
of MSMA/DSMA, Substitute Chemical Program. Office of Pesticide
Programs, EPA 540/1-75-020.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. The Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. As amended Public Law 94-140.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975d. Initial Scientific and
Mini Economic Review of Monuron, Substitute Chemicals Program.
Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 540/1-75-028.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975e. Information About
Hazardous Waste Management Facilities, EPA 530/SW-145.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975f. Guidelines for the
Disposal of Small Quantities of Unused Pesticides, Environmental
Protection Technology Series. Office of Research and Development,
EPA 670/2-75-057.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975g. Radiation Treatment of
High Strength Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Wastes, Environmental
Protection Technology Series. Office of Research and Development,
EPA 660/2-75-017.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975h. Initial Scientific and
Mini Economic Review of Aldicarb, Substitute Chemicals Program.
Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 540/1-75-013.
XVIII-24
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975i. Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards of Performance, Metal Finishing Industry,
Draft Development Document. Office of Air and Water Programs,
Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C., EPA 440/1-75-040
and EPA 440/l-75~040a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975j. Initial Scientific and
Mini Economic Review of Captan, Substitute Chemicals Program.
Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 540/1-75-012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975k. Initial Scientific and
Mini Economic Review of Bromacil, Substitute Chemicals Program.
Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 540/1-75-006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 19751. Initial Scientific and
Mini Economic Review of Malathion, Substitute Chemicals Program.
Office of Pesticide Programs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975m. Draft Development
Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations, Guideines and
Standards of Performance of the Miscellaneous Chemicals Manu-
facturing Point Source Category. Supplement A and B. Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975n. Initial Scientific and
Mini Economic Review of Methyl Parathion, Substitute Chemicals
Program. Office of Pesticide Programs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975o. Summation of Conditions
and Investigations for the Complete Combustion of Organic
Pesticides. Office of Research and Development, EPA 5-03-3516A.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agnecy. 1975p. Initial Scientific and
Mini Economic Review of Parathion, Substitute Chemicals Program.
Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 540/1-75-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975q. Pollution Control
Technology for Pesticide Formulators and Packagers, Environmental
Protection Technology Series. Office of Research and Development,
EPA 660/2-74-094.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975r. Process Design Manual for
Suspended Solids Removal, U.S. EPA Technology Transfer, Washington,
D.C., EPA 625/l-75-003a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975s. Production, Distribution,
Use and Environmental Impact Potential of Selected Pesticides.
Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials, Washington, D.C., EPA 540/1-74-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975t. Substitute Chemical
Program, Initial Scientific and Minieconomic Review of Malathion.
Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. EPA 540/1-75-005.
XVIII-25
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Promising Technologies
for Treatment of Hazardous Wastes, Environmental Protection
Technology Series. Office of Research and Development,
EPA 670/2-74-088.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974b. Process Design Manual for
Sludge Treatment and Disposal, U.S. EPA Technology Transfer,
Washington, D.C., EPA 625/1-74-006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 15, 1974c. Pesticides—
EPA Proposal on Disposal and Storage, Part I. Federal Register,
39(200).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974d. Process Design Manual for
Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants, U.S. EPA Technology
Transfer, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974e. Wastewater Filtration
Design Consideration, U.S. EPA Technology Transfer, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974f. Wastewater Sampling
Methodologies and Flow Measurement Techniques. Region VII,
Surveillance and Analysis, Technical Support Branch,
EPA 907/9-74-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974g. Flow Equalization,
U.S. EPA Technology Transfer, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974h. Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards of Performance—
Organic Chemicals Industry. Office of Air and Water Programs,
Effluent Guidelines Division, EPA 440/1-74-009a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 4, 1974i. Effluent
Guidelines and Standards. General Provisions. Federal Register,
Part II, 39(24):4531-4533.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974j. Compilation of Municipal
and Industrial Injection Wells in the United States. Volumes I
and II. Washington, D.C., EPA 520/9-74-020.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974k. Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes, U.S. EPA Technology Transfer,
Washington, D.C., EPA 625/6-74-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 19741. Herbicide Report. Office
of Pesticide Programs. EPA 540/1-74-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1973a. Waste Treatment.
Upgrading Metal-Finishing Facilities to Reduce Pollution. Number 2.
EPA Technology Transfer Seminar Publication. Washington, D.C.
EPA 625/3-73-002.
XVIII-26
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 27, 1973b. Part II.
Proposed Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards. Federal Register,
38(247).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973c. Development Document for
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Basic Fertilizer Chemicals Segment of the
Fertilizer Mnaufacturing Point Source Category. Office of Air and
Water Programs, EPA 440/1-73-011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973d. Pretreatment of
Pollutants Introduced into Publicly Owned Treatment Works. Office
of Water Program Operations, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973e. Handbook for Monitoring
Industrial Wastewater. EPA Technology Transfer, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973f. Oxygen Activated Sludge
Wastewater Treatment Systems, Design Criteria and Operating
Experience, U.S. EPA Technology Transfer, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973g. Physical-Chemical
Wastewater Treatment Plant Design, U.S. EPA Technology Transfer,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973h. Development of Treatment
Process for Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticide Manufacturing and
Processing Wastes, Water Pollution Control Research Series, Office
of Research and Development.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972a. The Pollution Potential
in Pesticide Manufacturing. Pesticide Study Series-5, Technical
Studies Report Number T.S.-00-72-04.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972b. Handbook for Analytical
Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories. U.S. EPA
Technology Transfer, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972c. Initial Scientific and
Mini Economic Review of Crotoxyphos, Substitute Chemical Program.
Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 540/1-75-015.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972d. Acceptable Common Names
and Chemical Names for the Ingredient Statement on Pesticides
Labels. Second Edition. Pesticide Regulation Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972e. Methods for Organic
Pesticides in Water and Wastewater. Mental Research Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPL 8:P43/2.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972f. Tertiary Treatment of
Combined Domestic and Industrial Wastes. Washington, D.C. ,
EPA R2-73-236.
XVIII-27
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Catalog of Research in Aquatic
Pest Control and Pesticide Residues in Aquatic Environments.
Pesticide Study Series-1.
Versar Inc. A Study of Pesticide Disposal in a Sewage Sludge
Incinerator. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Development.
Verschueren, K. 1977. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic
Chemicals. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Vettorazzi, G. 1979. International Regulatory Aspects for Pesticide
Chemicals. Toxicity Profiles. CRC Press. Florida.
Vliet, B.M. and Webber, W.J., Jr. 1981. Comparative Performance of
Synthetic Adsorbents and Activated Carbon for Specific Compound
Removal from Wastewaters. Journal WPCF 53(11).
Wagner, N.J., Lutchko, J.R., and Deithorn, R.T. 1979. Control of Toxic
Emissions from the Thermal Reaction of Activated Carbon. Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference.
Walk, Haydel and Associates. 1978. Preliminary Priority Pollutant
Treatability Matrices. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Walsh, John E. 1962. Handbook of Non-Parametric Statistics. B. Van
Nostrand, Princeton, N.J.
Ware, G.M. 1978. The Pesticide Book. W.H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco, California.
Warren, W. and Cote, D.R. 1979. Removal of Phenolic Compounds from
Wastewater. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. Edward C. Jordan Company,
Inc.
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association. 1980.
Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Industrial Pollution Conference,
Houston, Texas. June 4-6.
Weast, R., Editor. 1974. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 54th
Edition. CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio.
White, G.C. 1972. Handbook of Chlorination for Potable Water, Waste
Water, Cooling Water, Industrial Processes, and Swimming Pools.
Van Norstrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Whitehouse, J.D. 1967. A Study of the Removal of Pesticides from
Water. Research Report No. 8. Kentucky University, Lexington,
Kentucky.
XVIII-28
-------
Wilhelmi, A.R. 1979. Personal Communication to J.B. Cowart. Effect of
Wet Air Oxidation on Several Priority Pollutants. Environmental
Science and Engineering, Inc., Miami, Florida.
Wilhelmi, A.R. and Ely, R.B. 1976. A Two-Step Process for Toxic
Wastewaters. Chemical Engineering, February 16.
Wilhelmi, A.R. and Ely, R.B. 1975. The Treatment of Toxic Industrial
Wastewaters by a Two-Step Process. Presented to 30th Annual Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference. Zimpro, Inc., Rothschild, Wi.
Wilhelmi, A.R. and Knopp, P.V. 1978. Wet Oxidation as an Alternative
to Incineration. Presented to 71st Annual Meeting of the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers. Zimpro, Inc., Rothschild, Wi.
Windholz, M., Budavari, S., Stroumisos, L.Y., and Fertig, M.N. 1976.
The Merck Index. M. Windholz, Editor. Merck and Company, Inc.,
Rahway, New Jersey.
Wolfe, N.L. 1976. Hydrolysis of Atrazine. Interoffice Memo to
L. Miller. U.S. EPA, August 13.
Wolfe, N.L., et^ al^. 1976. Captan Hydrolysis. Journal of Agriculture
and Food Chemistry, 24(5).
Wolfe, N.L., Zepp, R.G., Baughman, G.L., Fencher, R.C., and Gordon, J.A.
1976. Chemical and Photochemical Transformation of Selected
Pesticides in Aquatic Systems. U.S. EPA, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Georgia.
Wolfe, N.L., Zepp, R.G., and Paris, D.F. 1977. Carbaryl, Propham, and
Chlorpropham: A Comparison of the Rate of Biolysis. U.S. EPA,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Georgia.
Worthing, C.R. 1979. The Pesticide Manual, A World Compendium. The
British Crop Protection Council. 6th Edition.
Wroniewicz, V.S. 1978. Controlling Chlorinated Benzene Compounds in
Plant Wastewaters. Pollution Engineering. November, 43-44.
Zepp, R.G., Wolfe, N.L., Gordon, J.A., and Baughman, G.L. 1975.
Dynamics of 2,4-D Esters in Surface Water. Hydrolysis, Photolysis,
and Vaporization. U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory,
Georgia.
Zimpro, Inc. 1980. Report on Wet Air Oxidation for Pesticide Chemical
Manufacturing Wastes. Prepared for George M. Jett, U.S. EPA.
June. Rothchild, Wisconsin.
Zogorski, J.S. and Faust, S.D. 1977. Removing Phenols via Activated
Carbon. Chemical Engineering Progress, May, 65-66.
XVIII-29
-------
Zweig, G., Editor. 1964. Analytical Methods for Pesticides, Plant
Growth Regulations, and Food Additives, Volume I; Insecticides,
Volume II; Fungicides, Nematocides and Soil Furaigants, Rodenticides
and Food and Feed Additives, Volume III; and Herbicides, Volume IV.
Academic Press, New York.
XVIII-30
-------
SECTION XIX
GLOSSARY
Abscission—Process by which a leaf or other part is separated from the
p1an t.
Acaricide (miticide)—An agent that destroys mites and ticks.
Act—The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public
Law 92-500, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, Public
Law 95-217.
Activated Carbon—Carbon which is treated by high-temperature heating
with steam or carbon dioxide producing an internal porous particle
structure.
Activated Sludge—Sludge floe produced in raw or settled wastewater by
the growth of zoogleal bacteria and other organisms in the presence of
dissolved oxygen and accumulated in sufficient concentration by
returning floe previously formed.
Activated Sludge Process—A biological wastewater treatment process in
which a mixture of wastewater and activated sludge is agitated and
aerated. The activated sludge is subsequently separated from the
treated wastewater (mixed liquor) by sedimentation and wasted or
returned to the process as needed.
Active Ingredient—The ingredient of a pesticide which is intended to
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest. The active ingredients
may make up only a small percentage of the final product which also
consists of binders, fillers, diluents, etc.
Activity Coefficient—An auxiliary thertnodynamic function to express the
volatile properties of binary systems that exhibit nonideal vapor
equilibrium behavior. It may also be regarded as a correction factor
that may be applied to ideal conditions to obtain "real" system
properties under proper temperature and pressure conditions.
Aerated Lagoon—A natural or artificial wastewater treatment pond in
which mechanical or diffused-air aeration is used to supplement the
oxygen supply.
Aerobic—Condition in which free molecular oxygen is present.
Aldrin-Toxaphene Pesticide Structural Group—Chlordane, Dienochlor,
Endosulfan, Endrin, Heptachlor, Mirex, Toxaphene.
XIX-1
-------
Algicide—Chemical used to control algae and aquatic weeds.
Amide Pesticide Structural Group—Alachlor, Butachlor, Deet, Diphenamid,
Fluoroacetamide, Napropamide, Naptalam, Pronamide, Propachlor.
Amide Type Pesticide Structural Group—Aldicarb, Methorayl, Oxamyl,
Thiofanox.
Anaerobic—Condition in which free molecular oxygen is absent.
Avicide—Lethal agent used to destroy birds but also refers to materials
used for repelling birds.
Attractant, insect—A substance that lures insects to trap or
poison-bait stations. Usually classed as food, oviposition, and sex
attractants.
Bactericide—Any bacteria-killing chemical.
BAT Effluent Limitations—Limitations for point sources, other than
publicly owned treatment works, which are based on the application of
the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable. These
limitations must be achieved by July 1, 1984.
BCT—Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology.
Benzidines (Priority Pollutant)—Benzidine, 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine.
Bioconcentration Factor (B.C.F.)—The ratio of the concentration of a
chemicalin aquatic organisms (ug cheraical/g organism) to the amount in
water at equilibrium (ug chemical/g water).
Biological Oxidation—Breaking down (oxidizing) organic carbon by
bacteria that utilize free dissolved oxygen (aerobic) or "chemically
bound" oxygen (anaerobic).
Biological Wastewater Treatment—Forms of wastewater treatment in which
bacterial or biochemical action is intensified to stabilize, oxidize,
and nitrify the unstable organic matter present. Intermittent sand
filters, contact beds, trickling filters, and activated sludge processes
are examples.
Blowdown—The removal of a portion of any process flow to maintain the
constituents of the flow at desired levels.
BOD—Biochemical oxygen demand is a measure of biological decomposition
of organic matter in a water sample. It is determined by measuring the
oxygen required by microorganisms to oxidize the organic contaminants of
a water sample under standard laboratory conditions. The standard
conditions include incubation for five days at 20°C.
BOD5—Biochemical oxygen demand, measured after five-day.
XIX-2
-------
Botanical Pesticide—A pesticide produced from naturally occurring
chemicals found in some plants. Examples are nicotine, pyrethrum,
strychnine, and rotenone,
Botanical Pesticide Structural Group—Allethrin, Permethrin, Pyrethrin,
Restnethrin, Rotenone.
BPT Effluent Limitations—timitations for point sources, other than
publicly owned treatment works, which are based on the application of
the Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available. These
limitations must be achieved by July 1, 1977.
Btu—British thermal unit.
Bypass—An act of intentional noncompliance during which waste treatment
facilities are circumvented in emergency situations.
°C—Degrees Centigrade.
Carbamate Pesticide Structural Group—Aminocarb, Barban, Bendiocarb,
Benomyl, Carbaryl, Carbendazim, Carbofuran, Chlorpropham, Methiocarb,
Mexacarbate, Polyphase antimildew, Propham, Propoxur, Sulfallate, SWEP.
££--Cubic centimeter.
Cal—Calorie.
Carbamates—A group of insecticides which act on the nervous system by
inhibiting the acetylcholinesterase enzyme at the nerve synapse.
Carcinogen—A substance that causes cancer in animal tissue.
Chemical Name—Scientific name of the active ingredient(s) found in the
formulated product. The name is derived from the chemical structure of
the active ingredient.
Chemical Oxidation—Oxidizing organic carbon by chemical means.
Chemosterilant—Chemical compounds that cause sterilization or prevent
effective reproduction.
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes (Priority Pollutant)—Chloroethane;
1,1-Dichloroethane; 1,2-Dichloroethane; 1,1,1-Trichloroethane;
1,1,2-Trichloroethane; 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane; Hexachloroethane;
Vinyl chloride; 1,1-Dichloroethylene; 1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene;
Trichloroethylene; Tetrachloroethylene.
Chlorinated Aryloxyalkanoic Acids and Esters Pesticide Structural
Group—2,4-D; 2,4-D isobutyl ester; 2,4-D isooctyl ester; 2,4-D salt;
2,4-DB; 2,4-DB isobutyl ester; 2,4-DB isooctyl ester; Dichlorprop; MCPA;
MCPA isooctyl ester; MCPP, Silvex; Silvex isooctyl ester; Silvex salt;
2,4,5-T.
XIX-3
-------
Cholinesterase—The enzyme responsible for nervous impulse transmission.
Clarifier—A treatment unit of which the primary purpose is to reduce
the amount of suspended matter in a liquid.
Clean Water Act—Enacted in 1977 to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 and broadens regulations to improve water quality
and the control of potentially toxic pollutants.
cm—Centimeter.
COD—Chemical oxygen demand. Its determination provides a measure of
the oxygen demand equivalent to that portion of matter in a sample which
is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant.
Combined Wastewater—Wastewater from a number of pesticide, pesticide
intermediate, and non-pesticide processes.
Common Pesticide Name—A common chemical name given to a pesticide by a
recognized committee on pesticide nomenclature. Many pesticides are
known by a number of trade or brand names but have only one recognized
common name. For example, the common name for Sevin insecticide is
carbaryl.
Contract Hauling—Disposal of waste products through an outside party
for a fee.
Conventional Pollutants—For the Pesticide Industry conventional
pollutants are defined as BOD, TSS, and pH.
cu ft—Cubic feet.
