United States Office of Wastewater
Environmental Protection Management 4203
Agency
EPA 833-R-04-002B
July 2004
&EPA
Local Limits
Development Guidance
Appendices
-------
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix A - List of Supplemental Documents A-l
Appendix B - Industrial Categories with Pretreatment Standards B-l
Appendix C - Pollutants Regulated by Categorical Pretreatment Standards C-l
Appendix D - Clean Water Act Priority Pollutants and the Federal Water Quality Criteria D-l
Appendix E - Federal Sewage Sludge Standards E-l
Appendix F - Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure Limitations F-l
Appendix G - Literature Inhibition Values G-l
Appendix H - Closed-cup Flashpoints for Select Organic Compounds H-l
Appendix I - Discharge Screening Levels and Henry's Law Constants for Organic Compounds 1-1
Appendix J - OSHA, ACGIH and NIOSH Exposure Levels J-l
Appendix K - Landfill Leachate Loadings K-l
Appendix L - Hauled Waste Loadings L-l
Appendix M - Hazardous Waste Constituents - RCRA Appendix VIII M-l
Appendix N - Statistical Approach to Determining Sampling Frequency N-l
Appendix O - Minimizing Contamination in Samples O-l
Appendix P - Methods for Calculating Removal Efficiency P-l
Appendix Q - Methods for Handling Data Below Detection Level Q-l
Appendix R - Priority Pollutant Removal Efficiencies R-l
Appendix S - Specific Gravity of Sludge S-l
Appendix T - Sludge AHL Equations Using Flow (in metric units) T-l
Appendix U - POTW Configurations U-l
Appendix V - Domestic Pollutant Loadings V-l
Appendix W - Best Management Practices Mini-Case Studies W-l
Appendix X - Region 1, Reassessment of Technically Based Industrial Discharge Limits Checklist . . X-l
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
APPENDIX A -
LIST OF SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS
GENERAL GUIDANCE ON PRETREATMENT
TITLE
CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs
Guidance Manual
Control Authority Pretreatment Audit
Checklist and Instructions
Control of Slug Loadings To POTWs:
Guidance Manual
Environmental Regulations and Technology:
The National Pretreatment Program
Guidance for Conducting a Pretreatment
Compliance Inspection
Guidance For Developing Control Authority
Enforcement Response Plans
Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating
POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment
Implementation Requirements
Guidance Manual for POTW Pretreatment
Program Development
Guidance Manual for POTWs to Calculate
the Economic Benefit of Noncompliance
Guidance Manual for Preparation and
Review of Removal Credit Applications
Guidance Manual for Preventing
Interference at POTWs
Guidance Manual for the Control of Wastes
Hauled to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Guidance Manual for the Identification of
Hazardous Wastes Delivered to Publicly
Owned Treatment Works by Truck, Rail, or
Dedicated Pipe
Guidance Manual for the Use of Production-
Based Pretreatment Standards and the
Combined Wastestream Formula
Guidance Manual on the Development and
Implementation of Local Discharge
Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program
Guidance on Evaluation, Resolution, and
Documentation of Analytical Problems
Associated with Compliance Monitoring
Guidance on the Privatization of Federally
Funded Wastewater Treatment Works
Guidance to Protect POTW Workers From
Toxic And Reactive Gases And Vapors
DATE
August 1990
May 1992
February 1991
July 1986
September
1991
September
1989
September
1987
October 1983
September
1990
July 1985
September
1987
September
1999
June 1987
September
1985
December
1987
June 1993
August 2000
June 1992
EPA Number
540-G-90-005
-
21W-4001
625-10-86-005
300-R-92-009
-
-
833-B-93-007
833-B-85-200
833-B-87-201
833-B-98-003
833-B-85-201
833-B-87-202
821-B-93-001
832-B-00-002
812-B-92-001
NTIS Number
PB90-274531
-
-
PB90-246521
PB94-1 20631
PB90-
185083/AS
PB95-1 57764
PB93-186112
-
-
PB92-1 17969
-
PB92-1 49251
PB92-232024
PB92-129188
-
PB92-1 73236
ERIC
Number
W150
-
-
W350
W273
-
W304
W639
-
-
W106
-
W202
U095
W107
-
W115
A-l
-------
GENERAL GUIDANCE ON PRETREATMENT
TITLE
Guides to Pollution Prevention: Municipal
Pretreatment Programs
Industrial User Inspection and Sampling
Manual For POTWs
Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual
Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating
a Total Recoverable Permit Limit from a
Dissolved Criterion
Model Pretreatment Ordinance
Multijurisdictional Pretreatment Programs:
Guidance Manual
National Pretreatment Program: Report to
Congress
NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual
Pollution Prevention (P2) Guidance Manual
for the Pesticide Formulating, Packaging,
and Repackaging Industry: Implementing
the P2 Alternative
POTW Sludge Sampling and Analysis
Guidance Document
Prelim User's Guide, Documentation for the
EPA Computer Program/Model for
Developing Local Limits for Industrial
Pretreatment Programs at Publicly Owned
Treatment Works, Version 5.0
Pretreatment Compliance Inspection and
Audit Manual For Approval Authorities
Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Guidance and Software
(Version 3.0)
Procedures Manual for Reviewing a POTW
Pretreatment Program Submission
Procuring Analytical Services: Guidance for
Industrial Pretreatment Programs
Region III Guidance for Setting Local Limits
for a Pollutant Where the Domestic Loading
Exceeds the Maximum Allowable
Headworks Loading
Protecting the Nation's Waters Through
Effective NPDES Permits: A Strategic Plan
FY 2001 and Beyond
RCRA Information on Hazardous Wastes for
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Report to Congress on the Discharge of
Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works
DATE
October 1993
April 1994
September
1989
June 1996
June 1992
June 1994
July 1991
September
1994
June 1998
August 1989
January 1997
July 1986
(Manual)
September
1986
(Software)
September
1992
October 1983
October 1998
June 1994
June 2001
September
1985
February 1986
EPA Number
625-R-93-006
831-B-94-001
833-B-89-001
823-B-96-007
833-B-92-003
833-B-94-005
21-W-4004
300-B-94-014
821-B-98-017
833-B-89-100
833-B-86-100
(Software)
831-F-92-001
833-B-83-200
833-B-98-004
833-R-01-001
833-B-85-202
530-SW-86-004
NTIS Number
-
PB94-1 70271
PB92-123017
PB93-122414
PB94-203544
PB91 -228726
-
-
PB90-1 83625
(Software)
PB94-1 18577
PB93-209880
-
PB92-1 14396
PB86-184017&
PB95-1 57228
ERIC
Number
-
W305
W109
W108
W607
W694
-
-
W277
(Software)
W269
W137
-
W351
W922&
W692
A-2
-------
GENERAL GUIDANCE ON PRETREATMENT
TITLE
Supplemental Manual On the Development
And Implementation of Local Discharge
Limitations Under The Pretreatment
Program
DATE
May 1991
EPA Number
21W-4002
NTIS Number
PB93-209872
ERIC
Number
W113
Source: Updated, originally part of U.S. EP'A''s Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, EPA-833-B-98-002,
February 1999, pp. 51-52
GUIDANCE ON INDUSTRY PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
TITLE
Aluminum, Copper, And Nonferrous Metals
Forming And Metal Powders Pretreatment
Standards: A Guidance Manual
Guidance Manual For Battery Manufacturing
Pretreatment Standards
Guidance Manual for Electroplating and
Metal Finishing Pretreatment Standard
Guidance Manual For Implementing Total
Toxic Organics (TTO) Pretreatment
Standards
Guidance Manual For Iron And Steel
Manufacturing Pretreatment Standards
Guidance Manual for Leather Tanning and
Finishing Pretreatment Standards
Guidance Manual for Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard and Builders' Paper and Board
Mills Pretreatment Standards
Guidance Manual for the Use of Production-
Based Pretreatment Standards and the
Combined Wastestream Formula
Permit Guidance Document: Pulp, Paper,
and Paperboard Manufacturing Point
Source Category (40 CFR Section 430)
Permit Guidance Document: Transportation
Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category
(40 CFR 422)
Small Entity Compliance Guide: Centralized
Waste Treatment Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 437)
DATE
December
1989
August 1987
February 1984
September
1985
September
1985
September
1986
July 1984
September
1985
May 2000
March 2001
June 2001
EPA Number
800-B-89-001
440-1-87-014
440-1 -84-09 1-G
440-1 -85-009-T
821-B-85-001
800-R-86-001
833-B-85-201
821-B-00-003
82 1-R-0 1-021
82 1-B-0 1-003
NTIS Number
PB91-145441
PB92-1 17951
PB87-1 92597
PB93-1 67005
PB92-1 14388
PB92-232024
PB92-231638
PB92-232024
PB2002-
106590
ERIC
Number
W119
W195
W118
W339
W103
W117
W196
U095
Source: Updated, originally part of U.S. EP A's Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, EPA-833-B-98-002,
February 1999, pp. 51-52
A-3
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B -
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES WITH PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Source: U.S. EP'A''s Introduction to the NationalPretreatmentProgram, EPA-833-B-98-002, February
1999, Figure 13, p. 14. (Updated)
Category
(SIC Codes)*
[NAICS Codes]**
Aluminum Forming
(3353, 3354, 3355, 3357,
3363)
[331315, 331316,331319,
331521]
Battery Manufacturing
(3691,3692)
[335911, 335912]
Carbon Black Manufacturing
(2895)
[325182]
Centralized Waste Treatment
(4953)
[562211, 562219]
Coil Coating
(3411,3479, 3492)
[332431, 332812]
Commercial Hazardous Waste
Combustors
(4953,2819,2869, 3241,
1422, 1429, 1459)
[562213,212312,325188,
325199,327310]
Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations
(0211,0213, 0214, 0241,
0251, 0252, 0253, 0254, 0259,
0272)
[112112, 11221, 11241,
11242, 112111, 11212, 11232,
11231, 11233, 11234, 11239,
11292]
Copper Forming
(3351,3357, 3463)
[331421, 331422,332112]
Electrical and Electronic
Components
(3671,3674, 3679)
[334411, 334413,334419]
40CFR
Part (Sub-
parts)
467(A-F)
461 (A-G)
458 (A-D)
437 (A-D)
465 (A-D)
444 (A)
412 (B)
468 (A)
469 (A-D)
Type of
Standard***
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
Overview of Pretreatment Standards
Limits are production-based, daily maximums and
monthly averages. Subpart C prohibits discharges
from certain operations.
Limits are production-based, daily maximums and
monthly averages. No discharge is allowed from
any process not specifically identified in the
regulations.
Limits are for Oil & Grease only (no limit duration
specified).
Limits are concentration-based, daily maximums and
monthly averages.
Limits are production-based, daily maximums and
monthly averages.
Limits are concentration-based daily maximums or
maximum monthly averages.
Discharge of process wastewater is prohibited,
except when there is an overflow resulting from a
chronic or catastrophic rainfall event.
Limits are production-based, daily maximums and
monthly averages.
Limits are concentration-based, daily maximums and
30-day averages or monthly averages (varies per
subpart and pollutant parameter). Certification is
allowed in lieu of monitoring for certain pollutants
when a management plan is approved and
implemented.
B-l
-------
Category
(SIC Codes)*
[NAICS Codes]**
Electroplating
(3471,3672)
[332813, 334412]
Fertilizer Manufacturing
(2873, 2874, 2875)
[325311, 325312,325314]
Glass Manufacturing
(3211,3221, 3296)
[327211, 327212,327993]
Grain Mills
(2041,2043,2044,2045,
2046, 2047)
[311111, 311211,311212,
311213, 311221, 311230]
Ink Formulating
(2893)
[325910]
Inorganic Chemicals
Manufacturing
(2812,2813,2816,2819)
[325120, 325131,325181,
325188]
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
(3312, 3315, 3316, 3317,
3479)
[331111, 331210,331221,
331222, 332812]
Leather Tanning and Finishing
(3111)
[316110]
Metal Finishing
(Industry groups: 34, 35, 36,
37, 38)
[Industry Subsectors: 332,
333, 334, 336]
Metal Molding and Casting
(3321,3322, 3324, 3325,
3365, 3366, 3369)
[331511, 331512,331513,
331524, 331525, 331528]
Nonferrous Metals Forming
and Metal Powders
(3356, 3357, 3363, 3497,
3499)
[331491, 331422,331521,
332117,332999]
40CFR
Part (Sub-
parts)
413(A-B, D-
H)
418(A-G)
426 (H, K-
M)
406 (A)
447 (A)
415(A-BO)
420 (A-F, H-
J, L, M)
425 (A-l)
433 (A)
464 (A-D)
471 (A-J)
Type of
Standard***
PSES
PSNS
PSNS
PSNS
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
Overview of Pretreatment Standards
Limits are concentration-based (or alternative mass-
based equivalents), daily maximums and four
consecutive monitoring days averages. Two sets of
limits exist, depending on if facility discharges more
or less than 10,000 gallons per day of process
wastewater. Certification is allowed in lieu of
monitoring for certain pollutants when a management
plan is approved and implemented.
Limits may specify zero discharge of wastewater
pollutants (Subpart A), production-based daily
maximums and 30-day averages (Subparts B-E) or
concentration-based (Subparts F-G) with no limit
duration specified.
Limits are either concentration- or production-based,
daily maximums and monthly averages.
Discharge of process wastewater is prohibited at a
flow rate or mass loading rate which is excessive
over any time period during the peak load at a
POTW.
Regulations specify no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to the POTW.
Limits vary for each subpart with a majority of the
limits concentration-based, daily maximums and 30-
day averages, or may specify no discharge of
wastewater pollutants. Numerous subparts have no
pretreatment standards.
Limits are production-based, daily maximums and 30
day averages, or may specify no discharge of
wastewater pollutants.
Limits are concentration-based, daily maximums and
monthly averages. In certain instances, production
volume dictates applicable pretreatment standards.
Limits are concentration-based, daily maximums and
monthly averages. Certification is allowed for certain
pollutants where a management plan is approved
and implemented.
Limits are primarily production-based, daily
maximums and monthly averages. Discharges from
certain processes are prohibited (Subparts A-C).
Limits are production-based, daily maximums and
monthly averages. In some instances, the
regulations prohibit the discharge of wastewater
pollutants.
B-2
-------
Category
(SIC Codes)*
[NAICS Codes]**
Nonferrous Metals
Manufacturing
(2819, 3331, 3334, 3339,
3341)
[331311, 331312,331314,
331411, 331419, 331423,
331492]
Oil and Gas Extraction
(1311)
[211111]
Organic Chemicals, Plastics,
and Synthetic Fibers
(2821,2823,2824,2865,
2869)
[325211, 325221,325222,
32511, 325132, 325192,
325188]]
Paint Formulating
(2851)
[325510]
Paving and Roofing Materials
(Tars and Asphalt)
(2951,2952, 3996)
[324121, 324122,326192]
Pesticide Chemicals
(2879)
[325320]
Petroleum Refining
(2911)
[324110]
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
(2833, 2834)
[325411, 325412]
Porcelain Enameling
(3431, 3469, 3479, 3631,
3632, 3633, 3639)
[332116, 332812, 332998,
335221, 335222, 335224,
335228]
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
(2611,2621,2631)
[322110, 322121,322122,
322130]
Rubber Manufacturing
(2822)
[325212]
40CFR
Part (Sub-
parts)
421 (B-AE)
435 (D)
414 (B-H, K)
446 (A)
443 (A-D)
455 (A, C,
E)
419(A-E)
439 (A-D)
466 (A-D)
430 (A-G, I-
L)
428 (E-K)
Type of
Standard***
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSNS
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSNS
Overview of Pretreatment Standards
Limits are production-based, daily maximums and
monthly averages. The majority of the Subparts
have both existing and new source limits, with others
having solely new source requirements. In some
instances, the regulations prohibit the discharge of
wastewater pollutants.
Regulations specify no discharge of process
wastewater (drilling fluieds, deck drainage, etc.)
pollutants to the POTW.
Limits are mass-based (concentration-based
standards multiplied by process flow), daily
maximums and monthly averages. Standards for
metals and cyanide apply only to metal- or cyanide-
bearing wastestreams.
Regulations specify no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to the POTW.
Limits are for Oil & Grease only (no limit duration
specified).
Limits are mass-based (concentration-based
standards multiplied by process flow), daily
maximums and monthly averages. Subpart C
specifies no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants but provides for pollution prevention
alternatives. Subpart E specifies no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants.
Limits are concentration-based (or mass-based
equivalent), daily maximums.
Limits are concentration-based, daily maximums and
monthly averages. Subpart A and C facilities may
certify they do not use or generate cyanide in lieu of
performing monitoring to demonstrate compliance.
Limits are concentration-based (or alternative
production-based), daily maximums and monthly
averages. Subpart B prohibits discharges certain
operations.
Limits are production-based or concentration-based
(or alternative production-based) daily maximums
and monthly averages. These facilities may certify
they do not use certain compounds in lieu of
performing monitoring to demonstrate compliance.
Facilities subject to Subparts B and E must also
implement Best Management Practices as identified.
Limits are concentration- or production-based, daily
maximums and monthly averages.
B-3
-------
Category
(SIC Codes)*
[NAICS Codes]**
Soap and Detergent
Manufacturing
(2841)
[325611]
Steam Electric Power
Generating
(4911)
[221112]
Timber Products Processing
(2421,2435,2436,2491,
2493, 2499)
[321114, 321219,321211,
321212]
Transportation Equipment
Cleaning
(4491,4499,4741, 7699)
[484230, 488320, 488390,
488210]
40CFR
Part (Sub-
parts)
417 (O-R)
423
429 (F-H)
442 (A-C)
Type of
Standard***
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
PSES
PSNS
Overview of Pretreatment Standards
Regulations specify no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to the POTW.
Limits are either concentration-based, daily
maximums, or"maximums for any time," or
compliance can be demonstrated through
engineering calculations. In some instances, the
regulations prohibit the discharge of wastewater
pollutants.
All PSNS (and PSES for Subpart F) prohibit the
discharge of wastewater pollutants. PSES for
Subparts G and H are concentration-based, daily
maximums (with production-based alternatives).
Limits are concentration-based daily maximums.
Subpart A and B allow for a pollutant as an
alternative to achieving PSES or PSNS.
* SIC = Standard Industrial Classification, 1987 SIC Manual
** NAICS = North American Industry Classification System, 1997 NAICS Manual.
*** PSNS = Pretreatment Standard New Source; PSES = Pretreatment Standard Existing Source
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C -
POLLUTANTS REGULATED BY CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT
STANDARDS
Flow Restrictions
Only
Ammonia (as N)
BOD
COD
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Oil and Grease
Oil (mineral)
Organic Nitrogen
(asN)
PH
Phenols
Phosphorus
Sulfide
TSS
1,1-
Dichloroethane
1,1-
Dichloroethylene
1,1,1-
Trichloroethane
1,1,2-
Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetra-
chloroethane
1,2-
Dichlorobenzene
1,2-
Dichloroethane
1,2-
Dichloropropane
1 ,2-Diphenyl-
hydrazine
1 ,2-trans-
Dichloroethylene
Aluminum Forming
X
X
Battery Manufacturing
Carbon Black Manufacturing
X
Centralized Waste Treatment
D)
^c
to
o
O
'o
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D)
C
O
LJ_
8.
