United States WH-K2 EPA 440/1 86/079
Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 October 1985
Agency
Water
&ERA Development
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the
Pesticide
Point Source Category
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
FOR
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY,
PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY, AND
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
IN THE
PESTICIDE CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
U..S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Lee M. Thomas
Administrator
Edwin Johnson
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Jeffery Denit
Director, Industrial Technology Division
George M. Jett
Project Officer
September 1985
Industrial Technology Division
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this report is to provide a technical data
base for the promulgation of effluent limitations guidelines
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Pesticide
Chemicals Industry. For the purpose of this study, the Pesticide
Industry consists of organic pesticide chemicals manufacturers,
metallo-organic pesticide chemical manufacturers, and pesticide
chemicals formulator/packagers.
Effluent limitations guidelines for Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS), Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources (PSES) and New Sources (PSNS), are promulgated
under authority of the amended Clean Water Act. The report
addresses 126 priority pollutants as well as
nonconventional pesticide pollutants under 40 CFR Part 455.
Analytical methods were developed, during the
verification sampling portion of this study at 16 pesticide
manufacturing facilities, using Gas or Liquid Chromatography
(GC or LC) for nonconventional pollutant pesticide
pollutants. The results of these analyses were evaluated along
with data from the EPA-conducted screening sampling programs at
30 plants and data from sampling and analysis by the
manufacturers themselves. Additional data from the Organic
Chemical Plastics and Synthetic Fibers and the Pharmaceuticals
Industries were also evaluated and utilized. These data were
also used in conjuction with process chemistry evaluations of
individual pesticide processes to determine the expected
priority pollutants associated with manufacturing sources. The
process chemistry evaluation was used to confirm data based
findings and to make the determinations as to the presence of
priority pollutants where no monitoring data were available.
The principal groups of pollutants detected or indicated
by the process chemistry evaluation to be present in untreated
pesticide process wastewaters were: phenols, volatiles
(aromatics, halomethanes, and chlorinated ethanes and
ethylenes), nitrosamines, dienes, cyanide, metals, 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. All of these treatment
units are currently installed and operating at a significant
number of plants within the industry.
-------
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
For additional information on this document contact:
George M. Jett
Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Technology Division (WH-552)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
or call (202) 382-7180 between
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ABSTRACT i i
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
II CONCLUSION II-l
TABLES II-4
III INTRODUCTION III-l
PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY III-l
SCOPE OF STUDY II1-3
Types of Products Covered III-3
Definition of Wastewaters Covered III-5
Status of Pesticide Intermediates III-5
Effect of Previous Regulations III-6
Wastewater Sampling and Data Acquisition III-9
METHODOLOGY II1-9
Definition of the Industry III-9
Manufacturing 308 Survey III-ll
Formulator/Packagers 308 Survey III-ll
Screening Sampling 111-12
Verification Sampling Program 111-12
Industry Self-Sampling Program 111-14
Quality Assurance/Quality Control 111-14
Audit of Actual Wastewater Analytical Data 111-15
Industry Data Provided as Part
of Public Comments 111-15
Process Chemistry Evaluation 111-16
Raw Waste Load Summary II1-16
Treatment Technology Evaluation 111-16
Subcategorization 111-17
Cost and Energy 111-17
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 2 of 8)
Section Page
Nonwater Quality Impact 111-18
Selection of Pollutant Parameters 111-18
Selection of Expanded Best
Practicable Technology 111-18
Selection of Best Available Technology 111-19
Selection of NSPS Technology 111-19
Selection of Pretreatment Standards
Technology 111-19
Selection of BAT and NSPS Effluent Limitations
and Pretreatment Standards for Existing
(PSES) and New Sources (PSNS) 111-19
Environmental Assessment 111-20
Appendices 111-20
IV INDUSTRY PROFILE IV-1
ECONOMIC AND INVENTORY DATA IV-1
Pesticide Utilization IV-1
Structural Grouping of Pesticides IV-3
Geographical Location of Plants IV-3
Market Value of Pesticides IV-3
Level of Pesticide Production IV-4
Number of Pesticides Produced Per Plant IV-5
Number of Days Each Pesticide Produced IV-5
Number of Plants Producing Pesticides IV-5
Number of Plants Owned by Companies IV-6
Other Operations at Pesticide Plants IV-6
Methods of Wastewater Disposal IV-6
Type of Wastewater Treatment IV-7
Formulator/Packagers IV-7
Metallo-Organic Pesticide Manufacturers IV-9
TABLES IV-10
FIGURES IV-19
V RAW WASTE LOAD CHARACTERIZATION V-l
FLOW V-4
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS V-5
ll
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 3 of 8)
Section Page
Volatile Aromatics V-7
Halomethanes V-9
Cyanides V-ll
Haloethers V-12
Phenols V-13
Polynuclear Aromatics V-15
Metals V-16
Nitrosamines V-21
Phthalates V-21
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene V-22
Priority Pollutant Pesticides V-23
Dienes V-24
TCDD V-25
Miscellaneous V-26
PCBs V-27
Benzidines V-27
Nitro-substituted Aromatics V-27
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS V-27
Nonconventional Pesticides V-27
COD V-28
TOC V-28
TOD V-28
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS V-28
BOD V-28
TSS V-28
DESIGN RAW WASTE LOADS V-29
ZERO-DISCHARGE PRODUCTS V-29
TABLES V-30
FIGURES V-125
VI CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY VI-1
INTRODUCTION VI-1
BACKGROUND AND OPTIONS VI-2
SOURCE CONTROL VI-3
ill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 4 of 8)
Section Page
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES IN-USE IN THE INDUSTRY VI-4
In-Plant Control VI-5
Steam Stripping VI-5
Chemical Oxidation VI-10
Metals Separation VI-13
Granular Activated Carbon VI-17
Carbon Regeneration VI-28
Resin Adsorption VI-29
Hydrolysis VI-32
Incineration VI-36
Other Technologies VI-43
Wet Air Oxidation VI-43
Solvent Extraction VI-45
Membrane Processes VI-46
End-of-Pipe Treatment VI-47
Biological Treatment VI-47
Zinc Process for the Removal of Mercury VI-55
Equalization VI-55
Neutralization VI-56
TABLES VI-57
FIGURES VI-112
VII INDUSTRIAL SUBCATEGORIZATION VII-1
INTRODUCTION VII-1
CATEGORIZATION BASIS VII-1
Product Type VII-2
Manufacturing Processes VII-2
Raw Materials VII-2
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 5 of 8)
Section Page
Geographical Location VII-3
Dominant Product VII-3
Plant Size VII-4
Plant Age VII-4
Non-water Quality Characteristics VII-5
Treatment Cost VII-5
Energy Cost VII-6
VIII COST, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS VIII-1
COST AND ENERGY VIII-1
Pesticide Manufactures VIII-1
Metallo-Organics Pesticide Manufacturers VIII-4
Pesticide Formulator/Packagers VIII-4
NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS VIII-8
Air Quality VIII-8
Solid Waste Considerations VIII-10
Protection of Ground Water VIII-11
TABLES VIII-12
FIGURES VII1-18
IX SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS RECOMMENDED
TO BE REGULATED IX-1
INTRODUCTION IX-1
POLLUTANTS OF PRIMARY, DUAL, OR SECONDARY
SIGNIFICANCE IX-3
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IX-4
Volatile Aromatics IX-4
Halomethanes IX-6
Cyanides IX-7
Haloethers IX-8
Phenols IX-9
Nitrosubstituted Aromatics IX-10
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons IX-11
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes IX-14
Nitrosamines IX-16
Phthalate Esters IX-16
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene IX-17
Priority Pollutant Pesticides IX-18
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 6 of 8)
Section Page
Dienes IX-21
TCDD IX-21
Miscellaneous Priority Pollutants IX-21
Polchlorinated Biphenyls IX-22
Benzidines IX-22
Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutants IX-22
TABLES IX-42
X ANALYTICAL TEST METHODS X-l
BACKGROUND X-l
PROPOSED ANALYTICAL TEST METHODS X-3
SELECTION OF ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR
PROMULGATION X-9
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION/REJECTION OF
EACH METHOD X-ll
XI BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
(BAT) X-l
INTRODUCTION XI-1
IDENTIFICATION OF BAT XI-1
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF BAT XI-2
BENEFITS OF BAT IMPLEMENTATION XI-3
TABLE XI-4
XII NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS XII-1
INTRODUCTION XII-1
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS TECHNOLOGY XI1-2
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 7 of 8)
Section
Page
XIII PRETREATMENT STANDARDS XIII-1
INTRODUCTION XIII-1
IDENTIFICATION OF PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY XIII-1
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF PRETREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY XIII-1
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS XIII-2
BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTATION XII1-2
TABLES
XIII-3
XIV DERIVATION OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND
STANDARDS FOR THE ORGANIC PESTICIDE CHEMICALS
MANUFACTURING SUBCATEGORY XIV-1
INTRODUCTION XIV-1
SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES XIV-1
SELECTION OF THE DATA BASE USED TO DEVELOP
LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS XIV-1
METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING THE LIMITATIONS
AND STANDARDS XIV-4
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES FOR
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS XIV-4
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIORITY
POLLUTANTS XIV-5
BAT LIMITATIONS FOR NONCONVENTIONAL
PESTICIDE POLLUTANTS XIV-6
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NONCONVENTIONAL
PESTICIDE XIV-6
CONFIRMATORY DATA XIV-6
TABLES XIV-8
Vll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 8 of 8)
Section
Page
XV DERIVATION OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS
FOR THE METALLO-ORGANIC PESTICIDE MANUFACTURING
SUBCATEGORY AND THE FORMULATING /PACKAGING
SUBCATEGORY XV-1
INTRODUCTION XV-1
SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES XV-1
Metallo-Organic Manufacturers
Pesticide Formulator/Packagers
XV-2
XV-3
XVI ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT XVI-1
XVII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS XVII-1
XVIII BIBLIOGRAPHY XVIII-1
XIX GLOSSARY XIX-1
XX APPENDICES XX-1
1. PRIORITY POLLUTANTS BY GROUP XX-1
2. LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS XX-4
3. BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES XX-25
4. CONVERSION TABLE XX-27
5. FORMULATOR PACKAGER 308 QUESTIONNAIRE XX-29
6. PRIORITY POLLUTANTS REGULATED IN PESTICIDE
WASTEWATERS XX-45
7. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR RECOMMENDED TECHNOLOGY XX-62
8. PESTICIDE ANALYTICAL METHODS AVAILABILITY/
STATUS XX-65
9. LIST OF APPROVED TEST PROCEDURES FOR
NONCONVENTIONAL PESTICIDE POLLUTANTS XX-74
10. PRIORITY POLLUTANTS AND SUBCATEGORIES
EXCLUDED XX-76
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Section II
II-l Priority Pollutant Effluent Limitations and II-4
Standards for BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS
II-2 Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutant Effluent
Limitations and Standards for BAT, NSPS,
PSES and PSNS I1-5
II-3 Pesticides Regulated by PSES, NSPS, and PSNS
When Formulated and Packaged. I1-8
Section IV
IV-1 Pesticide Production by Class (1977) IV-10
IV-2 Pesticide Production by Class (1982) IV-11
IV-3 Structural Grouping of Pesticides IV-12
IV-4 Types of Operations at Pesticide Plants (1985) IV-13
IV-5 Methods of Wastewater Disposal at Pesticide
Plants (1985) IV-14
IV-6 Treatment Utilized at Plants Disposing Pesticide
Wastewaters to Navigable Waters IV-15
IV-7 Treatment Utilized at Plants Disposing Pesticide
Wastewaters to POTWs IV-16
IV-8 Formulator/Packager Production Distribution IV-17
IV-9 Percent of Formulator/Packager Pesticide Classes IV-18
IX
-------
Section V
V-l Indicated/Detected Frequency of Priority
Pollutant Groups V-30
V-2 Volatile Aromatics Indicated to be Present in
Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-31
V-3 Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters V-35
V-4 Halomethanes Indicated to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-46
V-5 Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters V-48
V-6 Cyanides Indicated to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-55
V-7 Cyanides Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-56
V-8 Halogenated Ethers Indicated to be Present in
Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-57
V-9 Haloethers Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters V-58
V-10 Phenols Indicated to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-61
V-ll Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-62
V-12 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Indicated to be
Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-69
V-13 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Detected in
Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-70
V-l4 Metals Indicated to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-74
V-15 Metals Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-75
V-16 Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Indicated to
be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-77
V-17 Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Detected in
Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-78
-------
V-18 Nitrosamines Indicated to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-84
V-19 Nitrosamines Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters V-85
V-20 Phthalates Indicated to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-86
V-21 Phthalate Esters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters V-87
V-22 Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene Indicated to
be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-89
V-23 Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene Detected in
Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-90
V-24 Priority Pollutant Pesticides Indicated to be
Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-91
V-25 Priority Pollutant Pesticides Detected in
Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-92
V-26 Dienes Indicated to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-97
V-27 Dienes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-98
V-28 TCDD Indicated to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-99
V-29 TCDD Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-100
V-30 Asbestos Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters V-101
V-31 Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-104
V-32 Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters V-115
V-33 Summary of Raw Waste Load Design Levels V-123
V-34 Plants Manufacturing Pesticides With No Process
Wastewater Discharge V-124
xi
-------
Section VI
VI-1A Applicability of Treatment Technologies to Various VI-57
Pollutant Groups
VI-1B Principal Types of Wastewater Treatment/Disposal VI-58
VI-1C Pollutants Removed by Selected Plant Technologies VI-59
VI-2 Plants Using Stripping for Pesticide Wastewaters VI-60
VI-3 Steam Stripping Operating Data VI-61
VI-4 Plants Using Chemical Oxidation for Pesticide
Wastewaters VI-63
VI-5 Chemical Oxidation Operating Data VI-64
VI-6 Plants Using Metals Separation for Pesticide
Wastewaters VI-66
VI-7 Plants Using Granular Activated Carbon for
Pesticide Wastewaters VI-67
VI-8 Granular Activated Carbon Operating Data VI-69
VI-9 Plants Using Resin Adsorption for Pesticide
Wastewaters VI-75
VI-10 Resin Adsorption Operating Data VI-76
VI-11 Plants Using Hydrolysis for Pesticide Wastewaters VI-80
VI-12 Hydrolysis Operating Data VI-81
VI-13 Plant 10 Hydrolysis Data for Thiocarbamate
Pesticides VI-82
VI-14 Hydrolysis Data—Triazine Pesticides VI-83
VI-15 Plants Using Incineration for Pesticide
Wastewaters VI-84
VI-16 Plants Using Biological Treatment for Pesticide
Wastewaters VI-86
VI-17 Biological Treatment Operating Data VI-88
VI-18 Plants Disposing all Pesticide Wastewater
by Contract Hauling VI-101
xii
-------
VI-19 Plants Using Evaporation Ponds for Pesticide
Wastewaters VI-102
VI-20 Plants Disposing Pesticide Wastewaters by
Ocean Discharge VI-103
VI-21 Plants Using Deep Well Injection for Pesticide
Wastewaters VI-104
VI-22 Treatment Technology Selected as Best Performance VI-106
VI-23 Criteria for Best Performance Treatment
Technologies VI-107
VI-24 Best Performance Removal System for Non-
conventional Pesticides by Treatment Technology VI-108
Section VIII
VIII-1 Basis for Capital Costs Computations VIII-12
VIII-2 Basis for Annual Cost Computations VIII-13
VIII-3 Treatment Technology Cost Summary for Direct
and Indirect Dischargers for Pesticide
Manufacturing Plants VIII-13
VIII-4 PSES Costs for Indirect Discharge Metallo-Organic
Manufacturers VIII-15
VIII-5 Summary of Annual and Capital Cost for
Formulator/Packagers VIII-16
VIII-6 Wastewater Recycle Costs for High Flow
Formulator/Packagers VIII-17
Xlll
-------
Section IX
IX-1 Pollutants of Primary Significance IX-42
IX-2 Pollutants of Dual Significance IX-43
IX-3 Pollutants of Secondary Significance IX-44
Section X
X-l NCP's Where Data was Used to Develop Effluent
Limitations and Standards But Which had No
Promulgated Method in November 1982. X-2
X-2 Industry Methods Proposed February 1983 X-4
X-3 Contractor Methods Proposed February 1983 X-6
X-4 Methods Proposed June 1984 X-8
X-5 Analytical Test Methods Promulgated at 40 CFR 455 X-17
X-6 NCP's with Analytical Test Methods Promulgated
at 40 CFR 136 X-18
X-7 Priority Pollutant Pesticides Analytical Test
Methods Promulgated at 40 CFR 136 X-19
Section XI
XI-1 Model Treatment Technology for BAT XI-4
Section XIII
XIII-1 Model Treatment Technology for PSES XIII-3
XIII-2 Model Treatment Technology for PSES
(Metallo-organic, Formulator/Packagers) XIII-5
Section XIV
XIV-1 Treatment Technology Selected as Best
Performance XIV-8
XIV-2 Criteria for Best Performance Treatment
Technologies XIV-9
XIV-3 Physical/Chemical Confirmatory Treatment
Data from OCPSF Industry XIV-10
xiv
-------
LIST OP FIGURES
Figure Page
Section IV
IV-1 Geographical Location of Pesticide Manufacturers IV-19
IV-2 Market Value of Pesticides (1977) IV-20
IV-3 Daily Level of Pesticide Production (1977) IV-21
IV-4 Annual Level of Pesticide Production (1977) IV-22
IV-5 Number of Pesticides Produced per Plant (1977) IV-23
IV-6 Frequency of Pesticide Production (1977) IV-24
IV-7 Number of Plants Each Producing the Same
Pesticide (1977) IV-25
IV-8 Number of Plants Owned by Each Company (1977) IV-26
Section V
V-l Probability Plot of Pesticide Product Flow Ratios V-125
V-2 Probability Plot of Pesticide Product Flows V-126
Section VI
VI-1 Range of Flows for Pesticide Treatment/Disposal VI-112
VI-2 Recommended BAT Technology—Steam Stripping VI-113
VI-3 Recommended BAT Technology—Metals Separation VI-114
VI-4 Recommended BAT Technology—Pesticide Hydrolysis VI-115
VI-5 Recommended BAT Technology—Carbon Adsorption VI-116
VI-6 Recommended BAT Technology—Carbon Regeneration VI-117
VI-7 Recommended BAT Technology—Resin Adsorption VI-118
xv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Section VI
VI-8 Recommended BAT Technology—Aeration Basin
VI-9 Recommended BAT Technology—Clarification
VI-10 Recommended BAT Technology—Incineration
Section VIII
VIII-1 Treatment Cost Curves—Pump Station
VIII-2 Treatment Cost Curves—Equalization
VIII-3 Treatment Cost Curves—Steam Stripping
VIII-4 Treatment Cost Curves—Chemical Oxidation
VIII-5 Treatment Cost Curves—Metals Separation
VIII-6 Treatment Cost Curves—Pesticide Hydrolysis
VIII-7 Treatment Cost Curves—Neutralization
VIII-8 Treatment Cost Curves—Dual Media Pressure
Filtration
VIII-9 Treatment Cost Curves—Carbon Adsorption
VIII-10 Treatment Cost Curves—Carbon Regeneration
VIII-11 Treatment Cost Curves—Resin Adsorption
VIII-12 Treatment Cost Curves—Resin Regeneration
VIII-13 Treatment Cost Curves—Nutrient Addition
VIII-14 Treatment Cost Curves—Aeration Basin
VIII-15 Treatment Cost Curves—Clarification
Page
VI-119
VI-120
VI-121
VIII-18
VIII-19
VIII-20
VIII-21
VIII-22
VIII-23
VIII-24
VIII-25
VIII-26
VIII-27
VIII-28
VIII-29
VIII-30
VIII-31
VIII-32
xvi
-------
VIII-16 Treatment Cost Curves—Sludge Thickener VIII-33
VIII-17 Treatment Cost Curves—Aerobic Digestion VIII-34
VIII-18 Treatment Cost Curves—Vacuum Filtration VIII-35
VIII-19 Treatment Cost Curve—Solar Evaporation VIII-36
xvii
-------
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document supports the final Pesticides Effluent Guideline
regulation which limits the discharge of pollutants into
navigable waters of the United States and into publicly owned
treatment works by facilities that manufacture and/or formulate
and package pesticide chemicals. The Pesticides Effluent
Guideline regulation establishes effluent limitations guidelines
at 40 CFR Part 455 based on "best available technology" (BAT),
new source performance standards (NSPS) based on "best
demonstrated technology" and pretreatment standards for new and
existing dischargers (PSES and PSNS). EPA is also promulgating
new test procedures for the analysis of nonconventional pesticide
pollutants in the Pesticide Chemicals Category under 40 CFR Part
455.
The Pesticides Effluent Guideline regulation is being
promulgated under authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308,
and 501 of the Clean Water Act (the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, P.L. 95-217 (the
"Act")).
This regulation is divided into three industrial subcategories:
1. Manufacturers of organic pesticide chemical products,
Standard Industrial Classification ("SIC") code 2869.
2. Manufacturers of metallo-organic pesticide chemical
products, SIC code 2869.
3. Formulators and packagers of pesticide products, SIC
code 2879.
The scope of the regulation under subcategory 1 includes control
for priority pollutants in process wastewater from 280 pesticides
manufactured by 119 plants. Forty-five of these plants discharge
process wastewater to navigable waters, 37 are indirect
dischargers, and 50 dispose of wastewater by land disposal, deep
well injection, incineration, contract hauling, evaporation
ponds, or ocean dumping with no discharge of process wastewater
to a POTW or naviagable water. Nine plants generate no
wastewater. Subcategory 2 includes all metallo-organic pesticide
manufacturers of mercury, copper, cadmium, and arsenic-based
products and Subcategory 3 includes pesticide
formulator/packagers.
I- 1
-------
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, mercury and zinc),
nitrosamines, dienes, and pesticides. Nonconventional pollutant
pesticides were found at concentrations greater than 1 mg/1 in
approximately 75 percent of all raw untreated pesticide
wastewaters sampled and are therefore also regulated where
appropriate analytical methods exist.
The major treatment units currently employed by plants in the
industry are: biological oxidation, activated carbon,
incineration,evaporation, chemical oxidation, hydrolysis, steam
stripping, multimedia filtration, resin adsorption, and metals
separation. These units, when properly designed and operated,
can effectively remove the principal priority pollutants,
conventional pollutants, and pesticides found in process
wastewaters. Data transfer for steam stripping (organic
chemicals and pharmaceutical industries), and for biological
treatment systems from the organics industry was utilized in
developing regulations for this industry. Wastewater
characterization and treatment performance data from these
industrial categories were compared with pesticide industry
wastewater and treatment performance. It was determined that the
waste and wastewater treatment technologies were similiar to
those in the Pesticide industry. The Agency therefore used this
information in developing regulations for the pesticide industry.
Analytical methods are currently available for detecting 147
nonconventional and priority pollutant pesticides in wastewater.
EPA approved 304(h) analytical methods are available for all the
remaining priority pollutants (40 CFR Part 136) controlled by
this regulation. The Agency is promulgating in 40 CFR Part 455
14 analytical methods for 61 nonconventional pesticide pollutants
concurrently with the limits and standards for these compounds.
These 61 are a subset of the 147 total for which EPA approved
analytical methods are available; analytical methods for the
other 86 pesticides are promulgated at 40 CFR Part 136.
The effluent limitation guidelines and standards are summarized
in Section II. The analytical methods are discussed in Section X
and the specific regulations are discussed in Section XI through
XIII. The rationale and methodology for deriving the limits and
standards is presented in Sections XIV and XV.
1-2
-------
SECTION II
CONCLUSION
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for BAT and NSPS,
PSES and PSNS for the Pesticide Chemicals Industry based upon the
technical information contained in this document, public
comments, and other information as appropriate.
This document supports regulations the Agency promulgated for
controlling priority pollutants and certain pesticides from 279
organic pesticide chemicals manufacturing processes, from
indirect discharging manufacturers of metallo-organic pesticides
which contain arsenic, cadmium, copper, and mercury, from new
source direct discharging formulator packagers, and from
indirect discharging formulator packagers. These different
manufacturing processes have been grouped into 3 subcategories as
discussed in Section VII.
The Agency is promulgating BAT limits for 34 priority pollutants
and pretreatment standards for 28 priority pollutants which, in
addition to the zero discharge requirements for two of the
subcategories, adequately controls the discharge of 70 priority
pollutants known or expected to be associated with the
manufacture of pesticide products within these three
subcategories. The rationale for selecting these pollutants and
for calculating these limits and standards is found in Section
IX.
The Agency is also promulgating effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for 89 nonconventional pollutant pesticides. The
rationale for this is found in Section XIV.
Analytical Methods Summary
The recommended treatment units to achieve these PSES and BAT
effluent levels for Subcategory 1 are listed below, and the
rationale for this recommendation is found in Section VI.
II-l
-------
Steam Stripping
Chemical Oxidation
Evaporation
Metals Separation
Pesticide Removal (Activated Carbon, Resin Adsorption,
Hydrolysis)
Biological Oxidation
The treatment/disposal units recommended to achieve the
promulgated PSES effluent levels for Subcategories 2 and 3 are
listed below, and the rationale for this recommendation is found
in Section VI.
Recycle and Reuse
Contract Hauling and Incineration
Mercury Precipitation and Removal by Zinc Dust
BAT effluent limitations for Subcategory 1 Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturers are the values presented in Tables II-l
and II-2 for the priority pollutant and nonconventional pesticide
pollutants, respectively. BAT effluent limitations for metallo-
organic pesticide manufacturers and formulator/packagers are not
necessary since the existing BPT requires zero discharge of
process wastewater pollutants. For a detailed discussion of the
rationale see Section XI.
NSPS for new direct discharge Subcategory 1 - Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturers is set equal to BAT for the priority
pollutant and nonconventional pesticide parameters and to BPT for
conventional pollutants and for 48 pesticide products which were
previously regulated under BPT. Because of the potential small
number of plants, an NSPS is not being established for new direct
dischargers in Subcategory 2 - Metallo-Organic Pesticide
manufacturers of cadmium, copper, mercury and arsenic-based
products. NSPS for new direct dischargers in Subcategory 3
Pesticide formulator/packagers is set equal to the PSES
requirement of no discharge of priority pollutants and pesticide
pollutants for which there are analytical methods approved by the
Agency. The rationale for this is discussed in Section XII. The
nonconventional pesticides covered by this Subcategory are listed
in Table II-3.
Pretreatment standards for new and existing Subcategory 1
manufacturing sources (PSNS and PSES) are equal to BAT levels for
incompatible pollutants. Pretreatment standards for new and
existing Subcategory 3 - formulating/packaging sources have been
developed based on new information from that used in establishing
the existing BPT regulation and are the same as the NSPS. See
Table II-3 for coverage. Pretreatment standards for existing
Subcategory 2 - metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers of
cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based products are equal to the BPT
-------
direct discharge limitations. Because of the potential
environmental harm of incineration of mercury waste, the
technology basis of the zero requirement for the other types of
metallo-organic compounds, contract hauling and incineration, is
inappropriate for mercury. The daily maximum PSES standard for
mercury is 0.45 mg/1 with a monthly average standard of 0.27
mg/1. The rationale for this is found in Section XIII. Because
of the small number of potential sources, PSNS is not being
established for this subcategory.
II-3
-------
TABLE II-l. Priority Pollutant Effluent Limitations and
Standards For BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS
Priority Pollutants
Benzene(l)
Chlorobenzene(1)
Toluene(l)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene(2)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene(2)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene(2)
Methyl bromide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Cyanide
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether(2)
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol(l)
Copper
Zinc
1,2-Dichloroethane(1)
Tetrachloroethylene(1)
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
1,3-Dichloropropene(2)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
a-BHC-Alpha(3)
b-BHC-Beta(3)
d-BHC-Delta(3)
g-BHC-Gamma(3)
a-Endosulfan-Alpha(3)
b-Endosulfan-Beta(3)
Endrin(3)
Heptachlor(3)
Toxaphene(3)
Maximum
for any
1 day
(mg/L)
0.057
0.045
0.035
0.11
0.045
0.13
0.15
0.13
0.075
0.11
0.56
0.64
zero
0.050
0.12
0.050
0.25
0.040
0.27
0.26
1.0
0.085
0.090
zero
0.13
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.18
0.090
0.005
Monthly
Average
shall not
exceed
(mg/L)
0.021
0.023
0.018
0.040
0.018
0.055
0.042
0.038
0.031
0.032
0.16
0.22
zero
0.023
0.034
0.019
0.15
0.017
0.13
0.18
0.41
0.034
0.028
zero
0.037
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.057
0.032
0.002
1 BAT/NSPS only
2 Regulated only in those processes in which it is the
manufactured product.
3 Limits apply only for PSES, NSPS, and PSNS. BPT limits are
established by 455.20(b).
II-4
-------
TABLE II-2. Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutant Effluent
Limitations and Standards for BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS
Pesticide Active Ingredient
Alachlor
Atrazine
Azinphos methyl(1)
Barban
Benfluralin
Benomyl
Bolstar
Bromacil
Busan 40
Busan 85
Butachlor
Carbam-s
Carbendazim
Carbofuran
Carbophenothion
Chlorpropham(1)
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos methyl
Coumaphos
2,4-0(1)
2,4-D isobutyl ester
2,4-D isooctyl ester
2,4-DB
2,4-DB isobutyl ester
2,4-DB isooctyl ester
DBCP
Demeton
Demeton-o(l)
Demeton-s(l)
Diazinon(l)
Dichlofenthion
Dichlorvos
Dinoseb
Dioxathion
Disulfoton(l)
Diuron(l)
Ethalfluralin
Ethion
Fensulfothion
Fenthion
Maximum
for any
1 day
(mg/L)
0.17
19.3
1.4
Zero
0.20
13.3
0.002
0.31
0.44
0.44
0.006
0.44
13.3
8.5
0.16
12.2
0.16
0.16
0.16
3.3
3.9
3.9
0.025
0.041
0.041
1.6
0.17
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.021
0.79
0.16
0.82
0.090
0.40
0.15
2.6
0.91
Monthly
Average
shall not
exceed
(mg/L)
0.041
7.2
0.37
Zero
0.11
4.1
0.0008
0.095
0.22
0.22
0.003
0.22
4.1
2.6
0.076
5.1
0.076
0.076
0.076
1.5
1.7
1.7
0.014
0.019
0.019
0.78
0.061
0.046
0.046
0.069
0.071
0.007
0.42
0.076
0.25
0.050
0.21
0.071
0.85
0.38
II-5
-------
TABLE II-2. Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutant Effluent
Limitations and Standards for BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS
(Continued Page 2 of 3)
Ferbam
Fluometuron
Glyphosate
Isopropalin
KN methyl
Linuron(l)
Malathion(l)
Mancozeb
Maneb
Metham
Methomy1
Metribuzin
Mevinphos
Naled
Neburon(l)
Niacide
Oxamyl
Parathion Ethyl(l)
Parathion Methyl(1)
PCNB(l)
PCP salt
Phorate
Profluralin
Prometon
Prometryn
Propachlor
Propazine
Propham(l)
Propoxur(1)
Ronnel
Silvex(l)
Silvex isooctylester
Silvex salt
Simazine
Simetryne
Stirofos
Swep(l)
2,4,5-T(l)
Terbacil
Terbufos
Terbuthylazine
Terbutryn
Tributyltin benzoate
Trichloronate
1.2
0.054
130.
0.20
0.44
0.056
0.15
1.2
1.2
0.44
30.0
1.6
0.22
0.31
0.090
1.2
25.7
0.014
0.014
0.21
4.7
0.15
0.005
3.7
19.3
0.030
19.3
12.5
8.5
0.16
1.9
zero
zero
19.3
3.7
0.031
12.2
1.9
30.3
0.15
19.3
19.3
zero
0.16
0.39
0.030
32.
0.11
0.22
0.031
0.071
0.39
0.39
0.22
9.7
0.48
0.074
0.16
0.050
0.39
9.3
0.004
0.004
0.064
1.0
0.071
0.003
1.4
7.2
0.012
7.2
3.8
2.6
0.076
0.79
zero
zero
7.2
1.4
0.015
5.1
0.79
9.6
0.071
7.2
7.2
zero
0.076
II-6
-------
TABLE II-2. Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutant Effluent
Limitations and Standards for BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS
(Continued Page 3 of 3)
Trifluralin(l) 0.043 0.023
Vancide 51Z zero zero
Vancide 51Z dispersion zero zero
ZAC 1.2 0.39
Zineb 1.2 0.39
1. Limits apply only for PSES, NSPS, and PSNS. BPT limitations
are established by 455.20(b).
II-7
-------
TABLE II-3. Pesticides Regulated by PSES, NSPS, and PSNS
When Formulated and Packaged
1. Alachlor
2. Aldrin
3. Ametryn
4. Aminocacb
5. AOP
6. Atraton
7. Atrazine
8. Azinphos methyl
9. Bacban
10. Benfluralin
11. Benomyl
12. Bentazon
13. a-BHC-Alpha
14. b-BHC-Beta
15. c-BHC-Delta
16. y-BHC Gamma (Lindane)
17. Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
18. Bolstar
19. Bromacil
20. Busan 40
21. Busan 85
22. Butachlor
23. Captan
24. Carbam-S
25. Carbaryl
26. Carbendazim
27. Carbofuran
28. Carbophenothion
29. Chlordane
30. Chlorobenzene
31. Chlorobenzilate
32. Chloropropham
33. Chloropyrifos
34. Chloropyrifos methyl
35. Coumaphos
36. Cyanazine
37. 2f4-D and its salts and esters
38. 2f4-DB
39. 2f4-DB isobutyl ester
40. 2f4-DB isooctyl ester
41. DBCP
42. 4f4'-DDD
II-8
-------
TABLE II-3. Pesticides Regulated by PSES, NSPS, and PSNS When
Formulated and Packaged (Continued Page 2 of 3)
43. 4,4'-DDE
44. 4,4'-DDT
45. Deet
46. Demeton-0
47. Demoton-S
48. Demeton
49. Diazinon
50. Dicamba
51. Dichlofenthion
52. Dichloran
53. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
54. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
55. 1,2-Dichloropropane
56. Cis - 1,3-Dichloropropene
57. trans - 1,3-Dichloropropene
58. 1,3-Dichloropropene
59. Dichlorvos
60. Dicofol
61. Dieldrin
62. Dimethyl phthalate
63. Dinoseb
64. Dioxathion
65. Disulfoton
66. Diuron
67. Endosulfan I
68. Endosulfan II
69. Endosulfan sulfate
70. Endrin
71. Endrin aldehyde
72. Ethalfluralin
73. Ethion
74. Etridiazole
75. Fensulfothion
76. Fenthion
77. Fenuron
78. Fenuron - TCA
79. Ferbam
80. Fluometuron
81. Glyphosate
82. Heptachlor
83. Heptachlor epoxide
84. Hexachlorobenzene
85. Hexazinone
II-9
-------
TABLE II-3. Pesticides Regulated by PSES, NSPS, and PSNS When
Formulated and Packaged (Continued Page 3 of 3)
86. Isodrin
87. Isopropalin
88. KN Methyl
89. Linuron
90. Malathion
91. Mancozeb
92. Maneb
93. Mephosfolan
94. Metham
95. Methiocarb
96. Methorny1
97. Methoxychlor
98. Methylbromide
99. Metribuzin
100. Mevinphos
101. Mexacarbate
102. Mirex
103. Monuron
104. Monuron - TCA
105. NABAM
106. Naled
107. Napthalene
108. Neburon
109. Niacide
110. Oxamyl
111. Parathion methyl
112. Parathion ethyl
113. PCNB
114. Pentachlorophenol ("PCP")
115. PCP Salt
116. Perthane
117. Phorate
118. Profluraline
119. Prometon
120. Prometryn
121. Propachlor
122. Propazine
123. Propham
124. Propoxur
125. Ronnel
11-10
-------
TABLE II-3. Pesticides Regulated by PSES, NSPS, and PSNS When
Formulated and Packaged (Continued Page 4 of 3)
126. Secbumeton
127. Siduron
128. Simazine
129. Simetryne
130. Stirofos
131. Strobane
132. Swep
133. 2,4,5-T
134. 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) and its salts and esters
135. Terbacil
136. Terbufos
137. Terbuthylazine
138. Terbutryn
139. Toxaphene
140. Triadimefon
141. Trichlorobenzene
142. Trichloronate
143. Tricyclazole
144. Trifluralin
145. ZAC
146. Zineb
147. Zirara
In addition Vancide 51Z, Vancide 51Z dispersion, and metallo-
organic active ingredients containing mercury, cadmium, arsenic,
copper, or tin.
11-11
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the Act) Amendments of
1972, 33 USC 1251 e_t seq., stated the national goal of attaining
by July 1, 1983, a water quality which provides for the
protection and propagation of fish and shellfish, for recreation
in or on the nation's waters, and the goal of eliminating the
discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985.
Purpose and Authority
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
established a comprehensive program to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters," Section 101(a). Existing industrial dischargers were
required to achieve "effluent limitations requiring the
application of the best practicable control technology currently
available" ("BPT"), Section 301(b)(1)(A); these dischargers were
required to achieve "effluent limitations requiring the
application of the best available technology economically
achievable... which will result in reasonable further progress
toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants" ("BAT"), Section 301(b)(2)(A). New industrial direct
dischargers were required to comply with Section 306 new source
performance standards ("NSPS"), based on best available
demonstrated technology; and new and existing dischargers to
publicly owned treatment works ("POTW") were subject to
pretreatment standards under Sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act.
While the requirements for direct dischargers were to be
incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits issued under Section 402 of the Act, pretreatment
standards were made enforceable directly against dischargers to
POTW (indirect dischargers).
Although Section 402(a)(l) of the 1972 Act authorized the setting
of requirements for direct dischargers on a case-by-case basis,
Congress intended that for the most part control requirements
would be based on regulations promulgated by the Administrator
providing guidelines for effluent limitations setting forth the
degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application
of BPT and BAT. Sections 304(c) and 306 of the Act required
promulgation of regulations for NSPS, and Sections 304(f),
307(b), and 307(c) required promulgation of regulations for
pretreatment standards. In addition to these regulations for
III- 1
-------
designated industry categories, Section 307(a) of the Act
required the Administrator to develop a list of toxic pollutants
and promulgate effluent standards applicable to all dischargers
of toxic pollutants. Finally, Section 501(a) of the Act
authorized the Administrator to prescribe any additional
regulations "necessary to carry out his functions" under the Act.
The EPA was unable to promulgate many of these regulations by the
dates contained in the Act. In 1976, EPA was sued by several
environmental groups, and in a settlement of this lawsuit EPA and
the plaintiffs executed a "Settlement Agreement" which was
approved by the Court. This Agreement required EPA to develop a
program and adhere to a schedule for promulgating BAT effluent
limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source
performance standards for 65 "priority" pollutants and classes of
pollutants for 21 major industries. See Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc. versus Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),
modified 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979), modified by orders dated
October 26, 1982, August 2, 1983, January 6, 1984, July 5, 1984
and January 7, 1985.
On December 27, 1977, the President signed into law the Clean
Water Act of 1977. Although this law makes several important
changes in the Federal water pollution control program, its most
significant feature is its incorporation of several of the basic
elements of the Settlement Agreement program for toxic pollution
control. Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 301(b)(2)(C) of the Act now
require the achievement of effluent limitations requiring
application of BAT for "toxic" pollutants, including the 65
"priority" pollutants under 307(a) of the Act. Likewise, EPA's
programs for new source performance standards and pretreatment
standards are now aimed principally at toxic pollutant controls.
Moreover, to strengthen the toxics control program Section 304(e)
of the Act authorizes the Administrator to prescribe "best
management practices" ("BMPs") to prevent the release of toxic
and hazardous pollutants from plant site runoff, spillage or
leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw material
storage associated with, or ancillary to, the manufacturing or
treatment process.
In keeping with its emphasis on toxic pollutants, the Clean Water
Act of 1977 also revised the control program for nontoxic
pollutants. Instead of BAT for "conventional" pollutants
identified under Section 304(a)(4) (including biochemical oxygen
demand, suspended solids, fecal coliform and pH), the new Section
301(b)(2)(E) requires achievement of "effluent limitations
requiring the application of the best conventional pollutant
control technology" ("BCT"). The factors considered in assessing
BCT for an industry include the cost of attaining a reduction in
effluents and the effluent reduction benefits derived compared to
the costs incurred by and the effluent reduction benefits from a
publicly owned treatment works (Section 304(b)(4)(B)). For
nontoxic, nonconventional pollutants, Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and
-------
(b)(2)(F) require achievement of BAT effluent limitations within
three years after their establishment but not later than July 1,
1987.
The purpose of these regulations is to provide effluent
limitations guidelines for BAT, and to establish NSPS,
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES), and
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), under Sections
301, 304, 306, 307, and 501 of the Clean Water Act for the
pesticides manufacturing and formulating/packaging industry.
SCOPE OF STUDY
Types of Products Covered
This study covers the manufacturing of pesticide active
ingredients listed in Section XX—Appendix 2 of this report.
The BPT regulation established effluent limitations for the
pesticide active ingredient in only 49 pesticide wastewaters
because there were available Agency approved analytical methods
for only those 49 pesticides. Two of these pesticides, aldrin
and dieldrin, have been banned from manufacture and use by EPA
and are also covered by regulations promulgated under 0307 of the
Act. Forty-seven pesticides which were previously regulated
which were under BPT for pesticide parameters are combined
with 223 pesticides not previously regulated by BPT for
pesticide paramater. The manufacturing of a total of 279
pesticides are now included in the scope of this regulation.
These 279 pesticides were the pesticides of most commerical
importance on the 1978 FIFRA regulation list after removing
compounds such as copper sulfate which are covered by other
regulations.
Because of the lack of data or an analytical method for most of
the 279 pesticides, many of the pesticide pollutants are not
specifically limited in today's regulation. Specific effluent
limitations are promulgated for only 89 individual pesticides
(Table II-2). However, priority pollutants associated with the
280 pesticides are controlled by today's regulations.
The formulation of 147 organic chemical pesticide active
ingredients also: vancide 51Z, vancide 51Z dispersion, and
metallo-organic pesticides containing arsenic, cadmium, copper,
mercury, and tin (for which there are approved analytical
methods) 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.
The manufacture of mercury, cadmium, copper, and arsenic-based
pesticides is addressed for new and existing indirect
III-3
-------
dischargers. Direct discharge of wastewaters from these
metallo-organic pesticides and formulating/packaging facilities
was prohibited by BPT regulations.
The definition of a pesticide differs among the
governmental, industrial, and scientific communities. For the
purposes of this regulation a pesticide is defined as "any
technical grade ingredient intended to prevent, destroy, repel,
or mitigate any pest, subject to the following categories":
Product Classes Generally Included in Regulation
Insecticides
Herbicides
Fungicides
Nematicides
Rodenticides
Acaricides
Algicides
Miticides
Molluscicides
Avicides
Slimicides
Piscicides
Ovicides
Defoliants
Desicants
Repellents
Synergists
Botanicals
Fumigants
Product Classes Generally Not Included in Regulation*
Bactericides
Inorganic Pesticides
Plant Growth Regulators
Sex Attractants
Quaternary Ammonium Salts
Microbials
Wood Preservatives**
Sanitizers
Disinfectants
Chemosterilants
Pesticides produced outside the
United States
Organic, Pharmaceutical, Plastic
and Synthetic, or Other Industry
Compounds Regulated Elsewhere
Pesticides Produced in Limited
quantities at stand alone research
facilities
* Specific products not included are itemized in the
administrative record for the regulation.
** The wood preservative pentachlorophenol is included due to
its high-volume production.
Compounds defined in Section XX—Appendix 1 as "priority
pollutant pesticides" are known hereafter as priority pollutants,
whereas all other pesticides are referred to as "nonconventional
pollutant pesticides."
III-4
-------
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 water 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 process area or, the
transportation loading area.
4. Wastewater from air pollution or ventillation
scrubbers utilized in the manufacturing process or
in the immediate manufacturing and formulating/
packaging area.
5. Potentially contaminated process wastestreams that are
the result of the washing of clothing, safety equipment
etc. or the safety testing of packaging containers.
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.
Status of Pesticide Intermediates
The manufacture of pesticide intermediates is not within the
scope of this regulation because they are generally organic or
inorganic compounds which have multiple uses, not just in the
manufacture of pesticides covered in this document. As noted in
Section XIX, Glossary, the definition of "manufacture of
pesticide intermediates" adopted is ... the manufacture of
materials resulting from each reaction step in the creation of
III-S
-------
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.
Process wastewater resulting from the production of pesticide
intermediates by use of a separate chemical manufacturing process
which is not an integral part of the pesticides manufacturing
process, where the intermediate is a manufactured inorganic or
organic chemical, are covered by either the inorganic or organic
chemicals effluent guideline regulations. If, however, these
inorganic or organic processes are not covered by other
industrial regulations, the permit writer may on a case-by-case
basis write Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) permits.
Effect of_ Previous Regulations
BPT Effluent Limitations
In general, the BPT technology level represents the average of
the best existing performances of plants of various ages, sizes,
processes, or other common characteristics. The factors
considered in defining best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT) include the total cost of applying such
technology in relation to the effuent reductions derived from
such application, the age of equipment and facilities involved,
the process employed, nonwater quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements) and other factors the
Administrator considers appropriate (section 304(b)(1)(B)). The
Agency balances the total cost of applying the technology against
the effluent reduction achieved. Where existing performance is
uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a different
subcategory or category.
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. This
study addresses nonconventional pesticide pollutant and
priority pollutant removal technology for both direct and
indirect dischargers for many of these processes (see
Section XX—Appendix 3 for a list of previously excluded
pesticides).
III-6
-------
2. Forty-nine pesticide parent compounds were specifically
identified and regulated in the BPT regulation for direct
dischargers because EPA had promulgated analytical methods
available for the pesticide parameters. COD, BOD, TSS, and
pH were also regulated for these compounds. This study
addresses the priority pollutants for direct and indirect
dischargers which are present in any of these pesticides
manufacturing processes (see Section XX—Appendix 3 for a
list of these 49 pesticides)/ and addresses most of the
present pesticides for the indirect dischargers. There are
exceptions in that for 5 of the 49 previously regulated
pesticides; Aldrin, dieldrin, DDT, ODD, and DDE, coverage
under this regulation is not required 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 (40 CFR Part 129). The same rule established
acceptable levels for direct discharges for the two
pesticide parameters endrin and toxaphene (see January 12,
1977 Federal Register). Process wastewaters from the
manufacturing of endrin and toxaphene will be subject to
BAT/PSES regulations for associated priority pollutants
(direct and indirect discharge) and PSES regulations for the
pesticide pollutants endrin and toxaphene (indirect
discharge).
3. All the 280 pesticides covered by this regulation except for
25 which were specifically excluded under BPT were regulated
under BPT for the direct discharge of BOD, COD, TSS, and pH;
See Appendices 2 and 3, respectively. Therefore this study
addresses the nonconventional 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 under BPT for direct dischargers. This study
addresses process wastewater pollutants from
manufacturing these metallo-organic pesticides that are
discharged to POTWs which are subject to PSES regulations.
5. Formulators/packagers of pesticide active ingredients that
discharge wastewater to navigable waters were assigned a
zero discharge limitation under BPT. This study addresses
formulators/packagers that discharge process wastewater to
POTWs which are subject to PSES and PSNS regulations.
III-?
-------
BAT Effluent Limitations
In general, the BAT technology represents the best treatment
system available economically achievable by plants within each
subcategory of the industry. The Act established BAT as the
principal national means of controlling the direct discharge of
toxic and nonconventional pollutants to navigable waters. The
factors considered in assessing best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) include the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process employed, process changes, and
nonwater quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements) (section 304(b)(2)(B)). The Agency retains
considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded
these factors. As with BPT, uniformly inadequate treatment
system performance within an industry may require transfer of a
BAT treatment technology from a different industry subcategory
or category. BAT may include process changes or internal
controls, even when these technologies are not common industry
practice.
New Source Performance Standards
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are based on the best
available demonstrated technology. New plants have the
opportunity to install the best and most efficient production
processes and wastewater treatment technologies, and, therefore,
Congress directed EPA to consider the best demonstrated process
changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment
technologies to reduce pollution to the maximum extent feasible.
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) are designed
to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through,
interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation
of well-operated publicly owned treatment works (POTW) with
secondary treatment installed. Compliance must be achieved
within three years of the date of promulgation.
The Act requires pretreatment for toxic pollutants that pass
through the POTW in amounts that would violate direct discharger
effluent limitations or interfere with the POTW's treatment
process or chosen sludge disposal method. The legislative
history of the 1977 Act indicates that pretreatment standards are
to be technology-based, analogous to the best available
technology for removal of toxic pollutants. EPA has generally
determined that there is pass through of pollutants if the
percent of pollutants removed by a well-operated POTW achieving
secondary treatment is less than the percent removed by the BAT
III-8
-------
model treatment system. The general pretreatment regulations,
which serve as the framework for the categorical pretreatment
regulations are found at 40 CFR Part 403. 43 FR 27736 (June 26,
1978); 46 FR 9462 (January 28f 1981).
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
Like PSES, Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) are to
prevent the discharge of pollutants which pass through, interfere
with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of the
POTW. PSNS are to be issued at the same time as NSPS. New
indirect dischargers, like new direct dischargers have the
opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in
promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating PSES.
Wastewater Sampling and Data Acquisition
Data has been obtained over a long period of time, and from many
sources. The first data source consisted of a screening sampling
program conducted by EPA regions and private contractors. A
verification sampling program was then conducted to accurately
define the source and level of pollutants in pesticide
wastewaters. Following verification sampling, an industry self-
sampling program was instituted. Additional priority pollutant
and nonconventional pesticide data was also received directly
from manufacturers as a result of various 308 surveys conducted
over a seven year period. The final source of data consists of
information from the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers and Pharmaceuticals industries as well as information
received from the pesticide industry from comments to the
November 30, 1982 proposed regulations (47 FR 33492) and the
notices of new information, dated June 13, 1984 (49 FR 24492) and
January 24, 1985 (50 FR 3366) and the proposed analytical
methods published February 10, 1983.
METHODOLOGY
A brief description of the methodology used in the conduct of
this study is given below to provide a better understanding of
the organization and logic of this report.
Definition of the Industry
III-9
-------
The first task upon commencing this project was to accurately
define the pesticide producers which would be covered. 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 Director 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(Listof 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
manufacturers were identified.
A total of 279 pesticides were selected after a review of the 600
plus registered active ingredients to determine which should be
covered under the 1976 consent decree. Many of the registered
active ingredients are products that are outside of the the
agricultural pesticide chemicals category. They include
inorganic compounds (sodium borate), organic compounds whose
primary use is other than pesticides (formaldehyde), products
made exclusively outside the United States, products previously
excluded from regulations under paragraph 8 of the consent
decree, (e.g. soaps and detergents) and products that are
regulated under other industrial categories, such as inorganic
chemicals, adhesives and sealants. The specific reasons for
exclusions of products are included in the proposal record in
Section II B.I. Products included are pesticides which have
significant production or commercial use. Research facilities
were excluded because the pesticides produced for research were
not produced in significant quantities.
Ill-10
-------
Manufacturers 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 Management and Budget (OMB I158-R0160), the survey
was distributed in July 1978. A copy of OMBf 158-R0160 is found
in Appendix 5, Section XX of the proposed development document
(EPA 400/l-82/079b). 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.
For those plants previously contacted during BPT, much of the
basic data was already available and was not requested a second
time. Instead, specific questions 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
this information 119 plants were selected for further study.
Approximately 90 follow-up 308 letters were sent 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 the results of any available treatability studies. During
the months of March and April 1980 308 letters were sent to over
50 selected plants requesting specific data to be used primarily
for statistical analysis. These 308 survey results were updated
by the respondents in comments and data received in response to
the November 30, 1982 proposal and June 13, 1984 NOA. Additional
information and data were received from respondents through
telephone calls and letters after close of the the NOA comment
period, to clarify the comments.
Formulator/Packagers 308 Survey
EPA proposed a PSES regulation in November 1982 requiring no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters,
applied to all wastewaters from the formulation and packaging of
all pesticides (see tables on page III-6). The proposed PSES
regulation was similar to the previously promulgated BPT
regulation for direct discharging PFP plants. The same data base
was used to support the proposed zero discharge PSES standard.
EPA conducted a telephone survey of a representative portion of
the entire pesticide formulators and packagers industry
registered with EPA under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
These surveys identified PFP facilities which formulated or
packaged agricultural and/or household pesticides and which also
discharged process wastewater to a POTW. A copy of this survey
is provided in Section XX - Appendix 4.
-------
A questionnaire was then sent to the facilities so identified,
under authority of 8308 of the Clean Water Act, requesting
detailed economic, production, and process information (OMB 2040-
0041). A copy of this questionnaire is also provided in Section
XX - Appendix 5. Facilities which formulated or packaged
products other than agricultural and/or household pesticides,
such as sanitizers, disinfectants, inorganics, and surface active
agents, were excluded from the questionnaire survey. After
evaluating this new data we then notified the public of our new
data in a June 13, 1984 notice of availability ("NOA") and
summarized the results.
Screening Sampling
A screening, sampling, and analysis program was conducted during
1977 and 1978 as the first step in determining the source and
level of priority pollutants in the pesticides industry. A total
of 30 plants were sampled, 27 by EPA Regional Sampling and
Analysis teams and the remainder by EPA contractors. These
samples were taken and analyzed by GC/MS for the 126 priority
pollutants using the March 1977 analytical methods and sampling
protocol developed by the Effluent Guidelines program (U.S. EPA,
1977g). Nonconventional pesticides where an analytical method
was available were also analyxed these data were used to assist
in the selection of plants for verification sampling and in the
identification of specific pollutants to be analyzed at those
plants.
Verification Sampling Program
An evaluation of existing data as well as 308 Survey responses
was used to select 16 plants for the verification sampling and
analysis program to develop additional quantitative data on the
raw waste and effluent levels of pollutants in the pesticide
industry. These 16 plants were selected if they met the
following criteria: (1) process chemistry analysis or screening
sampling indicated the existence or suspected presence of
priority pollutants in the raw waste or treated effluent; (2) the
plant employed a potential BAT wastewater treatment technology;
and (3) the plant manufactured a variety of pesticide types.
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
III- 12
-------
least the process intake water, raw process
wastewater, and treated effluent. These samples
were transferred to the individual contractor
laboratories for analysis. An engineering report
was filed and provided to plant personnel for
review and comment.
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.
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. 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.
4. A verification sampling report was filed on
completion of the laboratory analyses. A copy of
this report was provided to the plants for review
and comment. The report contained results of
analyses, documentation of problems encountered,
and evaluation of treatment system performance.
5. A final plant report was prepared for each site
visited to include all the above mentioned
material, plant correspondence, 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 analysis, when
specific problems existed, for approximately 10
percent of the verification samples.
111-13
-------
Industry Self-Sampling Program
EPA solicited 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 was to
obtain long term data on selected priority pollutants.
The recommendation for the selection of plants to undergo self-
sampling/self-analysis was based on a review of the adequacy of
plant data, indicated or detected presence of 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. However, only four
plants participated in this program.
Data from each of the volunteer plants was received, processed,
and evaluated.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The entire verification program was designed to be conducted in
accordance with a written sampling protocol (ESE, 1979) and
within specific analytical Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) guidelines (Jayanty, March 1979). The sampling protocol
specified methods of container preparation, sample fractioning
and preserving, sample transportation, and sample documentation
and tracking.
The elements of the QA/QC program were:
1. Preparation of a QA/QC manual which consolidated
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 test samples containing unidentified
concentrations (both high and low) of compounds
common to two of the plants analyzed by the lab.
These samples, prepared in distilled water, were
111-14
-------
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 the known
concentrations of each parameter as determined by
gravimetric measurement. The results of the QA/QC
program are available in a series of reports in
the proposal administrative record.
The precision and accuracy goals of the QA/QC study were: an
overall precision 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
to audit portions of the actual wastewater analytical data
obtained by the verification program. 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. The results of the above-
mentioned audits were used to eliminate data deviating from the
specified protocols from the data set and the remaining data was
incorporated into the data tables found in this report. Data that
failed the QA/QC audit were not included in the calculation to
develop limits and standards. The data were, however, used in
conjunction with the process chemistry review.
Industry Data Provided as^ Part of_ Public Comments
Commentors submitted additional information to the Agency in
response to the November 30, 1982 proposal and the June 13, 1984
and January 24, 1985 Notices of Availability. The number of
commentors to the proposal and the two NOAs were 55, 41, and 25
respectively. The new information submitted included a
considerable amount of plant effluent data. Most of this data
were composed of corrections on previously submitted flow, raw
waste, and treatment system influent and effluent data.
Approximately one dozen commentors provided new data on priority
pollutants and nonconventional pesticide pollutants to the Agency
which significantly affected the final data base and the
calculation of long term averages and variability factors used in
deriving the final limits. Consequently, the promulgated
effluent limitations guidelines reflect these modifications and
the submittal of new data.
111-15
-------
Process Chemistry Evaluation
Because there are 119 plants in the industry and 16 were sampled
during the verification program, an evaluation of each of the
pesticide processes not sampled was performed 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 descriptions, feedstock materials including solvents
used, information and products information provided by each plant
as part of the 308 Survey response as well as using existing BPT
and published technical information on the processes in the
literature. EPA determined that pollutants are likely to be
present in the process because they are the final manufactured
product, used as raw materials, are known impurities in the feed
materials, or were reported by-products or impurities of the
reaction. The results of this process chemistry evaluation were
compared with any available data and confirmed. The results of
the process chemistry evaluation of 280 pesticides are presented
in Section V. A separate summary report has been prepared with
greater detail on the process chemistry review and is in the
confidential record. Due to the confidential nature of much of
this material, details of each process are in pesticide group
reports in the confidential portion of the record (Volume 107 to
110).
Raw Waste Load Summary
All available raw waste load data were gathered and presented in
conjunction with the process chemistry evaluation.
Representative historical data from BPT, screening data,
verification data, and 308 data, are consolidated and summarized
in Section V of this document according to groups of priority
pollutants as defined in the Glossary, Section XIX.
Treatment Technology Evaluation
Treatment and control technology currently utilized within the
pesticide chemicals manufacturing industry were evaluated in
terms of its performance in removing priority pollutants and
pesticides. Control and treatment technologies routinely
accomplishing exemplary removal of specific pollutants in other
industrial categories were evaluated to determine whether they
would be applicable to the pesticide industry where treatment
performance data were either absent or based on an evaluation of
the treatment system performance. The Agency concluded there was
inadequate treatment of certain pollutants by the pesticide
industry. EPA has determined that treatment and control
technology from other industrial categories can be transferred to
111-16
-------
the pesticide industry because the wastewater from these
industries are similiar to those in the pesticides industry and
the technologies are similarily effective in removing pollutants
common to the separate industries. Physical/chemical and
biological treatment system performance data were transferred
from the OCPSF and pharmaceutical industries for solvents common
to all three industries (where raw waste levels are similar).
The theory of each technology, full-scale design and operating
data, and treatability data are all discussed in Section VI.
Technologies were analyzed to determine their effectiveness in
removing each individual or group of priority pollutants and
nonconventional pollutant pesticides. Based on this review, flow
diagrams describing the individual treatment technology units
were developed along with the design parameters and operating
criteria which establish what constitutents a well designed and
operated treatment system. Data were deleted if they failed to
meet editing criterion. This criterion is discussed in chapter
VI.
Based on technology evaluations, criteria expressed as percent
removal and minimal effluent levels were established for the
purpose of determining best performing plants. This criteria
provided a performance description of a well designed and
operated BAT treatment system. The data from those plants
meeting these criteria were then used to develop the final
limitations. The discussion of best performing plants is also
presented in Section VI.
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 the final Subcategorization
scheme. Based on these evaluations the manufacturing processes
for organic pesticide chemicals were placed in one subcategory.
The manufacturing processes for metallo-organic pesticide
chemicals were placed in a second subcategory and pesticide
formulating and packaging was placed in a third subcategory. A
further discussion of Subcategorization is given in Section VII.
Cost and Energy
As presented in Section VIII, cost curves representing cost as a
function of flow were prepared for each of the recommended
treatment units. The design parameters used in establishing
these cost curves were based on maximum raw waste pollutant
concentrations. The cost curves used in this report differ from
111-17
-------
the curves used in the proposed development document. The design
data were updated by the use of new information from the Organic
Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fiber (OCPSF) Industry Category
for steam stripping and data provided by commentors on both the
proposal and the NOA. A reevaluation showed that both steam
stripping costs and carbon regeneration costs were previously
overestimated for the Pesticides Industry. These cost curves
were used to derive plant-by-plant capital, annual, and energy
costs. All other cost curves were updated since the proposed
development document was published and the revised cost curves
are presented in Section VIII.
Nonwater Quality Impact
The potential air and solid waste effects of recommended
treatment are discussed in Section VI.
Selection of Pollutant Parameters
The selection of pollutant parameters was based on the toxic
pollutant list in the case of priority pollutants as desirbed in
Section V. In the case of nonconventional pesticide pollutants
it was based on the availability of analytical methods, the
presence of these compounds in pesticide wastewaters, and
treatment system performance data or data from another pesticide
from which a technology transfer of performance could be made.
Selection of Expanded Best Practicable Technology
The Agency proposed expanding the 1978 BPT regulation to
establish BPT limitations on BOD, COD, TSS and pH for plants
manufacturing 21 of the 23 pesticides and two classes of
pesticides which were previously excluded; see Appendix 3 of
Section XX. The proposed expanded BPT was based on biological
treatment preceded in certain cases by hydroloysis or activated
carbon physical/chemical treatment to protect the biological
treatment system. The plants which produce these 21 pesticides
or classes of pesticides already have this treatment in-place,
and are in compliance with limitations which are based on BPJ
(Best Professional Judgement) determinations by industrial permit
writers. It was therefore concluded that the proposed BPT
expansion was not necessary and was therefore not promulgated.
The BAT regulation will control the priority pollutants
discharged by these plants.
111-18
-------
Selection of Best Available Technology
Based on technical feasibility and actual performance data, four
levels of treatment were initially considered for the proposed
regulations. Level one was based on BPT (pesticide removal by
adsorption or hydrolysis followed by biological treatment).
Level two included combinations of BPT technologies steam
stripping, chemical oxidation, and metals separation as
necessary. Level three was based on level 2 technology plus
effluent polishing through the use of a dual media filter.
Level 4 was based on level 3 plus tertiary activated carbon
adsorption for final removal of dissolved organics. The design
effluents for each level of treatment were determined. Then, an
evaluation of the economic and technical aspects of implementing
regulations at the design effluents led to the selection of level
2 as Best Available Technology for the proposed regulation. As
discussed in Section XI, the BAT model treatment technology which
forms the basis for todays regulation varies depending upon the
pollutant.
Selection of_ NSPS Technology
NSPS is based on consideration of process modifications, in-plant
controls, and end-of-pipe technology, as defined in Section XII.
NSPS is equal to BAT for the organic pesticide chemical
manufacturer's subcategory and equal to PSES for the PPP
subcategory but is excluded for the metallo-organic subcategory
because of the potential small number of sources.
Selection of Pretreatment Standards Technology
The PSES technology is the same as BAT for many of the NCPs and
two priority pollutants controlled in the manufacturer's
subcategory because of the need for biological treatment. Zero
discharge of process wastewater pollutants requirement for the
other two subcategories except in the case of mercury for
subcategory 2 was derived based on the existing BPT requirement
confirmed as appropriate by the additional analysis which were
performed. The PSES model technologies are identified and
discussed Section XIII.
Selection of BAT and NSPS EffluentLimitations and
Pretreatment Standards for Existing (PSES) and New Sources
(PSNS)
The data from best performing wastewater treatment plants
presented in Section VI was used to determine pollutant long-term
III-19
-------
averages and variability factors. From these results, which are
presented in Section XIV and XV, the daily and monthly 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 promulgated 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 XX-1 through XX-10 are provided to list important
reference data too lengthy for the body of this report and
pollutant data that are helpful in interpreting the report.
111-20
-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY PROFILE
ECONOMIC AND INVENTORY DATA
This section discusses the structure of the Pesticide Chemicals
Industry and presents economic and inventory data related to
this industry.
The pesticide chemicals industry includes plants which
formulate and package pesticide active ingredients. Most
formulator/ packagers generate little or no wastewater. However,
wastewaters that are generated through equipment washes, floor
washes, and air pollution control can contain high concentrations
of pollutants. Formulator/packager information is presented
as a subsection to this section.
Information presented in this section includes 119 pesticide
manufacturing plants currently producing 248 pesticide active
ingredients. An additional 32 pesticide active ingredients have
been included in the scope of this study but are not currently
manufactured. There is one known manufacture of metallo-organic
pesticide chemicals with an indirect discharge and approximately
1264 pesticide formulator/packagers.
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.
IV-1
-------
As reported by Eichers, et al. (1978), the total pesticide use
for farm and nonfarm 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 organochlorines, toxaphene was the leading
insecticide used in 1976, at 30.7 million pounds. Toxaphene has
subsequently been dropped from production in 1984. 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 on cotton and soybeans crops, 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).
The 1982 quantity of production was estimated from the production
quantities (in pounds) reported for 1977 in the 308 Survey, and
was adjusted to reflect changes in production levels between 1977
and 1982. Where current product-specific actual production was
available it was used.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) publishes data
annually on the total quantity of active ingredients produced and
the average unit value (dollars per pound) for all pesticides,
based on reports of manufacturers. The ITC data shows that
overall production levels of pesticide active ingredients have
dropped significantly between 1977 and 1982. In addition,
production levels for different products have changed at
different rates. Therefore, the 1977 production level of each
pesticide reported in the 308 Survey was adjusted, if no actual
data were available, by applying the ratio of quantity sold in
1982 to quantity produced in 1977 for the relevant product class.
IV- 2
-------
This yields an estimate shown on Table IV-2 of the quantity
produced in 1982 (Meta, June 1984).