Cyanate Pesticide Structural Group—Methylene bisthiocyanate; Nabonate;
TCMTB.
Cyanides (Priority Pollutant)—Cyanide.
Cyclodienes—A group of insecticides which are structurally
characterized as chlorinated cyclic hydrocarbons.
DDT Type Pesticide Structural Group—Chlorobenzilate; ODD; DDE; DDT;
Dicofol; Methoxychlor; Perthane.
Deep Well Injection—Disposal of wastewater into a deep-well such that a
porous, permeable formation of a large area and thickness is available
at sufficient depth to ensure continued, permanent storage.
Defoliant—A chemical that initiates abscission.
Desiccant—A chemical that induces rapid dehydration of a leaf or plant
part.
XIX-4
-------
Design Effluent Level—Long-term average effluent levels demonstrated or
judged achievable for recommended treatment technologies presented in
Section VI, from maximum raw waste load levels presented in Section V.
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene (Priority Pollutant)—
1,2-Dichloropropane; 1,2-Dichloropropylene.
Dienes (Priority Pollutant)—Hexachlorobutadiene;
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.
Dioxin Type Pesticide Structural Group—Dimethoxane.
Direct Discharge—Discharge of wastewater into navigable waters.
Disinfectant—A substance used for the art of killing the larger portion
of microorganisms in or on a substance with the probability that all
pathogenic bacteria are killed by the agent used.
Dual Significance—Classification of priority pollutants which are:
(1) manufactured pesticide products (primary significance) and are
controlled by regulating other pollutants of primary significance
(secondary significance), or (2) manufactured pesticide products with
zero wastewater discharge (primary significance) and lack adequate
monitoring data to propose regulations in other pesticide processes
(secondary significance).
e—The base for the natural or Naperian logarithms which equals 2.71828.
EMSL—Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory.
Evaporation Pond—An open holding facility which depends primarily on
climatic conditions such as evaporation, precipitation, temperature,
humidity, and wind velocity to effect dissipation (evaporation) of
wastewater. External means such as spray recirculation or heating can
be used to increase the rate of evaporation.
Excursion—An excursion, sometimes called an upset, is unintentional
noncompliance occurring for reasons beyond the reasonable control of the
permittee.
°F—Degrees Fahrenheit.
FIFRA—The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1947.
Flocculation—The agglomeration of colloidal and finely divided
suspended matter.
Flotation—The raising of suspended matter to the surface of the liquid
in a tank as scum—by aeration, the evolution of gas, chemicals,
electrolysis, heat, or bacterial decomposition—and the subsequent
removal of the scum by skimming.
XIX-5
-------
F;M ratio—The ratio of organic material (food) to mixed liquid
(microorganisms) in an aerated sludge aeration basin.
Formulation/packaging of Pesticides—The physical mixing of technical
grade pesticide ingredients into liquids, dusts and powders, or
granules, and their subsequent packaging in a marketable container.
fpm—Feet per minute.
fps—Feet per second.
ft_—Feet.
Fumigant—A volatile material that forms vapors that destroy insects,
pathogens, and other pests.
Fungicide—A chemical that kills fungi.
Gal—Gallons.
Gal/1,000 Ibs—Gallons of wastewater flow per 1,000 pounds of pesticide
production.
GC—Gas chromatograph.
GC/MS—Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.
Genome—A haploid set of chromosomes, or of chromosomal genes, inherited
as a unit from one parent.
Girdling—Removal of bark and cambium layer around a plant stem in the
form of a ring.
Goitrogenic—Tending to produce goiters (an enlargement of the thyroid
gland visible as a swelling of the front of the neck).
gpd—Gallons per day.
gpm—Gallons per minute.
Growth Regulator—Organic substance effective in minute amounts for
controlling or modifying (plant or insect) growth processes.
Haloethers (Priority Pollutant)—Bis(chloromethyl)ether;
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether; 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether;
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether; Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane; 4-chlorophenyl
phenyl ether; 4-Broraophenyl phenyl ether.
Halogenated Aliphatic Pesticide Structural Group—BHC; Chloropicrin;
Dalapon; DBCP; D-D; Dichloroethyl ether; Dichloropropene; Ethylene
dibromide; Lindane; Methyl bromide.
XIX-6
-------
Halogenated Aromatic Pesticide Structural Group—Bifenox; Bromoxynil;
Bromoxynil octanoate; Captafol; Chloramben; Chlorobenzene;
Chlorophacinone; Chlorothalonil; Coumachlor; DCPA; Dicamba;
Dichlorobenzene, ortho; Dichlorobenzene, para; Dichlorophen;
Dichlorophen salt; Hexachlorophene; Nitrofen; PCNB; PCP; PCP salt;
Piperalin; Propanil; Trichlorobenzene.
Halomethanes (Priority Pollutant)—Methyl chloride; Methyl bromide;
Methylene chloride; Chloroform; Bromoform; Dichlorobromomethane;
Chlorodibromomethane ; Carbon tetrachloride; Trichlorofluoromethane;
Dichlorodifluoromethane.
Hepatocellular Carcinomas—Malignant tumors of the cells comprising the
outer layer of the liver.
Hepatona—Malignant tumor of the liver proper.
Herbicide—Chemical substance used to destroy undesirable plant life
such as weeds.
Heterocyclic With Nitrogen in the Ring Pesticide Structural Group—
BBTAC; Bentazon; Captan; Cycloheximide; Dowicil 75; Ethoxyquin 66%;
Ethoxyquin 86%; Fenarimol; Folpet; Glyodin; Maleic Hydrazide; MGK 264;
MGK 326; Molinate; Norflurazon; Paraquat; Picloram; 8 Quinolinol
citrate; 8 Quinolinol sulphate; Quinomethionate.
hp—Horsepower.
jvr—Hour.
Hydrolysis—The degradation of pesticide active ingredients, most
commonly through the application of heat at either acid or alkaline
conditions.
in—Inch.
Incineration—The combustion (by burning) of organic matter in vapor
and/oraqueous streams.
Inorganic Pesticide—Pesticides that do not contain carbon.
Insect-Growth Regulator (IGR)—Chemical substance that disrupts the
action of insect hormones controlling molting, maturity from pupal stage
to adult, and others.
Insecticide—Chemical substance used to control insects.
Intraperitoneal—Within the smooth transparent serous membrane that
lines the cavity of the abdomen of mammals.
kg—Kilogram.
XIX-7
-------
kkg—1,000 kilograms.
kPa—Kilopascal-SI unit of pressure equal to 0.01 bars or
0.75 millimeters of mercury.
kv—Kilowatt.
L(D—Liter.
Lagoon—A pond containing raw or partially treated wastewater in which
aerobic or anaerobic stabilization occurs.
Land Disposal—Disposal of wastewater onto land.
lb_—Pound.
lbs/1,000 Ibs—The mass of a particular pollutant (in pounds) per
1,000 pounds of pesticide production.
LC50—Lethal concentration 50; the concentration of a toxic material at
which 50 percent of the test organisms die when exposed to the toxic
material by a route other than respiration, i.e., orally or derraally,
expressed in rag (toxic material)/kg (body weight).
LD50—Lethal dose 50; the dose of a toxic material at which 50 percent
of the test organisms die when exposed to the toxic material by a route
other than respiration, i.e., orally or derraally, expressed in mg (toxic
material)/kg (body weight).
Long-Term Average—The average (mg/1 or lbs/1,000 Ibs) effluent for a
pollutant at a particular point in the wastewater treatment system,
based on available data. Treatment variability factors may be
multiplied by the long-term average to derive 30-day maximum and daily
maximum effluent limitations.
Level of Interest—The detection limit as an analytical goal for this
project, as follows: Organic pollutants = 0.01 mg/1; Pesticides
- 0.001 mg/1; Metals (mg/1) Zn = 1.0 Pb = 0.025
Sb = 0.1 Hg = 0.001
As = 0.025 Ni = 0.5
Be = 0.05 Se = 0.01
Cd = 0.005 Ag = 0.005
Cr = 0.025 Tl = 0.05
Cu = 0.02
in—Meter.
Manufacturer of Pesticide Active Ingredients—The chemical and/or
physical conversion of raw materials to technical grade ingredients
intended to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest. For purposes
of this study only the final synthesis step is included.
XIX-8
-------
Manufacturer of Pesticide Intermediates—The manufacture of materials
resulting from each reaction step in the creation of pesticide active
ingredients, except for the final synthesis step. According to this
definition an excess of materials need not be produced.
Manufacturer of Products Other Than Pesticides—The manufacture of
products not specifically defined in the scope of coverage (e.g.,
organic chemicals, plastics and synthetics, Pharmaceuticals, etc.).
Mereaptan—Various compounds with the general formula R-SH that are
analogous to the alcohols and phenols but contain sulphur in place of
oxygen and often have disagreeable odors.
Metallo-Organic Pesticides—A class of organic pesticides containing one
or more metal or metalloid atoms in the structure.
Metallo-Organic Pesticide Structural Group—Cyhexatin; Fentin hydroxide;
Ferbam; Mancozeb; Maneb; Niacide; Tributyltin benzoate; Tributyltin
fluoride; Tributyltin oxide; Vancide 512; Vancide 512 dispersion; ZAC;
Zineb; Zirara.
Metals (Priority Pollutant)—Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium,
Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Thallium,
Zinc.
Metals Separation—Metallic ion removal from wastewater by conversion to
an insoluble form using such agents as lime, soda ash, or caustic
followed by a separation process, usually clarification or filtration.
mg-—Mi 11igram.
MG—Million gallons.
MGD—Million gallons per day.
mg/1—Milligrams per liter (equal parts per million, ppm, when the
specific gravity is one).
Microbial—Of or pertaining to a pathogenic bacterium.
min—Minute.
Miscellaneous Priority Pollutants—Acrolein, Acrylonitrile, Asbestos,
Isophorone, 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.
Miticide—Chemical substance used to destroy mites, acaricides.
ml/1—Milliliters per liter.
MLSS—Mixed-liquor suspended solids.
MLVSS—Mixed-liquor volatile suspended solids.
XIX-9
-------
mm—Millimeter.
Moiety—A chemical functional group.
Molluscicide—A chemical used to kill or control snails and slugs.
Mutagen—Substance causing genes in an organism to mutate or change.
NACA—National Agricultural Chemicals Association.
Navigable Waters—Includes all navigable waters of the United States;
tributaries of navigable waters; interstate waters; intrastate lakes;
rivers and streams which are utilized by interstate travelers for
recreational or other purposes; intrastate lakes, rivers and streams
from which fish or shellfish are taken and sold in interstate commerce;
and intrastate lakes, rivers and streams which are used for industrial
purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Nematicide—A chemical used to kill nematodes.
Nitro Pesticide Structural Group—Benfluralin, CDN, DCNA, Dinocap,
Dinoseb, Ethalfluralin, Fluchloralin, Giv-Gard, Isopropalin,
Metasol J-26, Oryzalin, Profluralin, Trifluralin,
Nitrosamines (Priority Pollutant)—N-nitrosodimethylamine,
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine, N-nitrosodiphenylamine.
Nitrosubstituted Aromatics (Priority Pollutant)—Nitrobenzene;
2,4-Dinitrotoluene; 2,6-Dinitrotoluene.
Noncategorized Pesticides Structural Group—Benzyl benzoate, Benzyl
bromoacetate, Busan 90, Cycloprate, Fluoridone, HAE, HAMP, Kinoprene,
Methoprene, NMI, Oxyfluorfen, Piperonyl butoxide, Sodium
monofluoroacetate, Warfarin.
Noncontact Wastewater—Wastewater which is not contaminated by the
process or related materials. Examples include boiler blowdown, cooling
water, sanitary sewage. Storm water from outside the immediate manufac-
turing area may be included in this definition if it is not contaminated
from product spills, etc.
Nonconventional Pollutants—For the Pesticide Industry nonconventional
pollutants are defined as nonpriority pollutant pesticides, COD,
ammonia, and manganese (see Table X-l).
Nonhalogenated Aliphatic Pesticide Structural Group—Propionic acid.
Nonhalogenated Aromatic Pesticide Structural Group—Biphenyl,
Coumafuryl, Coumatetralyl, Diphacinone, Phenylphenol, Phenylphenol
sodium salt, Pindone.
XIX-10
-------
Nonhalogenated Cyclic Aliphatic Pesticide Structural Group—Endothall.
NPDES—National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. A federal
program requiring industry to obtain permits to discharge plant
effluents to the nation's water courses.
NSPS—New Source Performance Standards.
Nutrients—The nutrients in contaminated water are routinely analyzed to
characterize the food available for microorganisms to promote organic
decomposition. They are: Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3), rag/1 as N;
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), mg/1 as N; Nitrate Nitrogen (NC^), mg/1 as
N; Total Phosphate (TP), mg/1 as P; Ortho Phosphate (OP), mg/1 as P.
Ocean Discharge—Discharge of wastewater into an ocean.
Oncogenic—The property to produce tumors (not necessarily cancerous) in
tissues (see Carcinogen).
Opacity—The ratio of transmitted to incident light.
Organo-Nitrogen Others Pesticide Structural Group—Alkylamine
hydrochloride, Benzethonium chloride, Dazomet, Diphenylamine, Dodine,
Etridiazole, Hyamine 2389, Hyamine 3500, Kathon 886, Lethane 384,
Metasol DGH, Methyl benzethonium chloride, Octhilinone, PBED,
Thiabendazole, Triadimefon, Tricyclazole.
Organo-Sulfur Pesticide Structural Group—EXD, HPTMS, Propargite,
Sulfoxide, Vancide PA.
Ovicide—A chemical that destroys an organism's eggs.
Patent—An official document issued by the U.S. Office of Patents
conferring an exclusive right or privilege to produce, use, or sell a
pesticide for a specified period of time.
Pathogen—Any disease-producing organism or virus.
PCS—Polychlorinated biphenyl.
Pesticide—Any technical grade ingredient used for controlling,
preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest. See
Section III for classes of pesticides covered; see Section XVIII—
Appendix 3 for individual pesticides covered.
Pesticide (Priority Pollutant)—Aldrin; Dieldrin; Chlordane; 4,4'-DDT;
4,4'-DDE; 4,4'-DDD; a-endosulfan-Alpha; b-endosulfan-Beta; endosulfan
sulfate; endrin; endrin aldehyde; heptachlor; heptachlor epoxide;
a-BHC-Alpha; b-BHC-Beta; r-BHC-Gamma; g-BHC-Delta; Toxaphene.
pH—pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a water sample. It
is equal to the negative log of the hydrogen ion concentration.
XIX-11
-------
Phenols (Priority Pollutant)—Phenol; 2-Chlorophenol;
2,4-Dichlorophenol; 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol; Pentachlorophenol;
2-Nitrophenol; 4-Nitrophenol; 2,4-Dinitrophenol; Parachlorometa cresol;
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol; 2,4-Dimethylphenol.
Pheromones—Highly potent insect sex attractants produced by the
insects. For some species, laboratory-synthesized pheroraones have been
developed for trapping purposes.
Phosphate and Phosphonate Pesticide Structural Group—Dichlorvos,
Mevinphos, Monocrotophos, Naled, Stirofos.
Phosphorothioate and Phosphorodithioate Pesticide Structural Group—
Aspon, Azinphos methyl, Bolstar, Carbophenothion, Chlorpyrifos,
Chlorpyrifos methyl, Coumaphos, Cythioate, Deraeton, Demeton-o,
Demeton-s, Diazinon, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Disulfoton, EPN,
Ethion, Ethoprop, Famphur, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion,
Fonofos, Malathion, Merphos, Oxydemeton, Parathion ethyl, Parathion
methyl, Phorate, Phosraet, Ronnel, Temephos, Terbufos, Thionazin,
Trichloronate, Tokuthion.
Phosphorus-Nitrogen Pesticide Structural Group—Acephate, Bensulide,
Glyphosate, Mephosfolon, Methamidophos, Phosfolan.
Phthalate Esters (Priority Pollutant)—Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate; Butyl
benzyl phthalate; Di-n-butyl phthalate; Di-n-octyl phthalate; Diethyl
phthalate; Dimethyl phthalate.
Phytotoxic—Poisonous to plants.
Piscicide—Chemical used to kill fish.
Polychlorinated Biphenyl's (Priority Pollutant)—PCB-1242; PCB-1254;
PCB-1221; PCB-1232; PCB-1248; PCB-1260; PCB-1016.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Priority Pollutant)—
Benzo(a)anthracene; Benzo(a)pyrene; 3,4-Benzofluoranthene;
Benzo(k)fluoranthene; Chrysene; Acenaphthylene; Anthracene;
Benzo(ghi)perylene; Fluorene; Phenathrene; Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene;
IndenoC1,2,3-cd) pyrene; Fluoranthene; Naphthalene; 2-Chloronaphthalene;
Acenaphthene.
Polyploidy—Exhibiting entire extra sets of chromosomes with three or
more genomes.
Postemergence—After emergence of the specified weed or crop.
POTW—Publicly owned treatment works.
ppb—Parts per billion (equal micrograms per liter, ug/1, when the
specific gravity is one).
XIX-12
-------
ppm—Parts per million (equal milligrams per liter, rag/1, when the
specific gravity is one).
ppt—Parts per trillion (equal nanograms per liter, ng/1, when specific
gravity is one).
Pre-emergence—Refers to the time before sprouting from the soil of a
specific weed or crop.