CL
O
0
X
X
Electrical and Electronic Components
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Electroplating
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Feedlots
X
Fertilizer Manufacturing
X
X
X
X
X
Glass Manufacturing
X
X
tn
1
c
'£
O
X
X
Ink Formulating
X
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
X
X
X
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
X
X
Leather Tanning and Finishing
X
X
D)
C
!c
in
'c
LJ_
"ro
ti>
s.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Metal Molding and Casting
X
X
X
Nonferrous Metals Form./Metal Powders
X
X
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
X
X
X
in
ra
O
T3
C
(0
0
X
Organic Chems., Plastics, and Syn. Fibers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Paint Formulating
X
Paving and Roofing Materials
X
Pesticide Chemicals
X
X
X
X
X
X
Petroleum Refining
X
X
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
X
X
X
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Rubber Manufacturing
X
X
Soap and Detergent Manufacturing
X
Steam Electric Power Generating
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Timber Products Processing
X
Transportation Equip. Cleaning
Waste Combustors
X
C-l
-------
1 ,2,4-Trichloro-
benzene
1 ,3-Dichloro-
benzene
1 ,3-Dichloro-
propene
1 ,4-Dichloro-
benzene
2-Chloroethyl
vinyl ether
(mixed)
2-Chloro-
naphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Nitrophenol
2,3-Dichloro-
aniline
2,3,4,6-Tetra-
chlorophenol
2,4-
Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitro-
toluene
2,4,5-Trichloro-
phenol
2,4,6-Trichloro-
phenol
2,6-Dinitro-
toluene
3,3-Dichloro-
benzidine
3,4,5-Trichloro-
catechol
3,4,5-Trichloro-
guaiacol
3,4,6-Trichloro-
catechol
3,4,6-Trichloro-
guaiacol
4-Bromophenyl
phenyl ether
Aluminum Forming
X
X
Battery Manufacturing
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Centralized Waste Treatment
X
X
D)
C
TO
O
O
'o
O
D)
C
O
LJ_
(5
CL
CL
O
0
X
Electrical and Electronic Components
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Electroplating
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Feedlots
D)
.g
3
'o
S
^
c
(0
^
(5
N
'E
-------
4-Chlorophenyl
phenyl ether
4-Nitrophenol
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
4,5,6-Trichloro-
quaiacol
4,6-Dinitro-o-
cresol
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Alpha-
endosulfan
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo (b)
fluoranthene
Benzo (a)
anthracene
Benzo (ghi)
perylene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (k)
fluoranthene
Beta-BHC
Beta-endosulfan
Bis (2-chloro-
ethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloro-
isopropyl) ether
Bis (2-chloro-
ethyl) ether
Bis (2-ethyl-
hexyl) phthalate
Bromoform
Aluminum Forming
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Battery Manufacturing
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Centralized Waste Treatment
X
D)
C
TO
O
O
'o
O
X
X
D)
C
O
LJ_
(5
CL
CL
O
0
X
X
Electrical and Electronic Components
X
X
X
Electroplating
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
Feedlots
D)
.g
3
'o
S
^
c
ro
^
(5
N
'E
ro
O
v>
1
c
'£
O
Ink Formulating
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
D)
C
!c
in
'c
LJ_
T3
C
(0
D)
C
'c
c
£
OJ
£
"ro
5
Metal Finishing
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
D)
^c
to
(0
0
T3
c
ra
D)
c
T3
O
"ro
'S
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nonferrous Metals Form. /Metal Powders
D)
C
§
S
3
c
(0
(/)
B
-------
Butyl benzyl
phthalate
Carbon
tetrachloride
Carbazole
Chlordane (tech.
mix. &
metabolites)
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromo-
methane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chrysene
Cresol
Delta-BHC
Di-n-butyl
phthalate
Di-n-octyl
phthalate
Dibenzo (a,h)
anthracene
Dichlorobromo-
methane
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylamine
Dimethyl
phthalate
Endosulfan
sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Ethyl acetate
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Gamma-BHC
Heptachlor
epoxide
Heptachlor
Aluminum Forming
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Battery Manufacturing
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Centralized Waste Treatment
X
X
X
D)
C
TO
O
O
'o
O
X
X
X
D)
C
O
LJ_
(5
CL
CL
O
0
X
X
Electrical and Electronic Components
X
X
X
X
X
X
Electroplating
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
Feedlots
D)
.g
3
'o
S
^
c
ro
2
(5
N
'E
1
c
2
O
Ink Formulating
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
D)
C
!c
in
'c
LJ_
T3
C
(0
D)
C
'c
c
"z
OJ
£
"ro
5
Metal Finishing
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
D)
^c
to
(0
0
T3
c
ra
D)
c
T3
O
"ro
'S
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nonferrous Metals Form. /Metal Powders
D)
C
§
S
3
c
(0
(/)
£
-------
Hexachloro-
benzene
Hexachlorobuta-
diene
Hexachlorocyclo
pentadiene
Hexachloro-
ethane
Indeno (1,2,3-
cd)pyrene
Isobutylaldehyde
Isophorone
Isopropyl acetate
Isopropyl ether
Methyl formate
Methyl bromide
Methyl cellosolve
Methyl Isobutyl
Ketone
Methyl chloride
Methylene
chloride
n-Amyl acetate
n-Butyl acetate
n-Decane
n-Heptane
n-Hexane
N-nitrosodi-n-
propylamine
N-nitrosodi-
methylamine
N-nitrosodi-
phenylamine
n-Octadecane
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Non-polar
material (SGT-
HEM)
Parachloro-
metacresol
PCB-1016
D)
C
E
o
LJ_
|
C
E
^
<
X
X
X
X
X
X
Battery Manufacturing
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Centralized Waste Treatment
X
X
D)
C
TO
O
O
'o
O
X
D)
C
O
LJ_
(5
CL
CL
O
0
X
X
X
Electrical and Electronic Components
X
X
X
Electroplating
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Feedlots
D)
.g
3
'o
S
^
c
ro
^
(5
N
'E
1
c
's
o
Ink Formulating
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
X
D)
C
!c
«)
'c
LJ_
T3
C
(0
D)
C
'c
c
"z
OJ
£
"ro
5
D)
C
!c
CO
'c
L-
B
-------
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
Pentachloro-
phenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
TCDF
Tetrachloro-
catechol
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Tetrachloro-
guaiacol
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Toxaphene
Trichloro-
ethylene
Trichlorosyringol
Triethylamine
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
2,3,7,8-
tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin
Organic
Pesticide Active
Ingredients
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
D)
c
E
o
LJ_
|
C
E
^
<
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Battery Manufacturing
X
X
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Centralized Waste Treatment
X
X
X
X
X
D)
C
TO
O
O
'o
O
X
X
X
X
X
D)
C
O
LJ_
(5
CL
CL
O
0
X
X
X
X
Electrical and Electronic Components
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Electroplating
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Feedlots
D)
.g
3
'o
S
^
c
ro
^
(5
N
'E
1
c
's
o
D)
C
(0
3
E
o
u_
^
_c
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
X
X
X
X
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
X
X
D)
C
!c
in
'c
LJ_
T3
C
(0
D)
C
'c
c
£
OJ
£
"ro
5
X
D)
C
!c
CO
'c
L-
B
-------
Chromium,
Hexavalent
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide,
Amenable
Gold
Indium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Palladium
Platinum
Selenium
Silver
Tantalum
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Vanadium
Zinc
D)
C
E
o
LJ_
C
E
X
X
Battery Manufacturing
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Centralized Waste Treatment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D)
C
TO
O
O
'o
O
X
X
X
X
D)
C
O
LJ_
(5
CL
CL
O
0
X
X
X
X
Electrical and Electronic Components
X
X
Electroplating
X
X
X
X
X
X
Feedlots
D)
'o
S
C
TO
(5
N
'E
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
C-8
-------
APPENDIX D -
CLEAN WATER ACT PRIORITY POLLUTANTS AND THE FEDERAL
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
The appendix below lists, in three tables, the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for:
Specific chemical compounds that are identified by unique Chemical Abstract Service (CAS)
registry numbers;
Priority pollutants in the form of the Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) and Criterion
Continuous Concentration (CCC);
Non-priority pollutants in the form of the Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) and Criterion
Continuous Concentration (CCC) for non-priority pollutants;
Organoleptic effects in the form of Organoleptic Effect Criteria.
Please see page D-16 for further discussion and definitions of these criteria.
D-l
-------
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
O
to
I Priority
! Pollutant
1 i Antimony
2 i Arsenic
3 i Beryllium
4 i Cadmium
5a i Chromium III
5b i Chromium VI
6 ; Copper
7 JLead
8 i Mercury
9 JNickel
10 i Selenium
11 ! Silver
12 ! Thallium
13 i Zinc
CAS
Number
7440360
7440382
7440417
7440439
16065831
18540299
7440508
7439921
7439976
7440020
7782492
7440224
7440280
7440666
Freshwater
CMC CCC
Gig/L) Gig/L)
340 A,D,K
4.3 D,E,K
570 D,E,K
16D,K
13 D,E,K,cc
65 D,E,bb,gg
1.4D,K,hh
470 D,E,K
L,R,T
3.4D,E,G
120 D,E,K
150 A,D,K
2.2 D,E,K
74 D,E,K
11D,K
9.0 D,E,K,cc
2.5 D,E,bb,gg
0.77 D,K,hh
52 D,E,K
5.0 T
120 D,E,K
Saltwater
CMC CCC
Gig/L) Gig/L)
69 A,D,bb 36 A,D,bb
42 D,bb 9.3 D,bb
1,100 D,bb 50D,bb
4.8D,cc,ff 3.1D,cc,ff
210D,bb 8.1D,bb
1.8D,ee,hh 0.94D,ee,hh
74 D,bb 8.2 D,bb
290 D,bb,dd 71 D,bb,dd
1.9 D,G
90 D,bb 81 D,bb
Human Health For
Consumption of:
Water + Organism
Organism Only
(Hg/L) Oig^)
14B,Z
0.018 C,M,S
J,Z
J,Z
J,Z Total
J,Z Total
4300 B
0.14C,M,S
J
J
J
J
1,300 U
J
0.050 B
610 B
170Z
1.7 B
9,100 U
J
0.051 B
4,600 B
11,000
6.3 B
69,000 U
FR
Cite/Source
57FR60848
62FR42160
57FR60848
62FR42160
62FR42160
EPA820/B-96
-001
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
IRIS 09/01/91
62FR42160
57FR60848
62FR42160
IRIS 10/01/92
-------
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
O
OJ
j Priority Pollutant
14 j Cyanide
15 ! Asbestos
16 J2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
17 JAcrolein
18 jAcrylonitrile
19 jBenzene
20 jBromoform
21 I Carbon Tetrachloride
22 jChlorobenzene
23 jChlorodibromomethane
24 iChloroethane
25 ;2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether
26 j Chloroform
27 jDichlorobro mo methane
28 il,l-Dichloroethane
29 jl,2-Dichloroethane
30 jl,l-Dichloroethylene
i Freshwater
CAS I CMC CCC
Number i (p.g/L) (|-ig/L)
57125! 22K,Q 5.2 K,Q
1332214J
1746016 1
107028!
107131J
71432!
75252J
56235!
108907!
124481!
75003 !
110758!
67663 I
75274 !
75343J
107062 !
75354!
Saltwater
CMC CCC
Gig/L) Gig/L)
1 Q,bb 1 Q,bb
Human Health For
Consumption of:
Water + Organism
Organism Only
Gig/L) Gig/L)
700 B,Z
7 million
fibers/L I
1.3E-8 C
320
0.059 B,C
1.2 B,C
4.3 B,C
0.25 B,C
680 B,Z
0.41 B,C
5.7 B,C
0.56 B,C
0.38 B,C
0.057 B,C
220,000 B,H
1.4E-8 C
780
0.66 B,C
71B,C
360 B,C
4.4 B,C
21,000 B,H
34B,C
470 B,C
46B,C
99B,C
3.2 B,C
FR Cite/Source
EPA820/B-96-001
57FR60848
57FR60848
62FR42160
57FR60848
57FR60848
62FR42160
62FR42160
57FR60848
57FR60848
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
57FR60848
57FR60848
-------
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
1 Priority Pollutant
31 !l,2-Dichloropropane
32 !l,3-Dichloropropene
33 JEthylbenzene
34 JMethyl Bromide
35 jMethyl Chloride
36 JMethylene Chloride
37 !l,l,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
38 JTetrachloroethylene
39 i Toluene
40 !l,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
41 !l,l,l-Trichloroethane
42 !l,l,2-Trichloroethane
43 JTrichloroethylene
44 ! Vinyl Chloride
45 J2-Chlorophenol
46 !2,4-Dichlorophenol
47 !2,4-Dimethylphenol
48 J2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol
49 J2,4-Dinitrophenol
50 !2-Nitrophenol
51 |4-Nitrophenol
52 |3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol
1 Freshwater
CAS | CMC CCC
Number i Gig/L) (|-ig/L)
78875!
542756 !
100414!
748391
74873 i
75092 !
79345 I
1271 84 1
108883 !
156605 !
71556!
79005 1
79016!
75014!
95578!
120832!
105679 !
534521!
51285!
88755 1
100027 !
59507!
Saltwater
CMC CCC
Oig/L) Oig/L)
Human Health For
Consumption of:
Water + Organism
Organism Only
Gig/L) Gig/L)
0.52 B,C
10 B
3,100B,Z
48 B
J
4.7 B,C
0.17B,C
0.8 C
6,800 B,Z
700 B,Z
J,Z
0.60 B,C
2.7 C
2.0 C
120 B,U
93B,U
540 B,U
13.4
70 B
39B,C
1,700 B
29,000 B
4000 B
J
1600 B,C
11B,C
8.85 C
200,000 B
140,000 B
J
42B,C
81 C
525 C
400 B,U
790 B,U
2,300 B,U
765
14,000 B
U
U
FR
Cite/Source
62FR42160
57FR60848
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
57FR60848
57FR60848
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
57FR60848
57FR60848
57FR60848
62FR42160
57FR60848
62FR42160
57FR60848
57FR60848
-------
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
I Priority Pollutant
53 jPentachlorophenol
54 iPhenol
55 j2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
56 JAcenaphthene
57 JAcenaphthylene
58 i Anthracene
59 jBenzidine
60 jBenzo (a) Anthracene
61 jBenzo (a) Pyrene
62 jBenzo (b) Fluoranthene
63 jBenzo (ghi) Perylene
64 JBenzo (k) Fluoranthene
65 JBis 2-Chloroethoxy Methane
66 JBis 2-Chloroethyl Ether
67 jBis 2-Chloroisopropyl Ether
68 JBis 2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate x
69 |4-BromophenylPhenyl Ether
70 JButylbenzyl Phthalate w
71 j2-Chloronaphthalene
! Freshwater
CAS ! CMC CCC
Number i (p,g/L) (|-ig/L)
87865 j 19F,K 15F,K
108952;
88062 j
83329 j
208968 |
120127 j
92875 j
56553 I
50328!
205992 j
191242 j
207089 j
111911!
11 1444 j
39638329!
117817!
101553 j
85687 j
91587 j
Saltwater
CMC CCC
Gig/L) Gig/L)
13bb 7.9bb
Human Health For
Consumption of:
Water + Organism
Organism Only
Gig/L) Gig/L)
0.28 B,C
21,000 B,U
2.1B,C,U
1,200 B,U
9,600 B
0.00012 B,C
0.0044 B,C
0.0044 B,C
0.0044 B,C
0.0044 B,C
0.03 1B,C
1,400 B
1.8 B,C
3,000 B
1,700 B
8.2 B,C,H
4,600,000
B,H,U
6.5 B,C
2,700 B,U
1 10,000 B
0.00054 B,C
0.049 B,C
0.049 B,C
0.049 B,C
0.049 B,C
1.4 B,C
170,000 B
5.9 B,C
5,200 B
4,300 B
FR
Cite/Source
62FR42160
62FR42160
57FR60848
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
57FR60848
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
57FR60848
62FR42160
57FR60848
57FR60848
62FR42160
62FR42160
-------
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
I Priority Pollutant
72 ;4-ChlorophenylPhenyl Ether
73 jChrysene
74 jDibenzo (a,h) Anthracene
75 jl,2-Dichlorobenzene
76 il,3-Dichlorobenzene
77 jl,4-Dichlorobenzene
78 i3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
79 JDiethyl Phthalate w
80 JDimethyl Phthalate w
81 JDi-n-Butyl Phthalate w
82 J2,4-Dinitrotoluene
83 J2,6-Dinitrotoluene
84 JDi-n-Octyl Phthalate
85 jl,2-Diphenylhydrazine
86 jFluoranthene
87 jFluorene
88 JHexachlorobenzene
89 JHexachlorobutadiene
90 jHexachlorocyclopentadiene
9 1 i Hexachloroethane
! Freshwater
CAS ! CMC CCC
Number i (p,g/L) (|-ig/L)
7005723 I
218019!
53703 j
95501 1
541731 j
106467 |
91941 j
84662 j
131113J
84742 |
121142J
606202 j
117840 j
122667 |
206440 j
86737 j
118741 1
87683 |
77474 j
67721 j
Saltwater
CMC CCC
(Hg/L) (ng/L)
Human Health For
Consumption of:
Water + Organism
Organism Only
(Hg/L) Gig/L)
0.0044 B,C
0.0044 B,C
2,700 B,Z
400
400 Z
0.04 B,C
23,000 B
313,000
2,700 B
0.11 C
0.040 B,C
300 B
1,300 B
0.00075 B,C
0.44 B,C
240 B,U,Z
1.9 B,C
0.049 B,C
0.049 B,C
17,000 B
2,600
2600
0.077 B,C
120,000 B
2,900,000
12,000 B
9.1 C
0.54 B,C
370 B
14,000 B
0.00077 B,C
50B,C
17,000 B,H,U
8.9 B,C
FR
Cite/Source
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
57FR60848
57FR60848
57FR60848
57FR60848
57FR60848
57FR60848
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
57FR60848
57FR60848
57FR60848
-------
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
jPriority Pollutant
92 jlndeno (1,2,3-cd) Pyrene
93 jlsophorone
94 i Naphthalene
95 JNitrobenzene
96 JN-Nitrosodimethylamine
97 jN-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine
98 jN-Nitrosodiphenylamine
99 jPhenanthrene
100 jPyrene
101 jl,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
102 JAldrin
103 !alpha-BHC
104 Ibeta-BHC
105 igamma-BHC (Lindane)
106 jdelta-BHC
107 jChlordane
108 J4,4-DDT
109 J4,4-DDE
110 J4,4-DDD
! Freshwater
CAS ! CMC CCC
Number i (p,g/L) (|-ig/L)
193395 j
78591;
91203 j
98953 I
62759!
62 1647 j
86306 j
85018 j
129000 |
12082 lj
309002 j 3.0G
3 19846 j
319857!
58899 j 0.95 K
3 19868 j
57749! 2.4G 0.0043G,aa
50293 j 1.1G 0.001G,aa
72559 j
72548 1
Saltwater
CMC CCC
Gig/L) (ng/L)
1.3 G
0.16G
0.09G 0.004G,aa
0.13G 0.001G,aa
Human Health For
Consumption of:
Water + Organism
Organism Only
Gig/L) (ng/L)
0.0044 B,C
36B,C
17 B
0.00069 B,C
0.005 B,C
5.0 B,C
960 B
260 Z
0.00013 B,C
0.0039 B,C
0.014 B,C
0.019 C
0.0021 B,C
0.00059 B,C
0.00059 B,C
0.00083 B,C
0.049 B,C
2,600 B,C
1,900 B,H,U
8.1 B,C
1.4 B,C
16B,C
11,0006
940
0.00014 B,C
0.013 B,C
0.046 B,C
0.063 C
0.0022 B,C
0.00059 B,C
0.00059 B,C
0.00084 B,C
FR
Cite/Source
62FR42160
IRIS
11/01/97
57FR60848
57FR60848
62FR42160
57FR60848
62FR42160
IRIS 11/01/96
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
IRIS 02/07/98
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
-------
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
O
oo
jPriority Pollutant
111 JDieldrin
112 jalpha-Endosulfan
113 jbeta-Endosulfan
1 14 jEndosulfan Sulfate
115 jEndrin
116 I Endrin Aldehyde
117 JHeptachlor
118 ! Heptachlor Epoxide
119 ! Poly chlorinated Biphenyls
IPCBs:
120 jToxaphene
j Freshwater
CAS j CMC CCC
Number j (p.g/L) (|-ig/L)
60571J 0.24K 0.056K,O
959988 ! 0.22G,Y 0.056G,Y
33213659J 0.22G,Y 0.056G,Y
1031078;
72208J 0.086K 0.036K,O
7421934J
76448J 0.52G 0.0038G,aa
1024573! 0.52G,V 0.0038G,V,
! aa
! 0.014 N,aa
8001352; 0.73 0.0002aa
Saltwater
CMC CCC
(Hg/L) Gig/L)
0.71G 0.0019G,aa
0.034G,Y 0.0087G,Y
0.034G,Y 0.0087G,Y
0.037G 0.0023G,aa
0.053G 0.0036G,aa
0.053G,V 0.0036G,V,
aa
0.03 N,aa
0.21 0.0002aa
Human Health For
Consumption of:
Water + Organism
Organism Only
(Hg/L) Gig/L)
0.00014 B,C 0.00014 B,C
HOB 240 B
HOB 240 B
HOB 240 B
0.76 B 0.81 B,H
0.76 B 0.81 B,H
0.00021 B,C 0.00021 B,C
0.00010 B,C 0.0001 1B,C
0.00017 B,C,P 0.00017 B,C,P
0.00073B,C 0.00075B,C
FR
Cite/Source
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
62FR42160
63FR16182
62FR42160
Footnotes:
A This recommended water quality criterion was derived from data for arsenic (III), but is applied here to total arsenic, which might imply that arsenic (III)
and arsenic (V) are equally toxic to aquatic life and that their toxicities are additive. In the arsenic criteria document (EPA 440/5-84-033, January 1985),
Species Mean Acute Values are given for both arsenic (III) and arsenic (V) for five species and the ratios of the SMAVs for each species range from 0.6 to
1.7. Chronic values are available for both arsenic (III) and arsenic (V) for one species; for the fathead minnow, the chronic value for arsenic (V) is 0.29
times the chronic value for arsenic (III). No data are known to be available concerning whether the toxicities of the forms of arsenic to aquatic organisms
are additive.
B This criterion has been revised to reflect The Environmental Protection Agency's ql * or RfD, as contained in the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) as of April 8, 1998. The fish tissue bioconcentration factor (BCF) from the 1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria document was retained in each
case.