Structural Grouping of Pesticides
It is useful 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 similar
levels and types of pollutant generated and similarities in
pollutant treatability. 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 displaced by an
hydroxyl ion, thereby changing the nature of the
compound to a hydroxytriazine. Table IV-3 presents the 27
structural groups developed by EPA for the November 1982 proposed
regulations. These groupings were also found to be a valid
method of grouping pesticides for the purposes of evaluating
treatability. In a detailed analyses performed by EPA (Technical
Documentation of Technology Transfer for Nonconventional
Pesticides, 1985,and Report to the Science Advisory Board,
"Technology Transfer for the Pesticide Chemicals Industry," March
21, 1983), the 27 groups were found to be a technical basis for
transferring treatability data from certain pesticide compounds
to others. This analyis is described in detail in the reference,
and is summarized in Section XIV and XV of this report. Further
identification of chemical structure and configuration for
typical and major pesticides can be found in BPT development
document (EPA 440/l-78-060e). Pesticides within the scope of
this study are defined by structural groups in the Glossary,
Section XIX.
Geographical Location of Plants
Figure IV-1 presents the geographical location of the 119
pesticide manufacturers included in or covered by this study.
Market Value of Pesticides
The response to the 308 Survey revealed that the 1977 market
value for pesticides covered by 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 showed two major trends which were considered in
IV-3
-------
both the technical and economic evaluation of the industry.
First, as shown in Figure IV-2, almost half of the plants in
1977 produced products with an annual market value of less
than 5 million dollars for all pesticides produced. This
indicated that these plants must be examined closely with
respect to capital expenditures required for pollution control
facilities. Second, over 50 percent of the total industry
market value is attributed to only 14 plants. These plants
have a greater ability to finance pollution control
investments as well as to maintain staffs capable of
engineering, operating, and monitoring the control systems.
The significance of this concentration of plants at the
extremes of market value was further evaluated in terms of
pollutant generation potential and technology requirements before
any final conclusions were drawn concerning appropriate
recommended treatment technologies and the resulting economic
impact of this regulation.
The estimated market value of pesticide active ingredients sold
by the manufacturers in 1982 is based on the unit values
published by the International Trade Commission for subgroups
(classes) which they have identified. These subgroups have
correlated to the three main classes of pesticides insecticides,
herbicides, and fungicides. The 1982 total market value is
estimated to be $4.02 billion of which herbicides account for
$1.96 billion, insecticides for $1.76 billion, and fungicides for
$0.3 billion.
Level of_ Pesticide Production
Figure IV-3 shows that the distribution of individual
pesticide production capacities is skewed toward the low end
of the scale. In 1977, the Agency's data indicated 117
pesticide plants made 248 discrete pesticides from a total
of 322 pesticide process sites. Of the 322 processes, more than
44 percent of the pesticides were produced at levels less
than 10,000 pounds per day. This is an indication of 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. These
production extremes were the reason the Agency performed
individual plant evaluations of the economic impact of this
regulation. Figure IV-4 shows the annual level of
pesticide production for the 305 process areas with reported
information. More than half the processes produce less than
1 million pounds of pesticide per year.
IV-4
-------
In 1985, 119 pesticide plants made 248 discrete pesticides from a
total of 327 pesticide process areas. Current pesticide
production distribution and process-specific production is
similar to that demonstrated in 1977.
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 known 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 for 1977 shown in Figure
IV-6 follows the same pattern as other plant operational
factors. In 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. Production frequency for 1985 is not available but is
assumed to be similar industry-wide to that reported for 1977.
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. There are several
cases where the same product is made by a different process
by different plants, thereby resulting in different
pollutants, treatment technology required, and economic impact.
IV-§<
-------
Number of Plants Owned by Companies
As demonstrated in Figure IV-8, approximately 73 percent
of all companies own only one pesticide manufacturing
plant. Of the remaining 27 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.
Other Operations a_t 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-4 shows that approximately 59
percent of the plants also produce pesticide intermediates.
In addition, approximately 76 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 process,
intermediate chemicals process and miscellaneous chemicals
process wastewaters. This fact highlights the closeness of this
industry to this organic chemicals industry in terms of
operators, wastewater characteristics, treatment methods
employed, and effluent characteristics.
Methods
-------
Type of Wastewater Treatment
Tables IV-6 and IV-7 identify the more than 30 different types
of wastewater treatment technologies used.
There are 45 plants that dispose of wastewater by direct
discharge to navigable waters. In-plant treatment with
activated carbon, resin adsorption, hydrolysis, chemical
oxidation, steam stripping, or metals separation is
used by 23 direct dischargers. Further explanation of the
design and operation of these treatment units is provided
in Section VI. There are 28 discrete plants included in Table
IV-6 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 six
direct dischargers. There are 38 discrete manufacturers
included in Table IV-7 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 indirect dischargers do not treat at least
one pesticide waste stream.
Formulator/Packagers
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 is mechanical and physical/chemical in nature
and consists of formulating, blending, canning, and
packaging operations. The levels of wastewater generation and
contamination are considerably lower than in the active-
ingredient production, and 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.
EPA proposed no discharge of process wastewater as the
pretreatment standards for existing indirect discharge pesticide
chemicals formulator/packagers. The Agency assumed that these
indirect dischargers would conduct the same types of operations
and would incur the same levels of costs as the direct
dischargers for whom zero discharge BPT effluent limitations
guidelines and standards were promulgated in 1979. Since
proposal, EPA has acquired additional data on the
formulator/packager segment of the industry. The Agency surveyed
iv- g
-------
approximately 32 percent of the 3980 formulator/packagers
registered under the Federal Insecticides, Fungicides, and
Rodenticides Act (FIFRA). EPA randomly selected 1263 plants from
the FIFRA list for initial contact through a phone survey, then
followed up with questionnaires under 308 of the Clean Water Act
to potential indirect dischargers and to non-respondents to the
telephone survey, (see Section XX - Appendix 5). The Agency, in
cooperation with representatives from industry and trade
associations such as the Chemical Specialities Manufacturers
Association (CSMA), National Agricultural Chemical Association
(NACA), and the Pesticide Producers Association (PPA), developed
the questionnaire specifically for the formulator/packager
segment of the industry. This questionnaire was mailed to 221
formulator/packagers that indicated in the telephone survey that
they were indirect dischargers. These questionnaires solicited
information on types and volumes of wastewaters, methods and
costs for disposing of these wastewaters, discharges of both
nonconventional and toxic pollutants, the types of treatment in
place at the facility and the viability and achievability of the
zero discharge standard.
The Agency excluded formulators/packagers which produced
sanitizers, disinfectants, inorganics or surface active agents
from the 308 survey. Subsequently, the Agency also deleted
plants which only formulate and package pesticide active
ingredients for which there are no proposed or promulgated
analytical methods. The results of the sample were extrapolated
to the total universe of 3980 plants on the FIFRA list. Based on
public comments and follow-up contacts the Agency corrected and
adjusted the collected data. The process for acquiring the data
and for making corrections is described in the report "Evaluation
Of Regulatory Options And The Development Of PSES and NSPS
Compliance Costs For The Pesticide Formulating And Packaging
Industry", which is in the public record. Through this
procedure, the Agency determined that there are approximately
1264 PFP plants of which about 169 discharge indirectly and about
1095 do not discharge. The remaining 2716 plants are either
closed, foreign, duplicates or are not pesticide
formulator/packagers.
The scale on which pesticides are formulated covers a broad
range. Many of the small firms have only one product
registration, and produce only a few hundred pounds of formulated
pesticides each year. However one plant operating in the
range of 100,000,000 pounds of formulated product per year has
been identified.
Pesticide formulating and packaging product market value averages
$8.21 million per plant for low flow plants and $55.5 million per
plant for high flow plants. Production frequency averages 28
weeks annually per plant with only a few plants operating 52
weeks annually.
IV-8
-------
At formulating and packaging plants, contaminated wastestreams
are a small percent of the total wastes which are generated.
Zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants is being achieved
by 87 percent of all pesticide formulating and packaging plants.
Contract hauling has been costed as a no discharge technology at
low flow plants, whereas wastewater treatment and reuse appears
to be a less costly means of achieving no discharge at high flow
plants. For a more detailed discussion of the PFP study see
Evaluation of Regulatory Options and the Development of PSES and
NSPS compliance costs for the Pesticide Formulating and Packaging
Industry, August 30, 1985.
Metallo-Organic Pesticide Manufacturers
Metallo-organic pesticides include all compounds with metallic
bases of arsenic, cadmium, copper and mercury. 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.
The promulgated BPT regulation for this group of pesticides
requires zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants. All
manufacturing sites achieved zero discharge. However, EPA has
subsequently identified one manufacturer producing mercury-based
metallo-organic compounds that has a discharge to a POTW. After
evaluating the data from this plant, the Agency has concluded
that treatment of the process wastewater followed by discharge at
this one facility is an environmentally acceptable alternative to
incineration or contract hauling, the BPT recommended technology.
This issue is discussed in detail in Sections VI, VII, XII, and
XV.
IV-9
-------
Table IV-1. Pesticide Production by Class (1977)
Class
Insecticide*
Herbicide
Fungicide*
Pungicide/Bactericide
Rodent icide
Plant Growth Regulator
Protectant
TOTAL
Number of
Products
108
86
60
15
9
1
1
280
Production Volume (1977)
Million Ibs
846
554
229**
NA
2
4
NA
1,635
Percent
51.74
33.88
14.01**
NA
0.12
0.25
NA
100
* Includes miticides, nematicides, repellants, insect synergists,
fumigants, insect growth regulators, insecticides.
+ Includes algicides and molluscicides.
** Include both fungicides and fungicide/bactericides.
++ Production not available from 30 (9.3 percent) of 322 process
sites.
NA Not available
IV-10
-------
Table IV-2. Estimated Pesticide Production by Class (1982)
Class
Insecticide*
Herbicide
Fungicide*
Fungicide/Bactericide
Rodenticide
Plant Growth Regulator
Protectant
TOTAL
Number of
Products
108
86
60
15
9
1
1
280
Estimated Production
Volume (1982)
Million Ibs
621
476
155**
2
3
NA
1,257++
Percent
49.40
37.87
12.33**
0.16
0.24
NA
100
* Includes miticides, nematicides, repellants, insect synergists,
fumigants, insect growth regulators/ insecticides.
+ Includes algicides, bactericides, mulluscicides.
** Includes both fungicides and fungicide/bactericides
++ Production not available from 35 (10.7 percent) of 327 process
sites.
NA Not available
IV-11
-------
Table IV-3. 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 279
* Does not include mercury, copper, cadmium, and arsenic-based
products.
IV-12
-------
Table IV-4. Types of Operations at Pesticide Plants (1985)
Type of Operation Number of Plants Percent of Total
^_ •• «^ ^^ *w» «
Manufacturer of Pesticide 119 100
Active Ingredients
Manufacturer of Other 90 75.6
Miscellaneous Chemicals
Manufacturer of Pesticide 70 58.8
Intermediates
Formulator/Packager 57 47.9
of Pesticides
IV-13
-------
Table IV-5. Methods of Wastewater Disposal at Pesticide Plants
(1985)
Type of Wastewater Disposal Number of Plants*
Direct Discharge to Navigable Waters 45
Indirect Discharge (POTW, etc.) 38
Deep Well Injection 18
Incineration 15
No Wastewater Generated 11
Contract Hauling of all Wastewater 9
Evaporation Ponds 6
Land Disposal 5
Not Available 2
* There are a total of 119 plants in the industry; however, many
have more than one means of disposal.
Includes wastewater which is recycled, reused, or because no
wastewater is generated.
1V-14
-------
Table IV-6. Treatment Utilized at Plants Disposing Pesticide
Wastewaters to Navigable Waters
__ __ __ ^.v .^ ^_ ..H ^_ _. _ ^_ ^_ _ ^_ ^_ .«- —_ _« .••» —I— ^B» «•• ^M <«• ^_t ••• <^B •_ ^B> -^BB V
Type of Wastewater Treatment Number of Plants*
Activated Carbon 17+
Activated Sludge 17
Aerated Lagoon 17
Aerobic Digestion 2
Anaerobic Digestor 1
API-Type Separator 1
Chemical Oxidation 7
Coagulation 5
Cyanide Detoxification 1
Equalization 32
Evaporation Pond 2
Flocculation 4
Gravity Separation 28
Hydrolysis 6
Liquid-liquid Extraction 1
Metal Separation 2
Multimedia Filtration 7**
Neutralization 31
None 2
Nutrient Addition 1
Pressure Leaf Filter 2
Resin Adsorption 2
Skimming 8
Sludge Thickening 1
Solvent Extraction 1
Stripping 4
Trickling Filters 3
Vacuum Filtration 1
Wet Scrubber 5
* There are a total of 45 plants disposing to navigable waters;
some use more than one type of wastewater treatment.
+ Activated carbon used as tertiary treatment in five waste
streams.
** Multimedia filtration used as tertiary treatment in two
waste streams.
IV-15
-------
Table IV-7. 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 1
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 8
Not Available 1
Resin Adsorption 2
Skimming 6
Sludge Thickening 1
Stripping 3
Vacuum Filtration 2
Wet Scrubber 1
* There are a total of 38 plants disposing to POTWs; some use more
than one type of wastewater treatment.
IV 16
-------
Table IV-8. Formulator/Packager Production Distribution
Production Percent
(million Ibs/yr) Formulator/Packagers
<0.5 24
>0.5 to <5.0 41
>5.0 to <50 35
TOTAL 100
IV-17
-------
Table IV-9. Percent of Formulator/Packager Pesticide Classes
Class Percentage
Herbicides 40.0
Insecticides 32.0
Fungicides 19.4
Fumigants 8.6
TOTAL 100
IV-18
-------
400 MACS
r
•OOKHAMETOtt
Figure IV Geographical Location of Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturers
(Total of 119 Plants)
-------
0 5 10 25 78 >T5
INDIVIDUAL PUNT MARKET VALUE RANGES
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS /YEAR)
1800
13M
0 5 10 2ft n >7B
INDIVIDUAL PLANT MARKET VALUE RANGES
(MILLIONS OP DOLLARS /YEAR)
(1) MARKET VALUE RANGES FOR 8 OF 117
PLANTS NOT AVAILABLE
FIGURE 1V-2. MARKET VALUE OF PESTICIDES (1977)
IV-20
-------
1
140-
130.
120.
110-
100-
H M-
(0
Q. TO-
flC M
a
Z 50.
40.
30-
20'
10-
0
144
iifllii
111
S^Swx
i^^x^l
HH
Bill
••••>•$•$>•$:
H
•i
gxixixixiii
K:X:SX:::X:
§111
•i
•
IB
1
1
40
Hi,,;,",,.
C*X*X*X*X*»* X"»*X*X*X*X*
14 17.
7 •
1 1 fl M|
0 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100 >100
LEVEL OF PRODUCTION (1000 lb» /day)
(1) LEVEL NOT AVAILABLE FOR 45 (14%) OF 322 PROCESS SITES
FIGURE IV-3 DAILY LEVEL OF PESTICIDE PRODUCTION
(1977)
IV-21
-------
160-i
150-
140-
130-
120-
110-
100-
-. 90-
OT
U
2 n~
I-
3 50-
40 —
30-
20-
10-
166
xlliiil
liil
•Six^i-i-S
iSSxSx*
§?!?:S®
H
§^:J:$ft:
S'SSI'S'
^^p
^^p
5^«^^
I^H
B
••2*X*I»A%*i
Illxfl:
*X*X*X"X*«
4
126
«^^
•i'l'SS'i'i
•:$:§:$:§•
•:|i'i:i:i:i":*:
H
i-i-x?^
•
Ml
&$!
Ix^^
IB
X*X%vX*i
*:?:•:?:?:
•:i:^:j:5
' 1
.,,..* , 7
SSSSSS? i-xS$i$ * 5
^SSS S=x^i ^^x?i 5T55533 1 1 0 0 1
I " i " I 4 i li° 136 1~
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 (1977)
IV-22
-------
i as 4 s 17 i • 10 11 ta 11 14 11 it 17 11 it to
PRODUCED PTO PLANT
NUMBER OJP
(1) Ni 117 PLANTS
FIGURE IV-5
NUMBERlPF PESTICIDES PRODUCED
PER PLANT (1977)
IV-23
-------
48
30 60 90 120 160 180 210 240 270 300
NUMBER OF DAYS EACH PESTICIDE PRODUCED (1977)
330
366
(1) FREQUENCY NOT AVAILABLE FOR 48 (14.3%) OF 322 PROCESS SITES
FIGURE IV-6 FREQUENCY OF PESTICIDE PRODUCTION
(1977)
IV-24
-------
NUMBER OF PLANTS EACH PRODUCING THE SAME PESTICIDE
(1) n : 246 PESnCDES
RGURE IV-7 NUMBER OF PLANTS EACH PRODUCING
THE SAME PESTICIDE (1977)
IV-25
-------
M -i
1 a a 4 s a r
NUMBER OP PLANTS OWNED BY EACH COMPANY
(1) n 3 76 COMPANIES
Figure IV-8 NUMBER OF PLANTS OWNED BY EACH COMPANY (1977)
IV-26
-------
SECTION V
RAW WASTE LOAD CHARACTERIZATION
ORGANIC PESTICIDES CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING SUBCATEGORY
The purpose of this section is to present information on the raw
waste load and process wastewater characteristics for the 280
pesticides covered under the organic pesticide manufacturers
portion of this study in terms of the priority pollutants,
conventional, and nonconventional parameters originating from
these processes. The term "raw waste load," as utilized in this
document, is defined as the quantity of pollutant in wastewater
prior to a treatment process. The flow of the raw waste 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 (mg/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 organic
pesticide chemical manufacturing 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 pesticide manufacturers' responses to the 308 Survey
and subsequent follow-up letters, from screening sampling, from
the verification sampling program conducted at 16 pesticide
plants, and public comment responses to the November 1982
proposal, June 13, 1984 NOA and January 24, 1985 NOA. Second, a
process chemistry evaluation of each pesticide was conducted in
order to determine which pollutants were likely to be
present. Data presented within this section are typical raw
waste loads gathered from BPT through BAT proposal. Data
subsequent to BAT proposal have been thoroughly reviewed and
evaluated with the results included in subsequent sections of
this document but are not included in this section since the new
information reaffirms the Agency's previous conclusions on raw
waste loads.
The flow, concentration and mass per unit of production
were calculated for each pollutant at each plant where data
were available. Pollutant concentration data was evaluated
according to groups of priority pollutants which are similar in
chemical/physical characteristics and which are measured by
similar chemical analytical methods. Section XIX—Glossary, and
Section XX-Appendix 1, provides identification of
specific compounds within each priority pollutant group which
V-l
-------
are included in the scope of this study.
Priority pollutants likely to be present were determined by
conducting a process chemistry evaluation for each pesticide
process. The possible sources of the pollutants were
identified as: the manufactured product itself, raw materials
used in pesticide synthesis, impurities in either the
product or raw materials, byproducts of synthesis reactions,
solvents used as a carrier medium, solvents used as an
extraction medium, impurities in solvents, catalysts, and
impurities in the catalysts.
The Agency conducted these evaluations by examining propietary
process chemistry diagrams supplied by manufacturers. These
proprietary diagrams are the bases for some of the process
chemistry evaluations. Supplemental literature was also used
which includes Considine (1974), Entomological Society of America
(1974), Kirk and Othmer (2nd Ed.), Sittig (1980), SRI
International (1979), Ware (1978), Weast (1974) and Worthing
(1979). Process conditions such as pH, temperature, pressure,
and reaction time were considered in the evaluations.
The Agency proposed these evaluations in November 1982. In
response to public comment, some modifications were considered as
set forth in the June 13, 1984 NOA. In response to the public
comment on the NOA additional modifications were made. The
process chemistry evaluation for the final regulation was done in
the following manner.
1. An abbreviated process description was developed for all of
the pesticide products listed. In some cases, synthetic routes
to the raw materials were also developed. These process
descriptions were developed and/or checked for applicability to
specific plants by reference to five sources:
a. "Pesticide Manufacturing and Toxic Materials Control
Encyclopedia" by Sittig. This book is based on the
patent literature and other publicly available sources.
b. "The Pesticide Manual" by the British Crop Protection
Council. This book is based on the patent literature
and other publicly available sources.
c. A 5-volume confidential review of pesticide
manufacturing processes prepared by an EPA contractor
and used to develop the list in Section XX-Appendix 6.
The confidential 5-volume series incorporated comments
submitted on the proposal concerning the priority
pollutants regulated as a result of our process
chemistry evaluation. If there were questions about
the process review, sources (d) and (c) were also
V-2
-------
utilized.
d. Process flow diagrams and other information in the 308
questionnaire submitted by the plant(s) that
manufactured a particular pesticide product.
e. Direct phone contact with plant (or corporate)
environmental staff that submitted the 308
questionnaire, or by their referral to a plant process
chemist that was qualified to answer specific questions
about the process descriptions given in the 308
questionnaire.
2. The priority pollutants listed for each pesticide product
were examined for consistency with the process descriptions
developed in Step 1. For each pesticide product, priority
pollutants were retained, added or deleted to make the associated
priority pollutants consistent with the chemistry of the
respective processes.
3. When the associated priority pollutants contained more than
one member of a generic group (e.g., chlorophenols), the
predominant member of the group was listed for control, and the
other members were deleted. This listing criterion was based on
the fact that treatment to control the member present at the
highest concentration would also control the other members that
are present at lower concentrations. Predominance was determined
principally by whether the pollutant was a raw material,
solvent, product or byproduct in the process. If one member was
a raw material and an'other member was a solvent, both would be
considered predominate and acccordingly listed. If none of these
process ingredients was a priority pollutant, then listing was
determined by whether the pollutant was a likely impurity in the
process ingredients.
Exceptions to the listing criterion were:
a. If members of the group were not amenable to the same
or similar control technology, they were not deleted.
For a discussion of the treatability of pollutants by
the same or similiar treatment technology see chapter
VI of the Development Document. In this case, members
not treatable to the same control technology were
listed separately (e.g., chlorophenol vs.
pentachlorophenol).
b. If all members of the group occur only as impurities in
the process ingredients, then all were retained in the
listing. in this case, there is no obvious means of
establishing predominance.
V-3
-------
4. Once an independent process chemistry evaluation had been
performed pursuant to steps 1-3, an evaluation was made of the
NOA comments concerning the priority pollutants regulated as a
result of our process chemistry evaluation. If commenters
recommended that a priority pollutant be either added or deleted
and their rationale was not obvious given steps 1-3, as described
above, the Agency reviewed the appropriate 308 data and/or
telephoned the commenter to determine whether or not the priority
pollutant was associated with the manufacturing process. If as a
result of these steps a revision was considered appropriate, it
was made.
The indicated and detected presence of pollutants derived in
this manner is presented in Tables V-l through V-30.
These typical data are also utilized in later sections of
this report 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.
FLOW
The process wastewater flow for each pesticide was evaluated
to determine 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 327 pesticide process areas
for which data were available. Significant information in
this figure shows that: 11 percent of all pesticide processes
have no flow; 50 percent of all pesticide processes 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.
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
are based on the range of flows from 0.01 to 1.0 MGD.
Flows reported in the tables presented later in this section
represent the flow measured at the given sample point which
generally does not represent either the pesticide process flow
or total plant flow (see tables listing pollutants detected in
pesticide process wastewaters).
V-4
-------
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
An overview of the detected/indicated frequency of priority
pollutant groups is presented in Table V-l. These data show
that even the most prevalent pollutant group, volatile
aromatics, is indicated to be present in only approximately
42 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. An evaluation was conducted of the frequency of occurrence
of priority pollutants in pesticide process wastewaters, based on
308 questionnaire data and verification sampling data. The
following results reflect a review of proposal and notice
comments submitted by industry and others as well as a re-
evaluation of pre-existing information on the frequency of
occurrence of priority pollutants in pesticides process
wastewaters presented in the proposal. Any data that *was
provided was reviewed for technical quality and analytical
acceptability and incorporated into the process chemistry review.
Quality assurance/quality control guidelines used in their review
are discussed in Section III.
Priority pollutants which were detected in pesticide wastewaters
or indicated to be present based on the process chemistry
evaluation were identified for each nonconventional pesticide
manufacturing process regardless of the regulatory status of the
active ingredient.
Due to the variety and uniqueness of the pesticide manufacturing
processes, some general assumptions were used to determine
relative concentrations between pollutant types such as raw
materials and solvents, and byproducts and impurities.
Sufficient information, such as kinetic measurements for all
reactions, was not available to determine rates of pollutant
formation. However, general assumptions regarding relative
quantitation were made based on knowledge of generalized chemical
reactions, physical processes, reaction sequence, reaction
completion, and unreacted feedstocks typical of all pesticide
processes. These general assumptions were verified by an
inspection of standard handbooks of chemistry, by evaluation of
308 questionnaires, and by follow-up plant contacts. The
following general assumptions, upon which some specific
assumptions depend, have been implicitly used.
1. All chemical feedstocks are of less than 100 percent purity.
The contaminates of feedstocks may be classified as
impurities or reaction byproducts. The impurities that may
be present in feedstocks are considered to be the raw
materials, solvents, catalysts, and other compounds used in
feedstock synthesis. In regard to chemical feedstocks/
V-5
-------
reaction byproducts are secondary compounds formed in
feedstock synthesis. The process for producing a chemical
feedstock is based on information from Merck Index (1976)
unless otherwise noted. Although not always true, this
process is assumed to be the actual industrial chemical
synthetic route employed by the supplier to the pesticide
plants.
2. A suspected impurity is assumed to be inert with regard to
the chemical reactions of pesticide synthesis.
3. Unless information was available to the contrary, impurities
in a raw material, solvent, or catalyst used in a pesticide
process are not suspected as wastewater constituents in
significant quantities.
4. Chemical feedstock reaction byproducts are assumed to be
present in negligible quantities and are therefore not
expected to be present in a wastewater produced from a
pesticide synthesis using that chemical feedstock (see
assumption 1 above). Hexachlorobutadiene, HCBD, is an
exception to this assumption. HCBD is a byproduct of the
hexachlorocyclopentadiene, HCCPD, synthesis reaction, but it
is known to exist in high concentrations in the raw
material.
5. Reaction byproducts are any compounds other than the final
product that are formed during pesticide synthesis. They
may result from either the main synthesis reactions or the
side reactions described as byproduct reactions. These
byproducts of main synthesis reactions are sometimes
referred to as co-products.
6. If members of a priority pollutant group are expected to be
present in a process wastestream, then only the pollutant
likely to be most prevalent was selected as the effluent
limited priority pollutant for a priority pollutant group,
because technology used to control the most prevalent member
adequately controls the other group members.
7. If the chemical of concern in a process wastestream is not a
priority pollutant, but is typically associated with low
levels of priority pollutants, then the associated priority
pollutants would be considered.
These general assumptions provided support for the qualitative
specific assumptions found in each pollutant group subsection.
Specific groups of pollutants were identified for the Pesticide
V-6
-------
Industry. Fourteen priority pollutant groups are addressed in
this report. Arranged in alphabetical order by group,
confidential Tables 1 through 14 found in the confidential
addendum to this document list the priority pollutants indicated
to be present in pesticide process wastewaters. These tables
also depict the pollutant source for each pesticide as raw
material, solvent, catalyst, impurity, or byproduct. Much of the
information presented in these tables has been submitted in
response to Agency's request for information. Information
requested pursuant to Section 308 may not be withheld from the
Agency on the ground that it is considered confidential or
proprietary. Section 308(b), however, does accord protection to
trade secrets. As such, some of the information relating to
production processes and materials has been claimed as
confidential and pesticide names and plant names are coded where
appropriate throughout this document.
Section XX-Appendix 6 presents a listing of the indicated
priority pollutants for each nonconventional pesticide. It was
determined that for 12 pesticides produced at more than one
plant, the priority pollutants indicated to be present differed
from plant to plant based on the manufacturing process at each
plant. The priority pollutants listed for these pesticides are
specified by plant in Appendix 6. The list of priority
pollutants indicated to be present was evaluated by pollutant
group to identify the pollutants of primary significance for
regulation. This evaluation paralleled that which was conducted
for proposal and presented in the Proposed Development Document.
A discussion of the process chemistry evaluation employed to
predict the priority pollutants in pesticide wastewaters is
presented by group as follows in order of prevalence in the
industry.
Volatile Aromatics
Benzene and its derivatives are used widely throughout the
chemical industry as solvents and raw materials. Table V-2
contains a coded list of the suspected presence of these
compounds in the pesticide industry. Table V-3 list historical
data typically detected in pesticide process wastewaters for
volitile aromatics.
Mono-, di-, and trichlorobenzenes 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 15 pesticides, although their main use is
as a carrier solvent in 76 processes. It is predicted that
additional priority pollutant aromatics and chlorinated aromatics
exist as impurities or reaction byproducts due to the reactions
V-7
-------
of the basic raw material and solvent compounds.
Process descriptions were developed for all the pesticide
products listed. These process descriptions were developed
and/or checked for applicability to specific plants by reference
to the five sources mentioned earlier in this section. The
volatile aromatic listed for each pesticide product was examined
for consistency with process descriptions reviewed. Assumptions
were then drawn from this examination to provide a basis for
developing the list of volatile aromatics suspected in pesticide
waste streams. The assumptions are as follows:
1. When xylene is used as a solvent in the process, then
impurities such as benzene, toluene, and ethylbenzene are
suspected to be present.
2. When trichlorodiphenylethane in a benzene solution is used
as a raw material, then benzene is suspected to be present
as a raw material impurity.
3. When toluene sulfonic acid is used as a raw material, then
tol'uene is suspected to be present as a raw material
impurity.
4. When parachlorobenzotrifluoride is used as a raw material,
then chlorobenzene is suspected to be present as a raw
material impurity.
5. When 1,1,1-trichloro - 2,2-diphenyl ethane is used as a raw
material, then benzene is suspected to be present as a raw
material impurity.
6. When tetrachlorobenzene is used as a raw material, then
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene is suspected to be present as a raw
material impurity. Hexachlorobenzene was also identified by
the pesticide manufacturer as a byproduct in the PCNB
process.
7. When producing the pesticide DCPA, hexachlorobenzene was
identified by the manufacturer as a byproduct during the
esterification reaction.
8. When bis-chloromethyldodecyltoluene is used as a raw
material, then toluene is suspected to be present as a raw
material impurity.
V-8
-------
9. When DDT is used as a raw material, then chlorobenzene is
suspected to be present as a raw material impurity.
10. When p-toluene sulfonic acid is used as a catalyst, then
toluene is suspected to be present as an impurity in the
catalyst.
11. During the chlorination of benzene, byproducts such as
chlorobenzene is suspected to be present.
12. 1,4-dichlrobenzene is suspected as a byproduct in the
formation of 1,2-dichlorobenzene, and 1-2-dichlorobenzene is
suspected as a byproduct in the 1,4-dichlorobenzene
formation.
13. When 2,2,2',4',5'-pentachloroacetophenone is used as a raw
material, then 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene is suspected to be
present as an impurity in the raw material.
14. When producing the pesticide toxaphene, chlorobenzene was
identified by the manufacturer to be present in the process;
however, the reaction source has not been determined.
15. When 4-chlorothiophenol is used as a raw material, then
benzene and chlorobenzene are suspected to be impurities in
the raw material.
16. During the production of thiabendazole, 1,3-dichlorobenzene
was identified by the manufacturer to be present in the
process; however, the reaction source has not been
determined.
17. When dichlorophen is used as a raw material, then toluene is
suspected to be present as a raw material impurity.
18. When 2,4-dichlorobenzophenone is used as a raw material,
then chlorobenzene is suspected to be present as a raw
material impurity.
Halomethanes
Table V-4 shows that methylene chloride, chloroform, and carbon
tetrachloride (di-, tri-, and tetra-chloromethane, respectively)
V-9
-------
are used mainly as raw materials and solvents in approximately 28
pesticide processes. Table V-5 list historical data typically
detected in pesticide process wastewaters for halomethanes.
Bromomethanes can be expected in at least five pesticides as raw
materials, byproducts, or impurities and can function as a
fumigant, in the case of methyl bromide. The fluoromethanes are
used as aerosol propellants, but they are not expected in
pesticide process wastewaters.
Process descriptions were developed for all the pesticide
products listed. These process descriptions were developed
and/or checked for applicability to specific plants by reference
to the five sources mentioned earlier in this section. The
halemethane listed for each pesticide product was examined for
consistency with process descriptions reviewed. Assumptions were
than drawn from this examination of provide a basis for
developing the list of halomethanes suspected in pesticide waste
streams. The assumptions are as follows:
1. Methanol in the presence of hydrogen chloride will react to
form methyl chloride.
2. When trimethyl phosphite is reacted with chloral, methyl
chloroacetoacetate, methyl crotonamide, or pentachloro-
acetophenone then methyl chloride is suspected to be present
as a reaction byproduct and is vented as a gas and either
incinerated or recovered. Methyl chloride is suspected to
be presented in the incinerator scrubber or recovery system
aqueous effluent.
3. When methylene bromide is used as a raw material, then
methyl bromide, bromoform, and methylene chloride are
suspected to be present as impurities in the raw material.
4. When producing the pesticide ethylene dibromide, bromoform
was identified by the manufacturer; however, the reaction
source has not been determined.
5. When coke, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are reacted to form
carbon monoxide, then methane is suspected as aD@
byproduct. Upon chlorina
phosgene, methane is also chlorinated and methyl chloride,
methylene chloride, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride are
suspected to be present as reaction byproducts.
6. When cyanuric chloride is used as a raw material, then
carbon tetrachloride is suspected to be present as a raw
material impurity.
V-10
-------
7. When trichloromethane sulfenyl chloride is used as a raw
material, then chloroform is suspected to be present as an
impurity in the raw material.
8. When 2,4-DB is used as a raw material, then methylene
chloride is suspected to be present as an impurity in the
raw material.
9. When chlorobenzene is used as a phosgenation solvent then
carbon tetrachloride is suspected to be present as an
impurity.
10. When producing certain pesticides, methylene chloride is
used as a purification solvent.
Cyanide
Cyanide is a known or suspected pollutant in approximately 24
pesticide processes, as shown in Table V-6. Table V-7 lists
typical cyanide data detected in pesticide wastewaters. The
primary raw materials which favor the generation of cyanides as
either byproducts or impurities are cyanamides, cyanates,
thiocyanates, and cyanuric chloride. Cyanuric chloride is used
exclusively in the manufacture of triazine pesticides.
Process descriptions were developed for all the pesticide
products listed. These process descriptions were developed
and/or checked for applicability to specific plants by reference
to the five sources mentioned earlier in this section. If
cyanide was listed for a pesticide product its listing was
examined for consistency with process descriptions reviewed.
Assumptions were then drawn from this examination to provide a
basis for developing the list of cases where cyanide compounds
are suspected in pesticide waste streams. The assumptions are as
follows:
1. When cyanuric chloride is used as a raw material, then
cyanide is suspected to be present as a reaction byproduct
from the degradation product cyanogen chloride as well as a
raw material impurity.
V-ll
-------
2. When methyl cyanocarbamate, isophthalodinitrile, cyanamide,
sodium cyanate, sodium thiocyanate, 2-cyanopyridinef
ammonium thiocyanate, cyanamide 50, or thiazole is used as a
raw material in the pesticide process, then cyanide is
suspected to be present only as an impurity introduced
during the synthesis of these raw materials.
3. When sodium cyanate is used as a raw material then cyanide
is suspected to be present in the wastewater.
4. When aminoisobutyronitrile is used as a raw material, then
cyanide is suspected to be present as a raw material
impurity.
5. When sodium cyanide is used as a starting material in
producing dichlorobenzin then cyanide is suspected to be
present as an impurity in dichlorobenzil.
6. When azobisisobutyronitrile is used as a catalyst then
cyanide is suspected to be present as an impurity in the
catalyst.
7. When pesticides that use cyanuric chloride as a raw material
are used as a feed stock, then cyanide is suspected to be
present as a raw material impurity and reaction byproduct.
Haloethers
There are five compounds classified as priority pollutants that
contain an ether moiety and halogen atoms attached to the aryl
and alkyl groups. Table V-8 identified five pesticides suspected
to contain at least one compound from this class. Bis(2-
chloroethyl)ether (BCEE) is used as a raw material in two
pesticides, while BCEE itself, di(chloroethyl)ether, functions as
a fungicide or bactericide in certain applications. In the
remainder of the pesticides the ethers are shown to be suspected
raw material impurities. Table V-9 list historical data
typically detected in pesticide process wastewaters.
Process descriptions were developed for all the pesticide
products listed. These process descriptions were developed
and/or checked for applicability to specific plants by reference
to the five sources mentioned earlier in this section. The
haloether compound listed for each pesticide product was examined
for consistency with process descriptions reviwed. An assumption
was then drawn from this examination to provide a basis for
suspecting that BCEE is present in pesticide waste streams. The
V-12
-------
assumption is as follows:
1. When butyl carbitol or butyl carbitol chloride is used as a
raw material, then BCEE is suspected to be present as a raw
material impurity.
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, nitrophenols, and methylphenols
(cresols). Table V-10 contains a coded list of the suspected
presence of the compounds in the pesticide industry. Table V-ll
lists historical data typically detected in pesticide process
wastewaters. 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. As an example, it can be concluded from
Table 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 nitrated phenols is
expected in six pesticides. Methylated phenols are not expected
to be significant since they are not used as raw materials, but
they may appear as impurities of reaction from one pesticide due
to use of 4-methylthio-m-cresol as a raw material.
Process descriptions were developed for all the pesticide
products listed. These process descriptions were developed
and/or checked for applicability to specific plants by reference
to the five sources mentioned earlier in this section. The
phenolic compound listed for each pesticide product was examined
for consistency with process descriptions reviewed. Assumptions
were then drawn from this examination to provide a basis for
developing the list of phenolic compounds suspected in pesticide
waste streams. The assumptions are as follows:
1. When 2,4-dichlorophenol is used as a raw material in the
process, then phenol, 2-chloropehnol, and 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol are suspected to be present as impurities in
the raw material.
2. When 4-nitrophenol is used as a raw material, then phenol
is suspected as an impurity in the raw material.
3. When the sodium salt of 4-nitrophenol is used as a raw
material then 2-nitrophenol is suspected as an impurity in
the raw material.
V-13
-------
4. When 4-methylthiophenol is used as a raw material then
phenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol are
suspected to be present as impurities in the raw material.
5. When phenylacetate is used as a raw material which reacts
with bis (chloroethyl)ether, then phenol is suspected to be
a raw material impurity.
6. 2,4-Dichlorophenol was identified by the manufacturer of
dicamba and is suspected to be present as an impurity in the
raw material.
7. When p-sec-butyl phenol is used as a raw material, then
phenol and 2,4-dinitrophenol are suspected to be present as
impurities in the raw material.
8. When 4-chlorophenol is used as a raw material, then 2-
chlorophenol and 2,4-dichlorophenol are suspected to be
present as impurities in the raw material.
9. When PCP is used as a raw material then phenol is suspected
to be present as an impurity in the raw material.
10. When dinitro-octylphenol is used as a raw material, then
phenol is suspected to be present as an impurity in the raw
material.
11. When 4-methylthio-m-cresol is used as a raw material, then
4-chloro-m-cresol is suspected to be present as an impurity
in the raw material.
12. When 2,4,5-trichlorophenol is used as a raw material, then
2,4,6-trichlorophenol are suspected to be present as
impurities in the raw material.
13. When anisole is used as a raw material, then phenol is
suspected to be present as an impurity in the raw material.
14. When p-chloronitrobenzene is used as a raw material, then 2-
nitrophenol and 4-nitrophenol are suspected to be present as
impurities in the raw material.
V-14
-------
15. In certain pesticides, 2-chlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol,
and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol are suspected as byproducts of the
chlorination reaction.
16. In certain pesticides, phenol, 2-chlorophenol, 2,4-
dichlorophenol, and 2,4,6-tirchlorophenol are suspected to
be presented as reaction byproducts.
17. When 2,4,5-trichlorophenyl dichlorothiophosphate is used as
a raw material, then phenol, 2-chlorophenol, 2,4-
dichlorophenol, and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol are suspected to
be present as impurities in the raw material.
18. When 2,4-D is used as a raw material, then 2,4-
dichlorophenol is suspected to be present as an impurity in
the raw material.
19. When thiophenol is used as a raw material, then phenol is
suspected to be present as an impurity in the raw material.
20. When 4-chloro-o-cresol is used as a raw material, then 4-
chloro-m-cresol and phenol are suspected to be present as
impurities in the raw material.
21. When producing certain pesticides, 2-nitrophenol, 4-
nitrophenol, and 2,4-dinitrophenol are suspected to be
present as reaction byproducts.
22. When pentachlorobenzene undergoes nitration, then
pentachlorophenol is suspected to be present as a reaction
byproduct.
Polynuclear Aromatics
There are 17 priority pollutant compounds which can be classified
as polynuclear aromatics (PNA's). 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 is by far the most
prevalent PNA priority pollutant in the industry. As shown in
Table V-12 acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluorence, fluoranthene,
and phenanthrene are found only as raw material impurities.
Acenaphthene is found in one pesticide process as a raw material.
The remaining ten polynuclear aromatic compounds are not
V-15
-------
suspected to be present in pesticide processes. Table V-13 lists
historical data typically detected in the pesticide process
wastewaters.
Process descriptions were developed for all the pesticide
products listed. These process descriptions were developed
and/or checked for applicability to specific plants by reference
to the five sources mentioned earlier in this section. The
polynuclear aromatics listed for each pesticide product was
examined for consistency with process descriptions reviewed.
Assumptions were then drawn from this examination to provide a
basis for developing the list of polynuclear aromatics suspected
in pesticide waste streams. The assumptions are as follows:
1. When 1-naphthoxide is used as a raw material, then
napthalene is suspected to be present as raw material
impurity.
2. When a-naphthol is used as a raw material, then napthalene,
acenaphthene/acenaphthylene, anthracene/phenanthrene and
fluorene/fluoranthene are suspected to be present as
impurities in the raw material.
3. When a-naphthylamine is used as a raw material, then
napthalene is suspected to be present as impurity in the raw
material.
4. When producing the pesticide endrin, naphthalene was
identified by the manufacturer and confirmed by wastewater
sampling, however the reaction source has not been
determined. The suspected presence of 2-chloronapthalene
also has been confirmed by wastewater sampling, however the
reaction source has not been determined.
5. When acenapthene is used as a raw material, then napthalene
is suspected to be present as an impurity in the raw
material.
6. When producing certain pesticides, naphthalene is suspected
to be present as a reaction byproduct.
Metals
In the pesticide industry metals are used principally as
catalysts or as raw materials which are incorporated into the
active ingredients, e.g., metallo-organic pesticides. Certain
V-16
-------
priority pollutant metals which are incorporated into arsenic,
cadmium, copper, and mercury based pesticides are included in the
scope of this study as a separate segment because they were
regulated to a zero discharge of process wastewater to navigable
waters during BPT.
Table V-14 contains a coded list of the suspected presence of the
compounds in the pesticide industry. Table V-15 lists historical
data for pollutants typically detected in the pesticide process
wastewaters.
As shown in Table V-14, copper is found or suspected in
wastewaters from at least 8 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, zinc
becomes part of the technical grade pesticide in seven processes;
whereas mercury is used as a catalyst in one pesticide process.
Manganese and tin-based pesticides are still manufactured;
however/ these are not priority pollutant metals.
Process descriptions were developed for all the pesticide
products listed. These process descriptions were developed
and/or checked for applicability to specific plants by reference
to the five sources mentioned earlier in this section. The metal
listed for each pesticide product was examined for consistency
with process descriptions reviewed. Assumptions were then drawn
from this examination to provide a basis for developing the list
of metals suspected in pesticide waste streams. The assumptions
are as follows:
1. When copper is used as a raw material or catalyst in the
pesticide process, then it is suspected to be present in
pesticide wastewaters.
2. When zinc is used as a raw material or catalyst in the
pesticide process, then it is suspected to be present in
pesticide wastewaters.
3. When arsenic is used as a raw material or catalyst in the
pesticide process, then it is suspected to be present in
pesticide wastewaters.
4. When cadmium is used as a raw material or catalyst in the
pesticide process, then it is suspected to be present in
pesticide wastewaters.
V-17
-------
5. When mercury is used as a raw material or catalyst in the
pesticide process, then it is suspected to be present in
pesticide wastewater.
6. When producing the pesticide acephate, arsenic was
identified by the manufacturer as a raw material impurity.
7. When zinc chloride is used as a raw material, then zinc is
suspected to be present in pesticide wastewaters.
8. When Of0-diethyl-0-(4-methylthiophenol)phosphorothioate is
used as a raw material, then copper is suspected as a raw
material impurity due to its use as a catalyst in the raw
material manufacture.
9. When mercury is used as a catalyst, then it is suspected to
be present in pesticide wastewater.
10. When 0,0-dimethyl-S-[2- (ethylsulpenyl)ethyl]-phosphorothioate
is used as a raw material, then copper is suspected to be
present as a raw material impurity due to it as a catalyst
in the raw material manufacture.
The other priority pollutant metals (antimony, beryllium,
chromium, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium) may be
present as impurities in any pesticide or industrial process
wastewaters in trace amounts below the level of treatability due
to the following 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, or lead in addition to the other metals present
(copper, cadmium, nickel, and zinc);
3. Antimony and arsenic are often found as hardening agents in
copper, lead, and other metals 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;
V-18
-------
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.
Therefore, the above impurities are not included as priority
pollutants in the pesticide industry manufacturing processes
covered as regulated priority pollutants when these were the only
potential sources.
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes
The chlorinated ethanes and ethylenes are used as
cleaning agents, and intermediates. Vinyl
(chloroethylene) is used in the production of plastic
chloride. In the pesticide industry approximately 23
are suspected to contain a member of this group of
pollutants (Table V-16). The principal pollutants suspected are
1,2-dichloroethane, which is used as a solvent in seven
pesticides and tetrachloroethylene, which is used as a solvent in
two pesticides. Table V-17 list historical data typically
detected in the pesticide process wastewaters.
solvents,
chloride
polyvinyl
products
priority
Process descriptions were developed for all the pesticide
products listed. These process descriptions were developed
and/or checked for applicability to specific plants by reference
to the five sources mentioned earlier in this section. The
chlorinated ethane and ethylene compounds listed for each
pesticide product were examined for consistency with process
descriptions reviewed. Assumptions Were then drawn from this
examination to provide a basis for developing the list of
chlorinated ethane and ethylene compounds suspected in pesticide
waste streams. The assumptions are as follows:
1. When 1,2-dichloroethane is used as a solvent in the process,
then impurities such as 1,1,2-trichloroethane and 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane are suspected to be present.
V-19
-------
2. When vinyl chloride is used as a raw material then
impurities such as chloroethane are suspected to be present
as a raw material impurity.
3. When anhydrous ethyl alcohol and phosphorous pentasulfide
are reacted, ethyl dithiophosphone acid results. Upon
chlorination of ethyl dithiophosphone into ethyl
phosphorochlorodithionate, chloroethane is suspected to be
present as a reaction byproduct.
4. When producing the pesticide di(chloroethyl) ether, 1,2-di-
chloroethane was identified by the manufacturer as a
byproduct.
5. When producing the pesticides alachlor, butachlor, and
propachlor, lf2-dichloroethane was identified by the
manufacturer as an impurity.
6. When producing the pesticide methamidophos, 1,2-
dichloroethane was identified by the manufacturer, however
the reaction source has not been determined.
7. When 2,2-dichlorovinyl ethyl ether is used as a raw
material, then trichloroethylene is suspected to be present
as an impurity in the raw material.
8. When producing the pesticide disulfoton, vinyl chloride was
identified by the manufacturer as a reaction byproduct.
Vinyl chloride is vented as a gas and incinerated and is
therefore suspected to be present in the incinerator
scrubber aqueous effluent.
9. When producing the pesticide chlorothalonil,
tetrachloroethylene was identified by the manufacturer,
however the reaction source has not been determined.
10. When di(chloroethyl) ether is used in the production of
certain pesticides then 1,2-dichloroethane is suspected to
be present as a solvent impurity.
11. When producing the pesticide toxaphene, tetrachloroethylene
was identified by the manufacturer; however, the reaction
source has not been determined.
V-20
-------
12. When 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylsulfenyl chloride (TES) is used
as a raw material, then trichloroethylene is suspected as a
raw material impurity.
Nitrosamines
N-nitrosamines are a group of compounds characterized by a
nitroso group (N=O) attached to the nitrogen of an aromatic or
alphatic secondary amine. In the pesticide industry N-nitrosodi-
n-propylamine is a suspected reaction byproduct from the
nitrosation of di-N-propylamine. Table V-18 shows that 2
pesticides are suspected to contain some form of N-nitrosamine.
Table V-19 lists historical data typically detected in pesticide
process wastewaters.
Process descriptions were developed for all the pesticide
products listed. These process descriptions were developed
and/or checked for applicability to specific plants by reference
to the five sources mentioned earlier in this section. The
nitrosamine compound listed for each pesticide product was
examined for consistency with process descriptions reviewed. An
assumption was then drawn from this examination to provide a
basis for suspecting that N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine is present in
pesticide waste streams. The assumption is as follows:
1. When di-n-propylamine is used as a raw material, then N-
nitrosodi-n-propylamine is suspected to be present as a
reaction byproduct.
Phthalates
Phthalate esters are used widely as plasticizers in commercial
polymers and plastic end products such as polyvinylchloride
plastics. One phthalate classified as a priority pollutant is
suspected to be present in three pesticide processes (see Table
V-20). Dimethyl phthalate is known to be a raw material in two
products. Table V-21 lists historical data detected in pesticide
process wastewaters.
Process descriptions were developed for all the pesticide
products listed. These process descriptions were developed
and/or checked for applicability to specific plants by reference
to the five sources mentioned earlier in this section. The
phthalate compound listed for each pesticide product was examined
for consistency with process descriptions reviewed. Assumptions
were then drawn from this examination to provide a basis for
developing the list of phthalate compounds suspected in pesticide
waste streams. The assumptions are as follows:
V-21
-------
1. When dimethyl phthalate is used as a raw material, then it
is suspected to be present in the pesticides wastewaters.
2. When phthalimide is refluxed with methanol, then dimethyl
phthalate is suspected to be present as a reaction
byproduct.
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene
1,3-Dichloropropene is a raw material in one pesticide. 1,3-
Dichloropropene and the combined pollutants lf2-dichloropropane -
lf3-dichloropropene are pesticide products as well as priority
pollutants and function as insecticidal fumigants.
Process descriptions were developed for all the pesticide
products listed. These process descriptions were developed
and/or checked for applicability to specific plants by reference
to the five sources mentioned earlier in this section (See Table
V-22). Table V-23 lists historical data typically detected in
pesticide process wastewaters. The dichloropropane and
dichloropropene compound listed for each pesticide product was
examined for consistency with process descriptions reviewed.
Assumptions were then drawn from this examination to provide a
basis for developing the list of dichloropropane and
dichloropropene compounds suspected in pesticide waste streams.
The assumptions are as follows:
1. When 1,3-dichloropropene is used as a raw material in the
process, then impurities such as 1,2-dichloropropane are
suspected to be present.
2. When 1,3-dichloropropene is produced as a product, then 1,2-
dichloropropane is suspected to be present as a reaction
byproduct.
3. When allyl chloride is used as a raw material, then 1,2-
dichloropropane and 1,3-dichloropropene are suspected to be
present as impurities.
4. When propylene oxide is used as a raw material, then 1,2-
dichloropropane is suspected to be present as an impurity in
the raw material.
V-22
-------
5. When vinyl chloride is used as a raw material, then 1,3-
dichloropropene is suspected to be present as an impurity in
the raw material.
6. When o-iso-propoxyphenol is used as a raw material, then
1,2-dichloropropane and 1,3-dichloropropene are suspected to
be present as impurities in the raw material.
7. When 2,3-dichloropropene is used as a raw material, then
1,3-dichloropropene is suspected to be present as a raw
material impurity.
Priority Pollutant Pesticides
There are only 18 priority pollutants which are commonly
classified as pesticides. Only two priority pollutant pesticides
are still in production; heptachlor and chlordane. As shown in
Table 24, aldrin, dieldrin, and endrin aldehyde are suspected as
reaction byproducts in the endrin 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 chlordane and heptachlor manufacturing. ODD,
DDE, and DDT can occur in the manufacture of one pesticide.
Endosulfan sulfate can occur as a reaction byproduct in the
manufacture of endosulfan. 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. Table V-25 lists
historical data typically detected in the pesticide process
wastewaters.
Process descriptions were developed for all the pesticide
products listed. These process descriptions were developed
and/or checked for applicability to specific plants by reference
to the five sources mentioned earlier in this section. The
priority pollutant pesticide listed for each pesticide product
was examined for consistency with process descriptions reviewed.
Assumptions were then drawn from this examination to provide a
basis for developing the list of priority pollutant pesticides
suspected in pesticide waste streams. The assumptions are as
follows:
1. When BHC and lindane are manufactured all isomers of BHC are
produced as reaction byproducts.
2. When chlordene and chlorine are used as raw materials, then
heptachlor epoxide is suspected to be present as a reaction
byproduct. In addition, when chlordane is produced
V-23
-------
heptachlor is suspected to be present as a reaction
byproduct and when heptachlor is produced chlordane is
suspected to be present as a reaction byproduct.
3. When DDT is used as a raw material, then ODD and DDE are
suspected to be present as reaction byproducts.
4. When producing the pesticide endosulfan, endosulfan sulfate
is suspected to be present as a reaction byproduct.
5. When producing the pesticide endrin, reaction byproducts of
aldrin, dieldrin, and endrin aldehyde are suspected to be
present. Endrin, endrin aldehyde, and aldrin all can be
formed by the Diels-Alder reaction using
hexachlorocyclopentadiene as the raw material. Dieldrin is
suspected to be present as a reaction byproduct when aldrin
is epoxidized.
6. When DDT is produced then DDD and DDE are expected as
byproducts. When DDD is produced then DDT and DDE are
expected as byproducts. When DDE is produced then DDD and
DDT are expected as byproducts.
7. When any of the priority pollutant pesticides are produced
then that particular priority pollutant pesticide is
expected to be present.
Dienes
There are four manufactured pesticides and two pesticides
currently not manufactured which use a priority pollutant diene
as a raw material. The basic material for all six pesticides is
hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCCPD). Two pesticides are
synthesized by a Diels-Alder condensation of HCCPD and
cyclopentadiene to form chlorodene, the intermediate. Chlordene
is further chlorinated either by addition or by substitution. One
pesticide process involves the stepwise reaction of HCCPD with
acetylene, cyclopentadiene, and peroxyacetic acid. Another
pesticide is manufactured by the reductive coupling of HCCPD with
itself using a cuprous chloride catalyst. As shown in Table 26,
the priority pollutant hexachlorobutadiene is suspected to be
present in the wastewater because it is a byproduct of HCCPD
synthesis and used as a solvent in the manufacture of mirex.
Table V-27 lists historical data typically detected in pesticide
process wastewaters.
V-24
-------
Process descriptions were developoed for all the pesticide
products listed. These process descriptions were developed
and/or checked for applicability to specific plants by reference
to the five sources mentioned earlier in this section. The diene
listed for each pesticide product was examined for consistency
with process descriptions reviewed. An assumption was then drawn
from this examination to procide a basis for suspecting that
hexachlorocyclopentadiene is present in pesticide waste streams.
The assumption is as follows:
1. When hexachlorocyclopentadiene is used as a raw material,
then hexachlorobutadiene is suspected to be present as a
byproduct from the raw material synthesis.
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
160°C, an alkaline condition or in the presence of a free
halogen. The end reaction results in either direct dioxin,
intermediate dioxin, or predioxin formation which would
ultimately form dibenzo-p-dioxins (Dryden, e_t al., 1979). TCDD
is suspected in pesticide wastewaters listed in Table V-28.
These pesticides use such raw materials as 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
and 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene which are characteristic of TCDD
precursors. The structurally similar pesticides PCP and
hexachlorophene are being examined for possible presence of TCDD
in wastewater. Analytical procedures are currently being
upgraded. A detection limit of 0.002 ug/1 (2 nanograms per liter
or 2 ng/1) is currently achievable (49 FR 43234, October 26,
1984). Table V-29 lists historical data typically detected in
pesticide process wastewaters.
A study of 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
spectrometry. 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 the
Final Rules published May 19, 1980 in the Federal Register. The
EPA TCDD task force is currently reviewing the environmental
problems of TCDD residue.
V-25
-------
Process descriptions were developed for all the pesticide
products listed. These process descriptions were developed
and/or checked for applicability to specific plants by reference
to the five sources mentioned earlier in this section. If TCDD
was listed for a pesticide product it was examined for
consistency with process descriptions reviewed. An assumption
was then drawn from this examination to provide a basis
suspecting that TCDD is present in pesticide waste streams. The
assumption is as follows:
1. When 2,4,5-trichlorophenol or 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene are
used as raw materials under alkaline conditions or in the
presence of a free halogen at temperatures greater than
160°C, then TCDD is suspected to be present as a
byproduct from the reaction.
Miscellaneous
Acrolein is manufactured for use in plastics and as a warning
agent in methyl chloride refrigerant. It is not indicated, nor
has it been found, to be present as a process-related pollutant
in the pesticide industry.
t
Acrylonitrile is used in the manufacture of synthetic fibers,
dyes, and adhesives. It is indicated to be present in the
one pesticide process where it is suspected 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-30, 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-3f5,5
trimethyl) classified as a priority pollutant. Unlike the
other priority pollutant dienes, it is not chlorinated and is not
expected, nor has it been found, to be present in any of the
processes investigated.
V-26
-------
PCB3
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 art not
indicated nor have they been found to be present as process-*
related pollutants in the pesticide industry,
Nitro-substituted Aromatics
Nitro-substituted aromatics are used in the production of
explosives, soaps, shoe polish, as chemical intermediates but are
not indicated to be present as process-related pollutants in this
industry.
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Typical raw waste load concentrations and flows for
nonconventional pollutants are presented in Table V-31 for each
of the 280 pesticides for which data are available.
Nonconventional Pasticides
Nonconventional pesticides have been measured in 44 percent of
pesticide raw waste streams. Table V-31 presents typical raw
waste load concentrations ranging from not detected to 11,200
mg/1.
V-27
-------
COD
COD has been monitored in 27 percent of pesticide raw waste
streams. Table V-31 presents typical COD concentrations ranging
from 14.0 mg/1 to 1,220,000 mg/1.
TOG
TOC has been monitored in 11 percent of pesticide raw waste
streams. Table V-31 presents typical TOC concentrations ranging
from 53.2 mg/1 to 79,800 mg/1.
TOD
Raw waste load concentrations of TOD (total oxygen demand)
have not been monitored in the pesticide industry.
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Typical raw waste load concentrations and flows for
conventional pollutants are presented in Table V-32 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-19 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-32 presents detected TSS concentrations
ranging from 2.00 mg/1 to 4,090 mg/1.
V-28
-------
DESIGN RAW WASTE LOADS
A raw waste load must be selected in order to design and
cost recommended treatment and control technologies.
The approach taken in this study is to design for the removal of
maximum priority pollutant raw waste concentrations as
reported in 308 questionnaire for specific plants. This
ensured that the economic impact to treat high level pollutants
would be adequately considered in a plant-by-plant analysis. A
summary of raw waste load design levels is provided in Table
V-33.
ZERO-DISCHARGE PRODUCTS
Table V-34 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 froa
examination of process flow diagrams, and from manufacturers'
responses to the 308 Survey and follow-up letters. Since no
known raw waste load is associated with these products, no
treatment is recommended and no costs are developed.
V-29
-------
Table V-l,
Indicated/Detected Frequency of Priority Pollutant
Groups
Priority
Pollutant Group
Number of Pesticides
Indicated by
Process Chemistry
Evaluation
in Group
Detected in
Raw Waste
Volatile Aromatics
Halomethanes
Cyanides
Haloethers
Phenols
Polynuclear Aromatics
Metals
Chlorinated Ethanes (ylenes)
Nitrosamines
Phthalates
Dichloropropane ( ene )
Pesticides
Dienes
TCDD
Miscellaneous
PCBs
Benzidines
Nitro-Substituted Aromatics
118
50
24
5
36
6
19
23
2
3
8
11
6
5
1
0
0
0
44
25
13
4
20
5
8
10
1
1
3
5
4
4
76*
0
0
2
* Refers to priority pollutant asbestos only,
V-30
-------
Table V-2. Volatile Aronati.cs Indicated to be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
Pesticide
Produced
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
All
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A18
A19
A20
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
A26
A27
A28
A29
A30
A31
A32
A33
A34
Benzene
_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
R
R
—
IS
IS
—
—
IS
IS
R
—
IS
—
—
IS
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
IS
Toluene
S
—
S
S
S
S
S
—
S
S
—
R
S
IS
IS
S
S
—
IS
—
S
IS
S
S
IS
—
—
—
S
S
S
S
f S
IS
Ethylbz
^^^
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
IS
IS
—
—
—
IS
—
—
IS
—
IS
IS
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
IS
AROMATICS,
Chlorobz
__
S
—
—
—
—
—
R
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
IS
I
P
—
—
—
—
—
R
R
R
—
—
— —
—
—
——
CHLORINATED AROMATICS
1,2 di- 1,3-di- 1,4-di- Hexa- 1,2,4
chlorobz chlorobz chlorobz chlorobz TCBz
-
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
__ _ — o __
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
__ __ __ __ __
— — ~ — — —
Footnotes at end of Table
V-31
-------
Table V-2. Volatile Aronatics Indicated to be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 4)
ARQMATICS, CHLORINATED APOMATICS
Pesticide
Produced
Bl
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
BIO
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
CIO
Cll
C12
ci3
C14
CIS
Dl
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D6
D9
D10
Benzene
«„-
—
— -
8
I
—
—
—
—
—
— •
—
IS
—
—
—
—
—
IS
—
—
—
—
—
IS
—
R
—
—
—
—
Toluene
,••
—
S
I
1C
S
—
—
S
—
S
S
S
I
I
IS
S
S
S
S
—
IS
S
S
S
S
I
IS
S
—
~
s
S
S
S
Ethylbz
••
—
~
—
—
—
—
—
~
—
—
—
—
—
—
IS
—
—
—
—
—
IS
—
—
—
—
—
IS
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,2 di- 1,3-di-
Chlorobz chlorobz chlorobz
R P —
R B — •
— — —
— — —
T «-"• __
— —
— —
—
— — —
C .•• •••
— —
—
— — —
__ — —
—
— — __
T — _ —
— —
D •• ••
__ — —
— — —
— — —
_- — —
__ __. —
— — —
— — —
— —
D •• «»^
G mm^ -»^
— —
— — —
— __ __
1,4-di- Hexa- 1,2,4
chlorobz chlorobz TCBz
n — -- •-_
o ••*• .««
— — —
— — —
— __ —
—
— —
— — —
— — —
— — —
—
— —
—
— — —
— —
— — —
— — —
— — —
— — —
— — __
—
— ~ —
— — .._
— — —
— — —
— — —
— — ..
__ — —
—
— — —
— —
— — —
— __ —
__ — — .
Footnotes at end of table
V-32
-------
Table V-2. Volatile Arcmatics Indicated to be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 3 of 4)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
Pesticide
Produced
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
E10
Fl
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
Gl
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
Gil
G12
Benzene
•AV*
—
—
S
—
—
—
IS
—
—
—
IS
IS
—
IS
—
—
—
—
S
S
—
S
IS
—
—
—
IS
—
—
—
1,2 di-
Toluene Ethylbz Chlorobz chlorobz
C -M. __
O __ - _ _ _
C -~_ __ —
C —r, — • -P_
So _
^~^ O
S ~~ — ~ _i_.
__ __ c _-•
IS IS — —
C — • _M _^,
C — — — ,
C —IT — — nt-r-
IS IS — —
IS IS
— — — —
TC TC «» _—
J.O J.O ^^
« R -___ _^_
_— _^ n _ —
— — R
S
— — — —
— — — —
So
O
— — — —
IS IS — —
C _.. — •—
o -^,_ __ — _
C — ^^ __
IS IS — —
o __ _.. „_
C _— > «« ««
o — _ _^ — —
s —
1,3-di- 1,4-di- Hexa- 1,2,4
chlorobz chlorobz chlorobz TCBz
^_ ^^ -!-,„ ^^
__
— — B I
— — — —
— — — —
— — — —
— — — —
— — — —
— — — —
— — — __
— — — —
— — — —
— — —
— — — —
— — — —
— — — —
— — — —
— — — —
— — _ —
— — — _ —
Footnotes at end of table
V-33
-------
Table V-2, Volatile Arornatics Indicated to be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 4 of 4)
AROMATICS, CHLORINA3ED AROMATICS
Pesticide 1,2 di- 1,3-di- 1,4-di- Hexa- 1,2,4
Produced Benzene Toluene Ethylbz Chlorobz chlorobz chlorobz chlorobz chlorobz TCBz
til « C -._ ---» __ —— __ _» ——
nJ. ^^ o ^^ ^^ ^^
ii*> o ___, __ __ ___ ___ ____
fl-* O
H3 ^"™ *~~ ~"~ *"~ *~~" ^^ ~-~ "~"™ I
TtC _r|M^ Q ^__ __^ ___ __^_ ___ •__» _,.•
rj/T __ O ____ ____ ^^ ____ _,„ ^_ ___
11*7 — C — ___ _M ___ ____
n / o ^^
H10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS IS IS U — — — —
O -.-. _
.... ^ _ ->« « . —-- •»« •-•
R B B B B — B
•MB O ^^j ...^ -••• i_>^ .••a «• ••••
MM C ••. ... •• •• •• ••• •••
t - Alpha, beta, and delta iscmers.
R • Raw material.
I • Raw material impurity.
S • Solvent.
IS • Solvent impurity
ST • Organic stripper solvent.
1ST » Stripper impurity
B » Reaction byproduct.
U » Unknown—pollutant reported by plant, source not determined.
— » Not suspected.
P « Final product.
1C » Catalyst impurity.
Ethybz - Ethylbenzene
Chlorobz - chlorobenezene
TCBz - Trichlorobenzene
V-34
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
BENZENE
Plant
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
ND = Not
* = Dat<
Cone.
mg/1
ND
ND
0.073
0.0877
0.0877
<0.10
0.220
0.220
0.220
0.220
0.220
0.580*
2.68
3.00
52*
52*
52*
52*
180,000
30
0.580*
0.07
0.07
0.0051
<0.010*
<0.01*
<0.10
0.220
<0.30
detected.
i from cominal
(n)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(16)
(16)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(22)
(HI)
(111)
(111)
(HI)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(3)
pd oest
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
:icide streams.