Primary Significance—Pollutants are of primary significance if they are
proposed for regulation due to their deleterious effects on humans and
the environment.
Primary Treatment—The first major treatment in a wastewater treatment
works. In the classical sense, it normally consists of clarification.
As used in this document, it generally refers to treatment steps
preceding biological treatment.
Priority Pollutant—Those compounds specified as an outgrowth of the
1976 Consent Decree as listed in Section XVIII—Appendix 1.
Process Wastewater—Any aqueous discharge which results from or has had
contact with the manufacturing process. For purposes of this study only
wastewater from the final synthesis step in the manufacture of pesticide
active ingredients is included, in addition to the following:
(1) Wastewater from vessel-floor washing in the immediate manufacturing
area; (2) Stormwater runoff from the immediate manufacturing area;
(3) Wastewater from air pollution scrubbers utilized in the manufac-
turing process or in the immediate manufacturing area.
psi—Pound per square inch.
QA/QC—Quality Assurance/Quality Control.
Quaternary Ammonium Salt—Chemical compound having a chlorine or bromine
ion attached to a nitrogen atom with four carbon-nitrogen bonds. May be
used as algicides, bactericides, piscicides, etc.
Raw Waste Load—The quantity of flow or pollutant in wastewater prior to
a treatment process.
Repellent (insects)—Substance used to repel ticks, chiggers, gnats,
flies, mosquitoes, and fleas.
Resin Adsorption—A method of treating wastewater in which a resin
material removes organic matter by adherence on the surface of solid
bodies.
Risk Level—The population size on which it is estimated that one
additional case of cancer will be reported due to the daily consumption
of water and edible aquatic organisms.
XIX-13
-------
Rodenticide—Pesticide applied as a bait, dust, or fumigant to destroy
or repel rodents and other animals, such as moles and rabbits.
rpm—Revolution per minute.
Sanitary Wastewater—Wastewater discharging from sanitary conveniences
such as toilets, showers, and sinks.
Sec—Second.
Secondary Significance—Pollutants are of secondary significance if they
are not proposed for regulation, but are specified to be considered on a
case-by-case basis for potential deleterious effects on humans and the
environment.
Secondary Treatment—The second major step in a waste treatment system.
As used in this document, the term refers to biological treatment.
Segregated Wastewater Stream—A wastewater stream generated from part or
all of one pesticide process.
Slimicide—Chemical used to prevent slimy growth, as in wood-pulping
processes for manufacture of paper and paperboard.
Sludge—The accumulated solids separated from liquids, such as water or
wastewater, during processing.
Spray Evaporation—A method of wastewater disposal in which the water in
a holding lagoon equipped with spray nozzles is sprayed into the air to
expedite evaporation.
Sq. ft.—Square foot.
Steam Stripping—An operation in which relatively volatile components
are transferred from a liquid mixture to the gas phase by passage of
steam through the liquid.
Synergism—Increased activity resulting from the effect of one chemical
to another.
Systemic—Compound that is absorbed and translocated throughout the
plant or animal.
TCDD (Priority Pollutant)—TCDD(2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin).
TDS—Total dissolved solids.
Teratogenic—Substance that causes physical birth defects in the
offspring following exposure of the pregnant female.
XIX-14
-------
Tertiary Treatment—The third major step in a waste treatment facility.
As used in this document, the term refers to treatment processes
following biological treatment.
Thiocarbamate Pesticide Structural Group—Amobam, AOP, Aquatreat DNM 30,
Busan 40, Busan 85, Butylate, Carbarn S, Cycloate, EPTC, KN Methyl,
Metham, Nabam, Pebulate, Vernolate.
TKN—Total Kjeldahl nitrogen.
TLM—Median tolerance limit; the concentration in the environment of a
toxic substance at which only 50 percent of the test organisms survive.
TOG—Total organic carbon is a measure of the organic contamination of a
water sample. It has an empirical relationship with the biochemical and
chemical oxygen demands.
TOD—Total oxygen demand.
Toxic—Poisonous to living organisms.
Treatment Technology—Any pretreatment or end-of-line treatment unit
which is utilized in conjunction with process wastewater. The unit may
be employed at any point from the process wastewater source to final
discharge from plant property.
Triazine Pesticide Structural Group—Ametryne, Anilazine, Atrazine,
Cyanazine, Hexazinone, Metribuzin, Prometon, Prometryn, Propazine,
Simazine, Simetryne, Terbuthylazine, Terbutryn, Vancide TH.
TSS—Total suspended solids.
ug—Microgram.
Upset—An upset, sometimes called an excursion, is unintentional
noncompliance occurring for reasons beyond the reasonable control of the
permittee.
Uracil Pesticide Structural Group—Bromacil, Terbacil.
Urea Pesticide Structural Group—Diuron, Fenuron, Fenuron-TCA,
Fluoraeturon, Linuron, Monuron, Monuron-TCA, Neburon, RH 787, Siduron,
Tebuthiuron.
Volatile Aromatics (Priority Pollutant)—Benzene; Toluene; Ethyl
benzene; Chlorobenzene ; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene; 1,3-Dichlorobenzene;
1,4-Dichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene; Hexachlorobenzene.
VSS—Volatile suspended solids.
Wastewater—See process wastewaters.
XIX-15
-------
Wet Scrubber—An air pollution control device which involves the wetting
of particles in an air stream and the impingement of wet or dry
particles on collecting surfaces, followed by flushing.
Zero Discharge—The prevention of process wastewater from point sources
entering navigable waters either directly or indirectly through publicly
owned treatment works.
XIX-16
-------
SECTION XX
CONVERSION TABLE
Multiply (English Units) By To Obtain (Metric Units)
English Unit Abbreviation Conversion Abbreviation Metric Unit
acre ac
acre- feet ac ft
British Thermal BTU
Unit
British Thermal BTU/lb
Unit/ pound
cubic feet cfm
per minute
cubic feet cfs
per second
cubic feet cu ft
cubic feet cu ft
cubic inches cu in
degree Fahrenheit °F
feet ft
gallon gal
gallon per gpm
minute
gallon per ton gal/ton
0.405 ha hectares
1233.5 cu m cubic meters
0.252 kg cal kilogram-
calories
0.555 kg cal/kg kilogram
calories
per kilo-
gram.
0.028 cu m/min cubic meters
per minute
1.7 cu m/min cubic meters
per minute
0.028 cu m cubic meters
28.32 1 liters
16.39 cu cm cubic centi-
meters
0.555(8F - 32)* °C degree
Centigrade
0.3048 m meters
3.785 1 liter
0.0631 I/sec liters per
second
4.173 1/kkg liters per
metric ton
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier
XX-1
-------
CONVERSION TABLE
Multiply (English Units)
English Unit Abbreviation
horsepower hp
inches in
pounds per psi
square inch
million gallons MGD
per day
pounds per square
inch (gauge) psi
pounds Ib
pounds Ib
ton ton
mile mi
square feet ft^
By
Conversion
0.7457
2.54
0.06803
3.7 x 10~3
(0.06805 psi
+ 1 TM)
0.454
454,000
0.907
1.609
0.0929
To Obtain
Abbreviation
kw
era
a tm
cu m/day
atra
kg
mg
kkg
km
m2
(Metric Units)
Metric Unit
kilowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
(absolute)
cubic meters
per day
atmospheres
kilograms
rail ligraros
metric ton
kilometer
square meters
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier.
XX-2
-------
SECTION XXI
APPENDICES
Page
1. PRIORITY POLLUTANTS BY GROUP XIX-2
(This is a listing of the 129 priority pollutants
organized in groups as they are discussed throughout
this report)
2. BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES XIX-5
3. LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS XIX-7
(This listing identifies each of the 280 pesticides
in the scope of this study, along with its subcategory
number and code number as presented in Section VII)
4. SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS XIX-30
DEVELOPMENT
(This listing provides a brief description of the
analytical methods utilized at the 16 plants verified
in this industry)
5. 308 QUESTIONNAIRE XIX-46
6. VERIFICATION AND SCREENING SAMPLING SUMMARY XIX-58
(This listing defines the presence or absence of
priority pollutants in the 30 plants screened and
16 plants verified in this industry)
7. THEORETICAL BASIS FOR STEAM STRIPPING DESIGN XIX-63
(This discussion provides the basis for the design and
costs presented in Sections VI and VIII, respectively)
8. PESTICIDE ANALYTICAL METHOD AVAILABILITY/STATUS XIX-68
(This listing provides the status for all 280 pesticides
in the scope of this study, as discussed in Section X)
9. PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE
WASTEWATERS XIX-80
(This listing is based on industry 308 responses, EPA
contractor process chemistry evaluation, and actual data
presented in Section V. This list defines which of the
34 priority pollutants of primary significance in this
industry are proposed to be regulated for each pesticide
raanufac tured)
XXI-1
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS BY GROUP
Benzidines
1. Benzidine
2. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes
3. Chloroethane
4. 1,1-Dichloroethane
5. 1,2-Dichloroethane
6. 1,1-Dichloroethylene
7. Hexachloroethane
8. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
9. Tetrachloroethylene
10. 1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
11. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
12. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
13. Trichloroethylene
14. Vinyl chloride
(Chloroethylene)
Cyanides
15. Cyanide
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene
16.
17.
Dienes
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropene
18. Hexachlorobutadiene
19. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Haloethers
20. Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
21. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
22. Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
23. Bis(chloromethyl) ether*
24. 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
25. 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
26. 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Halomethanes
27. Bromoform
(Tribromomethane)
28. Carbon tetrachloride
(Tetrachloromethane)
29. Chlorodibromomethane
30. Chloroform
(Trichloromethane)
31. Dichlorobromomethane
32. Dichlorodifluororaethane*
33. Methyl bromide
(Bromoraethane)
34. Methyl chloride
(Chloromethane)
35. Methylene chloride
(Dichloromethane)
36. Trichlorofluororaethane*
Metals
37. Antimony
38. Arsenic
39. Beryllium
40. Cadmium
41. Chromium
42. Copper
43. Lead
44. Mercury
45. Nickel
46. Selenium
47. Silver
48. Thallium
49. Zinc
Miscellaneous Priority Pollutants
50. Acrolein
51. Acrylonitrile
52. Asbestos
53. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
54. Isophorone
Nitrosamines
55. N-nitrosodimethylamine
56. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
57. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
XXI-2
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS BY GROUP
(Continued, Page 2 of 3)
Nitrosubstituted Aromatics
58. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
59. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
60. Nitrobenzene
Pesticides
61. Aldrin
62. a-BHC-Alpha
63. b-BHC-Beta
64. r-BHC-Gamma (Lindane)
65. g-BHC-Delta
66. Chlordane
67. Dieldrin
68. 4,4'-DDD (p-p'-TDE)
69. 4,4'-DDE (p-p'-DDX)
70. 4,4'-DDT
71. a-Endosulfan-Alpha
72. b-Endosulfan-Beta
73. Endosulfan sulfate
74. Endrin
75. Endrin aldehyde
76. Heptachlor
77. Heptachlor epoxide
78. Toxaphene
Phenols
79. 2-Chlorophenol
80. 2,4-Dichlorophenol
81. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
82. 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
83. 2,4-Dinitrophenol
84. 2-Nitrophenol
85. 4-Nitrophenol
86. Parachlororaeta cresol
87. Pentachlorophenol
88. Phenol
89. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
(Arochlor
(Arochlor
(Arochlor
(Arochlor
(Arochlor
(Arochlor
(Arochlor
1242)
1254)
1221)
1232)
1248)
1260)
1016)
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
103. Acenaphthylene
104. Acenaphthene
105. Anthracene
106. Benzo(a)anthracene
(1,2-Benzanthracene)
107. Benzo(a)pyrene
(3,4-Benzopyrene)
108. 3,4-Benzofluoranthene
109. Benzo(ghi)perylene
(l,12-Benzoperylene)
110. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
(11,12-Benzofluoranthene)
111. 2-Chloronaphthalene
112. Chrysene
113. Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
(1,2,5,6-Dibenzanthracene)
114. Fluoranthene
115. Fluorene
116. Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
(2,3-o-Phenylenepyrene)
117. Naphthalene
118. Phenanthrene
119. Pyrene
TCDD
120. TCDD (2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin)
XXI-3
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS BY GROUP
(Continued, Page 3 of 3)
Phthalate Esters
90. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
91. Butyl benzyl phthalate
92. Diethyl phthalate
93. Dimethyl phthalate
94. Di-n-butyl phthalate
95. Di-n-octyl phthalate
Volatile Aromatics
121. Benzene
122. Chlorobenzene
123. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
124. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
125. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
126. Ethylbenzene
127. Hexachlorobenzene
128. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
129. Toluene
* Classification as a priority pollutant discontinued by EPA.
XXI-4
-------
SECTION XXI—-APPENDIX 2
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
The following pesticides were excluded from BPT regulations according to
the April 25, 1978 Federal Register:
Allethrin
Benzyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Bisethylxanthogen*
Chlorophacinone
Coumafuryl
Dimethyl phthalate
Diphacinone
Endothall acid
EXD (Herbisan)*
Gibberellic acid
Glyphosate
Methoprene
Naphthalene acetic acid
1,8-Naphthalic anhydride
Phenylphenol
Piperonyl butoxide
Propargite
Quinomethionate
Resmethrin
Rotenone
Sodium phenylphenate
Sulfoxide
Triazine compounds (both symmetrical
and asymmetrical)
Warfarin and similar anticoagulants
* Although originally listed as two compounds, it has been determined
that the two are one in the same. EXD is the common name used
throughout this regulation; bisethylxanthogen is a trade name.