C This criterion is based on carcinogenicity of 10"6 risk. Alternate risk levels may be obtained by moving the decimal point (e.g., for a risk level of 10"5,
move the decimal point in the recommended criterion one place to the right).
D Freshwater and saltwater criteria for metals are expressed in terms of the dissolved metal in the water column. The recommended water quality criteria
value was calculated by using the previous 304(a) aquatic life criteria expressed in terms of total recoverable metal, and multiplying it by a conversion
factor (CF). The term "Conversion Factor" (CF) represents the recommended conversion factor for converting a metal criterion expressed as the total
recoverable fraction in the water column to a criterion expressed as the dissolved fraction in the water column. (Conversion Factors for saltwater CCCs
are not currently available. Conversion factors derived for saltwater CMCs have been used for both saltwater CMCs and CCCs). See "Office of Water
Policy
-------
and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria," October 1, 1993, by Martha G. Prothro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Water, available from the Water Resource Center, USEPA, 401 M St., SW, mail code RC4100, Washington, DC 20460;
and40CFR§131.36(b)(l). Conversion Factors applied in the table can be found in Appendix A to the Preamble- Conversion Factors for Dissolved
Metals.
E The freshwater criterion for this metal is expressed as a function of hardness (mg/L) in the water column. The value given here corresponds to a
hardness of 100 mg/L. Criteria values for other hardness may be calculated from the following: CMC (dissolved) = exp{mA [ln( hardness)]+ bA} (CF),
or CCC (dissolved) = exp{mc [In (hardness)]+ bc} (CF) and the parameters specified in Appendix B to the Preamble- Parameters for Calculating
Freshwater Dissolved Metals Criteria That Are Hardness-Dependent.
F Freshwater aquatic life values for pentachlorophenol are expressed as a function of pH, and are calculated as follows: CMC = exp(1.005(pFI)-4.869);
CCC = exp(1.005(pFI)-5.134). Values displayed in table correspond to a pH of 7.8.
G This Criterion is based on 304(a) aquatic life criterion issued in 1980, and was issued in one of the following documents: Aldrin/Dieldrin (EPA
440/5-80-019), Chlordane (EPA 440/5-80-027), DDT (EPA 440/5-80-038), Endosulfan (EPA 440/5-80-046), Endrm (EPA 440/5-80-047), Heptachlor
(440/5-80-052), Hexachlorocyclohexane (EPA 440/5-80-054), Silver (EPA 440/5-80-071). The Minimum Data Requirements and derivation
procedures were different in the 1980 Guidelines than in the 1985 Guidelines. For example, a "CMC" derived using the 1980 Guidelines was derived
to be used as an instantaneous maximum. If assessment is to be done using an averaging period, the values given should be divided by 2 to obtain a
value that is more comparable to a CMC derived using the 1985 Guidelines.
H No criterion for protection of human health from consumption of aquatic organisms excluding water was presented in the 1980 criteria document or in
the 1986 Quality Criteria for Water. Nevertheless, sufficient information was presented in the 1980 document to allow the calculation of a criterion,
even though the results of such a calculation were not shown in the document.
I This criterion for asbestos is the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
i J EPA has not calculated human health criterion for this contaminant. However, permit authorities should address this contaminant in NPDES permit
actions using the State's existing narrative criteria for toxics.
K This recommended criterion is based on a 304(a) aquatic life criterion that was issued in the 1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Documents for the
Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water, (EPA-820-B-96-001, September 1996). This value was derived using the GLI Guidelines
(60FR15393-15399, March 23, 1995; 40CFR132 Appendix A); the difference between the 1985 Guidelines and the GLI Guidelines are explained on
page iv of the 1995 Updates. None of the decisions concerning the derivation of this criterion were affected by any considerations that are specific to
the Great Lakes.
L The CMC = l/[(f I/CMC 1) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and
CMC1 and CMC2 are 185.9 |ig/L and 12.83 |ig/L, respectively.
M EPA is currently reassessing the criteria for arsenic. Upon completion of the reassessment the Agency will publish revised criteria as appropriate.
N PCBs are a class of chemicals which include aroclors, 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260,and 1016, CAS numbers 53469219, 11097691, 11104282,
11141165, 12672296, 11096825 and 12674112 respectively. The aquatic life criteria apply to this set of PCBs.
O The derivation of the CCC for this pollutant did not consider exposure through the diet, which is probably important for aquatic life occupying upper
trophic levels.
P This criterion applies to total pcbs, i.e., the sum of all congener or all isomer analyses.
Q This recommended water quality criterion is expressed as |_ig free cyanide (as CN)/L.
R This value was announced (61FR58444-58449, November 14, 1996) as a proposed GLI 303(c) aquatic life criterion. EPA is currently working on this
criterion and so this value might change substantially in the near future.
S This recommended water quality criterion refers to the inorganic form only.
T This recommended water quality criterion is expressed in terms of total recoverable metal in the water column. It is scientifically acceptable to use the
conversion factor of 0.922 that was used in the GLI to convert this to a value that is expressed in terms of dissolved metal.
-------
V This value was derived from data for heptachlor and the criteria document provides insufficient data to estimate the relative toxicities of heptachlor and
heptachlor epoxide.
W Although EPA has not published a final criteria document for this compound it is EPA's understanding that sufficient data exist to allow calculation of aquatic
criteria. It is anticipated that industry intends to publish in the peer reviewed literature draft aquatic life criteria generated in accordance with EPA Guidelines.
EPA will review such criteria for possible issuance as national WQC.
X There is a full set of aquatic life toxicity data that show that DEHP is not toxic to aquatic organisms at or below its solubility limit.
Y This value was derived from data for endosulfan and is most appropriately applied to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan.
Z A more stringent MCL has been issued by EPA. Refer to drinking water regulations (40 CFR 141) or Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1 -800-426-4791) for
values.
aa This CCC is based on the Final Residue Value procedure in the 1985 Guidelines. Since the publication of the Great Lakes Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines in
1995 (60FR15393-15399, March 23, 1995), the Agency no longer uses the Final Residue Value procedure for deriving CCCs for new or revised 304(a) aquatic
life criteria.
bb This water quality criterion is based on a 304(a) aquatic life criterion that was derived using the 1985 Guidelines (Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses, PB85-227049, January 1985) and was issued in one of the following criteria
documents: Arsenic (EPA 440/5-84-033), Cadmium (EPA 440/5-84-032), Chromium (EPA 440/5-84-029), Copper (EPA 440/5-84-031), Cyanide (EPA 440/5-
84-028), Lead (EPA 440/5-84-027), Nickel (EPA 440/5-86-004), Pentachlorophenol (EPA 440/5-86-009), Toxaphene, (EPA 440/5-86-006), Zinc (EPA
440/5-87- 003).
cc When the concentration of dissolved organic carbon is elevated, copper is substantially less toxic and use of Water-Effect Ratios might be appropriate.
dd The selenium criteria document (EPA 440/5-87-006, September 1987) provides that if selenium is as toxic to saltwater fishes in the field as it is to freshwater
fishes in the field, the status of the fish community should be monitored whenever the concentration of selenium exceeds 5.0 ng/L in salt water because the
saltwater CCC does not take into account uptake via the food chain.
ee This recommended water quality criterion was derived on page 43 of the mercury criteria document (EPA 440/5-84-026, January 1985). The saltwater CCC of
0.025 |j,g/L given on page 23 of the criteria document is based on the Final Residue Value procedure in the 1985 Guidelines. Since the publication of the Great
Lakes Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines in 1995 (60FR15393-15399, March 23, 1995), the Agency no longer uses the Final Residue Value procedure for
deriving CCCs for new or revised 304(a) aquatic life criteria.
ff This recommended water quality criterion was derived mAmbient Water Quality Criteria Saltwater Copper Addendum (Draft, April 14, 1995) and was
promulgated in the Interim final National Toxics Rule (60FR22228-222237, May 4, 1995).
gg EPA is actively working on this criterion and so this recommended water quality criterion may change substantially in the near future.
hh This recommended water quality criterion was derived from data for inorganic mercury (II), but is applied here to total mercury. If a substantial portion of the
mercury in the water column is methylmercury, this criterion will probably be under protective. In addition, even though inorganic mercury is converted to
methylmercury and methylmercury bioaccumulates to a great extent, this criterion does not account for uptake via the food chain because sufficient data were
not available when the criterion was derived.
-------
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Priority Pollutant
CAS Number
1 Alkalinity
2 Aluminum pH 6. 5 -9.0
3 Ammonia
7429905
7664417
4 Aesthetic Qualities
5 Bacteria
6 Barium
7440393
7 Boron
8 Chloride
9 Chlorine
10 Chlorophenoxy Herbicide
2,4,5,-TP
1 1 Chlorophenoxy Herbicide
2,4-D
12 Chlorpyrifos
16887006
7782505
93721
94757
2921882
13 Color
14 Demeton
15 Ether, Bis Chloromethyl
8065483
542881
16 Gases, Total Dissolved
17 Guthion
86500
18 Hardness
Human Health For
Freshwater Saltwater Consumption of:
Water + Organism
CMC CCC CMC CCC Organism Only
(|ig/L) (|ig/L) (|ig/L) (|ig/L) (|ig/L) (|ig/L)
* 20000 F * * * *
750 G,I 87G,I,L * * * *
FRESHWATER CRITERIA ARE pH DEPENDENT - SEE DOCUMENT D
SALTWATER CRITERIA ARE pH AND TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT
NARRATIVE STATEMENT - SEE DOCUMENT
FOR PRIMARY RECREATION AND SHELLFISH USES - SEE DOCUMENT
NARRATR
860000 G 230000 G
19 11
0.083 G 0.041 G
NARRATIVI
0.1 F
NARRATIVI
0.01 F
TE STATEMENT - SEE D(
13 7.5
0.011 G 0.0056 G
: STATEMENT - SEE DO
0.1 F
: STATEMENT - SEE DO
0.01 F
1,000 A
3CUMENT
C
10 A
100A,C
CUMENT F
0.00013 E 0.00078 E
CUMENT F
NARRATIVE STATEMENT - SEE DOCUMENT
FR Cite/Source
Gold Book
53FR33178
EPA822-R-98-008
EPA440/5-88-004
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
53FR19028
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
IRIS 01/01/91
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
-------
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Priority Pollutant
19 Hexachlorocyclo-hexane-
Technical
20 Iron
2 1 Malathion
22 Manganese
23 Methoxychlor
24 Mirex
25 Nitrates
26 Nitrosamines
27 Dinitrophenols
28 Nitrosodibutylamine,N
29 Nitrosodiethylamine,N
30 Nitrosopyrrolidine,N
3 1 Oil and Grease
32 Oxygen, Dissolved
33 Parathion
34 Pentachlorobenzene
35 pH
36 Phosphorus Elemental
CAS Number
319868
7439896
121755
7439965
72435
2385855
14797558
25550587
924163
55185
930552
--
7782447
56382
608935
--
7723140
37 Phosphate Phosphorus
Freshwater
CMC CCC
Oig/L) (jig/L)
1000 F
0.1 F
0.03 F
0.001 F
Saltwater
CMC CCC
Oig/L) Gig/L)
0.1 F
0.03 F
0.001 F
Human Health For
Consumption of:
Water + Organism
Organism Only
Oig/L) Gig/L)
0.0123 0.0414
300 A
50 A 100 A
100A,C
10,000 A
0.0008 1.24
70 14,000
0.0064 A 0.587 A
0.0008 A 1.24 A
0.016 91.9
NARRATIVE STATEMENT - SEE DOCUMENT F
WARMWATER AND COLD WATER MATRIX - SEE DOCUMENT O
0.065 J 0.013 J
3.5 E 4.1 E
6.5 -9F 6.5-8.5F,K 5-9
0.1 F,K
NARRATIVE STATEMENT - SEE DOCUMENT
FR Cite/Source
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
IRIS 03/0 1/88
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
-------
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Priority Pollutant CAS Number
38 Solids Dissolved and
Salinity
39 Solids Suspended and
Turbidity
40 Sulfide-Hydrogen Sulfide 7783064
41 Tainting Substances
42 Temperature
43 Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5- 95943
44 Tributyltin TBT
45 Trichlorophenol,2,4,5- 95954
Freshwater
CMC CCC
Saltwater
CMC CCC
Human Health For
Consumption of:
Water + Organism
Organism Only
250,000 A
NARRATIVE STATEMENT - SEE DOCUMENT F
2.0 F ! 2.0 F !
NARRATIVE STATEMENT - SEE DOCUMENT
SPECIES DEPENDENT CRITERIA - SEE DOCUMENT M
2.3 E 2.9 E
0.46 N 0.063 N 0.37 N 0.010 N
2,600 B,E 9800 B,E
FR Cite/Source
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
IRIS03/01/91
62FR42554
IRIS 03/0 1/88
Footnotes:
A This human health criterion is the same as originally published in the Red Book which predates the 1980 methodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion
BCF approach. This same criterion value is now published in the Gold Book.
B The organoleptic effect criterion is more stringent than the value presented in the non priority pollutants table.
C A more stringent Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) has been issued by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Refer to drinking water regulations
40CFR141 or Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791) for values.
D According to the procedures described in the Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and
Their Uses, except possibly where a very sensitive species is important at a site, freshwater aquatic life should be protected if both conditions specified in
Appendix C to the PreambleCalculation of Freshwater Ammonia Criterion are satisfied.
E This criterion has been revised to reflect The Environmental Protection Agency's ql * or RID, as contained in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as
of April 8, 1998. The fish tissue bioconcentration factor (BCF) used to derive the original criterion was retained in each case.
F The derivation of this value is presented in the Red Book (EPA 440/9-76-023, July, 1976).
G This value is based on a 304(a) aquatic life criterion that was derived using the 1985 Guidelines (Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses, PB85-227049, January 1985) and was issued in one of the following criteria documents:
Aluminum (EPA 440/5-86-008); Chloride (EPA 440/5-88-001); Chlorpyrifos (EPA 440/5-86-005).
I This value is expressed in terms of total recoverable metal in the water column.
J This value is based on a 304(a) aquatic life criterion that was issued in the 1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Documents for the Protection of Aquatic Life
in Ambient Water (EPA-820-B-96-001). This value was derived using the GLI Guidelines (60FR15393-15399, March 23, 1995; 40CFR132 Appendix A); the
differences between the 1985 Guidelines and the GLI Guidelines are explained on page iv of the 1995 Updates. No decision concerning this criterion was
affected by any considerations that are specific to the Great Lakes.
-------
K According to page 181 of the Red Book:
For open ocean waters where the depth is substantially greater than the euphoric zone, the pH should not be changed more than 0.2 units from the naturally
occurring variation or any case outside the range of 6.5 to 8.5. For shallow, highly productive coastal and estuarine areas where naturally occurring pH
variations approach the lethal limits of some species, changes in pH should be avoided but in any case should not exceed the limits established for fresh
water, i.e., 6.5-9.0.
L There are three major reasons why the use of Water-Effect Ratios might be appropriate. (1) The value of 87 |_ig/L is based on a toxicity test with the striped
bass in water with pH= 6.5-6.6 and hardness <10 mg/L. Data in "Aluminum Water-Effect Ratio for the 3M Plant Effluent Discharge, Middleway, West
Virginia" (May 1994) indicate that aluminum is substantially less toxic at higher pH and hardness, but the effects of pH and hardness are not well quantified at
this time. (2) In tests with the brook trout at low pH and hardness, effects increased with increasing concentrations of total aluminum even though the
concentration of dissolved aluminum was constant, indicating that total recoverable is a more appropriate measurement than dissolved, at least when particulate
aluminum is primarily aluminum hydroxide particles. In surface waters, however, the total recoverable procedure might measure aluminum associated with
clay particles, which might be less toxic than aluminum associated with aluminum hydroxide. (3) EPA is aware of field data indicating that many high quality
waters in the U.S. contain more than 87 |j,g aluminum/L, when either total recoverable or dissolved is measured.
M U.S. EPA. 1973. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.; U.S. EPA. 1977. Temperature
Criteria for Freshwater Fish: Protocol and Procedures. EPA-600/3-77-061. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
N This value was announced (62FR42554, August 7, 1997) as a proposed 304(a) aquatic life criterion. Although EPA has not responded to public comment, EPA
is publishing this as a 304(a) criterion in today's notice as guidance for States and Tribes to consider when adopting water quality criteria.
O U.S. EPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen. EPA 440/5-86-003. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
-------
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR ORGANOLEPTIC EFFECTS
Pollutant
1 Acenaphthene
2 Monochlorobenzene
3 3-Chlorophenol
4 4-Chlorophenol
5 2,3-Dichlorophenol
6 2,5-Dichlorophenol
7 2,6-Dichlorophenol
8 3,4-Dichlorophenol
9 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
10 2,4,6-Trichloropehnol
11 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
12 2-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol
13 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol
14 3-Methyl-6-Chlorophenol
15 2-Chlorophenol
16 Copper
17 2,4-Dichlorophenol
18 2,4-Dimethylphenol
19 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
20 Nitrobenzene
CAS Number
83329
108907
-
106489
~
~
-
-
95954
88062
-
-
59507
~
95578
7440508
120832
105679
77474
98953
Organoleptic Effect Criteria
(Hg/L)
20
20
0.1
0.1
0.04
0.5
0.2
0.3
1
2
1
1800
3000
20
0.1
1000
0.3
400
1
30
FR Cite/Source
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
-------
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR ORGANOLEPTIC EFFECTS
O
H-*
Os
Pollutant
21 Pentachlorophenol
22 Phenol
23 Zinc
CAS Number
87865
108952
7440666
Organoleptic Effect Criteria
(Hg/L)
30
300
5000
FR Cite/Source
Gold Book
Gold Book
45FR79341
General Notes:
1. These criteria are based on organoleptic (taste and odor) effects. Because of variations in chemical nomenclature systems, this listing of pollutants does
not duplicate the listing in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 423. Also listed are the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry numbers, which provide a
unique identification for each chemical.
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Additional Notes:
1. Criteria Maximum Concentration and Criterion Continuous Concentration
The Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) is an estimate of the highest concentration of a material in surface water to which an aquatic community can
be exposed briefly without resulting in an unacceptable effect. The Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) is an estimate of the highest concentration of a
material in surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed indefinitely without resulting in an unacceptable effect. The CMC and CCC are just two of
the six parts of a aquatic life criterion; the other four parts are the acute averaging period, chronic averaging period, acute frequency of allowed exceedence, and
chronic frequency of allowed exceedence. Because 304(a) aquatic life criteria are national guidance, they are intended to be protective of the vast majority of the
aquatic communities in the United States.
2. Criteria Recommendations for Priority Pollutants, Non Priority Pollutants and Organoleptic Effects
This compilation lists all priority toxic pollutants and some non priority toxic pollutants, and both human health effect and organoleptic effect criteria
issued pursuant to CWA §304(a). Blank spaces indicate that EPA has no CWA §304(a) criteria recommendations. For a number of non-priority toxic pollutants not
listed, CWA §304(a) "water + organism" human health criteria are not available, but, EPA has published MCLs under the SDWA that may be used in establishing
water quality standards to protect water supply designated uses. Because of variations in chemical nomenclature systems, this listing of toxic pollutants does not
duplicate the listing in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 423. Also listed are the Chemical Abstracts Service CAS registry numbers, which provide a unique
identification for each chemical.
3. Human Health Risk
The human health criteria for the priority and non priority pollutants are based on carcinogenicity of 10 -6 risk. Alternate risk levels may be obtained by
moving the decimal point (e.g., for a risk level of 10 -5 , move the decimal point in the recommended criterion one place to the right).
-------
4. Water Quality Criteria published pursuant to Section 304(a) or Section 303(c) of the CWA
Many of the values in the compilation were published in the proposed California Toxics Rule (CTR, 62FR42160). Although such values were published
pursuant to Section 303(c) of the CWA, they represent the Agency's most recent calculation of water quality criteria and thus are published today as the Agency's
304(a) criteria. Water quality criteria published in the proposed CTR may be revised when EPA takes final action on the CTR.
5. Calculation of Dissolved Metals Criteria
The 304(a) criteria for metals, shown as dissolved metals, are calculated in one of two ways. For freshwater metals criteria that are hardness-dependent, the
dissolved metal criteria were calculated using a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 for illustrative purposes only. Saltwater and freshwater metals' criteria that are not
hardness-dependent are calculated by multiplying the total recoverable criteria before rounding by the appropriate conversion factors. The final dissolved metals'
criteria in the table are rounded to two significant figures. Information regarding the calculation of hardness dependent conversion factors are included in the
footnotes.
6. Correction of Chemical Abstract Services Number
The Chemical Abstract Services number (CAS) for Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether, has been corrected in the table. The correct CAS number for this chemical is
39638-32-9. Previous publications listed 108-60-1 as the CAS number for this chemical.