(n) =
Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams,
Analysis not conducted per protocol.
Number of data points.
V-35
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 2 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
BENZENE
Plant
7
8
9
1
Cone.
mg/1
0.580*
0.767
2.68
2.68
(n)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
1.8
0.0717
1.241
1.241
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-36
-------
Table V-3.
Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 3 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
TOLUENE
Plant
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
NA =
ND =
* =
Cone.
mg/1 (n)
0.137 (1)
<69.3 (5)
Trace (1)
0.030 (3)
0.137 (1)
0.180* (1)
0.21* (1)
1.40 (3)
1.49 (10)
5.40 (3)
5.40 (3)
5.40 (3)
7.42 (2)
11.7 (E)
15.3 (3)
350 (1)
294,000 (1)
0.180* (1)
20,000 (1)
0.10* (1)
0.10* (1)
ND (3)
<0.0050 (2)
<0.01* (1)
0.016* (3)
0.180* (1)
0.21* (1)
5.40 (3)
15.3 (3)
Not available.
Not detected.
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 I
0.7224
0.7224
0.3283
0.009
1.22
0.1027
1.8
1.8
28.2
1.241
Data from comingled pesticide streams.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(E) =
(n) =
Estimate.
Number of data points.
V-37
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 4 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
TOLUENE
Plant
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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*
15.3
(n) I
(1)
(1)
(1)
(20)
(3)
(30)
(28)
(540)
(540)
(540)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(3)
rlow (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.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams
(n) = Number of data points.
V-38
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 5 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
ETHYLBENZENE
Plant
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
1
1
2
3
4
Cone.
mg/1
0.338
<0.005
0.203
0.338
1.00
7.90
7.90
7.90
ND*
<0.01
ND*
ND
<0.01*
7.90
(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.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-39
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 6 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
CHLOROBENZENE
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
ND
NA
*
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
<0.005*
<0.005*
0.195
0.195
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
135*
135*
135*
135*
0.30*
0.30*
<0.01
<0.01
3.0
3.77
6.31
5.00
979
ND
Not detected.
Not available.
Data from comingled
Data from comingled
(n) Flow (NGD)
(1) NA
(1) 0.00002
(1) 0.00002
(16) 0.0391
(16) 0.0391
(3) 28.2
(3) 28.2
(3) 28.2
(3) 28.2
(3) 28.2
(111) 0.094
(111) 0.094
(111) 0.094
(111) 0.094
(1) NA
(1) NA
(3) 0.0033
(3) 1.22
(3) 28.2
(2) 2.3
(3) 0.0717
(3) 2.3
(1) 0.0163
(1) NA
pesticide streams.
pesticide/other product streams.
Analysis not conducted per protocol.
(n)
Number of data points.
V-40
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 7 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
NA = Not
ND = Not
* = Date
Cone.
mg/1
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
127*
127*
127*
127*
ND
ND
0.023*
<0.113
available.
detected.
» from cominaled ne
(n) ]
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(HI)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
stieide sti
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
reams .
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams,
(n) = Number of data points.
V-41
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 8 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
Cone.
mg/1
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
127*
127*
127*
127*
ND
ND
<0.120
0.410*
(n)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(HI)
(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.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-42
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 9 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
Plant
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
* = Data from comii
Cone.
mg/1
ND
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.470
85*
85*
85*
85*
ND
ND
ND
0.470*
idled nes
(n)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(HI)
(HI)
(111)
(111)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
ticide str
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
earns .
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams,
(n) = Number of data points.
V-43
-------
Table V-3,
Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 10 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
HEXACHLOROBEN Z ENE
Plant
1
1
2
3
4
5
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
* = Data from comin<
Cone.
mg/1
ND
ND
ND*
ND*
ND
<0.008
3led nesticid
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
e stre
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.3
0.0033
ams .
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams,
(n) = Number of data points.
V-44
-------
Table V-3. Volatile Aromatics Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 11 of 11)
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
* = Data from comina!
Cone.
mg/1
ND
36*
36*
36*
36*
ND
0.0296
Led oesticide
(n)
(1)
(47)
(47)
(47)
(47)
(1)
(2)
» stre;
Flow (MGD)
NA
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.094
2.3
0.0033
3ms.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-45
-------
Table V-4. Halonethanes Indicated to be Present in Pesticide Process Wasterwaters
Pesticide
Produced
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
AS
A9
A10
All
Bl
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
BIO
Bll
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
CIO
Dl
D2
D3
D4
Methyl
chlorine
_„
B
—
—
—
R
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
—
R
B
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
Methyl
bromide
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
P
I
R
—
Methylene
chloride
ST
—
ST
—
—
—
S
s
S,B
S
—
S
s
B,S
ST
ST
I
I
—
—
—
—
S
B,S
I
—
—
—
—
S
—
S
—
I
—
^"^
HALOMBTHATCS
Dichloro- Chloro- Carbon
Chloro- Bromo- bromo- dibromo- tetra-
form form methane methane chlorine
^m^ *HH — «^ -T -~ ^m^
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — I
__ — , - _ _ T
B — — B
— — — — —
__ __ __ — _ C
— — — — —
— — — —
B__ __. __ n
— — — jj
— — — — —
— — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
__ __ — — — C
— — — — —
— — —
_ M« • • —M T
— — — — —
B__ --,_. — n
— — — — o
T ^HV
— U — — —
T «... — 1_^ ^_ .— —
C __ __. ^^ .*.*
__ __ __ __ o
__ _„ __ __ T
I
______
Footnotes at end of table
V-46
-------
Table V-4. Halcmethanes Indicated to be Present in Pesticide Process Wasterwaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 2)
HALOMETHMES
Dichloro- Chloro- Carbon
Pesticide Methyl Methyl Methylene Chloro- Brono- brono- dibrono- tetra-
Produced chlorine bromide chloride form form methane methane chlorine
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
B — B,S B —
B__ __ c __ __ __
— ^ — — — — — _
— — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
T> __ __ __ __ __ __
B__ Q C D _ __ __
— — DfO D ^^
B — — — — — —
— — g — — — —
••»«• .»«• C __ — »_ — B^ — ^
Ti ^m^m D C T> ^ ^ ^^ ••«•
B
—
S
I
—
B
S
I
I
—
—
—
S
B
R = Raw material.
I » Raw material impurity.
S = Solvent.
IS = Solvent impurity.
ST = Organic stripper solvent.
1ST = Stripper impurity.
B = Reaction byproduct.
— = Not suspected.
P = Final product.
Methyl chloride = (Chloromethane).
Methyl bromide = (Bromomethane).
Methylene chloride = (Dichloromethane),
Chloroform = (Trichloromethane).
Bronoform = (Tribroncmethane).
Carbon tetrachloride = (Tetrachloride)
V-47
-------
Table V-5. Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
HALOMETHANES
METHYL CHLORIDE
Plant
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
2
3
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
* = Data from comina!
Cone.
mg/1
ND
ND*
<1.0*
ND
ND*
ND
ND
ND*
ND
Led oesticide
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(1)
streams.
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA
0.008
NA
NA
0.7224
0.3283
NA
NA
= Analysis not conducted per protocol.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-48
-------
Table V-5. Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 7)
HALOMETHANES
METHYL BROMIDE
Plant
1
2
3
Cone.
mg/1
1.10
53.8
2,600
(n)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
28.2
0.0086
0.0086
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product stream.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-49
-------
Table V-5. Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 3 of 7)
HALOMETHANES
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
Plant .
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
Cone.
mg/1
None
12.7
0.010*
<0.010
0.017*
0.0233
0.453*
0.55*
4.17
<75.2
76.0
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
NA = Not available.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product stream.
= Analysis not conducted per protocol.
(E) = Estimate.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-50
-------
Table V-5.
Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 4 of 7)
HALOMETHANES
CHLOROFORM
Plant
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
1
1
2
3
NA = Not
* = Datt
Cone.
mg/1
<0.30
0.0149
<0.029
0.0367
0.111
0.170
0.200*
<1.55*
70.0*
70.0*
3,000
0.017*
0.382*
0.623*
6.31
available.
i from comincrled nestle
(n)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(10)
(10)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
:ide streams
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
•
(n)
Data from comingled pesticide/other product stream,
Analysis not conducted per protocol.
Number of data points.
V-51
-------
Table V-5. Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 5 of 7)
HALOMETHANES
BROMOFORM
Plant
1
1
2
1
Cone.
mg/1
ND
ND
<0.010
ND
(n)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Flow
(MGD)
0.0533
2.3
2.3
1.8
ND = Not detected.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product stream.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-52
-------
Table V-5. Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 6 of 7)
HALOMETHANES
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
CHLOROOIBROMOMETHANE
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
V-53
-------
Table V-5. Halomethanes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 7 of 7)
HALOMETHANES
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
ND = Not
* = Date
Cone.
mg/1
ND
<0.001
<0.010
<0.010
0.025
10.5*
67.9*
67.9*
121
<0.160*
<0.160*
<0.160*
0.168*
0.168*
0.168*
detected.
i from cominaled oes
(n)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(540)
(540)
(540)
jticide stream.
Plow (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
(n) =
Data from comingled pesticide/other product stream,
Number of data points.
V-54
-------
Table V-6. Cyanides Indicated to be present in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
Pesticide
Produced
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
0
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Potential Cyanide
Raw Material Contamination
Atrazine
Cyanuric chloride
Cyaruric chloride
Methyl cyanocarbamate
Dichlorobenz il
Isophthalodinitrile
Cyanuric chloride
Aminoisobutyronitrile
Azobisisobutyronitrile
Cyanamide
Soduim cyanate
Sodium thiocyanate
Cyanamide 50
Sodium thiocyanate
Cyanamide
2-Cyanopyridine
Propazine
Propazine
Cyanuric chloride
Cyanuric chloride
Simazine
Anmonium thiocyanate
Cyanuric chloride
Terbuthylazi ne
Thiazole
If
If
I,
I
I
I
I,
I
1C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I,
If
If
I,
I
I,
If
I
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
R = Raw material.
I = Raw material impurity
B = Reaction byproduct.
1C = Catalyst impurity.
V-55
-------
Table V-7. Cyanides Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
CYANIDE
CYANIDE
Plant
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
NA -
ND =
s
* ss
Cone.
mg/1
ND
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
Not available.
Not detected.
Data from comingled
Data from comingled
(n)
(1)
(772)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(540)
(540)
(540)
(772)
(772)
(772)
(772)
(772)
(772)
(772)
(3)
(44)
(34)
(3)
pesticide/other
Flow (MOD)
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
product streams.
pesticide streams.
- Analysis not conducted per protocol.
(n) *
Number of data points.
V-56
-------
Table V-8. Halogenated Ether Indicated to be Present in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
Pesticide
Produced
PRIORITY POLLUTANT HALOQENATED ETHER
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
AA
BB
CC
DO
EE
S
P
I
R
I
R = Raw material.
I - Raw material impurity.
B * Reaction byproduct.
P = Final product.
S = Solvent.
V-57
-------
Table V-9. Haloethers Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT HALOGENATED ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
Plant
1
1
1
Cone.
mg/1
ND
ND
0.582
(n)
(1)
(1)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.030
NA
1.49
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams,
(n) = Number of data points.
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
1 ND (1) 0.03
1 ND (1) NA
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-58
-------
Table V-9. Haloethers Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 3)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT HALOGENATED ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
Plant
1
1
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
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
1 ND (1) 0.03
1 ND (1) NA
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-59
-------
Table V-9. Haloethers Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 3 of 3)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT HALOGENATED ETHER
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
Plant
1
2
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
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
V-60
-------
Table V-10. Phenols Indicated to be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
AROMATICS, CHLORINATED AROMATICS
Pesticide
Produced P 2-CP 24-DCP 246-TCP PCP 2-NP 4-NP 24-DNP 4-CMC
A I I R
B I — I
C I,B — —
D I I R
E I I R
F — — I
GT
_ _ ±
H_^ __ T
« _ ^
T ••• •"•• T
J I I R
K — I I
L I I R
M I
N I —
0 I
p B —
Q _ —
RT — — __
i. ^^
S II I
T I —
U I — —
V I —
W I I R
V — — •• «.
V mm,mm, — • _.-
n —— mm^ — —
AA R B B
BB I —
CC B B B
DD B B B
BE II I
FF II I
GG II I
HH II R
II — I I
JJ II I
P =» Phenol.
2-CP » 2-Chlorophenol.
24-DCP » 2,4-Dichlorcphenol.
246-TCP - 2,4r6JTrichloro?henol.
PCP * Pentachlorophenol.
2-NP » 2-Nitro?henol.
4-NP » 4-Nitrophenol.
24-DNP » 2,4-Dinitrophenol.
T mmt*Mi «*^ ^B^ ^*^m «»^
— — —
T ~»~. _.«» ^.» ••« Ml^
I —— • ^^ — •— — •
— — — — —
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
J — __ — — —
— — — — — —
I — — — — —
B B B
— — — — i —
R
— —
I
I
I
__ - _ ^. __ T
^
—
I — I I ~ ~
— I R —
— I R
— B — — — —
B P — —
R
B — — — — —
B ~"™ ~"™ "*— *"~ — **
T _» — • — • -mrr —mm
I
I
I
T .... _. __ ^». «••_
4-CMC * 4-Chloro-m-cresol (parachlorometa cresol).
24-DMP » 2,4-Dimethylphenol.
R * Raw material.
I * Raw material impurity.
B = Reaction byproduct.
P « Final product.
— = Not suspected.
V-61
-------
Table V-ll. Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PHENOLIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
PHENOL
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Cone.
mg/1
0.27*
0.290
0.290
0.290
<0.51
16.0*
47.0*
47.0*
61.8
0.290
<1.82*
44.1*
<110*
<110*
<110*
200*
200*
200*
280
1,101
(n)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(21)
(1)
(1)
(762)
(3)
(3)
(31)
(337)
(337)
(337)
(312)
(312)
(312)
(3)
(22)
Flow (MGD)
1.8
28.2
28.2
28.2
0.022
0.065
0.00002
0.00002
0.124
28.2
0.120
0.138
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.015
0.0035
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams,
= Data from comingled pesticide streams.
= Total phenols.
= Reported as total phenols.
(n) = Number of data points.
*
**
V-62
-------
Table V-ll,
Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 7)
PHENOLIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
2-CHLOROPHENOL
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
Cone.
rag/1
0.062
0.062
0.062
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
* = Data from coraingled pesticide streams.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-63
-------
Table V-ll. Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 3 of 7)
PHENOLIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
2,4-DICHLOROPHENQL
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
Cone.
mg/1
0.042*
0.042*
0.290
0.290
0.290
<5.00*
<5.00*
<7.74*
<7.74*
15.0*
118
>1,000
3,000
3,600
6,650
0,290
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.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams,
(n) = Number of data points.
V-64
-------
Table V-ll,
Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 4 of 7)
PHENOLIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
Cone.
mg/1
0.022*
0.110
0.110
0.110
3.00*
<5.00*
<5.00*
<100
481
0.110
<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.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-65
-------
Table V-ll. Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 5 of 7)
PHENOLIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
Plant
1
2
Cone,.
mg/1
1.00*
>1,000
(n)
(21)
(9)
Flow
0.
0.
(MGD)
065
02
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
2-NITROPHENOL
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
V-66
-------
Table V-ll
Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 6 of 7)
PHENOLIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
4-NITROPHENOL
Plant
1
1
2
3
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) = Number of data points.
Plant
1
Cone.
mg/1
7.91
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
(n)
(4)
Flow (MGD)
1.06
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-67
-------
Table V-ll. Phenols Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 7 of 7)
PHENOLIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
Plant
No data available.
Cone.
mg/1
(n)
Flow (MGD)
Plant
No data available.
Cone.
mg/1
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
(n)
Flow (MGD)
Plant
No data available.
Cone.
mg/1
4,6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL
(n) Flow (MGD)
V-68
-------
Table V-12. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Indicated to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters
Pesticide
Product
A
B
C
D
E
F
Naphthalene
B
I
u.
I
I .
I
POLYNUCLEAR
2-Chloro-
naphthalene
^ ^
—
U
—
—
™™
AROMATIC PRIC3RITY POLLUTANTS
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
_^
—
—
I
--
R
Anthracene
phenanthrene
^^
—
—
I
—
•••••
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
- -
—
— .
I
~
•^••B
I » Raw material impurity.
— « Not suspected.
U = Unknown—pollutant reported by plant, source not determined.
V-69
-------
Table V-13
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
NAPHTHALENE
Plant
1
2
1
2
NA =
ND =
* =
(n) =
Not available.
Not detected.
Cone.
mg/1
0.066*
0.066*
ND
1.06*
Data from comingled pesticide
Number of data points.
(n)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
streams.
Flow (MGD)
28.2
28.2
NA
0.1893
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
Plant
1
2
NA =
ND =
* =
(n) =
Cone.
mg/1
ND
<0.01*
Not available.
Not detected.
Data from comingled pesticide
Number of data points.
(n)
(1)
(1)
streams .
Flow (MGD)
NA
0.189
V-70
-------
Table V-13. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 2 of 4)
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
ACENAPHTHENE
Plant
1
Cone.
mg/1
ND
(n)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
(n) = Number of data points.
ACENAPHTHYLENE
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
V-71
-------
Table V-13. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 3 of 4)
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
ANTHRACENE
Plant
1
Cone.
mg/1
ND
(n)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
(n) = Number of data points.
PHENANTHRENE
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
V-72
-------
Table V-13 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 4 of 4)
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
FLUORENE
Plant
1
Cone.
mg/1
NO
(n)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
(n) = Number of data points.
FLUORANTHENE
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
Vr73
-------
Table V-14. Metals Indicated to be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
Pesticide PRIORITY POLLUTANT JETAL
Produced Hg As Cu Zn Cd
A _ j _ _ _
B C — ~ — —
C__ -._ r* — — —
\^ —
D — — C — —
G C — —
H-... __ /i __
__ __ ^ __ __
J — — — R —
K__ __ -.„ B __
—— K —
L ~~ -~ R ~~ ~~
M ___! — _-
N _ _ _ C —
0 _____ R —
p ______ R _
Q ______ R
R ______ R
S _____ R _
T R R R — R
C = Catalyst.
R = Raw material.
I = Inpurities in raw materials or catalysts.
— = Not suspected.
V-74
-------
Table V-15,
Metals Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT METAL
ARSENIC
Plant
1
Plant
1
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
Cone.
mg/1
2.0
Cone.
mg/1
1.0
ND*
0.05*
ND*
4,500
5,350*
47,000
59,000
0.204
(n)
(12)
COPPER
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(325)
(72)
(1)
(1)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.27
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-75
-------
Table V-15. Metals Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 2)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT METAL
NICKEL
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
ZINC
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
1 247* (2) 0.0749
2 247* (2) 0.0749
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams,
(n) = Number of data points.
V-76
-------
Table V-16.
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Indicated to be Present in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters
Pi
Pi
R
I
S
IS
SI
1ST
B
U
—
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
Educed CE DCE DCE TCE TCE TETCE CE GET DCET DCET TCET GET
A "*™ X — ~ ™™ *"*• "** "*~ ™" "*~ ~~ ™" ~~
a TO TQ __ __ - __ __
•• a — •— xo xo — — — — —
O __ — — TO TO - - __ __ __
— o — ~ xo xo ^^ ^^ ^^
O - TO TO __ __
— o — — xo xo ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
g MM XO ^ * ^ * ^ " — "" "*— ^ * "*^ "*"" "" *** ^^
P_ T __ _ __ _ __
__ X ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
G._ _. __ ..._ . T __
_ __ __ __ _ __ __ — __ __ ^ «
H_ _. .__ __ .__ - o
__ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ jg
._ - - __ __ __ Tf
__ __ __ __ y
J__ n -_ __ __ __ __ - __
"""• D ^^ ~ ~ ^^ — — ^^ ^^ ~~ ^^ *"•• ^^
K-_ o __ TC TC — — __ __
^^ o xo xo
L.__ o — —
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ g __ _ — — —
MT _ _ n
X ^^ ^^ ^^ ^~ ^^ K ^^ ^~^ ^^
O __ TO TO __ __
"•• o ^^ XO XO
Off _- _ . _
__ y — — _ — _ — — — — — — — — — — — —
__ - ._ __ O
•• ^M» ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ O
OD -— __ __ __
o —- ~~ ~~
R_ TO _ __ _ _
__ xo ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^-^
T __
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ ^ _
U__ O __ TO TO __
O XO XO ^^
V.__ o __ TO TO __ _
__ O ^^ ^^ XO XO ^^ ^^ "^ ^~^
_^ -
— — — — — —
Raw material
Raw material impurity.
Solvent.
Solvent impurity.
Organic stripper solvent.
Stripper impurity.
Reaction byproduct.
Unknown — pollutant reported by plant,
source not determined.
- Not suspected.
~~
CE
DCE
TCE
TfcTCfc!
GET
DCET
TCET
__ mm^ mm^ mm^ rj
Chlorethane.
Dichloroe thane .
Tr ichloroe thane .
Tetrachloroethane .
Vinyl chloride (Chloroethylene)
Dichloroethylene .
» Trichloroethylene.
V-77
-------
Table V-17. Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
CHLOROETHANE
Plant
No data available.
Cone.
mg/1
(n)
Flow (MGD)
1 , 2 -DI CHLOROETHANE
Plant
1
2
3
4
1
1
NA = Not
ND = Not
Cone.
mg/1
ND
0.010*
0.37*
10,000
0.37*
0.010*
available.
detected.
(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.
\/_7R
-------
Table V-17
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 2 of 6)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Plant
1
2
1
NA =
ND =
* =
(n) =
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
ND*
ND*
Not available.
Not detected.
Data from comingled pesticide
Number of data points.
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
streams.
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA
NA
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Plant
1
1
2
1
NA =
ND =
* =
(n) =
Cone.
mg/1
ND
ND*
ND*
ND*
Not available.
Not detected.
Data from comingled pesticide
Number of data points.
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
streams.
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA
NA
NA
V-79
-------
Table V-17. Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 3 of 6)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
Plant
1
1
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
Plant
1
1
2
1
Cone.
mg/1
1.70*
ND*
1.70*
1.70*
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
1.8
NA
1.8
1.8
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-CO
-------
Table V-17. Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 4 of 6)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
HEXACHLOROETHANE
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
VINYL CHLORIDE
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
V-81
-------
Table V-17. Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 5 of 6)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Plant
1
2
1
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
ND*
ND*
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
V-82
-------
Table V-17,
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 6 of 6)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Plant
1
1
1
NA =
ND =
* =
(n) =
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
0.052*
0.052*
(n)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
1.
1.
8
8
Not available.
Not detected.
Data from
Number of
comingled pesticide
data points.
streams.
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
Plant
1
2
1
2
Cone.
mg/1
0.37*
<98.0
0.467*
0.467*
(n)
(1)
(6)
(3)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
1.8
0.00185
0.1893
0.1893
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams,
(n) = Number of data points.
V-83
-------
Table V-18. Nitrosamines Indicated to be Present in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
Pesticide PRIORITY POLLUTANT NITROSAMINE
Produced N-Nitrosodimethylanine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylaniine
AA — B
BB B B
B = Reaction byproduct,
V-84
-------
Table V-19. Nitrosamines Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT NITROSAMINE
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
Plant
1
Cone.
mg/1
0.00005
(n)
(240)
Flow (MGD)
0.352
(n) = Number of data points.
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
Plant
1
2
3
Cone.
mg/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
Plant
No data available.
Cone.
mg/1
(n)
Flow (MGD)
V-85
-------
Table V-20. Phthalate Indicated to be Present in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
Pesticide PRIORITY POLLUTANT PHTHALATE
Process Dimethyl phthalate
AA R
BB B
CC R
R = Raw material.
I = Raw material impurity.
B = Reaction byproduct.
V-86
-------
Table V-21. Phthalate Esters Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewate
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
Plant
No data available.
Cone.
mg/1
(n)
Flow (MGD)
Plant
1
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
(n)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
1.8
ND = Not detected.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams,
(n) = Number of data points.
V-87
-------
Table V-21. Phthalate Esters Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewate
(Continued/ Page 2 of 2)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Plow (MGD)
No data available.
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
No data available.
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Plow (MGD)
No data available.
v-e
-------
Table V-22. Dichlorcpropane and Dichloropropene Indicated to be Present
in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
Pesticide PRIORITY POLLUTANT
Process 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dicnloropropene
All
B P P
C B P
D I R
E — I
F I
Gil
H — I
P - Product.
R = Raw material.
I = Raw material impurity.
S = Solvent.
IS - Solvent impurity.
B = Reaction byproduct.
— = Not suspected.
V-89
-------
Table V-23. Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene Detected in
Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
Plant
1
NA =
ND =
* =
(n) =
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
Not available.
Not detected.
Data from coming led pesticide
Number of data points.
(n)
(1)
streams.
Flow (MGD)
NA
1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
Plant
1
2
NA =
ND =
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
ND*
Not available.
Not detected.
(n)
(1)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams,
(n) = Number of data points.
V-90
-------
Table V-24. Priority Pollutant Pesticides Indicated to be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDE
Endo-
Pesticide Endo- sulfan Endrin Heptachlor DDT,ODD,
Produced Aldrin Dieldrin sulfan's* Sulfate Endrin aldehyde Heptachlor epoxide BHC's* DDE Chlordane Toxaphene
VO
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
P.B
P.B
B.P.B
B.B.P
P.B.B
R,B,B
R = Raw material.
P = Product.
B = Reaction byproduct.
— = Not suspected.
* = Al1 isomers.
t - Alpha, beta and delta isomers
-------
Table V-25. Priority Pollutant Pesticides Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDE
ALDRIN
Plant
1
Cone.
mg/1
0.012*
(n)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.1893
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams,
(n) = Number of data points.
DIELDRIN
Plant
1
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/
Subcategory
Cone.
mg/1
(n)
Flow (MGD)
V-92
-------
Table V-25. Priority Pollutant Pesticides Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 2 of 5)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDE
ENDOSULPAN SULFATE
Plant
No data available.
Plant
1
2
Cone.
mg/1
Cone.
mg/1
<0.510
0.516
(n)
ENDRIN
(n)
(171)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
Flow (MGD)
0.184
0.1893
(n) * Number of data points,
V-93
-------
Table V-25
Priority Pollutant Pesticides Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 3 of 5)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDE
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
Plant
1
NA =
ND =
* =
(n) =
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
Not analyzed.
Not detected.
Data from comingled pesticide
Number of data points.
(n)
(1)
streams.
Flow (MGD)
NA
HEPTACHLOR
Plant
1
2
Cone.
mg/1
0.095
0.320
(n)
(3)
(184)
Plow (MGD)
0.1893
0.184
(n) = Number of data points.
Plant
1
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
(n)
(1)
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA = Not available.
ND = Not detected.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams,
(n) = Number of data points.
V-94
-------
Table V-25. Priority Pollutant Pesticides Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 4 of 5)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDE
BHCs—ALPHA, BETA, AND DELTA ISOMERS
Plant
No data available.
Cone.
mg/1
(n)
Flow (MGD)
Plant
1
Cone.
mg/1
<1.54
4,4'-ODD
(n)
(16)
Flow (MGD)
NA
NA = Not available.
* = Not presently manufactured.
(n) = Number of data points.
4,4'-DDE
Plant
1
2
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-95
-------
Table V-25. Priority Pollutant Pesticides Detected in Pesticide
Process Wastewaters (Continued, Page 5 of 5)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PESTICIDE
4,4'-DDT
Plant
1
2
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
Plant
1
NA =
ND =
* =
(n) =
Cone.
mg/1
ND*
Not available.
Not detected.
Data from comingled pesticide
Number of data points.
(n)
(1)
stream.
Flow (MGD)
NA
Plant
1
2
Cone.
mg/1
0.065
5.32
TOXAPHENE
(n)
(4)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
1.22
0.0717
= Analysis not conducted per protocol,
(n) = Number of data points.
V-96
-------
Table V-26. Dienes Indicated to be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
Pesticide
Process
AA
BB
CC
DD
EE
FF
HCCPD
R
R
R
R
R
R
PRIORITY POLLUTANT
Hexachlorobutadiene
B
B
B
B
B
B,S
S 3 Solvent.
R 3 Raw material.
B = Raw material synthesis byproduct.
HCCPD » Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.
V-97
-------
Table V-27
Dienes Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT
HEXACHLOROC YCLOPENTADIENE
Plant
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
Cone.
mg/1
Trace
180
2,500
0.435*
0.435*
0.827*
0.827*
(n)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(50)
(50)
(3)
(3)
Flow (MGD)
0.000946
0.001
0.10
0.184
0.184
0.1893
0.1893
* =
Data from comingled pesticide streams.
= Data exceed published solubility of compound in water apparentl
due to sampling from organic, nonaqueous streams.
= Attributed to intermediate.
(n) = Number of data points.
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
Plant
1
2
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-98
-------
Table V-28. TCCD Indicated to be Present in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
Pesticide PRIORITY POLLUTANT
Process Raw Material TCDD
AA 2,4,5-Tri chlorophenol B
BB 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene B
CC 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene B
DD 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol B
EE 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol B
TCCD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
B = Reaction byproduct.
V-99
-------
Table V-29. TCDD Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBEN1O-P-DIOXIN
Plant
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
ND =
* =
(E) -
(n) =
Cone.
rag/1
ND
<0. 000002*
<0. 000002*
<0. 000002*
0.022*
0.022*
0.022*
Not detected.
Data from comingled pesticide
Estimate.
Number of data points.
(n)
(E)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)
streams.
Flow (MGD)
0.0031
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
V-1QO
-------
Table V-30. Asbestos Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
PRIORITY POLLUTANT ASBESTOS
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
1
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Cone.
mg/1
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*
D. 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)
Plow (MOD)
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-101
-------
Table V-30.
Asbestos Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 2 of 3)
PRIO1ITY POLLUTANT ASBESTOS
Plant
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Cone.
mg/1
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*
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)
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
0.036
0.083
1.90
1.90
NA
NA
33.5
Footnotes at end of table
V-102
-------
Table V-30.
Asbestos Detected in Pesticide Process Wastewaters
(Continued, Page 3 of 3)
PRIORITY POLLUTANT ASBESTOS
Plant
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
NA = Not
ND = Not
* = Dat*
Cone.
mg/1
0.049*
0.049*
0.3*
0.3*
0.3*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
0.0003*
available.
detected.
i from cominaled wastewatei
(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
= Total calculated mass chrysotile fibers only.
plant averages reported.
(n) = Number of data points.
Maximum of all
V-103
-------
Table V-31,
Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
PESTICIDES
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1
2
3
NA =
ND =
* =
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
Not available.
Not detected.
Data from cominaled oesti
(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)
cide streams
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
•
**
(E)
(n)
Analyzed as hydrolysis product.
Average of pilot plant data.
Estimate.
Number of data points.
V-104
-------
Table V-31
Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 2 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
PESTICIDES
Cone.
Plant mg/1 (n) Flow (MGD)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
*
(E)
(n)
<0.019 (10)
<0.0817 (105)
<0.0918 (33)
<0.159 (7)
0.175 (2)
<0.189 (18)
0.207 (2)
0.240 (4)
0.439 (20)
0.470 (3)
0.527 (8)
0.58 (4)
0.615 (3)
0.70 (11)
<0.850 (59)
1.08 (1)
1.10 (3)
1.54 (6)
2.00 (E)
2.5 (9)
3.0 (3)
4.26 (365)
6.30 (173)
7.75 (1)
9.0 (22)
13.2 (365)
14.4 (89)
15.0 (2)
17.0 (449)
19.9 (3)
25.8* (2)
29.1 (1)
30.3 (30)
= Data from comingled pesticide streams.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product
= Estimate.
= Number of data points.
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
streams.
V-105
-------
Table V-31
Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 3 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
PESTICIDES
Plant
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
NA = Not
* = Date
Cone.
mg/1
36*
45.9
53.8
71.1
85*
93.1
104
127*
135*
136
<152
174
212
218
260
300
320
335
600
863*
863*
863*
863*
863*
973
1,100
1,290
1,630
1,778
2,600
3,460
3,586
4,580
5,500*
5,500*
available.
i from cominaled D«
(n)
(47)
(3)
(2)
(125)
(111)
(11)
(570)
(HI)
(HI)
(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)
jsticide streams
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
• •
= Values reported are after pretreatment,
(E) = Estimate.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-106
-------
Table V-31,
Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 4 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
PESTICIDES
Plant
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
* =
r:
(E) =
(n) =
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
0.00846
<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
Data from comingled pesticide streams.
Analysis not conducted per
Estimate.
Number of data points.
protocol.
V-107
-------
Table V-31
Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 5 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
PESTICIDES
Plant
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-108
-------
Table V-31.
Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued/ Page 6 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
COD
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA =
* =
Cone.
mg/1
<100.0 **
431*
895*
2,750
2,750
2,830
2,830
4,500 **
4,750*
5,800
7,070*
8,120
14,400
17,000*
17,000*
17,000*
18,900*
22,650
23,900
150,000
150,000
1,220,000
14.0*
14.0*
360
431*
711*
711*
Not available.
Data from comingled pesticide
(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)
streams
= Data from comingled pesticide/other
** =
(E) =
(n) =
Pilot plant data average.
Estimate.
Number of data points.
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
•
product streams.
V-109
-------
Table V-31,
Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 7 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
COD
Plant
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
NA =
* =
=
(E) =
(n) =
Cone.
mg/1
711*
1,318*
1,318*
1,320*
1,660
1,660
1,660
1,710
2,190
2,450
3,340*
3,710
4,750*
4,900
5,250
5,250
5,700
5,870
5,870
7,070*
7,070*
7,070*
7,070*
14,000
16,000
16,800
28,000
40,000
Not available.
(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)
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
Data from comingled pesticide streams.
Data from comingled
Estimate.
Number of data points
pesticide/other
.
product streams.
v-no
-------
Table V-31
Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 8 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Plant
35
36
37
38
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
COD
Cone.
mg/1
75,500
150,000
150,000
195,000
1,570
17,000*
7,070*
436*
436*
5,109
9,740
150,000
594
674*
674*
1,610
1,660
3,340*
3,340*
5,870
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
NA = Not available.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(E) = Estimate.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-lll
-------
Table V-31. Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 9 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
COD
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Cone.
mg/1
353*
353*
353*
468*
468*
468*
895*
5,870
17,444
(n)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(540)
(540)
(540)
(3)
(3)
(1)
Flow (MOD)
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.22
1.241
0.0634
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-112
-------
Table V-31,
Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 10 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
TOC
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Cone.
mg/1
900
900
1,650*
4,420
4,420
5,850*
11,400
50,000
50,000
122*
1,650*
1,810
1,810
3,230
19,500
28,500
50,000
50,000
122*
523*
50,000
53.2
341*
341*
441
1,810
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 comingled pesticide streams.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-113
-------
Table V-31. Nonconventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 11 of 11)
NONCONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
TOC
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Cone.
mg/1
178*
178*
178*
585*
585*
585*
1,810
(n)
(540)
(540)
(540)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(3)
Plow (MGD)
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.241
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
TOD
Plant
No data available.
Cone.
mg/1
(n)
Flow (MGD)
V-114
-------
Table V-32,
Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
BOD
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
NA =
* =
Cone.
mg/1
<103
103*
120
137*
572
791
791
2,000 **
2,260*
2,450
3,490
6,600*
16,000
60,000
60,000
103*
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
179*
355*
355*
355*
610
Not available.
Data from comingled pesticide
(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
streams.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other
** =
(E) =
(n) =
Pilot plant data average.
Estimate.
Number of data points.
product streams.
VrllS
-------
Table V-32,
Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 2 of 7)
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
BOD
Cone.
Plant rog/1
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
1
*
(E)
(n)
610
610
630*
630*
630*
1,000
1,940
1,940
2,000
2,260*
2,260*
2,260*
2,260*
3,330
3,500
4,840
5,680*
7,200
8,500
19,600
60,000
60,000
703
= Data from comingled
= Data from comingled
= Values reported are
= Estimate.
(n) Flow (MGD)
(4)
(4)
(202)
(202)
(202)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(14)
(14)
(14)
(14)
(2)
(1)
(E)
(3)
(3)
(E)
(E)
(1)
(1)
(E)
pesticide streams.
pesticide/other product
after pretreatment .
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
streams.
= Number of data points.
V-116
-------
Table V-32. Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 3 of 7)
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
BOO
Plant
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Cone.
mg/1
179*
2,082
2,260*
4,320
60,000
58.2
120
331*
331*
610
1,940
1,940
2,260*
2,260*
5,680*
5,680*
6,600*
45,200
ND*
ND*
ND*
137*
300
1,940
2,082
2,082
2,082
(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 (MOD)
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
ND = Not detected.
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-117
-------
Table V-32. Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 4 of 7)
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
BOD
Plant
10
11
12
13
Cone.
mg/1
2,082
2,082
2,082
2,082
(n)
(756)
(756)
(756)
(756)
Flow (MGD)
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(n) = Number of data points.
V-118
-------
Table V-32
Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 5 of 7)
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
TSS
Cone.
Plant mg/1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
NA
*
(E)
(n)
59.0
69.0*
87.7
110
143
143
181
246*
340
340
350
750
2.00*
2.00*
3.00
3.00
3.00
32.8*
32.8*
32.8*
37.3
68.6*
56.6*
59.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
= Not available.
= Data from comingled
= Data from comingled
= Values reported are
= Estimate.
(n) Flow (MGD)
(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)
pesticide streams.
pesticide/other product
after pretreatment.
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
streams.
= Number of data points.
V-119
-------
Table V-32. Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 6 of 7)
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
TSS
Plant
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
1
1
1
1
2
Cone.
mg/1
69.0*
78.0
100
124
246*
246*
246*
246*
269
269
300
3,000
3,800*
3,800*
3,800*
4,090
1,720
375
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 Iba
1,900 gal/
1,000 Iba
1,900 gal/
1,000 Iba
1,900 gal/
1,000 Iba
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
* = Data from comingled pesticide streams.
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product streams.
(E) = Estimate.
(n) = Number of data points.
-------
Table V-32,
Conventional Parameters Detected in Pesticide Process
Wastewaters (Continued, Page 7 of 7)
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
TSS
Cone.
Plant mg/1
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
NA
407
3.00
56.6*
56.6*
59.0
208*
208*
226
246*
246*
269
1,460
2,720
253*
253*
253*
269
375
375
375
375
375
375
375
411*
411*
411*
474
= Not available.
(n) Flow (MGD)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(37)
(37)
(3)
(6)
(3)
(530)
(530)
(530)
(3)
(73)
(73)
(73)
(73)
(73)
(73)
(73)
(270)
(270)
(270)
(1)
= Data from comingled pesticide/other product
*
(n)
= Data from comingled pesticide
= Post pretreatment.
= Number of data points.
streams.
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
streams.
V-121
-------
Table V-33. Summary of Raw Waste Load Design Levels
Pollutant Group
Design Level
(mg/1)
Percent of
Detected Pesticide
Wastewaters
at Design Level*
Volatile Aromatics
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 known oesticid*
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
1,470
3,886
266
2 wastewaters are i
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
selow desian leve
Prior to biological oxidation.
V-122
-------
Table V-34. 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-123
-------
Table V-34,
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-124
-------
1
1000
100"
10
1.0
' '100000
-•10000
HI U I I I ft M
MM
1000
100
10
1.0
MM ML*
HffWMMUTY OF FLOW RATIO OOMQ $ (MVW VALW (OAU1000RM)
RQURE V-1
PROBABILITY PLOT OF PESTICIDE
PRODUCT FLOW RATIOS
V-125
-------
I
I-1
ro
0.0001
o.oooot
0.00001
O.S 1
6 10 20 M 40 10 60 70 n 90 M
KPROBABUJTY OF FLOW BEING £ GIVEN VALUE (MOD)
H.a
99.99
FIGURE V-2 PROBABILITY PLOT OF PESTICIDE PRODUCT FLOWS
-------
SECTION VI
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
This section identifies the in-plant and end-of-pipe
control and treatment technologies used for the removal
of conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants by
the pesticides industry. The effectiveness of potential
technologies is evaluated, and recommended unit treatments are
specified. Flow diagrams for the major unit treatments are also
presented. The specific technologies selected as the basis for
the regulation 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 effective method for meeting these regulations. The
design bases used in Section VIII primarily came from the full-
scale treatment unit data as presented in this section.
Therefore, the installation of similarly designed and
properly operated systems is expected to result in the
attainment of equivalent effluent levels. The major change from
the proposed development document summary, based on public
comment, is that the Agency is no longer using evaporation as the
model technology for the formulator/packager subcategory because
it is not effective in all situations. Instead, contract hauling
and incineration and treatment with wastewater recycle are the
model technologies for this subcategory.
As discussed in Section III much of the information provided by
industry relates to proprietary products and processes.
Therefore, pesticide names and associated data are coded in this
report.
The data presented in this section is primarily from the data
collection efforts undertaken prior to the November 1982
proposal. However, additional data were supplied as a result of
the 1984 and 1985 NOAs. These data were primarily updates on the
performance of treatment systems already included in this
section.
The new data that were deemed "best performance" are included in
the record and have been incorporated and presented in the
development of limitations and standards sections of this
document. The information in this section is representative of
the combined data received.
VI-1
-------
BACKGROUND AND OPTIONS
On November 30, 1982, EPA proposed BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS
effluent limitations and standards for the pesticide industry.
In each case, technology options were considered, and one option
selected as the basis for this regulation. The options were as
follows:
BAT
Option
1
3
4
Technologies
In-plant activated carbon
In-plant hydrolysis
Biological treatment
Option (1) Plus steam
stripping, chemical
oxidation, and metals
precipitation
Option 2 plus end-of-pipe
multi-media filtration
Option 3 plus end-of-pipe
activated carbon
Selection Option
Technologies
BAT option 2
BAT option 3
BAT option 4
Technologies
In-plant activated carbon
In-plant hydrolysis
In-plant steam stripping
In-plant chemical oxidation
In-plant metals precipitation(2)
Option 1 plus
Biological treatment
Selected options
X
Selected option
x
VI-2
-------
Table VI-1A lists the pollutants that can be removed by the
technologies outlined above. As can be seen by the technology
options, the Agency has found that the primary treatment scheme
used by organic pesticide chemicals manufacturers is selected in-
plant controls for the removal of highly concentrated pollutants
followed by biological treatment.
In some cases, further end-of-pipe or other site specific
alternatives are used to further reduce effluent concentrations.
These are the bases for more stringent options considered by the
Agency.
Table VI-1B lists all of the principle wastewater treatment and
disposal methods used by this industry. However, this final rule
uses as its basis only the model technologies used in EPA's 1982
proposal, and reiterated in the June 1984 notice of new
information. The following discussion presents descriptions of
each of these technologies, their use in the industry, and
performance data collected from full scale, pilot, and
demonstration facilities, as well as treatability studies.
SOURCE CONTROL
Although source control is not necessary for meeting these
regulations, their application can be extremely effective in
reducing the costs for in-plant controls and end-of-pipe
treatment, and in some cases can eliminate the need for some
treatment units entirely. The first and most cost-effective step
which can be taken to reduce wastewater pollutant discharge is to
control them at the source. The following discussion addresses
some techniques which have general application throughout the
industry.
Waste segregation is an important step in waste reduction.
Process wastewaters containing specific pollutants can often be
isolated and disposed of or treated separately in a more
technically efficient, and economical manner. Highly acidic
and caustic wastewaters are 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.
VI-3
-------
Water reduction can be achieved by replacing steam jet eductors
and barometric condensers with vacuum pumps and surface
condensers such as has been demonstrated 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.
Good housekeeping procedures and wastewater monitoring programs
can effect considerable water reductions and can prevent permit
violations due to spills and leaks. Flow measuring devices and
pH sensors with automatic alarms (such as at Plant 8), in order
to detect process upsets, is just one of many ways to effect
reductions in water use. Dry clean-up of spills can be used
instead of washing spilled wastes into floor drains. This
technique has been demonstrated to be effective in the
formulation and packaging portion of the industry. Prompt repair
and replacement of faulty equipment can also reduce wastewater
losses.
Raw 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. Water-based
reactions can be conducted in solvents assuming that
subsequent solvent recovery is practiced regularly.
Specific pollutants can be eliminated by requesting
specification changes from raw material suppliers in cases where
impurities are present and known to be discharged in process
wastewaters.
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES IN-USE IN THE INDUSTRY
This section identifies the treatment technologies that were
found to be applicable for the treatment of pesticides and
priority pollutants in wastewaters generated by the pesticides
industry. Figure VI-1 presents the range of flows for the
various types of treatment used in the pesticides industry. As
can be seen, most technologies are used over a wide range of flow
conditions. As presented earlier, Table VI-1A lists thirteen
treatment technologies currently utilized by the pesticides
industry to remove various pollutant groups from process
wastewaters. The primary unit treatment recommended for each
pollutant group is designated with a "1". After treatment by the
recommended primary unit, further removal is accomplished by
follow-on treatment, which is designated with a "2".
Table VI-1B presents the number of plants currently using each
of the technologies listed in Table VI-1A. It should be noted
VI-4
-------
that many plants use more than one type of treatment technology
to effect significant removals of pollutants.
Figures VI-2 through VI-10 provide schematic diagrams for the
major treatment technologies discussed in this section.
In-Plant Controls
Table VI-IC lists those prioity pollutants and pesticides that
can be removed by each of the 6 primary in-plant controls: steam
stripping, activated carbon, resin adsorption, metals separation,
chemical oxidation and hydrolysis. Steam stripping can remove
volatile organic materials; activated carbon can remove semi-
volatile organic compounds and many pesticides; and resin
adsorption, chemical oxidation and hydrolysis can treat selected
pesticides. Metals separation can treat those metals of concern
to this industry. Each of these technologies are discussed in
detail below.
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 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 condensate. 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.
VI-5
-------
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.
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 above mentioned 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 of 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.
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.
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.
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 ammonia removal. Steam is added at a rate of
VI-6
-------
1,400 pounds per hour to the 0.0326-MGD stream. Stripper
overheads containing ammonia, and organics are incinerated on-
site.
Plant 7 uses steam stripping treatment for process wastewater
from the U pesticide 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 process
wastewater from the V, W, and X pesticide processes. 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.
During 1980 an in-depth sampling and analytical program was
conducted at three plants in the Organic Chemicals Industry which
utilize steam stripping on wastewaters similar in nature to
pesticide manufacturing plants. 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 process wastewater. Data showed that
benzene, a pollutant to be regulated in the Pesticide
Industry, was reduced from an influent of 15.4 mg/1 to an
effluent of 0.230 mg/1 (98.5 percent removal efficieny).
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. Representative
operating data for pollutants to be regulated in the Pesticide
Industry were:
VI-7
-------
Stripper 1*
Influent Effluent Percent
Compound (mg/1) (mg/1) Removal
Dichloromethane 1,430 0.0153 >99.99
Carbon tetrachloride 665 0.0549 >99.99
Chloroform 8.81 1.15 86.9
Stripper 2
Influent Effluent Percent
Compound (mg/1) (mg/1) Removal
Dichloromethane 4.73 0.0021 >99.95
Chloroform 18.6 1.9 89.8
1,2-Dichloroethane 36.2 4.36 88.0
Carbon tetrachloride 9.7 0.030 99.7
Benzene 24.1 0.042 >99.8
Toluene 22.3 0.091 >99.6
*=Preproposal Data
Additional sampling of steam stripping treatment in the Organic
Chemicals Industry was conducted at Plant D's facility.
Results for pollutants to be regulated in the Pesticide Industry
were as follows:
Influent Effluent Percent
Compound (mg/1) (mg/1) Removal
Methylene chloride 34 0.01 >99.97
Chloroform 4,509 0.01 >99.99
1,2-Dichloroethane 9,030 0.01 >99.99
Data from one full scale steam stripper used in the
pharmaceutical industry for the removal of methylene chloride was
also obtained by the Agency. This stripper is used to treat
solvent-bearing wastewaters from chemical synthesis operations,
which are very similiar in nature to solvent-bearing wastewater
in this industry. The stripper is a packed column, and is
usually operated 12 hours per day, five days per week. The
unit's average performance is as follows:
average influent, mg/1 - 8,800
average effluent, mg/1 - 6.9
average percent removal - 99.92
These data substantiate the high removal data presented earlier.
VI-8
-------
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 (TOC).
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 volatility and high activity coefficients
of certain organic priority pollutants (see the list below),
steam stripping is an effective means of removing these
pollutants from wastewater. Based on a raw waste load
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 reduced 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, and
18-foot-high column with 9 feet of packing for a flow of
30,000 gallons per day.
VI-9
-------
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.
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, chlorinated alcohols, 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 also be
considered.
Hydrogen peroxide oxidizes phenol readily when the reaction is
catalyzed by ferrous sulfate; however, it has generally not been
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 completely remove
phenol, and provide 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 also be considered when this treatment is selected.
Full-Scale Systems—Tables VI-4 and VI-5 present design and
operating datafor nine pesticide manufacturers utilizing
chemical oxidation. In these systems over 98 percent of- cyanide,
phenol, and pesticides are removed, while COD and other
organics are greatly reduced.
Plant 1 uses batch chemical oxidation treatment of wastewater
for five of its pesticide processes. Hydrogen peroxide is used
for the reduction of phenolic compounds in the wastewaters from
VI-10
-------
Pesticides Af C, D, and E. Sodium hypochlorite is used primarily
for odor control in the B pesticide 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 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 monitoring
after chemical oxidation, hydrolysis, steam stripping, and
biological oxidation and before direct discharge show cyanide
levels 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 taken and analyzed
by the verification contractor. 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 percent), G (90.5 percent), and U (54.4 percent) was
observed. When chlorine is added to wastewater containing
compounds such as methylene 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
VI-11
-------
suitable for subsequent biological treatment. Treatability
studies were conducted which predicted removals of pesticide
(48.8 percent), COD (50 percent), and TOC (41 percent), based on
addition of 1 percent by volume of hydrogen peroxide after
acidification to pH 1 to encourage precipitation. Sodium
hypochlorite was found to be an equally effective, and more
economical oxidant; however, it was abandoned due to potential
formation of chlorinated hydrocarbons. The wastewater 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 temperature 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 effluent
discharge from chlorine treatment. The wastewater from
chlorine oxidation is subsequently evaporated to achieve no
discharge.
Plant 7 uses sodium hypochlorite to remove odor and COD generated
by diethylamine 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
pesticide 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 of by direct discharge.
VI-12
-------
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 effluent values less than or equal to 0.04
mg/1 and 50 percent achieve total cyanide effluent values 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 (EPA 440/1-82/071) using cyanide precipitation
show a cyanide mean effluent concentration of 0.07 mg/1.
Treatability Studies—Plant 10 conducted a treatability study on
a wastewater containing phosphorous-sulfur compounds, and
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 primarily involved
dechlorination, using catalyzed iron as the most effective
reducing agent. The use of a column was found to be 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.
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
VI-13
-------
solution. Alternative processes which also remove metals
are ion exchange, oxidation or reduction, reverse osmosis,
and 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.
Pl.inl ;"' utilizes sodium sulfide for the precipitation of copper
from the B pesticide wastewater. Although removals of copper
through precipitation is unknown, verification sampling data by
EPA contractors showed copper concentration in all plant process
waters to 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
percent) 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, 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:
VI-14
-------
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 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
These systems confirm that metals can be treated to very low
levels by the precipitation process.
Mercury Removal—Only one facility currently uses mercury in the
manufacture of metallo-organic pesticides. This plant's data was
used as the basis for regulating this pollutant. The plant has
classified this data as confidential, however, its mercury
effluent data can be summarized as follows;
Long term average - 0.02 mg/1
Monthly variability factor - 1.35
Daily variability factor - 2.34
The plant has reported a removal of 99.99 per cent from the raw
waste load.
Treatability Studies—Amron Corporation (1979) reported on a
system designed to remove high concentrations of heavy metals
in their wastewater. The method is an hydroxide/modified sulfide
precipitation system that uses ferrous sulfide an insoluble
sulfide salt which has a solubility greater than the heavy metal
sulfide to be precipitated. Heavy metal removals reported
represent mean values obtained over a 6-month period of
operations. Representative percent removals are listed below:
Vl-15
-------
Metal
Phosphorus
Zinc
Iron
Chromium
Nickel
Influent (mg/1) Effluent (mg/1)
247
27
85
2
0.61
0.40
0.10
0.04
0.10
0.10
Removal
(Percent)
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:
Heavy Metal
Copper
Zinc
Cadmium
Nickel
Chromium (total)
Achievable
Concentration (mg/1)
0
0
0
0
0.5
Precipitating
Agent
Caustic, lime
Caustic, lime
Soda ash
Soda ash
Caustic, lime
Gupta, et al. (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
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, et al. (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-16
-------
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 and weight of the adsorbate,
solubility and polarity 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
wastewaters. Table VI-8 presents operating data on these same
systems.
Pesticides, phenols, and nitrosamines are all 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 use long contact times and high carbon usage rate
systems which are applied as a pretreatment for the removal of
organics from concentrated waste 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
VI-17
-------
maximizing carbon adsorption efficiency. The adsorbers are sized
for 120-gallon per minute flow with normal flow of approximately
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.
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 mg/1
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.
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
pesticides 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 range 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 and pH adjusted prior to direct
discharge.
Verification sampling at Plant 2 showed that the concentration of
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.
VI-18
-------
The carbon usage rate at Plant 2 for this unit is 81.5 pounds per
1,000 gallons. Normal plant procedure requires the carbon bed
to be replaced every 30 days. Prior to off-site thermal
reactivation carbon is hydraulically pumped from the column
into a caustic soda neutralization tank.
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.
The average detention time is 19.1 minutes. Prior to carbon
treatment and direct discharge, the wastewater is pH adjusted
to 7.0 for maximum carbon adsorption of pesticides and organics
present in this stream. Following carbon treatment 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 mg/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 percent 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 as a result 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 activated carbon treatment systems for
wastewaters from the P and Q pesticide processes. Rain water
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
VI-19
-------
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 99.99
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 blowdown, 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 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 by significant levels which ranged from
88.9 to greater than 98.9 percent. The Pesticide Q spent carbon
is incinerated without regeneration. No additional information
is available for either carbon system.
Plant 5 installed an activated carbon treatment system 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
concentration 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 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.
VI-20
-------
Plant 6 operates an activated carbon system as pretreatment for
removal of nitrosoamines 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 the empty bed contact
time is 1,000 minutes. Carbon in the lead column is replaced
about once a week, resulting in a carbon usage rate 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
pesticide intermediate process at Plant 6 are treated by carbon
adsorption in three columns operating in series, with a fourth
column used for storage. Each column has a bed volume of
2,500 gallons. 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 above did not
show a significant decrease in concentration. The nitration
carbon system effectively reduced nitrosoamine levels from 82
to greater than 95 percent.
Wastewaters from Plant 7's 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.
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 TOC per pound carbon. Based on an
approximate bed volume of 5,000 gallons per adsorber, a total
system empty bed contact time of 8 hours is realized. Carbon
VI-21
-------
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 (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 sampling 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 be achieved, if desired, by more frequent
carbon replacement. Total suspended solids were reduced from
77.5 mg/1 to 32.3 mg/1, or 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 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.
VI-22
-------
Wastewater is stored in 6,000-gallon tanks prior to the two
activated carbon columns. Influent wastewater enters at a pH
range of 5 to 9. Due to the low volume of wastewater, the flow
through the columns is intermittent, operating two to three
hours per day. Each column has a capacity of 20,000 pounds of
carbon and operates in a downflow mode in series. The
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 zero discharge status. Spent
carbon is contracted for off-site reactivation.
Both plant and verification monitoring data at Plant 10 show
that Pesticide BB can be removed from wastewaters by
granular activated carbon at greater than 99 percent removal.
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 wastewaters from the CC pesticide process and 500
gallons per day of discharge from the DD pesticide process dryer
operation. This waste is combined with other process waste,
noncontact cooling water and sanitary waste, and passes through
an equalization basin, aerobic digester, 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 pesticide 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.
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 columns operate in the upflow mode in parallel.
Empty bed contact time is approximately 109 minutes. The
amount of carbon in each column is 154,000 pounds. Carbon usage
VI-23
-------
rate is 0.92 pounds of carbon per 1,000 gallons wastewater
treated. Plant 13 regenerates spent carbon on-site.
Final plant effluent at Plant 13 contains 4.0 MGD
noncontact cooling water; Pesticide FF was recorded at a
concentration of 0.00602 mg/1. Pesticide removal through the
carbon columns has not been measured. TOC 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 columns again. The carbon
was regenerated with isopropanol and the solvent was
incinerated. Carbon was replaced 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. Table VI-8 presents 5-1/2
months of pesticide data by the plant, and 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 wastewater 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 wastewater is treated. The carbon usage rate is
reported to be 451 pounds per 1,000 gallons treated. Due to the
relatively high carbon usage rate, Plant 15 is investigating
additional treatment methods. Carbon treatment 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 that 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 resulted in 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
\ ">24
-------
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.
Plant 16 uses activated carbon to treat wastewater from the
ammonia recovery and neutralization steps of the II pesticide
process. Wastewater at pH 11.6 to 12.5 enters two carbon beds
operating in a downflow mode 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 resulting in a carbon usage rate of 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. TOC was reduced by 68.4 percent from a
concentration of 523 to 165 mg/1.
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 evaporation 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. However, prior to final discharge both Pesticides
JJ and KK were detected at a concentration of 0.002 mg/1. This
does indicate that these pesticides are removed by the treatment
system to very low levels.
Treatability Studies—A detailed review of activated carbon
treatability studies was presented in the Development Document
VI-25
-------
for Effluent Limitation Guidelines for the Pesticide Chemicals
Manufacturing U.S. EPA 440/l-78/060e. 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
that 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 efficiency of 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.
Pilot plant treatability studies were performed by ESE (Beaudet,
1979a) to determine percent removal efficiencies of benzene,
toluene, and six selected polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(naphthalene, acenaphthylene, fluorene, phenathrene, anthracene,
and pyrene). The light hydro-carbon 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 that benzene and toluene were removed to below
detection limits of 10 ug/1 from multimedia 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-
dichloroethane (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
VI-26
-------
that branched-chain compounds are more adsorbable than straight-
chain compounds. Aware Engineering (1979) also reported
extremely good percent 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,
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 ^x.arrple.
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) The
Nitro Group—generally increases adsorbability, and (2) Aromatic
ring—greatly increases adsorbability. Huang, et al. (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 hydroxyl group is substituted at the ortho position.
Muruyama, et al. (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 concentrations in the influent of 0.5 mg/1 for
mercury and 5.0 mg/1 for all other metals. The representative
percent removals obtained are listed below:
VI-27
-------
Metal
Mn2 +
Ni2 +
Zn2+
Cu2+
Cd2+
Ba2 +
Percent
Removal
92-98.5
94-99.5
86-94
90-96
92-99.4
85-99
Metal
Pb2 +
Cr3 +
Cr6 +
As3 +
Hg2+
Percent
Removal
96-99
95-99.5
94-98
80-85
92
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.
Carbon Regeneration
Carbon regeneration is required when the carbon consumption rate
for removal of toxic pollutants is very high. For the proposed
regulation, the Agency costed on-site carbon regeneration systems
for all the pesticides plants that need activated carbon systems,
regardless of the flow rates and operating days. This increased
the overall carbon treatment cost significantly, particularly for
small plants with small waste flow rates and short-operating
durations. Since many of the pesticide plants discharge a small
quantity of wastewater (less than 0.1 MGD), it is not generally
cost-effective for these plants to install on-site carbon
regeneration systems.
After a telephone survey of five carbon regeneration firms and
vendors of carbon regeneration systems, the Agency found that the
average cut-off point for installing on-site systems is
approximately 2,000 Ibs/day of carbon consumption. Therefore, a
combination of 2,000 Ibs/day carbon consumption rate and 260
operating days/yr was used to determine the cut-off point. The
2,000 Ib/day was based on the following survey of activated
carbon suppliers:
VI-28
-------
Source
Rates Above Which On-Site
Regeneration ^s Used
Calgon, Chicago, IL
Westvaco, Covington, VA
Camerou Yakima, VA
Envirotrol, Sewickley, PA
Adsorption Systems, Inc., Milburn, NJ
1,640 to 2,190 Ibs/day
2,000 Ibs/day
2,000 Ibs/day
2,740 Ibs/day
2,739 Ibs/day
Resin Adsorption
Adsorption by synthetic polymeric resins is an effective means of
removal and recovery for 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 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 used are hard, insoluble beads of porous, cross-
linked polymer, and are available in a variety of surface areas
and pore-sized distributions. 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 accomplished 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 System—Tables VI-9 and VI-10 present design and
operating datafor 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.
VI-29
-------
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/ft2. 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 period 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 then directly 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 of 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.
The 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 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/ft^ 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/ft2.
According to the final report for the demonstration grant
(Marks, 1980), it is possible to maintain an average effluent
VI-30
-------
level of 0.005 mg/1 for Pesticides C and D with daily values less
than 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 of 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 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, Fr 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 levels between 0.5 to 4 mg/1. 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.
Treatability Studies—Aware (1979) conducted pilot scale studies
with adsorbent resins at Plant 3. For a loading rate of 7.5
gpm/ft2, and an empty bed contact time of 6 minutes,
the following average removals were observed:
VI-31
-------
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 of 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 pesticide chemicals. EPA 440/l-781/060e. 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 EPA 440/l-78/060e. According to this listing, the
use of hydrolysis can reasonably be expected to apply to at
least one-third of all pesticides manufactured.
Full-Scale Systems—Table VI-11 presents the design data for
nineplants employing full-scale hydrolysis treatment systems.
Table VI-12 presents operating data for these systems. A
detention time up to ten days is used in the industry to reduce
VI-32
-------
pesticide levels by more than 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 raise
the pH above 9.0 and detained in one of two identically sized
batch hydrolysis basins from 4.5 to 31.0 days. As shown in
Table VI-12, Pesticide A concentration 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
zero discharge to navigable waters.
Plant 2 operates a 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 time 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 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-33
-------
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 pesticide 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 study 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. Laboratory 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.
VI-34
-------
Plant 11 states that organophosphate pesticides will hydrolyze in
warm alkaline water.
Studies on triazine pesticides not reported in the BPT
Development Document are presented in Table VI-14. In general,
acid hydrolysis provides sufficient degradation to allow
feasible fullscale design of systems removing pesticides
through 10 half-lives (99.9 percent).
Kinetic studies conducted by Wolfe (1976) indicate second order
rate constants for the hydrolysis of atrazine with sulfuric and
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 10-5 kM-ls-1
Sulfuric—(1.9 plus or minus 0.2) x 10-4 kM-ls-1
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 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 decrease 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 demonstrated 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
immobilized enzymes can degrade toxic pesticides to less toxic
VI-35
-------
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 temperature,
time, and turbulene are utilized. It should be noted that sulfur
and nitrogen-containing compounds will produce their
corresponding 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.
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 aslo atomized by
the two bricklined incinerators, only 5.7 percent of the
wastewater processed is attributed to Pesticide A. The residues
sustain combustion in the reactors operationg 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 operationg 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, 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 uses a Trane thermal incinerator to oxide high strength
wastes from six pesticide processes. Sixty percent of
incinerator uses been devoted to pesticides; however, on only two
VI-36
-------
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. 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 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: TOC 33.0 lbs/1,000 Ibs
production and TOD 207.8 lbs/1,000 Ibs production.
Plant 4 operates two thermal oxidizers used to dispose of
wastewater from six pesticide products. One of the oxidizers was
built by the John Zink Company, and has 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
approximately 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 persent.
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 informtion 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
VI-37
-------
the tertiary treatment system t 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 Rf Sf T, U, and V. Approximately 0.05 MGD of T
pesticide wastewater is incinerated. The stream from the
extraction phase of Pesticide S production is also incinerated.
This stream is 2,000 gallons per day. Waste streams from the
reaction processes of Pesticides R and V are also incincerated.
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 percent. At present, 22 percent of the
incinerator feed contains pesticide active ingredients. All
incinerator feed originates in pesticidde operations.
Incineration at Plant 5 effectively reduces levels of the
priority pollutants methylene chloride, benzene, and toluene, as
well as controlling odor and COD.
Plant 5 incinerator feed data indicate pesticide levels up to 130
pounds per thousand pounds of production. As shown by effluent
data from the incinerator's stack gas water scrubbers, pesticide
removal is from 50 to 99.9 percent. Traditional parameters
average 95.9 percent destruction. Nitrogen destruction average
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
VI-38
-------
data currently exist to document the incinerator effficiency.
Plant 7 operates three thermal oxidizers that dispose of organica
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, 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° 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.
VI-39
-------
data currently exist to document the incinerator effficiency.
Plant 7 operates three thermal oxidizers that 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, 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° 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.
VI-461
-------
Plant 9 operates a J.D. Thorpe incinerator for the destruction of
wastes from the manufacture of Pesticides GG and HH. The
incinerator treats only pesticide wastes. Organic wastes from
the HH pesticide plant, aqueous, and organic solvent wastes from
the GG pesticide plant, and some waste 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 table below gives the
characterstics 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 converted to sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid,
and phosphorus pentoxide. The hot exhaust gases are quenched by
a recirculating neutral salt water solution, followed by
scrubbing 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
choride, and sodium phosphate. Sodium sulfite is then oxidized
to sodium sulfate in an air oxidizer prior to direct discharge.
VI-41
-------
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
* 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 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.
VI-42
-------
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 had 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
1,800°F, 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.
Other Technologies
In addition to the technologies presented above, which are used
as the basis for this regulation, there are many other
technologies that can be used by pesticide plants on a site
specific basis. These are discussed below.
Wet Air Oxidation (WAO)
Wet air oxidation process is a liquid phase oxidation and/or
hydrolysis performed 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.
VI-43
-------
Products of oxidation stay in the liquid phase and do not create
a secondary air pollution problem. The process can substantially
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
self-sustaining. Phenols, cyanide, nitrosoamines, dienes, and
pesticides have been shown to be effectively removed by WAO.