The following pesticides were regulated for the direct discharge to
navigable waters of BOD, COD, TSS, Pesticides, and pH according to the
September 29, 1978 Federal Register as listed below:
Aldrin
Aminocarb
Azinphos methyl
Barban
BHC
Captan
Carbaryl
Chlordane
Chlorpropham
2,4-D
ODD
DDE
DDT
Demeton-0
Demeton-S
Diazinon
Dicamba
Dichloran (DCNA)
Dicofol
Dieldrin
Disulfoton
Diuron
Endosulfan
Endrin
Fenuron
Fenuron-TCA
Heptachlor
Lindane
Linuron
Malathion
Methiocarb
Methoxychlor
Mexacarbate
Mi rex
Monuron
Monuron-TCA
Neburon
Parathion ethyl
Parathion methyl
PCNB
Perthane
Propham
Propoxur
Siduron
Silvex
SWEP
2,4,5-T
Trifluralin
Toxaphene
XXI-5
-------
SECTION XXI—-APPENDIX 2
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
(Continued, Page 2 of 2)
All other manufactured pesticides were regulated for the direct
discharge to navigable waters of BOD, COD, TSS, and pH according to the
September 29, 1978 Federal Register as listed below:
Effluent Limitations
Effluent Average of Daily Values Daily
Subcategory* Characteristic for 30 Consecutive Days Maximum
1 BOD5 1.6 7.4
COD 9.0 13.0
TSS 1.8 6.1
Pesticide Chemicals 0.0018 0.010
pHT
2 NO DISCHARGE OF PROCESS WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
3 NO DISCHARGE OF PROCESS WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
Note: All units are kg/kkg
* Subcategory 1: Organic Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing
Subcategory 2: Metallo-Organic Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing
Subcategory 3: Pesticide Chemicals Formulating and Packaging
T The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0
XXI-6
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
1. Acephate (Orthene)
2. Alachlor (Lasso)
3. Aldicarb (Teraik)
4. Alkylamine
hydrochloride
5. Ametryne (Evik)
6. Amobam
7. Anilazitie (Dyrene)
8. [AOP] (Atnbam oxidation
product)
9. (Aquatreat DNM 30)
10. (Aspon)
11. Atrazine (Aatrex)
0,S-Dimethyl acetylphosphor- 5
amidothioate
2-Chloro-2',6'-diethyl-N- 2
(methoxymethyl) acetanilide
2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)- 1
propionaldehyde-o-
(methylcarbomoyl) oxime
Alkylamine hydrochloride 11
2-Ethylamino-4-isopropyl- 10
amino-6-methylthio-l,3,5-
triazine
Diammonium ethylenebisdi- 11
thiocarbamate
2,4-Dichloro-6-(2-chloroanil- 10
ino)-l,3,5-triazine
Ethylene bis (dithiocarbamic 2
acid) bimolecular and trimolecular
cyclic anhydrosulfides and
disulfides
15% Sodium dimethyl dithio- 3
carbamate 15.0% Disodium
ethylene bisdithiocarbamate
tetra-n-Propyl dithio- 2
pyrophosphate
2-Chloro-4-ethylamino-6-iso- 1, 10
propylamino-1,3,5-triazine
XXI-7
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 2 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
12. Azinphos methyl
(Guthion)
13. Barban (Carbyne)
0,0-Diethyl S-[4-oxo-l,2,3-ben-
zotriazin-3(4H)-ylmethyl]
phosphorodithioate
4-Chlorobut-2-butynyl-m-
chlorocarbanilate
14. 1,1'-(2-butenylene)bis 1,1'-(2-Butenylene)bis(3,5,7-
(3,5,7-triaza-l-azo triaza-1-azo niaadamantane
(niaadiamantane chloride) chloride)
[BBTAC]
15. Bendiocarb (Fieam)
16. Benfluralin (Benefin)
17. Benomyl (Benlate)
18. Bensulide (Prefar)
19. Bentazon (Basagran)
20. Benzethonium chloride
(Hyamine 1622)
2,3-Isopropylidenedioxyphenyl
methylcarbamate
N-Butyl-N-ethyl-2,6-dinitro-
4-trifluoro-methylaniline
Methyl 1-(butylcarbaraoyl)-
2-benzimidazolecarbamate
S-(0,0-Diisopropyl phosphoro-
dithioate) ester of N-(2-mer
captoethyDbenzene sulfonamide
3-Isopropyl-lH-2,1,3-benzo-
thiadiazion-(4) 3H-one 2,
2-dioxide
Benzyldimethyl[2-<2-(p-l,
1,3,3-tetramethylbutylphen-
oxy)ethoxy>ethyl]ammonium
chloride
11
11
21. Benzyl bromoacetate
(Merbac 35)
22. Bifenox (Modown)
Benzyl bromoacetate
Methyl 5-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)
2-nitrobenzoate
XXI-8
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 3 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
23. Biphenyl (Diphenyl)
24. (Bolstar) Sulprofos
25. Bromacil (Hyvar)
26. Bromoxynil (Brominal)
27. Bromoxynil octanoate
28. (Busan 40)
29. (Busan 85)
30. (Busan 90)
31. Butachlor (Machete)
32. Butylate (Sutan)
33. Captafol (Difolatan)
34. Captan (Orthocide 406)
35. (Carbam-S) (Sodam)
36. Carbaryl (Sevin)
Diphenyl 1, 11
0-Ethyl 0-[4(raethylthio)phenyl]- 2
-s-propyl phosphorodithioate
5-Brotno-3-sec-butyl-6-methyl- 2
uracil
3,5-Dibromo-4-hydroxyben- 2
zonitrile
2,6-Dibromo-4-cyanophenyl 2
octanoate
Potassium N-hydroxymethyl- 1
-N-Methyldithio carbamate
Potassium dimethyldithio 1
carbamate
2-Bromo-4^-hydroxyaceto- 2
phenone
N-(Butoxymethyl)-2-chloro-2',6'- 2
-diethylacetanilide
S-Ethyl N, N-diisobutylthio- 2
carbamate
N-(l,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylthio) 1
tetrahydrophthaiimide
N-[(Trichloromethyl)thio]-4- 9
-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximide
Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate 1
1-Naphthyl N-methylcarbamate 9
XXI-9
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 4 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
37. Carbendazim
2-(Methoxycarbonylamino)benzi-
midazol
38. Carbofuran (Furadan)
39. Carbophenothion
(Trithion)
40. (CDN)
2,3-Dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-
-benzofuranyl methylcarbamate
S-[(p-Chlorophenylthio)-methyl]
0,0-diethyl phosphorodithioate
4-Chloro-3,5-dinitrobenzeno-
trifluoride
41. Chloramben
(Amiben)
42. Chlordane*
(Octachlor)
43. Chlorobenzene*
44. Chlorobenzilate
(Acaraben)
45. Chlorothalonil
(Daconil 2787)
46. Chloropicrin
(Larvacide, Neraax)
47. Chlorpyrifos
(Dursban)
48. Chlorpyrifos methyl
3-Amino-2,5-dichloro-
benzoic acid
1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8-Octachloro-
-2,3,3a,4,7,7a-hexhydro-
-4,7-methanoindene
Monochlorobenzene
Ethyl 4,4'-dichlorobenzilate
2,4,5,6-Tetrachloroisophtha-
lonitrile
Trichloronitromethane
0,0-Diethyl 0-(3,5,6-tri-
chloro-2-pyridyl)phospho-
rothioate
0,0-Dimethyl 0-(3,5,6-tri-
chloro-2-pyridyl) phospho-
rothioate
2
2
1, 11
XXI-10
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 5 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
49. Coumaphos (Co-Ral)
50. Cyanazine (Bladex)
51. CycJoate (Ro-Neet)
52. Cycloheximide
(Ac tidione)
53. Cycloprate
54. Cyhexatin
55. Cythioate (Probam)
56. 2,4-D
57. 2,4-D isobutyl ester
58. 2,4-D isooctyl ester
0-(3-Chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-
-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl)
0,0-diethyl phosphorothi-
oate
2-[(4-Chloro-6-(ethylamino)-
-S~triazine-2-yl)aroino]-2-
-methylpropionitrite
S-Ethyl ethylcyclohexylthio-
carbamate
3[2-(3,5-Dimethyl-2-oxo-
cyclohexyl)-2-hydroxy-
ethyl] glutarimide
Hexadecylcyclopropane
carboxylate
Tricyclohexytin hydroxide
0,0-Diraethyl 0-p-sulfa-
moylphenyl phosphoro-
thioate
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid, technical mixture:
Isobutyl ester, 60%
N-butyl ester, 40%
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid isooctyl ester
3,4-Dimethylhexanol, 20%
3,5-Dimethylhexanol, 30%
4,5-Dimethylhexanol, 30%
3-Methylheptanol, 15%
5-Methylheptanol, 5%
10
2, 11
XXI-11
-------
SECTION XXI—-APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 6 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
59. 2,4-D salt
60. Dalapon (Dowpon)
61. Dazomet (Thiadiazin)
62. 2,4-DB
63. 2,4-DB isobutyl ester
64. 2,4-DB isooctyl ester
65. DBCP
(Dibroraochloropropane,
Neraagon)
66. DCNA (Dichloran, Botran)
67. DCPA (Dacthal)
68. DDT*
69. Deet
70. Demeton (Systox)
71. Diazinon (Spectracide)
72. Dicamba (Banvel D)
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic 11
acid dimethylamine salt
2,2-Dichloropropionic acid 1
Tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-l, 1
3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione
4-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)-butyric- 2
-acid
4-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)-butyric- 2
-acid isobutyl ester
4-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)-butyric- 2
-acid isooctyl ester
1,2,Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1
and related halogenated C3
hydrocarbons
(2,6 Dichloro-4,nitroaniline) 9
Dimethyl 2,3,5,6-tetrachloro 2
terephthalate
Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane 9
NN-Diethyl-m-toluamide 2
Mixture of 0,0-diethyl-S(and 0)- 2
[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphoro-
thioates
0,0-Diethyl 0-(2-isopropyl- 9
b-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl)
phosphorothioate
2-Methoxy-3,b-dichlorozben- 9
zoic acid
XXI-12
-------
SECTION XXI—-APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 7 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
73. Dichlofenthion
(Nemacide)
74. Dichlorobenzene, ortho*
(ODB)
75. Dichlorobenzene, para*
(PDB)
76. Dichloroethyl ether*
(Chlorex)
77. Dichlorophen
78. Dichlorophen salt
79. D-D (Dichloropropane-
dichloropropene mixture)
80. Dichloropropene (Telone)*
81. Dichlorprop (2,4-DP)
82. Dichlorvos (DDVP)
83. Dienochlor (Pentac)
84. Dimethoxane (Dioxin)
85. Dinocap (Karathane)
86. Dinoseb (DNBP)
0-2,4-Dichlorophenyl 0,0-diethyl
phosphorothioate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 11
2,2'-Methylene bis(4-chlo- 2
rophenol)
Sodium salt of 2,2'-methyl- 11
ene bis(4-chlorophenol)
(60-66%) 1,3-Dichloropropene & 11
(30-35%) 1,2-Dichloropropane &
other constituents
1,3-Dichloropropene 11
2-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)- 2
-propionic acid
2,2-Dichlorovinyl dimethyl 1
phosphate
Perchlorobi (cyclopenta-2, 5
4-dien-l-yl)
6-Acetyl-2,4-dimethyl-m- 1
-dioxane
2-(l-Methylheptyl)-4,6- 1
-dinitrophenyl crotonate
2-(sec-Butyl)-4,6-dinitrophenol 1
XXI-13
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 8 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
87. Dioxathion (Delnav)
88. Diphacinone (Diphacin)
89. Diphenamid (Enide)
90. Diphenylamine (DFA)
91. Disulfoton (Di-Syston)
92. Diuron (DCMU)
93. Dodine (Carpene)
94. (Dowicil 75)
95. Endothall (Endothal)
96. Endrin*
97. EPN
98. EPTC (Eptam)
99. Ethalfiuralin (Sonalan)
s,s'-p-Dioxane-2,3-diyl 0, 1
0-diethyl phosphorodithioate
(cis and trans isomers)
2-Diphenylacetyl-l,3-inda- 1
ndione
N,N-Dimethyl-2,2-diphenyl- 2
acetarnide
Diphenylamine 2
0,0-Diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)- 9
ethyl] phosphorodithioate
3-(3,4-Dichlorophenyl)-l-di- 9
methylurea
n-Dodecylguanidine acetate 6
l-(3-Chlorallyl)-3,5,7-triaza- 11
-1-azonia-ad mentane
7-Oxabicyclo(2,2,l)heptane-2, 1
3-dicarboxylic acid monohydrate
1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-b, 9
7-epoxy-l,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-
-octahydro-exo-1,4-exo-5,
8-dimethanonaphthalene
0-Ethyl 0-p-nitrophenyl 2
phenyl phosphonothioate
S-Ethyldipropylthiocarbamate 2
N-Ethyl-N-(2-roethyl-2-propenyl) 2
-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)
aniline
XXI-14
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 9 of 23)
Common Name Chemical Name Subcategory
100. Ethion 0,0,0',0-Tetraethyl S.S'-raethy- 2
lene bisphosphorodithioate
101. Ethoprop (Mocap) 0-Ethyl S,S,'dipropyl 11
phosphorodithioate
102. Ethoxyquin 66% 1,2-Dihydro-6-ethoxy-2,2,4 2
trimethyl quinoline
60-66%
103. Ethoxyquin 86% 1,2-Dihydro-6-ethoxy-2,2,4 2
trimethyl quinoline
80-86%
104. Ethylene dibromide (EDB) 1,2-Dibromoethane 1
105. Etridiazole (Terrazole) 5-Ethoxy-3-trichloromethyl- 2
1,2,4-thiadiazole
106. EXD (Bisethylxanthogen) Diethyl dithiobis(thionoformate) 1
(Herbisan)
107. Famphur (Warbex) 0-[p(Dimethylsulfamoyl)phenyl] 2
0,0-dimethyl phosphorothioate
108. Fenarimol a-(2-Chlorophenyl)-a-(4-chloro- 1
phenyl)-5-pyrimidine-methanol
109. Fenitrothion (Sumithion) 0,0-Dimethyl 0-(4-nitro-m-tolyl) 7
phosphorothioate
110. Fensulfothion 0,0-Diethyl 0-[p(methylsulfinyl) 5
(Dasanit) phenyl]phosphorothioate
111. Fenthion (Baytex) 0,0-Dimethyl 0-[4-(raethyl-thio)- 2
-m-tolyl] phosphorothioate
112. Fentin hydroxide Triphenyltin hydroxide 2
(Du-Ter)
113. Ferbam (Fermate) Ferric diraethyldithiocarbamate 1
XXI-15
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 10 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
114. Fluchloralin (Basalin)
115. Fluoridone (EL-171)
116. Fluometuron (Cotoran)
117. Fluoroacetamide
118. Folpet (Phaltan)
119. Fonofos (Dyfonate)
120. (Giv-gard)
121. Glyodin
122. Glyphosate (Roundup)
123. 2-[(Hydroxymethyl)
amine]ethanol
[HAE]
124. 2-[(Hydroxymethyl)
amine]-2-methyl propanol
[HAMP]
125. Heptachlor*
126. Hexachlorophene (Nabac)
N-Propyl-N-(2-chloroethyl)-a, 2
a,a-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-p-
-toluidine
l-Methyl-3-phenyl-5[3-(trifluor- 2
omethyl)phenyl]-4-(lH)-pyridinone
l,l-Dimethyl-3-(3-trifluoromethyl- 4
phenyl)urea
Fluoroacetamide 11
N-(Trichloromethylthio)-phthal- 1
imide
0-Ethyl S-phenyl ethyl-phosphono- 2
dithioate
Beta-bromo-beta nitrostyrene 2
2-Heptadecyl-2-imidazoline acetate 11
N-(Phosphonomethyl)glycine 2
2-[(Hydroxymethyl)amine] 1
ethanol
2-[(Hydroxymethyl)amine]
-2-methyl propanol
l,4,5,6,7,8,8-Heptachloro-3a,4,
7,7a-tetrahydro-4,7-methano-
indene
2-2'-Methylene bis (3,4,6-
-trichlorophenol
XXI-16
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 11 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
127. Hexazinone
128. HPTMS
129. (Hyamine 2389)
130. (Hyamine 3500)
131. Isopropalin (Paarlan)
132. (Kathon 886)
133. Kinoprene
134. (KN methyl)
135. (Lethane 384)
136, Linuron
(Afolan, Lorox)
137. Malathion
(Mercaptothion,
Cythion)
138. Maleic hydrazide
3-Cyclohexyl-6-(dimethyl amino)
-1-methyl-l,3,5-triazine-2,
4(lH,3H)-dione
S-(2-Hydroxy propyl)
thiomethane Sulfonate
Methyl dodecyl benzyl trimethyl
ammonium chloride, 80% and
Methyl dodecyl xylylene bis(tri-
methyl ammonium chloride)20%