7. Maximum Contaminant Levels
The compilation includes footnotes for pollutants with Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) more stringent than the recommended water quality criteria in
the compilation. MCLs for these pollutants are not included in the compilation, but can be found in the appropriate drinking water regulations (40 CFR 141.11-16
and 141.60-63), or can be accessed through the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791) or the Internet (http://www.epa.gov/ost/tools/dwstds-s.html).
8. Organoleptic Effects
The compilation contains 304(a) criteria for pollutants with toxicity-based criteria as well as non-toxicity based criteria. The basis for the non-toxicity based
criteria are organoleptic effects (e.g., taste and odor) which would make water and edible aquatic life unpalatable but not toxic to humans. The table includes criteria
for organoleptic effects for 23 pollutants. Pollutants with organoleptic effect criteria more stringent than the criteria based on toxicity (e.g., included in both the
priority and non-priority pollutant tables) are footnoted as such.
9. Category Criteria
In the 1980 criteria documents, certain recommended water quality criteria were published for categories of pollutants rather than for individual pollutants
within that category. Subsequently, in a series of separate actions, the Agency derived criteria for specific pollutants within a category. Therefore, in this
compilation EPA is replacing criteria representing categories with individual pollutant criteria (e.g., 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene and
1,2-dichlorobenzene).
10. Specific Chemical Calculations
A. Selenium
(1) Human Health
In the 1980 Selenium document, a criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of water and organisms was calculated based on a BCF of 6.0
L/kg and a maximum water-related contribution of 35 mg Se/day. Subsequently, the EPA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment issued an errata notice
(February 23, 1982), revising the BCF for selenium to 4.8 L/kg. In 1988, EPA issued an addendum (ECAO-CIN-668) revising the human health criteria for
selenium. Later in the final National Toxic Rule (NTR, 57 FR 60848), EPA withdrew previously published selenium human health criteria, pending Agency review
of new epidemic logical data.
-------
This compilation includes human health criteria for selenium, calculated using a BCF of 4.8 L/kg along with the current IRIS RfD of 0.005 mg/kg/day. EPA
included these recommended water quality criteria in the compilation because the data necessary for calculating a criteria in accordance with EPA's 1980 human
health methodology are available.
(2) Aquatic Life
This compilation contains aquatic life criteria for selenium that are the same as those published in the proposed CTR. In the CTR, EPA proposed an acute
criterion for selenium based on the criterion proposed for selenium in the Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (61 FR 58444). The GLI and CTR
proposals take into account data showing that selenium's two most prevalent oxidation states, selenite and selenate, present differing potentials for aquatic toxicity,
as well as new data indicating that various forms of selenium are additive. The new approach produces a different selenium acute criterion concentration, or CMC,
depending upon the relative proportions of selenite, selenate, and other forms of selenium that are present.
EPA notes it is currently undertaking a reassessment of selenium, and expects the 304(a) criteria for selenium will be revised based on the final reassessment
(63FR26186). However, until such time as revised water quality criteria for selenium are published by the Agency, the recommended water quality criteria in this
compilation are EPA's current 304(a) criteria.
B. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene and Zinc
Human health criteria for 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene and zinc have not been previously published. Sufficient information is now available for calculating water
quality criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of aquatic organisms and the consumption of aquatic organisms and water for both these
compounds. Therefore, EPA is publishing criteria for these pollutants in this compilation.
C. Chromium (HI)
The recommended aquatic life water quality criteria for chromium (III) included in the compilation are based on the values presented in the document titled:
1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Documents for the Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water, however, this document contains criteria based on the total
recoverable fraction. The chromium (III) criteria in this compilation were calculated by applying the conversion factors used in the Final Water Quality Guidance
for the Great Lakes System (60 FR 15366) to the 1995 Update document values.
D. Ether, Bis (Chloromethyl), Pentachlorobenzene, Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-, Trichlorphenol
Human health criteria for these pollutants were last published in EPA's Quality Criteria for Water 1986 or "Gold Book". Some of these criteria were calculated
using Acceptable Daily Intake (ADIs) rather than RiDs. Updated ql *s and RfDs are now available in IRIS for ether, bis (chloromethyl), pentachlorobenzene,
tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-, and trichlorophenol, and were used to revise the water quality criteria for these compounds. The recommended water quality criteria for
ether, bis (chloromethyl) were revised using an updated ql *, while criteria for pentachlorobenzene, and tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-, and trichlorophenol were
derived using an updated RfD value.
E. PCBs
In this compilation EPA is publishing aquatic life and human health criteria based on total PCBs rather than individual arochlors. These criteria replace the
previous criteria for the seven individual arochlors. Thus, there are criteria for a total of 102 of the 126 priority pollutants.
-------
Conversion Factors for Dissolved Metals
Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Conversion Factor
freshwater CMC
1.000
1.136672-[(ln
hardness)(0.041838)]
0.316
0.982
0.960
1.46203-[(ln
hardness)(0.145712)]
0.85
0.998
-
0.85
0.978
Conversion Factor
freshwater CCC
1.000
1.101672-[(ln
hardness)(0.041838)]
0.860
0.962
0.960
1.46203-[(ln
hardness)(0.145712)]
0.85
0.997
-
-
0.986
Conversion Factor
saltwater CMC
1.000
0.994
-
0.993
0.83
0.951
0.85
0.990
0.998
0.85
0.946
Conversion Factor
saltwater CCC1
1.000
0.994
-
0.993
0.83
0.951
0.85
0.990
0.998
-
0.946
-------
Parameters* for Calculating Freshwater Dissolved Metals Criteria That Are Hardness-Dependent
to
o
Chemical
Cadmium
Chromium III
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
mA
1.128
0.8190
0.9422
1.273
0.8460
1.72
0.8473
bA
-3.6867
3.7256
-1.700
-1.460
2.255
-6.52
0.884
nic
0.7852
0.8190
0.8545
1.273
0.8460
-
0.8473
bc
-2.715
0.6848
-1.702
-4.705
0.0584
-
0.884
Freshwater Conversion Factors (CF)
Acute
1.136672-[ln
(hardness)(0.041838)]
0.316
0.960
1.46203-[ln
(hardness)(0.145712)]
0.998
0.85
0.978
Chronic
1.101672-[ln
(hardness)(0.041838)]
0.860
0.960
1.46203-[ln
(hardness)(0.145712)]
0.997
-
0.986
Where mA and bA are conversion factors to calculate CMC and
conversion factors necessary to calculate CCC
and bc are
-------
Appendix C - Calculation of Freshwater Ammonia Criterion
1. The one-hour average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) does not exceed, more than once
every three years on the average, the CMC calculated using the following equation:
_ 0.275 39.0
V^IVIV^ _ _ _ -7 on/1 ,_,TT T
-i rv7.204-pH 1,1 rvpH-7.204
it- ID 1+ 10
In situations where salmonids do not occur, the CMC may be calculated using the following equation:
0.411 58.4
CMC =
iopH
~7-204
2. The thirty-day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) does not exceed, more than once
every three years on the average, the CCC calculated using the following equation:
0.0858 3.70
V^V^V-^ - - 1 ^QQ_^U T
^^7.688-pH 1+1()pH-7.688
and the highest four-day average within the 30-day period does not exceed twice the CCC.
Source: U.S. EPA's National Recommended Water Quality Criteria-Correction, EPA-822-Z-99-001,
April 1999, pp. 7-25; http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards/wqcriteria.html
D-21
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
D-22
-------
Biosolids Land Application Limitations
Pollutant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Ceiling Concentration*
(Table 1, 40 CFR 503.13)
mg/kg
75
85
4,300
840
57
75
420
100
7,500
lbs/1000lbs
75
85
4,300
840
57
75
420
100
7,500
Monthly Average Pollutant
Concentration*
(Tables, 40 CFR 503.13)
mg/kg
41
39
1,500
300
17
-
420
100
2,800
lbs/1000lbs
41
39
1,500
300
17
-
420
100
2,800
Cumulative Pollutant
Loading Rates*
(Table 2, 40 CFR 503.13)
kg/hectare
41
39
1,500
300
17
-
420
100
2,800
Ibs/acre**
37
35
1,338
268
15
-
375
89
2,498
Annual Pollutant Loading Rate*
(Table 4, 40 CFR 503.13)
kg/hectare/
365-day period
2
1.9
75
15
0.85
-
21
5
140
Ibs/acre/
365-day period**
1.8
1.7
67
13
0.76
-
19
4.5
125
* Dry weight.
** Calculated using metric standards specified in 40 CFR 503.13 multiplied by the conversion factor of 0.8922.
Source: 40 CFR §503.13, Tables 1-4, October 25, 1995
W
Q
W
C/5
t-1
C
o
Q
W
C/5
H
-------
Surface Disposal
Distance from the Boundary of Active
Biosolids Unit to Surface Disposal Site
Property Line (meters)
0 to less than 25
25 to less than 50
50 to less than 75
75 to less than 100
100 to less than 125
125 to less than 150
Equal to or greater than 1 50
Pollutant Concentration*
Arsenic
(mg/kg)
30
34
39
46
53
62
73
Chromium
(mg/kg)
200
220
260
300
360
450
600
Nickel
(mg/kg)
210
240
270
320
390
420
420
* Dry-weight.
Source: 40 CFR Part 503.23 Table 1 and 2.
Conversion Factors
pounds per acre (Ibs/ac) x 1.121 = kilograms per hectare (kg/ha)
kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) x 0.8922 = pounds per acre (Ibs/ac)
pound (Ib) = 0.4536 kilogram (kg)
kilogram (kg) = 2.205 pounds (Ibs)
English ton = 0.9072 metric tonne
metric tonne = 1.102 English ton
E-2
-------
APPENDIX F -
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHATE PROCEDURE
LIMITATIONS
EPA Hazardous
Waste No.
D004
D005
D018
D006
D019
D020
D021
D022
D007
D024
D024
D025
D026
D016
D027
D028
D029
D030
D012
D031
D032
D033
D034
D008
D013
D009
D014
D035
D036
D037
D038
D010
D011
D039
D015
D040
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chromium
o-Cresol
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
Cresols
2,4-D
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Endrin
Heptachlor (and its
epoxide)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pyridine
Selenium
Silver
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
CAS No.1
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
71-43-2
7440-43-9
56-23-5
57-74-9
108-90-7
67-66-3
7440-47-3
95-48-7
108-39-4
106-44-5
94-75-7
106-46-7
107-06-2
75-35-4
121-14-2
72-20-8
76-44-8
118-74-1
87-68-3
67-72-1
7439-92-1
58-89-9
7439-97-6
72-43-5
78-93-3
98-95-3
87-86-5
110-86-1
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
127-18-4
8001-35-2
79-01-6
Regulatory Level (mg/L)
5.0
100.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.03
100.0
6.0
5.0
200.0 2
200.0 2
200.0 2
200.0 2
10.0
7.5
0.5
0.7
0.133
0.02
0.008
0.133
0.5
3.0
5.0
0.4
0.2
10.0
200.0
2.0
100.0
5.0 3
1.0
5.0
0.7
0.5
0.5
F-l
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste No.
D041
D042
D017
D043
Contaminant
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
Vinyl chloride
CAS No.1
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
75-01-4
Regulatory Level (mg/L)
400.0
2.0
1.0
0.2
1 Chemical Abstracts Service number.
2 If o-, m-, and p-Cresol concentrations cannot be differentiated, the total cresol (D026)
concentration is used. The regulatory level of total cresol is 200 mg/L.
3 Quantitation limit is greater than the calculated regulatory level. The quantitation limit
therefore becomes the regulatory level.
Source: 40 CFR 261.24
F-2
-------
APPENDIX G -
LITERATURE INHIBITION VALUES
Pollutant
Reported Range of Activated Sludge
Inhibition Threshold
Levels, mg/L
References*
METALS/NONMETAL INORGANICS
Ammonia
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Chromium (III)
Chromium (Total)
Copper
Cyanide
Iodine
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Sulfide
Zinc
480
0.1
1 -10
1
10-50
1 -100
1
0.1 -5
5
10
1.0-5.0
10-100
0.1 -1
2.5 as Hg(ll)
1.0-2.5
5
25-30
0.3-5
5-10
(4)
(1), (2), (3)
(2), (3)
(2), (3)
(2), (3)
(1)
(2), (1), (3)
(1), (2), (3)
(1)
(4)
(3)
(1)
(2), (3)
(1)
(2), (3)
(1)
(4)
(3)
(1)
ORGANICS
Anthracene
Benzene
2-Chlorophenol
1,2 Dichlorobenzene
1,3 Dichlorobenzene
1,4 Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4 Dimethylphenol
2,4 Dinitrotoluene
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
500
100-500
125-500
5
20 - 200
5
5
5
64
40- 200
5
5
200
5
500
500
500
30 - 500
500
500
(1)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(2)
G-l
-------
Pollutant
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Toluene
2,4,6 Trichlorophenol
Surfactants
Reported Range of Activated Sludge
Inhibition Threshold
Levels, mg/L
0.95
50
75-150
500
500
50 - 200
200
200
200
50- 100
100- 500
References*
(2)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(4)
Pollutant
Chromium (III)
Cyanide
Reported Ranqe of Tricklinq Filter
Inhibition Threshold Levels, mg/L
3.5-67.6
30
References*
(1)
(D
Pollutant
Reported Range of Nitrification
Inhibition Threshold Levels, mg/L
References*
METALS/NONMETAL INORGANICS
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chloride
Chromium (VI)
Chromium (T)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
1.5
5.2
180
1 -10[as(Cr04f]
0.25-1.9
1 -100
(trickling filter)
0.05-0.48
0.34-0.5
0.5
0.25-0.5
5
0.08-0.5
(2)
(1), (2)
(4)
(1)
(1), (2), (3)
(1)
(2), (3)
(2), (3)
(2), (3)
(2), (3)
(1)
(2), (3)
ORGANICS
Chloroform
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Phenol
10
64
150
4
4-10
(2)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(3)
G-2
-------
Pollutant
Reported Ranqe of Anaerobic
Digestion Inhibition Threshold
Levels, mg/L
References*
METALS/NONMETAL INORGANICS
Ammonia
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Sulfate
Sulfide
Zinc
1500-8000
1.6
20
130
110
40
4-100
1 -4
340
10
136
13-65**
500-1000
50-100
400
(4)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(2), (3)
(3)
(2), (3)
(1)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(3)
ORGANICS
Acrylonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl chloride
Pentachlorophenol
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
5
5
2.9-159.4
10-20
2.0
0.96-3
0.96
1
5-16
10-16
0.23-3.8
0.23
1.4-5.3
1.4
3.3-536.4
100
0.2
0.2- 1.8
20
1 -20
20
20
-
(3)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
**
Total pollutant inhibition levels, unless otherwise indicated.
Dissolved metal inhibition levels.
(1)
Jenkins, D.I., and Associates. 1984. Impact of Toxics on Treatment Literature Review.
G-3
-------
(2) Russell, L. L., C. B. Cain, and D.I. Jenkins. 1984. Impacts of Priority Pollutants on Publicly
Owned Treated Works Processes: A Literature Review. 1984 Purdue Industrial Waste
Conference.
(3) Anthony, R. M., and L. H. Briemburst. 1981. Determining Maximum Influent Concentrations
of Priority Pollutants for Treatment Plants. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation
53(10):1457-1468.
(4) U.S. EPA. 1986, Working Document; Interferences at Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
September 1986.
Source: EPA 's Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge
Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program, December 1987, pp. 3-44 to 3-49.
G-4
-------
APPENDIX H -
CLOSED-CUP FLASHPOINTS FOR SELECT ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane (Ethyl chloride)
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (Vinylidene chloride)
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene, (1,2-Dichloroethylene)
1,2-Dichloropropane (Propylene dichloride)
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Closed Cup
Flashpoint (T)
-15
30
12
82
-58
2
56
-2
36-39
60
55
40
Source: Online NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards at
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npg.html.
H-l
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
H-2
-------
APPENDIX I -
DISCHARGE SCREENING LEVELS AND HENRY'S LAW CONSTANTS
FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Discharge Screening Levels Based on Explosivity
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene
Trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl benzene
Hydrogen Cyanide
Hydrogen Sulfide
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
LELs(1)
% volume /
volume
2.8
3.0
1.2
1.3
3.8
5.4
6.2
6.5
5.6
3.4
0.8
5.6
4.0
10.0
8.1
13.0
1.1
6.0
7.5
8.0 (F)
3.6
LELs
(mol/m3)
1.15
1.23
0.49
0.53
1.55
2.21
2.54
2.66
2.29
1.39
0.33
2.30
1.64
4.09
3.31
5.32
0.45
2.45
3.07
3.20
1.47
Henry's Law
Constant
(mol/m3)/(mg/L)
8.7E-05
8.4E-05
2.9E-03
1.3E-03
7.0E-03
2.4E-03
4.9E-04
1.2E-02
4.0E-03
1.0E-03
3.1E-03
1.7E-4
1.7E-2
2.7E-03
7.4E-03
1.2E-03
3.0E-03
2.6E-04
5.2E-03
3.1E-03
1.7E-02
MW
(g/mol)
56.1
53.1
78.1
112.6
65.5
99
99
97
97
113
106.2
27
34
95
50.5
84.9
92.1
133.4
133.4
131.4
62.5
Discharge
Screening
Level (mg/L)
13163
14586
169
395
222
909
5221
215
571
1326
106
13529
96
1521
450
4307
152
9611
591
1029
88
Lower Explosive Limits (LELs) assumed for 25 °C unless noted otherwise.
MW = molecular weight
Source: Updated in 2002 via the online NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards at
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npg.html
1-1
-------
Discharge Screening Levels Based upon Fume Toxicity
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dichloroethane,1,2-
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-
Trans-Dichloroethylene, 1,2-
Dichloropropane,1,2
Ethyl benzene
Hydrogen Cyanide
Hydrogen Sulfide
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachlorethane, 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Exposure
Limit*
(mg/m3)
0.23
21.70
3.19
5.17
12.58
345.75
2,640.00
9.76
405.00
8.10
19.80
794.00
508.20
542.50
5.17
14.00
77.80
207.00
433.75
34.35
678.00
565.50
54.60
1,911.00
10.74
12.80
Henry's
Law
Constant
(mg/m3/
mg/L)
4.9
4.5
228.0
22.8
1185.0
151.0
449.0
163.5
240.4
48.1
1202.1
389.3
118.5
327.0
4.5
414.4
255.5
371.6
104.8
18.6
717.1
272.5
34.1
692.7
408.7
1048.0
Discharge
Screening
Level
(mg/L)
0.047
4.822
0.014
0.227
0.011
2.290
5.880
0.060
1.685
0.168
0.016
2.040
4.289
1.659
1.149
0.034
0.305
0.557
4.139
1.847
0.945
2.075
1.601
2.759
0.026
0.012
Source
TLV-STEL
PEL-Ceiling, REL- Ceiling
REL-STEL
PEL-TWA, TLV-TWA, REL-TWA
REL-STEL
PEL-TWA
PEL-TWA
REL-STEL
PEL-TWA, TLV-TWA, REL-TWA
REL-STEL
TLV-TWA
PEL-TWA, TLV-TWA, REL-TWA
TLV-STEL
TLV-STEL, REL-STEL
TLV-Ceiling, REL-STEL
REL-Ceiling
PEL-Ceiling
TLV-STEL
PEL-STEL
PEL-TWA
TLV-STEL
REL-STEL
PEL-TWA, TLV-TWA, REL-TWA
REL-Ceiling
REL-Ceiling
PEL Ceiling
*Exposure limits are lowest of acute toxicity data (NIOSH REL-STEL, ACGIH TLV-STEL, OSHA PEL-
STEL, NIOSH REL-Ceiling, ACGIH TLV-Ceiling, OSHA PEL-Ceiling) converted from ppm to mg/m3
through conversion factor. If acute toxicity data were not available, the highest chronic exposure limit
(NIOSH REL-TWA, ACGIH TLV-TWA, OSHA PEL-TWA) was used. See Appendix J of this manual
for full list of acute and chronic exposure data.
Discharge Screening Level = Exposure Limit / Henry's Law Constant.
1-2
-------
Henry's Law Constants Expressed in Alternate Units
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene
Trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl benzene
Hydrogen Cyanide
Hydrogen Sulfide
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene Chloride
1 ,1 ,2,2,-Tetrachlorethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Henry's Law
Constant(2)
M/atm @ 298 K
(25°C)
8.2
9.15
0.18
1.8
0.034
0.27
0.089
0.25
0.17
0.85
0.034
0.105
0.345
0.125
9.3
0.1
0.16
0.11
0.39
2.2
0.057
0.15
1.2
0.059
0.1
0.039
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm m3 / mol)
0.00012
0.00011
0.0056
0.00056
0.029
0.0037
0.011
0.004
0.0059
0.0012
0.029
0.0095
0.0029
0.008
0.00011
0.01
0.0063
0.0091
0.0026
0.00045
0.018
0.0067
0.00083
0.017
0.01
0.026
Henry's Law
Constant
(mol/m3 / mg/L)
0.000087
0.000084
0.0029
0.000091
0.0077
0.0013
0.007
0.00137
0.0024
0.00049
0.012
0.004
0.001
0.0031
0.00017
0.017
0.0027
0.0074
0.0012
0.00011
0.00432
0.003
0.00026
0.0052
0.0031
0.017
Henry's Law
Constant
(mg/m3 / mg/L)
4.9
4.5
228
23
1185
151
449
164
240
48
1202
389
119
327
4.5
414.4
256
372
105
19
717
273
34
693
409
1048
Source: Compilation of Henry's Law Constants for Inorganic and Organic Species of Potential
Importance in Environmental Chemistry, R. Sanders 1999 (version 3).