Treatability Studies—Wilhelmi and Ely (1975) reported that
demonstration 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 acrylonitrile 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 also
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
hexachlorocyclopentadiene reducing the concentration 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-
nitrosodimethylamine, 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-44
-------
* 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 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.
VI-45
-------
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 membrances using hydrous
zirconium oxide and polyacrylic acid, and inorganic membrances.
Ultrafilitration systems achieve similar removal of solutes from
solution based primarily in molecular size.
Modern ultrafiltration membrances are made from a variety of
noncellulosic synthetic polymers such as nylon, vinyl chloride-
acrylonirile 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 (EPA
440/1-82/071) reported the following data from full-scale systems
using membrane filtration to remove precipitated metals from
wastewater.
Plant 1 Plant 2
Percent Percent
Metal In (mg/1) Out (mg/1) Removal In (mg/1) Out (mg/1) Removal
Copper 18.0 0.043 99.8 8.0 0.22 97.3
Zinc 2.09 0.046 97.6 5.0 0.051 98.9
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 membranes 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:
VI-46
-------
Percent Concentration No. of Data
Parameter Rejection (mg/1) 90-100%
COD 71-99 1600-7100 27 out of 35
BOD 74-99 25-2300 29 out of 38
TOC 82-98 175-2000 26 out of 32
Phenol 86-100 0.66-315 4 out of 7
Zinc 94-99 2.1-18 13 out of 13
Copper 92-99 1.5-5.5 14 out of 14
Nickel 80-98 0.7-3.87 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 seach were made by
Cabassor 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 being the most effective.
The authors concluded that treatment by reverse osmosis with
further treatment by an osmotic concentrator is a reasonable
approach, and that high water-solute coupling occurs in
transport.
Hyperfiltration treatability studies are currently being
conducted on pesticide wastewaters by EPA.
End-of-Pipe Treatment
Biological Treatment
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. COD removals at these same plants
ranged from 60.5 to 89.7 percent. 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:
VI-47
-------
(1) biological degradation of the pollutant, (2) adsorption
of the pollutant onto sludge which is separately disposed,
or (3) volatilization 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 percent 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:
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 (ESE,
1978) indicate that pentachlorophenol is removed through
biological systems as follows:
Percent
Plant 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
VI-48
-------
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 and 9.1-96.3 63.0
Ethylenes
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 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. Table
VI-17 shows that biological systems such as Plants 2, 7f and
13 which are receiving pesticides at approximately 1
mg/1, are achieving removals in excess of 50 percent.
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
VI-49
-------
equalization and 40 days retention time. 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 (no equalization) achieved an
average removal of 44 percent. Plant 5 determined that
equalization times 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 including
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 with 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
clarification and flocculation. COD removals 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 municipal wastewater. Carbaryl, toluene, and COD were
all reduced by 90 percent or greater. The influent concentration
of the wastewater was: Toluene, 160 mg/1; COD, 4,100 mg/1;
Carbaryl, 4.3 mg/1; and NH3-N, 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.
VI-50
-------
Saldick (1975) reported that cyanuric acid is removed from
aqueous chemical plant wastes by treatment of the wastes with
active bacteria, under anaerobic conditions, while holding pH
between 5.0 and 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. Exceptions were 1,1,2-
trichloroethane (69 percent) and dibromochloromethane (73
percent). It was also found that 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
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Percent Removal
99
99 +
95
99
97
99
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 and were as follows:
Parameter
1,2-Dichloropropane
Methylene chloride
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Phenol
Tetrachloroethane
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Percent
Overall Removal
99.4-99.9
99.5
99.9
98.5
99.9 +
93
94
Percent
Biodegraded
0-11.2
94.5
84.5-85
0
99.9 +
0
94
Percent
Air-Stripped
88.3-99
5.0
15.4
97.5-100+
0
93
0
VI-51
-------
Preliminary findings of a U.S. EPA program (EPA 440/1-80/301)
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.
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.
VI-52
-------
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 concentrations 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.
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/
Plant 3 TSS & COD — 40% improvement
VI-53
-------
Preliminary studies results (Sublette, et al., 1980) showed that
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 by 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 TODC 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:
Parameter
TOC mg/1
COD mg/1
Chlorinated pesticides ug/1
Organo-sulfur pesticides ug/1
Copper mg/1
Zinc mg/1
NH3-N mg/1
PCBs ug/1
Activated
Sludge
18.2
50
0.35
15.0
0.01
0.08
12.4
0.131
PAC/WAO
Pilot Plant
8.3
16
0.017
0
0.008
0.021
0.17
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 a 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 of over 96 percent were reported. Other achievements of
this system are:
1. The filtration rate of PACT sludge increases with increasing
carbon content.
VI-54
-------
2. There have been no foaming problems in the PACT liquid
train, even though the wastewater contains surfactants.
Data showed removal of volatile organics to be generally 90
percent with effluent concentrations around 10 ug/1. The
removal of phenol was reported to be between, 94 and an 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 126 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:
Parameter
Pilot Plant 25 mg/1 PAC 50 mg/1 PAC
Influent Addition Addition
NH3-N (mg/1)
Phenolics (mg/1)
Soluble COD (mg/1)
19
3.95
294
0.4
0.006
50
0.1
0.002
27
Zinc Process for the Removal of Mercury
A process for the removal of mercury from wastewater has been
developed and is currently being used by one plant in the
metallo-organic pesticide category. Zinc is added to the
wastewater and combines with mercury to form an insoluble complex
that precipitates out of solution under acid pH conditions. The
waste treatment system is a pilot scale operation that operates
intermittently. Influent mercury levels of 32000 ppm have been
reduced to approximately 20 ppm; a 99.99% removal efficiency.
The effluent wastewater is neutralized and contains residual zinc
remaining after the reaction with mercury. Zinc effluent
concentrations averaged 65 ppm and were as low as 2.5 ppm. A
second neutralization step is anticipated to further reduce the
zinc levels from the process wastewater, before subsequent
discharge.
Equalization
Equalization consists of a wastewater holding vessel or a pond
large enough to dampen flow and/or pollutant concentration
variation which provides a nearly constant discharge rate and
wastewater quality. The holding tank or pond capacity is
determined by wastewater volume and composition variability. The
VI-55
-------
equalization basin may be agitated or may utilize a baffle system
to prevent short circuiting. Equalization is employed prior to
wastewater treatment processes that are sensitive to fluctuations
in waste composition or flow.
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.
Neutralization
Neutralization is practiced in industry to raise or lower the pH
of a wastewater stream. Alkaline wastewater may be neutralized
with hydrochloric acid, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and most
commonly, sulfuric acid. Acidic wastewaters may be neutralized
with limestone or lime slurries, soda ash, caustic soda, or
anhydrous ammonia. Often a suitable pH can be achieved through
the mixing of acidic and alkaline process wastewaters. Selection
of neutralizing agents is based on cost, availability, ease of
use, reaction by-products, reaction rates, and quantities of
sludge formed.
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.
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 or resin adsorptin and
overflow from sludge thickener, aerobic digester, and vacuum
filters.
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.
VI-S6
-------
Table VI-1A. Applicability of Treatment Technologies to Various Pollutant Groups
l
en
T,.— T*»»lo»
Activjttt fctia &*•§ liolmkol MM Air Ha*f«r» IfciaU Solvent ChaMcal *tiv4*i ltertt«y
folliCMt Ck**4» CMbun MaocptMa ftrirpiq| %dnil|iii QuidMion OiMktian MTUCMMS •tptrtfion BitractMM feMhtM* Pilli«tiai Cwfaua CMtua
1k.l«,l« *,— *.
MtiMUuHn
Cy«nwt«a
lUlucthwr*
HMIW|«
Hiiro St^MUrf«d Aruutic*
HitrauMinw
OK^J^^MI <«*•)
1
1
*
1
•
1
1
1
nritticiAM III
DIMM 1 1 «
too i i •
2
2
i
2
2
2
2
2
2
NltC«lt«MM ~ — — — _—___—— _..
I • tommy rawai t«clmai
-------
Table VI-IB. Principal Types of Wastewater Treatment/Disposal
Type of Treatment/Dlspoal 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 119 plants 1n Industry; however, many have more
than one means of treatment/disposal.
VI-58
-------
Table VI-IC
Pollutants Removed by Selected Technologies
Model
Treatment
Technology
(1) Stean Stripping
(2) Activated Cartoon
(3) Resin Adsorption
Priority
Pollutants
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Bromide
1,3-Diehloropropene
8 i s(2-Chloroethyl)Ether
1,2,4-Tr ichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
N-Nitroscdi-N-Propylanine
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
HexaehJorocyclopentadiene
BHC-Alpha
BHC-Beta
BHC-Delta
BHC-Garnraa
Endosulfan-Alpha
Endosulfan-Beta
Endrin
Heptachlor
Toxaphene
4-Nitrophenol
(4) Metals Separation See Metals
(5) Chemical Oxidation
(6) Hydrolysis
Non-Conventional
Pesticides
Alachlor
Atrazine
Bremacil
Butachlor
Carbendazim
Benomyl Complex
Carbofuran
Dinoseb
Diuron
Linuron
Terbacil
Triazine
Bentazon
Chloropropham
Ferbam
Hancozeb
Niacide
PCP Salt
Swep
ZAC
Zineb
Silvex
Maneb
Benfluralin
Ethalfluralin
Flucmeturon
2,4-DB
2,4-D IBE
2,4-D IDE
2,4-DB IBE
2,4-DB IOE
2,4,5-T
Trifluralin
2,4-D
Simazine
Terbuthylazine
Terbutryn
Isopfopalin
Neburon
Profluralin
Pronetryn
Propazine
Propham
Propoxur
Pj.-opachlor
Methcmyl
Oxanyl
Azinphos Methyl
Daneton
Diazinon
Disulfoton
Fensulfothion
Fenthion
;«tetribuzin
Parathion .Methyl
KN Methyl
Busan 40
Busan 85
Carbatn-S
Carbophenthion
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos Methyl
Counaphos
DBCP
Dioxation
KN Methyl
Metham
Naled
Ronnel
Stiofos
Trichloronate
Daneton-O
Daneton-S
Simetryn
Parathion
Bolstar
Phorate
Dichlovos
Ethion
Halathion
Prcraeton
Terbufos
-------
Table VI-2. Plants Using Stripping for Pesticide Wastewaters*
Plant
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Product/
Process Code Type Stripper
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
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
* Proposal Data
VI-60
-------
Table VI-3. Stean Stripping Operating Data*
VDLATIIE ARDMATICS
Benzene
Plant
1
6
6
8
Influent
mg/1
<0.07
<0.050
ND
<0.299°
Effluent
mg/1
<0.04
<0.050
ND
<0.299°
Percent
Renoval
42.8
NA
NA
NA
Plant
1
6
6
8
8
8
8
Toluene
Influent
mg/1
<0.070
<0.20
ND
>99.5
686
1,570
528
Effluent
mg/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 Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Renoval
ND
ND
NA
HALOCTHANES
Methylene chloride
Plant
1
6
6
Influent
mg/1
<159
0.005
<0.798
Effluent
mg/1
<0.01°
0.02
<0.645
Percent
Removal
99.9
+
19.2
Chloroform
Influent Effluent
Plant mg/1 mg/1
1 <0.0623
2 70.0*
6 <0.30
<0.0010°
<5.0*
<0.733
Percent
Renoval
98.4
>92.9
+
Carbon tetrachloride
Plant
Influent
mg/1
Effluent Percent
mg/1 Renoval
<0.0010 <0.0010
NA
Footnotes at end of table.
VI-61
-------
Table VI-3. Steam Stripping Operating Data (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
Trichloroethylene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 rag/1 Removal
1
6
<0.070
NA
<0.04
0.01
42.9
MA
AMMONIA
Armenia
Plant
4
6
6
Influent
mg/l
>50.0
2540
7890
Effluent
mg/1
5.00
95
98.0
Percent
Removal
>90.0
96.3
98.8
NA = Not available
ND = Not detected
+ = Concentration increased
0 = Analysis not conducted per protocol
* = Data from ccmingled waste stream
1 = Preproposal Data
VI-62
-------
Table VI-4. Plants Using Chemical Oxidation for Pesticide Wastewaters*
Plant
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
NA »
* n.
Pesticide
Code
A
B
C
D
B
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
0
R
Not Available
• r~i_i_i_ri_i.T_j~L_n i_"l T^.n_k T_
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
Hyd'rogen peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide
Formaldehyde
Chlorine
Chlorine
Hydrogen peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide
Chlorine
Chlorine
Sodium hypochlorite
NA
NA
NA
Coha I Lou s ch } or ide
VI-63
-------
Table VI-5. Chemical Oxidation Operating Data1
CYANIDE
PHENOLS
Plant
Cyanide
Influent Effluent
mg/1 mg/1
Phenols
Percent
Removal
Influent
Plant mg/1
Effluent
rag/1
Percent
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
Chlorobenzene
Plant
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
VOLATILE
Influent
mg/1
83.2
1.33
3.46
2.03
2.40
2.57
398
19.2
0.013
MA
MA
NA
AROMATICS
Effluent
rag/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
Toluene
Influent Effluent Percent Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal Plant mg/1 rag/1 Removal
ND
ND
NA
<0.01
<0.01
NA
Footnotes at the end of table.
VI-64
-------
Table Vl-5. Chemical Oxidation Operating Data (Continued Page 2 of 2)
HADCMETHANES
Carbon tetrachloride
Methylene chloride
Influent Effluent Percent Influent Effluent Percent
Plant rag/1 rag/1 Removal Plant mg/1 rog/1 Removal
Trace 0.014°
NA
ND
ND
NA
Chloroform
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
3
3
0.0367
0.170°
1.50
1.90°
NA = Not available
ND = Not detected
° = Analysis not conducted per protocol
* = Data from coningled waste stream
t = Pilot plant data
+ = Concentration increased
1 = Preproposal Data
VI-65
-------
Table VI-6. Plants Using Metals Separation for Pesticide Wastewatersl
Plant
Code
1
2
3
Pesticide
Code Flow (MGD)
A 0.06
B NA
C* 0.35
D*
Type of System
Hydrogen Sulf ide
Precipitation
Sodium Sulf ide
Precipitation
Ferric Sulf ate,
Lime Precipitation
Effluent
Concentration
(mg/1)
2.2-2.8 (Cu)
NA
0.2 (As)
0.11 (Zn)
NA = Not Available
* = Previously manufactured metallo-organics.
As = Arsenic
Cu » Copper
Zn » Zinc
1 - Prepropoeal Data
VI-66
-------
Table VI-7. Plants Using Granular Activated Carbon for Pesticide Wastewaters1
Plant Pesticide
Code Code
1 A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
2 J
K
3* L
M
Nt
0
4 P
Q
5 R
S
T
6 U
V
W
Pesticide
Intermediate
Volume
Treated (MGD)
0.0451
0.0165
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00453
0.009
0.40°
0.40°
0.40°
0.40°
0.015
0.012
1.26°
1.26°
1.26°
0.050-0.075
NA
NA
0.025-0.030
Calculated
Empty Bed Carbon Usage
pH Contract Time (lb/1000 gal)
1.0-1.5
1.0-1.5
1.0-1.5
1.0-1.5
1.0-1.5
1.0-1.5
1.0-1.5
1.0-1.5
1.0-1.5
0.5-4.0
0.5-4.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
NA
NA
6-12
6-12
6-12
8.5-9.5 (A)
8.5-9.5 (A)
8.5-9.5 (A)
1.5 (N)
320 Min.
320 Min.
320 Min.
320 Min.
320 Min.
320 Min.
320 Min.
320 Min.
320 Min.
588 Min.
588 Min.
19.1 Min.
19.1 Min.
19.1 Min.
19.1 Min.
NA
NA
18-52 Min.
18-52 Min.
18-52 Min.
1000 Min. (A)
1000 Min. (A)
1000 Min. (A)
571 Min. (N)
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
81.5
81.5
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
NA
NA
20.0-33.5
20.0-33.5
20.0-33.5
136 (A)
136 (A)
136 (A)
NA (N)
Reactivation
Method
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Off -site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
NA
NA
On-site/infrared furnace
On-site/infrared furnace
On-site/infrared furnace
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Off-site/Thermal
Fotenotes at end of Table.
-------
Table VI-7. Plants Using Granular Activated Carbon for Pesticide Wastewaters1 (Continued, Page 2 of. 2)
00
Plant
Code
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Pesticide
Code
X
y
z
AA
BB
CC
DD
EE
FF
GG
HH
HH
II
II
JJ
KK
Volume
Treated (MGD)
0.046
0.047
0.16
0.07
0.02
0.001
0.0005
0.0028
0.010
0.00133
0.0275
0.0002
0.12
0.18
0.0005
0.0004
Calculated
Empty Bed
pH Contract Time
6-8
6-8
8-12
NA
5-9
NA
NA
NA
6
1
2.0
2.0
11.6-12.5
11.6-12.5
4.0-10.6
4.0-10.6
480 Min.
480 Min.
100 Min.
NA
250 Min.
NA
NA
NA
109 Min.
35 Min.
420 Min.
420 Min.
91.5 Min.
60.8 Min.
60 Min.
60 Min.
Carbon Usage Reactivation
(lb/1000 gal) Method
95.0
95.0
2.89
NA
69.3
NA
NA
NA
0.92
NA
451.0
451.0
71.6
47.7
2.0
2.0
Of f-s iteAhermal
Of f-s iteAhermal
Of f-s i teAherroal
NA
Of f-s iteAhermal
NA
NA
On-s i teAhermal
On-s i teAhermal
On-s i teAsopropanol
Of f-s i teAherroal
Off-siteAhermal
Of f-s iteAhermal
Off-siteAhermal
Off-siteAhermal
Of f-s iteAhermal
0 = Combined pesticide flow.
* = Utilized as tertiary treatment.
t = Production discontinued.
NA = Not Available
(A) = Amination
(N) = Nitration
1 = Preproposal Data
-------
Table VI-8. Granular Activated Carbon Operating Data^
MANUFACTURING 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
1 = Preproposal Data
VI-69
-------
Table VI-8.
Granular 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/l
92.2*
NA
NA
53.7*
42,000
Effluent
mg/1
<0.0591*
0.482°
0.498°
<0.022*
0.82
Percent
Removal
>99.9
NA
NA
>99.9
99.9
Plant
1
1
4
8
Pentachlorophenol
Plant
2
6
Influent
mg/1
<1.0
<0.01
Effluent
mg/1
<0.10t
<0.01t
Percent
Removal
90.0
NA
Plant
1
1
2
3
2-Chlorophenol
Influent
mg/1
<5.09*
11.2*
ND
0.040
Effluent
mg/l
<0.0233*
<0.010*
ND
ND
Percent
Removal
99.5
>99.9
NA
NA
2 , 4^ 6-Trichlorophenol
Influent
mg/l
<3.69*
2.20*
8700
ND
Effluent
mg/l
<0.0493*
<0.010*
0.068
ND
Percent
Removal
98.7
>99.5
99.9
NA
Total jDhenol
Influent
mg/l
<145*
<79.6*
<0.0056
0.187
Effluent
mg/l
<0.329*
<0.143*
<0.001
0.118
Percent
Removal
99.8
99.8
82.1
36.9
NA = Not available
ND = Not detected
t = Analysis not conducted per protocol
0 = Reported as total phenol with 2,4-dichlorophenol principal constituent
* = Data fron coningled waste stream
VI-7G
-------
Table VI-8. Granular Activated Carbon Operating Data
(Continued/ Page 3 of 6)
NITROSAMINES
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Plant
Influent
mg/1
Effluent
ma/1
Percent
Removal
6
6
6
8
0.069
0.123
1.96
ND
0.0067
0.0276
0.0041
ND
90.3
77.6
99.8
NA
VOLATILE AROMATICS
Benzene
Plant
1
4
4
7
15
15
Influent
mg/l
<0.01*
NA
0.073
ND*
<0.050
0.02
Effluent
mg/l
<0.01*
<0.012
<0.01
NA
<0.050
ND
Percent
Removal
NA
NA
>86.3
NA
NA
NA
Plant
1
4
4
5
5
5
7
15
15
Toluene
Influent
mg/l
0.0162*
NA
0.03
5.80*
1.08
2.69*
0.137*
ND
<0.20°
Effluent
mg/l
0.0194*
<0.006
<0.01
<0.1*
NA
NA
<0.007*
ND
<0.20
Percent
Removal
+
NA
>66.7
>98.3
NA
NA
>94.9
NA
NA
NA = Not available
ND = Not detected
+ = Concentration increased
* = Data from comingled waste stream
0 = Analysis not conducted per protocol
VI-71
-------
Table VI-8. Granular Activated Carbon Operating Data
(Continued, Page 4 of 6)
VOLATIIE ARQMATICS (continued)
Chlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Influent Effluent Percent Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.008 <0.001
87.5
Dichlorobenzenet
Influent E ffluent Percent
Plant ng/1 mg/1 Removal
<0.108 <0.0167
84.5
HAEJOeTHANES
Methylene chloride
Plant
1
1
4
4
6
8
10
15
Influent
mg/1
3.54*
1.70*
0.88
NA
0.326
ND
12.7°
<0.10
Effluent
mg/1
<3.07*
1.49*
<0.01
1.43
<0.010
ND
<0.10°
<0.798
Percent
Removal
>13.3
12.5
>98.9
NA
>96.9
NA
>99.2
+
Plant
1
1
3
4
4
10
Chloroform
Influent
mg/1
<0.0689*
0.0189
0.623
<0.09
NA
<0.30°
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
NA = Not available
ND = Not detected
t = Combined dichlorobenzenes: 1,2; 1,3? 1.4.
0 = Analysis not conducted per protocol.
* = Data froni oomingled waste stream
+ = Concentration increased
VI-72
-------
Table VI-8.
Granular Activated Carbon Operating Data
(Continued, Page 5 of 6)
HALCEETHANES (continued)
Carbon tetrachloride
Plant
1
1
3
4
4
5
5
5
Influent
mg/1
<0.150*
<0.0010*
10.5*
NA
<0.91
0.39
0.168*
<0.16*
Effluent
ng/1
<0.0261*
<0.0010*
2.32*
<0.02
<0.01
MA
MA
<0.1*
Percent
Removal
82.6
MA
77.9
NA
98.9
NA
NA
37.5
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
1,2-Dichloroethane
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
6
4
<0.022
NA
<0.012
<0.01
45.5
NA
NA = Not Available
ND = Not detected
* = Data fro comingled waste stream
VI-73
-------
Table vi-8.
Granular Activated Carbon Operating Data
(Continued, Page 6 of 6)
TRADITIONAL PARAMETERS
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
BOD
Influent
mg/l
5690*
137.0*
ND*
78.8
NA
NA
<103
45200
3331
TSS
Influent
mg/l
56.6*
235
35.0*
411*
178
253*
NA
68,6*
77.5
87.7
<97.0*
1460
4094
3000
Effluent
mg/l
4136*
319.0*
<20.0*
NA
316
889*
<1.92
37400
2397
Effluent
mg/l
185*
150
35.0*
25.7*
NA
NA
34.0
-•16.6*
32.>
<:s .00
<117*
2600
204
2000
Percent
Removal
27.3
+
+
NA
FA
f94.3
+
+
95.0
33.3
Plant
1
2
3
c
5
5
6
7
10
14
15
15
Plant
2
5
5
7
10
13
14
15
15
16
Influent
mg/l
8000*
1500
895.0*
353*
890
468*
5120
4750*
4880
148000
28021
75500
Influent
mg/l
430
585*
178*
1650*
2170
<344*
79800
28489
19500
523
COD
Effluent
mg/l
2580*
204
819.0*
<285*
NA
NA
2880
808*
31.2
109000
5340
60000
TOC
Effluent
mg/l
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
•f = Concentration increased
* = Data from coningled waste stream
VI-74
-------
Table VI-9. Plants Using Resin Adsorption for Pesticide Wastewaters1
en
Plant
Code
1
2
3
4
Pesticide
Code
A
B*
C
D
E
F
G
Volume Disposed
(MOD)
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
Empty Bed
Contract Time
7.5 Min.
30 Min.
15 Min.
15 Min.
15 Min.
15 Min.
15 Min.
Regeneration
Solvent/Disposal
Methanol/Boiler fuel
Sodium hydroxide/Recycle
Isopropanol/Boiler fuel
Isoprcpanol/Boiler fuel
Methanol/Distilled-Reused
Methanol/Distilled-Reused
Methanol/Di s t i 1 led-Reused
* = Production discontinued
1 = Preproposal Data
-------
Table VI-10. Resin Adsorption Operating Datal
MANUFACTURED PESTICIEES
Pesticides
Pesticide
Code
A
A
D
D
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
F
G
Plant
1
1
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
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
mg/i
0.00067
0.00123
0.038
0.010
0.539
<0.015
24.0
18.6
<19.5
61.1
26.7
<18.3
<9.24
Percent
Removal
99.6
99.1
60.0
96.9
+
97.1
87.5*
97.0
94.1
76.5
89.2
88.0
>87.0
PffiNOLS
2-Chlorophenol
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
Plant
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Influent
mg/1
Effluent
mg/1
Percent
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
Plant
4
4
4
Influent
mg/1
<0.348
0.378
<0.544
Effluent
mg/1
<0.163
<0.0892
<0.219
Percent
Removal
68.8*
>76.4
59.7
4 5.76 0.523 93.9*
4 <10.5 <4.32 58.9
4 3.15 <0.462 >85.3
4 5.46 <1.53 >72.0
4-Nitrophenol
Plant
2
Influent
mg/1
lOOOt
Effluent
mg/1
l.OOt
Percent
Removal
99.9
NA - Not available
ND - Not detected
* « Removal based on pollutant mass balance, not concentration
t « Pilot scale data
ft » Reported at total phenol with 2,4-dichlorophenol as principal constituent
+ » Concentration increased
1 » Preproposal data
VI-76
-------
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 3.82 1.15
4 0.955 0.518
69.8*
45.8
DIENES
HexachlorocyclojDentadiene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal Plant
3 0.827* 0.123* 85.1 3
3 0.435* 0.034* 92.2
Hexachlorobutadiene
Influent
mg/1
0.210*
Effluent
mg/1
0.01*
Percent
Removal
91.1*
VOLATILE AROMATICS
Benzene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal Plant
1 <0.053 <0.032 34.5** 3
4 <0.298 NA NA 4
4
4
4
4
Toluene
Influent
mg/1
2.10*
16.8
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 conringled waste stream
** = Removal based on pollutant mass balance, not concentration
VI-77
-------
Table VI-10. Resin Adsorption Operating Data (Continued, Page 3 of 4)
VOLATILE AROMATICS (Continued)
Chlorobenzene
InfluentEffluentPercent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
0.577 0.151
39.2**
HALOMETHANES
Chloroform
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
Chlorodibromomethane
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*
POLYNUCLEAR
Effluent Percent
mg/1 Removal
5.49 28.4**
44.5* 34.5
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Percent
Removal
<13.8**
Naphthalene
InfluentEffluentPercent
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-78
-------
Table VI-10. Resin Adsorption Operating Data (Continued, Page 4 of 4)
CHORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES
Tetrachloroethylene
InfluentEffluentPercent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
1
3
0.054
0.467*
0.018
0.199*
55.3**
57.4
TRADITIONAL PARAMETERS
Plant
1
3
4
BOD
Influent
mg/1
55.0
331*
1906
Effluent
mg/1
55.0
278*
2104
Percent
Removal
0.0
16.0
Plant
1
3
Influent
mg/1
674
675*
COD
Effluent
mg/1
576
545*
Percent
Removal
17.9**
19.3
Plant
1
3
TSS
Influent
mg/1
23.0
208*
Effluent
mg/1
19.0
81.3*
Percent
Removal
25.0**
60.9
Plant
1
3
4
Influent
mg/1
62.0
342*
2670*
TOC
Effluent
mg/1
59.0
301*
2590
Percent
Removal
3.85**
12.0
3.0
* = Data from comlngled waste stream
** = Removal based on pollutant mass balance, not concentration
+ = Concentration Increased
VI-79
-------
Table VI-11. Plants Using Hydrolysis for Petsicide Wastewaters*
CO
o
Plant
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Pesticide
Code
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
0
R
S
T
U
V
w,x
w,x
Y
Pesticide Volume
Disposed (MGD)
0.00451
0.056
0.025
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0634
0.006
0.015
0.025
0.007
0.013
0.02-0.015
0.02-0.015
0.010
PH
>9.0
<1.0
12.7
<10
<10
11-12
8-12
8-12
12+
8-12
12+
12+
13+
8-12
12+
12+
NA
12-14
12-14
12-14
12-14
12-14
10-12
4-6
9
Detention
Time
>108 Hrs.
264 Hrs.
3 Hrs.
120 Hrs.
120 Hrs.
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
NA
12 Hrs.
12 Hrs.
12 Hrs.
12 Hrs.
12 Hrs.
80 Min.
50-60 Min.
19 Hrs.
Temperature
Ambient
Ambient
46.1°C
NA
NA
30°-40°C
65°-100°C
65°-100°C
100°C
65°-100°C
100 °C
100°C
30°-35°C
65°-100°C
100 °C
100°C
NA
43.3°C
43.3°C
43.3°C
43.3°C
43.3°C
104 °C
104 °C
75°C
Type System
Batch
Continuous
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
NA = Not avialable
* = Preprcposal data
-------
Table VI-12. Hydrolysis Operating Data1
Pesticides
Pesticide
Code
A
B
C
C
E
D
G
F
J
N
L
H
K
P
0
I
M
Q
V
u
T
S
R
X
W
Y
NA = Not analyzed
ND = Not detected
* = Sampling has demonstrated
average varies based on pH
t = Design basis
** = Hydrolysis and biological
1 = Preproposal Data
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
that cited
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
effluent
, temperature, and
oxidation
treatment
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
removal is
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
achievable;
detention time.
combi ned
VI-81
-------
Table VI-13. Plant 10 Hydrolysis Data for Thiocarbamate Pesticides*
Pesticide
Code
Z
M and BB
CC
DD
pH
10
3
6
9
3
6
9
4
4
8
8
Temp
(°C)
20
20
35
50
20
35
50
20
35
50
20
20
20
30
60
30
60
Half-Life
(Hours)
Less than
one hour
1.0
0.45
0.27
2.7
2.7
5.0
12.9
8.0
6.0
Greater than
40 days
Greater than
40 days
72
120
50
Less than
24 hours
Less than
24 hours
* = Preproposal Data
-------
Table VI-14. Hydrolysis Data—Triazine Pesticides*
Pesticide
Atrazine
Cyanazine
Prometryn
Ametryne
Met ri buz in
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
(°C)
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,
Lowenbach,
Little, et
Little, et
Little, et
Little, et
Little, et
Little, et
Brown, et
Kearney,
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
et al
1977
al.
al.
al.
al.
al.
al.
., 1967
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
al., 1972
et al .
, 1969
* = Preproposal Data
VI-83
-------
Table VI-15. Plants Using Incinceration* for Pesticide Wastewaters1
CO
Plant
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
Pesticide
Code
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
Pesticide Volume
Incinerated (MGD)
0.000234
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0028
0.0013
0.0033
NA
NA
0.002
0.05
0.0005
NA
0.002
Incinerator Capacity
30-35 x 106
36.0 x 106
36.0 x 106
36.0 x 106
36.0 x 106
36.0 x 106
36.0 x 106
8.7 x 106
8.7 x 106
8.7 x 106
20.0 x 106
35.0 x 106 and 70.0 x
35.0 x 106 and 70.0 x
35.0 x 106 and 70.0 x
35.0 x 106 and 70.0 x
35.0 x 106 and 70.0 x
35.0 x 106 and 70.0 x
3000 BTU/lb feed
3000 BTU/lb feed
3000 BTU/lb feed
3000 BTU/lb feed
3000 BTU/lb feed
10 x 106
(BTU/HR)
106
106
106
106
106
106
Percent Devoted
to Pesticide
5.7
60
60
60
60
60
60
100
100
100
100
NA
NA
NA
0.55
4.68
NA
100
100
100
100
100
NA
Footnotes at end of table,
-------
Table VI-15. Plants Using Inclneeration* for Pesticide Wastewaters (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
oo
en
Plant
Code
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Pesticide
Code
X
Y
Z
AA
BB
X
CC
DD
EE
FF
GG
HH
II
JJ
KK
LL
MM
LL
NN
Pesticide Volume
Incinerated (MGD)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0010
0.039
0.001
0.024
0.0029
NA
0.0000111
0.000105
0.0000076
0.115
Incinerator Capacity
20.0 x 106
9.0 x 106 and 12.0 x
9.0 x 106 and 12.0 x
9.0 x 106 and 12.0 x
9.0 x 106 and 12.0 x
9.0 x 106 and 12.0 x
9.0 x 106 and 12.0 x
9.0 x 106 and 12.0 x
9.0 x 106 and 12.0 x
5.0 x 106
76.7 x 106
76.7 x 106
48.0 x 106
12.0 x 106
NA
14.0 x 106
10.0 x 106
10.0 x 106
9.5 x 106
(BTU/HR)
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
Percent Devoted
to Pesticide
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
100
100
100
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
* = Refers to the disposal of gaseous and organic liquid streams by specific incinceration
facilities, not as a supplemental fuel in boilers.
1 = Preproposal Data
NA = Not available
-------
Table VI-16. Plants Using Biological Treatment for Pesticide Wastewaters*
00
Plant
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Products
Manufactured
Pest,
Pest,
Pest,
Pest,
Pest,
Pest
Pest,
Pest,
Pest,
Pest,
Pest,
Pest,
Pest,
Pest,
Pest,
Pest,
Pest,
Inter
Inter
Inter
Inter
Inter
Inter
Inter
Inter
Inter
Form
Other
Inter
Inter
Inter
Inter
Inter
, Form,
Other
, Form,
, Form,
, Form,
, Form,
, Form,
, Other
, Form,
, Other
, Form,
, Form
, Form,
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Type of
System
AL
TF
AL;AL
AS;TF
AL
AS
AS
AS;AL
AL
AL
AS
AL
AS
AS
AL ;AS
AS
AL
AL;TF
AS
Detention
Time (Hours)
96
NA
240;120
5
2,280
139
7.15
79
367
2,160
55
NA
79
NA
51.1
60
288
192
NA
Activated Sludge
MLSS
(mg/1 )
M ^
--
—
2,000
—
35,000
6,000
>3,000
—
—
2,000
--
8,720
NA
NA
NA
—
—
NA
Footnotes at end of table.
-------
Table VI-16. Plants Using Biological Treatment for Pesticide Wastewaters*
(Continued, page 2 of 2)
CD
Activated Sludge
Plant
Code
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Pest
Inter
Form
MA
AS
AL
TF
MLSS
Other
*
Products
Manufactured
Pest, Inter, Form, Other
Pest, Other
Pest, Inter, Form
Pest, Other
Pest, Other
Pest, Inter, Other
Pest, Other
Pest, Inter, Form, Other
Pest, Inter, Form, Other
Pest, Inter, Other
Pest, Other
Pest, Inter, Other
Pest, Inter, Form, Other
Pest, Inter, Other
Pest
= Pesticides
= Pesticide Intermediate
= Pesticide Formulations
= Not Available
= Activated Sludge
= Aerated Lagoon
= Trickling Filter
= Mixed-Liquor Suspended Solids
= Manufacture of other chemical
= Preproposal Data
Type of
System
AS
AL
AL
AL
AL
AS
AS
AL
AS
AL;AS
AL
AS
AL
AS
AS;TF
products
Detention
Time (Hours)
NA
NA
NA
206
NA
NA
NA
NA
24
NA
420
NA
NA
NA
3.2
MLSS
(mg/1 )
NA
—
—
—
—
NA
NA
—
NA
NA
—
NA
—
NA
NA
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Preproposal Data
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Plant
1
1
3
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
11
13
15
16
18
20
20
20
26
28
29
BOD
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*
TSS
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
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 = Not available
* = Data from comingled waste stream
+ = Concentration increased
VI-88
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Preproposal Data (Continued,
Page 2 of 13)
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Plant
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
9
11
13
15
18
20
20
20
21
22
26
26
28
29
COD
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
ng/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 for comingled waste stream
VI-89
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Preproposal 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 avlalable
Not detected
Concentration Increased
Data from comlngled waste stream
Hydrolysis and biological oxidation
Pesticides (Continued)
Influent Effluent
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
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
mg/1
<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-90
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Preproposal Data (Continued,
Page 4 of 13)
MANUFACTURED PESTICIDES (Continued)
Pesticides (Continued)
Plant
13
13
16
16
20
20
20
21
22
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
28
Influent
mg/1
292
326
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.58*
NA
3.63
3.05*
3.05*
0.979*
0.979*
9.40*
5.90*
16.0
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
98.0
98.6
37.5
NA = Not available
ND = Not detected
* = Data from comingled waste stream
VI-91
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Preproposal Data (Continued,
Page 5 of 13)
VOLATILE AROMATICS
Benzene
Plant
3
4
4
6
7
26
26
Tnf Tuent
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
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
ing /I
<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
Ethyl benzene
Influent
mg/1
7.90*
<0.001*
0.20
Effluent
mg/1
ND
<0.001*
<0.01
Percent
Removal
NA
NA
>95.0
NA = Not available
ND = Not detected
* = Data from comlngled waste stream
+ = Concentration increased
VI-92
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Preproposal Data (Continued,
Page 6 of 13)
VOLATILE AROMATICS
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
InfluentEffluentPercent InfluentEffluentPercent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
0.023* <0.01*t
>56.5
0.410* 0.013*
96.8
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
InfluentEffluentPercent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
0.470*
<0.01*t >97.9
HALOMETHANES
Plant
6
9
NA =
ND =
* =
+ =
o _
Methyl chloride
Influent Effluent Percent
mg/1 mg/1 Removal
ND ND NA
ND° ND° NA
Not available
Not detected
Data from comingled waste stream
Concentration increased
Anal v/ cio n r\1* r* r\r\f\\\ r^ &/\ r\c*r* r\ ^/\^ /\/* r\
Methyl ene chloride
Plant
4
7
9
10
11
13
26
26
i
Influent
mg/1
0.260*
0.55*
<0.464*
<0.001*
0.017*
76.0*°
0.030*
<0.25*
Effluent
mg/1
0.190*
0.24*
<0.10*
0.172*
0.020*
<1.1*
0.010*
0.100*
Percent
Removal
26.9
56.4
78.4
+
+
>98.5
66.7
60.0
Data from combined dichlorobenzenes: 1,2; 1,3; 1,4,
VI-93
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Preproposal 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*0
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
0 = Analysis not conducted per protocol
VI-94
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Preproposal Data (Continued,
Page 8 of 13)
HALOETHERS
Plant
B1s(2-ch1oroethy1) ether
Influent
mg/1
Effluent
mg/1
Percent
Removal
0.582 0.0527
90.9
PHENOLS
Phenol
Plant
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
16
21
28
Influent
mg/1
NA
0.058*
0.290*
16.0
16.0
47.0*
0.270*
1100*
61.8*
0.01*
Effluent
mg/1
0.004*
4.0*
<0.01*
NA
NA
NA
0.042*
2.03*
<3.84*
0.09*
Percent
Removal
NA
+
>96.5
NA
NA
NA
84.4
99.8
>93.8
+
2-Chlorophenol
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
4 0.062* <0.01* >83.9
4 <0.5* NA NA
NA • Not available
* • Data from comlngled waste stream
+ • Concentration Increased
VI-95
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Preproposal Data (Continued,
Page 9 of 13)
PHENOLS (Continued)
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Plant
Influent
mg/1
Effluent
mg/1
Percent
Removal
Plant
Influent
mg/1
Effluent
mg/1
Percent
Removal
4
4
4
4
7
7
0.290*
<5.0
15.0*
>1000
0.002*
0.042*
0.018*
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.001*
93.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
>97.6
4
4
4
4
7
0.110*
3.0*
<5.0
<100
0.022*
0.180*
NA
NA
NA
0.021*
NA
NA
NA
4.54
Pentrachlorophenol
Plant
Influent
mg/1
Effluent
mg/1
Percent
Removal
4-Nitrophenol
Influent
Plant mg/1
Effluent
mg/1
Percent
Removal
4
4
4
21
0.390*
1.0*
>1000
0.58*
0.230*
NA
NA
0.35*
41.0
NA
NA
39.6
4
5
5
6
NO
203
174
461t
<0.01*
10.7
<7.84
<1.0t
NA
94.7
>95.5
>99.8
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Plant
Influent
mg/1
Effluent
mg/1
Percent
Removal
7.91
0.397
95.0
NA = Not available
ND = Not detected
* = Data from comingled waste stream
+ = Concentration increased
0 = Analysis not conducted per protocol
t = Hydrolysis and biological oxidation treatment combined
VI-96
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Preproposal 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
Influent
mg/1
0.450*
0.06
<0.0257
0.530
Zinc
Effluent
mg/1
0.400
0.13
0.187
0.120
Percent
Removal
11.1
+
+
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-97
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Preproposal Data (Continued,
Page 11 of 13)
METALS (Continued)
Lead
Plant
3
4
7
7
13
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
mg/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
Plant
4
7
10
1,2-01 chl
Influent
mg/1
1.40*
0.37*
<0.0117*
oroethane
Effluent
mg/1
0.580*
0.18*
<0.069*
1,1,1-TM chl oroethane
Percent
Removal Plant
58.6 4
51.3
Influent Effluent
mg/1 mg/1
0.430* 0.022*
Percent
Removal
94.9
Data from comlngled waste stream
Concentration Increased
VI-98
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Preproposal Data (Continued,
Page 12 of 13)
CHLORINATED ETHANES AND ETHYLENES (Continued)
Vinyl chloride
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
1,1-Dlchloroethylene
Influent Effluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
0.023* <0.01*
>56.5
1.10*
0.041*
96.3
l,2-trans-D1ch1oroethy1ene
InfluentEffluent Percent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
Trlchloroethylene
InfluentEffluentPercent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
4 0.011*
7 0.17*
<0.01*
0.54*
>9.09*
0.034* <0.01*
>70.6
Tet rach1oroethy1ene
InfluentEffluentPercent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
4
7
7
0.330*
2.47*
0.37*
0.037*
1.45*
6.9*
88.8
41.3
PHTHALATES
B1s(2-ethy1hexyl) phthalate
InfluentEffluentPercent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
<0.01* 0.028*
Data from comlngled waste stream
Concentration Increased
VI-99
-------
Table VI-17. Biological Treatment Operating Preproposal Data (Continued,
Page 13 of 13)
AMMONIA
Tet rach1oroethy1ene
InfluentEffluentPercent
Plant mg/1 mg/1 Removal
7.24 4.4 39.2
VI-100
-------
Table VI-18. Plants Disposing All Pesticide Wastewaters by Contract Hauling*
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
M
N
0
P
0
R
R
Volume
Disposed
(MGD)
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.0163
0.00055
0.00130
0.00130
0.0000154
0.000086
Nil
0.0068
0.000252
0.0001
NA
0.0009
0.0002
0.005
NA
0.0002
NA
Pretreatment
NE,GS,KS,SP
NE,GS,SK,SP
MS,NE,GS,SK,SP
NO
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NO
EQ,NE
NO
NE
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
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
deep well injection
Sanitary landfill
deep well injection
Private waste treatment
plant
Contract incinceration
Contract incineration
Contract incineration
Contract incineration
Contract incineration
Contract incineration
Contract incineration
Contract incineration
Contract incineration
EQ = Equalization
GS = Garvity Separation
MS = Metal Separation
NA = Not Available
NE = Neutralization
NO = None
SK = Skimming
SP = Stripping
* = Proposal Data
VI-101
-------
Table VI-19. Plants Using Evaporation Ponds for Pesticide Wastewaters*
Volume
Plant Pesticide Disposed
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
+
AL
CO
EQ
GS
HD
NA
NE
NO
SK
1
Code (MGD)
A 0.02
B 0.015
C 0.01
0 0.001
E 0.0072
F 0.091
6 0.002
H 0.001
* Indicates precipitation 1s
= Aerated Lagoon
= Chemical Oxidation
= Equalization
- Gravity Separation
= Hydrolysis
- Not Available
a Neutralization
= None
= Skimming
= Preproposal Data
Net
Evaporation Supplementary
(Inches/Yr) Design Pretreatment
-12 Heat HD, NE, CO, EQ
-12 Heat HD, NE, CO, EQ
-12 Aeration AL
-12 Aeration AL
-2 None GS, NE
+13 Heat SK, AL
+20 NA NO
+69 NA NE
less than evaporation
-------
Table VI-20. Plants Disposing Pesticide Wastewaters by Ocean Discharge*
Plant
Code
1
Pesticide
Code
A
B
C
D
E
F
Flow (MGD)
0.01009
0.012
0.005
0.012
0.008
0.005
Pretreatment
None
None
None
None
None
None
* = Preproposal Data
VI-103
-------
Table VI-21. Plants Using Deep well Injection for Pesticide Wastewates*
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
0
R
Pesticide intermediate
S
T
U
V
w
X
Y
Volume
Injected (MGD)
0.0072
0.0086
0.0720
MA
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
SB
NE
GS
GS
NE
GS,NE
PF
NE;
NA
NO
NE;
NS
GS
GS,MS,GS
GS,MS,GS
NO
NE
NE
NE,PF
NE,PF
NE,PF
NE,CA,SK,GS,PF
EQ
Footnote at end of table
VI-104
-------
Table Vl-21.
Plants Using Deep Well Injection for Pesticide Wastewates*
(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 M*
13 NN
14 00
15 PP
QQ
16 RR
17 SS
TT
AP = API Type Separator
CA = Coagulation
EQ = Equalization
GS = Gravity Separation
MF = Multimedia Filtration
NA = Not Available
1C = Neutralization
NO = None
PF = Pressure Leaf Filter
SE = Solvent Extraction
SK = Skimning
* = Preproposal Data
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
SF,GS,PF,GS
SK,GS,PF,GS
SF,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-105
-------
Table VI-22. Treatment Technology Selected as Best Performance*
Number of Plant with Treatment
Treatment Unit BPT BAT
Biological Oxidation1 13 32
Chemical Oxidation1 - 9
Granular Activated Carbon1 9 17
Hydrolysis1 5 8
Metals Separation1 - 3
Resin Adsorption1 - 4
Steam Stripping1 - 8
Ion Exchange2
Membrane Processes2
Powdered Activated Carbon2 - 1
Solvent Extraction2 - 1
Ultraviolet Photolysis2
Wet Air Oxidation2
Note: 1 = Selected as best performance
2 = Not selected as best performance
* = Preproposal Data
VI-106
-------
Table VI-23. Total Plants with Data and Best Performance Plants*
Treatment Plants with Data Priority Pollutants
Activated Carbon 13 9
Biological Oxidation 18 12
Chemical Oxidation 1 0
Hydrolysis 8 6
Metals Separation 2 2
Resin Adsorption 4 4
Steam Stripping 5 3
Total 51 36
= Preproposal Data.
VI-107
-------
Table VI-24. Best Performance Removal Systems for Nonconventional Pesticides by
Treatment Technology*
Treatment
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Acitvated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Plant Criteria
006 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
008 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
022 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
022 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
006 2.95% Removal or <1 mg/1
206 >^95% Removal or <1 mg/1
050 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
045 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
039 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
018 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
036 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
022 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
046 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
049 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
203 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
006 >95% Removal or <1 mg/1
198 295% Removal or <4 mg/1
021 2.95% Removal or <1 mg/1
028 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
028 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
148 295% Removal or <1 mg/1
Pollutant BP Average Used
2,4-D
PCNB
2,4-D
Propachlor
2,4-DB
Carbendazim/
Benomyl
Carbofuran
Deet
Trifuralin
Dinoseb
Triazines
Atrazine
Atrazine
Bentazon
Dicofol
2,4-DCE
Dioxathion
Diazinon
Parathion Methyl
Parathion Ethyl
Ethoprop
Y >99.9%
Y >99.9%
Y 99.9%
Y 99.6%
Y >99.8%
Y 99.6%
Y >99.6%
Y 99.4%
Y 99.3%
Y 96.9%
Y 96.5%
Y 96.2%
Y 68% and
<12.6 mg/1
N 47% and
166 mg/1
N 36% and
N N/A
N N/A
Y 99.9%
Y >99.9%
Y >99.9%
Y >99.9%
Preproposal
VI-108
-------
Table VI-24. Best Performance Removal
Treatment Technology1
Systems for Nonconventional Pesticides by
Treatment
Plant Criteria
Pollutant
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis
Resin Adsorption
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
032 >95% Removal or <
032 295% Removal or <
032 >95% Removal or <
032 2.95% Removal or <
032 2.95% Removal or <
032 2.95% Removal or <
032 295% Removal or <
032 295% Removal or <
027 2?5% Removal or <
032 2.95% Removal or <
034 2.95% Removal or <
198 2.95% Removal or <
034 2.95% Removal or <
034 >95% Removal or <
034 295% Removal or <
034 2.95% Removal or <
034 2.95% Removal or <
148 2?5% Removal or <
229 2?5% Removal or <
006 299% Removal or <
022 2.99% Removal or <
039 2.99% Removal or <
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 rag/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
lmg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
Metribu:
Fensulf(
Phorate
Fenthioi
Coumaph<
Demeton
Azinpho!
Disulfoi
Parathi<
Bolstar
Cyanazii
Didxath
DBCP
Mevinph*
Naled
Stirofo!
Dichlop
Merphos
2,4-D
2,4-Did
2,4-Dicl
N-Nitroi
Activated Carbon 008 2?9% Removal or <1 mg/1
Activated Carbon 039 2?9% Removal or <1 mg/1
Propylamine
PCP
Phenol
BP Average Used
Y >99.8%
Y >99.7%
Y 99.5%
Y >98.3%
Y >98.3%
Y >98.0%
^1 Y >98.0%
Y >96.1%
lyl Y >95.8%
Y >95.0%
N >95.0%
N 87.4%
N N/A
N N/A
N N/A
N N/A
N N/A
N N/A
Y 97.0%
tienol Y >99.9%
henol Y >99.9%
Y 99.8%
N 90.0%
N 33.3%
VI-109
-------
Table VI-24. Best Performance Removal Systems for Nonconventional Pesticides by
Treatment Technology1
Treatment
Plant Criteria
Pollutant
Activated Carbon 039 299% Removal or <1 mg/1 PCP
Activated Carbon 046 >99.0% Removal or <1 mg/1 N-Nitroso-Di-N
Propylamine
Activated Carbon 046 ^99.0% Removal or 99.0% Removal or <1 mg/1 Toxaphene
BP Average Used
N <0.01 mg/1
N ND
N ND
Y 99.3%
Resin Adsorption 023 299.0% Removal or <1 mg/1 Hexachloro-
cyclopentadiene
Resin Adsorption 023 >99.0% Removal or 99.0% Removal or 99.0% Removal or <1 mg/1 Cyanide
Copper
Metals Separation 010 295.0% Removal or £0.50
mg/1
Metals Separation 050 295.0% Removal or <0.50
mg/1
Zinc
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping
049 290-0% Removal or <5 mg/1 Dichlorobenzene
229 290.0% Removal or <5 mg/1 Toluene
010 2.90.0% Removal or <5 mg/1 Chloroform
006 2.90.0% Removal or £5 mg/1 Benzene
006 2^0.0% Removal or <5 mg/1 Toluene
N 96.6%
Y 99.9%
Y (63.8%)
<0.12 MS
Y 97.8%
Y 95.0%
Y >92.9%
Y (42.8%)
<0.04 mg/1
Y (42.1%)
<0.04 mg/1
006 >90.0% Removal or <5 mg/1 Methylene Chloride N 99.9%
006 >90.0% Removal or <5 mg/1 Chloroform
006 290.0% Removal or <5 mg/1 Carbon Tetra-
chloride
Steam Stripping 034 290.0% Removal or <5 mg/1 Ammonia
N 98.4%
N <0.001 mg/1
N N/A
VI-110
-------
Table VI-24. Best Performance Removal Systems for Nonconventional Pesticides by
Treatment Technology1
Treatment
Plant Criteria
Pollutant
Steam Stripping 206 >90.0% Removal or £5 mg/1 Ammonia
Steam Stripping 229 >9Q.Q% Removal or £50 mg/1 Benzene
048 >95% Removal or £ 50 mg/1 BOD
Biological
Oxidation
Biological
Oxidation
Biological
Oxidation
Biological
Oxidation
Biological
Oxidation
Biological
Oxidation
Biological
Oxidation
Biological
Oxidation
Biological
Oxidation
Biological
Oxidation
Biological
Oxidation
Biological
Oxidation
Biological
Oxidation
Biological
Oxidation
Biological
Oxidation
041 >95% Removal or £50 mg/1 BOD
034 >95% Removal or £50 mg/1 BOD
021 >95% Removal or £50 mg/1 BOD
019 >95% Removal or £50 mg/1 BOD
022 >95% Removal or £50 mg/1 BOD
028 >95% Removal or £50 mg/1 BOD
206 X70% Removal or £586 mg/1 ODD
180 X70% Removal or £586 mg/1 ODD
032 X70% Removal or £586 mg/1 ODD
027 >95% Removal or £50 mg/1 BOD
146 >95% Removal or £50 mg/1 BOD
020 >95% Removal or £50 mg/1 BOD
039 >95% Removal or £50 mg/1 BOD
200 >95% Removal or £50 mg/1 BOD
BP Average Used
N N/A
N <0.299 mg/1
Y 98.8%
Y 98.3%
Y >95.6%
Y 95.0%
Y (91.4%)
27.1 mg/1
Y (93.3)
8.0 mg/1
Y 12.7 mg/1
Y (87.4%, 114
mg/1 BOD)
84.2% ODD
Y 82%
Y (92.1%, 73.8 mg/1
BOD) 70.0%
ODD
N 57.9% 1820 mg/1
BOD 65.2%,
3340 mg/1 ODD
253 mg/1
N N/A
N N/A
N N/A
VI-111
-------
r\3
t.B- •
O.I- -
0 001 - -
00001
O.OOOOt
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
AND AERATED LAGOON
METALS -T-
SEPAHATION f
STEAM
STRIPPING.
CHEMICAL
OXIDATION
EVAPORATION
INCINERATION
CONTRACT
HAULING
PESTICIDE
REMOVAL
• - 8.11
• - 0.001
• -0.0001
•.ami
TYPE OF TREATMENT/DISPOSAL
FIGURE VI-1 RANGE OF FLOWS FOR PESTICIDE TREATMENT/DISPOSAL
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM
STORAGE
DRUM
PREHEATER
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
J
HEAT
STORAGE DRUM
OVERHEAD
CONDENSER
SEPARATOR
DRUM
PUMP
TO
JNCINERAT10N
OR RECYCLE
STEAM
STRIPPING
COLUMN
Figure VI- 2 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
STEAM STRIPPING
VI-113
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM
CAUSTIC STORAGE
CHEMICAL
POLYMER
POLYMER STORAGE
INFLUENT
MIXING TANKS
HOLDING TANK
Figure VI- 3
RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
METALS SEPARATION
VI-114
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM
MIXING
TANK
INFLUENT *
7
CAUSTIC CHEMICAL
STORAGE
STEAM
I * + I I I I
EFFLUENT
HYDROLYSIS BASINS
Figure VI-
RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
PESTICIDE HYDROLYSIS
V1-115
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM
INFLUENT
CARBON COLUMNS
BACKWASHED WATER
TO EQUALIZATION BASIN
1
BACKWASH PUMP
Figure VI- 5 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
CARBON ADSORPTION
VI-116
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM
NEW CARBON
WASH WATER
TO ADSORBERS
MAKE-UP TANK WASH TANK
FROM ADSORBERS
JL
DEWATERINQ
SLURRY TANK
PUMPS
FURNACE
QUENCH
TANK"
WASH TANK
TO ADSORBERS
Figure VI- 6 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
CARBON REGENERATION
VI-117
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM
INFLUENl
r
i
r
»» BACKW ASHED WATER-*—
TO EQUALIZATION BASIN
RESIN COLUMN
i
BACKW
RESIN COLUMN
i
b-
ASH PUMPS
1
r
EF
FLUENT
Figure VI- 7 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
RESIN ADSORPTION
VI-118
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM
INFLUENT-
-EFFLUENT
AERATION BASINS
Figure V!- 8 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
AERATION BASIN
V1-119
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM
INFLUENT
POLYMER
FEEDERS
POLYMER
STORAGE
i
\
H
;/
EFFLUENT
Figure VI- 9 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
CLARIFICATION
VI-120
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM
STORAGE
INFLUENT
VENTURI
SCRUBBER FJNAL
SCRUBBER
AIR-*/) _^
FUEL STORAGE
CAUSTIC/LIME
STORAGE
pH ADJUSTMENT
Figure VI-10 RECOMMENDED BAT TECHNOLOGY
INCINERATION
M1-121
-------
-------
SECTION VII
INDUSTRIAL SUBCATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of industry subcategorization is to establish
groupings within the Pesticides Chemicals Category such that each
group (subcategory) has a uniform set of effluent limitations.
This requires that the elements of each group be capable of using
similar treatment technologies to achieve the effluent
limitations. Thus, the same wastewater treatment and control
technology is applicable within a subcategory and a uniform
treated effluent results from the application of a specific
treatment and control technology. This section presents the
subcategorization established for the Pesticides Chemicals
Category and explains the selection rationale.
Proper industry subcategorization defines groups within an
industrial category whose wastewater discharges can be contolled
by the same concentration or mass based limitations. The
subsections which follow deal with these considerations as they
apply to the Pesticides Chemicals Category.
CATEGORIZATION BASIS
The following aspects of the Pesticides Chemicals Category were
considered for the bases of establishing subcategories:
1. Product type
2. Manufacturing process
3. Raw materials
4. Dominant Product
5. Geographic location
6. Plant size
7. Plant age
8. Non-water quality characteristics
9. Treatment cost
10. Energy cost
After examination of the potential categorization bases, three
pesticides subcategories were established. These are:
Subcategory 1 - Organic pesticide chemical manufacturers
Subcategory 2 - Metallo-organic pesticide chemical
manufacturers of mercury, cadmium, copper,
and arsenic - based products
VII-1
-------
Subcategory 3 - Formulator/packagers of pesticide chemicals
The primary bases for subcategorizing plants in this industry
were found to be dominant product type, manufacturing processes,
and raw materials used.
Product Type
Product type is the primary difference between organic pesticide
manufacturers and metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers. In
the manufacture of organic pesticides, metals may be used as
catalysts but are not a component of the end product. Metal
atoms are significant components of metallo-organic pesticides.
Because of the product difference, raw waste characteristics are
also different, because the process wastewater from metallo-
organics pesticide chemicals would contain large concentrations
of metals, whereas the process wastewater from organic pesticide
chemicals would not.
Manufacturing Process
Typically, organic pesticide chemicals and metallo-organic
pesticide chemicals are manufactured for captive or merchant use
in four or more chemical reaction steps starting from raw
material to final product. Two or more different products might
use the same process but then the raw materials used, process
sequence, control, recycle potential, handling, and quality
control will vary, producing wastes of different quality.
Pesticide chemicals formulating and packaging is a physical
mixing of a finished pesticide active ingredient with an inert
material and the subsequent packaging of that mixture for sale.
Any chemical reaction that might occur are coincidental. Hence,
pesticide chemicals formulating and packaging process is
significantly different from the organic and metallo-organic
chemicals manufacturing processes. Therefore, manufacturing
process is used as a basis for subcategorization.
Raw Materials
The different products are produced from different raw materials,
but the primary difference is that metallo-organic pesticide
chemicals have metallic compounds as raw materials, whereas
organic pesticide chemicals do not. This difference leads to
differences is raw waste characteristics, and is essentially a
consequence of the different product types.
VII-2
-------
Geographical Location
Pesticide chemical plants exist in all parts of the United States
but subcategorization on this basis is not appropriate.
Geographical location is important in analyzing the feasibility
of various treatment alternatives. Evaporation ponds are
functional only in areas where evaporation exceeds rainfall.
Ocean dumping and deep well disposal are possible only in certain
areas, and must be consistent with local, state and federal laws.
The possibility of ground water contamination may preclude the
use of unlined holding and settling ponds in many locations.
In the northern regions, climatic conditions may necessitate the
inclusion of special provisions to prevent freezing of treatment
system components, particularly biological oxidation units,
clarifiers, ponds, and open collection systems. The costs of
utilizing waste heat sources from the process or providing
various types of thermal protection, such as insulation or burial
of pipes and tanks and building structural shelters, may add
considerably to the capital and O&M cost associated with a
treatment technology.
Thus, the influence of geography, climate, geology, etc., is
reflected in wastewater treatment modifications and is primarily
manifested in the cost of treatment. This, of itself, is not a
good basis for subcategorization.
Dominant Product
Subcategorization by chemical name of the dominant chemical
produced involves the least ambiguity in applying standards to a
given point source. There is great variety of product mix,
manufacturing processes, wastewater constituents, and other
factors at existing plants. Subcategorization by product becomes
less useful as product mix increases in complexity because multi-
product wastewater also becomes more complex and less susceptible
to simple uniform treatment.
A subcategory established on the basis of product manufactured
might have two or more different processes but, in the majority
of cases, the characteristics of the wastewaters should be
similar and the same treatment technology can be applied for
different process wastewaters. In the pesticide chemicals
category, there are a very large number of products produced, but
most are produced at only one or two plants. Hence,
subcategorization based on product would yield a large number of
subcategories, most with only one or two plants. This would be a
very complex regulatory approach.
VII-3
-------
The Agency, at proposal, attempted an alternate approach where
the dominant products were grouped together based on similar
pollutants in the untreated wastewater. However, this approach
was found to be needlessly complicated and unnecessary because
the Agency found that it could apply a uniform approach to
developing regulations based on a general model treatment system
for each product type (organic or metallo-organic pesticide)
while incorporating the flexibility needed for the different
dominant products within each product type. Hence, the
subcategorization is not based on dominent product.
Plant Size
Plant size and production capacity were not found to affect the
characteristics of the wastewater produced. Although plant size
can affect treatment cost, this variability can be expressed
graphically or mathematically without the need for further
segmentation of the category.
Plant Age
Plant age can have an important bearing on wastewater volume and
quality and is, therefore, a significant factor to consider in
evaluating the applicability of treatment technologies and
assessing the relative costs of treatment for plants of widely
differing age producing the same or similar products. A
particular problem with older plants is that their present
patterns of water use may have evolved over a long period of time
with little consideration for the principles of efficient waste
segregation, collection, and treatment. To a limited degree,
plant modernization can correct or at least mitigate some of
these shortcomings in older facilities, however, only a small
proportion of the cost of revamping collection systems or of
converting from contact to noncontact cooling systems can be
offset by the resulting lower cost of treatment. In general,
older plants, even after considerable modernization, normally
have a higher volume of wastewater flow and higher waste loadings
(although pollutant concentrations may be lower due to poor
segregation from noncontact sources) in comparison to relatively
new plants. Pollution control requirements could impose a severe
treatment cost penalty on older plants due to the need for
backfitting and replumbing of outdated collection systems. Land
availability and land use restrictions are also factors which may
translate into higher treatment costs for older facilities which
find themselves surrounded by highly developed industrial and
residential areas.
VII-4
-------
Unfortunately, plant age does not readily lend itself to an
unambiguous definition where a series of plant modifications has
taken place. The extent of modifications also varies greatly
among plants within the same product industry. For those plants
that have been enlarged or modified from their original status,
plant age is not unambiguously calculable and therefore is not a
reasonable basis for subcategorization.
Non-Water-Quality Characteristics
Airborne emissions from manufacturing operations can be kept
within air quality control limits through the use of cyclones,
wet scrubbers and other methods. The nature of the air pollution
is related to the product(s) manufactured and/or the raw material
used. As discussed in Chapter VI, most metals, including
arsenic, cadmium, and copper, can be incinerated with the metal
bearing ash safely collected, because neither the metal nor its
metal oxide incineration products are volatile. Hence, the
metal-bearing ash is collected by scrubbers, cyclones, or other
air pollution control device. By contrast, mercury is a volatile
metal, hence incineration of process wastewater from mercury-
organic pesticide manufacturing could result in release of the
mecury to the environment through the incinerator exhaust.
Therefore, the metallo-organic pesticide chemicals subcategory
was further subdivided into two segments.
The pretreatment standard for the mercury organic pesticide
chemical manufacturing segment is different from the standards
for the arsenic, cadmium, copper organic pesticide chemical
segment. Although the Agency did not subcategorize on the basis
of non-water-quality characteristics, the non-water quality
characteristics are reflected in the varying pretreatment
standards.
Treatment Cost
From a technical viewpoint, subcategorization by common
technological requirements for treatment processes could provide
a logical basis for selecting one or more unit processes to
accomplish the same treatment function, regardless of the source
of the wastewater. This "building block" concept could
conceivably result in selecting various combinations of unit
processes to meet the treatment requirements. However, this
method of subcategorization crosses product lines and product
types. Even if the unit operation is commonly applicable for
treating wastewater flows of different products, the cost of
treatment will fluctuate because of variations in wastewater
quality, loading and flow rates, and subcategorization on the
basis of treatment cost is not recommended.
VII-5
-------
Energy Cost
The energy costs for treatment are related to the product type
and treatment costs. Manufacturing processes in the organic
pesticide chemicals industry typically have large energy
requirements. In contrast, wastewater treatment processes
consume a small fraction of the total energy used. There appears
to be no major energy requirements for wastewater treatment
facilities. By contrast, in the metallo-organic pesticide
chemical (except mercury organic pesticide chemicals segment) and
pesticide chemicals formulating and packaging subcategories, the
cheapest technology for most plants in contract hauling and
incineration which does involve energy costs. When balanced
against other costs, however, these costs are less than the costs
of any other treatment technology. Therefore, subcategorization
on the basis of energy cost is not justified.
VII-6
-------
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 VI.
COST AND ENERGY
Pesticide Manufacturers
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 XI and
XIII for pesticide manufacturers. These estimates are therefore
the incremental costs above and beyond BPT.
The general costing analysis methodology is outlined as follows:
a. Development of treatment technology cost curves
b. Evaluation of the characteristics of each individual
waste stream for each manufacturing plant
c. Determination of pollutants removal percent
requirements based upon effluent monitoring data and
the proposed effluent long-term average limitations
d. Selection of treatment technologies
e. Determination of treatment technology costs
f. Determination of monitoring costs
g. Determination of compliance costs associated with
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
requirements.