n-Alkyl (50% C14,40% C12,10% C16)
dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride
2,6-Dinitro-N,N-dipropylcumidine
5-Chloro-2-methyl 4-isothiazolin-
-3-one and 2 methyl 4-isothiazolin-
-3-one
Prop-2-ynyl(:«L)-(E,E)-3,7,ll-
-trimethyldodeca-2,4-dienoate
Potassium N-methyl
dithiocarbamate
b-Butoxy-B'thiocyanodiethyl
ether
3-(3,4-Dichlorophenyl)-l-methoxy-
-1-methylurea
Diethyl mercaptosuccinate
S-ester with 0,0-dimethyl
phosphorodithioate
1,2-Dihydropyridazine-3,6-di-
one
11
XXI-17
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 12 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
139. Mancozeb
(Dithane M-45)
140. Maneb (Manzate)
141. MCPA
142. MCPA isooctyl ester
143. MCPP
144. Mephosfolan
(Cytrolane)
145. (Merphos) (Folex)
146. (Metasol DGH)
147. (Metasol J-26)
148. Methara (Vapara, SMDC)
Coordination product of maneb
containing 16 to 20% Mn and
2.0 to 2.5% Zn (zinc)
(maneb=manganous ethylene-1,
2-bis-dithiocarbamate)
Manganous ethylene-1,2-bis-
-dithiocarbamate
4-Chloro-2-methylphenoxy
acetic acid
4-Chloro-2-methylphenoxy
isooctly ester
2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxy
propionic acid
P,P-Diethyl cyclic propylene
ester of phosphonodithioimido-
-carbonic acid
Tributyl phosphorotrithioite
Dodecylguanidine HC1
N(l Nitroethyl benzyl)
ethylene diamine 25%
Sodium N-methyldithio carbamate
11
6
11
149. Methamidophos
(Monitor) (Tamaron)
150. Methomyl (Lannate)
0-S-Dimethyl phosphoroamido-
thioate
S-Methyl N-[(methylcarbomoyl)-
-oxy]thioacetimidate
XXI-18
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 13 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
151. Methoprene (Altosid)
152. Methoxychlor (Marlate)
153. Methylbenzethonium
chloride
(Hyamine lOx)
154. Methyl bromide*
(Metabrom)
155. Methylene bisthiocyanate
(Cytox)
156. Metribuzin (Sencor)
157. Mevinphos (Phosdrin)
158. (MGK 264)
159. (MGK 326)
160. Molinate (Ordram)
161. Monocrotophos (Azodrin)
162. Nabam (Dithane D-14)
163. (Nabonate)
Isopropyl (2E,4E)-ll-methoxy-3,
7,11-trimethyl-l,4-dodecadi-
enoate
2,2-Bis(p-methoxyphenyl)-l,1,1-
-trichloroethane
Benzyldimethyl [2-<2-(p-l,1,3,
3-tetramethyl-butylcresoxy)
-ethoxy>ethyl] ammonium chloride
Broraoraethane
Methylene bisthiocyanate
4-Amino-6-tert-butyl-3-(methyl-
thio)-l,2,4,triazine-5-one
Methyl 3-hydroxy-alpha-croton-
ate, dimethyl phosphate
N-(2-Ethylhexyl)bicyclo(2,2, D-
-5-heptene-2,3-dicarboximide
Di-n-propyl isocinchoraeronate
S-Ethyl hexahydro-lH-azepine-1-
-carbothioate
Dimethyl phosphate of 3-hydroxy-
N-methyl-cis-crotonamide
Disodium ethylene bis(dithio-
carbamate)
Disodium cyanodithio-
imidocarbonate
10
XXI-19
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 14 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
164. Naled (Dibrom)
165. Napropamide (Devrinol)
166. Naptalam
167. (Niacide)
168. Nitrofen (TOK)
169. (NMI)
170. Norflurazon (Evital)
171. Octhilinone (RH-893)
172. Oryzalin (Surflan)
173. Oxamyl (Vydate)
174. Oxydemeton
(Metasystox-R)
175. Oxyfluorfen (Goal)
176. Paraquat
1,2-Dibrorao-2,2-dichloro-
ethyl dimethyl phosphate
2-(a-Naphthoxy)-N,N-diethyl-
propionaraide
N-1-Naphthylphtalamic acid
Manganeous dimethyldithio-
carbamate
2,4-Dichlorophenyl-p-nitrophenyl
ether
2,6,Bis dimethylamine methyl
cyclohexanone
4-Chloro-5-(methylamino)-2-(a,
a,a-tr i f1uo ro-m-to 1y1)-2H-
-pyridazinone
2-n-Octyl-4-isothiazolin-
-3-one
3,5-Dinitro-N4^N4-dipropyl-
sul fanilamide
Methyl n1,n'-dioraethyl-N-[(methyl-
carbomoyl)oxy]-l thio oxami-
midate
S-[2-(Ethylsufinyl)ethyl-0,0-
-dimethyl phosphorothioate
2-Chloro-l-(3-ethoxy-4-nitro-
phenoxy)-4-(trifluoromethyl)
benzene
1, 1 '-Dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridalium
ion
XXI-20
-------
SECTION XXI--APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 15 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
177. Parathion ethyl
178. Parathion methyl
179. PBED (Busan 77)
180. PCNB (Quintozene)
181. PCP*
182. PCP salt
183. Pebulate (Tillman)
184. Permethrin (Ambush)
185. Phenylphenol
(Dowicide 1)
186. Phenylphenol sodium salt
(Dowicide A)
187. Phorate
(Thiraet)
188. Phosfolan (Cyolane)
189. Phosraet (imidan)
0,0-Diethyl-O-p-nitrophenyl
phosphorothioate
0,0-Dimethyl 0-p-nitro-phenyl
phosphorothioate
Poly[oxyethylene(dimethylimino)
ethylene(dimethylimino)ethylene
dichloride]
Pentachloronitrobenzene
2,3,4,5,6-Pentachlorophenol
2,3,4,5,6-Potassium-
pentachlorophenate
S-Propyl butylethylthiocarbamate
m-phenoxybenzyl (+_)-cis,
trans-3-(2,2-dichlorovinyl)-
-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane-
carboxylate
o-Phenylphenol
Sodium o-phenylphenate
0,0-Diethyl S-[(ethylthio)-
-methyl]phosphorodithioate
P,P-Diethyl cyclic ethylene
ester of phosphonodithioraido-
-carbonic acid
0,0-Dimethyl-S-phthalimido-
-methyl phosphorodithioate
XXI-21
-------
SECTION XXI--APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 16 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
190. Picloram (Trodon)
191. Pindone (Pival)
192. Piperalin (Pipron)
193. Piperonyl butoxide
(Butacide)
194. (Polyphase antimildew)
195. Profluralin (Tolban)
196. Prometon (Pramitol)
197. Proraetryn (Caparol)
198. Pronamide (Kerb)
199. Propachlor (Ramrod)
200. Propanil (Stam)
201. Propargite (Omite)
202. Propazine (Milogard)
203. Propionic acid
4-Amino-3, 5,6,-trichloro-
-picolinic acid
2-Trimethylacetyl-l,3-
-indandione
3-(2-Methylpiperidino)propyl-
-3,4-dichlorobenzoate
a-[2-(Butoxyethoxy-ethoxy]
-4,5-methylenedioxy-2-propyl-
toluene
3-Ido-2 propynyl butyl
carbamate
N-Cyclopropylmethyl-2,6-dinitro
-N-propyl-4-trifluororaethyl-
aniline
2,4-Bis(isopropylamino)-6-
-methoxy-s-triazine
2,4-Bis(isopropylamino)-6-(raethyl-
thio)-S-triazine
3,5-Dichloro-N-(l,l-dimethyl-2-
-propynyl)benzamide
2-Chloro-N-isopropylacetanilide
3,4-Dichloropropionanilide
2-(p-tert-Butylphenoxy)cyclo-
hexyl 2-propynyl sulfite
2-Chloro-4,6-bis(isopropylamino)
-s-triazine
Propanoic acid
10
10
2
2
1
10
XXI-22
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 17 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
204. Pyrethrins
205. 8 Quinolinol citrate
206. 8 Quinolinol sulfate
207. Resmethrin
208. RH 787 (Vacor)
209. Ronnel (Fenchlorphos)
210. Rotenone
211. Siduron (Tupersan)
212. Silvex (Fenoprop)
213. Silvex isooctyl ester
214. Silvex salt
215. Simazine (Princep)
Standardized mixture of pyrethrins 11
I and II (mixed esters of pyre-
throlone
8-Quinolinol citrate 1
8-Quinolinol sulfate 1
(5-Benzyl-3-furyl)tnethyl-2,2 10
-dimethyl-3-(2-methyl propenyl)
cyclopropane carboxylate
(approximately 70% trans,
30% Cis isomers)
N-3-Pyridylmethyl N'-nitro- 2
phenyl urea
0,0-Dimethyl 0-(2,4,5-trichloro- 2
phenyl)phosphorothioate
l,2,12,12a, Tetrahydro-2-isopro- 2
penyl-8,9-dimethoxy-[l]benzo-
pyrano [3,4-b] furo [2,3-b] [1]
benzopyran
l-(2-Methylcyclohexyl)-3-phenylurea 9
2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy) 9
propionic acid
Isooctyl ester of 2-(2,4 11
5-trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid
Dimethyl amine salt of 11
2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)
propionic acid
2-Chloro-4,5,6-bis(ethyl-amino) 10
-s-triazine
XXI-23
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 18 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
216. Simetryne (Gybon)
2-Methylthio-4,6-bis-ethylamino 10
-s-triazine
217. Sodium monofluoroacetate Sodium monofluoroacetate
1, 11
218. Stirofos
(Tetrachlorvinphos)
219. Sulfallate (CDEC)
220. 2,4,5-T
221. TCMTB
222. Tebuthiuron
223. Temephos (Abate)
224. Terbacil (Sinbar)
225. Terbufos (Counter)
226. Terbuthylazine
(GS 13529)
227. Terbutryn (Igran)
2-Chloro-l-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl) 2
vinyl dimethyl phosphate
2-Chloroally diethyldithio-
carbamate
1
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 9
2-[Thiocyanoraethythio] 7
benzothiazole
l-(5-tert-Butyl-l,2,4-thia-diazol 1
-2-yl)-l,3-dimethylurea
0,0-Dimethyl phosphorothioate 2
0,0-diester with 4,4'-thio-
diphenol
3(tert-Butyl)-5-chlor-6-methyl 1
urac il
5-tert-Butylthiomethyl 0,0-dimethyl 1
phosphorodithioate
2-tert-Butylamino-4-chloro
-6-ethylamino-l,3,5-triazine
2-(tert-Butylamino)-4-
-(ethyl-amino)-6-(methylthio)
-s-triazine
10
10
228. Thiabendazole (Mertect) 2-(4'-Thiazolyl) benzimidazole
XXI-24
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 19 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
229. Thiofanox
(DS-15647)
230. Thionazin (Nemafos)
231. (Tokuthion) (NTN 8629)
Prothiofos
232. Toxaphene (Camphechlor)*
233. Triadimefon (Bayleton)
234. Tributyltin benzoate
235. Tributyltin fluoride
236. Tributyltin oxide
237. Trichlorobenzene (TCB)*
238. Trichloronate
239. Tricyclazole
240. Trifluralin (Treflan)
241. (Vancide TH)
3,3-Dimethyl-l-(methylthio)
-2-butamone 0-[(methylamino)
-carbonyl] oxine
0,0-Diethyl 2-pyrazinyl
phosphorothioate
0-2,4-Dichlorophenol-O-ethyl-
s-propyl phosphorodithioate
A mixture of chlorinated
camphene compounds of uncertain
identity (combined chlorine 67-69%)
l-(4-Chlorophenoxy)-3,3-
-dimethyl-l-(l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)
buton-2-one
Tributyltin benzoate
Tributytin fluoride
Bis(tri-n-butyltin) oxide
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
0-ethyl 0-(2,4,5-trichloro-
phenyl)ethylphosphorothioate
5-Methyl-l,2,4-triazolo
[3A-b] Benzothiazole
a,a,a-Tri fluoro-2,6-dinitro-
-N,N-Dipropyl-p-toluidine
Hexahydro-1,3,5-triethyl-s-
-triazine
11
1
2, 11
2
2
1
11
XXI-25
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
(Continued, Page 20 of 23)
Common Name Chemical Name Subcategory
242. (Vancide 51Z) Zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate 11
and Zinc 2-mercaptobenzo-
thiazole
243. (Vancide 51Z dispersion) 50% Zinc dimethylydithiocarbamate 11
and Zinc 2-mercaptobenzothiazole
50% water
244. (Vancide PA) 0-ethyl 0-(2,4,5-trichloro- 1
phenyl)ethylphosphorothioate
245. Vernolate (Vernara) S-Propyl N,N-dipropylthio- 2
carbamate
246. [ZAC] (zinc ammonium Ammoniates of [ethylenebis 5
carbonate) (dithiocarbamate)]-zinc
247. Zineb Zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate 3, 5
248. Ziram (Vancide MZ-96) Zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate 3, 11
Under the column titled common name ( ) = trade name
Under the column titled common name [ ] = contractor abbreviation for
pesticides that have no common name and an extensive chemical name.
* Pesticide active ingredients which are also priority pollutants.
XXI-26
-------
SECTION XXI--APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS REGULATED
BY BPT BUT CURRENTLY NOT MANUFACTURED
(Continued, Page 21 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
249. Aminocarb
250. BHC (Alpha, Beta,
and Delta Isotners)*
251. Chlorpropham
252. ODD (TDE)*
253. DDE (DDX)*
254. Demeton-o
255. Deineton-s
256. Dicofol
257. Endosulfan*
258. Fenuron
259. Fenuron-TCA
260. (Lindane) BHC-Garotna*
261. Methiocarb
4-Dimethylamino-3-methyl-phenyl
methyl-carbamate
1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane,
mixed ixomers
Isopropyl-3-chlorophenyl carbamate
2,2-Bis(p-chlorophenyl)-l,l-
dichloroethane
1,l-Dimethyl-3-phenylurea
3-Phenyl-l,1-dimethylurea
trichloroacetate
1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane,
gamma isoraer
4-Methylthio-3,5-xylyl raethyl-
carbamate
9
9
1,l-Dichloro-2,2-Bis(p-chlorophenyl) 9
ethylene
o,o-Diethyl o-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] 9
phosphorothioate
o,o-Diethyl s-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] 9
phosphorothioate
1,l-Bis(p-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2- 9
trichloroethanol
6,7,8,9,10,10-Hexachloro-l,5,5a, 8
6,9,9a-Hexahydro-6,9-methano-
2,4,3-Benzo[e]-dioxathiepin-3-oxide
8
9
XXI-27
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS REGULATED
BY BPT BUT CURRENTLY NOT MANUFACTURED
(Continued, Page 22 of 23)
Common Name
Chemical Name
Subcategory
262. Mexacarbate
263. Mirex
264. Monuron
265. Monuron-TCA
266. Neburon
267. (Perthane) Ethylan
268. Propham (IPC)
269. Propoxur
270. Swep
4-(Dimethylamino)-3,5-xylyl 8
methyl carbamate
Dodecachloro-octahydro-1,3,4- 8
metheno-2h-cyclobuta[c,d]pentalene
3-(p-chlorophenyl)-l,1-dimethylurea 8
3-(p-chlorophenyl)-l,1-dimethylurea 9
trichloroacetate
l-n-Butyl-3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-i- 9
methylurea
1,l-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p-ethyl-phenyl) 9
ethane
Isopropyl carbanilate 8
o-Isopropoxyphenyl methylcarbamate 8
Methyl N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl) 9
carbamate
Under the column titled common name ( ) = trade name.
* Pesticide active ingredients which are also priority pollutants.
XXI-28
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS EXCLUDED
FROM BPT REGULATIONS AND CURRENTLY NOT MANUFACTURED
(Continued, Page 23 of 23)
Common Name Chemical Name Subcategory
271. Allethrin 2-methyl-4-oxo-3-(2-propenyl)- 2
2-cyclopenten-l-yl 2,2-dimethyl-
3-(2-methyl-l-propenyl)
cyclopropane carboxylate
272. Benzyl benzoate Benzylbenzenecarboxylate 1
273. Chlorophacinone 2-[(p-chlorophenyl)phenyl- 2
-acetylj-1,3-indandione
274. Couraachlor 3-( -acetonyl-4-chlorobenzyl) 1
-4-hydroxycoumarin
275. Coumafuryl 4-hydroxy-3-[3-oxo-l-(2- 1
furyl)butyl]coumarin
276. Coumatetralyl 4-hydroxy-3-(l,2,3,4-tetra- 1
hydro-1-naphthyl)-coumarin
277. 1,8-Naphthalic anhydride 1,8-Naphthalic anhydride 1
278. Quinomethionate 6-methyl-2-oxo-l,3-dithiolo- 2
[4,5b]quinoxaline
279. Sulfoxide 1 ,tnethyl-2-(3,4-methylene- 2
dioxyphenyl)ethyl octyl sulfoxide
280. Warfarin 4-hydroxy-3-(3-oxo-l-phenyl- 1
butyl) coumarin
Under the column titled common name ( ) = trade name.
* Pesticide active ingredients which are also priority pollutants.