H (atm nvVmol) = [986.9 * H (M/atm)]-l
H (mg/m3 / mg/L) = 40,893 * H(atm m3 / mol)
H (mol/m3 mg/L) = H (mg/m3 / mg/L) / (1000 * MW)
MW = molecular weight in grams per mole
1-3
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
1-4
-------
APPENDIX J -
OSHA, ACGIH AND NIOSH EXPOSURE LEVELS
EXPOSURE LIMITS FROM VARIOUS AGENCIES FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC PRIORITY
POLLUTANTS
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
(Ethyl chloride)
Chloroform
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dichloroethane,1,2-
(Ethylene dichloride)
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-
(Vinylidene chloride)
trans-
Dichloroethylene,1,2-
(1,2-Dichloroethylene)
Dichloropropane,1,2-
(Propylene dichloride)
Ethyl benzene
Hydrogen Cyanide
Hydrogen Sulfide
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Tetrachlorethane,
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
(Perchloroethylene)
Toluene
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1
(Methyl Chloroform)
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
mg/m3
per ppm
2.29
2.17
3.19
10.34
6.29
4.61
2.64
4.88
4.05
4.05
3.96
3.97
4.62
4.34
1.10
1.40
3.89
2.07
3.47
6.87
6.78
3.77
5.46
5.46
5.37
2.56
OSHA Permissible
Exposure Limits
TWA
ppm
0.1
2
1
0.5
10
75
1000
100
50
200
75
100
10
100
25
5
100
200
10
350
100
1
STEL
ppm
C10
5
C25
C50
C 100
C20
C20
C200
125
C200
C300
C200
C5
ACGIH Threshold
Limit Values
TVA
ppm
2
.5
0.5
5
10
100
10
100
10
5
200
75
100
10
1
50
50
25
50
10
350
50
5
STEL
ppm
C0.1
2.5
10
110
125
C4.7
15
100
100
450
100
NIOSH
Recommended
Exposure Limits
TWA
ppm
0.1
1
0.1
0.5
100
1
200
100
1
100
10
25
STEL
ppm
0.3
C10
1
2
2
2
125
4.7
C10
150
C350
C2
J-l
-------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) (29 CFR 1910.1000)
PEL time-weighted average (TWA) concentrations must not be exceeded during any 8-hour workshift of
a 40-hour workweek. PEL short-term exposure limit (STEL) must not be exceeded over a 15-minute
period unless noted otherwise. PEL ceiling concentrations (designated by "C" preceding the value in the
STEL column) must not be exceeded during any part of the workday; if instantaneous monitoring is not
feasible, the ceiling must be assessed as a 15-minute TWA exposure. OSHA values were updated in 2002
via the online NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npg.html.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values (TLVs)
TLV Time-weighted average (TVA) concentrations are for a conventional 8-hour workday and a 40-hour
workweek for which it is believed that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day,
without adverse effect. TLV short-term exposure limit (STEL) concentrations are the 15-minute TWA
exposure which should not be exceeded at any time during a workday even if the 8-hour TWA is within
the TLV-TWA. TLV ceiling concentrations (designated by a "C" preceding the value in the STEL
column) should not be exceeded during any part of the working exposure. ACGIH values found in the
ACGIH 2002 TLVs andBEIs.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs)
REL time-weighted average (TWA) concentrations must not be exceeded over a 10-hour workday during
a 40-hour workweek. REL short-term exposure limits (STELs) are a 15-minute TWA exposure that
should not be exceeded at any time during a workday. A ceiling REL, designated by "C" preceding the
value in the STEL column, should not be exceeded at any time. NIIOSH values updated in 2003 via the
online NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards at http ://www .cdc .gov/niosh/npg/npg .html.
J-2
-------
APPENDIX K -
LANDFILL LEACHATE LOADINGS
Landfill Leachate Monitoring Data*
Pollutant
Minimum Concentration
(mg/L)
Maximum
Concentration (mg/L)
Average Concentration
(mg/L)
INORGANICS
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (T)
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
0.008
0.002
<0.1
< 0.001
0.007
0.007
0.04
1.5
0.005
0.63
<0002
0.003
<002
<0.01
<01
0.3
0.13
0.55
1.25
12.1
10.87
0.05
4500
9.8
73.2
0.002
12.09
0.02
0.05
58
0.142
0.042
0.201
0.03
0.633
0.395
0.029
33.8
0.156
13.224
0.002
0.55
0.01
0.019
12.006
ORGANICS
Acetone
Benzene
Benzole Acid
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
p-chloro-m-Cresol
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Butyl Ketone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2.8
< 0.002
0.02
0.011
< 0.001
0.018
< 0.005
< 0.001
< 0.005
0.017
0.028
5.3
0.065
<0.01
0.011
0.016
0.008
2.8
0.031
<0.4
0.011
<0.1
0.018
<0.4
0.052
6.8
0.54
0.16
29
0.065
<0.4
0.011
0.016
2.9
2.8
0.025
0.19
0.011
0.021
0.018
0.101
0.002
1.136
0.171
0.094
13.633
0.065
0.113
0.011
0.016
1.06
K-l
-------
Pollutant
Toluene
Trichloroethene
1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethane
2,4-Dimethyl Phenol
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
Minimum Concentration
(mg/L)
0.0082
< 0.001
0.011
0.005
0.11
0.0049
0.0044
0.25
< 0.002
Maximum
Concentration (mg/L)
1.6
<0.1
0.022
<0.4
0.11
0.0049
0.0044
0.25
0.21
Average Concentration
(mg/L)
0.735
0.025
0.019
0.107
0.11
0.0049
0.0044
0.25
0.067
* Number of detections/number of observations could not be determined from data provided.
Source: U.S. EPA's Supplemental Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge
Limitations Under the Pretreatment Programs, May 1991, pp. 1-30 and 1-31. "Pollutant levels
reported below specified detection limit were considered in the data analysis and, for the purpose
of statistical analysis, were considered to be equal to the detection limit."
Most Common Landfill Leachates*
Pollutant
Concentration Range
(parts per million)
INORGANICS**
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chloride
Chromium (Total)
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Nitrate
Sodium
Sulfate
0.0002-0.982
0.11 -5
0.007-0.15
31 -5,475
0.0005-1.9
0.03-2.8
0.22-2,280
0.005-1.6
0.03-79
0.02-2.2
0.01 -51
12-2,574
8-1,400
ORGAN ICS***
1,1-Dichloroethane
Trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Phenol
Toluene
0.004-44
0.002-4.8
0.006-4.9
0.002 - 220
0.007-28.8
0.006-18
K-2
-------
**
Leachate data is compiled from a database of 70 MSWLFs [U.S. EPA 1988. Summary of Data on
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Leachate Characteristics-Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills (40 CFR Part 258) - Subtitle D of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(Background Document)]. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste.
Leachate data from 62 landfills.
*** Leachate data from 53 landfills.
Source: U.S. EPA's NationalPretreatmentProgram Report to Congress, July 1991, p. 3-81.
Contaminant Concentration Ranges in Municipal Leachate
Pollutant
Parameter
George
(1972)
Chain
/DeWalle
(1977)
Metry/
Cross
(1977)
Cameron
(1978)
Wisconsin
Report
(20 Sites)
Sobotka
Report
(44 Sites)
CONVENTIONAL
BOD
PH
TSS
9-54,610
3.7-8.5
6-2,685
81 -33,360
3.7-8.5
10-700
2,200-
720,000
3.7-8.5
13-26,500
9-55,000
3.7-8.5
ND- 195,000
5-8.9
2-140,900
7-21,600
5.4-8.0
28-2,835
NON-CONVENTIONAL
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Chlorides
COD
Fluorides
Hardness
NH3-Nitrogen
NO
-Nitrogen
Organic
Nitrogen
Ortho-
Phosphorus
Sulfates
Sulfide
TOC
TDS
Total-K-
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
Total Solids
0-20,850
34-2,800
0-89,520
0-22,800
0-1,106
0-1,300
1 -1,826
0 - 42,276
0-1,416
1 -154
0-20,850
4.7-2,467
40 - 89,520
0-22,800
0-1,106
0.2-1,0.29
6.5-85
1 -1,558
256-28,000
584-44,900
0-130
0-59,200
310-9,500
3,260-5,730
47-2,350
800-
750,000
35-8,700
0.2 - 845
4.5-18
2.4-550
0.3-136
20-1,370
100-51,000
0-20,900
34-2,800
0-9,000
0-2.13
0-22,800
0-1,106
0-154
0-1,826
0-0.13
0-42,300
ND- 15,050
2-11,375
6.6-97,900
0-0.74
52 - 225,000
ND- 1,850
ND- 30,500
584 - 50,430
2-3,320
ND - 234
0-7,375
120-5,475
440 - 50,450
0.12-0.790
0.8-9,380
11.3-1,200
0-5,0.95
4.5-78.2
8-500
5-6,884
1,400-
16,120
47.3-938
1,900-
25,873
METALS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
0-122
0-11.6
0-5.4
0-0.3
ND-85
ND-70.2
ND-12.5
ND-0.36
0.010-5.07
0-0.08
0.01 -10
0.001 -0.01
K-3
-------
Pollutant
Parameter
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Total
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
George
(1972)
5-4,080
0-9.9
0.2-5,500
0-0.5
16.5-15,600
0.06-1,400
2.8-3,770
0-7,700
0-1,000
Chain
/DeWalle
(1977)
0.03-17
60-7,200
0-9.9
0-2,820
<0.10-2.0
17-15,600
0.09-125
28-3,770
0-7,700
0-370
Metry/
Cross
(1977)
240-2,570
0.12-1,700
64 - 547
13
28-3,800
85-3,800
0.03-135
Cameron
(1978)
0.3-73
0-0.19
5-4,000
0-33.4
0-10
0-0.11
0.2-5,500
0-5.0
16.5-15,600
0.06-1,400
0 - 0.064
0-0.52
0.01 -0.8
2.8-3,770
0-7,700
0-5.0
0-1.4
0-1,000
Wisconsin
Report
(20 Sites)
0.867-13
ND-0.04
200-2,500
ND-5.6
ND-4.06
ND-6
ND- 1,500
0-14.2
ND-780
ND-31.1
ND-0.01
0.01 -1.43
ND-7.5
ND- 2,800
12-6,010
<0.01
0.01
ND-731
Sobotka
Report
(44 Sites)
0-0.1
95.5-2,100
0.001 -1.0
0.003-0.32
0-4.0
0.22-1,400
0.001 -1.11
76 - 927
0.03-43
0-0.02
0.01 -1.25
30-1,375
0.01 -67
All concentrations in mg/L, except pH (standard units).
ND = Non-detect
Source: U.S. EPA 's Technical Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category, EPA 821-R-97-022, January 1998, Table 6-3.
* Literature sources were:
George, J. A., Sanitary Landfill-Gas andLeachate Control, the National Perspective, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, U.S. EPA, 1972.
Chian, E. S., and F. B. DeWalle, Evaluation ofLeachate Treatment, Volume I, Characterization of
Leachate, EPA-600/2-77-186a.
Metry, A. A., and F. L. Cross, Leachate Control and Treatment, Volume 7, Environmental Monograph
Series, Technomic Publishing Co., Westport, CT, 1977.
Cameron, R. D., The Effect of Solid Waste Landfill Leachates on Receiving Waters, Journal AWWA,
March 1978.
McGinley, Paul M., and Peter Met. Formation, Characteristics, Treatment and Disposal of Leachate from
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Special Report, August 1,
1984.
Sobotka & Co., Inc., Case History Data Compiled and Reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Economic Analysis Branch, Office of Solid Waste, 1986.
K-4
-------
APPENDIX L -
HAULED WASTE LOADINGS
Septage Hauler Monitoring Data
Pollutant
Number of
Detections
Number of
Samples
Minimum
Concentration
(mg/L)
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/L)
Average
Concentration
(mg/L)
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (T)
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Tin
Zinc
144
128
825
931
16
963
575
464
962
5
582
813
237
11
959
145
128
1097
1019
32
971
577
464
1067
5
703
1030
272
25
967
0
0.002
0.005
0.01
< 0.003
0.01
0.001
0.2
< 0.025
0.55
0.0001
0.01
< 0.003
<015
< 0.001
3.5
202
8.1
34
3.45
260.9
1.53
2740
118
17.05
0.742
37
5
1
444
0.141
5.758
0.097
0.49
0.406
4.835
0.469
39.287
1.21
6.088
0.005
0.526
0.099
0.076
9.971
NONCONVENTIONALS
COD
183
183
510
117500
21247.951
ORGANICS
Acetone
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Isopropyl Alcohol
Methyl Alcohol
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Xvlene
118
112
115
117
117
115
115
113
87
118
112
115
117
117
115
115
113
87
0
0.005
0.005
1
1
1
0.005
0.005
0.005
210
3.1
1.7
391
396
240
2.2
1.95
0.72
10.588
0.062
0.067
14.055
15.84
3.65
0.101
0.17
0.051
Source: U.S. EPA's Supplemental Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge
Limitations Under the Pretreatment Programs, 21W-4002, May 1991, pp. 1-27 and 1-28.
"Pollutant levels reported below specified detection limit were considered in the data analysis
and, for the purpose of statistical analysis, were considered equal to the detection limit."
L-l
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
L-2
-------
APPENDIX M -
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS - RCRA APPENDIX VIII
Constituent
A2213
Acetonitrile
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminefluarone
Acetyl chloride
1-Acetyl-2-thiourea
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylonitrile
Aflatoxins
Aldicarb
Aldicarb sulfone
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Allyl chloride
Aluminum phosphide
4-Aminobiphenyl
5-(Aminomethyl)-3-isoxazolol
4-Aminopyridine
Amitrole
Ammonium vanadate
Aniline
Antimony
Antimony compounds, N.O.S.
Aramite
Arsenic
Arsenic compounds, N.O.S.
Arsenic acid
Arsenic pentoxide
Arsenic trioxide
Auramine
Azaserine
Barban
Barium
Barium compounds, N.O.S.
Barium cyanide
Bendiocarb
Bendiocarb phenol
Benomyl
Benz[c]acridine
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzal chloride
Benzene
Benzenearsonic acid
Benzidine
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[j]fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
p-Benzoquinone
Benzotrichloride
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium powder
Beryllium compounds, not otherwise specified (NOS)
CAS No.
30558-43-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
53-96-3
75-36-5
591-08-2
1 07-02-8
79-06-1
107-13-1
1402-68-2
116-06-3
1646-88-4
309-00-2
107-18-6
1 07-1 8-6
20859-73-8
92-67-1
2763-96-4
504-24-5
61-82-5
7803-55-6
62-53-3
7440-36-0
-
140-57-8
7440-38-2
-
7778-39-4
1303-28-2
1327-53-3
492-80-8
115-02-6
101-27-9
7440-39-3
-
542-62-1
22781-23-3
22961-82-6
1 7804-35-2
225-51-4
56-55-3
98-87-3
71-43-2
98-05-5
92-87-5
205-99-2
205-82-3
207-08-9
50-32-8
106-51-4
98-07-7
100-44-7
7440-41-7
-
Hazardous
Waste No.
U394
U003
U004
U005
U006
P002
POOS
U007
U009
-
P070
P203
P004
POOS
-
P006
-
P007
POOS
U011
P119
U012
-
-
-
-
-
P010
P011
P012
U014
U015
U280
-
-
P013
U278
U364
U271
U016
U018
U017
U019
-
U021
-
-
-
U022
U197
U023
P028
P015
-
M-l
-------
Constituent
Bis(pentamethylene)-thiuram tetrasulfide
Bromoacetone
Bromoform
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Brucine
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butylate
Cacodylic acid
Cadmium
Cadmium compounds, NOS
Calcium chromate
Calcium cyanide
Carbaryl
Carbendazim
Carbofuran
Carbofuran phenol
Carbon disulfide
Carbon oxyfluoride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbosulfan
Chloral
Chlorambucil
Chlordane
Chlordane (alpha and gamma isomers)
Chlorinated benzenes, NOS
Chlorinated ethane, NOS
Chlorinated fluorocarbons, NOS
Chlorinated naphthalene, NOS
Chlorinated phenol, NOS
Chlornaphazin
Chloroacetaldehyde
Chloroalkyl ethers, NOS
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethyl methyl ether
beta-Chloronaphthalene
o-Chlorophenol
1-(o-Chlorophenyl)thiourea
Chloroprene
3-Chloropropionitrile
Chromium
Chromium compounds, NOS
Chrysene
Citrus red No. 2
Coal tar creosote
Copper cyanide
Copper dimethyldithiocarbamate
Creosote
Cresol (Cresylic acid)
Crotonaldehyde
m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate
Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes), NOS
Cyanogen
Cyanogen bromide
Cvanoaen chloride
CAS No.
120-54-7
598-31-2
75-25-2
101-55-3
357-57-3
85-68-7
2008-41-5
75-60-5
7440-43-9
-
13765-19-0
592-01-8
63-25-2
10605-21-7
1563-66-2
1563-38-8
75-15-0
353-50-4
56-23-5
55285-14-8
75-87-6
305-03-3
57-74-9
-
-
-
-
-
-
494-03-1
107-20-0
-
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
59-50-7
110-75-8
67-66-3
107-30-2
91-58-7
95-57-8
5344-82-1
126-99-8
542-76-7
7440-47-3
-
218-01-9
6358-53-8
8007-45-2
544-92-3
137-29-1
-
1319-77-3
4170-30-3
64-00-6
-
460-1 9-5
506-68-3
506-77-4
Hazardous
Waste No.
-
P017
U225
U030
P018
-
-
U136
-
-
U032
P021
U279
U372
P127
U367
P022
U033
U211
P189
U034
U035
U036
U036
-
-
-
-
-
U026
P023
-
P024
U037
U038
U039
U042
U044
U046
U047
U048
P026
-
P027
-
-
U050
-
-
P029
-
U051
U052
U053
P202
P030
P031
U246
P033
M-2
-------
Constituent
Cycasin
Cycloate
2-Cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
Cyclophosphamide
2,4-D
2,4-D, salts, esters
Daunomycin
Dazomet
ODD
DDE
DDT
Diallate
Dibenz[a,h]acridine
Dibenz[aj]acridine
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole
Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene
Dibenzo a,h]pyrene
Dibenzo a,i]pyrene
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
Dibutyl phthalate
o-Dichlorobenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene, NOS
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloroethylene, NOS
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloroethyl ether
Dichloroisopropyl ether
Dichloromethoxy ethane
Dichloromethyl ether
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Dichlorophenylarsine
Dichloropropane, NOS
Dichloropropanol, NOS
Dichloropropene, NOS
1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dieldrin
1 ,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane
Diethylarsine
Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate
1,4-Diethyleneoxide
Diethylhexyl phthalate
N,N'-Diethylhydrazine
O,O-Diethyl S-methyl dithiophosphate
Diethyl-p-nitrophenyl phosphate
Diethyl phthalate
O,O-Diethyl O-pyrazinyl phosphoro-thioate
Diethylstilbesterol
Dihydrosafrole
Diisopropylfluorophosphate (DFP)
Dimethoate
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
D-Dimethvlaminoazobenzene
CAS No.
14901-08-7
1134-23-2
131-89-5
50-18-0
94-75-7
-
20830-81-3
533-74-4
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
226-36-8
224-42-0
53-70-3
1 94-59-2
192-65-4
189-64-0
1 89-55-9
96-12-8
84-74-2
95-50-1
541-73-1
106-46-7
25321-22-6
91-94-1
764-41-0
75-71-8
25323-30-2
75-35-4
156-60-5
111-44-4
108-60-1
111-91-1
542-88-1
120-83-2
87-65-0
696-28-6
26638-19-7
26545-73-3
26952-23-8
542-75-6
60-57-1
1464-53-5
692-42-2
5952-26-1
123-91-1
117-81-7
1615-80-1
3288-58-2
311-45-5
84-66-2
297-97-2
56-53-1
94-58-6
55-91-4
60-51-5
119-90-4
60-11-7
Hazardous
Waste No.