The costs presented here represent the expenditures which
would be required to treat detected and indicated priority,
conventional, and nonconventional pollutants. The plant-by-plant
treatment cost estimates were based on the following criteria.
1. For those plants with effluent data exceeding BAT levels for
priority pollutants and for pesticides projected treatment to
bring the plant into compliance with the appropriate regulation
was costed.
VIII-1
-------
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 based on individual pesticide
wastestream flow data. Where individual wastestream flow was
unavailable, the total plant flow was assumed for costing.
It should be noted that treatment cost estimates may in some
cases be overestimated due to such factors as:
1. Treatment costs for large activated carbon facilities were
based on the purchase of the activated carbon system and
regeneration facilities. This is more expensive than the leasing
of activaed carbon systems which is prevalent inthe industry.
2. Contract hauling has been costed to handle hazardous waste.
Disposal costs may be cheaper if wastes are determined to be
nonhazardous.
The Agency does not require that these recommended BAT or PSES
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 assess the
potential economic impact of installing the recommended treatment
to meet design effluent levels. This analysis is confidential
and is in a separate section of the record. The procedure is in
Economic Impact Analysis of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Pesticide Cher.lcal Industry, EPA-440/2-85-027,
September 1985.
The cost estimates for pesticides manufacturers are presented on
a plant-by-plant basis. They show the costs potentially incurred
by model plants of various flows and differing pesticide
treatability. They were derived in he following manner:
1. Costs were generated for each treatment unit specified in
Section VI based on August 1983 dollars and corresponding to a
Marshall and Swift Index value of 592. The capital and annual
VIII-2
-------
cost assumptions for these computations are presented in Tables
VIII-1 and VIII-2. The basis for these assumptions is documented
in Supplement B to the Administrative Recrod for the regulation.
The total construction 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-19.
2. A summary of the plant-by-plant treatment technology costs
is presented in Table VIII-3. The total capital, land, annual
and energy costs for each plant were derived by summing the costs
for individual treatment units that are specified for each level
of control recommended in Sections XI thru XIV.
Each plant in subcategory one has been costed and evaluated for
their ability to incur incremental monitoring costs associated
with these regulations. The Agency assumed plants would monitor
for priority pollutants and nonconventional pesticides one per
week as a cost of $1,125. The annual cost for monitoring is
$54,000 per plant. However, the summary costs for subcategory
one only include the monitoring costs for the 42 direct and
indirect plants incurring other treatments costs as a result of
this regulation. In addition, nine subcategory one plants were
costed based on the requirements under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Summary Cost
Annual Capital
Treatment Costs 49.712 105.18
RCRA Costs .453
Monitoring Costs 2.189
Total Costs 52.354 105.18
The cost of compliance with the regulation also includes plant-
by-plant costs for monitoring and costs associated with
requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
VIII-3
-------
Metallo-Organic Pesticide Manufacturers
For the Metallo-Organic Pesticide manufacturers, the Agency is
promulgating a no discharge of pollutants standard for PSES
except for manufacturers of mercury-based metallo-organic
pesticides. The pretreatment standard for mercury would affect
one facility that manufactures mercury metallo-organic compounds.
This one facility has a discharge of approximately 3,000 gallons
per day of untreated process wastewater containing an average of
approximately 2,000 mg/1 of mercury. This facility currently has
a pilot plant pretreatment system using zinc oxide precipitation
that is demonstrating 99.99 percent removal. The Agency is
basing the regulation for mercury on this plants treatment system
(see Section VI). The estimated capital, annual O&M and total
annual costs for mercury waste treatment for this specific plant
are approximately $47,000, $119,550 and $129,800, respectively.
Although residual zinc may appear in the effluent, the Agency is
excluding zinc from regulation under paragraph 8(a)(i) of the
Settlement Agreement because only one facility is affected.
For the plants that are required to achieve no discharge of
detectable amounts of pollutants contract hauling and
incineration, is recommended. Typical cost ranges for contract
hauling are presented in Table VIII-4.
Pesticide Formulator/Packagers
The costs presented in this section are estimates of the capital
and annual expenses which could potentially be incurred to meet
the no discharge requirements for pesticide formulator/packagers.
Plant-by-plant costs were developed for a set of randomly
selected formulator/packagers. These costs were then
extrapolated to the estimated total number of
formulating/packaging plants. Discussed here are (1) costs for
low flow plants, (2) costs for high flow plants and (3) the
extrapolation of costs to the universe of formulator/packagers.
1. EPA received 40 questionnaires from the industry which
contained sufficient information to provide a means of
correlating specific information with flow data. This data
included plants that were not randomly selected but volunteered
information to EPA. Several of the 40 plants were contacted by
EPA so that site-specific anomalies could be evaluated. Four
plants discharge wastewater volumes that were over 1,000,000
gallons per year while the remaining plants typically discharge
less than 200,000 gallons per year. The high flow plants tend to
use proportionally more water as a solvent, produce more product
lines, and operate more weeks per year. Lack of economies of
scale favor contract hauling as the method of achieving zero
regulated pesticide pollutant discharge at the low flow plants.
VIII-4
-------
Wastewater treatment and reuse is a demonstrated means of
achieving zero discharge at both low and high flow plants.
Compliance costs were calculated for each of the 40
formulator/packagers that submitted a questionnaire and is
currently an indirect discharger. Plants that discharged
pesticide-bearing waste streams less than 200,000 gallons per
year were costed differently than the 4 plants that discharge
higher flows. Contract hauling and incineration was the
technology selected for the low flow plants. Capital and annual
costs are based on the cost of low volume waste stream
segregation, collection, storage, contract hauling and
segregation, collection, storage, contract hauling and
incineration. Segregation, collection, and storage costs are
estimated below for a typical low flow formulator/packager. This
system would be installed in addition to existing systems. The
existing systems would be used to collected unregulated waste
streams, such as sanitary wastes. Piping costs are tripled to
reflect the cost of retrofit. Unit costs are based on Means
Construction Cost Data, 1982. System cost are as follows:
Installed
Item Unit Cost Total Cost
250 Feet of 2-inch, schedule
40 galvanized steel pipe $10.80/foot $8.100 ($2,700 x 3)
6-Sewage ejector pumps, cast
iron 110 gallon per minute,
1/2 horsepower $l,200/each $7,200
1-5000 Gallon steel storage $3,850/each $3,850
Total = $19,150
The total installed cost of $19,150 is equivalent to $19,700 in
1985 dollars based on Engineering News Record indices for
chemical engineering plant costs. A rounded, capital cost of
$20,000 per plant is conservatively estimated for segregating and
collecting formulator/packager wastestreams at low flow plants.
The annualized cost is $4,360 if a 0.218 factor is used for 10
year period at a 13 percent interest rate.
Several plants exhibit flows less than 2,500 gallons per year (10
gallons per day). Manual collection methods would be more
appropriate at these plants. For these very low flow plants the
following assumptions can be made: One 55 gallon drum could be
manually filled at a cost of $14 per drum for labor; and a
storage shelter (3'x9'x8<), for the drums, would cost
approximately $2,000 based on Means Construction cost Data, 1982.
The annualized cost is $436, if a factor of 0.218 is used.
VIII-5
-------
In response to the June 13, 1984, Federal Register notice,
commenters reported a range of contract hauling costs. The
Chemical Specialities Manufacturers Associated (CSMA) reports a
$2 to $3 per gallon cost for the contract hauling of hazardous
liquid waste. The Small Business Administration reports a $2 per
gallon incineration cost. Several plants estimated that the
contract hauling could approach $3 to $4 per gallon. However,
plants that currently incinerate pesticide-bearing wastewater
state that their operating and investment costs are less than $1
per gallon. A $2.50 per gallon contract hauling cost which
includes incineration in a RCRA approved incinerator is judged to
be a reasonable estimate of an industry-wide cost for the year
1985. Plant-by-plant capital and annual costs are listed in
Table VIII-5.
2. The four high flow plants have either demonstrated or said
they would use the reduction and reuse technologies utilized for
this regulation. A large percentage of the discharged wastewater
can be treated to acceptable levels for reuse. Treatment
technologies have been evaluated and costed by EPA in the
proposed Development Document. Table VIII-8 and VIII-9 of that
document list unit operations associated with the proposed
manufacturer's Subcategory Two, Level One treatment costs. The
unit operations listed are typical of reuse treatment
technologies. Included are unit processes for the disposal of
treatment wastes from filtration and carbon regeneration. A
range of costs is given for treating the respective 0.01 MGD and
0.1 MGD design flows. For estimates prepared here, the high cost
value is assumed to apply. Use of the high value accounts for
any inflation cost indexing necessary to adjust 1979 dollars to
1985 dollars. A contract hauling cost of $2.50 is applies to
those internal wastestreams that plant personnel state are not
suitable for reuse. The cost of segregating and collecting PFP
wastestreams is $1,4000,000 which is based on information
supplied by plant No. 7.
In addition to the segregation and collection system cost
reported by plant No. 7, the cost of returning treated water for
reuse must be considered. The following costs apply for treated
water storage and return:
Installed Total
Unit Unit Cost Cost
1500 feet, 2 inch schedule
40, galvanized steel pipe $10.80/ft $16,200
400 feet, 4 inch, schedule
40, galvanized steel pipe $24/ft $ 9,600
50,000 gallon tank (5,000
VIII-6
-------
gal = $3,850; estimate $25,000
210,000 gal = $57,000)
Foundation Mat (100 cubic
yards) $15/C.Y. $ 1,500
Ground Slab (6" thick, 500
sq. ft.) 1.93/S.P. $ 965
$53,265
This total installed cost corresponds to a $55,000 cost in 1984
dollars. Therefore, the total capital cost of segregation,
collection and return piping and storage systems is $1,455,000.
Since a typical high flow plant uses about 7,000,000 gallons per
year, some cost savings will result if recycled water is used
instead of city water. Based on a city water cost of $0.005 per
gallon, an average savings of $35,000 is realized. Table VIII-6
is a breakdown of costs for the 4 high flow plants.
3. The cost of achieving zero discharge at the 169
formulator/packager plants may be extrapolated from the random
sample of 28 plants. Since costs are available for the 12 plants
which volunteered information, these are subtracted from 169 to
yield 157. The subtotal annual and capital costs for the 28
plants is multiplied by the ratio 157/28, below, to yield an
extrapolated cost. The cost for the 12 plants is then
conservatively added to the extrapolated cost to provide total
capital and annual costs.
Annual Cost Capital Cost
1. 28 Randomly Selected
Plants $2,456,000 $ 2,818,000
2. Extropolated Cost 13,775,365 15,800,929
3. 12 Non-randomly
Selected Plants 3,187,973 6,759,000
4. Sum of Items 2 and 3 $16,963,338 $22,559,929
The Agency continued their solicitation of information by
requesting additional information in the January 24, 1985 Notice
of Availability. The Agency stated, at that time, that it was
considering setting formulator/packager regulations equal to
manufacturer's pretreatment standards. The industry did not
submit sufficient data or information to support this alternative
VIII-7
-------
on a technological or economic basis. If manufacturers
pretreatment standards were established for PFP plants, 96
percent of the 169 indirect discharge plants would find it
cheaper to comply with the regulation by contract hauling
followed by incineration, rather than build a separate treatment
system for the PFP flow to meet the pretreatment standard.
Consequently, those plants would achieve zero discharge of
process wastewater pollutants. Some of remaining 4 percent of
the 163 indirect dischargers with high flows would find it
cheaper to recycle and reuse the treated wastewater rather than
discharge because for those plants the savings in water and
monitoring costs would outweigh the costs for additional pumps
and piping to recirculate the treated water for reuse. The
other high flow plants may find it cheaper to treat their
wastewater using the technology upon which the manufacturers
pretreatment standards are based and then discharge rather than
recycle the treated wastewater to meet a zero discharge
requirement.
NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
The potential contamination of 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
organic liquids and nonrecoverable solvents. The incinerator
design recommended in this study is a RCRA approved
incinerator which 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 (See
Section VI) so that a potential air pollution problem is not
created. Incineration, if properly designed with air pollution
control device, can be an affective means for disposing of
organic solvent and pesticides. However, incineration is not
applicable to organic pesticides wastewaters containing high
levels of mercury.
Gaudy and Kincannon (1982) studied the treatment compatability of
municipal waste and 24 biologically hazardous compounds to assess
the effects of priority pollutants on the performance of open and
closed activated sludge treatment systems. Based on the data
from the three types of open reactor studies, Strier (1985)
concluded that fourteen compounds are removed mostly by air
VIII-8
-------
stripping, four are removed mostly by sorption, and six are
mostly biodegraded.
Specifically, in batch reactor studies, naphthalene was found to
be highly biodegradable and listed as being highly strippable,
indicating both are significant concurrent removal pathways.
Toluene biodegraded rapidly but appeared to air strip even more
rapidly. Hexachlorobenzene is too insoluble to indicate anything
but sorption on the MLSS (mixed-liquor suspended solids) and
MLVSS (mixed-liquor volatile suspended solids). Benzene
biodegrades but appears to air-strip even more rapidly as was
found for toluene. Phenol biodegrades readily but manifests
insignificant air stripping. Pentachlorophenol manifested
minimal biochemical oxidation and no air stripping. Nitrobenzene
showed some evidence of biological activity of 2-chlorophenol was
unclear, except for some evidence of biodegradation; however, its
air stripping characteristics were minimal, if any at all.
Anthrancene may have been sorbed and/or metabolozed by the sewage
sludge, but showed no air stripping tendencies. Nitrophenol
showed biological activity and/or chemical activity; however, its
air stripping activity is only slight. Hexachloroethane appeared
essentially inert in these tests and was not tested for
stripping. Fluorene seemed to show no activity in these tests,
except possibly for some sorption. There was no evidence for any
stripping. Methylene chloride appeared to be air stripped at
rates far greater than any possible biological activity. Carbon
tetrachloride and chloroform both were stripped out of the system
rapidly at rates resembling that of methylene chloride with
little if any evidence of biological activity. Trichloroethylene
is rapidly stripped and shows some evidence for adsorption on
suspended solids. Chlorobenzene was found to be rapidly stripped
from the system with very little evidence for biological
activity. Tetrachloroethylene is rapidly air stripped but showed
no evidence for biodegradation. 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
biodegrades but does not air strip. Ethylbenzene is
predominately air stripped with little evidence for
biodegradation. 1,2-Dichloroethane is air stripped with
essentially no evidence for biodegradation. 1,1,2-
Trichloroethane gives no evidence of biodegration but is
essentially completely air stripped. Therefore, air stripping of
volatile organics from biological oxidation systems is a
potential air pollution problem. As a result, this regulation is
based on the use of steam stripping of volatile organics as a
pretreatment step before biological oxidation, in order to
eliminate this air pollution problem.
Air stripping of volatile organic compounds from biological
treatment systems may create potential air quality problems.
This regulation is based on the use of steam stripping (with
recovery of the stripped organic material) prior to biological
treatment. However, the Agency has not regulated five volatile
VIII-9
-------
organic compounds for PSES and is concerned about resulting air
quality impacts. The Agency intends to gather additional data
and propose additional regulations for there pollutants in
calendar year 1986.
Both solar and spray evaporation were recommended as alternative
methods for disposal of low volumes of wastewater for
formulators/packagers. However, based on public comments the
Agency is no longer recommending these methods. The practicality
of using solar and spray evaporation in northern latitudes,
during winter months, was questioned by several plants.
Also, the use of evaporation ponds, unless they are appropriately
lined present problems of potential ground water contamination.
i
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) 40 CFR, Part 261,
May 19, 1980. Under the RCRA regulations, 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.
Specific waste streams within specific processes have been
designated as hazardous, as well as specific products and raw
materials. The cost of compliance with existing RCRA
regulations were reviewed in order to assess the potential
impact of these regulations. RCRA management costs were
estimated using procedures described in the "EPA Guidance Manual
for Estimating RCRA Subtitle C Compliance Costs." The costs
VIII-10
-------
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 management costs associated with these BAT and PSES
regulations are estimated to be $453,000 annually for
subcategory one plants. PFP plants were costed for contract
hauling and incinerating hazardous wastes at $2.50 a gallon.
Metal separation systems have been recommended 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
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.
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-11
-------
Table VIII-1. Basis for Capital Costs Computations
(August 1983 Dollars)
Item
Capital Cost
Land
Excavation
Materials
Reinforced Concrete
Machined Steel
Epoxy Coating
Liner
Sitework, electrical, piping
and instrumentation
Engineering
Contingency
$32,700 per ace
$6.78 per cubic yard
$345 per cubic yard
$2.64 per pound
$2.50 per square foot
$0.77 per square foot
48% of total equipment cost
15% of construction cost
15% of construction cost
VIII-12
-------
Table VIII-2. Basis of Annual Cost Computations
(August 1983 Dollars)
Item
Capital Cost
Capital Recovery
Taxes and Insurance
Manpower
Labor
Supervision
10 years at 13% (0.218)
2% of capital cost
$24,500 per worker per year
including fringe benefits
$35,600 per worker per year
including fringe benefits
Maintenance Materials
Sludge Disposal
Water
Activated Carbon
Chemical Consumed
Caustic Soda (50%)
Chlorine
Ferric Chloride
Lime
Methanol
Chemicals Recovered
Methylene Chloride
Pesticides
Energy Consumed
Electricity
Gas
Steam
Energy Recovered
Thermal
Contract Haul
4% of capital costs
$25 per cubic yard (non hazardous)
$200 per cubic yard (hazardous)
$0.60 per thousand gallons
$0.77 per pound delivered
$0.08 per dry pound delivered
$0.18 per pound delivered
$0.37 per pound delivered
$80 per ton delivered
$2.08 per gallon delivered
$0.37 per pound
$2.50 per pound
$0.08 per kilowatt-hour
$6.71 per one thousand
cubic feet
$11.86 per thousand pounds
$6.08 per million BTU
$2.50 per gallon (hazardous)
$0.30 per gallon (non hazardous)
VIII-13
-------
Table VIII-3
Treatment Technology Cost Summary for Direct
Dischargers for Feticide Manufacturing
Plant #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22A
22B
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Discharge
Status
I
I
D
D
D
D
I
I
I
D
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
D
D
D
D
I
I
I
D
I
I
D
I
I
D
D
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
D
and Indirect
Plants
Plant Costs $(1000)
Capital
14274
195
668
817
20210
540
1179
918
2074
439
814
4297
1623
17620
470
9460
263
3590
280
7536
462
722
967
1045
0
596
445
1007
257
264
274
148
259
656
6298
0
511
394
418
1046
0
377
Land
173
34
16
14
161
19
28
21
28
12
27
62
22
294
14
76
6
69
7
90
12
24
35
38
0
16
16
34
8
7
7
4
7
16
98
0
21
10
18
25
0
10
Annual
7262
591
175
456
9109
378
505
254
1227
119
448
3398
759
10496
109
3824
70
1687
73
2752
223
355
533
299
16
191
116
283
133
61
79
55
77
632
2454
182
166
90
119
287
1
172
Energy
788
3
1
224
528
200
119
2
622
53
209
1131
193
1027
5
156
46
274
14
431
134
49
10
155
0
42
9
7
88
16
15
1
16
316
97
0
0
72
1
248
0
74
TOTAL
$105,176 $1,579 $50,216
$7,377
VIII-14
-------
Table VIII-4
PSES Costs for Indirect Discharge Metallo-Organic Manufacturers
Average Flow (gallons per day)
5,000 500 50
Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energy Capital Annual Energ
Contract Hauling1
Hazardous^
3,250,000 ~ — $325,000 ~ ~ $32,500 -
Nonhazardous^
390,000 — ~ 39,000 — — 3,900 -
•^260 operating days per year
T
^$2.50 per gallon to contract haul hazardous waste
^$0.30 per gallon to contract haul nonhazardous waste
VIII-15
-------
Table VIII-5. Summary of Annual and Capital Costs for Formulator/Packagers
(1985 dollars)
Plant
No.
1*
2*
3*
4*
5*
6
7
8*
9*
10*
11*
12*
13*
14*
15*
16*
17*
18*
19*
20
21*
22*
23*
24
25
26
27
28
29*
30*
31*
32*
33*
34
35*
36
37*
38*
39
40
Regulated PFP
Wastewater Volume
(gallon/year)
1,240
400
3,600
45
840
2,500
1,512,000
1,600
71,510
6,400
12,000
100,000
6,000
4,000
30
14,310
40,000
950
27,800
172,000
50,200
5,000
2,500
300
19,500
3,200
4,832,000
28,000
25,800
10,600
188,000
11,000
4,000
101,000
520
14,716,800
55
15,860
300
Contract
Hauling
Cost ($)
3,100
1,000
9,000
113
2,100
6,250
44,360
4,000
178,775
16,000
30,000
250,000
15,000
10,000
75
35,775
100,000
2,375
69,500
430,000
125,500
12,500
6,250
750
48,750
8,000
74,360
70,000
64,500
26,500
470,000
27,500
10,000
252,500
1,300
0
138
39,650
750
0
Annualized
Capital Costs
($)
910
670
4,360
570
790
1,280
770,000
1,000
4,360
4,360
4,360
4,360
4,360
4,360
570
4,360
4,360
820
4,360
4,360
4,360
4,360
1,280
640
4,360
4,360
1,092,000
4,360
4,360
4,360
4,360
4,360
4,360
4,360
710
1,092,000
570
4,360
640
157,600
Water
Savings
($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
(35,000)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(35,000)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(35,000)
0
0
0
0
Total
Annual
Cost
4,010
1,670
99,360
680
2,890
7,530
779,360
5,000
183,130
20,360
34,360
254,360
19,360
14,360
650
40,130
140,360
3,200
73,860
434,360
129,860
16,860
7,530
1,390
53,110
12,360
1,313,360
74,360
68,860
30,860
474,360
31,860
14,360
256,860
2,010
1,057,000
710
44,010
1,390
157,600
Capital
Cost
($)
2,000
2,000
20,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,440,000
2,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
2,000
20,000
20,000
2,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
2,000
2,000
20,000
20,000
3,098,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
2,000
3,098,000
2,000
20,000
2,000
455,000
Subtotal Cost (28 randomly selected plants)
Subtotal Cost (12 not- randomly selected plants)
Note: Asterisk (*) indicates a randomly selected plant.
$2,456,000 $2,818,000
$3,187,000 $6,759,000
VIII-16
-------
Table VIII - 6
Wastewater Recycle Oosts for High Flow Formulator/Packagers
CONTRACT HAULING
WASTESTREAM
SEGREGATION (2)
TREATMENT OF SEGREGATED STREAMS (3)
Plant
36
7
27
40(5)
Flow
(gallons/
year)
0
16,000(1)
28,000
0
Annual
Cost $
0
44,360
74,360
0
Capital
Cost $
1,455,000
1,455,000
1,455,000
0
Annual
Cost $
317,000
317,000
317,000
0
Flow
(gallons/
year)
14,716,800
1,476,000
4,804,000
5,400,000
Capital
Cost $
1,643,000
985,000
1,643,000
455,000
Annual
Cost $
775,000
453,000
775,000
—
water (4)
Use
Savings
(35,000)
(35,000)
(35,000)
—
Total
Annual
Cost
1,057,000
779,360
1,131,360
157,600
Notes: (1) Plant No. 7 reported a contract hauling flow of 36,000 gallons per year. However, 16,000 gallons per
year is used here since it is the average contract hauling flow for the 4 high flow plants. Plant No.
7 is the cnly randomly selected high flow plant. Since data is available for 4 of the plants, this
correction is judged reasonable.
(2) Based on costs supplied by plant No. 7
(3) Based on proposed Efeveloprant Document Tables VIII - 8 and 9 (November 1982).
(4) Based on an average high flow plant wastestream of 7,000,000 gallons per year
and a water cost of $0.005 per gallon.
(5) Based on actual plant data for an existing system.
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
WET WELL
PUMPS
50 FT. OF PIPING
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
I PUMP STATION
•CAPITAL
•LAND
ANNUAL. OtrM. ENERGY COSTS
PUMP STATION
Q
8,0
TOTAL ANNUAL >
9.1
FLOW (MODI
o.t
FLOW (MODI
Figure VIII-1 TREATMENT COST CURVES
PUMP STATION
VIII-18
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
EQUALIZATION BASINS
AERATORS/MIXERS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
EQUALISATION i24 HRi
CAPITAL
LAND
EQUALIZATION 124 HRI
ANNUAL
O6M
ENERGY
0.01 001 0.1
FLOW IMQDI
Figure VIII-2 TREATMENT COST CURVES
EQUALIZATION
VIII-19
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
FEED STORAGE DRUM
FEED PREHEATER
FEED PUMPS
STRIPPING COLUMN
OVERHEAD CONDENSER
SEPARATOR DRUM
HEAT EXCHANGER
EFFLUENT STORAGE DRUM
CAPITAL COST
GRAPH OF CAPITAL COST v. FLOW
ANNUAL COST
GRAPH OF OfrM COST n. FLOW
• HIGH
• MEDIUM
• LOW
TOTAL ANNUAL
1C
FLOW (MODI
.10
FLOW (MODI
Figure VIII-3 TREATMENT COST CURVES
STEAM STRIPPING
VIII-20
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
FEED PUMPS
REACTOR VESSELS
RECIRCULATION PUMPS
CAUSTIC STORAGE
CHEMICAL FEEDERS
CHLORINE STORAGE
CHLORINATORS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
TOTAl AIMUtL 0»M. MO IMDOT
CHIWIOAL OIIWTTO*
CAHUl COITi
CHIMWAL CWIMTPO«
Figure VIII-4 TREATMENT COST CURVES
CHEMICAL OXIDATION
VIII-21
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
FEED PUMPS
MIXING TANK
FILTER PRESS
HOLDING TANK
CAUSTIC STORAGE
CHEMICAL FEEDERS
POLYMER STORAGE
POLYMER FEEDERS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
CAPITAL AND LAND COSTS
METAL SEPARATION
(MAX AND MIN CONCENTHATIONI
COPPER AND ZINC
UPDATED CURVES
i »
ZINC IMIN.)
COPPER IMIN I
COPPER AND ZINC
LAND COSTS
ANNUAL. ENERQY. OtrM COSTS
METAL SEPARATION
IMAJt CONCINTIIATKMI
OftM -
COPPER
ZINC
ZN
0-01
PLOW IMGDI
0.01
FLOW (MODI
Figure VIII-5 TREATMENT COST CURVES
METALS SEPARATION
VIII-22
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
CAUSTIC STORAGE TANK
CHEMICAL FEEDER
MIXING TANK
HYDROLYSIS BASINS WITH COVERS
TEMPERATURE CONTROL
STEAM DELIVERY AND CONTROL
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
pcsncfoe «ronotr»i»
CAPITAL COSTS
HYDROLYSIS
ANNUAL COSTS
I.-,"
c
M.MO MIN. OCT. TIME
tt.M MIN. DCT. TIME
4.NO MIN. OCT. TIME
400 MIN. DET. TIME
Figure VIII-6 TREATMENT COST CURVES
PESTICIDE HYDROLYSIS
Mill-*3
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
CAUSTIC STORAGE TANK
CHEMICAL FEEDER
MIXING TANK
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
NEUTRALIZATION
CAPITAL
LAND
NEUTRALIZATION
ANNUAL
O&M
ENERGY
001 OMt O.*l
FLOW (MOD)
FLOW (MOD)
Figure VIII-7 TREATMENT COST CURVES
NEUTRALIZATION
VIII-24
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
FEED PUMPS
FILTERS
BACKWASH PUMPS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
CAPITAL COSTS
DUAL MEDIA FILTRATION
FLOW IMOOI
TOTAL ANNUAL AND OPERATING COST
DUAL MEDIA FILTRATION
ENERGY
FLOW (MOD)
Figure VIII-8 TREATMENT COST CURVES
DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRATION
VIII-25
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
CARBON COLUMNS
BACKWASH PUMPS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
PRIMARY CARBON ADSORPTION
CAPITAL COSTS
2nd EDITION
TOTAL ANNUAL COITI
PRIMARY GABION AD*.
U«JATtO t. MtU
CNEROY COtT
IAU omimoN TIMIII
Figure VIII-9 TREATMENT COST CURVES
CARBON ADSORPTION
VIII-26
-------
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
ANNUAL COST
CAPITAL COST
8 1 000-
FLOW (MODI
FLOW (MODI
Figure VIII-10 TREATMENT COST CURVES
CARBON REGENERATION
VIII-27
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
RESIN COLUMNS
BACKWASH PUMPS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
CAPITAL COtT CURVI: MIIN ADSORPTION
ANNUAL COSTI CUMVII: KMIN ADIOPUTION
tm u 11 1.1
nan IMOOI »
MTII UNO eofr ran AU OAHI n turn
tm 1.1 (.1 1.1
now IMOOI -
Figure VIII-11 TREATMENT COST CURVES
RESIN ADSORPTION
VIII-28
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
METHANOL STORAGE
PUMP
BATCH DISTILLATION COLUMN
OVERHEAD CONDENSER
REFLUX DRUM
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
(CAPITAL - LANOI C01T
:MIIN MQINIRATION:
CAPITAL
LAND
01 10
FLOW (MODI
ANNUAL COW: RUIN MQINIKATION
INIHOY IPOWI* • ITUMI
FLOW (MODI
Figure VIII-12 TREATMENT COST CURVES
RESIN REGENERATION
VIII-29
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
PHOSPHORIC ACID STORAGE
ANHYDROUS AMMONIA STORAGE
CHEMICAL FEED PUMPS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
NUTRIENT ADDITION
CAPITAL
LAND
NUTRIENT_AODITION
ANNUAL
ObM
ENERGY
CAPITAL
001 001 01
FLOW IMGD1
Figure VI11-13 TREATMENT COST CURVES
NUTRIENT ADDITION
viir-30
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
AERATION BASINS
AERATORS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
Ml t« 1.1
FLOW IMOOI
Figure VIII-14 TREATMENT COST CURVES
AERATION BASIN
VIII-31
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
CLARIFIER
SLUDGE RECYCLE PUMPS
POLYMER STORAGE AND FEEDER
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
PURIFICATION
CAPITAL
LAND
CLARIHCATIOM
ANNUAL
OfrM
ENERGY
CAPITAL
0.0» 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.1 10
FLOW (MODI
0.01 0 01
FLOW (MODI
Figure VIII-15 TREATMENT COST CURVES
CLARIFICATION
VIII-32
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
AIR FLOTATION TANK AND MECHANISM
SLUDGE RECYCLE PUMPS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
SLUDGE THICKENING
CAPITAL
LAND
SLUDGE THICKENING
ANNUAL
06M
ENERGY
CAPITAL
LAND
O.OOi 0.01 O.di 0-1
FLOW (MODI
Figure VIII-16 TREATMENT COST CURVES
SLUDGE THICKENER
VIII-33
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
DIGESTION CHAMBER
AERATORS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
AEROBIC DIGESTION CAPITAL & LAND COSTS
O&M
ENERGY COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL
CM O.H 001 01
FLOW IMOOI
ooet 001 ooi 01
FLOW IMOD)
Figure VIII-17 TREATMENT COST CURVES
AEROBIC DIGESTION
VIII-34
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
VACUUM FILTER
CHEMICAL FEEDERS
CHEMICAL STORAGE
CAPITAL COST
VACUUM FILTRATION
CAPITAL
CAPITAL
ANNUAL COST
VACUUM FILTRATION
ANNUAL
OttM
ENERGY
O.Mi 001 ooi e.i
FLOW (MOO)
Figure VIII-18 TREATMENT COST CURVES
VACUUM FILTRATION
VIII-35
-------
COMPONENTS INCLUDED
LINED PONDS
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COST
1000
300
100'
30'
10
NI-MTIW^OMATON
0.1 0.3 1 3
FLOWIGPD x 1000)
1000
10 01
1.0 10
FLOWIGPD x 1000)
Vlll-19. TREATMENT COST CURVES
SOLAR EVAPORATION
VII1-36
-------
SECTION IX
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS RECOMMENDED TO BE REGULATED
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to define the pollutants
regulated in the Pesticide Chemicals Industry and to provide the
rationale for their regulation. EPA's objective was to limit
the number of pollutants regulated to the minimum required to
ensure proper application and operation of wastewater control
technologies. The priority, nonconventional, 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 regulated;
2. Pollutants of dual significance are regulated only
where they are the manufactured product; where they are a
wastewater constituent of other pesticide products they are a
pollutant of secondary significance; and
3. Pollutants of secondary significance are not currently
regulated but are controlled by regulation of associated priority
pollutants.
A detailed process chemistry evaluation was conducted to
determine pollutants of primary and secondary significance. The
nonconfidential analysis for the proposal is in volume 44 of the
administrative record. The final analysis is in Section II B2 of
the final promulgated record. These reports detail the decisions
made, on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, using actual plant data,
process chemistry evaluations, and technology transfer.
This section summarizes these data, as well as the environmental
effects and the conclusions of the process chemistry evaluations.
Data to support the assumptions and conclusions are found in
Section V of this report.
IX-1
-------
The rationale for assigning pollutants into these three groups
was based on factors such as raw waste load level and presence,
treatability, and analytical methods availability. Information
used to evaluate these factors is either referenced in the
bibliography and/or found in the Public Record.
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 indicated 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 other priority pollutants of
secondary significance.
Priority pollutants were initially classified as of secondary
significance because:
1. They were detected or are indicated 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.
As an example of the process described above 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.
IX-2
-------
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 adequately represented the
treatability of 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.
All nonconventional pesticide pollutants with promulgated
analytical procedures, per 40 CFR Parts 136 and 455, were
categorized as of primary significance. These pollutants
are identified in Sections XIV and XV.
Nonconventional pesticide pollutants which lack approved
analytical procedures were categorized as of secondary
significance and are not regulated 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 in segments of the pesticide industry but
were not prevalent in any one subcategory, therefore, they were
classified as of secondary significance and national
limitations and standards are not promulgated. Other
nonconventional pollutants were not considered for regulation in
the Pesticide Industry.
POLLUTANTS OF PRIMARY, DUAL, OR SECONDARY SIGNIFICANCE
Based upon the factors discussed above, the pollutants listed
in Table IX-1 are considered of primary significance in the
Pesticide Chemicals Industry. The 34 priority pollutants
listed in Table IX-1 will not necessarily be found in any
one pesticide plant's wastewater. The specific priority
pollutants (of primary significance) recommended for
regulation (monitoring) as a result of this study are listed with
the associated manufactured pesticide in Section XX-Appendix 6.
Whenever a plant manufactures a specific pesticide active
ingredient, that discharger must meet the effluent limitations
and standards for the specific priority pollutants identified in
Table II-l.
The 5 priority pollutants listed in Table IX-2 are considered of
dual significance in the Pesticide Chemicals Industry.
IX-3
-------
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 indicated to be
present in other pesticide processes, they are classified as
pollutants of secondary significance.
The priority pollutants listed in Table IX-3 are considered of
secondary significance in the Pesticide Chemicals Industry.
Priority pollutants of secondary significance which are
excluded from regulation under paragraph 8 of the consent decree
(NRDC v. Train) include pollutants which were previously
regulated, not currently produced and unlikely to be produced in
the future because their use is banned in this country, not
suspected in the industry, not present in treatable amounts or
are judged to be adequately controlled if the pollutants
of primary significance are reduced to recommended levels.
Nonconventional pesticide pollutants of secondary significance
are those for which no promulgated analytical methods are
available. However, some pesticides for which analytical methods
do exist are not covered under regulations for manufacturers
because technical data is not adequate. Reasons for the
exclusion of these pesticides from the regulation for organic
pesticide chemicals manufacturers is discussed in Section XIV.
The Agency is, however, encouraging permit writers and control
authorities to consider these and other pollutants which, on the
basis of actual monitoring data or other information, may be
present in a particular plants effluent. Table IX-3
identifies pollutants which are excluded from regulation. An
affidavit has been filed with the Court of Appeals defining the
reasons for paragraph 8 selection. See Section XX-Appendix 10.
A detailed discussion of the selection rationale for priority
pollutants, nonconventional pollutants, and conventional
pollutants follows.
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Priority pollutants recommmended as of primary, dual, or
secondary significance 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. Benzene, chlorobenzene, and toluene
were chosen as pollutants of primary significance since they are
used as raw materials and solvents and are found in
IX-4
-------
higher concentrations than the other volatile aromatic
compounds.
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, benzene is used
as a raw material in the production of seven pesticides. It
is used as a solvent in at least 11 pesticide processes, and it
is indicated 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 mg/1, this level may have
been achieved by volatilization in biological systems,
thereby creating a potential air pollution problem.
In the pesticide industry, chlorobenzene is detected or indicated
to be present in 32 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 indicated to be
present in 108 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.
Dual Significance—In the pesticide industry, 1,2-dichlorobenzene
is detected or indicated to be present in 26 pesticide processes
as a final product, raw material impurity, solvent impurity, or a
reaction byproduct. Raw waste concentrations of 1,2-
dichlorobenzene have ranged up to 127 mg/1. 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene is regulated as a priority pollutant only if it
is manufactured as a product. In other processes it is
adequately controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant
of primary significance, chlorobenzene.
In the pesticide industry, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is detected or
indicated 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 regulated as a
priority pollutant only if it is manufactured as a product.
In other processes it is adequately controlled by
regulation of the priority pollutant of primary significance,
chlorobenzene.
In the pesticide industry, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene is detected or
indicated to be present in 25 pesticide processes as a reaction
byproduct, raw material impurity, or a stripper impurity. Raw
waste load concentrations of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene have ranged
IX-5
-------
up to 36.0 mg/1. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is regulated as a
priority pollutant only if it is manufactured as a product. In
other processes it is adequately controlled by regulation of
the priority pollutant of primary significance, chlorobenzene.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, 1,3-
dichlorobenzene is detected or indicated 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 adequately controlled by regulation of the priority
pollutant of primary significance, chlorobenzene.
In the pesticide industry, ethylbenzene is detected or indicated
to be present in 103 pesticide processes as a raw material,
solvent impurity, or a raw material impurity. Raw waste load
concentrations of ethylbenzene have ranged up to 7.9 mg/1.
Ethylbenzene is be adequately controlled by regulation of
the priority pollutants of primary significance, benzene and
toluene.
In the pesticide industry, hexachlorobenzene is detected or
indicated to be present in 16 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. Hexachlorobenzene is
adequately controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant
of primary significance, chlorobenzene.
Halomethanes-
There are eight compounds which represent the halomethane
priority pollutant group. 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.
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, carbon
tetrachloride is detected or indicated to be present in 46
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.
In the pesticide industry, methyl bromide (bromomethane) is
detected or indicated to be present in four pesticide processes
as a final product, raw material, a reaction byproduct, or an
IX-6
-------
impurity. Raw
to 2,600 mg/1.
waste load concentrations have been monitored up
In the pesticide industry, methyl chloride is detected or
indicated to be present in 49 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 wastes with
concentrations measured less than 1.0 mg/1.
In the pesticide industry, methylene chloride is detected or
indicated to be present in 52 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.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, bromoform
(tribromomethane) is detected or indicated to be present in six
pesticide processes as either a reaction byproduct or as an
impurity. Only trace levels were detected in the four processes
monitored. Bromoform is adequately controlled by regulation of
the priority pollutant of primary significance, methyl bromide.
In the pesticide industry, chlorodibromomethane is indicated to
be present in two pesticide process as a reaction byproduct. Raw
waste load concentrations of chlorodibromomethane are not
available in the pesticide industry. Chlorodibromomethane is
adequately controlled by regulation of the priority pollutants
of primary significance, methylene chloride and methyl bromide.
In the pesticide industry, dichlorobromomethane is detected or
indicated to be present in two pesticide processes as a reaction
byproduct. Dichlorobromomethane is adequately controlled by
regulation of the priority pollutants of primary significance,
methylene chloride and methyl bromide.
Cyanide
Cyanide represents a priority pollutant group. 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
concentrations in pesticide raw waste loads.
IX-7
-------
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, cyanide is
detected or indicated to be present in 42 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.
Haloethers—There are six compounds which represent the
haloether priority pollutant group. Haloethers were not
selected as pollutants of primary significance, since they were
not found above detectable levels. However, bis(2-
chloroethyl) ether has been classified as a pollutant of
dual significance since it is manufactured as a product and
has zero wastewater discharge.
Dual Significance—In the pesticide industry, bis(2-chlorethyl)
ether (BCEE) is detected or indicated to be present in 12
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. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether is regulated as a priority
pollutant only if it is manufactured as a product.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, bis(2-
chloroethoxy) methane is indicated to be present in 11
pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or an impurity. This
compound has not been detected in raw waste loads monitored.
In the pesticide industry, bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether is
indicated to be present in 14 pesticide processes as a reaction
byproduct or an impurity. This compound has not been detected in
monitored raw waste loads.
In the pesticide industry, 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether is
indicated to be present in one pesticide process as a reaction
byproduct. This compound has not been detected in the waste
streams monitored in the pesticide industry.
In the pesticide industry, 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether is indicated
to be present in 14 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct
or as an impurity. This compound has not been detected in the
pesticide industry.
In the pesticide industry, 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether is
indicated to be present in 20 pesticide processes as a reaction
byproduct. This compound has not been detected in monitored
waste streams.
IX-8
-------
Phenols-There are 11 compounds which represent the phenol
priority pollutant group. 2,4-Dichlorophenol, 2,4-
dinitrophebnol, 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.
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, 2,4-
dichlorophenol is detected or indicated to be present in 23
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
indicated to be present in three pesticide processes as a raw
material or raw material impurity. 2,4-Dinitrophenol
concentrations in raw waste loads have been detected at levels
up to 7.91 mg/1.
In the pesticide industry, 4-nitrophenol is detected or indicated
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
indicated 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.
In the pesticide industry, phenol is detected or indicated to be
present in 26 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.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, 2-chlorophenol
is detected or indicated to be present in 18 pesticide processes
as a reaction byproduct or an impurity. Raw waste load
concentrations of 2-chlorophenol have been detected at levels
up to 1,000 mg/1 and at 30.5 mg/1. 2-Chlorophenol is
adequately controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant
of primary significance, 2,4-dichlorophenol.
In the pesticide industry, 2,4-dimethylphenol is indicated to be
present in three pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or
IX-9
-------
an impurity. This compound has not been detected in the
waste stream monitored in the pesticide industry. 2,4-
Dimethylphenol is 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 indicated to be present
in the pesticide industry. The presence of 4,6-dinitro-o-
cresol, if any, would be adequately controlled by regulation of
the priority pollutants of primary significance, 2,4-
dichlorophenol and phenol.
In the pesticide industry, 2-nitrophenol is indicated to be
present in two pesticide processes as an impurity. This
compound has not been detected in the waste streams monitored
in the pesticide industry. 2-Nitrophenol is adequately
controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant of primary
significance, 4-nitrophenol.
In the pesticide industry, parachlorometacresol (4-chloro-m-
cresol) is indicated to be present in three pesticide
processes as a reaction byproduct or an impurity. This compound
has not been detected in the waste streams monitored the
pesticide industry. The presence of 4-chloro-m-cresol is
adequately controlled by regulation of the priority pollutants of
primary significance, 2,4-dichlorophenol and phenol.
In the pesticide industry, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol is detected or
indicated to be present in 18 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
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.
There are no pollutants of primary significance in this group
since 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, and nitrobenzene
are adequately controlled by the regulation of a pollutant of
primary significance.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, 2,4-
dinitrotoluene is indicated to be present in five pesticide
processes as a reaction byproduct. This compound has not been
detected in the waste streams monitored in the pesticide
industry. The presence of 2,4-dinitrotoluene is adequately
controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant of primary
significance, toluene.
rx-io
-------
In the pesticide industry, 2,6-dinitrotoluene is indicated 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. This compound
has not been detected in the waste streams 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 indicated
to be present in 42 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. The presence of nitrobenzene is adequately controlled by
regulation of the priority pollutant of primary significance,
benzene.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons-There are 17 compounds which
represent the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) priority
pollutant group. The PAHs are not detected or indicated to
be present in the pesticide industry.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, acenaphthylene
is indicated 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.
In the pesticide industry, acenaphthene is indicated 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.
In the pesticide industry, anthracene is indicated 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.
Benzo(a)anthracene is not detected or indicated to be present in
the pesticide industry.
Benzo(a)pyrene is not detected or indicated to be present in the
pesticide industry.
3,4-Benzofluoranthene is not detected or indicated to be present
in the pesticide industry.
IX-11
-------
Benzo(ghi)perylene is not detected or indicated to be present in
the pesticide industry.
In the pesticide industry, 2-chloronaphthalene is detected or
indicated to be present in 18 pesticide processes as a reaction
byproduct or an impurity. Raw waste concentrations of 2-
chloronaphthalene have been reported at less than 0.01 mg/1.
Chrysene is not detected or indicated to be present in the
pesticide industry.
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene is not detected or indicated to be present
in the pesticide industry.
In the pesticide industry, fluoranthene is indicated to be
present in six pesticide processes as an impurity. Raw waste
concentrations of this compound have not been detected in
monitored waste streams.
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene is not detected or indicated to be present
in the pesticide industry.
In the pesticide industry, naphthalene is detected or indicated
to be present in 25 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct
or as an impurity. Napthalene is also associated with
manufacture of biphenyl and 1,8-napthalic anhydride; these
pesticides are unregulated at this time pending development of
data and an analytical test method for the pesticides.
Manufacture of biphenyl was discontinued in 1978. Since no
limitation for napthalene was proposed and the number of
manufacturers is now small this priority pollutant is not
regulated.
In the pesticide industry, phenanthrene is indicated to be
present in six pesticide processes as an impurity. This
compound has not been detected in monitored waste streams.
Pyrene is not detected or indicated to be present in the
pesticide industry.
IX-12
-------
Metals-There are 13 compounds which represent the metals priority
pollutant group. Copper, mercury and zinc were chosen as
pollutants of primary significance since they are detected or
indicated to exist in significant concentrations and are
independent of other priority pollutants in this group.
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, copper is
detected or indicated to be present in 11 pesticide processes as
a raw material or catalyst. Of six pesticide process raw waste
loads monitored, copper was present at levels ranging from not
detected to 59,000 mg/1.
Mercury is detected to be present in one pesticide manufacturing
processes as a raw material. Raw waste load concentration of
32,000 mg/1 have been measured.
In the pesticide industry, zinc is detected or indicated 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.
Secondary Significance—Antimony is not detected or indicated to
be present in the pesticide industry in concentrations over the
treatability level of 0.1 mg/1. In the pesticide industry,
arsenic is detected or indicated to be present in several
pesticide processes as a raw material impurity. Arsenic has been
detected in significant concentrations in treated effluent.
Beryllium is not detected or indicated to be present in the
pesticide industry in concentrations over the treatability
level of 0.05 mg/1.
Cadmium is not detected or indicated to be present in the
pesticide industry over treatability levels of 0.1 g/1.
Chromium is not detected or indicated to be present in the
pesticide industry in concentrations above the treatability
level of 0.1 mg/1.
Lead is not detected or indicated to be present in the pesticide
industry in concentrations over the treatability level of 0.1
mg/1.
In the pesticide industry, nickel is indicated to be present in
one pesticide process as a catalyst. Nickel is not
indicated to be present in concentrations over the
treatability level of 0.1 mg/1.
IX-13
-------
Selenium is not detected or indicated to be present in the
pesticide industry in concentrations over the treatability
level of 0.1 mg/1.
Silver is not detected or indicated to be present in the
pesticide industry in concentrations over the treatability
level of 0.1 mg/1.
Thallium is not detected or indicated to be present in the
pesticide industry in concentrations over the treatability
level of 0.1 mg/1.
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes-There are 12 compounds which
represent the chlorinatedethanes and ethylenes priority
pollutant group.
Primary Significance—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. In the
pesticide industry, 1,2-dichloroethane is detected or
indicated to be present in 30 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. In the pesticide industry,
tetrachloroethylene is detected or indicated to be present in 17
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.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, chloroethane
is indicated to be present in 30 pesticide processes as a
reaction byproduct or as an impurity. This compound was not
detected in monitored waste streams. The presence of
chloroethane is adequately controlled by regulation of the
priority pollutant of primary significance, 1,2-dichloroethane.
In the pesticide industry, 1,1-dichloroethane is indicated to be
present in 30 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or an
impurity. This compound has not been detected in monitored
waste streams. 1,1-Dichloroethane is adequately controlled by
the regulation of the priority pollutant of primary significance,
1,2-dichloroethane.
In the pesticide industry, 1,1-dichloroethylene is indicated to
be present in 19 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or
IX-14
-------
an impurity. This compound has not been detected in
monitored waste streams. The priority pollutant 1,1-
dichloroethylene is adequately controlled by regulation of
the priority pollutant of primary significance, 1,2-
dichloroethane.
In the pesticide industry, hexachloroethane is indicated to be
present in 11 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or
an impurity. This compound has not been detected in monitored
waste streams. Hexachloroethane is 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 indicated to be present in 30 pesticide processes as a
reaction byproduct or an impurity. Raw waste concentrations of
this compound have been detected at 1.70 mg/1 in monitored
waste streams. This compound is adequately controlled by
regulation of the priority pollutant of primary significance,
1,2-dichloroethane.
In the pesticide industry, 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene is
indicated to be present in 19 pesticide processes as a raw
material or an impurity. This compound has not been detected
in monitored waste streams. 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 indicated to
be present in 30 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct.
This compound has not been detected in monitored waste streams.
The presence of 1,1,1-trichloroethane is 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
indicated to be present in 30 pesticide processes as a reaction
byproduct or an impurity. This compound has been detected in
concentrations up to 0.02 mg/1 in monitored waste streams.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane is adequately controlled by regulation of
the priority pollutant of primary significance, 1,2-
dichloroethane.
IX-15
-------
In the pesticide industry, trichloroethylene is detected or
indicated to be present in 19 pesticide processes as a reaction
byproduct or an impurity. Raw waste concentrations have
ranged up to 0.052 mg/1 in monitored raw wastewater streams.
The presence of trichloroethylene is adequately controlled
by regulation of the priority pollutant of primary
significance, tetrachloroethylene.
In the pesticide industry, vinyl chloride is indicated to be
present in 18 pesticide processes as a raw material, reaction
byproduct, or as an impurity. This compound has not been
detected in monitored waste streams. Vinyl chloride is
adequately controlled by regulation of the priority
pollutant of primary significance, tetrachloroethylene.
Nitrosamines-There are three compounds which represent the
nitrosamine priority pollutant group. 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 controlling it will
adequately control N-nitrosodimethylamine and N-
nitrosodiphenylamine.
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, N-nitrosodi-n-
propylamine is detected or indicated to be present as a reaction
byproduct in ten processes. One process has been monitored
showing a maximum raw waste concentration of 1.85 mg/1.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, N-
nitrosodimethylamine is detected or indicated 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. N-nitrosodimethylamine is adequately controlled
by regulation of the priority pollutant of primary significance,
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine.
In the pesticide industry, N-nitrosodiphenylamine is indicated to
be present in two pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct.
This compound has not been detected in the waste streams
monitored in the pesticide indudstry. The presence of
N-nitrosodiphenylamine is adequately controlled by regulation
of the priority pollutant of primary significance, N-nitrosodi-n-
propylamine.
Phthalate Esters-There are six compounds which represent the
phthalate ester priority pollutant group. Two phthalate esters
are not detected or indicated to be present in the pesticide
industry.
IX-16
-------
Secondary Significance—Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is not
expected to be present in the pesticide industry.
In the pesticide industry, butyl benzyl phthalate is indicated to
be present in 15 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or
as an impurity. This compound has not been detected in the
waste streams monitored in the pesticide industry.
In the pesticide industry, dimethyl phthalate is indicated to be
present in 12 pesticide processes as a raw material, reaction
byproduct, or as an impurity. Dimethyl phthalate is considered
insignificant since it was detected in the effluent from only a
small number of sources and is uniquely related to those sources.
In the pesticide industry, diethyl phthalate is indicated to be
present in 15 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or an
impurity. This compound has only been detected in trace amounts
in the pesticide industry.
In the pesticide industry, di-n-butyl phthalate is indicated to
be present in 15 pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct or
an impurity. This compound has only been detected in trace
amounts in the pesticide industry.
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene-There are two compounds which
represent the cfichloropropane and dichloropropene priority
pollutant group. 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.
Dual Significance—In the pesticide industry, 1,3-dichloropropene
is indicated to be present in 17 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 regulated as a
priority pollutant only if it is manufactured as a final
product. The geometric isomers, cis-l,3-dichloropropene and
trans-l,3-dichloropropene, are regulated in formulator/packager
wastesteams as pesticides but are not regulated in manufacturing
wastestreams.
IX-17
-------
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, 1,2-
dichloropropane is indicated to be present in 18 pesticide
processes as a raw material, solvent, reaction byproduct, or
impurity. 1,2-Dichloropropane was not detected in either of the
two raw waste loads monitored.
Priority Pollutant Pesticides-There are 18 compounds which
represent thepriority pollutant pesticide group. BHC-alpha,
BHC-beta, BHC-delta, endosulfan-alpha, endosulfan-beta,
endrin, heptachlor, lindane (BHC-gamma), and toxaphene were
chosen as pollutants of primary significance since they are
produced as final products.
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry, BHC-alpha is
indicated to be present in 3 pesticide processes as a final
product or a reaction byproduct. This compound has not been
detected in waste streams monitored in the pesticide industry.
BHC was previously regulated under BPT (direct discharge)
only.
In the pesticide industry, BHC-beta is indicated to be present in
five pesticide processes as a final product or a reaction
byproduct. This compound has not been detected in waste
streams monitored in the pesticide industry. BHC was previously
regulated under BPT (direct discharge) only.
In the pesticide industry, BHC-delta is indicated to be present
in five pesticide processes as a final product or a reaction
byproduct. This compound has not been detected in the waste
streams monitored in the pesticide industry. BHC was previously
regulated under BPT (direct discharge) only.
In the pesticide industry, endosulfan-alpha is indicated to be
present in one pesticide process as a final product. This
compound has not been detected in the waste streams monitored in
the pesticide industry. Endosulfan was previously regulated
under BPT (direct discharge) only.
In the pesticide industry, endosulfan-beta is indicated to be
present in one pesticide process as a final product. This
compound has not been detected in the waste streams monitored
in the pesticide industry. Endosulfan was previously regulated
under BPT (direct discharge) only.
IX-18
-------
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. Endrin was
previously regulated by effluent standards and prohibitions at 40
CFR 129.
In the pesticide industry, heptachlor is detected or indicated to
be present in two pesticide processes as a final product or
reaction by-product. Raw waste concentrations of heptachlor
have ranged up to a declared proprietary level. Heptachlor was
previously regulated under BPT (dirct discharge) only.
In the pesticide industry, lindane (BHC-gamma) is indicated to be
present in two pesticide processes as a final product or a
reaction byproduct. This compound has not been detected in
the waste streams monitored in the pesticide industry. Lindane
was previously regulated under BPT (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 was previously regulated by effluent
limitations and prohibitions at 40 CFR. 129.
Secondary Significance—Priority pollutant pesticides of
secondary significance are generally not covered by regulations
for the manufacturing subcategory 1 but are covered by
regulations for the formulator/packager subcategory 3.
In the pesticide industry, aldrin is detected or indicated to
be present in one pesticide process as a reaction byproduct. Raw
waste concentrations of aldrin have been monitored at a level
which is declared proprietary. Aldrin is expected to be
adequately controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant
endrin since it is a reaction byproduct of endrin.
Additionally, the pesticide aldrin was previously regulated
by the effluent limitations and prohibitions at 40 CFR 129.
In the pesticide industry, chlordane is predicted to be
present in two pesticide processes as a final product or a
reaction byproduct. Chlordane was previously regulated under BPT
(direct discharge) only.
In the pesticide industry, dieldrin is detected or indicated to
be present in one pesticide process as a reaction byproduct. Raw
waste concentrations of this compound have been monitored at
levels which are declared proprietary. Dieldrin is
adequately controlled by regulation of the priority
IX-19
-------
pollutant endrin. Additionally, the pesticide dieldrin was
previously regulated by the effluent limitations and
prohibitions at 40 CFR 129.
In the pesticide industry, 4,4'-DDD is detected or indicated to
be present in five pesticide processes as a final product or a
reaction byproduct. Raw waste concentrations of 4,4'-ODD have
been monitored at levels which are declared proprietary. The
presence of 4,4'-ODD is adequately controlled by
regulation of the pesticide methoxychlor, at the
only plant where is currently manufactured. Additionally,
4,4'-ODD was previously regulated by the effluent limitations and
prohibitions at 40 CFR 129.
In the pesticide industry, 4,4'-DDE is detected or indicated to
be present in five pesticide processes as a final product or a
reaction byproduct. Raw waste concentrations of 4,4'-DDE have
been monitored at levels which are declared proprietary. The
presence of this compound is adequately controlled by
regulation of the pesticide methoxychlor, at the
only plant where it is currently manufactured. Additionally,
4,4'-DDE was previously regulated by the effluent limitations and
prohibitions at 40 CFR 129.
In the pesticide industry, 4,4'-DDT (DDT) is detected or
indicated 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. Additionally, DDT was
previously regulated by the flluent limitations and prohibitions
at 40 CFR 129.
In the pesticide industry, endosulfan sulfate is indicated to be
present in one pesticide process as a reaction byproduct.
This compound has not been detected in waste streams monitored in
the pesticide industry. Endosulfan sulfate is adequately
controlled by the regulation of the priority pollutant,
endosulfan.
In the pesticide industry, endrin aldehyde is indicated to be
present in one pesticide process as a reaction byproduct. Raw
waste concentrations of this compound have been monitored in the
pesticide industry at levels which are declared proprietary. The
presence of endrin aldehyde is adequately controlled by
regulation of the priority pollutant, endrin.
In the pesticide industry, heptachlor epoxide is indicated to be
present in two pesticide processes as a reaction byproduct. Raw
waste concentrations have been monitored in waste streams at
IX-20
-------
levels which are declared proprietary. Heptachlor epoxide is
adequately controlled by regulation of the priority pollutant of
primary significance, heptachlor.
Dienes-There are two compounds which represent the diene priority
pollutant group. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene was chosen as a
pollutant of primary significance since it is used as a raw
material and is found in higher concentrations than
hexachlorobutadiene.
Primary Significance—In the pesticide industry,
hexachlorocyclopentadiene ("HEX") is detected or indicated to be
present in six pesticide processes as a raw material. HEX
concentrations in raw waste loads range from 0.435 mg/1 to 2,500
mg/1.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry,
hexachlorobutadiene is detected or indicated 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 adequately controlled by
regulation of the priority pollutant of primary significance,
hexachlorocyclopentadiene.
TCDD-2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) represents a
priority pollutant group. In the pesticide industry,
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is detected or
indicated to be present in 11 pesticide processes as a reaction
byproduct. TCDD was chosen as a pollutant of
secondary significance since significant efforts to control this
compound have been undertaken in past years and the Agency is in
the process of completing a study to determine the sources of
remaining environmental releases, if any, or the sources of any
existing contamination.
Miscellaneous Priority Pollutants-There are five compounds which
represent the miscellaneous priority pollutant group. All five
compounds have been chosen as pollutants of secondary
significance since they lack adequate monitoring data or they
are not detected or indicated to be present in this industry.
Secondary Significance—The compound acrolein is not detected or
indicated to be present in the pesticide industry. The compound
acrylonitrile is detected or indicated to be present in only
one pesticide process.
In the pesticide industry, asbestos is detected to be present in
72 pesticide/nonpesticide wastewaters. Raw waste load
IX-21
-------
concentrations have ranged from nondetectable limits to 0.3 mg/1
(total calculated mass chrysotile fibers only).
Asbestos is not used in this industry, and is therefore not
regulated as a pollutant of primary significance. In
addition, there is no promulgated method for asbestos analysis.
The compound 1,2-diphenylhydrazine is not detected or indicated
to be present in the pesticide industry.
The compound isophorone is not detected or indicated to be
present in the pesticide industry.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls-Seven polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
represent a priority pollutant group. PCBs were chosen as
pollutants of secondary significance since they are not
currently indicated to be present in the pesticide industry.
Secondary Significance—In the pesticide industry, PCBs are
indicated 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 recommended
for regulation as a pollutant of primary significance.
Benzidines-There are two compounds which represent the benzidine
priority pollutant group. Benzidine and 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
were chosen as pollutants of secondary significance since they
are not indicated to be present in the pesticide industry.
Secondary Significance—The compound benzidine is not indicated
to be present in the pesticide industry.
The compound 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine is not indicated to be
present in the pesticide industry.
All other priority pollutants not discussed above have been
excluded under Sections of Paragraph 8 of the consent decree
(NRDC v. Train). These pollutants are listed along with the
Paragraph 8 rationale in Appendix 6.
Nonconventional Pesticide Pullutants
Nonconventional pesticide pollutants considered for regulation at
this time are listed in Table 11-3 and include those for which
EPA approved promulgated analytical methods are available. A
IX-22
-------
general discussion of these pesticides, their properties, use in
the industry and some information on production follows and
provides the basis for their selection as pollutants of primary
significance. The availability or absence of an EPA approved
analytical method for analysis of the pesticide in wastewater
effluents was the primary consideration and controlling factor
which limits the main nonconventional pesticide pollutants
regulated in the Pesticides Effluent Guidelines.
Formulator/packager wastestreams are limited to zero discharge of
priority pollutants and the pesticide active ingredients listed
in Appendix D of the regulation in process wastewater generated
by formulating and packaging of the pesticide active ingredients
in Appendix D. The pesticide active ingredients listed in
Appendix D are those for which the Agency has approved analytical
methods. Manufacturing wastestreams are subject to effluent
limitations for only 89 of the pesticides described here. The
rationale for exclusion of the other pesticides from the organic
pesticide chemicals manufacturers regulation is discussed in
Section X.
Primary Significance—Alachlor is used as a 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 (McEwen and Stephenson,
1979). Alachlor has a residual action lasting 10 weeks to 12
weeks (Martin and Worthing, 1977). 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). An analytizal test method
is available at 40 CFR 455.
Ametryne 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 has a very low vapor pressure at 20°C. Its
solubility in water is 185 mg/1 at 20°C (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method is available at 40
CFR 136.
Aminocarb is a nonsystemic insecticide with acaricidal and
molluscicidal activity. It is used against biting insects,
mites, and slugs. Aminocarb is a white crystalline solid with a
melting point of 93°C to 94°C, and is only slightly
soluble in water (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test
method is available at 40 CFR 136.
(AOP) is a trade name for the diammonium salt of Nabam in a
4-percent solution (Martin and Worthing, 1977) 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. An
IX-23
-------
analytical teat method for AOP is available at 40 CFR 455.
Atraton is a herbicide with the chemical name 2-(ethylamino), 4-
(isoproylamino), 6-methoxyf s-triazine. An analytical test
method is available at 40 CFR 136.
Atrazine 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 very low 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). The half-life for atrazine
in soil is 26 weeks to 78 weeks (Little, 1980), and
it may be absorbed by clays such as montmorillonite
(Little, 1980). The LD50 for fish is considered to be 12.6
mg/1 (Little, 1980). It showed 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). An analytical test method
is available at 40 CFR 136.
Azinphos methyl 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). Persistence in the environment is long, lasting 2 or more
weeks (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 136.
Barban 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. An analytical
test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
Benfluralin acts as a pre-emergence herbicide for the control of
annual grasses and broad-leaved weeds in lettuce, tobacco, and
other forage crops when incorporated into the soil (Martin
IX-24
-------
and Worthing, 1977). Benfluralin is a yellow-orange crystalline
solid with a melting point of 65 to 66.5°C. Its
solubility in water is less than 1 mg/1 at 25°C. It is of
low to moderate persistence in the environment (Martin and
Worthing, 1977).
An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
Benomyl is a protective and eradicant fungicide with systemic
activity used on a wide range of fungi in fruit-.^. nn*-o
vegetables, and ornamentals. It is a white crystalline SOJ..L-U
with a faint acrid odor. At 20°C its solubility in water
is 3.8 mg/1 (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Benomyl's
fungicidal action is effected by adsorption to spindle
fibers involved in cell division. An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 455.
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/L (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method is available at 40
CFR 455.
Bolstar is an insecticide. An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 455.
Bromacil is recommended for general 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 average half-life in the environment of bromacil is
several months, and moderate mobility in the soil has been
observed (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). An analytical test
method is available at 40 CFR 455.
Busan 40 is a fungicide. An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 455. Busan 85 a fungicide. An analytical test
method is available at 40 CFR 455.
Butachlor is a pre-emergence herbicide used in the control of
annual grasses and certain broad-leaved weeds in rice. It is
IX-25
-------
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). An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
Captan 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
LD50 is 9,000 mg/kg for rats. 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). An analytical test
method is available at 40 CFR 136.
Carbam-S is a soil fungicide. An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 455.
Carbaryl is a broad spectrum contact insecticide with
slight systemic properties. Carbaryl is used extensively
for foliar pests in agriculture, pests in 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/L at 30&C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An
analytical test method is aailable at 40 CFR 136.
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/L at
20°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method
is available at 40 CFR 455.
Carbofuran is a broad-spectrum, systemic insecticide, acaricide,
and nematicide. It is a white, odorless, crystalline solid with
a solubility in water of 700 mg/L at 25°C (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). The half life of carbofuran in the soil
ranges from 30 days to 80 days (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). An
analytical test method is available.
Carbophenothion 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/L
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 136.
IX-26
-------
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 156°C 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). An analytical test method
is available at 40 CFR 455.
Chlorpropham 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/L, and its melting point is from 38.5°C to
40°C. An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
Chlorpyrifos 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). Chlorpyrifos
persists in the soil for 2 to 4 months (Martin and Worthing,
1977). An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
Chlorpyrifos methyl 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/L at 25°C (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR
455.
Coumaphos is a contact and systemic insecticide used on animals,
including poultry. Application is made by dipping, spraying,
adding to feed, and dusting. An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 455.
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/L
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 455.