XXI-29
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
PLANT 1
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
VOLATILES:
CHC13; ecu;
Chlorodibromoraethane;
Dichlorobromotnethane;
Trichloroethylene;
Tetrachloroethylene;
Benzene; Toluene;
Ethylbenzene;
Chlorobenzene
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quant it at ion
PESTICIDES:
Al
Acid wash, liquid/liquid extraction,
Florisil cleanup, GC quantitation
METALS:
1. Cu, Cr, Pb
2. Hg
HN03 digestion, AA analysis by:
1. Graphite furnace
2. Cold vapor technique
TRADITIONALS:
BOD5, COD, TSS
TOC
Cyanide
Standard methods
Combustion, IR quantitation
Colorimetric
PHENOLS:
Liquid/liquid extraction
G.C. quantitation
XXI-30
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 2 of 16)
PLANT 2
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
VOLATILES:
MeCl2; CHC13; CCl4;
Benzene; Toluene;
Trichloroethylene
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
PESTICIDES:
Al; Bl; Cl; and Dl
Liquid/liquid extraction, methyl
esterification (PAAME),
GC quantitation
PHENOLS:
Phenol, 2-Chlorophenol;
4-Chlorophenol;
2,4-Dichlorophenol;
2,6-Dichlorophenol;
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Fritz Chriswell extraction,
GC quantitation
TRADITIONALS:
BOD5 and 10 day
COD
TSS
EPA Method 405.1—Dissolved oxygen
potential
EPA Method 410.3—Ferrous ammonium
sulfate titration
EPA Method 160. 3—Gravimetric
XXI-31
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 3 of 16)
PLANT 3
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
VOLATILES:
CHC13; CC14;
Tetrachloroethylene;
Chlorobenzene;
Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
Liquid/liquid extraction, GC quantitation
Liquid/liquid extraction, GC quantitation
GC/MS confirmation
PESTICIDES:
Al Liquid/liquid extraction, GC quantitation
GC/MS confirmation
PCB's: Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
PHENOLS: Fritz Chriswell extraction,
2-Nitrophenol; GC quantitation, GC/MS confirmation
4-Nitrophenol; PCP
METALS: HN03 digestion, AA analysis by:
1. Be; Cd; Cr; Cu; Ni; 1. Direct flame
2. Ag; As; Pb; Tl 2. Graphite furnace
TRADITIONALS:
Cyanide
EPA standard method (colorimetric)
XXI-32
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 4 of 16)
PLANT 4
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
VOLATILES:
MeCl2; CHC13;
CC14; Trichloroethylene;
Broraoforra; Chlorobenzene
Benzene; Toluene;
Ethylbenzene
Purge and trap, GC/MS screening,
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
GC/MS
PHENOLS:
Phenol; 4-Nitrophenol
Fritz Chriswell extraction,
GC quantitation
PESTICIDES:
Al; Bl; Cl; and Dl
Liquid/liquid extraction,
Florisil cleanup, GC quantitation
METALS:
1. Ni; Cr; Cu; Zn; Cd
2. Pb; Se; As
3. Hg
HN03 digestion, standard additions,
AA analysis by:
1. Direct flame
2. Graphite furnace
3. Cold vapor technique
TRADITIONALS:
BOD, 5 and 10 day
COD
TSS
Cyanide
Winkler method
Ferrous ammonium sulfate titration
Evaporation
Colorimetric
XXI-33
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 5 of 16)
PLANT 5
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
VOLATILES:
CHC13; ecu;
Tetrachloroethylene;
Benzene; Toluene;
Ethylbenzene;
Chlorobenzene
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
PESTICIDES:
Al; Bl; Cl; Dl; El;
Fl; Gl; and HI
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
METALS:
1. Be; Cu; Ni
2. Cr; Pb; Cd
HN03 digestion, AA analysis by:
1. Direct flarae
2. Graphite furnace
TRADITIONALS:
BOD; 5 day;
COD; TSS
TOC
Cyanide
Standard Methods, Federal Register
Vol. 41
Combustion, IR quantitation,
Colorimetric
PHENOLS:
Phenol; 2-Chlorophenol;
2-Nitrophenol;
2,4-Dimethyl phenol;
2,4-Dichlorophenol;
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
XXI-34
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 6 of 16)
PLANT 6
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
VOLATILES:
Halomethanes; Chlorinated Purge and trap, GC/MS
ethanes, ethenes,
propane and propene;
Aromatics and
Chlorobenzene
1,2-; 1,3-; and 1,4- Liquid/liquid extraction,
Dichlorobenzene Florisil cleanup, GC/MS
PHENOLS:
Phenol; 2-Chlorophenol; Liquid/liquid extraction,
2,4-Dichlorophenol; Florisil cleanup, GC/MS
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol;
PCP; 2-Nitrophenol;
4-Nitrophenol
PHTHALATES:
Bis(2-ethylhexyl); Liquid/liquid extraction,
Di-n-butyl Florisil cleanup, GC/MS
PESTICIDES:
Al; Bl; Cl; and Dl Liquid/liquid extraction, methyl
esterification (PAAME), GC quantitation
El and Fl Liquid/liquid extraction,
Florisil cleanup, GC/MS
METALS: HN03 digestion, AA analysis by:
1. Zn 1. Direct flame
2. Cd; Cr; Cu; Ni;
Pb; As; Sb 2. Graphite furnace
3. Hg 3. Cold vapor technique
TRADITIONALS:
BOD, 5 and 10 day
TSS
Evaporation
Winkler method
XXI-35
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 7 of 16)
PLANT 7
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
VOLATILES:
CHC13; CC14;
Tetrachloroethylene;
Toluene; Hexachloroethane*
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation,
GO/MS confirmation
*Did not go to GC/MS
DIENES: Liquid/liquid extraction,
Hexachlorobutadiene; GC quantitation
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS: Liquid/liquid extraction,
Naphthalene; GC quantitation, GC/MS confirmation
2-Chloronaphthalene
PESTICIDES: Liquid/liquid extraction,
Al; Bl; Cl; and Dl GC quantitation, GC/MS confirmation
METALS:
Ni; Cr; Zn; Cu NA
PHENOLS: NA
TRADITIONALS:
Cyanide
NA
NA = Not Available,
XXI-36
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 8 of 16)
PLANT 8
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
PHENOLS:
Phenol; 2,4-
Dichlorophenol;
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Fritz Chriswell extraction,
GC quantitation, GC/MS confirmation
PESTICIDES:
Al; Bl; Cl; Dl; El;
Fl; Gl; Hi; II; Jl;
Kl; LI; Ml; and Nl
Liquid/liquid extraction,
Florisil cleanup, GC quantitation
PHTHALATES: All
Liquid/liquid extraction,
Florisil cleanup, GC/MS confirmation
METALS:
1. Ni; Zn
2. Cr; Cu; Pb; As
3. Hg
HN03 digestion, AA analysis by:
1. Direct flame
2. Graphite furnace
3. Cold vapor technique
XXI-37
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 9 of 16)
PLANT 9
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
VOLATILES:
MeCl2; CHC13;
CC14; 1,2-Dichloro-
propane; Benzene; Toluene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
GC/MS, Liquid/liquid extraction
PHENOLS:
Phenol;
2,4-dimethylphenol
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
PESTICIDES:
Al
Bl; Cl; and Dl
Preconcentration HPLC
Liquid/liquid extraction, Florisil
cleanup, GC (FPD) quantitation
METALS:
1. Sb; Cu
2. Hg
HN03 digestion, AA analysis by:
1. Graphite furnace
2. Cold vapor technique
TRADITIONALS:
BOD, 5 and 10 day
COD
TSS
NH3
Cyanide
EPA Method 405.1—Dissolved oxygen
potentital electrode
EPA Method 410.3—Ferrous ammonium
sulfate titration
EPA Method 160.3—Gravimetric
Specific ion electrode
Colorimetric
XXI-38
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 10 of 16)
PLANT 10
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
VOLATILES:
MeCl2; CHC13
Liquid/liquid extraction, GC quantitation,
GC/MS confirmation
1,2-Dichloroethane; Benzene;
Toluene; Ethylbenzene;
Chlorobenzene; CC14;
Trichlorofluoromethane;
1,1-Dichloroethylene;
1,2-Dichloroethylene;
Dichlorobromomethane;
Trichloroethylene
PHENOLS: Fritz Chriswell extraction,
Phenol; GC quantitation,
2-Chlorophenol; 2,4- GC/MS confirmation
Dimethylphenol; PCP
NITROSAMINES: Liquid/liquid extraction,
Di-n-propyl; dimethyl GC quantitation, GC/MS confirmation
PHTHALATES: GC quantitation
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
PESTICIDES: Liquid/liquid extraction,
Al GC quantitation, GC/MS confirmation
METALS: HN03 digestion, AA analysis by:
1. Zn 1. Direct flame
2. Cr; Cd; Cu; Tl 2. Flameless (either Graphite furnace
or hydride generator)
3. Hg 3. Cold vapor technique
TRADITIONALS:
BOD-5 day; COD; TSS; NH3, CN~
NA
NA = Not Available
XXI-39
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 11 of 16)
PLANT 11
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS:
Acenaphthene;
Acenaphthylene;
Anthracene; Fluorene;
Phenanthrene; Pyrene
Liquid/liquid extraction, GC/MS
PHENOLS:
2-Nitrophenol;
2,4-Dichlorophenol
ESE Method 100—Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
PESTICIDES:
Al; Bl; and Cl
ESE Method 900—Liquid/liquid extraction,
Florisil cleanup, GC quantitation
PHTHALATES:
Bis(2-ethylhexyl);
Butyl benzyl;
Di-n-butyl; Dimethyl
ESE Method 900—Liquid/liquid extraction,
Florisil cleanup, GC quantitation
PCB's:
1016; 1260; 1248;
1232; 1221; 1254;
1242 (Arochlor)
ESE Method 900—Liquid/liquid extraction,
Florisil cleanup, GC quantitation
XXI-40
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 12 of 16)
PLANT 12
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
VOLATILES:
MeCl2; CHC13;
CC14; Benzene; Toluene
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
PHENOLS: Fritz Chriswell extraction,
Phenol; 2-Chlorophenol; GC quantitation
4-Chlorophenol;
2,4-Dichlorophenol;
2,6-Dichlorophenol;
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
PESTICIDES:
Al; Bl; and Cl ESE Method 900—Liquid/liquid extraction,
Florisil cleanup, GC quantitation
Dl; El; and Fl HPLC preconcentration
PHTHALATES:
Bis(2-ethylhexyl); ESE Method 900—Liquid/liquid extraction,
Butyl benzyl; Florisil cleanup, GC quantitation
Di-n-butyl
NITROSAMINES: Colorimetric
All
METALS:
1. Sb; As
2. Hg
HN03 digestion, AA analysis by:
1. Graphite furnace
2. Cold vapor technique
XXI-41
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 13 of 16)
PLANT 13
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
VOLATILES:
MeCl2; CHC13;
CC14; 1,1-Dichloroethane;
1,2-Dichloroethane; Tri-
chloroethane; 1,2-Dichloro-
ethylene; Trichloroethylene:
Tetrachloroethylene ; Brorao-
forra; Benzene; Toluene;
Ethylbenzene; Chlorobenzene
Purge and trap, GC/MS screening,
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
PESTICIDES:
Al; Bl; Cl; Dl;
El; and Fl
Liquid/liquid extraction,
Florisil cleanup, GC quantitation
METALS:
1. Zn; Cu
2. Ni; Cr; Pb; Se
3. Hg
HN03 digestion, AA analysis by:
1. Direct flame
2. Graphite furnace
3. Cold vapor technique
TRADITIONALS:
BOD, 5 and 10 day
COD
TSS
Cyanide
Winkler method
Ferrous ammonium
Evaporation
Colorimetric
sulfate titration
XXI-42
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 14 of 16)
PLANT 14
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
VOLATILES:
MeCl2, CHC13,
Benzene
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
PESTICIDES:
Al and Bl
Cl; Dl; El; and Fl
Gl
Liquid/liquid extraction,
Florisil cleanup, GC quantitation
Filtration and preconcentration, HPLC
Digestion and generation of
K+CH30CS2~ (potassium methyl xanthate),
spectrophotoraetric determination
METALS:
1. Zn
2. As, Sb, Cd, Cu, Cr
HN03 digestion, AA analysis by:
1. Direct flame
2. Graphite furnace
TRADITIONALS:
BOD, 5 and 10 day
TSS
COD
TOG
NH3
EPA Method 405.1—Dissolved oxygen
potential electrode
EPA Method 160.3—Gravimetric
EPA Method 410.3—Ferrous ammonium
sulfate titration
Combustion, I.R.
Specific ion electrode
XXI-43
-------
SECTION XXI—-APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 15 of 16)
PLANT 15
Analytical Fractions
Method Description
VOLATILES:
MeCl2; CHC13;
CC14; 1,2-Dichloropropane;
Benzene; Toluene
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
PHENOLS:
Phenol; 2-Chlorophenol;
2-Nitrophenol;
2,4-Dichlorophenol;
2,4-Diraethylphenol;
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol; PCP
Liquid/liquid extraction,
GC quantitation
PESTICIDES:
Al; Bl; and Cl
HPLC-Direct aqueous injection
METALS:
1. Pb; Cd; Cr
HN03 digestion, AA analysis by:
1. Graphite furnace
TRADITIONALS:
BOD, 5 and 10 day
TOC
TSS
NH3
EPA Method 405.1—Dissolved Oxygen
potential electrode
Combustion, I.R.
EPA Method 160.3—Gravimetric
Specific ion electrode
XXI-44
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF EPA VERIFICATION CONTRACTOR ANALYTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
(Continued, Page 16 of 16)
PLANT 16
Analytical Fractions Method Description
VOLATILES: Liquid/liquid extraction,
MeCl2; CHC13; GC quantitation
CC14; Benzene; Toluene
PESTICIDES: Liquid/liquid extraction,
Al methyl esterification (PAAME),
GC quantitation
PHENOLS: Liquid/liquid extraction,
2-Chlorophenol; GC quantitation
4-Chlorophenol; 2,4-Di-
chlorophenol; 2,6-Dichloro-
phenol; 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
TRADITIONALS:
BOD, 5 and 10 day EPA Method 405.1—Dissolved oxygen
potential electrode
TSS EPA Method 160.3—Gravimetric
COD EPA Method 410.3—Ferrous ammonium
sulfate titration
TOC Combustion, I.R. quantitative
XXI-45
-------
CMS -I55-R0160
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 5
308 QUESTIONNAIRE
Pesticide Chemicals Industry
To be returned within 30 days froo date of racaipc co:
Mr. George Jets
Environmental Protection Agency
Effluent Guidelines Division
Waterside Mall—Ease Tower (WH552)
401 M Screec, S.W.
Washington, O.C. 20460
PART I GENESAL INFOHMATXON
1. Corporate/Plane Data
A. Name of Corporation
3. Address of Corporation Headquarters
Street
Ci ty St at e Zip
C. Name of Plant
0. Address of Plant
Street
City State Zip
E. Name(s) of personnel to be contacted for information pertaining Co this
data collection portfolio:
Name Title Telephone No.
2. Type of Plant Operations:
A. Indicate below the type of operation(s) conducted at this facility.
Manufacmrer of Pesticide Active Ingredients Yas No
Foraulator/Packager of Pesticides Yas No
Manufacturer of Pesticides Intermediates Yes No
Manufacturer of Products Other Than Pesticides Yes No
3. If pesticide active ingredients are not aanufacfared ac chis facility,
complete and return this page ml*.
XXI-46
-------
Plant
City State
3. Type(s) of Product(s)
A. Indicate below the common name and/or chemical name for each pesticide
active ingredient manufactured. For each entry list the total produc-
tion (1000 Los) and number of operating days in 1977.
1977 Total
Production Operating
Common Name Chemical Same (1000 Ibs) Days/Year
2[(4-Chloro-6-(Ethylamino)
(Example) Cyanazine s-Triazine—2-yl)Amino]- 12,000 130
—_-__-_____-________. 2-Methylpropionitrile __________ _»„__„»_„
2-Chloro-4-(Echylamiae-6
(Example) Acrazine (Laopropylamina)-s-Triazine 6,000 180
B. If products other than pesticides or pesticide intermediates are manu-
factured, indicate below their industrial classification:
Organic Chemicals Yes So
Inorganic Chemicals Yes No
Pharmaceuticals Yes No
Plastics and Synthetics Yes No
Other (specify)
XXI-47
-------
Plant
City State
Method of Disposal:
A. Indicate below the final disposition and volume disposed (millions of
gallons per day, or JiGD) for process vastewater from each product
listed in 3.A. "
NOTE: If the wastewater from a process line is generated with the
production of sore than one product, please list these products
and their associated wastewacer on the same line.
Product Method of Disoosal Volume Disposed (MGD)
( example) Cyanazine 10 0.01
Examples of final disposition:
1 No Process Wastew ater Generated
2 Direct Discharge to Navigable Waterway with Treatment
3 Direct Discharge to Navigable Waterway without Treatment
4 To Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) with Pretreataent
5 To Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) without Pretreataent
6 Incineration
7 Deep Well Injection
3 Ocean Discharge
9 Land (Spray Irrigation, etc.)
10 Contract Hauling
11 Total Evaporation
12 Other (Specify)
XXI-48
-------
Plant
City State
If National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or other EPA
permits are required for any of the methods of disposal listed above,
provide the permit number and effective date. Provide the permit
number, name, address, and telephone number for any other process
vaatevater permit (such as with municipal sewage treatment plants,
etc.).
Treatment Technology
A. List the treatment units and volume treated (HGS) for process
waatewaters generated by each product listed in 3.A. See Example
methods of treatment.
Product (s) Treatment Units Volume Treated (MGD)
(example) Cyanazine Mf, Ac, Ne 0.01
XXI-49
-------
Plane
City "
State
Example Methods of Treatment:
Activated Carbon (Ac)
Hydrol7sis (Hd)
Chemical Oxidation (Co)
Equalization (Eq)
Gravity Separation (Gs)
Aerated Lagoon (Al)
Trickling Filter (Tf)
Activated Sludge (As)
Multi-Media Filtration (Mf)
Evaporation Pond (Ep)
Multiple-Effect
Evaporation (Ev)
Coagulation (Ca)
Flocculation (Fo)
Sesin Adsorption (Ra)
Cnlorination (Ch)
Skinning (Sk)
Ion Exchange (le)
Stripping (Sp)
Metal Separation (Ms)
Neutralization (Ne)
Sludge Thickening (St)
Vacuum Filtration (Vf)
Pressure Filtration (Pf)
Aerobic Digestion (Ad)
None (No)
Other - Specify
3. Provide a simple block diagram of the treatment units listed in 5. A.
Indicate the points at which any wastewater from pesticide intermediate
or from products other than pesticides may enter the system, and their
corresponding volumes (MGD).
C. Are non-contact or cooling wastewaters and process wastewaters combined
in the treatment system described above? Yes No. If so, what
is the volume of non-contact wastevater? (MCT).
0. Are sanitary and process vastewaters combined in the treatment system
described above? Yes No. If so, what is the volume of sanitary
wastevater? (MGD).
E. What is the ultimate destination of sludge generated in treatment
systems, if applicable?
6. Data Availability:
A. Indicate below if your facility has conducted or has contracted for any
of the following as regards its pesticide process wastewatars.
Bench Scale Treatability Studies
Pilot Plant Treatability Studies
la-Plant Hydraulic/Sampling Surveys
Treatment System Modifications
Process Modifications
Yes
"Yes
"Yes
"Yes
"Yes
No
"No
"No
"NO
"NO
XXI-50
-------
Plant
City Scaca
3. Briefly describe Che dace, scape, and results of any activity indicated
in 6.A.
C. Indicate below the existence of any historical wastewater data (such as
from studies mentioned above, or from required monitoring). Describe
the following: product/process which generated che wastewater;
parameters monitored (BOD, COD, pH, Flow, etc.); sample location (refer
to treatment system diagram, if necessary); and number of data points
available.
Sample Number of
Product (s) Parameters Location Data Points
(ex.) Cyanazine. Atrazine TOG Before Ac 45
(ex.) Cyanazine, Atrazine TOC. BOD. TSS After Ac 150 each
XXI-51
-------
Plane
City Scaca
7. Economic Considerations:
A. Do you have che option of changing your process wastewatar disposal
from:
(i) City sewer to your own treatment plant?
Yes No Not applicable
(Z) Tour own treatment plant to the city sewer?
Yes No Not applicable
B. Concerning potential land requirements associated with BAT regulations:
(1) Indicate below the maximum amount of land available for the
installation of potential treatment technology;
None available 2.0 acres
0.5 acres 5.0 acres
1.0 acres greater than 5.0 acres
(2) Indicate below the approximate cost (dollars per acre) for the
above mentioned land:
C. What is the approximate market value of all technical grade pesticide
active ingredients manufactured at your plant in 1977?
_______________ 0 to 5 million dollars
_ 5 to 10 million dollars
_______________ 10 co 20 million dollars
_ 25 to 75 million dollars
more than 75 million dollars
XXI-52
-------
Plans
City State
Process Information
A. Provide a general process flow diagram for each pesticide active
ingredient manufactured. Please insure each diagram contains the
following information:
(I) A block for each step in the process (e.g., precipitation,
purification, chlorination, etc.)
(2) Identification of raw materials, reagents, and solvents utilized,
with arrows indicating the point of introduction into the process.
(3) Identification of sources of process wastewater with arrows
indicating the method of disposal (e.g., to Incineration, to
municipal sewer, etc.)
(4) Identification of any controls considered to be part of the
process (e.g., steam stripping, solvent extraction, etc.) which
were not previously categorized as Treatment Technology.