-
-
P034
U058
U240
U240
U059
-
U060
-
U061
U062
-
-
U063
-
-
-
U064
U066
U069
U070
U071
U072
-
U073
U074
U075
-
U078
U079
U025
U027
U024
P016
U081
U082
P036
-
-
-
U084
P037
U085
P038
U395
U108
U028
U086
U087
P041
U088
P040
U089
U090
P043
P044
U091
U093
M-3
-------
Constituent
7, 1 2-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride
1 , 1 -Dimethylhydrazine
1 ,2-Dimethylhydrazine
alpha, alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Dimethyl sulfate
Dimetilan
Dinitrobenzene, NOS
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol salts
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Dinoseb
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
Disulfiram
Disulfoton
Dithiobiuret
Endosulfan
Endothall
Endrin
Endrin metabolites
Epichlorohydrin
Epinephrine
EPIC
Ethyl carbamate (urethane)
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl Ziram
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid, salts and esters
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dichloride
Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether
Ethyleneimine
Ethylene oxide
Ethylenethiourea
Ethylidene dichloride
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Famphur
Ferbam
Fluoranthene
Fluorine
Fluoroacetamide
Fluoroacetic acid, sodium salt
Formaldehyde
Formetanate hydrochloride
Formic acid
Formparanate
Glycidylaldehyde
CAS No.
57-97-6
119-93-7
79-44-7
57-14-7
540-73-8
122-09-8
105-67-9
131-11-3
77-78-1
644-64-4
25154-54-5
534-52-1
-
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
88-85-7
117-84-0
122-39-4
122-66-7
621-64-7
97-77-8
298-04-4
541-53-7
1 1 5-29-7
145-73-3
72-20-8
-
106-89-8
51-43-4
759-94.4
51-79-6
107-12-0
14324-55-1
111-54-6
-
106-93-4
1 07-06-2
110-80-5
151-56-4
75-21-8
96-45-7
75-34-3
97-63-2
62-50-0
52-85-7
14484-64-1
206-44-0
7782-41-4
640-19-7
62-74-8
50-00-0
23422-53-9
64-1 8-6
17702-57-7
765-34-4
Hazardous
Waste No.
U094
U095
U097
U098
U099
P046
U101
U102
U103
P191
-
P047
P047
P048
U105
U106
P020
U017
-
U109
U111
-
P039
P049
P050
P088
P051
P051
U041
P042
-
U238
P101
-
U114
U114
U067
U077
U359
P054
U115
U116
U076
U118
U119
P097
-
U120
P056
P057
P058
U122
P198
U123
P197
U126
M-4
-------
Constituent
Halomethanes, NOS
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Heptachlor epoxide (alpha, beta, and gamma isomers)
Heptachlorodibenzofurans
Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzofurans
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
Hexaethyl tetra phosphate
Hydrazine
Hydrogen cyanide
Hydrogen fluoride
Hydrogen sulfide
lndeno[1 ,2,3-cd]pyrene
3-lodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate
Isobutyl alcohol
Isodrin
Isolan
Isosafrole
Kepone
Lasiocarpine
Lead
Lead compounds, NOS
Lead acetate
Lead phosphate
Lead subacetate
Lindane
Maleic anhydride
Maleic hydrazide
Malononitrile
Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate
Melphalan
Mercury
Mercury compounds, NOS
Mercury fulminate
Metam Sodium
Methacrylonitrile
Methapyrilene
Methiocarb
Methomyl
Methoxychlor
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methyl chlorocarbonate
Methyl chloroform
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
Methylene bromide
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide
Methyl hydrazine
Methyl iodide
CAS No.
-
76-44-8
1 024-57-3
-
-
-
118-74-1
87-68-3
77-47-4
-
-
67-72-1
70-30-4
1888-71-7
757-58-4
302-01-2
74-90-8
7664-39-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
55406-53-6
78-83-1
465-73-6
1 1 9-38-0
120-58-1
143-50-0
303-34-1
7439-92-1
-
301-04-2
7446-27-7
1335-32-6
58-89-9
108-31-6
123-33-1
109-77-3
15339-36-3
148-82-3
7439-97-6
-
628-86-4
137-42-8
126-98-7
91-80-5
2032-65-7
16752-77-5
72-43-5
74-83-9
74-87-3
79-22-1
71-55-6
56-49-5
101-14-4
74-95-3
75-09-2
78-93-3
1338-23-4
60-34-4
74-88-4
Hazardous
Waste No.
-
P059
-
-
-
-
U127
U128
U130
-
-
U131
U132
U243
P062
U133
P063
U134
U135
U137
-
U140
P060
P192
U141
U142
U143
-
-
U144
U145
U146
U129
U147
U148
U149
P196
U150
U151
-
P065
-
U152
U155
P199
P066
U247
U029
U045
U156
U226
U157
U158
U068
U080
U159
U160
P068
U138
M-5
-------
Constituent
Methyl isocyanate
2-Methyllactonitrile
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl methanesulfonate
Methyl parathion
Methylthiouracil
Metolcarb
Mexacarbate
Mitomycin C
MNNG
Molinate
Mustard gas
Naphthalene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
alpha-Naphthylamine
beta-Naphthylamine
alpha-Naphthylthiourea
Nickel
Nickel compounds, NOS
Nickel carbonyl
Nickel cyanide
Nicotine
Nicotine salts
Nitric oxide
p-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitrogen mustard
Nitrogen mustard, hydrochloride salt
Nitrogen mustard N-oxide
Nitrogen mustard, N-oxide, hydro- chloride salt
Nitroglycerin
p-Nitrophenol
2-Nitropropane
Nitrosamines, NOS
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosonornicotine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
N-Nitrososarcosine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Octamethylpyrophosphoramide
Osmium tetroxide
Oxamyl
Paraldehyde
Parathion
Pebulate
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzofurans
CAS No.
624-83-9
75-86-5
80-62-6
66-27-3
298-00-0
56-04-2
1129-41-5
315-18-4
50-07-7
70-25-7
2212-67-1
505-60-2
91-20-3
130-15-4
134-32-7
91-59-8
86-88-4
7440-02-0
-
13463-39-3
557-19-7
54-11-5
-
10102-43-9
100-01-6
98-95-3
10102-44-0
51-75-2
-
126-85-2
-
55-63-0
100-02-7
79-46-9
35576-91 -1D
924-16-3
1116-54-7
55-18-5
62-75-9
759-73-9
10595-95-6
684-93-5
615-53-2
4549-40-0
59-89-2
16543-55-8
100-75-4
930-55-2
1 3256-22-9
99-55-8
152-16-9
20816-12-0
23135-22-0
123-63-7
56-38-2
1114-71-2
608-93-5
-
-
Hazardous
Waste No.
P064
P069
U162
-
P071
U164
P190
P128
U010
U163
-
-
U165
U166
U167
U168
P072
-
-
P073
P074
P075
P075
P076
P077
U169
P078
-
-
-
-
P081
U170
U171
-
U172
U173
U174
P082
U176
-
U177
U178
P084
-
-
U179
U180
-
U181
P085
P087
P194
U182
P089
-
U183
-
-
M-6
-------
Constituent
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenol
Phenylenediamine
Phenylmercury acetate
Phenylthiourea
Phosgene
Phosphine
Phorate
Phthalic acid esters, NOS
Phthalic anhydride
Physostigmine
Physostigmine salicylate
2-Picoline
Polychlorinated biphenyls, NOS
Potassium cyanide
Potassium dimethyldithiocarbamate
Potassium n-hydroxymethyl-n-methyl-dithiocarbamate
Potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate
Potassium pentachlorophenate
Potassium silver cyanide
Promecarb
Pronamide
1,3-Propane sultone
n-Propylamine
Propargyl alcohol
Propham
Propoxur
Propylene dichloride
1,2-Propylenimine
Propylthiouracil
Prosulfocarb
Pyridine
Reserpine
Resorcinol
Saccharin
Saccharin salts
Safrole
Selenium
Selenium compounds, NOS
Selenium dioxide
Selenium sulfide
Selenium, tetrakis(dimethyl-dithiocarbamate)
Selenourea
Silver
Silver compounds, NOS
Silver cyanide
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)
Sodium cyanide
Sodium dibutyldithiocarbamate
Sodium diethyldithiocarbamate
Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate
Sodium pentachlorophenate
Streptozotocin
Strychnine
Strychnine salts
Sulfallate
CAS No.
76-01-7
82-68-8
87-86-5
62-44-2
108-95-2
25265-76-3
62-38-4
1 03-85-5
75-44-5
7803-51-2
298-02-2
-
85-44-9
57-47-6
57-64-7
1 09-06-8
151-50-8
128-03-0
51026-28-9
137-41-7
7778736
506-61-6
2631-37-0
23950-58-5
1120-71-4
107-10-8
107-19-7
122-42-9
114-26-1
78-87-5
75-55-8
51-52-5
52888-80-9
110-86-1
50-55-5
108-46-3
81-07-2
-
94-59-7
7782-49-2
-
7783-00-8
7488-56-4
144-34-3
630-10-4
7440-22-4
-
506-64-9
93-72-1
143-33-9
136-30-1
148-18-5
128-04-1
131522
18883-66-4
57-24-9
-
95-06-7
Hazardous
Waste No.
U184
U185
F027
U187
U188
-
P092
P093
P095
P096
P094
-
U190
P204
P188
U191
-
P098
-
-
-
-
P099
P201
U192
U193
U194
P102
U373
U411
U083
P067
-
U387
U196
U200
U201
U202
U202
U203
-
-
U204
U205
-
P103
-
-
P104
F027
P106
-
-
-
None
U206
P108
P108
-
M-7
-------
Constituent
TCDD
Tetrabutylthiuram disulfide
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
Tetrachloroethane, NOS
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol, potassium salt
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol, sodium salt
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
Tetraethyl lead
Tetraethyl pyrophosphate
Tetramethylthiuram monosulfide
Tetranitromethane
Thallium
Thallium compounds, NOS
Thallic oxide
Thallium(l) acetate
Thallium(l) carbonate
Thallium(l) chloride
Thallium(l) nitrate
Thallium selenite
Thallium(l) sulfate
Thioacetamide
Thiodicarb
Thiofanox
Thiomethanol
Thiophanate-methyl
Thiophenol
Thiosemicarbazide
Thiourea
Thiram
Tirpate
Toluene
Toluenediamine
Toluene-2,4-diamine
Toluene-2,6-diamine
Toluene-3,4-diamine
Toluene diisocyanate
o-Toluidine
o-Toluidine hydrochloride
p-Toluidine
Toxaphene
Triallate
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichloromethanethiol
Trichloromonofluoromethane
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-1
CAS No.
1746-01-6
1634-02-2
95-94-3
-
-
25322-20-7
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
53535276
25567559
3689-24-5
78-00-2
107-49-3
97-74-5
509-14-8
7440-28-0
-
1314-32-5
563-68-8
6533-73-9
7791-12-0
10102-45-1
12039-52-0
7446-18-6
62-55-5
59669-26-0
39196-18-4
74-93-1
23564-05-8
108-98-5
79-1 9-6
62-56-6
137-26-8
26419-73-8
108-88-3
25376-45-8
95-80-7
823-40-5
496-72-0
26471-62-5
95-53-4
636-21-5
106-49-0
8001-35-2
2303-17-5
118-79-6
120-82-1
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-70-7
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-76-5
Hazardous
Waste No.
-
-
U207
-
-
-
U208
U209
U210
F027
-
-
P109
P110
P111
-
P112
-
-
P113
U214
U215
U216
U217
P114
P115
U218
U410
P045
U153
U409
P014
P116
U219
U244
P185
U220
U221
-
-
-
U223
U328
U222
U353
P123
U389
U408
-
U227
U228
P118
U121
F027
F027
F027
M-8
-------
Constituent
Trichloropropane, NOS
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Triethylamine
O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothioate
1 ,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
Tris(1-aziridinyl)phosphine sulfide
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate
Trypan blue
Uracil mustard
Vanadium pentoxide
Vernolate
Vinyl chloride
Warfarin, concentrations less than 0.3%
Warfarin, concentrations greater than 0.3%
Warfarin salts, when present at concentrations
less than 0.3%.
Warfarin salts, when present at concentrations greater
than 0.3%.
Zinc cyanide
Zinc phosphide, when present at concentrations greater
than 10%.
Zinc phosphide, when present at concentrations of 10%
or less.
Ziram
CAS No.
25735-29-9
96-18-4
121-44-8
126-68-1
99-35-4
52-24-4
126-72-7
72-57-1
66-75-1
1314-62-1
1929-77-7
75-01-4
81-81-2
81-81-2
-
-
557-21-1
1314-84-7
1314-84-7
1 37-30-4
Hazardous
Waste No.
-
-
U404
-
U234
-
U235
U236
U237
P120
-
U043
U248
P001
U248
P001
P121
P122
U249
P205
Source: 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D and Appendix VIII - Hazardous Constituents.
M-9
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
M-10
-------
APPENDIX N -
STATISTICAL APPROACH TO DETERMINING SAMPLING
FREQUENCY
The use of statistical analyses can help establish an acceptable minimum number of samples needed to
adequately represent a population of pollutants influent and effluent at an acceptable confidence level.
The procedure for establishing an acceptable minimum number of samples is calculated using the
technique described in: Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring (Gilbert, 1987). This
text is frequently cited in environmentally related statistical work. The method utilizes Equation 1 to
calculate the sample size required to estimate the true mean of a population, based on the coefficient of
variation, a confidence level, and a relative error. The method assumes a normal distribution of samples.
Where:
n = Sample size required for estimating the true mean, |i
Zj_^2 = Normal deviate of desired confidence level
i] = Coefficient of variation
dr = Relative error
The coefficient of variation is determined by Equation 2.
i] = s / X Eq. 2
Where:
s = Standard deviation
X = Mean
The sample standard deviation is determined by Equation 3 .
Eq. 3
The mean and standard deviation used above should be taken from an acceptable past available sample. Both
an acceptable confidence level and an acceptable relative error must be selected, each of which will vary
depending on the type of pollutant being measured. Selection of both levels should be determined by the
POTW based on the situation. The confidence level expresses the certainty of the estimated mean while the
relative error indicates the accuracy of the estimated mean compared to the true mean.
Table 1-1 is an example matrix which applies Equation 1 to calculate sample size.
N-l
-------
Table 1-1. Sample Sizes Required for Estimating the True Mean
Confidence Relative
Level Error
(1-a) (dr)
0.80 0.10
0.25
0.50
1
0.90 0.10
(Z0975= 1.645)
0.25
0.50
1
Coefficient of Variation
0.10 0.30
2 15
3
1
-
3 25
4
1
-
0.50
41
7
2
-
68
11
3
1
1.00
164
27
7
2
271
44
11
3
(n)
1.50
369
59
15
4
609
98
25
7
2.00
656
105
27
7
1083
174
44
11
As shown in Table 1-1, establishing the number of samples needed to estimate the true mean is critically
dependent on a data set's coefficient of variation (CV).
For example, a past, reliable sample produced a data set with standard deviation of 2 mg/L and a mean of 2
mg/L, resulting in CV equal to one. If a confidence level of 0.80 (with a corresponding Z;.^ = 1.28) and a
relative error of 0.25 are determined to be adequate, then Equation 1 is used as follows:
n = (1.28* l/.25)2 = 26.21
The sample size must then be rounded to the next whole number, in this case, 27. The 27 samples may be
taken throughout the year if desired, or as determined by the POTW. In the case of taking the samples
throughout the year, the POTW might take two samples per month and an additional three samples at random
times during the year. One sample may be evaluated for multiple contaminants; however, each location
would need to be sampled independently.
Under these conditions, there would be 80% confidence that the estimated mean from 27 samples (as
illustrated in Table 1-1) would be within + 25% of the true mean. Therefore, if the estimated mean is 4 mg/L,
there would be 80% confidence that the true mean is within the interval of 3 to 5 (i.e., 4 + 1). If a confidence
level of 0.90 and relative error of 0.10 were desired, the number of samples would increase substantially.
Under these conditions, there would be 90% confidence that the estimated mean from 271 samples (as
illustrated in Table 1-1) would be within + 10% of the true mean. Therefore, if the estimated mean was 2
mg/L, there would be 90% confidence that the true mean was within the interval of 1.8 to 2.2 (i.e. ,2 + 0.2).
Source: SAIC. 1998. POTW Metals Analysis Project, Task 3 Deliverable to U.S. EPA Region VIII, EPA,
Contract No. 68-C4-0068; Work Assignment Number PS-3-1, SAIC Project Number 01-0833-08-
2696-800, August 25, 1998.
N-2
-------
APPENDIX O -
MINIMIZING CONTAMINATION IN SAMPLES
Some of the data reported as below the detection level (BDL) may be the result of the POTW sampling
techniques and chosen analytical methods. With the need to accurately detect trace levels of pollutants,
POTWs should thoroughly examine potential sources of gross and trace contamination and select analytical
methods that can detect very low levels of pollutants. EPA has established new performance based1 sampling
and analysis methods (1600 series) for measuring 13 toxic metals in the low ppt to ppb range. While these
methods were developed for ambient water quality monitoring, POTWs may apply some of the concepts in
Method 1669, Sampling Ambient Water for Determination of Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels,
to improve the reliability of data collected, potentially even utilizing analytical methods 1631,1632,1636-40.
Excerpts from Section 4.2.2 of Method 1669 are provided below.
Minimizing Contamination: Sampling Location, Sampling Equipment and Materials, and Chemicals:
Where possible, limit exposure of the sample and equipment in areas of higher contamination, e.g.,
downwind from the sludge beds.
Minimize contact with airborne dust, dirt, paniculate matter, or vapors from automobile exhaust;
cigarette smoke; nearby corroded or rusted bridges, pipes, poles, or wires; nearby roads; and even
human breath. Areas where nearby soil is bare and subject to wind erosion should be avoided.
Clean the sampling equipment and minimize the time between cleaning of equipment and use.
Use metal-free equipment, i.e., equipment should be nonmetallic and free of material that may
contain metals of interest. When it is not possible to obtain equipment that is completely free of the
metal(s) of interest, the sample should not come into direct contact with the equipment.
Do not use sampling equipment where there are indications that it may not be clean, e.g., sampler
tubing or collection bottle is stained, has not been changed out in some time, was used to collected
a sample of a slug load that hit the WWTP, etc.
Avoid contamination by carryover. Contamination may occur when a sample containing low
concentrations of metals is processed immediately after a sample containing relatively high
concentrations of these metals.
Where possible, do not collect, process, or ship samples containing high concentrations of metals
(e.g., untreated effluents, in-process waters, landfill leachates) at the same time as samples being
collected for trace metals determinations.
Wear clean, non-talc dusted gloves during all operations involving handling of equipment, samples,
and blanks. Change gloves once they have become contaminated.
An alternate procedure or technique may be used so long as neither samples nor blanks are contaminated when
following alternate procedures.
O-l
-------
Lot Analyses of Metals in Different Grades of Nitric Acid
(SOURCE-FISHER-INTERNET)
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Hiqhest Grade
<0.01 ppb
<0.1 ppb
<0.005 ppb
<0.03 ppb
<0.05 ppb
<0.01 ppb
<0.1 ppb
<0.1 ppb
<0.005 ppb
Hiqher Grade
<0.1 ppb
<0.3 ppb
<0.1 ppb
<9 ppb
<1 ppb
<0.3 ppb
<0.5 ppb
<1 ppb
<0.5 ppb
<0.1 ppb
Hiqh Grade
<4 ppb
<100 ppb
<50 ppb
<100 ppb
<50 ppb
Fluoropolymer (FEP, PTFE),
conventional or linear
polyethylene, polycarbonate,
polysulfone, polypropylene, or
ultrapure quartz are the
preferred materials for coming
in contact with samples.
Fluoropolymer or glass
containers are preferred for
samples that will be analyzed
for mercury because mercury
vapors can diffuse in or out of
other materials, resulting either
in contamination or low-biased
results.
The following materials have been found to contain trace metals: Pyrex, Kimax, methacrylate,
polyvinyl chloride, nylon, Vycor, highly colored plastics, paper cap liners, pigments used to mark
increments on plastics, and rubber. It is recommended that these materials not be used to hold
liquids that come in contact with the sample or must not contact the sample.
Use an appropriate grade of chemicals when prepping equipment/materials and chemically
preserving samples.
Quality Control:
Serial numbers should be indelibly marked or etched on each piece of Apparatus so that
contamination can be traced, and logbooks should be maintained to track the sample from the
container through the sampling process to shipment to the laboratory. Chain-of-custody procedures
should be used so that contamination can be traced to particular handling procedures or lab
personnel.
Equipment blanks should be periodically generated and analyzed to identify contamination that may
result from improper preparation or handling of sampling equipment and bottles in the laboratory.
Equipment blanks include processing reagent water (i. e., water known not to contain pollutants at
detectable levels) through sampling equipment and sample bottle (s) prior to taking the equipment
or bottle (s) to the field.
A trip blank should be periodically generated and analyzed to identify incidental contamination that
may occur to sampling equipment/bottles while in transit to and from the sampling location.
Essential, reagent water is place in a sample bottle prior to going to the field.
Field blanks should be periodically generated and analyzed to identify contamination that may occur
to sampling equipment/bottles while in the field. Like equipment blanks, it involves process reagent
water through the sampling equipment/bottle.