2,4-D along with its salts and esters (2,4-D isobutyl ester and
2,4-D isocotyl ester) are systemic herbicides used for the
weeding of cereals and other crops. 2,4-D is a white powder
with a slight phenolic odor. 2,4-D has a melting point of 140.5
IX-27
-------
°C, and its solubility in water is 620 mg/L at 25°C
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). 2,4-D persists in the soil for at
least 1 month (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test
method for 2,4-D and its salts and esters is available at 40 CFR
136.
2,4-DB and its esters (2,4-DB isobutyl ester and 2,4-DB isoctyl
ester) are translocatable herbicides similar to 2,4-D. They are
more selective because their activity depends on oxidation to
2,4-D by the plant. It is used on lucerne, undersown
cereals, and grasslands. An analytical test method for 2,4-DB
and its esters is available at 40 CFR 455.
DBCP (dibromochloropropane) 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 1000 mg/L at room temperature (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). An analytical
test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
DCNA (dichloran) 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
(Vetbtorazzi, 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). An analytical
test method for dichloran is available at 40 CFR 136.
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). An analytical test method for deet
is available at 40 CFR 455.
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/L at room temperature (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). Analytical test methods for demeton, demeton-o,
and demeton-s are available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L at room
temperature.
IX-28
-------
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 2000 mg/L at room
temperature.
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/L.
Diazinon persists on plants for 7 days to 10 days (McEwen and
Stephenson, 1979). An analytical test method for diazimon is
available at 40 CFR 136.
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 116°C. Its
solubility in water is 4500 mg/L at 25°C. The technical
acid is a pale buff crystalline solid of about 83 percent
to 97 percent purity (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical
test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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 123°C. Its solubility in water is 0.245
mg/L at 25°C. The technical product is 95 percent to 97
percent pure (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test
method is available at 40 CFR 136.
Cis-l,3-dichloropropene and trans-l,3-dichloropropene are
geometric isomers of 1,3-dichloropropene which was discussed
under priority pollutants. Analytical test methods for priority
pollutants are available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L at 25° C and its melting
point is at least 164°C. There is no available analytical
test method for dichlorophen or dichlorophen salt.
IX-29
-------
Dichlorvos 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 10000 mg/L (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical
test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
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). 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). An analytical test method
is available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L (Martin
and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method is available at
40 CFR 455.
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). An analytical
test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L at room temperature
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). When applied in the granular form,
disulfoton is taken up by plants over an extended period of time.
An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). Diuron is persistent and immobile in the soil
since it is stable to oxidation and moisture (McEwen and
Stephenon, 1979). An analytical test method is available at 40
CFR 136.
IX-30
-------
Ethalfluralin is a pre-plant herbicide which kills germinating
weeds; 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/L
(Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 455.
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 persistent in the soil for several
months (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). An analytical test method
is available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L (Martin and Worthing,
1977). There is no analytical test method available for ethoprop,
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. An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 455.
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 1500 mg/L at
25 °C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Fensulfothion persists
in the soil for months. An analytical test method is available
at 40 CFR 455.
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/L to 56 mg/L (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Fenthion persists in the soil for several months (Vettorazzi,
1979). An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
IX-31
-------
Fenuron is a herbicide which is absorbed through roots and acts
by inhibiting photosynthesis. 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
3850 mg/L at 25°C. An analytical test method is available
at 40 CFR 136.
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
4800 mg/L at room temperature. An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L at room temperature (Martin and Worthing,
1977). An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
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/L (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An
analytical test method is aailable at 40 CFR 455.
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
12000 mg/L at 25°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An
analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
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 33000 mg/L
at 25 °C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test
method is available at 40 CFR 455.
Isodrin a diene-organochlorine insecticide which is stable in
soil and relatively stable to the ultra violet action of
sunlight. It's chemistry and uses are similar to chlordane,
aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor. An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 136.
Isopropalin is a pre-plant herbicide incorporated in the soil for
direct seeded tomatoes. It is a red-orange liquid with a
IX-32
-------
solubility in water of 0.1 mg/L.
available at 40 CFR 455.
An analytical test method is
KN methyl is a fungicide.
available at 40 CFR 455.
An analytical test method is
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/L at 25°C (Martin
and Worthing, 1977). Linuron decomposes slowly in soil,
persisting up to 4 months (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An
analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L at room temperature (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method is available at 40
CFR 136.
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).
An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
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). An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR
455.
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,
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). An analytical test
method is available at 40 CFR 455.
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
IX-33
-------
for approximately two weeks. It is a white, crystalline solid
with a solubility in water of 722000 mg/L at 20°C (Martin
and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method is available at
40 CPR 455.
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 118°C. It is practically insoluble in water. An
analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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 a rate of 58 g/1 at 25°C (Martin and Worthing,
1977). An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
Methoxychlor is a nonsystemic contact and stomach
insecticide. 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). An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 136.
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 1200
mg/1 at 20°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test
methods is available at 40 CFR 455.
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 soluble in water (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method is available at 40
CFR 455.
Mexacarbate is used as a molluscicide and has a solubility of
100 mg/L at 25°C. Its melting point is 85°C
(Windholz, 1976). An analytical test method is available at 40
CFR 136.
Mirex is a stomach insecticide with little contact activity.
Its widest use has been against fire ants. Mirex is a white
IX-34
-------
solid which is practically insoluble in water (Martin and
Worthing, 1977). An analytical test metnod is available at 40
CFR 136.
Monuron is a herbicide which is absorbed by roots and is an
inhibitor of photosynthesis. 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/L at
25°C. An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L at room temperature. An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 136.
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 very soluble in water and forms a yellow
solution (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method
is available at 40 CFR 455.
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).
An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
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
102°C to 103°C. Its solubility in water is 4.8 mg/L
at 24°C. An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR
136.
Niacide is a fungicide. An analytical test method is available
at 40 CFR 455.
Oxamyl is a contact-type insecticide with residual action.
It is applied to foliage and soil. In plants, oxamyl
translocates in both an upward and downward direction. Oxamyl is
IX-35
-------
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 280,000 mg/L at 25°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An
analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
Parathion ethyl and Parathion methyl are nonsystemic contact and
stomach insecticides which have some fumigant action. They
are used as a household spray for ants and cockroaches (McEwen
and Stephenson, 1979). Parathion methyl is a white-crystalline
powder with a melting point of 35 to 36°C. Approximately
60 mg/L of parathion methyl is soluble in water at 25°C.
The technical product is a light to dark tan liquid (Martin
and Worthing, 1977). Analytical test methods for both parathion
ethyl and parathion methyl are available at 40 CFR 136.
PCNB (pentachloronitrobenzene) 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 analytical
test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
PCP salt exists in the form of buff flakes with a solubility in
water of 330,000 mg/L at 25°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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 .pa
practically insoluble in water. Perthane is of moderate
persistence in soil.
An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L at room
temperature (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). An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 455.
IX-36
-------
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. Its
solubility in water is 0.1 mg/L at 20°C. An analytical test
method is available at 40 CFR 136.
Prometon is a nonselective herbicide for the control of annual
and perennial broad-leaved and grass weeds. Prometon is a
white crystalline solid with a melting point of 91 to 92
°C. Its solubility in water is 750 mg/L at 20°C. An
analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L at 20°C. An analytical test
method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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 76°C. Propachlor is
soluble in water at a rate of 700 mg/L at 20°C. Propachlor
persists in the soil from 4 to 6 weeks (Martin and Worthing,
1977). An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
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/L at 20
°C. An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L, 100 mg/L, and 250 mg/L from
20 to 25°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical
test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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
IX-37
-------
point of 84 to 87°C. Propoxur is soluble in water at a
rate of 2000 mg/L at 20°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977).
Propoxur has residual activity for several weeks when applied
indoors (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). An analytical test
method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method
is available at 40 CFR 455.
Secbumeton is a herbicide. It is a colorless powder with a
melting point of 86°C. Its solubility in water is 600 mg/L
at 20"C. It is taken up by leaves and roots and controls
mono- and di-cotyledonous weeds. An analytical test method is
available at 40 CFR 136.
Siduron is a selective herbicide which is used to control
crabgrass and annual weed grasses. It is a white, odorless,
crystalline, solid with a melting point of 133 to
138°C.
Siduron is soluble in water at a rate of 18 mg/L at
An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
25°C.
Silvex are hormone-type herbicides which are absorbed by leaves
and stems and demonstrate translocation properties. They are
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/L at 25
°C. An analytical test method for silvex and its salts and
esters is available at 40 CFR 136.
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 227°C.
Simazine is soluble in water at a rate of 5 mg/L at 20 to
22°C.
An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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
IX-38
-------
point of 82 to 83°C. Simetryne is soluble in water at
a rate of 450 mg/L at room temperature. An analytical test method
is available at 40 CFR 455.
Stirofos is a selective insecticide used to kill insects on
fruit, rice, cotton, corn, and other vegetables. The technical
product is a white crystalline solid with a solubility in water
of 11 mg/L at 20°C. An analytical test method is available
at 40 CFR 40 CFR 455.
Strobane is a poly-chloroterpene insecticide which is
semipersistent in soil and disappears from the surfaces of most
plant tissue within 3 to 4 weeks. Its chemistry and use is
similar to toxaphene. An analytical test method is available at
40 CFR 136.
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. An
analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
2,4,5-T is a
as a foliage
application
2,4,5-T acid
solubility in
water soluble
(Martin and
2,4,5-T, its
herbicide used to kill woody plants. It is applied
dormant shoot, or bark spray. Two methods of
of 2,4,5-T are girdling and direct plant injection.
exists in the form of white crystals with a
water of 278 mg/L at 25°C. 2,4,5-T salts are
however, esters of 2,4,5-T are insoluble in water
Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method for
salts and esters, is available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L at 25°C. Terbacil is
persistent in the soil and has an average half-life of several
months (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). An analytical test method
is available at 40 CFR 455.
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 liquid
with a boiling point of 69°C. Terbufos is soluble in water
at a rate of 10 mg/L to 15 mg/L at room temperature. An
analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
IX-39
-------
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/L at 20°C. An
analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 136.
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/L at
20°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test method
is available at 40 CFR 455.
Triademefon is a systemic fungicide which 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/L at 20 C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test
method is available at 40 CFR 455.
Tributyltin benzoate is a fungicide used mainly on leather and
textiles (Packer, 1975). An analytical test method for tin is
available at 40 CFR 136.
Tributyltin oxide is a fungicide used in lumber, paint, plastics,
and fabrics (Packer, 1975). An analytical test method for tin
is available at 40 CFR 136.
Trichloronate is a nonsystemic insecticide. An analytical test
method is available at 40 CFR 455.
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
1600 mg/L at 25°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical
test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
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/L at 27°C (Martin and Worthing, 1977). Trifluralin is
IX-40
-------
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). An
analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
Vancide 51Z and Vancide 51Z dispersions are fungicides which
contain zinc. An analytical test method for zinc is available at
40 CFR 136.
ZAC is a
application.
455.
nonsystemic fungicide used for foliage
An analytical test method is available at 40 CFR
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/L at room
temperature (Martin and Worthing, 1977). An analytical test
method is available at 40 CFR 455.
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/L at 25°C (Martin and Worthing,
1977). The acute oral LD50 for rats is 1,400
analytical test method is available at 40 CFR 455.
mg/kg. An
IX-41
-------
Table IX-1. Pollutants of Primary Significance
Nonconventional Conventional
Priority Pollutants Pollutants Pollutants
Volatile Arenatics Nonconventional BOD
Benzene pesticides listed in TSS
Chlorobenzene Tables XIII-3 and pH
Toluene are designated noncon-
Halomethanes ventional pollutants of
Carbon tetrachloride primary significance
Chloroform COD
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Cyanides
Cyanides
Phenols
2,4-Dichlorcphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Phenol
Metals
(Arsenic Cadmium)
Copper
Mercury
Zinc
Chlorinated Ethanes
1,2-Di chloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Nitrosamines
N-nitrosodi-n-prcpylamine
Pesticides
BHC-alpha
BHC-beta
BHC-delta
Endosulfan-alpha
Endosulfan-beta
Endrin
Heptachlor
Lindane (BBC-gamma)
Toxaphene
Dienes
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
IX-42
-------
Table IX-2. Pollutants of Dual Significance
Nonconventional Conventional
Priority Pollutants Pollutants Pollutants
Volatile Arcmatics None None
1,2-Dichlorobenzene*
1,4-Dichlorobenzene*
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene*
Haloethers
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ethert
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene
1,3-Dichlorcprcpenet
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.
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-43
-------
Table IX-3. Pollutants of Secondary Significance
Nonconventional Conventional
Priority Pollutants Pollutants Pollutants
Volatile Arena tics Nonconventional None
1,3-Dichlorobenzene pesticides for which
Ethylbenzene approved analytical
Hexachlorobenzene procedures and/or
Halcmethanes adequate technical
Bromoform and economic data are
Chlorodibromcmethane not available
Dichlorobromomethane Ammonia
Haloethers Manganese
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
B is(2-chloroi sopropy1) ether
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Phenols
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2-Nitrcphenol
Parachlorcmetacresol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Nitrosubstitued Aromatics
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Nitrobenzene
Polynuclear Aronatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4-Benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
IX-44
-------
Table IX-3. Pollutants of Secondary Significance (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Priority Pollutants
Priority Pollutants
Metals
Antimony
Beryllium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes
Chloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Hexacnloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichlorothane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Nitros amines
N-ni trosodimethy lami ne
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phthalate Esters
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Pesticides
Aldrin
Chlordene
Dieldrin
4,4'-ODD
4,4'-DEE
4,4'-DDT
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Dienes
Hexachlorobutadi ene
TOO
TCDD
Miscellaneous
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Asbestos
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Isophorone
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
Benzidines
Benzidine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloropropane and
Dichloropropene
1,2-Dichloropropane
IX-45
-------
SECTION X
ANALYTICAL TEST METHODS
BACKGROUND
Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act directs the Agency to
approve analytical methods for the analysis of pollutants. These
methods are used for compliance monitoring and for filing
applications for the NPDES program under 40 CFR 122.60(c) and
122.60(i) and the pretreatment program under 40 CFR 403.7(d).
Without these methods, there would be no universally applicable
procedure for determining the presence and concentration of thec-
pollutants in wastewater.
During the initial data gathering phase in developing these
regulations, analytical test methods had been approved
(promulgated) by the Agency for the conventional pollutants, some
priority pollutants (all metals and some chlorinated organics)
and some nonconventional pesticide pollutants, principally
chlorinated organic pesticides. The Agency also developed
analytical test methods for all organic priority pollutants and
proposed those methods for public review and comment on December
3, 1979 (44 FR 69464). However, in November 1982, the Agency did
not have proposed or promulgated analytical test methods for 85
nonconventional pesticide pollutants ("NCPs") for which effluent
limitations and standards were proposed.
The Agency had acquired data on the presence and concentrations
of these pollutants in wastewater at organic pesticide chemicals
manufacturing facilities, and data for 24 of the NCPs with no
proposed or promulgated analytical method were used to derive
effluent limitations and standards (See Table X-l for a list of
these 24 NCPs). Data on these and other NCPs were submitted by
the industry; to more fully understand these data, the Agency, in
1982, requested industry to provide the analytical test methods
used by industry to generate the data.
X-l.
-------
TABLE X-l
NCPs Where Data Was Used to Develop Effluent Limitations and
Standards But Which Had No Promulgated Method in November 1982
Alachlor Carbendazim Benomyl
Butachlor Dichlorvos KN Methyl
Propachlor Femsulfothion DBCP
Hexazinon Fenthion Maneb
Profluralin Glyphosate Naled
Bolstar Methomyl 2,4-DB
Bromacil Metribuzin Stirofos
Carbofuran Meximphos Dinoseb
Screening and verification sampling was conducted by the Agency
and its contractors at organic pesticide chemicals manufacturing
facilities in 1979 and 1980 to acquire data to identify
pollutants of concern and verify their presence and
concentrations in raw (untreated) and treated wastewater. At
that time, only a limited number of analytical test methods for
NCPs were available. Accordingly, the Agency directed its
contractor, Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., to
develop test methods for those NCPs expected at the facilities
scheduled for sampling. None of the data resulting from use of
the contractor developed test methods was used in developing
effluent limitations guidelines and standards, but it was used to
identify NCPs of concern at individual organic pesticide chemical
manufacturing facilities.
The Agency has assigned the principle responsibility for
developing new analytical methods to its Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory at Cincinnati ("EMSL"). During the period
1980-1982, EMSL developed analytical test methods for 55 NCPs.
These test methods were, with a few exceptions, tested and
validated in at least two matrices, usually reagent water,
pesticides manufacturing industry wastewater, and/or POTW
wastewater. POTW wastewater typically is more complex than
either reagent water or treated industry wastewater.
The EMSL methods were not available during screening and
verification sampling, consequently, none of the EMSL developed
methods generated data which was used to develop effluent
limitations and standards. However, the principle differences
between the EMSL developed methods and the industry and
contractor methods are (1) the EMSL methods contain more detail
about the specific steps to follow, particularly with respect to
elimination of possible and unknown interferences, whereas the
industry and contractor methods include steps to eliminate the
known interferences encountered in the wastewater at the plant
which submitted the method; (2) the EMSL methods were tested and
validated in at least two different wastewaters, whereas the
X-2
-------
industry and contractor methods were validated only in the
treated industry wastewater; and (3) the EMSL methods include
precision and accuracy (P&A) statements, and the method detection
limit ("MDL") is determined in at least one matrix as defined at
40 CFR Part 136, whereas the industry and contractor methods may
not have much of a P&A statement, and the detection limit is
usually estimated based on instrument conditions. In other words
the differences are in the amount of detail in the method rather
than the chemistry of the methods. Many of the industry methods
are very similar to the EMSL methods and the EMSL methods, when
applied to the specific industry wastewaters, would not need the
clean-up steps necessary to remove interferences when the
interferences are not present in the industrial wastewater, or,
alternatively, could incorporate a specific cleanup step as part
of the normal method. In either case, the EMSL method could
become essentially identical to the industry method. Recognizing
the variety of wastewaters which could be encountered, the EMSL
methods allow flexibility for the analyst to exercise
professional judgment to simplify or make minor modifications to
the methods to address individual wastewater matrices, so long as
the modified methods meet performance criteria incorporated in
the methods.
PROPOSED ANALYTICAL TEST METHODS
In response to the Agency's request, in 1982 the industry
submitted 45 analytical test methods for the analysis of 53 NCPs.
No industry methods were submitted for the analysis of Carbam-S
(Dibromochloropropane); Nabam; Niacide; PCP salt (sodium or
potassium pentachlorophenate); Ronnel; or Terbutryn. The
industry methods typically included analysis for only one or two
NCPs (only one method, number 109, included as many as five
pollutants). There were generally two industry methods submitted
for each pollutant, although in several cases only one industry
method was submitted and in some cases three industry methods
were submitted. See Table X-2 for the list of industry methods
submitted and pollutants which can be analyzed by each method.
Note that the industry method for Ethion is very similar to the
method the Agency promulgated for Ethion December 1, 1976 (41 FR
52780).
X-3
-------
TABLE X-2
Industry Methods Proposed February 1983
Method Pollutants
101 Alachlor, Butachlor, Propachlor
102 Alachlor, Butaehlor, Propachlor
103 AOP, Zineb, Ziram, ZAC
104 Benfluralin, Ethalfluralin,
Isopropalin
105 Benomyl, Carbendazim
106 Benomyl, Carbendazim
107 Bentazon
108 Bolstar
109 Bromacil, Hexazinone, Oxamyl,
Methomyl, Terbacil
110 Busan 40, Busan 85, KN-Methyl
111 Carbofuran
112 Chlorobenzilate
113 Chlorpyrrfos, Chlorpyrifos Methyl
114 Couniaphos
115 Cyanazine
116 Cyanazine, Stirofos
117 2,4-DB
118 Deet
119 Mevinphos, Dichlorvos, Naled,
Stirofos
120 Mevinphos, Dichlorvos, Naled,
Stirofos
121 Dinoseb
122 Dinoseb
123 Ethion
124 Etridiazole
125 Fensulfothion
126 Fenthion
127 Glyphosate
128 Mancozeb
129 Maneb
130 Mephosfolam, Phorate, Terbufos
131 Metham
Developed By
Monsanto, No Date
Monsanto, 1979
FMC, No Date
Eli Lilly,
No Date
E.I. duPont, 1981
E.I. duPont, No Date
BASF, 1974
Mobay, No Date
E.I. duPont, 1980
Buckman Laboratories
No Date
FMC, No Date
Ciba-Geigy, 1977
Dow Chemical
No Date
Mobay, No Date
Ciba-Geigy, 1977
Shell, No Date
Rhodia, Inc.
No Date
US EPA, 1973
(Method Not
Promulgated)
Shell, No Date
Shell, No Date
Dow, 1973
Vicksburg Chem.
Co., No Date
FMC, No Date
Olin, No Date
Mobay, No Date
Mobay, No Date
Monsanto, No Date
Rohm & Haas, 1978
E.I. duPont,
No Date
American Cyanamid,
No Date
Stauffer,
No Date
-------
TABLE X-2 continued
page 2 of 2
Method Pollutants Developed By
132 Methomyl Shell, No Date
133 Methomyl Vertac, No Date
134 Mevirphos Amyac, No Date
135 Profluralin Ciba-Geigy, 1977
136 Simetryn Ciba-Geigy, 1977
137 Triademefon Mobay, No Date
138 Trichloromate Mobay, No Date
139 Tricyclazole Eli Lilly, No Date
140 Glyphosate Monsanto, 1980
141 Hexazinome, Terbacil, E.I. duPont, 1980
Bromacil
142 Ziram Fike Chemicals,
1982
143 Propachlor Dow, No Date
144 Fluometuron Ciba-Geigy, 1982
145 Metribuzin Mobay, No Date
X-5
-------
TABLE X-III
Contractor Methods Proposed February 1983
Method Pesticide
401 AOP
401 Perbam
401 Niacide
401 ZAC
401 Zineb
401 Ziram
402 Benomyl
402 Carbendazim
403 Carbofuran
404 Chlorobenzilate
404 Terbutyrn
404 Profluralin
405 2,4-DB
405 2,4-DB isobutyl Ester (2,4-DB IBE)
405 2,4-DB Isoctyl Ester (2,4-DB IOE)
406 Dinoseb
407 Dinoseb
408 Methomyl
409 Cyanazine
X-6
-------
The Agency's contractor developed nine analytical test methods
for the analysis of 18 NCPs. All but five of these 18 NCPs also
had industry methods. (Contractor methods, but not industry
methods were available for Ferbam, Niacide, 2,4-DB isobutyl
ester; 2,4-DB isooctyl ester; and terbutryn). Most contractor
methods included only one NCP, but Method 401 included six NCPs,
all of which are dithiocarbamates. The analytical method for all
six is based on the reaction of each with caustic to generate
carbon disulfide ("CS2) which is then detected and the amount
generated is determined as a measure of the amount of
dithiocarbamate in the sample. See Table X-3 for a list of
contractor methods submitted and the pollutants of which were
analyzed by each method.
EMSL developed 15 analytical test methods for the analysis of 59
NCPs. Most of the 59 NCPs were also included in the industry or
contractor methods; however, no EMSL methods are available for
five NCPs, (Alachlor, Butachlor, Bentazone, Glyphosate, and
Terbufos) and there no industry or contractor methods were
submitted for the analysis of seven NCPs (PCP salt, DBCP,
Carbophenothion, Ronnel, Carbarn S, Dichloofenthion, and
Dioxathion. Of these seven, analytical methods had been
promulgated for Carbophenothion, Dichlorofenthion, and Dioxathion
in December 1976. The promulgated methods were essentially the
same as those received from EMSL in 1982).
The Agency proposed all 69 analytical test methods for the
analysis of 66 NCPs on February 10, 1983 (48 FR 6250). In its
proposal, the Agency stated that in some cases analytical methods
from three sources (industry, contractor, and EMSL) were proposed
for one NCP. The Agency stated that it presented all available
methods for public comment and that it intended to select the
most appropriate method or methods for promulgation. The Agency
did not intend to propose analytical test methods for NCPs for
which an Agency approved method had already been promulgated.
However, four test methods were proposed which included only NCPs
with promulgated analytical test methods (Methods 123 and 614 for
Ethion; Methods 617 and 701 for Carbophenothion; and Method 701
for Dioxathion and Dichlofenthion).
During the comment period for the proposed analytical methods,
industry submitted 25 additional analytical methods for the
Agency's consideration, several of which were to be in place of
methods previously submitted by the industry (104A, 105A, 107A,
116A and B, and 140A), three (102A, 107B, and 107C) were to be in
addition to the methods previously submitted, and eight were
methods for NCPs not included in the methods previously submitted
by industry. The rest of the methods submitted by industry are
the 800 series of methods listed below and in Table X-4.
X-7
-------
In its June 1984 NOA (49 FR 24492, June 13, 1984)f the Agency
stated that it was considering promulgating one or more of the 18
"800" series methods submitted by industry (see Table X-4); five
of those 800 series methods were rejected by the Agency and were
not included in the June 1984 NOA. Those five methods and the
reasons they were rejected are:
(a) Method 812 - A thin-layer chromatography method
(Prometon) with poor precision and lack of
quantitative and qualitative accurcy
(b) Method 813 - The method is non-selective for
(Triazines, specific triazine compounds, and has
Total) no clean-up step even though it is
susceptible to interferences
(c) Method 814 - This method is a preliminary write-up
(Atrazine, Simazine, of method 409; the full procedure was
Propazine) proposed in February 1983
(d) Method 816 and - Information submitted was insufficient
and Method 818 for evaluation. No complete analytical
procedures were presented. The available
material consisted of letters and other
correspondance with a few general
experimental details.
Of the revised methods submitted by industry (the "A" and "B"
methods such as 104A, etc.) only method 107B was included in the
June 1984 NOA as method 817.
TABLE X-4
Methods Proposed June 1984
Method Pollutant
801 2f4-D
802 Demeton
803 Azinphos methyl
804 Disulfoton
805 Diazinon
806 Parathion methyl
807 Parathion methyl,
Parathion ethyl
808 Atrazine
809 Ethoprop
810 2f4-D
811 Dicofol
815 Trifluralin
817 Bentazone (Same as 107B)
X-8
-------
Selection of Analytical Methods for Promulgation
The Agency evaluated all 82 analytical methods proposed in
February 1983 and June 1984 and each of the modifications
received in comments, but the Agency did not evaluate methods
812, 813, 814, 816, and 818. Key factors evaluated were (1)
instrumentation required for the method; (2) multianalyte
capability; (3) clean-up procedures; (4) performance
characteristics (including detection limit, recovery of spikes
from samples, precision, interferences, and calibration
methodology) (5) holding time and sample preservation; and (6)
miscellaneous characteristics including complexity of method,
safety hazards, and cost considerations). Each of the methods
was reviewed and evaluated by each of several experienced
analytical chemists who assigned points to each of the key
factors for each method, based on their professional judgment.
The point scores for each key factor were then averaged for each
reviewer for each method reviewed and then totaled for each
method. The total score for each method was tabulated, and the
complete table was placed in the public record for the June 1984
NOA. In making its final selection of methods for promulgation,
the Agency has used the numerical scores of the evaluation of the
methods as a guide to identify items of major deficiencies within
each method but has not used the numerical score itself as a
selecting criterion. Thus, while most of the selected methods
received total scores of 800 or more, whether or not a method
received a score of 800 was neither necessary nor a sufficient
requirement for selection. The Agency considered the following
factors of major importance, for the reasons given following each
factor.
First, the analytical methods must be used by pesticide chemicals
manufacturers, by pesticide chemicals formulators and packagers,
by POTWs, and by State and Federal regulatory agencies. Sample
types would include treated pesticide chemicals manufacturing
wastewater, treated or untreated wastewater from PFP facilities
most of which formulate and package a variety of non-pesticide
materials, and both untreated and treated municipal wastewaters,
which again would arise from a variety of sources, including many
non-pesticide sources. Therefore, the methods must be capable of
analyzing accurately a variety of wastewater types ("matrices").
Ideally, the method should include detailed procedures to reduce
or eliminate any interferences which may be encountered.
Alternatively, the method should include at least information or
guidance for reduction or elimination of the most commonly
expected interferences, and the flexibility for the analyst to
use professional judgment for the analysis of complex matrices.
Second, the effluent limitations and standards applicable to much
of the pesticide industry require no discharge of pesticide
X-9
-------
active ingredients; the facilities so regulated, however, could
discharge wastewater, so long as they can demonstrate that the
wastewater contains no pesticide active ingredient. That
demonstration would involve the analysis of samples
representative of the discharge for the presence of pesticide
active ingredients. Accordingly, the methods should have a
statement of the method detection limit ("MDL") determined in
several wastewaters. The MDL is defined at 40 CFR Part 136
Appendix B. The MDL is defined as the minimum concentration of a
substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent
confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero.
The MDL is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix
containing the analyte. A method that has a statement of the MDL
even if the MDL was only determined in reagent water, contains
some confidence that an analytical result of "not detected" means
the pollutant is not present in the wastewater, at least not
above the MDL.
Third, the method should not only contain a statement of the MDL,
but should also have a "low" MDL, that is, where two methods
exist for the same pollutant, and both have a statement of the
MDL, the method with the lowest MDL was considered to be the
better method.
Fourth, the method should have a statement of the precision and
accuracy (standard deviation of duplicate analysis and percent
recovery of spiked samples) for the analytes, in a variety of
wastewaters. Using this information, an analyst can determine if
the method is being applied properly. Additionally, in some
cases modifications to the methods may be necessary to adapt to
specific matrices. The analyst needs to have a statement of the
precision and accuracy for the unmodified method for comparison
to the precision and accuracy found for the method as modified to
judge whether the results obtained are adequate.
Finally, the method should be written clearly and completely, so
the method may be readily used by analysts who are not dedicated
solely to pesticides analyses. The method should have at least
general information on safety precautions, reagents and glassware
necessary, and calculations needed to generate the final result
to be reported. Each of these is important for analysts starting
to use an unfamiliar method, but may be easily overlooked in
methods normally used for analysis of only one type of
wastewater.
Considering all of these factors, the Agency has promulgated 14
analytical test methods for NCPs. These 14 methods are presented
in Table X-5. Ten of the 14 analytical test methods are EMSL-
developed methods. When compared to the other methods proposed,
the EMSL methods were generally more complete, containing
detailed sections on safety, reagents and glassware, and
X-10
-------
calculations. The EMSL methods contained a statement of the MDL
in at least one wastewater, the precision and accuracy for at
least one wastewater, and were the most sensitive, that is, they
have the lowest MDL, when a contractor or industry method had an
MDL (usually, neither the contractor nor the industry method
provided an MDL). The EMSL methods also provided information on
clean-up and separation procedures for the reduction or
elimination of interferences. In most cases,such information was
absent or extremely brief for the industry and contractor
developed methods. Four industry developed methods are
promulgated. They are methods 102, 107A, 130, and 140A. In all
four cases, no EMSL-developed method was available for the
pollutants analyzed by the methods, hence the industry methods
were promulgated even though there were some deficiencies in
information, so that a method would be available.
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION/REJECTION OF EACH METHOD
This section describes briefly the reason(s) for selecting or
rejecting each method.
1. Methods 101, 102, 102A, and 143 for analysis of Alachlor,
Butachlor, and Propachlor (Method 143 is for propachlor only).
All three methods were submitted by Monsanto. Method 101 is an
early version of method 102, which is more complete and more
recent than method 101. Method 102A is a method submitted by
Monsanto in its comments on the proposed methods. Monsanto
requested that method 102A be in addition to method 102, method
102A is not a revision of method 102 but is an entirely different
method. Method 102A is more experimental than method 102, hence
the Agency did not propose method 102A in the June 1984 NOA
because method 102 is believed to be adequate, validated, and
with adequate precision, accuracy, and detection limit. Method
143 uses a flame ionization detection ("FID") which is not as
sensitive to chlorinated herbicides as the electron capture
detection ("BCD") used by method 102. Hence, method 102 was
selected and the other three methods were rejected.
2. Methods 103, 110, 128, 129, 131, 142, 401, and 630 for the
analysis of AOP, Busan 40, Busan 85, Carbam-S, Ferbam, KN Methyl,
Mancozeb, Maneb, Metham, Nabam, Niacide, ZAC, Zineb, and Ziram:
these pesticides are all metal dithiocarbamates. Methods 103,
129, 142, 401, and 630 all hydrolyze the dithiocarbamate to
CS2 and measure the amount of CS2 evolved as a measure of
the amount of pesticide in the wastewater. The analytical
procedures described in each of those 5 methods is similar, but
method 630 clearly applies to all 14 dithiocarbamates, whereas
each of the other 4 names only some of the 14 pesticides. Hence,
method 630 is the best of the five. Method 110 is a thin-layer
chromatography method with poorly defined precision and accuracy,
a detection limit of one part per million (ppm) compared to the
x-n
-------
0.025 ppm MDL obtained by method 630. Moreover, method 110 is
very incomplete; the method does not even describe what reagents
to use. Methods 128 and 131 are gas chromatographic (GC) methods
for specific dithiocarbamates, one (method 128) uses GC to detect
the CS2 evolved during hydrolysis while the other (method
131) uses GC to detect methyisothiocyanate evolved during
hydrolysis. Neither method provides sufficient information on
clean-up and separation procedures, likely interferences, or
precision and accuracy. Hence, method 630 was selected and the
other seven methods were rejected.
3. Methods 104, 104A, 135, 404, and 627 for the analysis of
Benfluralin, Ethalfluralin, and Isopropalin (methods 104 and
627), and Profluralin (methods 135, 404, and 627).
Method 135 is a thin-layer chromatography method which is
insensitive (detection limit of 6 ppm). Method 404 is
imcomplete, with no information on interferences, clean-up
procedures, and calculations, and insufficient information on
calibration procedures and quality control. Methods 104, 104A,
and 627 appear to be similar but method 627 has more complete
information on interferences and procedures to reduce or
eliminate the interference, and more complete information on MDL,
precision and accuracy. In addition, method 627 includes four
analytes, method 104 and 104A only three analytes. Therefore,
method 627 was promulgated.
4. Methods 105, 105A, 106, 402, and 631 for Benomyl and
Carbendazim: All five methods are high performance liquid
chromatography ("HPLC") methods. Method 106 is an early version
of method 105 which is used at one industrial facility but has
not been demonstrated in other wastewaters. Method 402 reports a
detection limit of 0.10 ppm and does not contain information on
interferences, calibration, quality control, or calculations and
therefore must be considered too incomplete and insensitive for
general use. Method 105 has a reported detection limit of 0.08
ppm but has no information on interferences and clean-up
procedures. Method 631 has a MDL of .009 ppm and includes
information on interferences and clean-up procedures. The
precision and accuracy were determined in two wastewaters.
Therefore, method 631 was promulgated, and methods 105, 106, and
402 were withdrawn.
5. Methods 107, 107A, 107B, and 817 for Bentazon. Method 107A
adds more detail to method 107 including some revisions to the
procedures to eliminate some interferences. BASF, the submitter
of all four methods, requested 107 be withdrawn and replaced with
method 107A. BASF also requested methods 107B and 817 be
promulgated. Method 817 is significantly different from method
107, and 107A, and 107B and is considerably less sensitive, with
a detection limit of 1 ppm. Method 107B is an extension of
X-12
-------
methods 107 and 107A in that it uses GC/MS rather than GC with
FID, but method 107B does not have complete information on the
precision and accuracy that can be obtained whereas method 107A
is very similar to method 107 and can be expected to yield equal
or better results than those reported for method 107. Therefore,
method 107A is promulgated because method 107 was withdrawn by
the submitter, method 107B needs more information, and method 817
is insensitive.
6. Methods 108(Bolstar), 113(Chlorpyrifos, Chlorpyrifos
Methyl), 114(Coumaphos), 116(Stirofos), 116A(Stirofos),
119(Dichlorvos, Naled, Mevinphos, Stirofos), 120(Dichlorvos,
Naled, Mevinphos, Stirofos), 125(Fensulfothion), 126(Fenthion),
134(Mevinphos), 138(Trichloronate), and 622 (Bolstar,
Chlorpyrifos, Chlorpyrifos methyl, Coumaphos, Dichlorvos,
Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Mevinphos, Naled, Phosate, Ronnel,
Stirofos, and Trichloronate). All of these pesticides are
organo-phosphorus pesticides. Method 116 is an HPLC method which
was withdrawn by the submitter and replaced with Method 116A.
Method 116A provides an estimated detection limit of 0.010 ppm
for stirofos whereas method 622 has an MDL of 0.005 ppm and is
applicable to 13 organophosphorus pesticides while method 116A is
applicable to only Stirofos. Methods 108, 114, 120, 125, 126,
134 and 138 have no information on precision and accuracy and
contain other information deficiencies as well. Method 113 is
incomplete because it does not have information on interferences
and has no clean-up and separation procedures. Method 119 has
detection limits of .002 to .010 ppm whereas method 622 has MDLs
of .0001 to .005 ppm. Accordingly, method 622 is promulgated and
methods 108, 113, 114, 116, 119, 120, 125, 126, 134, and 138 are
withdrawn.
7. Methods 109 (Oxamyl, Methomyl, Bromacil, Hexazinone,
Terbacil), 111 (Carbofuran), 118 (DEET), 132 and 132A (Methomyl),
133 (Methomyl), 137 (Triadimefon), 139 (Tricyclazole), 141
(Bromacil, Hexazinone, Terbacil), 144 (Fluometurom), 145
(Metribuzin), 403 (Carbofuran), 408 (Methomyl), 632 (Carbofuran,
Fluometuron, Methomyl, Oxomyl) and 633 (Bromacil, DEET,
Hexazinone, Metribuzin, Terbacil, Triadimefon, Tricyclazole).
These pesticides contain nitrogen and are of borderline
volatility for analysis by GC, thus the wide variation in
methods. Methods 137 for Triadimefon and 144 for Fluometuron are
thin-layer chromatography ("TLC") methods which are insensitive
and imprecise. Method 111 for Carbofuran does not provide
information on interferences, clean-up and separation, detection
limit, precision or accuracy. Method 403 for Carbofuran reports
a detection limit of 0.025 ppm whereas method 632 has a MDL of
0.004 ppm for Carbofuran. Hence, the Agency promulgated method
632 for Carbofuram, Fluormeturon, Methomyl and Oxamyl. Method
109 does not report detection limits, precision or accuracy for
any of the pesticides. Methods 132, 132A, 133, and 408 for
X-13
-------
Methomyl have detection limits that are too high (0.10 ppm, 0.010
ppm 0.10 ppm, and 1 ppm respectively) and have incomplete
information on interferences clean-up and separation procedures.
Method 118 for DEBT is incomplete because it does not have
information on interferences, calibration, clean-up and
separation, calculations, detection limit, precision or accuracy.
Method 139 does not have information on interferences and clean-
up and separation procedures, and has been tested in only one
wastewater. Method 141 also does not have information on
interferences, clean-up and separation procedures, and each of
the three pesticides requires different instrument conditions.
Method 145 for metribuzin does not provide detection limits,
precision or accuracy information. Method 633 has MOL of 0.004
ppm or less and has been tested by EPA in two wastewaters. In
addition, one commenter tested the method extensively and
reported excellant, reproducable results. Accordingly, Method
633 is promulgated. Methods 109, 111, 118, 132, 133, 137, 139,
141, 144, 145, 403 and 408 are withdrawn.
8. Methods 112 (chlorobenzilate), 124 (Etridiazole), 404
(Chlorobenzilate, Terbutryn, and Profluralin), and 608.1
(Chlorobenzilate, Etridiazole, Propachlor, and DBCP). Method 112
is a TLC method that is insensitive and imprecise. Method 124
has no information on interferences, clean-up and separation,
detection limit, or precision and accuracy. Method 404 has no
information on interferences, precision or accuracy, and has a
detection limit of 0.2 ppm. Method 608.1 has a MDL of 0.001 ppm
or less. Therefore, method 608.1 is promulgated and methods 112,
124, and 404 are withdrawn. (Note that method 102 is also
promulgated for the analysis of propachlor).
9. Methods 115, 116, 116A, 409, and 629 for Cyanazine. Method
115 is a TLC method that is too insensitive and imprecise.
Method 116 was withdrawn by the submitter and replaced by method
116A. Method 116A has a detection limit of 0.050 ppm, Method 409
has a detection limit of 0.14 ppm, whereas Method 629 has a MDL
of 0.006 ppm and has been tested in four different wastewaters.
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating method 629 and withdrawing
methods 115, 116, and 409.
10. Method 117(2,4-DB), 121(Dinoseb), 122(Dinoseb), 405 (2,4-DB,
2,4-DB isobutyl ester, 2,4-DB isoctyl ester), 406(Dinoseb), 407
(Dinoseb) and 615 (2,4-DB, 2,4-DB esters, and Dinoseb). These
chlorinated herbicides are best determined by GC/ECD (electron
captive detectors). Methods 117, 122, 406, and 407 are too
insensitive, with detection limits of 1 ppm, 0.1 ppm, 0.2 ppm,
and 0.2 ppm, respectively. Method 121 does not include
information on interferences, clean-up and separation, detection
limit, or precision and accuracy. Method 615 includes that
information and has MDLs of 0.001 ppm or less. Therefore, the
X-14
-------
Agency is promulgating method 615 and withdrawing methods 117,
121, 122, 405, 406, and 407.
11. Methods 123(Ethion), 614 (Ethion), 617 (Carbophenothion),
701 (Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Carbophenothion), 801 (2,4-D),
802(Demeton), 803 (Azinphos Methyl), 804 (Disulfoton), 805
(Oiazinon), 806(Parathion Methyl), 807 (Parathion Methyl,
Parathion Ethyl), 808 (Strobane), 810 (2,4-D), 811 (Dicofol), and
815 (Trifluralin). All these methods include only NCPs for
which analytical test methods were promulgated in December 1976.
The Agency had not intended to propose alternate methods for
those methods. Therefore, the Agency is withdrawing them under
40 CFR Part 455.
12. Methods 127, 140, and 140A - Glyphosate. All three methods
were developed by Monsanto. Method 127 is an early version of
method 140. Monsanto developed method 140 using a synthetic
wastewater. Monsanto reported in its comments on the proposed
analytical methods that the use of method 140 on actual treated
wastewater did not give reproducible results because a clean-up
step was necessary to eliminate interferences. Method 140A
includes this clean-up step. Accordingly, the Agency is
promulgating method 140A because it supercedes method 140, which
Monsanto determined could not be applied to real wastewater, and
the Agency is also withdrawing method 127 because it also has
been superceded by method 140A.
13. Method 130 (Mephosfolan, Phorate, and Terbufos)
There are no other methods available for Mephosfolan or Terbufos,
and Method 130 includes information on interferences and reports
a detection limit of .005 to 0.025 ppm using an aklaki-flame
ionization detector. The method does not include precision and
accuracy information, however; good quality control and
maintenance of records is essential. Note that method 622 has
also been promulgated for analysis for Phorate.
X-15
-------
14. Methods 136 (Simetryne) and 619 (Simetryne, Terbutryn).
Method 136 is a TLC method that is insensitive and imprecise.
Method 619 has a MDL of 0.00007 ppm or less, and has been tested
in two wastewaters. Therefore, the Agency is promulgating method
619 and withdrawing method 136.
15. Method 809-Ethoprop. This method is not a water method but
instead is a method for determining the purity of the pesticide.
The method uses a 1 gram sample, which is about 1 milliter. That
small a volume cannot be accurately analyzed for trace quantities
by the method as written.
16. Method 604 and 625 for PCP salt. These two methods were
promulgated as part of 40 CFR Part 136 on October 26, 1984 (49 FR
43234). Therefore, they are not promulgated as part of 40 CFR
Part 455.
The analytical test methods promulgated at 40 CFR 455 are shown
in Table X-5. Table X-6 presents the analytical test methods for
NCPs promulgated at 40 CFR 136. Table X-7 presents priority
pollutant pesticides, all of which have analytical test methods
promulgated at 40 CFR 136.
-------
TABLE X-5
Analytical Test Methods Promulgated at 40 CPR 455
Method
102
107A
130
140A
608.1
615
619
622
627
629
630
631
632
633
Pollutants
Alachlor, Butachlor, Propachlor
Bentazon
Mephosfolan, Phorate, Terbufos
Glyphosate
Chlorobenzilate, Etridiazole,
Propachlor, DBCP
2,4-DB; 2,4-DB isobutyl ester;
2,4-DB isooctyl ester; Dinoseb
Simetryn, Terbutryn
Bolstar, Chlorpyrifos, Chlorpyrifos
Methyl, Coumaphos, Dichlorvos,
Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Mevinphos,
Naled, Phorate, Ronnel, Stirofos,
Trichloronate
Benfluralin, Ethalfluralin,
Isopropalin, Profluralin
Cyanazine
AOP, Busan 40, Busan 85, Carbam-S,
Ferbam, KN Methyl, Mancozeb, Maneb,
Metham, Nabam, Niacide, ZAC, Zineb,
Ziram
Benomyl, Carbendazim
Carbofuran, Fluometuron, Methomyl
Oxamyl
Bromacil, Deet, Hexazinone,
Metribuzin, Terbacil, Triadimefon,
Tricyclazole
-------
TABLE X-6
NCPs With Analytical Test Methods
Promulgated at 40 CPR 136
1. Ametryn 28.
2. Aminocarb 29.
3. Atraton 30.
4. Atrazine 31.
5. Azinphos methyl 32.
6. Barban 33.
7. Captan 34.
8. Carbaryl 35.
9. Carbophenothion 36.
10. Chloropropham 37.
11. 2,4-D and its esters & salts 38.
12. Demeton-O 39.
13. Demeton-S 40.
14. Oiazinon 41.
15. Dicamba 42.
16. Dichlofenthion 43.
17. Dichloram 44.
18. Dicofol 45.
19. Dioxathion 46.
20. Disulfoton 47.
21. Diuron 48.
22. Ethion 49.
23. Penuron 50.
24. Fenuron-TCA
25. Isodrin 51.
26. Linuron 52.
27. Malathion
Methiocarb
Methoxychlor
Mexacarbate
Mirex
Monuron
Monuron-TCA
Neburon
Parathion methyl
Parathion ethyl
PCNB
Perthane
Prometon
Prometryn
Propazine
Propham
Propoxur
Secbumeton
Siduron
Simazine
Strobane
Swep
2,4,5-T and its esters and salt
2,4,5-TP(Silvex) and its esters
and salts
Terbuthylazine
Trifluralin
X-18
-------
TABLE X-7
Priority Pollutant Pesticides
Analytical Test Methods Promulgated
at 40 CFR 136
1. Aldrin
2. alpha-BHC
3. beta-BHC
4. delta-BHC
5. gamma-BHC (Lindane)
6. 4,4'-ODD
7. 4,4'-DDE
8. 4,4'-DDT
9. Dieldrin
10. Endosulfan I
11. Endosulfan II
12. Endosulfan Sulfate
13. Endrin
14. Endrin Aldehyde
15. Heptachlor
16. Heptachlor epoxide
17. Toxaphene
18. Chlordane
19. Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
20. Chlorobenzene
21. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
22. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
23. 1,2-Dichloropropane
24. cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
25. trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
26. 1,3-Dichloropropene
27. Dimethyl Phthalate
28. Hexachlorobenzene
29. Methylbromide
30. Napthalene
31. Pentachlorophenol ("PCP")
and its salts
32. Trichlorobenzene
-------
SECTION XI
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT) for the treatment and control of process
wastewater generated within the Pesticides Chemicals Category.
BAT represents the best existing economically achievable
performance of plants of various ages, sizes, processes or other
shared characteristics.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 required that BAT
represent reasonable further progress (beyond BPT) toward
eliminating the discharge of all pollutants. In fact,
elimination of discharge of all pollutants is required if
technologically and economically achievable. The Clean Water Act
of 1977 specifically defined both the conventional and toxic
pollutants that must be regulated (See Section IX of this
document for identification of these pollutants) and also
established a class of nonconventional pollutants for regulation.
BAT has been further defined as the very best control and
treatment technology within a subcategory or a superior
technology transferred from other industrial subcategories or
categories. This definition encompasses in-plant process
improvements as well as more effective end-of-pipe treatment.
IDENTIFICATION OF BAT
The BAT technologies for the organic pesticide chemicals
manufacturing subcategory of physical chemical treatment (steam
stripping, pesticide removal, chemical oxidation and/or metals
separation) followed by biological treatment are discussed in
Section VI of this document. For the 23 priority pollutants and
50 nonconventional pesticides listed in Table XI-1, the BAT
technology is physical/chemical treatment followed by biological
treatment. For the 9 priority pollutants and 33 nonconventional
pesticides listed in Table XI-1, the BAT technology is
physical/chemical treatment. As discussed in Section VI, the
recommended physical/chemical treatment varies depending upon the
specific pollutants associated with a pesticide manufacturing
process. Plants manufacturing two priority pollutant and six
nonconventional pollutant pesticides do not discharge any
wastewaters. The plants manufacturing the six nonconventional
pollutant pesticides do not generate any wastewater, therefore
XI-1
-------
there is no treatment technology required. One priority
pollutant manufacturer does not generate wastewater and the other
employs total evaporation to eliminate a point source wastewater
discharge.
The BAT treatment systems (defined in Section VI) are adequate to
achieve the BAT effluent limitations. However, a plant may elect
to supplement this system with other equipment or use an entirely
different treatment technique in order to attain the BAT
limitations. Alternative technologies (both end-of-pipe and in-
process) are described in Section VI of this document.
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF BAT
The BAT treatment system identified previously was selected
because it has been proven in pesticides plants to represent a
well demonstrated, reliable technology which achieves a high
degree of toxic and nonconventional pesticide pollutant removal.
This is demonstrated by the BAT system performance described in
Section VI.
Although demonstration of BAT at a single plant is adequate for
its selection, the selected BAT technologies are employed at many
pesticides plants. Twenty plants currently employ steam
stripping, chemical oxidation or metals separation. Twenty-nine
plants currently employ adsorption or hydrolysis. Thirty-two
plants employ biological treatment. Adsorption onto activated
carbon have been demonstrated to be effective at 17 plants,
although far less frequently than the identified BAT
technologies.
The costs and nonwater quality environmental aspects of these
technologies are presented in Section VIII.
The BAT effluent limitations guidelines for subcategory 1 are
presented in Section XIV.
The development of these effluent limitations from performance
measurements of existing BAT systems is described in Section XIV.
The statistical rationale used in developing these limitations is
presented in Section XIV and expanded in a separate report
entitled "Limitations and Standards Methodology for the Pesticide
Chemicals Industry, August 10, 1985.
The Agency is not promulgating BAT for the metallo-organic
pesticide chemicals manufacturing or the pesticide chemicals
formulating and packaging subcategories but instead is excluding
XI-2
-------
these two subcategories from further national BAT regulation
development under paragraph 8(a)(i) of the NRDC y_^ Train consent
decree because effluent limitations guidelines no more stringent
than BPT could be established. BPT for both subcategories
requires no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
BENEFITS OF BAT IMPLEMENTATION
The estimated environmental benefits of the application of the
selected BAT model technology is the removal of 0.74 million
kg/yr (1.63 million Ib/yr) of pollutants from current discharge,
including 0.42 million kg/yr (0.92 million Ib/yr) of priority
pollutants.
XI-3
-------
TABUB XI-1
Treatment
Technology
(1) Ethical/Chemical
Treatment Technology
x
M
I
(2) Physical/Chenical
Plus Bio Treatment
Technology
MODEL
Priority
Pollutants
TEOWaUOfflf FOR BAT
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Methyl bromide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Hethylene chloride
Cyanide
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Copper
Zinc
N-Ni trosodi-n-prcpylwii ne
Bexachlorocyclopentadiene
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Phenol
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
**Non-Conventional
Pesticides
Busan 40
Busan 85
Carbam-S
Carbophenthion
Chlorpropham
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos-mBthyl
Coumaphos
CBCP
Dioxathion
Ferbam
KN-methyl
Mancozeb
Maneb
Methatn
Niacide
Alachlor
Atrazine
Azinphos methyl
Benfluralin
Benonyl
Bolstar
Bromacil
Butachlor
Carbendazim
Carbofuran
Dematon-0
Dematon-S
Dene ton
Diaz iron
Dichlofenthion
Dichlorvos
Dinoseb
Disulfoton
Diuron
Ethalfluralin
Ethion
Fensulfothion
Fenthion
Fluonsturon
Glyphosate
Isopropalin
Linuron
FOB
POP salt
Ronnel
Silvex
Stirofos
Swep
Trichloronate
ZAC
Zineb
2,4-D
2,4-D IB ester
2,4-D IO ester
2,4-DB
2,4-DB IB ester
2,4-DB 10 ester
2,4, W
Halathion
Hethonyl
Netribuzin
Hevinphos
Neburon
Oxanyl
Parathion ethyl
Parath'ion methyl
Pnorate
Profluralin
Proraeton
Pnanetryn
Propachlor
Propazine
Propham
Propoxur
Siraazine
Siraetryn
Terbacil
TerbuCos
Terbuthylazine
Terbutryn
Trifluralin
23 Priority Pollutants **ere BST = P/C & Bio
2 Priority Pollutants where BKT » No discharge
(1,3-Dichloropropene and Bis {2-Chloroethyl Ether)
** 6 NCP's where BKT - No discharge (Barban, SilveK isooctylester,
Silvex salt, Tributyltin benzoate, Vancide 512, Vancide 512 dispersion)
-------
SECTION XII
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the new source performance standards
(NSPS) for the treatment and control of process wastewaters
generated within the Pesticides Manufacturing Category. NSPS
reflects existing treatment and control practices or
demonstrations that are not necessarily in common practice.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 required that
NSPS represent the best available demonstrated control
technology, processes, and operating methods. Where practicable,
no pollutant discharge at all is to be allowed. Where pollutant
discharge is unavoidable, these standards are to represent the
greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable. They apply to
new sources, which are defined as any building, structure,
facility, or installation that discharge pollutants and for which
construction is started after promulgation of the standards.
New direct discharge organic pesticide chemicals manufacturers,
and pesticide chemicals formulator/packagers, 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
technologies which reduce pollution to the maximum extent
feasible.
NSPS for organic pesticide chemicals manufacturers includes 89
nonconventional pesticide and 34 priority pollutants regulated
under BAT, and the conventional pollutants BOD, TSS and pH and
COD regulated under BPT. For subcategory 2 the Agency is not
promulgating a NSPS pending further analysis of appropriate NSPS
technologies. For subcategory 3, NSPS applies to process
wastewaters resulting from formulating and packaging of the 147
organic pesticide chemicals which have an available analytical
method plus vancide 51Z, vancide 51Z dispersion (which contain
zinc), and metallo-organic pesticide chemicals containing
arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury and tin, where the pesticide
may be detected by analyzing for the metal.
XII-i
-------
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TECHNOLOGY
Data from existing organic pesticide chemicals manufacturing
plants were used to define a model direct discharger for
subcategory 1. Average subcategory production and discharge flow
rates were used to define the model plant. For subcategory 3,
two model new source plants were defined, one based on the
average of existing high flow plants and the other based on the
average of existing low flow plants.
The technology basis for NSPS for subcategory 1 is
physical/chemical treatment followed by biological treatment for
23 priority pollutants and 49 nonconvenitonal pesticide
pollutants and physical/chemical treatment alone for 11 priority
pollutants and 34 nonconventional pesticide pollutants. These
technologies are identical to those selected for BAT. The
rationale for selection of these technologies is given in Section
IX. The Agency is promulgating effluent limitations based on the
BAT technology because no additional technology which removes
significant additional quantities of pollutants is known. The
NSPS effluent limitations for subcategory 1 are given in Section
XIV.
The technology basis for NSPS for subcategory 3 is contract
hauling and incineration for all plants except those where the
wastewater flows are high enough that physical/chemical treatment
and recycle/reuse, with contract hauling and incineration of
treatment system residues, is less expensive than contract
hauling. This technology is the same as the technology selected
for PSES (See Section XIII for the rationale for selecting that
technology).
The Agency is promulgating NSPS based on the PSES technology
because no additional technology which removes significant
additional quantities of pollutants is known. The NSPS require
no discharge of process wastewater pollutants in process
wastewaters resulting from the formulating and packaging of any
of 147 organic pesticide chemicals, Vancide 51Z, Vancide 51Z
dispersion, and metallo-organic pesticide chemicals containing
arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury, and tin. (See Section XIII
for a list of the 147 organic pesticide chemicals).
XII-2
-------
SECTION XIII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES) and the pretreatment standards for new sources
(PSNS) for the treatment of process wastewaters generated within
the Pesticide Chemical Subcategories and discharged to publicly
owned treatment works (POTW). These standards are intended to
provide an equivalent degree of toxic organic pollutant, toxic
metal pollutants, and nonconventional pesticide pollutant removal
as provided by direct discharge limitations.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 stated that the
pretreatment standards shall prevent the discharge to a POTW of
any pollutant that may interfere with, pass through, or otherwise
be incompatible with the POTW. The Clean Water Act Amendments of
1977 further stipulated that industrial discharges must not
interfere with use and disposal of municipal sludges and further
that the discharge from the POTW must not be greater than the
direct discharge limitations . In accordance with the Clean
Water Act, individual POTWs may specify more stringent standards
or (after meeting specified criteria) may relax the standards
presented here.
IDENTIFICATION OF PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
The pretreatment technology for PSES for the Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing is presented in Table XIII-1 for each
regulated pollutant. The pretreatment technology for PSES for
the Metallo-Organic Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing and
Pesticide Chemicals Formulgating and Packaging subcategories are
given in Table XIII-2.
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Toxic organic, metals, and nonconventional pesticide pollutants
may pass through a POTW or they may contaminate the sludge or
they may interfere with the treatment process. These pollutants
must therefore be controlled by pretreatment. (See Section V
B(3) of the preamble to the regulation).
XIII-1
-------
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Pretreatment standards for existing (PSES) and new sources (PSNS)
for the organic pesticide chemicals manufacturing subcategory are
the same as BAT for all pollutants except six priority pollutants
which are not regulated. A detailed discussion as to why these
pollutants were not regulated is in the preamble to the final
regulation. These standards are given in Section XIV.
The pretreatment standards for the metallo-organic pesticide
manufacturing subcategory are the same as the existing BPT
limitation of no discharge of process wastewater pollutants from
the manufacture of metallo-organic pesticides containing
cadmium, arsenic or copper. A discharge standard based on zinc
precipitation is specified for the manufacture of mercury
metallo-organic pesticides products. These standards are given
in Section XV.
The pretreatment standards for the pesticide chemicals
formulating and packaging subcategory are no discharge of
priority pollutants or the pesticide active ingredients listed in
Appendix D of the regulation in process wastewater resulting from
the formulating and packaging of any of the pesticide active
ingredients listed in Appendix D of the regulation. Appendix D
lists 147 organic pesticide chemicals with available analytical
test methods and the zinc metal-containing organic pesticide
chemicals Vancide 51Z and Vancide 51Z dispersion. Appendix D
also includes all metallo-organic pesticide chemicals containing
arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury, or tin.
The Agency is not setting new source pretreatment standards for
metallo-organic pesticide producers under paragraph 8(b)(2) of
the EPA v. Train Consent Decree. Pretreatment standards for new
sources for formulator packagers are the same as pretreatment
standards for existing sources.
BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTATION
The estimated environmental benefits of implementing pretreatment
standards for this category are summarized in Section XIV and
detailed in a report entitled "Limitations and Standards
Methodology for the Pesticide Chemical Industry." Implementation
of PSES will remove annually an estimated 150,000 kg/yr (330,000
Ib/yr) of pollutants included 93,200 kg/yr (205,000 Ib/yr) of
priority pollutants.
XIII-2
-------
TABLE XIII-1
MXEL TREATMENT TEOWOLOGY FOR PSES
FOR THB PESTICIDE MANUFACTURING SUBCATEOORY
Treatment
Technology
(1) Physical/Chemical
Treatment Technology
* Priority
Pollutants
cl,2-Oi chlorobenzene
cl,4-Dichlorobenzene
cl, 2,4-Tr ichlorobenzene
CMethyl bromide
ccarbon tetrachloride
°Chloroform
CMethyl chloride
CMethylene chloride
°2,4-Dichlorophenol
c4-Nitrophenol
cpentachlorophenol
°Copper
"Zinc
"N-NitroBodi-n-prcpylamine
CHexachlorocyclopentadiene
ba-BRC-Alpha
bb-BHC-Beta
bd-BHC-Delta
bg-BHC-Orana
ba-Endosulfan-Alpha
bd-Endosulfan-Beta
"Endrin
*Heptachlor
*Toxaphene
Non-Conventional
Pesticides
Busan 40
Busan 85
Carbam-S
Carbophenthion
Chlorpropham
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifoe-methyl
Counaphos
CBCP
Dioxathion
Ferbam
KN-methyl
Mancozeb
Haneb
He than
Haled
Niacide
PCNB
PCP Salt
Ronnel
Si1vex
Stirofos
Swap
Triazines
Trichloronate
ZAC
Zineb
2,4-D
2,4-D IB ester
2,4-D IO ester
2,4-EB
2,4-EB IB ester
2,4-EB IO ester
2,4,5-T
(2) Physical/Cheniical
Plus Biological
Treatment Technology
Cyanide
2,4-Di nitrophenol
2Alachlor
2Atrazine
Azi nphos-methyl
Benfluralin
Bolstar
Bronacil
Butachlor
Carbendazinv/Benomyl complex
Carbofuran
Dematon-O
Dematon-S
Dene ton
diazinon
Dichlofenthion
2Dichlorvos
Dnoseb
Disulfoton
Diuron
Ethalfluralin
Fensulfothion
Penthion
Flucroeturon
Glyphosate
Iscpropalin
Linuron
Malathion
Methonyl
Hetribuzin
2Mevinphos
Neburon
Oxamyl
2Parathion ethyl
2Parathion methyl
Phorate
Profluralin
Prcneton
Pronetryn
Propachlor
Propazine
Prophara
Propoxur
Simazine
Siraetryn
Terbacil
Terbufos
Terbuthylazine
Terbutryn
Trifluralin
-------
TABLE XIII-1
MOCEL TFEATrcNT TECHNOLOGY FOR PSES
FDR THE PESTICIDE MANUFACTURING SUBCATEGORY (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
1. 24 priority pollutants where PSES = P/C
a. Five of these pollutants have demonstrated PSES = P/C in pesticide data base
b. Six of these pollutants were confirmed using technology transfer from pesticide data base.
c. Thirteen of these confirmed by organic P/C (using technology transfer)
Two pollutants not confirmed
2,4 Dinitrophenol: PSES should be P/C + Bio
M Two plants affected:
M
M
^ 1 indirect - meet limit
*" 1 direct - has Bio, costed P/C originally
Cyanide:
Affects 7 directs/4 indirects
NOA said BAT limit based on P/C + Bio.
Limit actually based on plants with Bio and P/C + Bio (8 plants).
The 1 pesticide plant with high CN meets limit with P/C + Bio (proprietary P/C system).
Two priority pollutant where PSES = No discharge
0 1,3 - Dichloropropene
0 Bis (2-Chloroethyl) ether
2. 7 of the 50 Cat. 1 NCPS discharged by 5 Indirect discharges (Plant Nos. 5, 28, 31, 46, and 182).
All the remaining indirect dischargers only discharged Cat. 2 NCPs. For the 5 indirects, 1
plant has bio. (costed P/C only for parathion ethyl & parathion methyl) and 4 plants costed
P/C and bio.
-------
TABLE XII1-2
Model Treatment Technology for PSES
Metallo-organic Pesticide Producers
o Cadmium, copper, arsenic
Contract haul and Incineration
o Mercury
Zinc Precipitation
Pesticide Formulator Packagers
Contract haul and Incineration
Recycle/Reuse
XIII-5
-------
SECTION XIV
DERIVATION OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS
FOR THE ORGANIC PESTICIDE CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING SUBCATEGORY
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the selection of the recommended treatment
technologies, the data base and the methodology for determining
the effluent limitations and standards for the Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Subcategory.
SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
In selecting the type of best performance treatment technologies
recommended for organic pesticide chemicals manufacturing
wastestreams, the Agency evaluated such factors as the technical
feasibility of the treatment to remove pollutants of concern, the
capital, annual and energy costs of the treatment, the
reliability of the technology, the availability of the technology
on a full-scale basis, the compatibility of the technology with
other treatment units and the versatility of treatment in terms
of the types and levels of pollutants which may be treated. A
significant important factor in the Agency's selection of
treatment technologies was whether or not the technology was
being used in the pesticide industry. Table XIV-1 presents seven
technologies selected by the Agency as the basis for the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards. These technologies are
currently operated on a full-scale basis within the pesticide
manufacturing industry. Table XIV-1 also shows six technologies
that the Agency did not recommend as best performance since their
use had not been adequately demonstrated in the pesticide
industry.
Selection of the Data Base Used to Develop Limitations and
Standards
As discussed previously, based upon the available data for the
pesticides industry as set forth in Section VI of this Document,
the Agency has selected treatment technologies for each specific
pesticide process. Once these technologies were selected, the
Agency also evaluated the performance of these technologies on
wastewaters in the organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic
fibers ("OCPSF") and Pharmaceuticals industries for several
pollutants.
XIV-1
-------
Specifically, the Agency transferred performance data from steam
strippers for methylene chloride from the pharmaceutical industry
and performance data from steam strippers for benzene, toluene,
chloroform, dichloromethane, carbon tetrachloride and 1-2
dichloroethane from the OCPSF industry. The specific removals of
these pollutants by steam stripping in the OCPSF and
pharmaceutical industry has been previously discussed in Section
VI of the Development Document. The Agency believes that it is
reasonable to transfer steam stripping data for these pollutants
to the pesticide industry because the raw waste load data into
the steam stripper for these pollutants in the pesticide data
base is similar or lower than to the raw waste load data into the
steam strippers for these pollutants in the OCPSF and
pharmaceutical data base. See August 28, 1985 memorandum to the
record, Section II.B.I. Moreover, since the pollutants at issue
are used as solvents or raw materials in the Pharmaceuticals,
OCPSF and pesticide industry, the process step for manufacturing
these pollutants is similar. (see, for example, The Pesticide
Manual, Kirk and Othmer, and the information listed in Section
XX-Appendix 6 of this report). Given these two factors, the
Agency believes that the removal efficiency of the steam
strippers for methylene chloride will be the same in the
pesticides and Pharmaceuticals industry and for benzene, toluene,
chloroform, dichloromethane, carbon tetrachloride and 1,2-
dichloroethane will be the same in the OCPSF industry and the
pesticides industry.