3. If any process modifications or process controls resulting in changes
in wastewater characteristics have been installed in the last two
years, please complete the following:
Quantitative Results of
Process Modification
or Process Control
Description of Wastewater Parameter
Process Modification Values
Product or Process Control Before After
XXI-53
-------
Plane
City Stats
C. If any process modifications or controls ars planned but have not yet
bean installed, please describe below the results of any pilot plant
or laboratory studies conducted.
Oescripcion of Results of Studies
Process Modification Wastewater Parameter Planned
Product or Control Values Start-Up
Before After Dace
xxi-54
-------
Plant
City Stata
PART ii PRIORITT POLLUTANT INFORMATION
Questions in this pare refer to the 129 priority pollutants named on
List 1.
1. Identification and quantification of priority pollutants:
A. Check below any compounds on List 1 which have been determined or
are suspected to be present as raw materials, intermediates, active
ingredients, reaction by-products, or as hydrolysis, oxidation, or
degradation products at any point in the pesticide manufacturing or
process wastewater treatment system. Also indicate the known/
suspected source of each priority pollutant.
Determined Suspected
Priority to be to be
Pollutant Present Present Source
Cyanazine Cyan uric
(Ezaaple) Cyanide X Chlorine Unit
XXI-55
-------
Plant
City State
B. For those pollutants in 1A. that were measured, indicate below the
location from which samples were taken, the average flow (MGD); the
range of conentrations (mg/1), and the number of data points
involved.
Range of Number
Average Concen- of
Priority Sampling Flow trations Data
Pollutant Location (MGD) (mg/1) Points
(example) Cyanide After As 0.125 0.1-0.5 180
2. Prior pollutant studies/treatment:
A. Describe below any treatment technology installed/modified specifi-
cally for the removal of any of the 129 priority pollutants,
whether for pesticide or non—pesticide wastewater.
Priority
Pollutant Description of Treatment Unit
XXI-56
-------
P1 ant
City State
B. Describe below any bench, pilot, or full-scale treatability studies
conducted during the last two years for any of the 129 priority
pollutants.
Priority
Pollutant Description of Study
C. Describe below any incident removal of priority pollutants via treatment
technology not described in 2.A. Indicate influent and effluent
concentrations and percent removal.
Priority
Pollutant Treatment Unit
XXI-57
-------
SECTION XXI--APPENDIX 6
VERIFICATION AND SCREENING SAMPLING SUMMARY
Priority Pollutant
Number of Plants
in Which Pollutant Detected
Verification*
Raw
Waste
Treated
Effluent
Screeningt
Raw Treated
Waste Effluent
01 Benzidines
001 Benzidine
002 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
02 Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes
003 Chloroethane 1
004 1,1-Dichloroethane
005 1,2-Dichloroethane 3
006 1,1-Dichloroethylene 1
007 Hexachloroethane —
008 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 2
009 Tetrachloroethylene 1
010 1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene 1
Oil 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1
012 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1
013 Trichloroethylene 4
014 Vinyl chloride
03 Cyanides
015 Cyanide 4
04 Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene
016 1,2-Dichloropropane 1
017 1,3-Dichloropropene
05 Dienes
018 Hexachlorobutadiene 1
019 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 1
06 Haloethers
020 Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
021 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
022 Bis(2-chloroisoproyl) ether
023 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
024 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
025 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
2
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
XXI-58
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 6
VERIFICATION AND SCREENING SAMPLING SUMMARY
(Continued ,
Page 2 of
in
5)
Number of Plants
Which Pollutant Detected
Verification*
Priority Pollutant
07 Halomethanes
026 Bromoforra
027 Carbon tetrachloride
028 Chlorodibromomethane
029 Chloroform
030 Dichlorobromomethane
031 Methyl bromide
032 Methyl chloride
033 Methylene chloride
08 Metals
034 Antimony
035 Arsenic
036 Beryllium
037 Cadmium
038 Chromium
039 Copper
040 Lead
041 Mercury
042 Nickel
043 Selenium
044 Silver
045 Thallium
046 Zinc
09 Miscellaneous Priority Pollutants
Raw
Waste
2
5
3
12
2
1
1
9
—
3
—
1
11
10
7
2
2
—
—
1
1
Treated
Effluent
0
4
1
6
1
1
1
6
—
2
—
1
8
8
3
0
1
—
—
0
—
Screening!
Raw
Waste
1
4
0
8
1
1
—
6
5
5
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
6
5
5
—
Treated
Effluent
0
2
1
7
0
0
—
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
9
9
8
6
6
7
—
047 Acrolein
048 Acrylonitrile
049 Asbestos
050 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
051 Isophorone
10 Nitrosamines
052 N-nitrosodimethylamine
053 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
054 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
XXI-59
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 6
VERIFICATION AND SCREENING SAMPLING SUMMARY
(Continued, Page 3 of 5)
in
Number of Plants
Which Pollutant Detected
Verification*
Priority Pollutant
11 Nitrosubstituted Aromatics
055 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
056 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
057 Nitrobenzene
12 Pesticides
058 Aldrin
059 a-BHC-Alpha
060 b-BHC-Beta
061 r-BHC -Gamma
062 g-BHC -Delta
063 Chlordane
064 Dieldrin
065 4, 4 '-ODD
066 4, 4 '-DDE
067 4, 4 '-DDT
068 a-Endosul fan-Alpha
069 b-Endosul fan-Beta
070 Endosulfan sulfate
071 Endrin
072 Endrin aldehyde
073 Heptachlor
074 Heptachlor epoxide
075 Toxaphene
13 Phenols
076 2-Chlorophenol
077 2,4-Dichlorophenol
078 2,4-Dimethylphenol
079 4, 6-Dinitro-o-cresol
080 2,4-Dinitrophenol
081 2-Nitrophenol
082 4-Nitrophenol
083 Parachlorometa cresol
084 Pentachlorophenol
085 Phenol
086 2,4.6-Trichlorophenol
Raw
Waste
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
1
—
1
2
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
7
2
Treated
Effluent
—
—
— —
1
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
1
—
1
1
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
2
3
Screeningf
Raw
Waste
—
1
— —
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
—
—
1
3
—
2
1
1
—
1
1
—
—
—
—
2
2
3
2
5
4
Treated
Effluent
—
1
—
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
—
—
1
1
—
1
0
2
—
0
0
—
—
—
—
1
0
0
0
4
2
XXI-60
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 6
VERIFICATION AND SCREENING SAMPLING SUMMARY
(Continued, Page 4 of 5)
Number of Plants
in Which Pollutant Detected
Verification* Screening?
Raw Treated Raw Treated
Priority Pollutant Waste Effluent Waste Effluent
14 Phthalate Esters
087 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 01 52
088 Butyl benzyl phthalate — — 11
089 Diethyl phthalate
090 Dimethyl phthalate — — 10
091 Di-n-butyl phthalate — — 11
092 Di-n-octyl phthalate
15 Polychlorinated Biphenyls
093 PCB-1242
094 PCB-1254
095 PCB-1221
096 PCB-1232
097 PCB-1248
098 PCB-1260
099 PCB-1016
16 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
100 Acenaphthylene
101 Acenaphthene — — 01
102 Anthracene — — 10
103 Benzo(a)anthracene — — — —
104 Benzo(a)pyrene
105 3,4-Benzofluoranthene
106 Benzo(ghi)perylene — — 11
107 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
108 2-Chloronaphthalene — — 11
109 Chrysene
110 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene — — — —
111 Fluoranthene
112 Fluorene
113 IndenoC1,2,3-cd)pyrene
114 Naphthalene 21 11
115 Phenanthrene — — — —
116 Pyrene
XXI-61
-------
SECTION XXI--APPENDIX 6
VERIFICATION AND SCREENING SAMPLING SUMMARY
(Continued, Page 5 of 5)
Number of Plants
in Which Pollutant Detected
Verification* Screening!
Raw Treated Raw Treated
Priority Pollutant Waste Effluent Waste Effluent
17 TCDD
117 TCDD
(2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin)
18 Volatile Aromatics
118 Benzene 41 64
119 Chlorobenzene 53 20
120 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 10
121 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 11
122 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 10
123 Ethylbenzene 40 11
124 Hexachlorobenzene — — 11
125 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
126 Toluene 94 34
* Total of 16 plants sampled.
T Total of 30 plants sampled.
— Priority pollutants not detected.
XXI-62
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 7
THEORETICAL BASIS FOR STEAM STRIPPING DESIGN
Steam stripping offers distinct advantages over other methods for the
removal of volatile organics from process effluents. First, the
resultant organic stream is often suitable for recovery or incineration.
Second, the steam can be directly injected, maximizing the efficiency
of energy transfer.
Steam stripping utilizes the greater volatility of the organic with
respect to water. A more accurate name for the operation is steam
distillation.
McCABE-THIELE METHOD
The McCabe-Thiele method of analysis has been chosen for designing the
stripping column. This method is most suitable for the general type of
analysis being employed here. It is reasonably accurate and does not
require extensive enthalpy data. It assumes that the vapor and liquid
loadings are approximately constant between any point of addition or
withdrawal of streams. Since one is dealing with removal of trace
organics, large organic concentration changes through the column will
have a negligible effect on the vapor and liquid loadings. Therefore,
the assumption should be valid. A McCabe-Thiele diagram is shown on the
next page.
Line E, the equilibrium line, shows the vapor composition in equilibrium
with a particular liquid composition. It is obtained from actual data
or is estimated when necessary. Line 0, the operating line, shows the
actual vapor and liquid compositions occurring in the column. It is
defined by material balance. Xm is the feed concentration, and Xw
is the effluent concentration. The number of theoretical trays is found
by drawing a staircase between the equilibrium and operating lines from
Xm through Xw. The number of theoretical trays is the number of
steps plus one for the feed tray. The actual number of trays is the
number of theoretical trays divided by the tray efficiency. The tray
efficiency for this type of operation is usually under 30 percent.
EQUILIBRIUM RELATIONSHIP
The vapor-liquid equilibrium relationship is essential to the analysis
of a distillation operation. It is best if the relationship is defined
by actual data. However, data are often unavailable. In that case, a
good approximation is obtained by utilizing a few simplifications.
XXI-63
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 7
THEORETICAL BASIS FOR STEAM STRIPPING DESIGN
(Continued, Page 2 of 5)
CC
o
a.
O
z
a
cc
o
o
(X
u.
01
X. - MOLE FRACTION ORGANIC IN UQUID
McCASE-THlELE DIAGRAM
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 7
THEORETICAL BASIS FOR STEAM STRIPPING DESIGN
(Continued, Page 3 of 5)
Generally, it is reasonable to assume that the vapor phase is an ideal
gas. The mole fraction of substance in the vapor phase is then defined
by:
y=P*/PT
where y = mole fraction in vapor phase,
P* = partial pressure,
and P.J- = total pressure.
Since one is dealing with trace organics, the water will be an ideal
solution governed by Raoult's Law. That is:
Pw* = P x
w rwxw>
where Pw = the vapor pressure of water,
and xw = the mole fraction water in the liquid phase.
This yields:
Yw = pwxw/pT>
or Yw/xw = PW/PT.
The organic will be completely non-'.deal and governed by Henry's Law.
That is :
P*
0 " m PTx0
where tn = Henry's Law constant.
The Henry's Law constant can be defined at the point of saturation of
the organic in water. At this point two liquid phases will be present.
The vapor pressure above a two-phase mixture is the sum of the vapor
pressures of the two phases. Therefore, the organic phase can be
treated independently. In the organic phase, the organic is an ideal
solution governed by Raoult's Law. Therefore,
P* = P (x ")
ro ro^xo'o
where (XQ)O = mole fraction organic in the organic phase
(this is usually 1, except when water is slightly
soluble in the organic),
and P0(x0)0 = m PT(*O>SAT>
XXI-65
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 7
THEORETICAL BASIS FOR STEAM STRIPPING DESIGN
o'xo-'o
or m ~ '
(Continued, Page 4 of 5)
where (xo)g^j = mole fraction organic at saturation.
Resubstituting back into Henry's Law one gets:
P
PTXO = QXO'OXO * p *
° PTSAT SAT
This yields:
In order to introduce the effect of temperature variation into the
analysis, a new term is defined,
yw/xw
where = relative volatility.
Substituting one gets:
a = P0(x0)0 PW
PTSAT PT
or a = P0(x0)0
This is calculated at several temperatures in the range over which the
distillation will be performed. An average relative volatility is then
determined.
The mole fractions of water can be related to the mole fractions of
organic. That is:
and xw = 1 - x
XXI-66
-------
SECTION XXI--APPENDIX 7
THEORETICAL BASIS FOR STEAM STRIPPING DESIGN
(Continued, Page 5 of 5)
Therefore,
This can be algebraically manipulated to yield:
y0 = a (xn) .
This equation, incorporating the average relative volatility, is used to
estimate the equilibrium line.
XXI-67
-------
X X X X I I X I X X I I I X X I I X X X X X X I IX
1 I I I I I I I I I X I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I X I I I I I X I I I
I X X I X I X I I X X X I I I X X I X I I I I X X I
oo
M
I
O I-1
'2s
*• u
O «B
•H M
U-l J-J
• rt C
V- 5
4!"
IIIIXXIIIIXIIIIIXIIIIIIIII
I I I
IXXXI I X X I I I I I (XXI
•8
*
: w>
IIIIXIIIIIXXXIIIIIIIIIIIII
.-s
1
S
0)
C
01
•c «
,22
•6 S
O •£> i—i -H c
J* X >, U -H ^
13 ^-i ft e 3 g g
J
u.
5
Q
I
"8
I
to
OJ
Ol
31
XXI-68
-------
oo
o
CS
(y
SP
0-4
*s
c
I
K
2
0)
1
§
o
u
•- 1-
U-l 4-J
u
j «
8.
.a
.o
en
XI I X X X X I I I I I I X X I X X I I I I X X
IIIIIIIIIXIXIIIXIIIIIIII
I I I I I I I I I I X I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I X X I X I I X I X X X I I I X I X X I X X I I
IXXIIIIIIIXXIIIXIIIIIXII
IXXI I I I X X X X X X I ! X I IXXXXI I
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I X I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I X I X I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
C <1>
o y
§
-
-8
4 S
S 8
01
jj v^ 4j C
^ •£ Q -S
JJ O CO
AJ I— t
"8
•H
o
XXI-69
-------
CO
a
CM
en <
a
j_>
CO
Ij
01
9
3
8*
01 u
u
w
01
XXXIIIIXXIIIIIXIIIIIX
I X I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
IXIXXXXI I XXX I XXI XXX I I
I I IXXXXI IXXXI I I I I IXI I
I I IXXXXI IXXXXXIXXXXXI
I I I I I I I I I I I I X I I I I I I i i
I I IXXXXI I I I I IXI I IXXX
41 OJ
J-l J-i
VI Ul
Ol 01
0) -Q
xj c f-4 CO C ^
(0 O O
K-S a o Q o P. •
Ol Ol
XJ J_l
03 M
0) 9
CQCQ
C
-2
cs cs cs
a
b ^ -^
Q O J-t •
CL 'a
.QJ CM Q 33
PC O 4J rn
IJ 1^
lJ JJ .^4 C
•U 0) TO U
"J W o
•S >>
0)
01 g • co i-i
P tj 0) S3
II S CO CO
t-> •—i JJ E
-------
IXXXIXXXXI IXXXXXIXIX
IIIIIIIXXIIIIXIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIXIIIIXXIIIIIIII
I I IXI IXXI I I IXXI IXI IXXXX
SI
001
cs
U-l
o
a
01
I
(8
!•
I ' I I I I X t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I IXI I IXI II IXXI II I IXIX
•a
I I I I I I I I I I I I X X I I I I I I I
-------
00
cs
2
0)
>«,
u
j
Si
•8
«
0)
3
o
X X I X X X X I IXIXXIXXXXXXXXXI
I I I I I I I I I X X I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I
X X X 1 X I I X X X X X X I I I I t I X I I IX
I I I I I I 1 I I I X I I I I I I I I I I I I I
XIIIIXXIXIIXIIIIIIIIIX
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
§.2 2 -3 fi
•3 JC T3 ^ (U O
—i j: j-i >, n3 c U
-
f
4) O) 0) (U 1U (1)
tu
I
lJ
ll
* (£
0)
J_l
3
I 2
0)
"to "8
U b
OJ
0) %
s
XXI-72
-------
00
B
CM
~H
U-J
O
83
2
',3
CD M
.a a
U-l 4-1
al
"8
"
01
.•s
IIIIIIIXXXIIXIIII1IIIIXII
I I I I I I I I I I I I X I I I I I I I I I X I I
I I X I IXXXXIXXXXIXXI IXXXIX
II II 11X11 IIXXXIXI II IXI I I I
I I IXI IXIXXIXXI I I IXI IXIXIX
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
IIIIIIIIXXIIIIIIIIIIIIIIX
S-S vO O6
l CO •-! 00 OJ —I P">
3 00 q X
^j o« D <** ^
C O C W JJ C
-8
.f-t
fi
0>
J-l
s
. ^>
__
8 8
••S'
2
JQ
II
t
0)
XXI-73
-------
ool
2 9
yi £j
° §
r-- C CM 03 la
>, >,-rf C CM CO C O
•C -C >i-3 ., . . -H 8
aws 2--s
O.-H -QU-I 3— <•— t i
On)'''o ^H.Hnj
e g
o ««
£££
1
*H
1-.