O-2
-------
APPENDIX P -
METHODS FOR CALCULATING REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
There are three methods of calculating removal efficiencies: average daily removal efficiency (ADRE)
method, mean removal efficiency (MRE) method, and the decile approach. As defined in Equation 5.1, the
ADRE across a plant is defined as:
"potw
Where:
Rpotw = Plant removal efficiency from headworks to plant effluent (as decimal)
/ = POTW influent pollutant concentration at headworks , mg/L
Epotw, n = POTW effluent pollutant concentration
n = Paired observations, numbered 1 to TV
As defined in Equation 5.2, the MRE across a plant is defined as:
1 f
-V ^POtW,t
-
Where:
Rpotw = Plant removal efficiency from headworks to plant effluent (as decimal)
Ir = POTW influent pollutant concentration at headworks, mg/L
Epotw, t = POTW effluent pollutant concentration, mg/L
t = Plant effluent samples, numbered 1 to T
r = Plant influent samples, numbered 1 to R
It is important to realize that the portion of the pollutant removed through a treatment process is transferred
to another wastestream, typically the sludge. For conservative pollutants, such as metals, all the pollutant
from the influent ends up in either the effluent or the sludge. For example, a 93% overall plant removal
means that 93% of the cadmium in the influent is transferred to the sludge, while 7% remains in the effluent
wastewater.
1. REVIEW OF THE DATA SET AND EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN DATA
A good first step in determining removal efficiencies is to review the data set. This review can identify any
data values that are extremely high or low. If there are isolated extreme values, there are formal statistical
procedures that can be applied to evaluate whether a value can be classified as an "outlier" relative to the rest
of the data set. Two methods most widely used to make this determination are described in the following two
paragraphs.
If the data is known to closely follow a normal distribution, then any data point that lies more than two
standard deviations from the mean is considered an outlier. Consider, for example, the DRE data values
P-l
-------
located in Table 1 of this appendix, and assume that this data is from a normal distribution. The 15
observations have a mean of 52.69 and a standard deviation of 34.65. Using this method, any data point that
lies outside of the range -16.61 to 121.99, or 52.69 ±2*34.65, can be considered an outlier. In this case, one
value, -20.25, falls outside of the range and can be determined to be an outlier.
However, the DRE data values do not approximate a "bell-shaped" normal distribution. In this case, outliers
can be determined based on the interquartile range (IQR) of the data set. First, order the data from smallest
to largest and locate the data points that fall at the 25th percentile (also referred to as the first quartile or Q1),
and the 75th percentile (also referred to as the third quartile or Q3). The IQR is equal to the value of the
observation at Q3 minus the value of the observation at Q1. Any data point that lies more than 1.5 times this
IQR below Ql, or above Q3, is considered an outlier. Again, consider the data in Table 1, but now make no
assumptions about the distribution of the population from which the sample was taken. The Ql and Q3 of
this data set are located at 3 8.04 and 78.5 respectively. Based on these values, the IQR is equal to 40.46 (78.5
- 38.04). Any value that falls below -22.65 (38.04 - 1.5*40.46), or above 139.19 (78.5 + 1.5*40.46), can be
considered an outlier. In this case, there are no values that fall outside of the range and, consequently, no
values should be determined to be outliers.
Both of these methods are meant to determine any values that may be candidates for exclusion from the data
set. Data exclusion should be performed only if technical justification exists to support such action (e.g., poor
removals due to temporary maintenance or operational problems or known sampling problems). For
example, if an examination of the data set shows that an unusually high influent value is from the same
sampling day/event as an unusually high effluent value, this occurrence of corresponding extreme values
should be investigated to determine if the data values can be explained by technical or operational problems
not related to treatment system performance (e.g., maintenance, repair, or sampling problems). If this is the
case, dropping the data pair from the data set may be appropriate.
Review of the data may also show patterns such as increasing effluent values over time. If a similar pattern
is not observed for the influent values, this will generate a pattern of decreasing DREs over time. A graph
or plot of DRE against sampling day/event (in order from first to most recent sample) can help identify such
trends. This may alert the POTW to operational problems that should be investigated. A plot can also
highlight unusually low DREs that call for further review, such as checking laboratory quality control samples
to determine if blank or duplicate samples indicate anything out of the ordinary. If abnormalities are found
in laboratory QA/QC (quality assurance/quality control) data, the POTW may consider excluding the affected
values from the data set.
Table 1 contains an example data set of 15 influent and effluent sample pairs for zinc. The influent and
effluent concentrations have been converted to loadings using the POTW flows for the sample days. The
influent and effluent concentrations may be used instead of converting to loadings. Whether loadings or
concentrations are used will likely have little impact on the results of the ADRE and decile approaches.
Influent and effluent flows are probably similar (if not the same) for a data pair and therefore will have little
effect on the relative size of the influent and effluent values, so DREs will change little. However, converting
to loadings may have a noticeable impact on the MRE method if a POTW has high variability in its flows.
Because influent and effluent loadings for high flow days will increase more relative to influent and effluent
loadings for low flow days, the net effect is to give greater weight to the removal rates on those days with
high flows. If the POTW has high variability in its flows, it should evaluate whether its removal rates tend
to go up and down in relation to flow. If so, the POTW should consider calculating an MRE using both
concentrations and loadings and evaluating which is more appropriate.
P-2
-------
Table 1. Removal Efficiency Example
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Date
3/4/99
3/5/99
3/6/99
3/7/99
3/8/99
4/15/99
5/11/99
5/12/99
5/13/99
5/14/99
5/15/99
6/15/99
7/1/99
7/15/99
8/1/99
Average
Influent Load
(Ibs/day)
518.22
163.98
110.15
1739.93
266.48
170.48
473.16
314.19
306.68
232.57
226.52
533.25
141.43
1166.77
2301.00
577.65
Effluent Load
(Ibs/day)
111.41
173.99
97.64
474.41
320.45
105.15
132.67
148.96
132.69
92.63
72.60
98.87
87.63
103.90
97.88
150.06
ORE
(%)
78.50
-6.10
11.36
72.73
-20.25
38.32
71.96
52.59
56.73
60.17
67.95
81.46
38.04
91.10
95.75
52.69
Review of the data shows that:
The data set does not require removal of outliers.
The three particularly high influent values (sample days 4, 14, and 15) all have
DREs of more than 70%, so the high influent values do not appear to make the data
candidates for elimination.
There are two effluent value s (sample days 4 and 5) that are significantly higher than
the others. For one, the corresponding influent value is also high and the DRE is
73%. For the other day, the DRE is negative (-20%) because the influent value is
relatively low. These results are from samples taken on two consecutive days
(March 7 and March 8), which may indicate that the POTW treatment system was
experiencing some operational difficulties or interference at the time. The POTW
should investigate the matter to determine if there are valid reasons for dropping
these data from the removal calculations data set.
There are two negative DREs (one for March 8) calculated from the influent and
effluent data pairs. They occurred three days apart and may indicate temporary
operational problems, so the POTW should investigate the matter (as noted above).
A plot of the data may help the POTW identify any data concerns that should be investigated. Based on the
review of data for this example, it was determined that no justification exists for excluding any of the data
from the data set.
2.
CALCULATION OF REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Once the data set has been reviewed, the POTW can proceed to calculating removal efficiencies. The
following sections describe each of the methods for calculating removal efficiencies and perform the
calculations using the example data set in Table 1.
P-3
-------
2.1 Average Daily Removal Effiden cy (ADRE)
The ADRE is calculated by first calculating a DRE for each pair of influent and effluent values (i.e., an
influent value and an effluent value from the same sampling day/event are used to calculate a DRE). This
set of DREs is then averaged to determine the ADRE for a pollutant. Use of the ADRE method requires that
a POTW only use data for the sampling days/events for which it has both an influent and an effluent value,
and the influent value is greater than zero.
Example
For the example data set in Table 1, the ADRE is calculated as:
ADRE=[78.5+(-6.1)+11.36+72.73+(-20.25)+38.32+71.96+52.59+56.73+60.17+67.95+81.46+38.04
+91.10+95.75)]/15 = 52.69%
2.2 Mean Removal Efficiency (MRE)
The MRE is calculated by using the same formula as for the DRE (shown at the beginning of the Appendix),
but instead of using individual influent and effluent values from sampling days/events, the set of influent
values is first averaged to determine the average influent value and the same is done for the set of effluent
values (either concentrations or loadings). These average values are then used in the DRE equation to result
in the MRE for a pollutant. Unlike the ADRE method, the MRE method does not require paired influent and
effluent values from the same sampling days/events. The MRE can be based on influent and effluent sample
values that are not always paired (e.g., one effluent sample is lost or destroyed, so the influent average is
based on one more value than the effluent average). However, the POTW should use caution in building the
data sets for calculating influent and effluent averages because if too many unpaired values are used the
removal efficiencies may be meaningless because the influent data and effluent data may represent different
time periods, and treatment plant conditions do vary over time.
Example
For the example data set in Table 1, the MRE is calculated as:
Average of the influent values = 577.65 Ibs/day
Average of the effluent values = 150.06 Ibs/day
MRE = 100*(577.65-150.06)/577.65 = 74.02%
2.3 Comparison of Results from ADRE and MRE Methods
Note that the MRE (74.02%) is higher than the ADRE (52.69%). The three days with the highest influent
loadings have relatively high DREs and the two negative DREs (Day 2 and Day 5) occur on days with values
that are not significantly greater than the other days. In the ADRE calculation, each day/DRE is given the
same weight as the others, while the MRE method gives greater weight to the days with greater loadings.
This means that the high removals on the days with high influent loadings affect the MRE more than the other
days do, leading to a higher MRE, while the negative values do not have as great an impact because they
occur on days with less elevated influent and effluent values If each DRE were to be weighted by its
proportion of the total loading, the result would be the same as with the MRE method.
P-4
-------
Usually, the MRE and ADRE are slightly different from each other, and can be quite different (as in the
example presented here). The POTW can calculate both and decide if one of the estimates is the most
appropriate for use in AHL calculations. The POTW can also use the decile approach to determine
representative removal efficiencies.
2.4 Decile Approach
The decile approach, unlike the above methods, considers how often the actual DRE will be above or below
a specified removal rate, thereby taking into account the variability of POTW removal efficiencies over time.
The decile approach involves putting the set of DREs (calculated using the formula presented at the beginning
of this appendix) in order from least to greatest and then determining nine decile values. Each decile is the
value below which a certain percentage of the DREs fall. For example, the first decile is the value below
which 10% of the DREs fall. Similarly, the second decile is the value below which 20% of the DREs fall,
on up to the ninth decile, which is the value below which 90% of the DREs fall. The fifth decile is the median
and half of the DREs fall below this number. To apply the decile approach, a minimum of nine DREs are
required. If exactly nine DREs are available, the nine estimated deciles are simply the nine DREs. If more
then nine DREs are used, the POTW needs to calculate the nine decile estimates.
Tables 2 and 3 below illustrate use of the decile approach for the example zinc data set. The steps are:
Step 1: Take the set of DREs and put the values in order from smallest to largest (see Table 2).
Step 2: The entries for Column 1 are obtained by performing the two calculations. First, define the
location for the first decile and then calculate the next eight multiples of that location value to
determine the location for the second through ninth deciles. The first location is determined by the
equation: (N+l)/10, where N = the number of data pairs/DREs used. For the example data set, N=15,
so the location for the first decile is (15+1)/10 = 1.6. The location for the second decile is 2 x 1.6 =
3.2, the location for the third decile is 3 x 1.6 = 4.8, and so on up to the ninth decile of 9x 1.6= 14.4.
(Column 1 in Table 3)
Step 3: For each decile, take the whole number part of the value in Column 1 and place it in Column
2 (e.g., the first decile is 1.6, so the whole number part is 1; the fourth decile is 6.4, so the whole
number part is 6).
Step 4: The entries in Column 3 of Table 3 are taken from the ordered list of DREs in Table 2. The
whole number values in Column 2 correspond to the entry in the ordered list in Table 2 [e.g., the
whole number part for the first decile is 1, so entry 1 (-20.25%) from Table 2 is the correct value and
is placed in Column 3 of Table 3; similarly, the fourth decile whole number part is 6, so value 6
(52.59%) is placed in Column 3 of Table 3 for the fourth decile].
Step 5: Following a similar procedure as in Step 4, values for Column 4 are taken from Table 2 and
place in Table 3, except that this time the values taken from Table 2 are the ones that immediately
follow the Column 3 entries [e.g., for the first decile, the value placed in Column 4 is -6.10, which
is value 2 (the value immediately after value 1) from Table 2; for the fourth decile, the value placed
in Column 4 is 56.73, which is value 7 from Table 2].
Step 6: Fill in Column 5 by subtracting Column 3 from Column 4 and entering the result.
Step 7: Similar to the process for filling Column 2 (explained in Step 3) of Table 3, place the decimal
part of the Column 1 entries in Column 6 of Table 3 (e.g., for the first decile, use 0.6; for the fourth
decile, use 0.4).
P-5
-------
Step 8: Fill in Column 7 by multiplying the values in Column 5 by the values in Column 6 and
entering the result.
Step 9: Add Column 3 and Column 7 and enter the result in Column 8 of Table 3. These values are
the estimated deciles.
Table 2. Set of DREs Sorted in Ascending Order
1
-20.25
2
-6.1
3
11.36
4
38.04
5
38.32
6
52.59
7
56.73
8
60.17
9
67.95
10
71.96
11
72.73
12
78.50
13
81.46
14
91.10
15
95.75
Table 3. Decile Approach for Zinc Exam
Deciles
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Column 1
1.6
3.2
4.8
6.4
8.0
9.6
11.2
12.8
14.4
Column 2
1
3
4
6
8
9
11
12
14
Column 3
-20.25
11.36
38.04
52.59
60.17
67.95
72.73
78.50
91.10
Column 4
-6.10
38.04
38.32
56.73
67.95
71.96
78.50
81.46
95.75
Column 5
14.15
26.68
0.28
4.14
7.78
4.01
5.77
2.96
4.65
pie
Column 6
0.6
0.2
0.8
0.4
0
0.6
0.2
0.8
0.4
Column 7
8.490
5.336
0.224
1.656
0.000
2.406
1.154
2.368
1.860
Column 8
-11.76
16.70
38.26
54.25
60.17
70.36
73.88
80.87
92.96
The main value of the decile approach is that it provides an estimate of how often a POTW is expected to
exceed certain removal values, such as the AD RE and MRE. For the example, the ADRE is 53% and the
MRE is calculated as 74%. If the POTW uses either one of these values, what amount of the time will its
removal efficiency exceed those values? This can be estimated using the decile approach. The ADRE of
53% falls between the third and fourth deciles (38.26% and 54.25%, respectively), meaning that the actual
removal efficiency is estimated to exceed the ADRE 60% to 70% of the time [(e.g., the third decile means
that 30% of the time values will fall below that value (38.26% in this case)]. The MRE of 74% lies between
the seventh and eight deciles (73.88% and 80.87%, respectively), so the POTW is estimated to exceed the
MRE 20% to 30% of the time.
In developing local limits, appropriate removal efficiencies must be selected for calculation of AHLs for each
pollutant. POTWs have often selected a pollutant's ADRE for local limits calculations. EPA recommends
that POTWs consider using the decile approach or the MRE method because they better account for
variabilities in removal efficiencies overtime. For example, because a higher removal efficiency means more
pollutant is removed to the sludge, if the POTW used the ADRE from the above example (which is likely
exceeded 60% to 70% of the time) to calculate an AHL to protect sludge quality, the resulting AHL may not
be adequately protective. More pollutant will likely be removed to the sludge 60% to 70% of the time, so
loadings in the sludge will higher than was estimated in the AHL calculations and may lead to exceedances
of sludge disposal standards.
A different approach that may address this concern is to use one decile for AHL calculations to protect sludge
quality (for sludge disposal and for sludge digester inhibition for conservative pollutants) and a different
decile for AHL calculations for protection against Pass Through concerns (e.g., NPDES permit limits). For
example, a POTW can base its sludge quality-based AHLs on the seventh decile removal which means that
greater removals to sludge and hence greater sludge loadings would be estimated to occur 30% of the time.
P-6
-------
Similarly, the POTW can use the third decile for calculating its water quality-based AHLs because lower
removals (and hence higher effluent loadings) would be estimated to occur about 30% of the time. Although
use of these deciles estimates that AHLs would be exceeded 30% of the time, in reality this is not highly
likely. If the entire AHL is allocated to Ills, all Ills would have to discharge at their maximum allowed level
to reach the AHL. Then if the removal achieved is greater than the seventh decile, more loading would go
to the sludge than is provided for with the AHL. If some Ills discharge at below their allocated loadings,
which is very likely at any given time, the likelihood of exceeding the allowed loading to the sludge is much
lower.
3. NON-CONSERVATIVE POLLUTANTS
The above discussion of removal efficiency calculations applies to conservative pollutants (e.g., metals).
However removal efficiencies for non-conservative pollutants can be used to calculate AHLs based on Pass
Through criteria (e.g., biological process inhibition data, NPDES permit limits) and the guidance above can
be used for non-conservative pollutants only in these cases. Conservative pollutant removal efficiencies are
determined by pollutant concentrations in the POTW influent and effluent streams. The presumption applied
to conservative pollutants (that removed pollutants are exclusively transferred to the POTW's sludge streams)
cannot be extended to non-conservative pollutants because losses through degradation and volatilization do
not contribute to pollutant loadings in sludge. Therefore, non-conservative pollutant removal efficiencies
cannot be used in deriving AHLs from criteria/standards applicable to the POTW's sludge streams (e.g.,
digester inhibition, sludge disposal).
Equation 5.13, for calculating AHLs for non-conservative pollutants, based on criteria for sludge digester
inhibition, is:
r
AfJJ - (J \ y dgstinhib
AtlLldgstr~ ^mfl>* ~~^
Cdgstr
Where:
AHLdgstr = AHL based on sludge digestion inhibition, Ib/day
Lmfl = POTW influent loading, Ib/day
C dgstinhib = Sludge digester inhibition criterion, mg/L
Cdgstr = Existing pollutant level in sludge, mg/L
The equation can be rewritten as:
r
AIJT dgstinhib
AnLdgstr^
Where the factor Cd^/Lmfl is a partitioning factor that relates the pollutant level in the POTW sludge, Cdgstr,
to the headworks loading of the pollutant, Linfl. The partitioning factor enables calculation of an allowable
loading based upon sludge digestion inhibition, AHLdgstr, from a sludge digester inhibition criteria, Cdgstinhib,
for a non-conservative pollutant. To determine the partitioning factor for a particular pollutant, the POTW's
influent and sludge must be routinely sampled for that pollutant.
P-7
-------
The factor Cdgst/Linfl expresses non-conservative pollutant removals to sludge. Non-conservative pollutant
removals to sludge are highly variable, and are dependent on such factors as wastewater temperature, ambient
air temperature, biodegradation rates (which are temperature dependent), aeration rates, and POTW influent
flow. Because non-conservative pollutant removals to sludge are highly variable, the variability in non-
conservative pollutant sludge partitioning factors should be addressed in the local limits development process.
The procedures and recommendations presented in this manual for addressing removal efficiency variability
for conservative pollutants (e.g., the calculation of mean removals and the decile approach) can be extended
to addressing variability in non-conservative pollutant sludge partitioning factors. In calculating sludge
AHLs, the sludge partitioning factor should be used in place of the removal efficiency for non-conservative
pollutants.
P-8
-------
APPENDIX Q -
METHODS FOR HANDLING DATA BELOW DETECTION LEVEL
The occurrence of values below the detection limit (DL) in environmental data sets is a major statistical
complication. Uncertainty about the actual wastewater treatment plant influent and effluent value s below the
DL can bias subsequent statistical analyses to determine the removal efficiencies.
The various approaches to handling below detection level (BDL) data can be broken into three main
categories:
Regression order statistic (ROS) and probability plotting (MR) methods
Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) methods
Simple replacement of a single value (e.g., detection limit or one half detection limit).
Although this discussion focuses on handling data below the detection limit, the same techniques can be
applied to those data below the minimum level of quantitation (ML) as well. These methods can be applied
by those without a background in statistics. However, EPA strongly recommends a statistician perform these
data manipulations.
REGRESSION ORDER STATISTIC (ROS) AND PROBABILITY PLOTTING (MR) METHODS
Both the original ROS and the MR methods are based on ordered statistics of observed data and the
assumption that data come from a normal or log-normal distribution. If Y is from a normal distribution with
mean |i and standard deviation a (Y~ 7V(|J,,a)) and Z is from a normal distribution with mean 0 and standard
deviation 1 (Z ~ 7V(0, 1)), statistical theories show that Y = //+ uZ when Y and Z are at the same percentiles
in their respective distributions. For a given observation (sampling result) 7 that is above the detection limit,
we can calculate the "order statistic", i.e., the proportion of observations that are less than Y. This order
statistic of 7is an estimate of the percentile. The corresponding Z value is available by either using existing
computer program or checking the normal distribution table. In other words, we have a list of observations
that are above the detection limit (71; Y2, ..., Ym) and a list of Z values (Z1; Z2, ..., Zm) that are of the same
percentiles as the respective Y values. By performing a regression analysis of Y against Z, the resulting
intercept and slope are estimates of the mean and standard deviation of the distribution of Y.