The Agency assembled the treatment technology performance data
from pesticides industry and the OCPSF and Pharmaceuticals
industry (for the above referenced pollutants) into one data
base.
The Agency edited the data base to remove plant data for the
following reasons:
1. The Agency edited the data base to remove all data for
nonregulated pollutants.
2. Data for which adequate analytical methods did not exist
(i.e., those with minimal quality assurance/quality control
specifications) were deleted.
3. The Agency deleted effluent data for which we had no
corresponding influent level data or the influent data into
the biological system was at less than 85 ppb. These data
were eliminated because the Agency was unable to assure that
the effluent values at the end of the treatment system
reflected the actual treatment of pollutants as opposed to
low levels of raw waste concentrations which were not
XIV-2
-------
removed by the treatment system. Use of this editing rule
is conservative because it avoids the promulgation of
effluent limitations guidelines which do not reflect actual
treatment.
4. Three data pairs were eliminated because the effluent level
was higher than the corresponding influent level.
5. Two data points for nonconventional pollutants were
eliminated because they were identified as outliers.
After editing the data base, the Agency evaluated the remaining
data base to identify "best performance" treatment systems.
The Agency evaluated each individual treatment system at each
plant to identify best performance systems. In order to select
best performance plants, the Agency developed performance
criteria for each treatment system. The best performance
criteria are presented in Table XIV-2. These criteria were based
on engineering evaluations of removal efficiencies, detention
time, loading rates and other design criteria. The data upon
which these performance criteria are based were identified in
Section VI of the 1982 Pesticide Development Document. The
application of this data to the selection of the best performance
criteria is found in Section II.B.I of the Record. (Refer to
December 21, 1984 ESE letter).
Table 1 in the June 13, 1984 NOA sets forth two criteria for
selection of best performance treatment data percent removal of
the treatment system and treated effluent concentration. The
primary criterion evaluated by the Agency was percent removal
which best establishes treatment system performance. If a plant
did not meet the established percent removal, the plant could
still be considered "best performance" if it met the established
effluent concentrations.
A treatment system was defined as "best performance" if the
system met the treatment performance criteria for any regulated
pollutant for which the treatment system was designed. In order
to determine for which pollutant a treatment system was designed,
the Agency reviewed the raw waste load data at each plant. If a
pollutant was demonstrated to be in a significant amount in a
plant's raw waste load, the Agency assumed that the treatment
system was designed for that pollutant (i.e., steam stripping
units were examined for volatile organics, not phenolic
pollutants).
XIV-3
-------
The Agency arrayed the data base for each plant by average
percent removal for each treatment system. The Agency found
large disparities in average removals and effluent concentrations
in the arrayed data base. The majority of the plants had removal
efficiencies and effluent concentrations clustered around or
above the best performance value; the plant or plants whose
removal efficiency or effluent concentration was significantly
different correlated with the "non best performance" plant in
terms of the engineering criteria.
As a result of this best performance analysis, the Agency deleted
four treatment systems for nonconventional pollutants and one
treatment system for priority pollutants because the system
failed the best performance criteria.
For those treatment systems which did not meet the performance
criteria, the Agency identified specific reasons why the
performance of these systems is inadequate to be considered BAT
treatment. Typical examples are that the system is too small for
the treated flows or that the carbon usage rate is too low.
Methodology for Determining the Limitations and Standards
In developing effluent limitations and standards the Agency used
the data base and model treatment technologies described above.
The methodology for developing these limitations and standards is
described below. The model treatment technology for BAT and
pretreatment for each regulated pollutant is given in Table XI-1
XIII-1. The limitations and standards are given in Table II-l
and II-2. In calculating these limitations and standards the
Agency used a delta lognormal statistical distribution. This
analysis is described in detail in the record to this rulemaking
in "Limitations and Standards Methodology for Pesticide Chemicals
Industry," August 30, 1985.
BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Priority Pollutant
To derive BAT effluent limitations, the Agency first evaluated
the removal of priority pollutants by plants which have well
operated biological treatment units. The Agency used data from
best performance biological treatment systems to calculate a
long-term average effluent value for each priority pollutant.
The long-term average values are estimates of average pollutant
levels expected to be found in treated effluent from well-
operated biological systems with varying influent priority
pollutant levels. These long-term average values are the basis
for the BAT effluent limitations guidelines. For most
pollutants, data from more than one best performance system for a
specific priority pollutant were used to calculate the long-term
XIV-4
-------
average. For nine priority pollutants, biological performance
data were not available. In these cases the Agency determined in
its technology transfer analysis, whether a sufficient basis
existed for transferring the biological removals from
structurally similar compounds. (The Agency's technology
transfer methodology is discussed fully in the record to this
regulation and Section V of the preamble to the regulation). In
cases where the Agency decided that there was an insufficient
basis for transferring biological removal from other compounds,
the BAT limitations and standards are based on the performance of
physical/chemical treatment only.
The Agency then examined the average influent concentration for
each priority pollutant in each of the best performing biological
systems to determine the highest average influent concentration
associated with an average treated effluent concentration less
than or equal to the long term average for the priority
pollutant. These influent values are termed "trigger values."
The trigger value is the highest influent level treatable with
biological treatment alone. If a plant had an influent value
higher than the trigger value, then physical/chemical treatment
prior to biological treatment is recommended and coated as part
of the model treatment technology. The physical/chemical
treatment should reduce the priority pollutant below the trigger
value. For pollutants for which there were no biological removal
data and for which transfer of data was not supportable, the BAT
effluent limitation was based on the performance of physical
chemical treatment only.
Pretreatment Standards for Priority Pollutants
Pretreatment standards are established to prevent the discharge
of any pollutant through publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
which interfers with or passes through the POTW. To identify the
pollutants which pass through a POTW the Agency compared the
average percent removal of the BAT treatment system to the
average percent removal obtained by well operated POTWs
achieving secondary treatment. Pollutants for which the POTW
removal is lower than the BAT removal pass through the POTW and
are designated as incompatable pollutants. In making this
comparison, the Agency found that six priority pollutants do not
pass through the POTW (five of these are volatile pollutants
which may cause subsequent air pollution problems on POTW safety
problems).
The pretreatment standards for the 28 priority pollutants which
are incompatible with the operation of POTW's are equal to the
BAT limitations for these pollutants. The model treatment
technology for 26 of these pollutants is physical chemical
treatment only. For two pollutants, the model treatment
technology is physical/chemical followed by biological treatment.
XIV-5
-------
BAT Limitations for Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutants
The Agency developed limitations for specific nonconventional
pesticides by using a two-step process. First, the Agency
calculated the long-term average physical/chemical effluent for
each pesticide for which it had a valid analytical method. In
cases where the Agency did not have appropriate data on a
specific pesticide, the Agency determined whether it could
transfer data from a similar compound within the same structural
group (the structural groups, their basis and the transfer
methodology are discussed in the Agency's technology transfer
analysis, "Technical Document of Technology Transfer for
Nonconventional Pesticides," August 1985). If no data were
available and it was not appropriate to transfer data from
another compound, the pesticide was not regulated.
The second step in establishing limitations and standards was to
determine average percent removal of best performing biological
treatment for each pesticide where biological removal data was
not available. The Agency determined whether data could be
transferred from another pesticide in the same structural group.
For pesticides where biological removal data were available or
could be transferred, the BAT limitations and standards were
determined by multiplying the physical/chemical effluent by the
biological percent removal. Where no biological data existed or
could be transferred, the BAT limitations and standards were
based on the physical/chemical treatment effluent.
Pretreatment Standards for Nonconventional Pesticide Pollutants
The Agency determined that nonconventional pesticide pollutants
could interfere with, upset, and pass through POTWs. Accordingly
the Agency established pretreatment standards for all the
nonconventional pesticides for which BAT limitations were
established. The pretreatment standards are equal to the BAT
limitations and are based on the same technology.
Confirmatory Data
The Agency used data from the Organic Chemicals Plastics and
Synthetic Fibers Industry to confirm the performance of
physical/chemical treatment systems which form the basis for
pretreatment standards for the priority pollutants. This data
was obtained by EPA through a sampling program carried out by the
Agency at 12 OCPSF plants. This data (Table XIV-3) shows that
physical/chemical treatment (steam stripping) is capable of
removing various volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds
XIV-6
-------
down to detection limit values. These data were not available
until after the June 13, 1984 NOA and were used to confirm the
performance levels specified by the methodology set forth above.
XIV-7
-------
Table XIV-1
Treatment Technology Selected as Best Performance*
Number of Plants with Treatment
Treatment Unit BPT BAT
Biological Oxidation-*- 13 32
Chemical Oxidation1 - 9
Granular Activated Carbon1 9 17
Hydrolysis1 5 8
Metals Separation1 - 3
Resin Adsorption1 - 4
Steam Stripping1 - 8
Ion Exchange2
Membrane Processes2
Powdered Activated Carbon2 - 1
Solvent Extraction2 - 1
Ultraviolet Photolysis2
Wet Air Oxidation2
Note: l=Selected as best performance
2=Not selected as best performance
*=Preproposal Data
XIV-8
-------
TABLE XIV-2
Criteria for Best Performance Treatment Technologies1
CRITERIA
Nonconventic
Treatment
Nonconventional
Pollutant
Priority or Pollutants
Activated Carbon
Hydrolysis
Resin Adsorption
Steam Stripping
>95% Removal >99% Removal
or < 1 mg/1 effluent or < lmg/1 effluent
> 95% Removal
or < 1 mg/1 effluent
> 95% Removal > 99% Removal
or < 1 mg/1 effluent or< 1 mg/1 effluent
> 90% Removal
or 99.6% Removal
or <0.04 mg/1 effuent
Metal Separation
Biological Oxidation > 70% Removal
< 586 mg/1 COD
effluent
> 95% Removal
or 0.5 mg/1 effluent
> 95% Removal
or < 50 mg/1 BOD
1 Preproposal Data
XIV-9
-------
Table XIV-3. Physical/Chemical Confirmatory Treatment Data fron OCPSF Industry
0.1
0.1
49.0
Volatile
Priority Pollutants
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
1,4 - Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Bromide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Chloroform
1,2 - Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4 - Trichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,3 - Dichloropropene
Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether
H: High Strippability Compound
M: Medium Strippability Compound
L: Low Strippability Compound
Actual Steam Strippers
Effluent Concentration (mg/1)
Pesticides OCPSF
13.37
6.96
0.016 (H)
ND (H)
0.010 (H)
0.010 (M)
0.015 (M)
Data Trasferred
From OCPSF (mg/1)
0.013 (H)
0.013 (H)
0.013 (H)
0.013 (H)
0.013 (H)
0.013 (H)
0.0125 (M)
0.0125 (M)
0.0125 (M)
1.064 (L)
-------
SECTION XV
DERIVATION OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND
STANDARDS FOR THE METALLO-ORGANIC PESTICIDE
MANUFACTURING SUBCATEGORY AND THE
FORMULATING/PACKAGING SUBCATEGORY
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the selection of the recommended treatment
technologies and the methodology for determining the effluent
limitations and standards for the Metallo-organic Pesticide
Manufacturing Subcategory and the Pesticide Formulating/Packaging
Subcategory.
SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
In selecting the type of treatment technologies recommended for
metallo-organic pesticide manufacturing and formulating/packaging
wastestreams, the Agency evaluated such factors as the technical
feasibility of the treatment to remove pollutants of concern, the
capital, annual and energy costs to the treatment, the ability of
the treatment to perform to levels of concern, the reliability of
the technology, the availability of the technology on a full-
scale basis, the compatibility of the technology with other
treatment units and the versatility of treatment in terms of the
types and levels of pollutants which may be treated. The most
important factors in the Agency's selection of treatment
technologies was whether or not the technology was being used in
the pesticide industry. Table XII-2 presents the technologies
selected by the Agency as the basis for the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for these two subcategories. These
technologies are currently operated on a full-scale basis in the
pesticide industry.
Metallo-orqanic Manufacturers
The Agency is unaware of any existing metallo-organic pesticide
manufacturer discharging arsenic, cadmium or copper to a POTW.
Therefore, the Agency has not developed plant-by-plant costs for
these indirect dischargers. However, PSES are promulgated for
these pollutants to control any existing direct discharging
facilities which changes to an indirect by discharging these
pollutants to a POTW. Since the Agency costed treatment for
these facilities under BPT, the costs of installing the
recommended treatment technology to achieve zero pollutant
discharge have not been calculated by the Agency. Accordingly,
PSES for metallo-organic pesticide manufacturers discharging
XV-1
-------
arsenic, cadmium or copper is economically achievable. The
recommended zero discharge treatment technologies for
manufacturers of arsenic, cadmium or copper metallo-organic
pesticides are contract hauling and incineration. These
technologies are described in Section VI. Factors associated
with the feasibility of implementing these technologies to
achieve zero discharge is discussed in this section under
formulator/packagers. Only one metallo-organic facility is known
to indirectly discharge process wastewater. That facility
alleged that it could not achieve zero discharge and recommended
that the Agency base PSES for mercury organic pesticides on zinc
precipitation. In response to this comment, the Agency, in the
June 13, 1984 NOA, announced that it was considering zinc
precipitation treatment technology or other similar treatment
technology for control of mercury followed by discharge of the
treated wastewater as an alternative to the previously proposed
zero discharge standards. The Agency requested specific
information and data on the wastewater treatment technologies
used by this segment of the industry.
The Agency received additional comments from the indirect
discharging facility alleging that a zero discharge standard for
mercury was neither environmentally sound nor economically
achievable. In response to this comment, the Agency sought
additional treatment technology and wastewater data from this
facility.
As a result of its evaluation of this additional data, the
numerical limit for mercury is 0.45 mg/1 (daily maximum) and 0.27
rag/1 (monthly average) for indirect discharge metallo-organic
plants discharging mercury. This pretreatment standard for
mercury is based upon the zinc precipitation treatment technology
discussed in Section VI. The Agency believes that it is more
environmentally sound to require zinc precipitation followed by
discharge of the treated wastewater because zero discharge based
on incineration or evaporation could produce air pollution
associated with the volatilization of mercury. The Clean Water
Act requires EPA to consider the non-water quality environmental
impacts of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
Volitilization of mercury in an incinerater could cause
violations of the hazardous air pollutant emission standards
established under the Clean Air Act for mercury and as such,
could create serious non-water quality evironmental impacts.
Zero discharge based on recycle/reuse is not technologically
achievable for such manufactures. Therefore, the Agency believes
that zinc precipitation is an appropriate technology for this
process and is preferable to other available treatent methods.
XV-2
-------
Pesticide Formulator/Packagers
The Agency proposed PSES which would require zero discharge of
process wastewater pollutants. The treatment technology bases
for pesticide formulating/packaging subcategory were:
1. Contract hauling
2. Spray Evaporation
The Agency believes that the pollutants discharged by
formulating/packaging facilities pass through the POTW because
the BPT treatment technology achieves no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants which is complete removal. Since a POTW
cannot achieve this removal for the priority and nonconventional
pollutants, the Agency is establishing PSES for these pollutants
based on pass through.
Commenters pointed out that evaporation, particularly spray
evaporation, can lead to air-pollution and other non-water
quality environmental impacts. Commenters also pointed out that
contract hauling must be combined with incineration, not land-
filling, to be effective in disposing of the pollutants rather
than possibly creating future environmental problems. Commenters
additionally suggested that treatment technology, such as the
physical/chemical treatment technology used by pesticide
manufacturers, could achieve low levels of priority pollutants
and pesticides in the treated water.
In response to these comments, the Agency revised the technology
basis for the promulgated PSES for this subcategory, to combine
contract hauling with incineration, to eliminate evaporation, and
to add physical/chemical treatment followed by water
recycle/reuse. Hence, the technology bases for the promulgated
pretreatment standards are:
1. Contact hauling and incineration
2. Physical/chemical treatment with water recycle/
reuse and contract hauling followed by incinera-
tion for treatment system waste concentrates and
any wastewater that cannot be treated and recycled.
XV-3
-------
Zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants is
technologically feasible and economically achievable based on
supporting data submitted to the Agency through the random
telephone survey, follow-up contacts, and public comments
submitted in response to the Federal Register notices. The
technological feasibility of the standard is demonstrated by the
fact that an estimated 87 percent of the industry currently does
not discharge wastewater pollutants.
Plant-by-plant application of the recommended technologies is
related to flow and cost. While contract hauling and
incineration is less expensive then treatment for low flow
plants, treatment and recycle/reuse will be less expensive for
high flow plants. The Agency assumes that 96 percent of
discharging PFP plants have flows small enough that contract
hauling and incineration will be the chosen technology while four
percent of the PFP plants with larger flows would choose the
treatment and recycle technology.
The Agency believes that incineration will be the treatment
technology practiced by contract haulers. The report,
"Evaluation of Regulatory Options and the Development of PSES and
NSPS compliance costs for the Pesticide Formulating and Packaging
Industry," dated August 30, 1985, found that incineration is the
favored waste treatment method among pesticide manufacturers.
Incineration, under proper operating conditions, can destroy
virtually all of the active ingredients of organic pesticides.
Therefore, incineration under ideal conditions will result in no
solid or liquid discharges. Additionally, for all pollutants
except mercury, incineration will not create harmful discharges
to the air. For mercury, the Agency believes that incineration
of the low concentrations of mercury which are present in
formulator/packager wastewaters (as opposed to the high
concentrations present in metallo-organic wastewater) will not
present an air quality problem. The report concludes that no
adverse environmental impacts will be developed by the
implementation of incineration technology. The Agency believes
that the benefits derived from eliminating the highly toxic
wastewater generated will far outweigh any possible risks caused
during handling and disposal of pesticide-bearing wastewater.
Also, waste must be transported and disposed of under RCRA
requirements. Any potential impact associated with the handling
of pesticide-bearing wastewaters is believed to be significantly
less than associated with the handling of pesticide raw material
and products.
Several commenters to the June 13, 1984 NOA stated that there is
nothing stopping a contract hauler from discharging waste to a
POTW or to navigable waters. However, this regulation covers all
wastestreams that contain the regulated pollutants. Contract
haulers are subject to the effluent limitations and standards
that apply to pesticide manufacturers and formulator/packagers.
XV-4
-------
They would be direct or indirect discharging facilities and
subject to permit requirements.
Information acquired through the 308 questionnaires and follow-
up contacts confirm that contract hauling is preferred by
formulator/packagers that discharge low volumes of process
wastewater. In estimating costs for compliance with PSES, the
Agency assumed plants would contract haul and incinerate unless a
plant stated it could recycle/reuse the treated wastewater.
Based on these statements, the Agency costed contract hauling and
incineration for 96 percent of the discharging PFP plants.
For the remaining discharging plants with larger flows, the
Agency assumed that physical/chemical treatment followed by
recycle/reuse would be the technology chosen. The Agency
evaluated treatment and recycle technology for four plants that
discharge high volumes of formulating/packaging wastewater.
These four plants confirmed that treatment and recycle technology
is a feasible means of achieving PSES. The four plants did
identify selected production processes that are not amenable to
reuse. These processes demand high purity source water to
guarantee product integrity. The water volume requirements of
these processes is low, therefore wastewater flows which can not
be recycled after physical/chemical treatment would be contract
hauled and incinerated. One of the four plants presently treats
and reuses 75 percent of its treated wastestream as vent scrubber
wash water. A second plant incinerates formulating/packaging
process waste and discharges incinerator blowdown that contains
levels of pesticides measured as not detected. An additional
plant, a low flow plant, presently treats its wastewater and
discharges no detectable process wastewater pollutants.
The wastewater treatment and recycle scheme confirmed as feasible
by the four high flow plants includes the following elements;
1. Formulating/packaging wastestream segregation, collection;
2. Wastewater treatment to include,
a. Equalization
b. Steam stripping
c. Neutralization
d. Dual media filtration
e. Carbon adsorption and carbon regeneration
f. Incineration.
3. Treated wastewater storage and return.
XV-5
-------
SECTION XVI
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An assessment of the environmental effects of implementing the
recommended standards and limitations is presented in two
separate documents prepared during July, 1985 by EPA/Monitoring
and Data Support Division: (1) Environmental Assissement of the
Direct and Indirect Discharges of Wastewater from the Pesticides
Manfacturing Industry; and (2) Environmental Assessment of the
Pesticides Formulating/Packaging Industry. These assessments
project the significance of post-regulatory discharges of
nonconventional pesticides and priority pollutants on human
health, aquatic life, and the operation of POTWs.
Impacts are evaluated on receiving streams and on POTW
operations. Receiving stream impacts are evaluated at low
receiving stream flow using a simplified dilution water quality
model which predicits instream pollutant concentrations.
Calculations of instream concentrations from indirect dischargers
incorporated pollutant removal at POTWs as well as dilution in
the collection systems. Impacts were determined by comparing
these pollutant concentrations with EPA water quality criteria
established for the protection of aquatic life and human health.
Not all the pollutants have water quality criteria. For
pollutants without criteria, specific toxicity data (i.e., lowest
reported LCso values) were used in evaluating impacts.
Potential impacts in receiving stream mixing zones were evaluated
by comparing undiluted effluent concentrations with acute aquatic
life criteria or toxicity values.
Impacts to POTW operations were evaluated in terms of inhibition
of POTW processes and contamination of POTW sludges using a
simplified POTW model. Inhibition of POTW treatment processes
was determined by comparing calculated POTW influent levels
available inhibition values. Contamination of sludge was
evaluated by comparing projected pollutant concentrations in
sludge with available sludge impact values. Contractor-provided
data, in the form of recommended effluent 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.
XVI-1
-------
The study on pesticide manufacturers evaluated the environmental
impacts of 20 priority pollutants and 22 nonconventional
pesticide pollutants (NCPs) discharging to waters from 19
pesticide manufacturing plants (12 direct and 7 indirect). These
discharges were examined at three technology levels (1) current,
(2) proposed BAT/PSES levels, and (3) projected final BAT/PSES.
Under current conditions, ten of the twelve direct facilities and
two of the seven indirect facilities would exceed water quality
criteria/toxicity values. Implementating the BAT/PSES levels
radices the number of plants exceeding criteria and reduces the
severity of the exceedances at the remaining plants. The number
of pollutants exceeding criteria at current treatment levels is
reduced by as much as 50 percent with the implementation of BAT.
There were no exceedances of inhibition vales for POTW operations
based on the four of eleven priority pollitants which had
inhibition values. Furthermore, the impact on sludge could not
be determined since no sludge impact values were available for
the pollutants examined.
The study on pesticide formulators/packagers evaluated the
environmental impacts of 17 priority pollutants and 11
nonconventional pesticide pollutant (NCP's) discharged to waters
from 8 indirect dischargers in the pesticide
formulating/packaging industry. These dischargers were examined
at two technology levels: (1) current treatment and (2) proposed
30-day average PSES, a considered option. Under current
conditions five of the eight facilities would exceed water
quality criteria/toxicity values. Implementation of the PSES 30
day option reduced the severity of the exceedances at the
remaining plants. The number of pollutants exceeding criteria at
current treatment was reduced by as much as 83 percent with the
impklementation of the 30 day PSES option.
The recommended option of zero discharge (though not part of the
study) would eliminate the limited remaining impacts).
Inhibition of two POTW processes projected at current conditions
was reduced to zero at the PSES 30 day option. No impacts on
sludge were predicited for the only pollutant with a sludge
impact values.
xvi-2
-------
SECTION XVII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project was sponsored by the Industrial Technology Division
(ITD) of the Office of Water Regulations and Standards under the
management of Mr. George M. Jett and I wish to acknowledge the
personnel who assisted in the creation of this document. This
report is a continuation of the study that was presented in the
proposed development document, EPA 440/l-82/079b and much
information from that document has been used in the manufacture
of this report. The effort of the staff that provided that
document is appreciated.
This report was constructed on the basis of the proposed report
with the assistance of a large but competant staff. The primary
assistance in gathering information for this report came from the
joint effort of the two firms of Environmental Science and
Engineering and JRB Associates under Contract No. 68-01-6947.
Ms. Barbara Brown provided the leadership to produce the basis of
an excellent study. The work was then turned over to the JRB
staff of Mr.'s Barry Langer, Andy Mantis Bill Hahn, Richard
Hergenroeder, Bill Hughes, and Dr. Ed Chen. L. Marlin Eby of
Infotech, Incorporated provided the contractor statistical
support. I wish to thank these people for their assistance in
construction of this report.
The draft report was then turned over to ITD where final
construction was completed by Mr.'s Devereaux Barnes, Gary E.
Stigall, Elwood Forsht, Ronald Kirby and Dr. Thomas Fielding and
Hugh Wise. The Office of General Counsel's legal assistance was
provided by Ms. Susan Schmedes, Ms. Susan Lepow, and Mr. Lee
Schroer. The Agency statistical guidance was provided by Dr.
Henry Kahn and Dr. Cliff Bailey. The Agency's economic analysis
assistance was provided by Dr. Ellen Warhit and Mr. Mitch
Dubenski. Dr. Richard Healy provided Agency's environmental
assessment information and Mr. Mahesh Podar provided assistance
from the Office of Program and Policy Evaluation. Special
acknowledgement must be made to the word processors whose
patience, cooperation and enormous assistence produced the
majority of this text. These employees are Ms.'s Glenda Nesby,
Pearl Smith, and Carol Swann. The most competent Ms. Arelia
Wright provided the remaining portions. The entire text was
carefully proofed by Ms. Micki Treacy.
The cooperation and participation of the manufacturing industry,
trade associations and public participants in developing this
report is also appreciated.
XVII-1
-------
-------
SECTION XVIII
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aitchison, J. 1955. On the Distribution of a Positive Random
Variable Having a Discreet Probability Mass at the Origin.
American Statistical Association Journal, September: 901-
908.
Allen, D.f 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, D.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.
Armanego, W.L.F. Stereochemistry of Heterocyclic Compounds, New
York, Wiley, c 1977, 2v, ill., 24 cm
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.
Ashton, Floyd M. Persistence and Biodegradation of Herbicides Plenum
XVIII-1
-------
Press, New York, 1982.
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.
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.
BASF Wyandotte Corp. (Industry Comments) Vol. IA.
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
Report on Pilot Operations at Ethyl Corporation, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana Plant. Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.,
Gainesville, Florida.
XVIII-2
-------
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.
Berg, G.L., Editor. 1973. Farm Chemicals Handbook. Meister
Publishing Company, Willoughby, Ohio.
Berkowitz, Joan B., John Funkhouser, and James I. Stevens 1978.
Unit Operations For Treatment of Hazardous Industrial Waste.
Noyes Data Corporation Park Ridge, New Jersey.
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.
Birge, W.J., Black, J.A., and Bruser, D.M. 1979. Toxicity of
Organic Chemicals to Embryo-Larval Stages of Fish.
EPA-560/11-79-007.
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.
Black, J.A., e_t al. 1982, The Aquatic Toxicity of Organic Compounds
to Embyro-Larval Stages of Fish and Amphibians, PBB2-224601, NTI
U.S. Depart, of Commerce.
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.
XVIII-3
-------
Brown, B.S. March 27, 1984. Hazard-Weighting for Cost Effectiveness
Analysis. Prepare for U.S. EPA, Effluent Guidelines Division.
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., Miami, PL.
Brown, B.S. May 25, 1984. Final Pesticide Process Profiles for
the Notice - Confidential. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Effluent
Guidelines Division, Wash. D.C. Environmental Science and
Engineering, Inc., Miami, FL.
Brown, N.P.H., Furmidge, C.G.L., and Grayson, B.T. 1972. Hydrolysis
of the Triazine Herbicide, Cyanazine. Pesticide Science,
3:669-678.
Brungs, W.A., Carlson, R.W., Hornung, W.B.,McCormick, J. H.,
Spehar, R.L., and Yount, J.D. 1978. Effects of Pollution on
Freshwater Fish. Jour. WPCF, June, 1582-1637.
Buccafusco, R.J., B.J. Ells, and G.A. LeBlanc, 1981, 'Acute Toxicity
of Priority Pollutants to Bluegill (LEPOMIB MACROCHIRUS), in
Bull, Environm. Contam. Toxicol., 26, 446-452.
Buesche, C.A., ejb 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.
Cairns, M.A., and A.V. Nebeker, 1982, 'Toxicity of Acenaphthane and
Isophirine to Early Life Stages of Fathead Minnows,' in Arch.
Environm. Contam. Toxicol., 11, 703-707.
Cadwgan, G.E. 1980. Determination of Pesticide Hydrolysis Half-Life
Under Acid and Base Conditions. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co.
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.
Games, R.A. and Oberacker, D.A. 1976. Pesticide Incineration.
News of Environmental Research in Cincinnati. U.S. EPA,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Casida, J. E., Augustinsson, K.B., and Jonsson, G. 1960. Stability,
Toxicity and Reaction Mechanism With Esterase of Certain
Carbamate Insecticides. Journal of Economic Entomology., 53, 20
XVIII-4
-------
CCI Environmental Systems Division. 1974. Incineration of DDT
Solutions. Prepared for the Sierra Army Depot, Report S-1276,
Herlon, California.
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.
Cheah, M.L., Avault, J.W., Jr., and Graves, J.B. 1980. Acute
Toxicity of Selected Rice Pesticides to Crayfish
(Procambarus clarkii). Prog. Fish Cult., 42(3): 169-172.
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., et^ 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., ejt 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.
Collins, R.J. and Purkiss, B.E. 1960. The Applications of
Dichlorophen in the Textile Industry. The Textile Manufacturer.
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. Chemosphere, No. 4, 299-305.
XVIII-5
-------
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., e_t al. 1971. Rate of Hydrolysis of Seven Organophos-
phate Pesticides. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, 6(3).
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., e_t 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., e_t al. 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., e_t al. 1979. Degradation of Diazinon by Sodium
Hypochlorite. Chemistry and Aquatic Toxicity. Environmental
Science and Technology, 13(5):594-598.
XVIII-6
-------
Derache, R. (Ed.). 1977. Organophosphorus Pesticides. Pergamon
Press, Oxford.
Dillion, A.P. 1981. Pesticide Disposal and Detoxification Processes
and Techniques, 13(5):594-598.
Dobbs, R.A., e_t al. May 1978. Carbon Adsorption Isotherms for Toxic
Organics. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dryden, F.E., e_t al. 1979. Assessment of Dioxin-Forming Chemical
Processes. Prepared for U.S. EPA, IERL, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Walk, Haydel and Associates, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana.
Duolite International. Carbonaceous Adsorbents. Diamond Shamrock
Corporation, Redwood City, CA.
Dyke, R.B., Sanderson, D.M., and Noakes, D.N. 1970. Acute
Toxicity Data for Pesticides. World Rev. Pest. Contr.,
9(3):119-127.
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.
Egekeze, J. 0. and Oehme, F. W. 1979. Inorganic and Organic
Fluoride Concentrations in Tissues after the Oral
Administration of Sodium Monofluoroacetate (Compound 1080) to
Rates. Toxicology, 15:43-53.
Egekeze, J.O. and Oehme, F.W. 1979. Sodium Monofluoroacetate
(SMFA, Compound 1080): A Literature Review. Vet. Hum.
Toxicol, 1979:411-416.
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, D.C.
Eisenhauer, H.H. 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.
XVIII-7
-------
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 Research Laboratory. 1981. Acephate, Aldicarb,
Carbophenothion, DBF, EPN, Ethoprop, Methyl Parathion, and
Phorate—Their Acute and Chronic Toxicity, Bioconcentration
Potential and Persistence As Related to Marine Environments.
EPA-600/4-81-023.
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.
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/
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene: 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.
XVIII-8
-------
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.
Folmar, L.C., Sanders, H. 0., and Julin, A.M. 1979. Toxicity of
the Herbicide of Glyphosate and Several of Its Formulations to
Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates. Arch. Environm. Contam.
Toxicol., 8:269-278.
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.
Fornwalt, H.J. and Hutchins, R.A. 1966. Purifying Liquids with
Activated Carbon. Chemical Engineering, April llth.
Fowler, D., Witham, C., e_t a^L., 1979. Pesticides Engineering Control
Technology Assessment Survey. Prepared for NIOSH, Washington,
D.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.
XVIII-9
-------
Gaddis, L., PhD. 1978. Rejection of Chemical Species by Membrane,
Clemson University.
Gains, T.B. 1969. Acute Toxicity of Pesticides. Toxicol, and
Applied Pharmacol., 14:515-534.
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.
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.
Hall, Richard S., Jay Matley, and Kenneth J. McNaughton. 1982.
Current Costs of Process Equipment. Chemical Engineering.
(7):80-116.
XVIII-10
-------
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.
Hawley, G.G. 1981. The Condensed Chemical Dictionary 10th Edition.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
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.
Hermanertz, R.O. 1978. Endrin and Malathion Toxicity to Flagfish
(Jordanella floridae). Arch. Environm. Contam. Toxicol.,
7:159-168.
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).
Holdway, D.A., and J.B. Spraque, 1979, 'Chronic Toxicity of Vanadium
to Flagfish,1 in Water Research, Vol. 13, 905-910.
Holiday, Allan D., Hardin, David P., Activated Carbon Removes
Pesticides From Wastewater, Chemical Engineering, March 23, 1981
p. 226.
Horrobin, S. 1963. The Hydrolysis of Some Chloro-l,3,5-Triazines.
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.
Hudson, R.H., Heagele, M.A., and Tucker, R.K. 1978. Acute Oral
and Percutaneous Toxicity of Pesticides to Mallards:
Correlations with Mammalian Toxicity Data. Toxic, and Appl.
Pharmac., 47:451-460.
Hutchins, R.A. 1973a. Activated Carbon-Economic Factors in Granular
Carbon Thermal Regeneration. Chemical Engineering Process,
69(11).
XVIII-11
-------
Hutchins, R.A. 1973b. New Method Simplifies Design of
Activated-Carbon Systems. Chemical Engineering, August 20th.
Hwang, S.T. and Fahrenthold, P. 1980. Treatability 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.
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., e_t al. 1966. Biological Activities of Halophenols.
Journal WPCF, 38(4).
Ingram, W.T., e_t al. / Editorial Board. 1969. Glossary of Water and
Wastewater Control Engineering. APHA, ASCE, AWWA, and WPCF,
New York.
International IUPAC Congress of Pesticide Chemistry 2nd 1972
Pesticide Chemistry, New York, Gordon and Breach, v. 2-4,
1971.
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.
XVIII-12
-------
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.
Jones, K.H., Sanderson, D.M., and Noakes, D.N. 1968. Acute
Toxicity Data for Pesticides. World Rev. Pest. Cont.,
7(3):135-143.
JRB Associates. 1981. Assessment of the Impacts of Industrial
Discharges on Publicly Owned Treatment Works. Prepared for
U.S. EPA. Nov.
Kanazawa, J. 1981. Measurement of the Bioconcentration Factors
of Pesticides by Freshwater Fish and Their Correlation with
Physiochemical Properties or Acute Toxicities. Pestic. Sci.,
12:417-424.
Karnofsky, B., e_t al. 1981. Chemical Information Resources
Handbook. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Washington, D.C.
EPA 560/TIIS-81-001.
Kearney, P.C. 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 al. 1969. Chemical and Thermal Methods for
Disposal of Pesticides. Residue Reviews, 29.
XVIII-13
-------
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.
Ketly, A.D., The Stereochemistry of Macro-molecules, London,
Edward Arnold, New York, Mercel Dekker, 1967 i.e., 1968, v.,
24 cm.
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.
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.
Kilingman, G. C., and Ashton, F.M. 1975 Weed Science: Principles and
Practices. John Wiley, New York.
Klinkowski, P.R. 1978. Ultrafiltration: An Emerging
Unit-Operation: Chemical Engineering, May, 8:165-173.
Korn, S. and Earnest, R. 1974. Acute Toxicity of Twenty
Insecticides to Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis).
Calif. Fish and Game, 60(3):128-131.
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.
Ruhr, Ronald J. Carbamate insecticides Cleveland, CRC Press.
XVIII-14
-------
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., e_t a_l. 1974. Production, Distribution, Use and
Environmental Impact Potential of Selected Pesticides. Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri.
LeBlanc, B.A. 1980, 'Acute Toxicity of Priority Pollutants to
Water Fleas (DAPHNIA MAGNA),' in Bull. Environm. Contam.
Toxicol., 24, 884-691.
Leigh, G.M. 1969. Degradation of Selected Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Insecticides. Journal WPCF, 41(11):450-459.
Lemely, A.T., Janauer, G.E. 1984. Investigation of Degradation
Rates of Carbamate Pesticides. American Chemical Society.
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.
Liptak, B.C., Editor. 1974. Environmental Engineers' Handbook,
Volume 1, Water Pollution. Chilton Book Company, Radnor,
Pennsylvania.
Little, A.p. 1970. Water Quality Criteria Data Book. Vol. I.
Organic Chemical Pollution of Freshwater. EPA 18010 DPV.
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.
XVIII-15
-------
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.
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.
Lue King, et. al., Explosion at a Pesticide Manufacturing Plant;
Industrial Wastes, January/February, 1981.
Ludzack, F.J. and M.B. Ettinger; Chemical Structures Resistant to
Aerobic Biochemical Stabilization; Journal WPC; November
1960; pp 1173-1200.
Luthy, Richard G. Review of the EPA Protocal for Technology Transfer
for the Pesticide Chemicals Industry. Report to the EPA Science
Advistory Board Environmental Engineering Commitee 1983.
Mabey, W.R., e_t 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.
Macek, K. J., Buxton, K.S., Sauter, S., Grilka, S., and Dean, J.W.
1976. Chronic Toxicity of Atrazine to Selected Aquatic
Invertebrates and Fishes. EPA-600/3-76-047.
Mackay, Donald; Correlation of Bioconcentration Factor;
Environmental Science and Technology; 1982, 16,274-278.
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.
XVIII-16
-------
Maruyama, T., Hannah, S.A., and Cohen, J.M. 1975. Metal Removal by
Physical and Chemical Treatment Processes. Journal WPCF,
47(5):962-975.
Matsumura, Fumio, 1982. Degradation of Pesticides in the Environment
by Microorganisms and Sunlight. Plenum Press, New York.
McCreary, J.J. and Snoeyink, V.L. 1977. Granular Activated Carbon
in Water Treatment. Journal AWWA, 69(8):437-444.
Meta Systems, Inc. June 1984. Economic Impact Analysis of
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Pesticide Chemicals Industry. Prepared for U.S.
EPA, Office of Analysis and Evaluation, Office of Water
Regulation and Standards, Washington, D.C.
McEwen, F.L. and Stephenson, G.R. 1979. The Use and Significance of
Pesticides in the Environment. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
McKim, J.M., Benoit, D.A., Biesinger, K.E., Brungs, W.A., and
Seifert, R.E. 1975. Effects of Pollution on Freshwater
Fish. Jour. WPCF, 47(6):1711-1768.
McKim, J.M., Anderson, R.L., Benoit, D.A., Spehar, R.L., and
Stokes, G.N. 1967. Effects of Pollution on Freshwater Fish.
J. WPCF, 48(6):1544-1620.
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).
XVIII-17
-------
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
Numbe r 4,061,566, Decembe r 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.
Monsanto Company. (Industry Comments) Vol. III.
Moore, F.L., e_t al. 1973. Recovery of Toxic Metals from Industrial
Effluent Solutions by Solvent Extraction, Ecology, and Analysis
of Trace Contaminants. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
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.
Nathan, M. F., Choosing A Process for Chloride Removal, Chemical
Engineering, January 30, 1978.
National Agricultural Chemical Associate (NACA). 1978. Pesticides
Industry Profile Study for 1977. Washington, D.C.
Necly, M. #123. Personal Communication. Versar, Springfield, Va.
XVIII-18
-------
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.
Nimmo, D.R., Hamaker, T. L., Matthews, E., and Moore, J. C. 1981.
An Overview of the Acute and Chronic Effects of First and
Second Generation Pesticides on an Estuarine Mysid. Vernberg,
F.J. (Ed.), Biological Monitoring of Marine Pollutants,
p.p 3019. Academic Press, New York.
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-Tetrachlorodi-
benzoparadioxin (TCDD). U.S. EPA, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Toxicology Division, Health Effects Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
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
Lognormal 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.
XVIII-19
-------
Parrish, P.R., Dyar, E.E., Enos, J.M., and Wilson, W.G. 1978.
Chronic Toxicity of Chlordance, Trifluralin, and
Pentachlorophenol to Sheepshead Minnows
(Cyprinodon variegatus). EPA-600/3-78-010.
Parrish, P.R., Dyar, E.E., Lindberg, M.A., Shanika, C.M., and Enos,
J.M. 1977. Chronic Toxicity of Methoxychlor, Malathion, and
Carbofuran to Sheepshead Minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus.
EPA-600/3-77-059.
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.
Perrich, Jerry R. 1981 Activated Carbon Adsorption for Wastewater
Treatment. BOCA Raton Fl: CRC Press
Perry, J.H., et^ al.. 1973. Chemical Engineer's Handbook. Fifth
Edition. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.
Pickering, Q.H., Hunt, E.P., Phipps, G.L., Roush, T.H., Smith, W.E.,
Spehar, R.L., Stephan, C.E., and Tanner, O.K. 1983.
Effects of Pollution on Freshwater Fish and Amphibians.
Journ. WPCF, 55(6):840-863.
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., e_t al. 1977. Carbon Advanced Waste Treatment. Industrial
Wastes, July/August, 40-41.
XVIII-20
-------
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. 1980b. 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 al. 1965, Effectiveness of Water Treatment Process
in Pesticide Removal. Journal AWWA, 57(8).
Robertson, K.B. and Buting, D.L. 1976. The Acute Toxicity of
Four Herbicides to 0-4 Hour Nauplii of Cyclope vernalis.
Fisher (Copepod.) Cyclopoida.
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).
XVIII-21
-------
Schimmel, S.C., Garnas, R.L., Patrick, J.M., Jr., and Moore, J.C.
1983. Acute Toxicity, Bioconcentration, and Persistence of
AG 222, 705, Benthiocarb, Chlorpyrifos, Fenvalerate, Methyl
Parathion, and Permethrin in the Estuarine Environment. J.
Agric. FoodChem., 31(1):104-113.
Schneider, B.A. 1979. Toxicology Handbook—Mammalian and Aquatic
Data. EPA-540/9-79-003.
Sawyer, C.N. 1979, Chemistry for Environmental Engineers,
3rd ED. p. 161.
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.
Sharp, D.H. and A.E. Lambden; Treatment of Effluent from
Pesticide Manufacture; Manufacturing Chemist; May 1985;
pp. 210-215.
Sherma, J.f 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.
XVIII-22
-------
Stephens, M.A. 1974. EOF Statistics for Goodness of Fit. Journal
of American Statistical Association. 6:730-737.
Stereochemistry and Biological Activity of Drugs, Oxford Boston
Blackwell Scientific Publications St. Louis, Mo. Blackwell
Mosby Book Distributors, 1983, 194 p. ill., 24 cm.
Stereochemistry and Reactivity of System Containing (Pi
Electrons), Deerfield Beach, Fla., Verlag Chemie
International, c!983, xiv, 439 p. ill., 25 cm.
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.
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.
XVIII-23
-------
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.
Trucco, R.B., e_t al. 1983, 'Toxicity, Accumulation and Clearance
of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in DAPHNIA PU in Environ. Pollut.,
31A, 191.
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.
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, e_t 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.
XVIII-24
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Case Studies 1-23, Remedial
Response at Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA 540/2-84-002b;
March 1984
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Development
Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Coil
Coating Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-82/071.
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. Enviromental Protection Agency, MERL, ORD, Cincinnati, Ohio
45268; Literature Study of the Biodegrad ability of Chemicals
in Water, volumes 1 and 2, EPA 600/2-81-175 and EPA-600/2-81
176, September 1981.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, MDSD, Washington, D.C.
20460; Water Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priorit
Pollutants, Volume I: Introduction and Technical Background
Metals and Inorganic, Pesticides and PCB's; Section III
Pesticides, Chapter 20-35, EPA 440/4-79-029 a: December 31, 1979
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, MERL, Cincinnati, Ohio
45268; Presence of Priority Pollutants in Sewage and
Their Removal in Sewage Treatment Plants; Sections 10,
through 12.
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.
XVIII-25
-------
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 1980 g. Onsite Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal Systems. Office of Research and
Development Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory.
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 615/1-80-012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Carbon Adsorption
Isothered for Toxic Organics. Merk, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA 600/8-80023.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Oct., 1973. Process
Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption.
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.
Karr Environmental Research Laboratory. Ada, Oklahoma.
XVIII-26
-------
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.
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
Alternative 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).
XVIII-27
-------
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. 1978 K. Assessment of
Technology for Control of Toxic Effluents From the Electric
Utility Industry. Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA 600/7-78-090.
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.
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 Development, 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 Mo-.itoring 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/l-75-060d.
XVIII-28
-------
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.
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.
XVIII-29
-------
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.
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.
XVIII-30
-------
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.
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/l-74-009a.
XVIII-31
-------
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. 1974M. Effluent Guidelines
and Standards. General Provisision. Federal Register,
Part II, 39(24):4531-4533.
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.
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.
XVIII-32
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Oct., 1973. Process Manual
for Carbon Adsorption.
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.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Catalog of Research in
Aquatic Pest Control and Pesticide Residues in Aquatic
Environments. Pesticide Study Series-1.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Handbook of Acute Toxicity
of Chemicals to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates. Resource
Publication 137. Washington, D.C.
Verlag Chemie International. 1983. Stereochemistry and
Reactivity of System Containing (Pi Electrons). Deerfield
Beach, Fl.
Vanschueren, K. 1977. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic
Chemicals. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
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.
XVIII-33
-------
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.
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.
XVIII-34
-------
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., e_t 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.
Woodward, D.F., e_t al. 1983, 'Accumulation, Bublethal Effects
and Safe Concentration of a Refined Oil as Evaluated
with the Cutthroat Trout,1 in Arch. Environm. Contam.
Toxicol., 12, 455.
Woodward, D.F. and Mauck, W.L. 1980. Toxicity of Five Forest
Insecticides to Cutthroat Trout and Two Species of Aquatic
Invertebrates. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 25:846-853.
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.
Zhang, R. and Zhang, 1982, 'Toxicity of Fluorides to Fishes,1 in C.A.
Selects - Environm. Pollut. 24,97:176354K
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.
Zweig, G., Editor. 1964. Analytical Methods for Pesticides, Plant
Growth Regulations, and Food Additives, Volume I; Insecticides,
Volume II; Fungicides, Nematocides and Soil Fumigants,
Rodenticides and Food and Feed Additives, Volume III; and
Herbicides, Volume IV. Academic Press, New York.
XVIII-35
-------
-------
SECTION XIX
GLOSSARY
Abscission—Process by which a leaf or other part is separated
from the plant.
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 thermodynamic 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.
Algicide—Chemical used to control algae and aquatic weeds.
Amide Pesticide Structural Group—Alachlor, Butachlor, Deet,
XIX-1
-------
Diphenamid, Fluoroacetamide, Napropamide, Naptalam, Pronamide,
Propachlor.
Amide Type Pesticide Structural Group—Aldicarb, Methomyl,
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.
Best Performance Treatment Technologies—Those treatment
technologies selected by the Agency and currently inuse in the
pesticide industry. They are: biological oxidation, activated
carbon, hydrolysis, metals separation, chemical oxidation, resin
adsorption, and steam stripping.
Bioconcentration Factor (B.C.F.)—The ratio of the concentration
of a chemical in aquatic organisms (ug chemical/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.
Slowdown—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
XIX-2
-------
incubation for five days at 20° C. BODS—Biochemical oxygen
demand, measured after five-day.
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, Resmethrin, Rotenone.
BPT Effluent Limitations—Limitations 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.
cc—Cubic centimeter.
Cal—Calorie.
Carbamates—A group of insecticides which act on the nervous
system by inhibiting the acetylcholinesterase enzyme at the nerve
synapse.
Carbon Regeneration—The process of reactivating exhausted or
"spent" carbon by thermal means.
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
XIX-3
-------
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.
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.
XIX-4
-------
Desiccant—A chemical that induces rapid dehydration of a leaf or
plant part.
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 Media Filtration—The process of separation suspended solids
from wastewater; dual media filtration contains sand, anthracite/
or garmet for the removal of suspended solids.
Dual Significance—Classification of priority pollutants which
are: (1) manufactured pesticide products (primary significance)
and are controlled by monitoring other pollutants of primary
significance (secondary significance), or (2) manufactured
pesticide products with zero wastewater discharge (primary
significance) and lack adequate monitoring data to recommend
regulation 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.
Equalization—A treatment unit consisting of a wastewater holding
vessel that functions to equalize wastewaters and provide a
constant discharge rate and wastewater quality.
XIX-5
-------
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.
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-
XIX-6
-------
chloroethyl)ether; 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether; Bis(2-
chloroisopropyl)ether; Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane; 4-chlorophenyl
phenyl ether; 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether.
Halogenated Aliphatic Pesticide Structural Group—BHC;
Chloropicrin; Dalapon; DBCP; D-D; Dichloroethyl ether;
Dichloropropene; Ethylene dibromide; Lindane; Methyl bromide.
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.
Hepatoma—'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.
hr—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/or aqueous 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.
XIX-7
-------
Intraperitoneal — Within the smooth transparent serous membrane
that lines the cavity of the abdomen of mammals.
kg — Kilogram.
kkg — 1,000 kilograms.
kPa — Kilopascal-SI unit of pressure equal to 0.01 bars or 0.75
millimeters of mercury.
kw — Kilowatt.
L(l)— Liter.
Lagoon — A pond containing raw or partially treated wastewater in
which aerobic or anaerobic stabilization occurs.
Land Disposal — Disposal of wastewater onto land.
Ib — 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 dermally, expressed in mg (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
dermally, 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
goal for this project, as follows:
mg/1; Pesticides
limit as an analytical
Organic pollutants = 0.01
= 0.001 mg/1; Metals (mg/1)
Zn
Sb
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
=
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.1
.025
.05
.005
.025
.02
Pb
Hg
Ni
Se
Ag
Tl
=
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
025
001
5
01
005
05
m — Meter.
XIX-8
-------
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.
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.).
Membrane Processes—Such as reverse osmosis, and ultrafiltration
are used primarily in the metal industry to remove solutes from
wastewater.
Mercaptan—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; Ziram.
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—Milligram.
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,
XIX-9
-------
Asbestos, Isophorone, lf2-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.
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.
Neutralization—The process of neutralizing wastewater using
alkaline or acidic agents.
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 manufacturing area may be included
XIX-10
-------
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.
Nonhalogenated Cyclic Aliphatic Pesticide Structural Group—
Endothall.
Non-Pass Through Pollutants—Those pollutants that are
biodegradable, and do not pass through biogical oxidation
treatment systems.
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), mg/1 as N; Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), mg/1 as N; Nitrate
Nitrogen (NO3), 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—Phosphorus Pesticide Structural Group—Dyfonate, phorate,
naled, diazinon, malathion.
Organo-Sulfur Pesticide Structural Group—EXD, HPTMS, Propargite,
Sulfoxide, Vancide PA.
Ovicide—A chemical that destroys an organism's eggs.
XIX-11
-------
Pass-Through Pollutants—Those pollutants that are not readily
biodegradable and pass through biological oxidation treatment
systems.
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'-ODD; 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.
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 pheromones
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, Demeton,
Demeton-o, Demeton-s, Diazinon, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion,
Disulfoton, EPN, Ethion, Ethoprop, Famphur, Fenitrothion,
Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Fonofos, Malathion, Merphos, Oxydemeton,
Parathion ethyl, Parathion methyl, Phorate, Phosmet, 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.
XIX-12
-------
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; Indeno(lf2,3-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).
ppm—Parts per million (equal milligrams per liter/ mg/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 recommended 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 manufacturing process or
in the immediate manufacturing area.
XIX-13
-------
PSES-Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources.
psi—Pound per square inch.
PSNS-Pretreatment Standards for New Sources.
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.
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 recommended 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
XIX-14
-------
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.
Air/Steam Stripping—A treatment unit process used for separating
volatile organics from water and wastewater.
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.
Tertiary Treatment—The third major step in a wastewater
treatment process. 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.
TOC—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.
XIX-15
-------
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.
Oracil Pesticide Structural Group—Bromacil, Terbacil.
Urea Pesticide Structural Group—Diuron, Fenuron, Fenuron-TCA,
Fluometuron, 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.
Wet Air Oxidation-Is a liquid phase oxidation process that
destroys pollutants by oxidizing them totally.
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—APPENDIX 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS BY GROUP
Benzidines
1. Benzidine
2. SfS'-Dichlcrobenzidine
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes
3. Chlcc oethane
4. 1,1-Di chlcc oethane
5. 1,2-Di chlcc oe thane
6 . 1 , 1-Di chlcc ce thylene
7 . Ifexachlccoetnane
8. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachlccoethane
9. Tetrachlccoe thylene
10. 1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
11. 1,1,1-Trichlccoe thane
12. 1,1,2-Trichlor oethane
13. Tri chlcc oe thylene
14. Vinyl chloride
( Chi cr ce thylene )
Cyanides
15. Cyanide
Dichlccopropane and Dichloropcopene
16.
17.
Dienes
1,2-Di chloropropane
1,3-Dichlorocropene
1 8 . tfexachlccobutad iene
19. ffexachlccocyclopentadiene
Haloethers
20. Bis(2-chlcroethoxy) methane
21. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
22. Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
23. Bis (chlcc erne thyl) ether*
24. 4-Bronophenyl phenyl ether
25. 2-Chlcroethyl vinyl ether
26. 4-Chlcrophenyl phenyl ether
Halcne thanes
27. Bromofcrm
(Tr ibr onone thane)
28. Carbon tetrachlcr ide
(Te tr achlcc one thane)
29. Chi cccd ibr emote thane
30. Chlcc of crm
(Tr ichlor one thane)
31. Di chlcc cbrcmcme thane
32. Dichlccodiflur onethane*
33. tethyl bromide
(Br atone thane)
34. tethyl chlcc ide
(chlcc one thane)
35. fethylene chloride
(Di chlcc one thane)
36. Trichlcc of luor ore thane*
Metals
37. Aitinony
38. Arsenic
39. Berylliun
40. Cadmiun
41. Chromiun
42. Copper
43. lead
44. ffercury
45. Nickel
46. Selenium
47. Silver
48. Thalliun
49. Zinc
Miscellaneous Priority Pollutants
50. Acrolein
51. Acrylonitrile
52. Asbestos
53. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
54. Isophorone
Nitrosamines
55. N-nitrosodJmethylamine
56. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
57. N-nitroscdi-n-propylamine
XX-1
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS BY GROUP
(Continued, Page 2 of 3)
Nitrosubstituted Aronatics
58. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
59. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
60. Nitrobenzene
Pesticides
61. Aldrin
62. a-BHC-Alpha
63. b-BHC-Beta
64. r-BHC-Garana (Lindane)
65. d-BHC-DBlta
66. Chlordane
67. Dieldrin
68. 4,4'-ODD (p-p'-TDE)
69. 4,4'-DDE (p-p'-DDX)
70. 4,4'-DDT
71. a-Bidosulfan-Alpha
7 2. b-Ehdosulfan-Be ta
73. Bidosulfan sulfate
74. Endrin
75. Ehdrin aldehyde
76. ffeptachlor
77. Ffeptachlor 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. Parachlorophenol
8 7. Pen tachlor ophenol
88. Phenol
89. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Polychlor inated Biphenyls
96.
97.
98.
100.
101.
102.
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
(Arochlor 1242)
(Arochlor 1254)
(Arochlor 1221)
(Arochlor 1232)
(Arochlor 1260)
(Arochlor 1016)
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
103. Acnaphthylene
104. Acenaphthene
105. Anthracene
106. Benzo(A)anthracene
(1,2-Benzanthracene)
107. Bsnzo(a)pyrene
(3,4-Ben zopyr ene)
108. 3,4-B9nzofluoranthene
109. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
(1,12-Bsn zoper ylene)
110. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
(11,12-Bsn zoper ylene)
111. 2-Chlorcnaphthalene
112. Chrysene
113. Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
(1,2,5,6-Diben zan thr acene)
114. Fluoranthene
115. Fluorene
116. 3hdeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
(2,3-o-Phenylenepyr ene)
117. Napthalene
118. Phenanthrene
119. Pyrene
TCDD
120. TCDD (2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-
d iben zo-p-d ioxin)
XX-2
-------
SECTION XX—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. Ffexachlorobenzene
128. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
129. Toluene
Classification as a priority pollutant discontinued by EPA.