£
a-
I-2
S la
(U
W J_J
O
sa s
• i-J C/3 J_)
1
*
XXI-74
-------
00
oo ,§
-------
00
e
i
JiS
b
o_i
«
01
•3
u
9
•n 2
O fo
a
o
w 3
OJ
.•s
IXXXXXXIXI 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 X 1 X X X 1 X 1
1 1 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 1
XI I 1 1 1 1X1 IXXXXXIXIX1XIXXI
X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
XI 1 1 1 1 IXIXXXXXXIXIXI 1 IXIX
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
XIIIIIIIIIXXXXIIIIXIIIIIX
3.
w c c c
CO
4)
— 4
>.
9
r-(
U-*
u •
3 w —^ 03
O O
.^xj.H-H
0.013,3,
O J-i o'O'
) 00 <1> C S 0} CU D
^- C 0) 3 > > >
C4-JT3-:-i--i--i
53
82
Td'S
O &ti
I2
83 OJ
1
*
XXI-76
-------
I X X X I I X X X I I IXXXXXI
_
2
-------
oo
B
CM CO
til £H
O jgj
3 ^
* i
o- U
C M
S
§
§
tO M
.y 2
15,
< d)
a§-
W
"8
I
01
o
Pu
1 I I I I I I I I I I I t I I t t
I I I I I I I I 1 X I ! I I I I
I t I I X I I I I I I I I 1 I X I
O
•8
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
,a"H.ow
138 t fc^
yo-ooo
O!-li-t.LJlM
-
oS
(9
<—
(2
01
to
u
14-t
o
•-
.§*
S
XXI-78
-------
OOl CM
CM
4-1
a
Q
JJ J3
CO u
O CO
id ij
•8
K i
W
0)
.•a
u
.2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X I -*
cs
!
r—*
8
u
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ON
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -H
CO
O
•'-'
-..
p 01
'
J- I-
^•s
CO 4J
0)
CO U
"to 3
u fc
XXI-79
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Acephate Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Metals Zinc
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Alachlor Chlorinated Ethanes I,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes
Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Aldicarb None
Alkylamine hydrochloride None
Allethrin Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Ametryne Cyanides Cyanide
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Aminocarb Phenols Phenol
Amobam None
Anilazine Chlorinated Ethanes 1,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes Tetrachloroethylene
Cyanides Cyanide
Volatile Aroraatics Chlorobenzene
XXI-80
-------
SECTION XXI--APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 2 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
AOP*
None
* Presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia determined that this pesticide
be placed in a subcategory with volatile compounds which require similar
treatment (stripping).
Aquatreat DNM 30 Metals Zinc
Aspon Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Atrazine Cyanides Cyanide*
Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride*
Chloroform*
Methyl chloride*
Methylene chloride*
Volatile Aroraatics Benzene*
Toluene*
* Subcategory 10 only.
Azinphos methyl Chlorinated Ethanes 1,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes Tetrachloroethylene
Barban None
BBTAC None
Bendiocarb None
Benfluralin* Nitrosaroines N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
* Pesticide wastewater to be regulated for volatile compound as yet to be
designated.
Benorayl None
Bensulide Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
XXI-81
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 3 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Bentazon Chlorinated Ethanes I,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes Tetrachloroethylene
Volatile Aromatics Chlorobenzene
Benzethonium chloride Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Benzyl benzoate None
Benzyl brorooacetate Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
BHC Pesticides a-BHC-alpha
b-BHC-beta
r-BHC-delta
Lindane (g-BHC-gamraa)
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Bifenox Halomethanes Chloroform
MeLuyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
_ ____________,___._,__,_________________•_•_»_••-»—-_*—— ___•-•-»-»-»->— •_•»-• — ._.—_»_«_ ______,_»___-__ _-____-___._•-_.••.««».
Biphenyl None
— —*—________—— — ______ ___ __ _______—
Bolstar Chlorinated Ethanes 1,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes Tetrachloroethylene
Haloraethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
_______._____-______-_«_-. _______._-~-___ _________________ __-__-_____._. _____,_____-,__ __. _- _ ____ _._______•_•_*_•_.
Bromacil Haloraethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
-.-^ _____________ _H __» _•_• _• ...B-V-I-V -» —• -• —-• —• —t^ -• — -— _B_*_~ — —B^ —-— — _ _^__ — _• —^ -«-«-« — ____ _-_ __ l__ ____.___•_»_•_•_.
Bromoxynil Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
XXI-82
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 4 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Bromoxynil octanoate
Volatile Aroraatics
Benzene
Toluene
Busan 40 None
Busan 85 None
Busan 90 Chlorinated Ethanes 1,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes
Haloraethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Phenols Phenol
Butachlor Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
Butylate Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Captafol None
Captan* None
* Presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia determined that this pesticide
be placed in a subcategory with volatile compounds which require similar
treatment (stripping).
Carbam-S None
Carbaryl Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Carbendazira* None
* Presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia determined that this pesticide
be placed in a subcategory with volatile compounds which require similar
treatment (stripping).
XXI-83
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 5 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Carbofuran None
Carbophenothion Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
CDN Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Chloramben* None
* Presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia determined that this pesticide
be placed in a subcategory with volatile compounds which require similar
treatment (stripping).
Chlordane Dienes Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pesticides Heptachlor
Chlorobenzene Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzilate Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Chlorophacinone Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Halomethanes Methyl bromide
Chloropicrin None
XXI-84
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 6 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Chlorothalonil Chlorinated Ethanes 1,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes Tetrachloroethylene
Cyanides Cyanide
Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Chlorpropham Chlorinated Ethanes 1,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorpyrifos Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Chlorpyrifos methyl Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Coumachlor None
Coutnafuryl None
Coumaphos None
Coumatetralyl None
Cyanazine* Cyanides Cyanide
* Presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia determined that this pesticide
be placed in a subcategory with volatile compounds vrfiich require similar
treatment (stripping).
Cycloate Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
XXI-85
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 7 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Cycloheximide Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Cycloprate Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Cyhexatin Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Cythioate Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
2,4-D Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
2,4-D isobutyl ester* None
* Presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia determined that this pesticide
be placed in a subcategory with volatile compounds which require similar
treatment (stripping).
2,4-D isooctyl ester* None
* Presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia determined that this pesticide
be placed in a subcategory with volatile compounds which require similar
treatment (stripping).
2,4-D salt None
Dalapon None
Dazomet None
XXI-86
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 8 of 26)
Priority Pollutant Priority Pollutant
Pesticide Group to be Regulated
2,4-DB Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
2,4-DB isobutyl ester* None
* Presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia determined that this pesticide
be placed in a subcategory with volatile compounds which require similar
treatment (stripping).
2,4-DB isooctyl ester* None
* Presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia determined that this pesticide
be placed in a subcategory with volatile compounds which require similar
treatment (stripping).
DBCP None
DCNA* None
* Pesticide wastewater to be regulated for volatile compound as yet to be
designated.
DCPA Haloraethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
D-D None
ODD Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
DDE Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
XXI-87
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 9 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
DDT Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Deet Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Demeton Haloraethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
Demeton-o Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
Demeton-s Volatile Aromatics Benzene
To 1ue ne
Diazinon Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
Dicamba Halomethanes Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Dichlofenthion* Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
* Pesticide wastewater to be regulated for volatile compound as yet to be
designated.
XXI-88
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 10 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Dichlorobenzene, ortho Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Toluene
Dichlorobenzene, para Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Toluene
Dichloroethyl ether None
Dichlorophen* Phenols Phenol
* Pesticide wastewater to be regulated for volatile compound as yet to be
designated.
Dichlorophen salt None
Dichloropropene Dichloropropane and
Dichloropropene 1,3-Dichloropropene
Dichlorprop* None
* Pesticide wastewater to be regulated for volatile compound as yet to be
designated.
Dichlorvos None
Dicofol Chlorinated Ethanes
and Ethylenes 1,2-Dichloroethane
Dienochlor Dienes Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Metals Copper
Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
Dimethoxane None
Dinocap Phenols 2,4-Dinitrophenol
Phenol
XXI-89
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 11 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Dinoseb None
Dioxathion None
Diphacinone None
Diphenamid Chlorinated Ethanes
and Ethylenes 1,2-Dichloroethane
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Diphenylamine* None
* Pesticide wastewater to be regulated for volatile compound as yet to be
designated.
Disulfoton Chlorinated Ethanes 1,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes Tetrachloroethylene
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Diuron Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Dodine Cyanides Cyanide
Dowicil 75 None
Endosulfan Dienes Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pesticides a-Endosulfan-alpha
b-Endosulfan-beta
Endothall None
Endrin Chlorinated Ethanes 1,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes Tetrachloroethylene
Dienes Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Pesticides Endrin
XXI-90
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 12 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
EPN Nitrosamines N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Phenols 4-Nitrophenol
Phenol
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
EPTC Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Ethalfluralin* Nitrosamines N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
* Pesticide wastewater to be regulated for volatile compound as yet to be
designated.
Ethion Haloraethanes Methyl bromide
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Ethoprop None
Ethoxyquin 66% Volatile Aromatics Toluene
Ethoxyquin 86% Volatile Aroraatics Toluene
Ethylene dibroraide None
Etridazole Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
EXD None
Farophur Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Fenarimol None
Fenitrothion Cyanides Cyanide
Metals Copper
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
XXI-91
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 13 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Fensulfothion Metals Copper
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Fenthion Haloraethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Phenols Phenol
Fentin hydroxide Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Fenuron None
Fenuron-TCA Chlorinated Ethanes 1,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes Tetrachloroethylene
Ferbam None
Fluchloralin* Nitrosamines N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
* Pesticide wastewater to be regulated for volatile compound as yet to be
designated.
Fluoridone Haloraethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Fluoraeturon* Cyanides Cyanide
* Pesticide wastewater to be regulated for volatile compound as yet to be
designated.
Fluoroacetamide None
Folpet None
XXI-92
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 14 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Fonofos Chlorinated Ethanes 1,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes Tetrachloroethylene
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Giv-gard Nitrosamines N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
To 1ue ne
Glyodin None
Glyphosate Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
HAE None
HAMP None
Heptachlor Chlorinated Ethanes 1,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes Tetrachloroethylene
Dienes Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Pesticides Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene Chlorinated Ethanes
and Ethylenes 1,2-Dichloroethane
Phenols Pentachlorophenol
— — — — — —• — ——• — — — — — — — •— — — — — — — — — —— — —— — — — — — ——• — — •.•««••••••_•.— .•• — — .»-—, —••••••• — — .» —— — —— —— — —
Hexazinone Volatile Aromatics Benzene
To 1 ue ne
HPTMS None
Hyamine 2389 Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
XXI-93
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 15 of 26)
Pestic ide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Hyamine 3500 Volatile Aroraatics Toluene
Isopropalin Nitrosamines N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Kathon 886 Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Kinoprene* None
* Presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia determined that this pesticide
be placed in a subcategory with volatile compounds which require similar
treatment (stripping).
KN methyl None
Lethane 384 Cyanides Cyanide
Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
Lindane Pesticides a-BHC-Alpha
b-BHC-Beta
r-BHC-delta
Lindane (g-BHC-gararaa)
Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
Linuron Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Malathion None
Maleic hydrazide None
Mancozeb Metals Zinc
Maneb Metals Zinc
MCPA Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
XXI-94
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 16 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
MCPA isooctyl ester*
None
* Presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia determined that this pesticide
be placed in a subcategory with volatile compounds which require similar
treatment (stripping).
MCPP Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Mephosfolan Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
Merphos None
Metasol DGH Cyanides Cyanide
Metasol J-26 None
Metham None
Methamidophos Chlorinated Ethanes
and Ethylenes 1,2-Dichloroethane
Methiocarb Phenols Phenol
Methomyl Haloraethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Methoprene None
Methoxychlor Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Phenols Phenol
Methylbenzethonium Volatile Aromatics Benzene
chloride Toluene
XXI-95
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 17 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Methyl bromide Halomethanes Methyl bromide
Methylene bisthiocyanate Cyanides Cyanide
Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Metribuzin Cyanides Cyanide
Halomethanes Methyl bromide
Mevinphos None
Mexacarbate Phenols Phenol
MGK 264 Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
MGK 326 Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Mirex Dienes Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Molinate Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Monocrotophos Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Metals Copper
Monuron None
Monuron-TCA Chlorinated Ethanes
and Ethylenes 1,2-Dichloroethane
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
XXI-96
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 18 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Nabam*
None
* Presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia determined that this pesticide
be placed in a subcategory with volatile compounds which require similar
treatment (stripping).
Nabonate Cyanides Cyanide
Naled Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform V\
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,8-Napthalic anhydride None
Napropamide Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Naptalam Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Neburon Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Niacide None
Nitrofen Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
NMI Volatile Aromatics Benzene
To 1 ue ne
Norflurazon None
Octhilinone None
Oryzalin Nitrosamines N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
XXI-97
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 19 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Oxamyl None
Oxydemeton Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Oxyfluor£e,n Chlorinated'Ethanes 1,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes Tetrachloroethylene
Paraquat Halomethanes Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Parathion ethyl Phenols 4-Nitrophenol
Parathion methyl Phenols 2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
PBED Chlorinated Ethanes
and Ethylenes 1,2-Dichloroethane
PCNB Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
PCP Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Volatile Aroraatics Chlorobenzene
PCP salt None
Pebulate Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Metals Zinc
Permethrin None
XXI-98
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 20 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Perthane Chlorinated Ethanes
and Ethylenes 1,2-Dichloroethane
Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Phenylphenol Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Phenylphenol sodium salt Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Phorate None
Phosfolan Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Phostnet Volatile Aroroatics Benzene
Toluene
Picloram Cyanides Cyanide
Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Pindone Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Piperalin Volatile Aroroatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Piperonyl butoxide None
Polyphase antimildew None
XXI-99
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 21 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Profluralin Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Nitrosamines N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Prometon Cyanides Cyanide
Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
Prometryn Cyanides Cyanide
Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
Pronamide Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
Propachlor Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Propanil Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Propargite None
Propazine Cyanides Cyanide
Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Propham None
Propionic acid None
Propoxur Phenols Phenol
.H MM. ««_ __««.«•_•__«««•» «fllBM«—••« _ M.BM _«•_—«•!••<•«« ••••••••™—^ — ——— — «——•———————••—• — ———-
Pyrethrins None
XXI-100
-------
SECTION XXI—-APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 22 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
8 Quinolinol citrate None
8 Quinolinol sulfate None
Qinoraethionate Haloraethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Resmethrin Cyanides Cyanide
Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
RH-787* None
* Pesticide wastewater to be regulated for volatile compound as yet to be
designated.
Ronnel* Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
* Pesticide wastewater to be regulated for volatile compound as yet to be
designated.
Rotenone Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Siduron Volatile Aromatics Chlorobenzene
Silvex Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Silvex isooctyl ester None
Silvex salt None
XXI-101
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 23 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Simazine Cyanides Cyanide
Haloraethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Volatile Arotnatics Benzene
Toluene
Simetryne Cyanides Cyanide
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Sodium tnonofluoroacetate None
Stirofos Chlorinated Ethanes 1,2-Dichloroethane
and Ethylenes Tetrachloroethylene
Haloraethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Volatile Aromatics Chlorobenzene
Sulfallate None
Sulfoxide Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
SWEP Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
2,4,5-T Phenols Phenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
TCMTB Cyanides Cyanide
Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Metals Copper
XXI-102
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 24 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Tebuthiuron None
Temephos Chlorinated Ethanes
and Ethylenes 1,2-Dichloroethane
Terbacil None
Terbufos None
Terbuthylazine Cyanides Cyanide
Volatile Arotnatics Benzene
Toluene
Terbutryn Cyanides Cyanide
Volatile Aroraatics Benzene
Toluene
Thiabendazole Cyanides Cyanide
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Thiofanox* None
* Presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia determined that this pesticide
be placed in a subcategory with volatile compounds which require similar
treatment (stripping).
Thionazin None
Tokuthion Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Toxaphene Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Pesticides Toxaphene
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
XXI-103
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 25 of 26)
Pesticide
Priority Pollutant
Group
Priority Pollutant
to be Regulated
Triadimefon Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Tributyltin benzoate None
Tributyltin fluoride None
Tributyltin oxide Volatile Aromatics Benzene*
Toluene*
* Subcategory 2 only.
Trichlorobenzene Pesticides a-BHC-alpha
b-BHC-beta
r-BHC-delta
Lindane (g-BHC-garama)
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2,4—Trichlorobenzene
To 1ue ne
Trichloronate Phenols 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Volatile Aromatics Benzene
Toluene
Tricyclazole None
Trifluralin Nitrosamines N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Vane ide TH None
Vancide 51Z None
Vancide 51Z dispersion None
XXI-104
-------
SECTION XXI—APPENDIX 9
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED IN PESTICIDE WASTEWATERS
(Continued, Page 26 of 26)
Priority Pollutant Priority Pollutant
esticide Group to be Regulated
'ancide PA None
rernolate Halomethanes Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Warfarin None
ZAC* Metals Zinc
* Presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia determined that this pesticide
be placed in a subcategory with volatile compounds which require similar
treatment (stripping).
Zinebt Metals Zinc
t For Subcategory 5 only, presence of nonconventional pollutant ammonia
determined that this pesticide be placed in a subcategory with volatile
compounds which require similar treatment (stripping).
Ziram Metals Zinc**
** Subcategory 3 only.
XXI-105
------- |