XX-3
-------
SECTION XX--APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
1. Acephate (Orthene)
2. Alachlor (Lasso)
3. Aldicarb (Temik)
4. Alkylamine
hydrochloride
5. Allethrin
6. Ametryne (Evik)
7. Aminocarb
8. Amobam
9. Anilazine (Dyrene)
10. [AOP] (Ambam oxidation
product)
OfS-Dimethyl acetylphosphor-
amidothioate
2-Chloro-2',6'-diethyl-N-
(methoxymethyl) acetanilide
2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)-
propionaldehyde-o-
(methylcarbomoyl) oxime
Alkylamine hydrochloride
2-methyl-4-oxo-3-(2-propenyl)-
2-cyclopenten-l-yl 2,2-dimethyl-
3-(2-methyl-l-propenyl)
cyclopropane carboxylate
2-Ethylamino-4-isopropyl-
amino-6-methylthio-l,3,5-
triazine
4-Dimethylamino-3-methyl-phenyl
methyl-carbamate
Diammonium ethylenebisdi-
thiocarbamate
2,4-Dichloro-6-(2-chloroanil-
ino)-lf3,5-triazine
Ethylene bis (dithiocarbamic
acid) bimolecular and trimole-
cular cyclic anhydrosulfides
and disulfides
XX-4
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
11. (Aquatreat DNM 30)
12. (Aspon)
13. Atrazine (Aatrex)
14. Azinphos methyl
(Guthion)
15. Barban (Carbyne)
16. l,l'-(2-butenylene)bis
(3,5,7-triaza-l-azo
(niaadiamantane chloride)
[BBTAC]
17. Bendiocarb (Ficam)
18. Benfluralin (Benefin)
19. Benomyl (Benlate)
20. Bensulide (Prefar)
21. Bentazon (Basagran)
15% Sodium dimethyl dithio-
carbamate 15.0% Disodium
ethylene bisdithiocarbamate
tetra-n-Propyl dithio-
pyrophosphate
2-Chloro-4-ethylamino-6-iso-
propylamino-1,3,5-triazine
0,0-Diethyl S-[4-oxo-l,2,3-ben-
zotriazin-3(4H)-ylmethylj
phosphorodithioate
4-Chlorobut-2-butynyl-m-
chlorocarbanilate
1,1'-(2-Butenylene)bis(3,5,7-
triaza-1-azo niaadamantane
chloride)
2,3-Isopropylidenedioxyphenyl
methylcarbamate
N-Butyl-N-ethyl-2,6-dinitro-
4-trifluoro-methylaniline
Methyl l-(butylcarbamoyl)-
2-benzimidazolecarbamate
S-(0/0-Diisopropyl phosphoro-
dithioate) ester of N-(2-mer
captoethyl)benzene sulfonamide
3-Isopropyl-lH-2,1,3-benzo-
thiadiazion-(4) 3H-one 2,
2-dioxide
XX-5
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
22. Benzethonium chloride
(Hyamine 1622)
23. Benzyl benzoate
24. Benzyl bromoacetate
(Merbac 35)
25. BHC (Alpha, Beta,
and Delta Isomers)*
26. Bifenox (Modown)
27. Biphenyl (Diphenyl)
28. (Bolstar) Sulprofos
29. Bromacil (Hyvar)
30. Bromoxynil (Brominal)
31. Bromoxynil octanotate
32. (Busan 40)
33. (Busan 85)
34. (Busan 90)
Benzyldimethyl[2-<2-(p-1,
1,3,3-tetramethylbutylphen-
oxy)ethoxy>ethy1]ammonium
chloride
Benzylbenzenecarboxylate
Benzyl bromoacetate
1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane
mixed ixomers
Methyl 5-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)
2-nitrobenzoate
Diphenyl
O-Ethyl O-[4(methylthio)phenyl]
-s-propyl phosphorodithioate
5-Bromo-3-sec-butyl-6-methyl-
uracil
3,5-Dibromo-4-hyroxyben-
zonitrile
2,6-Dibromo-4-cyanophenyl
octanoate
Potassium N-hydroxymethyl-
-N-Methyldithio carbamate
Potassium dimethyldithio
carbamate
2-Bromo-4-L-hydroxyaceto-
phenone
XX-6
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
35. Butachlor (Machete)
36. Butylate (Sutan)
37. Captafol (Difolatan)
38. Captan (Orthocide 406)
39. (Carbam-S) (Sodam)
40. Carbaryl (Sevin)
41. Carbendazim
42. Carbofuran (Furadan)
43. Carbophenothion
(Trithion)
44. Chloramben
(Amiben)
45. Chlordane*
(Octachlor)
46. Chlorobenzene*
47. Chlorobenzilate
(acaraben)
48. Chlorophacinone
N-(Butoxymethyl)-2-chloro-2',6'-
-diethylacetanilide
S-Ethyl Nf N-diisobutylthio-
carbamate
N-(1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylthio)
tetrahydrophthalimide
N-[(Trichloromethyl)thio]-4-
-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximide
Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate
1-Naphthyl N-methylcarbamate
2-(Methoxycarbonylamino)benzi-
midazol
2, 3-Dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-
benzofuranyl methylcarbamate
S-[(p-Chlorophenylthio)-methyl]
0,0-diethyl phosphorodithioate
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-[(p-chlorophenyl)phenyl-
-acetyl]-1,3-indandione
XX-7
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
49. Chloropicrin
(Larvacide, Nemax)
50. Chlorothalonil
(Daconil 2787)
51. Chlorpropham
52. Chlorpyrifos
(Dursban)
53. Chlorpyrifos methyl
54. Coumachlor
Trichloronitromethane
2,4,5,6-Tetrachloroisophtha-
lonitrile
Isopropyl-3-chlorophenyl
carhamate
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
3-(-acetonyl-4-chlorobenzyl)
-4-hydroxycoumarin
55. Coumafuryl
56. Coumaphos (Co-Ral)
57. Coumatetralyl
58. Cyanazine (Bladex)
59. Cycloate (Ro-Neet)
60. Cycloheximide
(Actidione)
4-hydroxy-3-[3-oxo-l-(2-
furyl)butyl]coumarin
0-(3-Chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-
-2H-l-benzopyran-7-yl)
0,0-diethyl phoaphorothi-
oate
4-hyroxy-3-(l,2,3,4-tetra-
hydro-l-naphthyl)coumarin
2-[(4-Chloro-6-(ethylamino)-
-S-triazine-2-yl)amino]-2-
-methylpropionitrite
S-Ethyl ethylcyclohexylthio-
carbamate
3[2-(3,5-Dimethyl-2-oxo-
cyclohexyl)-2-hydroxy-
ethyl] glutarimide
XX-8
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
61. Cycloprate
62. Cyhexatin
63. Cythioate (Probam)
64. 2,4-D
65. 2,4-D isobutyl ester
66. 2,4-D isooctyl ester
67. 2,4-D salt
68. Dalapon (Dowpon)
69. Dazomet (Thiadiazin)
70. 2,4-DB
71. 2,4-DB isobutyl ester
Hexadecylcyclopropane
carboxylate
Tricyclohexytin hydroxide
0,0-Dimethyl 0-p-sulfa-
moylphenyl phosphoro-
thioate
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyaxetic
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%
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid dimethylamine salt
2,2-Dichloropropionic acid
Tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-
l,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione
4-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)-
butyric-acid
4-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)-butyric-
-acid isobutyl ester
XX-9
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
72. 2,4-DB isooctyl ester
73. DBCP
(Dibromochloropropane,
Nemagon)
74. DCNA (Dichloran, Botran)
75. DCPA (Daethai)
76. ODD (TDE)*
77. DDE (DDX)*
78. DDT*
79. Deet
80. Demeton (Systox)
81. Demeton-o
82. Demeton-s
83. Diazinon (Spectracide)
84. Dicamba (Banvel D)
85. Dichlofenthion
(Nemacide)
4-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)-butyric-
-acid isooctyl ester
1,2,Dibromo-3-chloropropane
and related halogenated C3
hydrocarbons
(2,6 Dichloro-4-,nitroaniline)
Dimethyl 2,3,5,6-tetrachloro
terephthalate
2,2-Bis(p-chlorophenyl)-!,!-
dichloroethane
1,l-Dichloro-2,2-Bis(p-chloro-
phenyl) ethylene
Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane
NN-Diethyl-m-toluamide
Mixture of 0,0-diethyl-S(and
0)-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl]
phosphorothioates
0,0-Diethyl 0-[2-(ethylthio)
ethyl] phosphorothioate
0,0-Diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)
ethyl] phosphorothioate
0,0-Diethyl 0-(2-isopropyl-
b-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl)
phosphorothioate
2-Methoxy-3,b-dichlorozben-
zoic acid
0-2,4-Dichlorophenyl 0,0-diethyl
phosphorothioate
XX-10
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2_
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
86. Dichlorobenzene, ortho*
87. Dichlorobenzene, para*
88. Dichloroethyl ether*
(Chlorex)
89. Dichlorophen
90. Dichlorophen salt
91. D-D (Dichloropropane-
dichloropropene mixture)
92. Dichloropropene (Telone)*
93. Dichlorprop (2,4-DP)
94. Dichlorvos (DDVP)
95. Dicofol
96. Dienochlor (Pentac)
97. Dimethoxane (Dioxin)
98. Dinocap (Karathane)
99. Dinoseb (DNBP)
100. Dioxathion (Delnav)
101. Diphacinone (Diphacin)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
2,2'-Methylene bis(4-chlo-
rophenol)
Sodium salt of 2,2'-methyl-
ene bis(4-chlorophenol)
(60-66%) 1,3-Dichloropropene &
(30-35%) 1,2-Dichloropropane &
other constitutents
1,3-Dichloropropene
2-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)-
-propionic acid
2,2-Dichlorovinyl dimethyl
phosphate
1,1-Bis(p-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-
trichloroethanol
Perchlorobi (cyclopenta-2,
4-dien-l-yl)
6-Acetyl-2,4-dimethyl-m-
-dioxane
2-(1-Methylheptyl)-4,6-
-dinitrophenyl crotonate
2-(sec-Butyl)-4,6-dinitrophenol
s,s'-p-Dioxane-2,3-diyl O,
0-diethyl phosphorodithioate
(cis and trans isomers)
2-Diphenylacetyl-l,3-inda-
ndione
XX-11
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
102. Diphenamid (Enide)
103. Diphenylamine (DFA)
104. Diaulfoton (Di-Syston)
105. Diuron (DCMU)
106. Dodine (Carpene)
107. (Dowicil 75)
108. Endosulfan*
109. Endothall (Endothal)
110. Endrin*
111. EPN
112. EPTC (Eptam)
113. Ethalfluralin (Sonalan)
114. Ethion
115. Ethoprop (Mocap)
N,N-Dimethyl-2,2-diphenyl-
acetamide
Diphenylamine
0,0-Diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)-
ethly] phosphorodithioate
3-(3,4-Dichlorophenyl)-1-di-
methylurea
n-Dodecylguanidine acetate
1-(3-Chlorallyl)-3,5,7-
triaza-1-azonia-ad mentane
6,7,8,9,10,10-Hexachloro-1,5,5a,
6,9,9a-Hexahydro-6,9-methano-
2,4,3-Benzo[e]-dioxathiepin-
3-oxide
7-oxabicyclo(2,2,1)heptane-2,
3-dicarboxylic acid monohydrate
1,2,3,4,10,-Hexachloro-b,
7-epoxy-l,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-
-octahydro-exo-1,4-exo-5,
8-dimethanonaphthalene
O-Ethyl O-p-nitrophenyl
phenyl phosphonothioate
S-Ethyldipropylthiocarhamate
N-Ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-propenyl)
-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)
aniline
0,0,0',0-Tetraethyl S,S'-methy-
lene bisphosphorodithioate
O-Ethyl S,S,'dipropyl
phosphorodithioate
XX-12
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
116. Ethoxyquin 66%
117. Ethoxyquin 86%
118. Ethylene dibromide (EDB)
119. Etridiazole (Terrazole)
120. EXD (Bisethylxanthogen)
(Herbisan)
121. Famphur (Warbex)
122. Fenarimol
123. Fenitrothion (Sumithion)
124. Fensulfothion
(Dasanit)
125. Fenthion (Baytex)
126. Fentin hydroxide
(Du-Ter)
127. Fenuron
128. Fenuron-TCA
129. Ferbam (Fermate)
130. Fluchloralin (Basalin)
1, 2-Dihydro-6-ethoxy-2,2,4
trimethyl quinoline
60-66%
1,2-Dihydro-6-ethoxy-2,2,4
trimethyl quinoline
80-86%
1,2-Dibromoethane
5-Ethoxy-3-trichloromethyl-
1,2,4-thiadiazole
Diethyl dithiobis(thionoformate)
O-[p(Dimethylsulfamoyl)phenyl]
O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate
a-(2-Chlorophenyl)-a-(4-chloro-
phenyl)-5-pyrimidine-methanol
0,0-Dimethyl O-(4-nitro-m-tolyl)
phosphorothioate
O,O-Diethyl O-[p(methylsulfinyl)
phenyl]phosphorothioate
O,O-Dimethyl O-[4-(methyl-thio)-
-m-tolyl] phosphorothioate
Triphenyltin hydroxide
1,l-Dimethyl-3-phenylurea
3-Phenyl-l,1-dimethylurea
trichloroacetate
Ferric dimethyldithiocarbamate
N-Propy1-N-(2-chloroethyl)-a,
a,a-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-p-
-toluidine
XX-13
-------
SECTION XX--APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
131. Fluoridone (EL-171)
132. Fluometuron (Cotoran)
133. Fluoroacetamide
134. Folpet (Phaltan)
135. Fonofos (Dyfonate)
136. (Giv-gard)
137. Glyodin
138. Glyphosate (Roundup)
139. 2-[(Hydroxymethyl)
amine]ethanol [HAE]
140. 2-[(Hydroxymethyl)
amine]-2-methyl propanol
[HAMP]
141. Heptachlor*
142. Hexachlorophene (Nabac)
143. Hexazinone
144. HPTMS
145. (Hyamine 2389)
l-Methyl-3-phenyl-5[3-(trifluor-
omethyl)phenyl]-4-(lH)-pyridinone
1,l-Dimethyl-3-(3-trifluoromethyl
phenyl)urea
Fluoroacetamide
N-Trichloromethylthio)-phthal-
imide
0-Ethyl S-phenyl ethyl-phosphono-
dithioate
Beta-bromo-beta nitrostyrene
2-Heptadecyl-2-imidazoline
acetate
N-(Phosphonomethyl)glycine
2-[(Hydroxymethyl)amine]
ethanol
2-[(Hydroxymethyl)amine]
-2-methyl propanol
1,4,5,6,7,8,8-Heptachloro-3a,4,
7,7a-tetrahydro-4,7-methano-
indene
2-2'-Methylene bis (3,4,6-
3-Cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)
-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%
XX-14
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
146. (Hyamine 3500)
147. Isopropalin (Paarlan)
148. (Kathon 886)
149. Kinoprene
150. (KN methyl)
151. (Lethane 384)
152. (Lindane) BHC-Gamma*
153. Linuron
(Afolan, Lorox)
154. Malathion
(Mercaptothion,
Cythion)
155. Maleic hydrazide
156. Mancozeb
(Dithane M-45)
157. Maneb (Manzate)
158. MCPA
159. MCPA isooctyl ester
n-Alkyl (50% C14,40% C12, 10% C16
dimethyl benzyl ammonia 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(+)-(£,E)-3,7,11-
-trimethyldodeca-2,4-dienoate
Potassium N-methyl
dithiocarbamate
b-Butoxy-B'thiocyanodiethyl
ether
1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane
gamma isomer
3-(3,4-Dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-
-1-methylurea
Diethyl mercaptosuccinate
S-ester with 0,0-dimethyl
phosphorodithioate
1,2-Dihydropyridazine-3,6-di-
one
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
XX-15
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
160. MCPP
161. Mephosfolan
(Cytrolane)
162. (Merphos) (Folex)
163. (Metasol DGH)
164. {Metasol J-26)
165. Metham (Vapam, SMDC)
166. Methamidophos
(Monitor) (Tamaron)
167. Methiocarb
168. Methomly (Lannate)
169. Methoprene (Altosid)
170. Methoxychlor (Marlate)
171. Methylbenzethonium
chloride
(Hyamine 10X)
172. Methyl Bromide*
(Metabrom)
173. Methylene bisthiocyanate
(Cytox)
174. Metribuzin (Sencor)
2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxy
propionic acid
P,P-Diethyl cyclic propylene
ester of phosphonodithiomido-
-carbonic acid
Tributyl phosphorotrithioite
Dodecylguanidine HC1
N(l Nitroethyl benzyl)
ethylene diamine 25%
Sodium N-methyldithio
carbamate
O-S-Dimethyl phosophoroamido-
thioate
4-Methylthio-3,5-xylyl methyl-
carbamate
S-Methyl N-[(methylcarbomoyl)-
-oxyjthioacetimidate
Isopropyl (2E,4E)-ll-methoxy-3,
7,ll-trimethyl-l,4-dodecadi-
enoate
2,2-Bis(p-methoxyphenyl)-1,1,1-
-trichloroethane
Benzyldimethyl [2-<2-(p-l,lf3,
3-tetramethyl-butylcresoxy)
-ethoxy>ethyl] ammonium chloride
Bromomethane
Methylene bisthiocyanate
4-Amino-6-tert-butyl-3-(methyl-
thio)-l,2,4ftriazine-5-one
XX-16
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2_
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
175. Mexacarbate
176. Mevinphos (Phosdrin)
177. (MGK 264)
178. (MGK 326)
179. Mirex
180. Molinate (Ordram)
181. Monocrotophos (Azodrin)
182. Monuron
183. Monuron-TCA
184. Nabam (Dithane D-14)
185. (Nabonate)
186. Naled (Dibrom)
4-(Dimethylamino)-3,5-xylyl
methyl carbamate
Methyl 3-hydroxy-alpha-croton-
ate, dimethyl phosphate
N-(2-EthyIhexyl)bicyclo(2,2,1)-
-5-heptene-2,3-dicarboximide
Di-n-propyl isocinchomeronate
Dodecachloro-octahydro-1,3,4-
metheno-2h-cyclobuta[c,d]
pentalene
S-Ethyl hexahydro-lH-azepine-
-1-carbothioate
Dimethyl phosphate of 3-hydroxy-
N-methyl-cis-crotonamide
3-(p-chlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethy-
lurea
3-(p-chlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethy-
lurea trichloroacetate
Disodium ethylene bis(dithio-
carbamate)
Disodium cyanodithio-
imidocarbonate
1,2-Dibromo-2,2-dichloro-
ethyl dimethyl phosphate
187. 1,8-Naphthalic anhydride 1,8-Naphthalic anhydride
188. Napropamide (Devrionl)
189. Naptalam
2-(a-Naphthoxy)-N,N-diethy1-
propionamide
N-1-Naphthylphtalamic acid
XX-17
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2_
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
190. Neburon
191. (Niacide)
192. Nitrofen (TOK)
193. (NMI)
194. Norfluazon (Evital)
195. Octhilinone (RH-893)
196. Oryzalin (Surflan)
197. Quinomethionate
198. Oxamyl (Vydate)
199. Oxydemeton
(Metasystox-R)
200. Oxyfluorfen (Goal)
201. Paraquat
202. Parathion ethyl
203. Parathion methyl
l-n-Butyl-3-(3,4-dichloro-
phenyl)-1-methylurea
Manganeous dimethyldithio-
carbamate
2,4-Dichlorophenyl-p-
nitrophenyl ether
2,6,Bis dimthylamine methyl
cyclohexanone
4-Chloro-5-(methylamino)-2-(a,
a,a-trifluoro-m-tolyl)-2H-
-pyridazinone
2-n-Octyl-4-isothiazolin-
-3-one
3,5-Dinitro-N4,N4,dipropyl-
sulfanilamide
6-methyl-2-oxo-l,3-dithiolo-
[4,5b]quinoxaline
Methyl n',n'-diomethyl-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
l,l'-Dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridalium
ion
0,0-Diethyl-O-p-nitrophenyl
phosphorothioate
0,0-Dimethyl 0-p-nitro-phenyl
phosphorothioate
XX-18
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2_
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
204. PBED (Busan 77)
205. (Perthane) Ethylan
206. PCNB (Quintozene)
207. PCP*
208. PCP salt
209. Pebulate (Tillman)
210. Permethrin (Ambush)
211. Phenylphenol
(Dowicide 1)
212. Phenylphenol sodium salt
(Dowicide A)
213. Phorate
(Thimet)
214. Phosfolan (Cyolane)
215. Phosmet (Imidan)
216, Picloram (Trodon)
217. Pindone (Pival)
218. Piperalin (Pipron)
Poly[oxyethylene(dimethylimino)
ethylene(dimethylimino)ethylene
dichloride]
l,l-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p-ethyl-
phenyl) ethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
2,3,4,5,6-Pentachlorophenol
2,3,4,5,6-Potassium-
pentachlorophenate
S-Propyl butylethylthiocarbamate
m-phenoxybenzyl (j-)-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 phosphonodithiomido-
-carbonic acid
0,0-Dimethyl-S-phthalimido-
-methyl phosphorodithioate
4-Amino-3,5,6-trichlor-
-picolinic acid
2-Trimethylacetyl-l,3-
-indandione
3-(2-Methylpiperidino)propyl-
-3,4-dichlorobenzoate
XX-19
-------
SECTION XX--APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
219. Piperonyl butoxide
(Butacide)
220. (Polyphase antimildew)
221. Profluralin (Tolban)
222. Prometon (Pramitol)
223. Prometryn (Caparol)
224. Pronamide (Kerb)
225. Propachlor (Ramrod)
226. Propanil (Stam)
227. Propargite (Omite)
228. Propazine (Milogard)
229. Propham (IPC)
230. Propionic acid
231. Propoxur
232. Pyrethrins
233. 8 Quinolinol citrate
234. 8 Quinolinol sulfate
a-[2-(Butoxyethoxy-ethoxy]
-4,5-methylenedioxy-2-propyl-
toluene
3-Ido-2 propynyl butyl
carbamate
N-Cyclopropylmethyl-2,6-dinitro
-N-propyl-4-trifluoromethyl-
aniline
2,4-Bis(isopropylamino)-6-
-methoxy-s-triazine
2,4-Bis(isopropylamino)-6-
(methyl-thio)-S-teiazine
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
Isopropyl carbanilate
Propanoic acid
o-Isoporpoxyphenyl methyl
carbamate
Standardizes mixture of pyrethrin
I and II (mixed esters of pyre-
throlone
8-Quinolinol citrate
8-Quinolinol sulfate
XX-20
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2^
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
235. Resmethrin
236. RH 787 (Vacor)
237. Ronnel (Fenchlorphos)
238. Rotenone
239. Siduron (Tupersan)
240. Silvex (Fenoprop)
241. Silvex isooctyl ester
242. Silvex salt
243. Simazine (Princep)
244. Simetryne (Gybon)
245. Sodium monofluoroacetate
246. Stirofos
(Tetrachlorvinphos)
247. Sulfallate (CDEC)
248. Sulfoxide
(5-Benzyl-3-furyl)methyl-2,2
-dimethyl-3-(2-methyl propenyl)
cyclopropane carboxylate
(approximately 70% trans,
30% Cis isomers)
N-3-Pyridylmethyl N'-nitro-
phenyl urea
0,0-Dimethyl 0-(2,4,5-trichloro-
pnenyl)phosphorothioate
l,2,12,12a, Tetrahydro-2-isopro-
penyl-8,9-dimethoxy-[1]benzo-
pyrano [3,4-b] furo [2f3-b] [1]
benzopyran
1-(2-Methylcyclohexyl)-3-
phenylurea
2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy)
propionic acid
Isooctyl ester of 2-(2,4
5-trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid
Dimethyl amine salt of
2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)
propinoic acid
2-Chloro-4,5,6-bis(ethyl-amino)
-s-triazine
2-Methylthio-4,6-bis-ethylamino
-s-triazine
Sodium monofluoroacetate
2-Chloro-l-(2,4,5-t richlorophenyl
vinyl dimethyl phosphate
2-Chloroallydiethyldithio-
carbamate
1,methyl-2-(3,4-methylene-
dioxyphenyl)ethyl octyl sulfoxide
XX-21
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
249. Swep
250. 2,4,5-T
251. TCMTB
252. Tebuthiuron
253. Temephos (Abate)
254. Terbacil (Sinbar)
255. Terbufos (Counter)
256. Terbuthylazine
(GS 13529)
257. Terbutryn (Igran)
258. Thiabendazole (Mertect)
259. Thiofanox
(DS-15647)
260. Thionazine (Nemafos)
261. (Tokuthion) (NTN 8629)
Prothiofos
262. Toxaphene (Camphechlor)*
Methyl N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)
carbamate
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2-[Thiocyanomethythio]
benzothiazole
l-(5-tert-Butyl-l,2,4-thia-diazol
-2-yl)-l,3-dimethylurea
0,0-Dimethyl phosphorothioate
0,0-diester with 4,4'-thio-
diphenol
3(tert-Butyl)-5-chlor-6-methyl
uracil
5-tert-Butylthiomethyl 0,0-
dimethyl
phosphorodithioate
2-tert-Butylamino-4-chloro
-6-ethylamino-l,3,5-triazine
2-(tert-Butylamino)-4-
-(ethyl-amino)-6-(methylthio)
-s-triazine
2-(4'-Thiazolyl) benzimidazole
3,3-Dimethy1-1-(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%)
XX-22
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name
Chemical Name
263. Triadimefon (Bayleton)
264. Tributyltin benzoate
265. Tributyltin fluoride
266. Tributyltin oxide
267. Trichlorobenzene (TCB)*
268. Trichloronate
269. Tricyclazole
270. Trifluralin (Treflan)
271. (Vancide TH)
272. (Vancide 51Z)
273. (Vancide 51Z dispersion)
274. (Vancide PA)
275. Vernolate (Vernam)
276. Warfarin
277. [ZAC] (zinc ammonium
carbonate)
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-Trifluoro-2,6-dinintro-
-N, N-Dipropyl-p-toluidine
Hexahydro-1,3,5-triethyl-s-
-triazine
Zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate
and Zinc 2-mercaptobenzo-
thiazole
50% Zinc dimethylydithiocarbamate
and Zinc 2-mercaptobenzothiazole
50% water
0-ethyl 0-(2,4,5-trichloro-
phenyl)ethylphosphorothioate
S-Propyl N,N-dipropylthio-
carbamate
4-hydroxy-3-(3-oxo-l-phenyl-
butyl)coumarin
Ammoniates of [ethylenebis
(dithiocarbamate)]-zinc
XX-23
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Common Name Chemical Name
278. Zineb Zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate
279. Ziram (Vancide MZ-96) Zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate
Under the column titles 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.
XX-24
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 3
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
The following pesticides were excluded from BPT regulations according to
the April 25, 1978 Federal Register;
Allethrin Naphthalene acetic acid
Benzyl benzoate 1,8-Napthalic anhydride
Biphenyl Phenylphenol
Bisethylxanthogen* Pipercnyl butoxide
Chlorophacinone Propargite
Ooumafuryl Cu inane thicnate
Dimethyl phthalate Hesmethrin
Diphacincne Rotencne
Ehdothall acid Sodium pnenylphenate
EXD (fferbisan)* Sulfoxide
Gibberellic acid Triazine conpounds (both
Glyphosate symmetrical and asymmetrical)
Jfethoprene Warfarin and similar anticoagulants
* Although originally listed as two compounds, it has been determined
that the two are 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 Peder al Register as listed below:
Aldrin Dicamba Msxacarbate
Minocarb Dichloran Mirex
Azinphos methyl Dicofol Monurcn
Barban Dieldrin Monurcn-TCA
BHC Disulfoton Neburon
Captan Diurcn Parathicn ethyl
Carbaryl Ehdosulfan Parathicn methyl
Chlordane Ehdr in PCNB
Chlorpropham Fenuron Par thane
2,4-D Fenurcn-TCA Rropham
DDD tfeptachlor Propoxur
DDE Lindane Sidurcn
DDT Linuron Silvex
Demeton-O Melathicn SWEP
Dameton-S Wethiocarb 2,4,5-T
Diazincn Methoxychlor irifluralin
Toxaphene
XX-25
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 3
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 ValuesDaily
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-Orgam'c Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing
Subcategory 3: Pesticide Chemicals Formulating and Packaging
t The pH shall be between the values of 6.0 to 9.0
XX-26
-------
SECTION XX - APPENDIX 4
CONVERSION TABLE
Multiply (English Units) By To Obtain (Metric Units)
English Unit Abbreviation Conversion Abbreviation Metric Unit
acre
acre-feet
British Thermal
Unit
British Thermal
Unit/pound
cubic feet
per minute
cubic feet
per second
cubic feet
cubic feet
cubic inches
degree Fahrenheit
feet
gallon
gallon per
minute
ac
ac ft
BTU
BTU/lb
cfm
cfs
cu ft
cu ft
cu in
op
ft
gal
gpni
0.405
1233.5
0.252
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555(°F-32)*
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
ha hectares
cu m cubic meters
kg cal kilogram-
calories
kg cal/kg kilogram
calories
per kilo-
gram.
cu m/min cubic meters
per minute
cu m/min cubic meters
per minute
cu m cubic meters
1 liters
cu cm cubic centi-
meter
°C degree
Centigrade
m meters
1 liter
I/sec liters per
second
gallon per ton
gal/ton
4.173
liters per
metric ton
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier
XX-27
-------
SECTION XX - APPENDIX 4 (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
CONVERSION TABLE
Multiply (English
Enqlish Unit
horsepower
inches
pounds per
square inch
million gallons
per day
pounds per square
inch (gauge)
pounds
pounds
ton
mile
square feet
Units)
Abbreviation
hp
in
psi
M3D
psi
Ib
Ib
ton
mi
ft2
By To Obtain (Metric Units)
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
Abbreviation
kw
cm
atra
cu m/day
atm
kg
mg
kkg
km
m2
Metric Unit
kilowatts
centimeters
atmosphere
(absolute)
cubic meters
per day
atmospheres
kilograms
milligrams
metric ton
kilometer
square meters
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier.
XX-28
-------
Section XX-APPENDIX 5
FORM APPROVED
OMB No.2040-0041
EXPIRES June 30, 1984
QUESTIONNAIRE
FORMULATING/PACKAGING SEGMENT OF
THE PESTICIDE CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
XX-29
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Protection Agency 1s conducting this survey 1n support
of rulemaking to control pollutants 1n wastewaters discharged by pesticide
chemicals formulator/packagers (PFP), one segment of the pesticide chemicals
Industry. The objective of the questionnaire 1s to obtain Information on
current PFP plant operations and on wastewater control and treatment practices.
Facilities covered by this survey are those classified as agricultural
and/or household pest control chemicals formulator/blendor/repackagers
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentldde Act (FIFRA) that
currently discharge wastewater to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).
These plants formulate and/or package pesticide active Ingredients and may,
1n the process, generate wastewater contaminated by priority, conventional,
and/or nonconventlonal pollutants. More specifically, these plants physically
mix technical grade pesticide Ingredients Into liquids, dusts and powders, or
granules and then package these products Into marketable containers.
All pesticide manufacturers are required under FIFRA to register their
products with the EPA Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. The Effluent
Guidelines Division used this registration information to Identify your plant
as a formulator/packager, and it used a telephone survey to Identify your
plant as an indirect discharger. The information obtained from the PFP survey
will be analyzed in addition to the FIFRA production data in order to promulgate
effluent guidelines for pesticide formulator/packagers that are Indirect
dischargers.
This questionnaire is organized Into six parts: (1) General Informa-
tion; (2) Plant Characteristics; (3) Plant Personnel; (4) Plant Operations:
Formulating/Packaging Production; (5) Wastewater Generation/Characteristics;
(6) Wastewater Treatment/Control Technology. Definitions of terms used 1n
the questionnaire are given at the back of the document. To aid the respondent,
Instructions have been incorporated Into the questionnaire. Space has been
provided so that responses may be given directly on the questionnaire.
Additional sheets should be attached if more space is needed.
In parts II through VI of the questionnaire, pesticide formulation/
packaging (PFP) operations refer exclusively to operations for the formulation
and/or packaging of agricultural and/or household pesticide control chemicals
such as insecticides, fungicides and herbicides from technical grade chemicals
or concentrates.
-------
QUESTIONNAIRE
PESTICIDE
FORMULATING/PACKAGING
QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENTS
Page
PART I. GENERAL INFORMATION 1
PART II. PLANT CHARACTERISTICS 2
PART III. PLANT PERSONNEL 3
PART IV. PLANT OPERATIONS: FORMULATING/PACKAGING PRODUCTION 3
PART V. WASTEWATER GENERATION/CHARACTERISTICS 5
PART VI. WASTEWATER TREATMENT/CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 7
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN QUESTIONNAIRE 11
APPENDIX A
PART I. GENERAL INFORMATION
The Information requested 1n this section is necessary to Identify the
plant and to determine whether the plant 1s conducting activities relevant to
this survey.
1. Name and Address of Plant
Street
City State Zip Code
2. Plant Contact: Name
Title
Telephone
3. Respondent (1f different from above):
Name
Title
Telephone
XX-33
-------
Company Name
PART I. Continued Plant Name
4. In 1982, did you formulate and/or package nonagrlcultural pest control
chemicals such as disinfectants and sanltlzers. Inorganics and surface
active agents? (Do not Include these products as PFP products 1n the
remaining parts of this questionnaire. See note at top of page 3).
(See below for definitions of formulating and packaging)
Yes No
5. In 1982, was this plant engaged In pesticide formulating and/or packaging
(PFP) of agricultural or household pest control chemicals such as
Insecticides, fungicides and herbicides from technical grade chemicals
or concentrates? (See below for definitions of formulating.and packaging)
Yes No
If NO, please stop here and return the questionnaire.
If YES, proceed with the following questions.
6. In 1982, did this plant discharge water or any other liquid to a waste
treatment facility not owned by the plant? Yes No
If NO, please stop here and return the questionnaire.
If YES, proceed with the following questions.
Pest1c1de Packaglng; The transfer and packaging of formulated products Into
a marketabiecontainer.
Pesticide Formulating; The physical processing of pesticide active Ingredients
Into wettable powders, granules, and emulslflable concentrates.
xx-3 2
-------
PLEASE NOTE;
In Parts II through VI , pesticide formulating/packaging (PFP) operations
refer exclusively to operations for the formulation and/or packaging of
agricultural and/or household pest control chemicals such as Insecticides,
fungicides and herbicides from technical grade chemicals or concentrates.
PART II. PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
This section requests data that will be used 1n determining the costs
and economic ach1evabH1ty of effluent regulations.
1. Area (square feet) of the buildings on the site:
a. Total plant area:
b. Total plant area used anytime 1n 1982 for pesticide
formulat1ng/packag1ng:
c. Percent of area 1n l.b. used exclusively for pesticide
formulat1ng/packag1ng:
2.* Investment costs for pesticide formulating/packaging
operations only:
See Definitions for "bookvalue" and "Investment cost."
Building Equipment
a. Total 1982 book value net of
depreciation:
b. Total Investment for 1978-1982:
3.* 1982 operating and maintenance costs (labor,
raw material, and energy) for the PFP
operations at the plant:
4.* 1982 Interest and depreciation costs and other general
administrative and overhead costs for PFP operations at
the plant:
5.* a. Capital cost of plant facilities used for treatment of
process wastewater associated with PFP operations:
b. Year Investment made:
If the cost or an estimate of the cost 1s not available, provide an estimated
cost 1n proportion to the pounds of formulated PFP products and Indicate
that your answer 1s an estimate by an "E" after the value.
XX-3 3
-------
Company Name
Plant Name
PART III. PLANT PERSONNEL (1982)
Employment data will be used to determine the degree to which the plant
1s dedicated to PFP operations and the Impact of effluent regulations on
plant personnel.
1. Indicate the number of weeks 1n 1982 during which the plant formulated/
packaged pesticide products:
2. Provide the number of employees for the pay period which Includes the 12th
day of the designated months 1n 1982 and the total hours worked for 1982.
Activity
a. Production: Formulating/
packaging pesticide products
Production: Other production
b. Nonproductlon
Number of Employ
Mar.
May
Aug.
rees*
Nov.
Estimated Total
Hours Worked 1982
*An employee who worked 1n production of PFP products and 1n other production
during the pay period which Includes March 12 would be counted 1n both
categories.
Nonproductlon employees Include supervisory,-clerical and other support
personnel.
XX-34
-------
Company Name
PART IV. PLANT OPERATIONS: Plant Name
FORMULATING/PACKING
>RODUCTION (1982)
This part requests Information on total plant production and on each
different pesticide product. EPA will use the Information obtained from this
part together with the production data provided by your plant under FIFRA
1n conducting the necessary economic and engineering analyses of this segment
of the Industry.
1. Percentage of total plant production (weight 1n pounds) attributable
to PFP operations 1n 1982:
2. Percentage of active Ingredient used 1n PFP operations that was produced
at the plant 1n 1982:
3. Total market value (dollars) of pesticide products formulated or packaged
at this plant 1n 1982:
4. Total market value (dollars) of all plant*production:
5. Provide the following Information on Table IV.5 for each different pesticide
product formulated/packaged (PFP) during 1982. To group products, see
Appendix A.
a. FIFRA product number or Group Code for PFP products.
b. Number of production days. If a Group Code is used then the number
of production days is the number of days in 1982 on which at least
one of the products was produced. For example, if three products
from Group Code A were produced on July 14, 1982, this counts as
one production day.
c. Type of formulation Base (D « dry formulation, S « solvent formulation,
U * water formulation)
d. Total market value of processed (PFP) product (dollars)
e. Common names of each pesticide active ingredient contained in formu-
lation
f. Name of solvents used (if none, write none)
g. Quantity (gals) of solvents used (if none, write none).
If additional space is needed, make additional copies of the table before
entering data.
XX-35
-------
PART IV. Continued
5. Formulating/Packaging Production (1982)
Company Name
Plant Name
x
x
i
FIFRA
Pesticide
Product
Number*or
Group Code
Number of
Production
Days
Type of
Formulation
Base
Total
Value of
Processed
Product
(dollars)
Names of
Active Ingredients
Solvents Used
Name
Quantity
(gals.)
* Number assigned under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentlclde Act (FIFRA).
-------
Company Name
Plant Name
PART V. WASTEWATER GENERATION/
CHARACTERISTICS (19B?T
The data requested 1n this section will be used to determine the source
and amount of wastewater generated by PFP operations. This Information 1s
Important 1n analyzing the existing treatment/control technology. If the
Information 1s not available or estimated for PFP operations, provide an
estimate based on your answer to questions IV.1 and the plant totals. Indicate
these estimates by an "E" following the estimate.
1. Pesticide Process Wastewater:
Flow per typical
operating day (gals.)
Total annual
flow (gals.)
a. Chemical Processing (solvent
water, wash water)
b. Vessel or floor washdown of
formulating/packaging area
c. Vent scrubbers for the
formulating/packaging area
d. Runoff from the formulating/
packaging area
e. Laboratory wastewater
f. Other (specify)
2.Non-contact Wastewater:
Flow per typical
operating day (gals.)
Total annual
flow (gals.)
a. Cooling water
b. Boiler blowdown
c. Stormwater runoff (not contami
nated by pesticide contact)
d. Toilet sewage
e. Other (specify)
3. Potentially Contaminated
Wastewater
Flow per typical
operating day (gals.)
Total annual
flow (gals.)
a. Laundry
b. Shower/lavatory
c. Other (specify)
X-3 7
-------
Company Name
Plant Name
PART VI. WASTEWATER TREATMENT/
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (T982)
The Information requested 1n this section will be used to conduct
technical and economic analyses pertinent to recommended treatment.
1. What is the total plant process (contact) wastewater generated,
including wastewater generated in PFP operations, during 1982?
gals
Provide the following Information regarding the disposal of process
(contact) wastewater generated during 1982 as a consequence of the
formulating/packaging of the products listed in Table IV-.5. Use the
attached Table VI.2:
a. Pesticide product: Use the same combinations of products used
to answer Part IV.5.
b. Wastewater flow on a typical operating day (gals.). If not
available or estimated for PFP operations, provide an estimate
based on your answer to questions IV.I and the plant totals.
Indicate these estimates by an "E" following the estimate.
c. Total annual wastewater flow (gals.)
d. A list of all treatment or control units employed in the disposal of
wastewater (in order of use)
Use the following abbreviations, as necessary:
AC - Activated Carbon Adsorption
AL - Aerated Lagoon
BO - Biological Oxidation
CH - Contract Hauling
CO - Chemical Oxidation
DW - Deep Well Injection
EQ - Equalization
EV - Evaporation
SS - Gravity Separation
HD - Hydrolysis
IN - Incineration
LA - Land Application
MF - Multimedia Filtration
MS - Metals Separation
NE - Neutralization
RA - Resin Adsorption
RR - Recycle/Reuse
SS - Steam Stripping
TF - Trickling Filter System
e. If no treatment/control units are used, write NONE.
XX-38
-------
PART VI. Continued
2. Wastewater generation, treatment, and control (1982)
Company Name
Plant Name
i
U)
VO
FIFRA Pesticide
Product Number or Group Code
Mastewater Discharge Flow (gals.)
Typical Day
Annually
i
Mastewater Treatment /Control
Treatment /Control Units (In order)
-------
PART VI. Continued
Company Name
Plant Mane
Year for which
data are provided
3. Complete the following table for samples collected for any chemical analyses of treated or pretreated
effluent during 1982. If data are unavailable for 1982, provide the most recent Information available,
Use additional copies of this sheet as necessary.
x
x
i-
IDENTIFY EFFLUENT
STREAM*
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
TYPE OF
SAMPLE**
CONSTITUENTS
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(mg/1 )
DISSOLVED
OR TOTAL
(CIRCLE ONE)
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
D T
ANALYTICAL
METHOD***
* By treatment/control unit, by FIFRA Product Number or by Product Group Code
** Grab or composite.
*** Standard methods, EPA, ASTM, or other (specify).
-------
Company Name
PART VI. Continued Plant Name
4. a. Specify the 1982 cost of operating and maintaining plant
facilities used for treatment of process wastewater associated
with PFP processes:
b. Specify the 1982 cost of off-site disposal of PFP process
wastewater:
5. a. Specify the amount (Ibs. or tons) of hazardous waste generated
during 1982 for PFP operations (answer even 1f plant Is
exempt from regulation as a small generator): •_
b. Specify 1n Table VI.5 the location and method of hazardous waste disposal
and Indirect treatment or disposal method(s) practiced (answer even 1f
small generator):
6. If the pretreatment standard of zero discharge were Imposed please list all
the options available to your plant to comply (e.g. contract haul, Incineration
evaporation, etc.)
xx-41
-------
PART VI. Continued
Company Hi
Plant Naae
5. Hazardous Waste Disposal
Pounds Disposed In 1982
Method
Direct discharge to navigable
waterway.
Municipal waste treatment
facility of POTW.
No-discharge Incineration.
No-discharge evaporation.
Land Disposal
Other (specify)
If methods unknown, please
provide name and address
of contract hauler.
/
Location / Operator
On Site
Off Site
Self
Contract
X
X
I
-------
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN QUESTIONNAIRE
Bookvalue Net of Depreciation - Total Investment cost minus depreciation.
Conventional Pollutants — For the Pesticide Industry conventional pollutants
are defined as BOD, TSS, and pH.
Investment Cost - For a property 1s the amount paid either directly or 1n-k1nd
at the time of the transaction.
Noncontact Wastewater - Wastewater which 1s not contaminated by pesticide
active Ingredients or solvents. Stormwater from outside the formulating and
packaging areas 1s Included 1n this definition 1f 1t 1s not contaminated from
product spills, etc.
Nonconventlonal Pollutants — For the Pesticide Industry nonconventlonal
pollutants are defined as nonprlorlty pollutant pesticides, COD, ammonia,
and manganese.
Pesticide Formulating - The physical processing of pesticide active Ingredients
Into wettable powders, granules, and emulsifiable concentrates.
Pesticide Packaging - The transfer and/or packaging of formulated products Into
a marketable container.
POTW - Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Priority Pollutant — Those 126 compounds specified as an outgrowth of the
1976 Consent Decree.
Process Wastewater - Any aqueous discharge which results from contact with
pesticide active Ingredients or solvents, including:
1. Reaction wastewater or dilution water used directly 1n the process.
2. Wastewater from vessel or floor washdown in the Immediate formu-
lating/packaging area.
3. Runoff from the formulating/packaging areas, and other areas
where pesticide contamination occurs.
4. Wastewater from pollution control devices, such as vent scrubbers in
the immediate formulating/packaging area.
Zero Discharge - No discharge of PFP process (contact) wastewater (no flow).
XX-43
-------
APPENDIX A
Product Grouping
Products may be combined Into groups 1f all of the following criteria are
met:
1. All products contain the same active 1ngred1ents(s).
11. If solvents are used, products contain the same sol vent(s).
111. All products have the same type of formulation base (dry, solvent
or water).
1v. All products are formulated and/or packaged on the same equipment
or s1mH1ar equipment that would result 1n the same volume and
concentration of waste load generated per unit of production.
Label each product group by a group code A,B,C, etc. In each column below,
11st the FIFRA products grouped under each product code.
GROUP CODES
XX-44
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX £
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
Column A
Pesticide Active Ingredient
Acephate
Alachlor
Column B
Priority Pollutant
Regulated
Methylene chloride
Toluene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Aldicarb
Alkylamine hydrochloride
Allethrin
Ametryne
Aminocarb
Amobam
Anilazine
AOP
Cyanide
Toluene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Cyanide
Aquatreat DNM 30
Aspon
Atrazine
Toluene
Cyanide
Carbon tetrachloride
Toluene
Azinphos methyl
Barban
BBTAC
1,2-Dichloroethane
Toluene
1,2-Dichloroethane
XX-45
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX 6
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
Bendiocarb
Benfluralin
Benomyl
Bensulide
Bentazon
Benzethonium chloride
Benzyl benzoate
Benzyl bromoacetate
BHC
Bifenox
Biphenyl
Bolstar
Bromacil
Bromoxynil
Bromoxynil octanoate
Busan 40
Benzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Benzene
Toluene
a-BHC-Alpha
b-BHC-Beta
d~BHC-Delta
g-BHC-Gamma
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Methyl chloride
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Methylene chloride
Benzene
Toluene
Benzene
Toluene
XX-46
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX 6
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
Busan 85
Busan 90
Butachlor
Butylate
Captafol
Captan
1,2-Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Phenol
1,2-Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Carbam-S
Carbaryl
Carbendazim
Toluene
Carbofuran
Carbophenothion
Chloramben
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorophacinone
Chloropicrin
Chlorothalonil
Chlorpropham
Methylene chloride
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Heptachlor
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Cyanide
Tetrachloroethylene
Cyanide
Carbon tetrachloride
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
XX-47
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX <>
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos methyl
Coumachlor
Coumafuryl
Coumaphos
Coumatetralyl
Cyanazine
Cycloate
Cycloheximide
Cycloprate
Cyhexatin
Cythioate
2,4-D
2,4-D isobutyl ester
2f4-D isooctyl ester
2,4-D salt
Dalapon
Dazomet
2f4-DB
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Cyanide
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Benzene
Toluene
Benzene
Toluene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Toluene (plants 4 and 5 only)
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol (plant 6 on
Methylene chloride
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
XX-48
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX 6^
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
2f4-DB isobutyl ester
2f4-DB isooctyl ester
DBCP
DCNA
DCPA
D-D
ODD
DDE
DDT
Deet
Demeton
Demeton-o
Demeton-s
Diazinon
Dicamba
Dichlofenthion
Carbon tetrachloride
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Benzene
Benzene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Copper
Copper
Toluene
Toluene
Methyl chloride
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Benzene
Toluene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
XX-49
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX £
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
Dichlorobenzene, ortho Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene, para Chlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Dichloroethyl ether Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether+
+ = Regulated as a priority pollutant only in those processes
in which it is the manufactured product.
Dichlorophen Phenol
Toluene
Dichlorophen salt
Dichloropropene 1,3-Dichloropropene+
+ = Regulated as a priority pollutant only in those processes
in which it is a manufactured product
Dichlorprop Phenol
1,4-Dichlorophenol
Dichlorvos Methyl chloride
Dicofol 1,2-Dichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Cyanide
Dienochlor Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Copper
Toluene
Dimethoxane
Dinocap 2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Phenol
Dinoseb Phenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dioxathion Benzene
Diphacinone
XX-50
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX 6
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
Diphenamid
Diphenylamine
Benzene
Disulfoton
Diuron
Dodine
Dowicil 75
Endosulfan
Endothall
Endrin
EPN
EPTC
Ethalfluralin
Ethion
Ethoprop
Ethoxyquin 66%
Ethoxyquin 86%
Ethylene dibromide
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Cyanide
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
a-Endosulfan-Alpha
b-Endosulfan-beta
Benzene
Toluene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Endrin
4-Nitrophenol
Phenol
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methyl bromide
Toluene
XX-51
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX £
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
Etridazole
EXD
Famphur
Fenarimol
Fenitrothion
Fensulfothion
Fenthion
Fentin hydroxide
Fenuron
Fenuron-TCA
Ferbam
Fluchloralin
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Copper (plant 8 only)
Toluene
Copper
Toluene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
Fluoridone
Fluometuron
Chloroform
Toluene
Cyanide
Fluoroacetamide
Folpet
Fonofos
Giv-gard
Toluene
Phenol
Toluene
XX-52
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX 6
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
Glyodin
Glyphosate
HAE
HAMP
Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene
Hexazinone
RPTM8
Hyamine 2389
Hyamine 3500
Isopropalin
Kathon 886
Kinoprene
KN methyl
Lethane 384
Lindane
Linuron
Malathion
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Carbon tetrachloride
Heptachlor
1,2-Dichloroethane
Phenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Cyanide
a-BHC-Alpha
b-BHC-Beta
d-BHC-Delta
g-BHC-Gamma
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Toluene
XX-53
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX £
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
Maleic hydrazide
Mancozeb
Maneb
MCPA
MCPA isooctyl ester
MCPP (Mecoprop)
Mephosfolan
Merphos
Metasol DGH
Metasol J-26
Metham
Methamidophos
Methiocarb
Methomy1
Methoprene
Methoxychlor
Methylbenzethonium
chloride
Methyl bromide
Methylene bisthiocyanate
Metribuzin
Mevinphos
Mexacarbate
Zinc
Zinc (plant 9 only)
Phenol
Toluene
Phenol
Toluene
Toluene
Cyanide
1,2-Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Phenol
Toluene
Methyl bromide
Cyanide
Methyl bromide
Methylene chloride
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
XX-54
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX 6
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
MGK 264
MGK 326
Mirex
Molinate
Monocrotophos
Mon
Monuron-TCA
Nabam
Toluene
Benzene
Hexachlorocyclopenta-
Diene
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
Copper
Benzene
Toluene
Nabonate
Naled
1,8-Napthalic anhydride
Napropamide
Naptalam
Neburon
Niacide
Nitrofen
NMI
Norflurazon
Cyanide
Carbon tetrachloride
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Benzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Benzene
Toluene
Toluene
XX-55
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX 6
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
Octhilinone
Oryzalin
Oxamyl
Oxydemeton
Oxyfluorfen
Paraquat
Parathion ethyl
Parathion methyl
PBED
PCNB
PCP
PCP salt
Pebulate
Pendimethalin
Perfluidone
Permethrin
Perthane
Toluene
Toluene
Copper
Tetrachloroethylene
Methyl chloride
4-Nitrophenol
Benzene
Toluene
4-Nitrophenol
Benzene
Toluene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Pentachlorophenol
1,2,4-tr ichlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenol
Pentachlorophenol
Methylene chloride
Zinc
Benzene
Toluene
XX-5fi
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX 6
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
Phenylphenol
Phenylphenol sodium salt
Phorate
Phosfolan
Phosmet
Picloram
Pindone
Piperalin
Piperonyl butoxide
Polyphase antimildew
Profluralin
Prometon
Prometryn
Pronamide
Propachlor
Propanil
Propargite
Propazine
Propham
Phenol
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Phenol
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Benzene
Cyanide
Carbon tetrachloride
Benzene (plant 12 only)
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Benzene
Toluene
Cyanide
Toluene
Cyanide
Toluene
Toluene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Toluene (plants 14 and 15 only
Cyanide
Carbon tetrachloride (plant 16
XX-57
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX 6
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
Propionic acid
Propoxur
Pyrethrins
8 Quinolinol citrate
8 Quinolinol sulfate
Quinomethionate
Resmethrin
RH-787
Ronnel
Rotenone
Siduron
Silvex
Silvex isooctyl ester
Silvex salt
Simazine
Simetryne
Sodium monofluoroacetate
Stirofos
Sulfallate
Sulfoxide
SWEP
Toluene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Toluene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Toluene (plant 17 only)
Cyanide
Carbon tetrachloride (plant 18
Toluene (plant 18 only)
Cyanide
Toluene
Methyl chloride
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Benzene
XX-58
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX 6
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subeategory
2,4,5-T
TCMTB
Tebuthluron
Temephoa
Phenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Toluene (plant 19 only)
Cyanide
Methylene chloride
Toluene
1,2-Dichloroethane (plant 20 o
Toluene (plant 21 only)
Terbacil
Terbufos
ferbuthylazine
Terbutryn
Thiabendazole
Thiofanox
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Cyanide
Cyanide
Toluene
Cyanide
Thionazin
Tokuthion
Toxaphene
Triadimefon
Tributyltin benzoate
Tributyltin fluoride
Tributyltin oxide
1,2-Dichloroethane
Phenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Toxaphene
Benzene (plant 22 only)
Toluene (plant 22 only)
Phenol
xx-5 9
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX £
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wastewaters Subcategory
Trichlorobenzene
Trichloronate
Tricyclazole
Trifluralin
Vancide TH
Vancide 51Z
Vancide 51Z dispersion
Vancide PA
Vernolate
Warfarin
ZAC
Zineb
Ziram
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Toluene
Benzene
Toluene
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Methylene chloride
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc (plants 23 and 24 only)
XX-60
-------
SECTION XX- APPENDIX 6
Priority Pollutants Regulated in Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Wasters Subcategory
2 Regulated only in those processes in which it is the
manufactured product.
3 Limits apply only for PSESf NSPS, and PSNS. BPT limits are
established by 455.20(b).
XX-61
-------
Section XX-APPENDIX 7
Design Criteria for Recommended Technologies
Recommended
Technology
(1) Pump Station
(2) Equalization
(3) Steam Stripping
(4) Chemical Oxidation
(5) Metals Separation
(6) Hydrolysis
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
Use at Least Two Basins
Aeration and Mixing=75 HP/MG
Detention Time Alternatives=12 Hours
Before pretreatment)
24 Hours (Before
Biological Treatment)
Reflux ratio-0
Steam-to-feed ratio-0.10
Operating pressure=1.0 at
Henry's Law Contant
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
Mixing Tank Detection Time=24 HR
Mixing Horshepower=72 HP/MGD
Filter Press Runtime=8 HR
Holding Tank Detention Time=24 HR
Operating pH=9.0
Influent Zinc=245 MG/1:
Caustic Addition=6000 MG/1
Influent Copper=4500 MG/1:
Caustic Addition=110,000 MG/1
Use Two Flow-Through Basins
Basin Length/Width=20/l
Influent T=22°C=72°F
Basin Length/Depth=20/l
Basin T = 40°C=104
Basin pH-11
Detention Time Alternatives
XX-62
-------
0.28; 2.8; 6.9; 16.7 Days
(7) Neutralization
(8) Dual Media Filtration
(9) Carbon Adsorption
(10) Carbon Regeneration
(11) Resin Adsorption
(12) Resin Regeneration
(13) Nutrient Addition
(14) Aeration Basin
(15) Clarification
(16) Incineration
(17) Sludge Thickening
6 Min. Detention Time for Mixing Tank
Caustic Addition=100 PPM
Caustic Storage=30 Days
Pumpung 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.
Surface Loading=0.5 GPM/FT2
(Primary Use)
Surface Loading=4 GPM/FT2
(Tertiary Use)
Backwash Rate=20 GPM/FT2
Two Columns in Series
Carbon Usage Rate=20 lbs/1,000
gallons
Empty Bed Contact Time=15 Min
Surface Loading=4 GPM/FT2
Use Two Columns in Parallel,
One Column Spare
Regeneration Frequency (Primary)=
Twice Daily
Solvent Loading=0.3 GPM/Ft2
Pump Head=20 FT
Methanol Loss=l% Yearly
Batch Distillation
Reflux Ratio=3/l
Maintain BOD/N/P=100/5/l
Aeration=100 HP/MG
Use Two Basins in Parallel
Overflow Rate=400 GPD/FT2
Depth=12 Ft.
Sludge Return Capacity=200%
Minimum of Two Basins in Parallel
Chlorinated Organics pH Adjustment
For Small Flows with Caustic
Chlorinated Organics pH Adjustment
for Large Flows with Lime
Steam Recovery Included
Surface Loading=0.4 GPM/FT2
Solid Loading=10 LB/FT2/Day
XX-63
-------
(18) Aerobic Digestion
(19) Vacuum Filtration
Influent=0.5% Solids
Effluent-2.0% Solids
Detention Time*20 Days
Influent=2% Solids
Effluent=3.5% Solids
Ferric Chloride Addition=7% of
Dry Solids Weight
Effluent=15% Solids
XX-64
-------
SECTION XX — APPENDIX 8
NONOONVENTIONAL EESTICICE POLLUTANTS ANALYTICAL METHOD AVAILABILITY/STATUS
EPA Promulgated Under
Current
Pesticide 40 CFR Part 136 40 CFR Part 455 EPA Review
Acephate - X
Alachlor - X -
Aldicarb - X
Alkylamine hydrochlride - X
Ametryn X -
Amobam - X
Anilazine - -
AOP X
Aquatreate E*M 30 - - X
Aspon - X
Atraton X -
Atrazine X -
Azinphos methyl X -
Barban X - -
BBTAC - X
Bendiocarb - - X
Benfluralin - X -
Bencmyl - X -
Bensulide - X
Bentazon - X -
Benzethonium Chloride - X
Benzyl bronoacetate - X
Bibenox - X
Biphenyl - - X
Bolstar - X -
Bronacil - X -
Bromoxynil - - X
Bronoxynil octanoate - X
Busan 40 X
Busan 85 X
Busan 90 X
Butachlor - X -
Butylate - - -
Note: 1. 40 CFR 136 as corrected on January 4, 1985 (50 CFR 691, 695)
2. 40 CFR 455 promulgated on August 31, 1985.
XX-65
-------
SECTION XX — APPENDIX 8
(Continued, Page 2 of 9)
NONCONVENTIONAL PESTICIDE POLLUTANTS ANALYTICAL METHOD AVAILABILITY/STATUS
EPA Promulgated Under
Current
Pesticide 40 CFR Part 136 40 CFR Part 455 EPA Review
Captafol - X
Captan X - -
Carbam-S - X -
Carbaryl X -
Carbendazim - X -
Carbofuran - X -
Carbophenothion X - -
CDN X
Chloramben - X
Chlorobenzilate - X -
Chloropicrin - X
Chlorothalonil - X
Chlorpyrifos - X -
Chlorpyrifos methyl - X -
Coumaphos - X -
Cyanazine - X -
Cycloate - X
Cyclohexixnide - X
Cycloprate - X
Cyhexatin - X
Cythioate - X
2f4-D X -
2,4-D isobutyl ester X - -
2,4-D isooctyl ester X -
2,4-D salt X -
Dalapon - - X
Dazcmet - X
2,4-DB - X -
2f4-DB isobutyl ester - X -
2f4-DB isooctyl ester - X -
DBCP - X -
DCPA - X
D-D X
Deet - X -
Demeton (as Demeton-0 and X -
Demeton-S)
Diazinon X -
Dicarnba X - -
Dichlorfenthion X -
XX-66
-------
SECTION XX — APPENDIX 8
(Continued, Page 3 of 9)
NONCONVENTIONAL PESTICIDE POLLUTANTS ANALYTICAL METHOD AVAILABILITY/STATUS
Pesticide
EPA Promulgated
40 CFR Part 136 40 CFR Part 455
Lhder
Current
EPA Iteview
Dichloran
Dichlorophen salt
Dichlorprop
Dichlorvos
Dienochlor
Dimethoxane
Dlnocap
Dinoseb
Dioxathion
Diphacinone
Diphenamid
Disulfoton
Diuron
Dodine
Dowicil 75
Ehdothall
EPN
EPTC
Ethalfluralin
Ethicn
Ethoprop
Ethoxyguin 66%
Ethoxyquin 86%
Ethylene dibromide
Etridiazole
EXD
Fanphur
Fenar drool
Fenitrothion
Fensulfothicn
Fenthion
Fentin hydroxide
Fterbam
Fluchlor aline
Fluor idone
Fluoneturon
Fluroacetamide
Folpet
Fonofos
Giv-gard
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX-67
-------
SECTION XX — APPENDIX 8
(Continued, Bage 4 of 9)
PESTICIDE POLLUTANTS ANALYTICAL METHOD AVAILABILITY/STATOS
EPA Promulgated Lhder
Current
Basticide 40 CPR Part 136 40 CFR Part 455 EPA Hsview
Glyodin - X
Glyphosate - X -
HAS - X
HAMP - X
ffexachlorophene - X
Ffexazincne - X -
HPTMS - X
ftyanine 2389 - X
Hyanine 3500 - X
isodrin X -
Isopropalin - X -
Kathcn 886 - X
Kinoprene - X
KN Msthyl - X -
lethane 384 X
Linurcn X -
Malathicn X -
Maleic hjdrazide - X
Mancozeb - X -
Maneb - X -
MCPA - X
MCPA isooctyl ester - X
MCPP - X
Msphosfolan - X -
Jferphos - X
tetasol DGH - X
Wfetasol J-26 - X
tetham - X -
tethamidc^hos - X
Btethonyl - X -
ffethoprene - X
Jfethoxychlce X - -
^fethylbenzethcniun chloride - X
Msthylene bisthiocyanate - X
ftetribuzin - X -
Jtevinphos - X -
MGK 264 X
MGK 326 X
MDlinate - X
Mcjnocrotcsphos - X
XX-68
-------
SECTION XX — APPENDIX 8
(Continued, Page 5 of 9)
NCNCONVENTIONAL PESTICIDE POLLUTANTS ANALYTICAL METHOD AVAILABILITY/STATUS
EPA Pronulqated Uider
Current
Pesticide 40 CFR Part 136 40 CFR Part 455 EPA Review
Nabam - X -
Nabonate - X
Naled - X -
Napropamide - - X
Naptalam - x
Niacide - X -
Nitrofen - x
»1I X
Norflurazon - x
Octhilinone - X
Oryzalin - - X
Oxanyl - x -
Oxyderoton - x
OxyfLuocfen - - X
Paraquat - x
Parathioi ethyl X -
Parathioi mathyl X -
PBED - x
PCNB X -
PCP salt X -
Pabulate - x
Pwnnethcin - x
Phenylphsnol - x
Phenylphenol sodium salt - x
Phorate - X -
Fhosfolan - x
Phoanet - - X
Plcloran - x
Pindone - - X
Piper al in - - X
Piperonyl butoxide - x
Polyphase antimildew - x
ftrofluralin - X -
Prone.tcn X -
Pronetryn X -
Prcnamide - x
Propachlor - x -
Propanil - -X
Propargite - x
XX-69
-------
SECTION XX — APPENDIX 8
(Continued, Page 6 of 9)
NONCONVENTIONAL PESTICIDE POLLUTANTS ANALYTICAL METHOD AVAILABILITY/STATUS
EPA Promulgated Under
Current
Pesticide 40 CFR Part 136 40 CFR Part 455 EPA Iteview
Propazine X -
Propionic acid - X
Pyrethrins - X
8 Quinolinol citrate - X
8 Quinolinol sulfate - X
Reamethrin - X
RH 787 - - X
Ronnel - X -
Rotenone - X
Secbumetcn X - -
Siduron X - -
Silvex (2,4,5-TP: silvex) X -
Silvex iscoctyl ester X -
Silvex salt X -
Simazine X -
Simetryne - X -
Sodium mcnofluroacetate - - X
Striofos - X -
Strcbane X -
Sulfallate - X
2,4,5-T X -
TCMTB - X
Tebuthiuron - X
Tanephos - X
Terbacil - X -
Terbufos - X -
Terbuthylazine X - -
Terbutryn - X -
Thiabendazole - X
Thiofanox - X
Thionazin - - X
Tbkuthicn - X
Triadiroefcn - X -
Tributyltin benzoate* - X
Tributyltin fluoride* - X
Tributyltin oxide* - X
Trichlcronate - X -
Tricyclazole - X -
Trifluralin X -
XX-70
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 8
(Continued, Page 7 of 9)
NONOONVENTIONAL PESTICIDE POLLUTANTS ANALYTICAL METHOD AVAILABILITY/STATUS
EPA Promulgated Uhder
Current
Pesticide 40 CFR Part 136 40 CFR Part 455 EPA Review
Vancide PA X
Vancide TH X
Vancide 51Z** - X
Vancide 51Z dispersion** - X
Vernolate - X
ZAC X
Zineb - X -
Ziram - X -
XX-71
-------
SECTION XX—APPENDIX 8
(Continued, Page 8 of 9)
NONOONVENTTCNAL PESTICIDE POLLUTANTS ANALYTICAL METHOD AVAILABILITY/STATUS
EPA Promulgated tnder
Current
Pesticide 40 CFR Part 136 40 CFR Part 455 EPA Review
Pesticides Previously Regulated But Currently Not Manufactured
Aminocarb X
Chlorjropham X
Danetcn-o X
Dsneton-s X
Dicofol X
Ebnuron X
Ftenurcn-TCA X
Mathiocarb X
MBxacarbate X
Mirex X
Monuron X
Monuron-TCA X
Neburcn X
Perthane X
Propham X
Propoxur X
Swep X
XX-72
-------
SECTION XX — APPENDIX 8
(Continued, Page 9 of 9)
NCNCENVENTIONAL PESTICIDE POLLUTANTS ANALYTICAL METHOD AVAILABILITY/STATUS
EPA Promulgated tader
Current
Pesticide 40 CFR Part 136 40 CPR Part 455 EPA teview
Pesticides Excluded frcrn BPT and Currently Not Manufactured
Alletrin - X
Benzyl benzoate - X
Chlorophacinone - - X
Counachlcr - X
Coumafuryl - X
Counatetralyul - X
1,8-Naphthalic anhydride - X
Quincmethicnate - X
Sulfoxide - X
Warfarin - X
Total Number of Pesticides 59 61 148
* Pesticides may be monitored by analysis for Tin using analytical
methods promulgated at 40 CFR Part 136.
** Pesticides may be monitored by analysis for Zinc using analytical
methods promulgated at 40 CFR Part 136.
XX-73
-------
Section XX - APPENDIX 9
List of Approved Test Procedures for Nonconventional
Pesticide Pollutants Promulgated at 40 CFR Part 455
Parameter
CAS No.
EPA Method
Number (2)
Other
1. Alachlor
2. AOP
3. Benfluralin
4. Benomyl
5. Bentazon
6. Bolstar
7. Bromacil
8. Busan 40
9. Busan 85
10. Butachlor
11. Carbam-S
12. Carbendazim
13. Carbofuran
14. Chlorobenzilate
15. Chloropyrifos
16. Chloropyrifos Methyl
17. Coumaphos
18. Cyanazine
19. 2,4-DB
20. 2,4-DB isobutyl ester
21. 2,4-DB isooctyl ester
22. DBCP
23. DEET
24. Dichlorvos
25. Dinoseb
26. Ethalflurlin
27. Etridiazole
28. Fensulfothion
29. Fenthion
30. Ferbam
31. Fluometuron
32. Glyphosate
33. Hexazinone
34. Isopropalin
35. KN Methyl
36. Mancozeb
37. Maneb
38. Mephosfolan
39. Metham
40. Methomyl
41. Metribuzin
42. Mevinphos
43. Nabam
15972-60-8
(NA)
1861-40-1
17804-35-2
25057-89-0
35400-43-2
314-40-9
51026-28-9
128-03-0
23184-66-9
128-04-1
10605-21-7
1563-66-2
510-15-6
2921-88-2
5598-13-0
56-72-4
21725-46-2
94-82-6
533-74-4
1320-15-6
96-12-8
134-62-3
62-73-7
88-85-7
55283-68-6
2593-15-9
115-90-2
55-38-9
14484-64-1
2164-17-2
1071-83-6
51235-04-2
33820-53-0
(NA)
8018-01-7
12427-38-2
950-10-7
137-42-8
16752-77-5
21087-64-9
7786-34-7
142-59-6
630
627
631
622
633
630
630
630
631
632
608.1
622
622
622
629
615
615
615
608.1
633
622
615
627
608.1
622
622
630
632
633
627
630
630
630
630
632
633
622
630
102
107A
102
140A
130
-------
44. Naled 300-76-5 622
45. Niacide 15339-36-3 630
46. Oxamyl 23135-22-0 632
47. Phorate 298-02-2 622
48. Profluralin 26399-36-0 627
49. Propachlor 1918-16-7 608.1 102
50. Ronnel 299-84-3 622
51. Simetryne 1014-70-6 619
52. Stirofos 961-11-5 622
53. Terbacil 5902-51-2 633
54. Terbufos 13073-79-9 130
55. Terbutryn 886-50-0 619
56. Triadimefon 43121-43-3 633
57. Trichloronate 327-98-0 622
58. Tricyclazole 41814-78-2 633
59. ZAC (NA) 630
60. Zineb 12122-67-7 630
61. Ziram 137-30-4 630
(NA) = Not Available
(1) All parameters are expressed in micrograms per liter (52/L)
(2) The full text of methods 102, 107A, 130, 140A, 608.1, 615,
619, 622, 627, 629 630, 631, 632, and 633 are given at Appendix
E, "Text Procedures for Analysis of Nonconventional Pesticide
Pollutants" of this Part 455. The standardized test procedure to
be used to determine the method detection limit (MDL) for these
test procedures is given at Appendix B, "Definition and Procedure
for the Determination of the Method Detection Limit" of 40 CFR
Part 136.
XX-75
-------
Section XX - APPENDIX 10
Priority Pollutants and Subcategories Excluded
1. Priority Pollutants Excluded
I. Subcategory 1 - Organic Pesticide Chemicals
Manufacturing
Under Paragraphs 8(a)(iii) and 8(b)(i) of the
Settlement Agreement, EPA is excluding certain toxic
pollutants from regulation in the Organic Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Subcategory, for one or all of the
following reasons:
(a) The pollutant is not detectable in the effluent
with the use of analytical methods approved pursuant to
304(h) of the Act or other state of the art methods.
(b) The pollutant is present only in trace amounts and
is neither causing nor likely to cause toxic effects.
(c) The pollutant is present in amounts too small to
be effectively reduced by technologies known to the
Administrator.
(d) The pollutant will be effectively controlled by
the technologies upon which are based other effluent
limitations and guidelines, standards of performance, or
pretreatment standards
(e) The pollutant is detectable in the effluent from
only a small number of sources within the subcategory and
the pollutant is uniquely related to only those sources.
(f) Ninety-five percent or more of all point sources
in the subcategory introduce into POTWs only pollutants
which use susceptible to treatment by the POTW and which do
not interfere with, do not pass through or are not otherwise
incompatible with such treatment works.
A. Excluded from the BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS regulations
with the reasons(s) for each of the exclusions keyed to the
above list:
Volatile Aromatics
1,3-Dichlorobenzene (d)
Ethylbenzene (d)
Hexachlorobenzene (d)
Haloethers
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane (b)
-------
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (b)
4-lromophenyl phenyl ether (b)
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether (b)
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether (b)
Haloraethanes
Chlorodibromomethane (a)
Dichlorobromomethane (a)
Tribromomethane (d)
Phenols
2-Chlorophenol (d)
2,4-Dimethylphenol (d)
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol («}
2-Nitrophenol (d)
Parachlorometacresol (d)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (d)
Nitrosubstituted Aromatics
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (a)
2,6-Dinitrotoluene (a)
Nitrobenzene (a)
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphtylene (b)
Acenaphthene (b)
Anthracene (b)
Benzo{a)anthracene (a)
Benzo(a)pyrene (a)
3,4-Benzofluoranthene (a)
Benzo(ghi)perylene (a)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (a)
2-Chloronaphthalene (e)
Chrysene (a)
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (a)
Pluoranthene (b)
Pluorene (b)
Indeno(l,2,3-cd}pyrene (a)
Napthalene (e)
Phenathrene (b)
Pyrene (a)
Metals
Arsenic (c)
Antimony (c)
Beryllium (c)
Cadmium (c)
Chromium (c)
Lead (c)
Mercury (c)
Nickel (c)
Selenium (c)
Silver (c)
Thallium (c)
XX-77
-------
Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethylenes
Chloroethane (d)
lf1-Dichloroethane (d)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (d)
Hexachloroethane (d)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (d)
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene (d)
1,1,1-Trichlorbethane (d)
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (d)
Trichloroethylene (d)
Vinyl chloride (d)
Nitrosamines
N-nitrosodimethylamine (d)
N-nitrosodiphenylamine (a)
Phthalate Esters
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (a)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (b)
Diethy phthalate (b)
Dimethyl phthalate (e)
Di-n-butyl phthalate (b)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (a)
Pesticides
Aldrin (a)
Chlordane (e)
Dieldrin (a)
4,4'-DDD (a)
4,4'-DDE (a)
4,4'-DDT (a)
Endosulfan sulfate (a)
Endrin aldehyde (d)
Heptachlor epoxide (d)
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene
1,2-Dichloropropane (b)
TCDD
TCDD (a)
Dienes
Hexachlorobutadiene (d)
Miscellaneous
Acrolein (a)
Acrylonitrile (e)
Asbestos (a)
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (a)
Isophorone (a)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCB - 1242 (a)
PCB - 1254 (a)
PCB - 1221 (a)
XX-78
-------
PCB - 1232 (a)
PCB - 1248 (a)
PCB - 1260 (a)
PCB - 1016 (a)
Benzidines
Benzidine (a)
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine (a)
B. Excluded from the BAT regulation for reason (d) above:
a-BHC-Alpha
b-BHC-Beta
d-BHC-Delta
g-BHC-Gamma (Lindane)
a-Endosulfan-Alpha
b-Endosulfan-Beta
Endrin
Heptachlor
Toxaphene
C. Excluded from PSES regulation for reason (f) above:
1,2-dichloroethane
chlorobenzene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
benzene
phenol
II. Subcategory 2 - Metallo-Organic Pesticide Chemicals
Manufacturing
In the metallo-organic pesticide chemicals subcategory,
in the mercury-organic pesticide segment, the Agency is
excluding zinc from the PSES regulation under paragraph
8(a)(iii) because the pollutant is present in the effluent
from only one source and is uniquely related to only that
source. (reason (e) in I. above).
2. Subcategories Excluded
The Agency is excluding the metallo-organic pesticide
chemicals manufacturing and the pesticide chemicals
formulating and packaging subcategories from national BAT
regulation development under Paragraph 8(a)(i) of the
Settlement Agreement because the existing BPT effluent
limitations guidelines provide equal or more stringent
protection. BPT requires no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants for those two subcategories.
XX-79
-------
The Agency is excluding the metallo-organic pesticide
chemicals manufacturing subcategory from further national
N6P3 and PSNS regulation development under Paragraph
8(a)(iv) and 8(b)(i) because of the small potential number
of sources.
*UJ. OOVMNMtNT PWNTINO OWCI: 1 • 8 5 -1 » 1 -I » I - * • I 0 7
XX-80
------- |