When the data are from a log-normal2 distribution, a log transformation is needed before the regression. The
estimated mean and standard deviation is for the log-transformed variable. To convert the estimates to the
original metric, the standard log-normal distribution results should be used. For example, if 7 is from a log-
normal distribution, and estimated mean and variance for log(7) are // and a, the mean of Y is and the
variance of Y is ^ + ^ (eff2 -1
Alternatively, one may use the regression equation to "fill in" the missing (BDL) values. This is possible
because we can calculate the order statistics for all BDL values. For example, suppose we have 20 out of 100
observations are BDL. The order statistics for the 20 BDL values are 0.01, 0.02,..., 0.20. Using these order
statistics, we can get the corresponding Z values Z1; Z2,..., Z20. Substitute these Zvalues into the regression
model, we have the 20 fill-in rvalues.
Log-normal distributions are probability distributions which are closely related to normal distributions: if X is a
normally distributed random variable, then exp(X) has a log-normal distribution. In other words: the natural logarithm of a
log-normally distributed variable is normally distributed.
Q-l
-------
To recap, we first define the variables used in this method:
n = Total number of observations
k = Number of BDL observations
Y{= Value of the 1th ranked observation
To utilize the ROS method, data are first ranked from smallest to largest so that Yn is the largest data value
and Yj through Yk are the unknown BDL values. If an approximately normal distribution is expected, each
Yt is plotted on the y-axis against the expected normal order statistic Zt for each rank /'. The following linear
regression is used to obtain // and o, using only the points above the DL (i.e., /' = k+ !,...,«).
One may use the estimated intercept and slope as the mean and standard deviation. Alternatively, one may
use the above equation to obtain appropriate "fill-in" values for each of the k BDLs using the Z-statistic. The
mean and standard deviation are then calculated using traditional formulas applied to both the observed and
filled-in data. Thus, the estimated data are based on the assumption of normality, while the observed data
are used directly with no assumption about their distribution. This method is relatively robust to departures
from normality or lognormality (Gilliom and Helsel 1986).
If a distribution is expected to be skewed, then log(7,) is plotted against Z, and the fitted data and the observed
data are transformed back to original units from which the mean and standard deviation are calculated
(Gilliom and Helsel 1986). Transformation of the data, rather than the summary statistics, avoids inherent
transformation bias (Helsel 1990).
MR METHOD
The MRmethod, an extension ofthe ROS method, accounts formultiple detection limits. When there is only
one detection limit, the £-BDL values are assigned order statistics of 1 through k. When there are multiple
detection limits, it is not obvious how to assign the order statistic for some ofthe data, both below or above
some detection limits. For example, suppose we have the following five observations: <100, 110,<200,250,
and 300. It is obvious that the two largest observations, 250 and 300 should receive order statistics of 4 and
5. But the rest is not clear, because the value labeled as <200 can be 199 or 9. Helsel and Cohn (1988)
developed a plotting position method for assigning order statistics when there are multiple detection limits.
The idea is that although we don't know exactly where the value, say <200, should fall, we can lay out all
possible positions for this particular value and take the average rank of all possible ranks. For example, the
value labeled as <200 can be the smallest (rank 1), the second smallest (rank 2), or the third smallest (rank
3), the average rank is (l+2+3)/3 = 2. The value 110 can be the second smallest or the third smallest,
therefore a rank of (2+3)/2 = 2.5. Finally, the observation <100 receives a rank of (1+2)72=1.5. Once the
order statistics are assigned, one may use the same regression analysis method in the ROS method. When
there is only one detection limit, the MR method is the same as the ROS method.
Helsel and Cohn (1988) found that if a single estimating method for several descriptive statistics is desired
and the sampling distribution of a data set is unknown, the MR method should be utilized. The actual plotting
procedure for the MRmethod is detailed in Appendix B of Estimation of Descriptive Statistics for Multiple
Censored Water Quality Data (Helsel and Cohn, 1988).
Q-2
-------
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION (MLE) METHOD
The MLE method is based on a specific probabilistic assumption about the observations. For example,
suppose the data we observed (Yl,Y2,..., Yn) are from a normal distribution with unknown mean and standard
deviation. The likelihood of observing a specific value, say Yt, is calculated by the normal distribution density
function:
1
2<7Z
The likelihood for a BDL value is:
DL
LY,=
k
The likelihood of observing all the data (7b Y2,..., Yn), both below and above the detection limit is the product
of all individual likelihoods. The likelihood of observing all data is a very complicated function of// and o.
A different set of// and o values will lead to a different likelihood value. The maximum likelihood estimator
is the pair of// and uvalues that maximize the likelihood function. Because the likelihood function is often
very complicated, computation of the MLE method is difficult.
Gilliom and Helsel (1986) found that the ROS and the MR methods appear to be more robust to departures
from distributional assumptions.
MLE methods have been shown to have the smallest mean-squared error (i.e., higher accuracy) of available
techniques when the data distribution is exactly normal or lognormal (Harter and Moore 1966). However,
simulation results indicate that ROS and MR methods are superior when distribution shape population is
unknown (Gilliom and Helsel 1986).
In a simulation study by Newman et al. (1989) comparing mean and standard deviation estimates between
MLE and ROS, the results were similar. However, the MLE method provided slightly more accurate results
when BDL values comprised less than 30 percent of the data set, while ROS methods provided slightly more
accurate results when BDL values represented 30 percent or more.
SIMPLE SUBSTITUTION METHODS
Simple substitution methods simply replace the below detection value with another value, such as zero, the
detection limit, or one-half the detection limit. Both ROS and MLE methods offer substantial advantages
over most simple replacement methods (Gilbert 1987, Gleit 1985, Helsel and Gilliom 1986, Newman et
al.1989).
In general, replacement methods result in a greater bias when calculating the mean or standard deviation.
Additionally, their relative performance worsens as the proportion of BDLs increases (Gilliom and Helsel
1986). Helsel (1989) reasons that because large differences may occur in the resulting estimates for any given
population, and because the choice of the replacement value is essentially arbitrary without some knowledge
of instrument readings below the reporting limit, estimates resulting from simple substitution are not
defensible.
Q-3
-------
CONCLUSION
The MR method is most applicable for use in local limits development because of the data set's multiple
detection limits and unknown parent distribution. Additionally, the MR method is recommended when the
data set contains a relatively high percentage of BDL values.
Further information on statistical methods can be found in the literature listed below.
LITERATURE REVIEW LIST/REFERENCES
Gilliom and Helsel 1986. Estimation of distribution parameters for censored trace level water quality data:
1 Estimation techniques. Water Resources Research 22:135-146.
Gleit 1985. Estimation for small normal data sets with detection limits. Environmental Science Technology
19:1201-1206.
Harter and Moore 1966. Local-Maximum-Likelihood estimation of the parameters of three-parameter
lognormal populations from complete and censored samples. Journal of American Statistical Association
61:842-851.
Helsel, D. R. 1990. Less Than Obvious: Statistical treatment of data below the detection limit.
Environmental Science and Technology 24:1766-1774.
Helsel and Cohn 1988. Estimation of Descriptive Statistics for Multiple Censored Water Quality Data.
Water Resources Research 24:1997-2004.
Newman, Dixon, Looney, and Finder 1989. Estimating the mean and variance for environmental samples
with below detection limit observations. Water Resources Bulletin 25:905-916.
Porter, Ward, and Bell 1988. The Detection Limit: Water quality monitoring data are plagued with levels
of chemicals that are too low to be measured precisely. Environmental Science Technology Vol. 22, No. 8.
Travis and Land. 1990. Estimating the Mean of Data Sets with Nondetectable Values. Environmental
Science Technology Vol. 24, No. 7.
Q-4
-------
ATTACHMENT - DESCRIPTION OF THE MR METHOD
Method:
(1) If an analytical result is reported as ND (to be referred to as a nondetect), set the result c; = 1.
Annotate the result with a "<" and consider this observation to be "< a detection limit."
(2) Divide the observations into two groups: Nondetects, those observations annotated with a "<" sign,
and detects.
(3) Let m = number of distinct detection limits.
(4) Let Aj = number of detected observations at or above the jth detection limit (j = l,...,m) and below
the next highest detection limit.
(5) LetBj =numberof detected and nondetected observations below the jth detection limit (j = l,...,m).
(6) Let pej = pej+1 + (Aj/[Aj + Bj])(l - pej+1), and solve iteratively for j = m,m-l,...,2,l. By convention,
Pe,m+l = 0.
(7) Determine plotting positions, p(i), for detected observations as:
p(i) = (1 - pej) + (pej - pej+1)-r/(Aj + 1), where r is the rank of the ith observation above the jth
detection limit. If detected observations are "tied," arbitrarily order the "tied" observations before
assigning ranks. Whether the "tied" observations are arbitrarily ordered or assigned the same mid-
rank (average of the corresponding ranks) is expected to be of negligible importance. If detected
observations are present below the lowest detection limit, assume the "Oth detection limit" is 0, and
consequently pe 0 = 1.
(8) Assign plotting positions, pc(i), for nondetected observations as:
pc(i) = (1- pej)-r/(Cj + 1), r = l,...,Cr Cj is the number of nondetected values known only to be less
than the jth detection limit (j = l,...m). The formula for Cj is: Cj = Bj - (Aj.! + B^), where A0 = B0
= 0. Plotting positions are therefore assigned separately within the j groups of nondetects (j=1,... ,m).
(9) Perform a simple linear regression using only the detected observations. The natural logarithm of
the detected observations (z; = ln(yj)) is the dependent variable, and the normal quantile associated
with the corresponding plotting position (-1(p(i))) is the independent variable, where &\-) is the
normal quantile.
(10) Use the estimated regression line (z; = b0 + b^'XpcO))) to "fill in" (using the terminology of Helsel
and Cohn) estimated natural logarithm values for nondetected observations, based on the normal
quantile associated with the calculated plotting position (pc(i)).
(11) Calculate a natural log mean (p;) and log standard deviation (6) of the detected and "filled in"
observations using the formulas below. Assume z; = ln(yj), where z; represents the natural logarithm
of detected observations where available, and "filled in" estimated natural logarithm values where
nondetects were observed.
Q-5
-------
f m
, = ^j_ (1)
n
a =
\
71-1
(12) Use the values of |1 and a to estimate a 90th percentile using a lognormal distribution: P90 = exp (|1
+ 1.282-0).
An example of the MR method is given below.
Comments:
Although the algorithm for determining plotting positions when multiple detection limits are present
appears rather cumbersome, as described in the 12-step process above, the process of fitting a regression line
to order statistics is well-established as a method for determining parameters of a distribution. The ROS
method utilizes plotting positions to "spread" nondetected observations along a continuum, rather than simply
substituting an arbitrary value for each nondetected measurement. In practice, one would expect nondetected
values to be "spread out" rather than all fixed at a single point, as would be the case with simple substitution
methods.
The MR method described above directly mimics the methods of Helsel and Cohn. However, the
article by Helsel and Cohn contains an inaccurate formula for CJ5 which has been revised above. In addition,
the article did not address ties in detected observations and detected observations below the lowest detection
limit. These questions have been addressed in Steps 7 and 9 above.
At least two detected observations are necessary to estimate a regression line. Consequently, this
procedure is not useful when 0 or only 1 detected observation is present.
Software which utilizes the MR method to compute summary statistics is available. The feasibility
of utilizing the software available at this site for implementation among numerous POTWs must be explored
further. For example, the software is restrictive in some ways, such as the format of data which can be
processed.
Reference:
Helsel, D.R., and T.A. Cohn. 1988. Estimation ofDescriptive Statistics for Multiple Censored Water Quality
Data. Water Resources Research 24:1997-2004.
Q-6
-------
EXAMPLE OF THE MR METHOD
Suppose we have a set of data from multiple sources with varying detection limits. When combined, the data
set is ordered as follow:
Data Summary
<50
<50
<50
<200
<200
<200
<400
<400
<400
100
100
300
300
500
500
700
1000
1200
In order to provide estimates of the mean and standard deviation, it is necessary to fill-in the non-detected
values. Once the non-detected values are filled-in, sample mean and standard deviation can be estimated. The
following are the MR steps for filling in the nondetected values.
1. Summary statistics:
n= 18
m = 3 (1st detection limit = 50, 2nd detection limit = 200, 3rd detection limit = 400)
A! = 2 (2 detects >50 but <200)
A2 = 2 (2 detects >200 but <400)
A3 = 5 (5 detects >400)
Bj = 3 (3 nondetects <50)
B2 = 8 (3 nondetects <50, 3 nondetects <200, and 2 detects <200)
B3 = 13 (3 nondetects <50, 3 nondetects <200, 3 nondetects <400, 2 detects <200, and 2 detects <400)
Cj = 3 (3 nondetects <50)
C2 = 3 (3 nondetects <200)
C3 = 3 (3 nondetects <400)
Pea = Pe4 + (A3/[A3 + B3])(l - Pe 4) = 0 + (5/[5+13])-l = 0.278
Pe2 = Pe3 + (A2/[A2 + B2])(l - Pe 3) = 0.278 + (2/[2+8])-(l-0.278) = 0.422
Pe'i = Pe'2 + (VIA, + B1])(l - Pe2) = 0.422 + (2/[2+3])-(l - 0.422) = 0.653
Q-7
-------
2. Determination of plotting positions:
Nondetected observations:
x, j r
<200 2 1
<200 2 2
<200 2 3
<400 3 1
<400 3 2
<400 3 3
Detected observations:
x, j r pej pej+1
Pej
0.422
0.422
0.422
0.278
0.278
0.278
Plotting Position
pc(i) = (l-pej)-r/(CJ
1)
<50
<50
<50
1
1
1
1
2
3
0.653
0.653
0.653
3
3
3
0.087
0.173
0.260
0.144
0.289
0.433
0.181
0.361
0.542
Plotting Position
P(l) = (1 - Pej) + (Pej -
3+1)
100 1 1 0.653 0.422
100 1 2 0.653 0.422
0.424
0.500
300
300
500
500
700
1000
1200
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
0.422
0.422
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
0.626
0.674
0.769
0.815
0.861
0.907
0.954
3. Linear regression
A simple linear regression is then performed using the following detected observations and their
associated plotting points. The regression is based on z; as the dependent variable and p(i) as the independent
variable.
100
100
300
300
500
500
700
1000
1200
4.605
4.605
5.704
5.704
6.215
6.215
6.551
6.908
7.090
0.424
0.500
0.626
0.674
0.769
0.815
0.861
0.907
0.954
-0.192
0.000
0.321
0.451
0.736
0.896
1.085
1.323
1.685
Q-8
-------
The regression equation based on these nine detected observations is:
zi = 4.9614+ 1.4186-$-1(p(i))
4. Fill-in
This equation is used to "fill in" estimated nondetect values for the nine nondetects above. The results of the
calculation are shown below:
x, pc(i) ^(pcCO) Zi
<50
<50
<50
<200
<200
<200
<400
<400
<400
0.087
0.173
0.260
0.144
0.289
0.433
0.181
0.361
0.542
-1.360
-0.942
-0.643
-1.063
-0.556
-0.169
-0.912
-0.356
0.106
3.032
3.625
4.049
3.453
4.173
4.722
3.668
4.456
5.112
The Zj and the z; from the two tables above are then combined to estimate a natural log mean and a log
standard deviation. The data and calculated values for jl and a2 are shown below:
4.605 5.704 6.551 3.032 3.453 3.668
4.605 6.215 6.908 3.625 4.173 4.456
5.704 6.215 7.090 4.049 4.722 5.112
(1 = 4.9937
o2= 1.5632 (o=1.2503)
The calculated values for |1 and a can then be used for estimating the arithmetic mean of the sample: m = exp(
|1 + 0.5 a2) = 322.241 and sample standard deviation s = m^lea 1 = 626.168. In some instances, one may
be interested in the 90th percentile of the data, which can be estimated as P90 = exp (|i + 1.282-a) = 732.585.
It is worthwhile to note that these calculations are based on the assumption that the data follow a log-normal
distribution. For most water quality related variables, such as BOD concentration, the log-normal distribution
is appropriate. However, when percent removal is the variable of concern, log-normal is no longer an
appropriate probability distribution. Instead, one may apply the MR method to the concentration variables
first and calculate the percent removal after the non-detected concentration values have been filled-in.
Q-9
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Q-10
-------
APPENDIX R -
PRIORITY POLLUTANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Priority Pollutant Removal Efficiencies (%) Through Primary Treatment*
Priority Pollutant
Median
Number of POTWs with
Removal Data**
METAL/NONMETAL INORGANICS
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
15
27
22
27
57
10
14
20
27
6 of 40
12 of 40
12 of 40
12 of 40
1 of 40
8 of 40
9 of 40
4 of 40
12 of 40
ORGANICS
Benzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
25
14
36
13
44
8
62
36
56
4
40
20
8 of 40
11 of 40
9 of 40
12 of 40
4 of 40
11 of 40
4 of 40
3 of 40
1 of 40
12 of 40
10 of 40
12 of 40
**
Source:
Pollutant removals between POTW influent and primary effluent. From Fate of Priority Pollutants
inPublicly Owned Treatment Works, Volume I (EPA 440/1-82/303), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, B.C., September 1982, p. 61.
Median removal efficiencies from a data base of removal efficiencies for 40 POTWs. Only POTWs
with average influent concentrations exceeding three times each pollutant's detection limit were
considered.
U.S. EPA's Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharger
Limitations Under the PretreatmentProgram, December 1987, p. 3-55.
R-l
-------
Priority Pollutant Percent Removal Efficiencies (%) Through Activated Sludge Treatment*
Priority Pollutant
Range
Second
Decile
Median
Eight
Decile
N umber of POTWs
with Removal Data
METALS/NONMETAL INORGANICS**
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
11-78
25-99
25-97
2-99
3-99
1-92
1-95
2-99
25-89
17-95
23-99
31
33
68
67
41
39
50
25
33
50
64
45
67
82
86
69
61
60
42
50
75
79
53
91
91
95
84
76
79
62
67
88
88
5 of 26
19 of 26
25 of 26
26 of 26
25 of 26
23 of 26
20 of 26
23 of 26
4 of 26
24 of 26
26 of 26
ORGAN ICS**
Anthracene
Benzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
Ethyl benzene
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
29-99
25-99
17-99
17-99
25-99
2-99
25-98
29-99
3-99
17-99
25-99
11-97
17-98
73-95
15-99
25-99
18-99
20-99
44
50
50
50
67
36
40
37
75
47
50
39
39
76
50
80
75
75
67
80
67
67
86
62
78
68
90
72
67
64
62
86
80
93
85
89
91
96
83
91
97
77
90
86
98
87
92
87
90
95
93
98
94
98
5 of 26
18 of 26
24 of 26
17 of 26
25 of 26
26 of 26
16 of 26
6 of 26
19 of 26
25 of 26
16 of 26
19 of 26
15 of 26
2 of 26
26 of 26
26 of 26
23 of 26
25 of 26
Pollutant removals between POTW influent and secondary effluent (including secondary clarification).
Based on a computer analysis of POTW removal efficiency data (derived from actual POTW influent and
effluent sampling data) provided in U.S. EPA's Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Volume II (EPA 440/1 -82/303), September 1982.
For the purpose of deriving removal efficiencies, effluent levels reported as below detection were set equal
to the reported detection limits. All secondary activated sludge treatment plants sampled as part of the
study were considered.
Source: U.S. EPA's Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharger Limitations
Under the Pretreatment Program, December 1987, p. 3-56.
**
R-2
-------
Priority Pollutant Removal Efficiencies (%) Through Trickling Filter Treatment*
Priority Pollutant
Range
Second
Decile
Median
Eighth
Decile
N umber of POTWs
with Removal Data
METALS/NONMETAL INORGANICS**
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
33-96
5-92
12-97
7-88
4-84
14-80
7-72
11-93
14-90
33
34
32
33
25
33
11
38
34
68
55
61
59
55
50
29
66
67
93
71
89
79
70
62
57
86
81
6 of 11
9 of 11
9 of 11
8 of 11
6 of 11
9 of 11
9 of 11
8 of 11
9 of 11
ORGAN ICS**
Benzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
Ethyl benzene
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Phenol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethvlene
5-98
21-94
14-99
45-97
5-98
33-93
50-99
4-98
25-90
29-97
17-75
26-99
17-99
23-99
50-99
50
50
50
50
28
40
75
21
37
41
40
53
80
75
67
75
73
50
80
70
71
84
58
60
60
57
80
93
89
94
93
84
96
91
85
87
96
81
77
82
67
93
97
97
98
7 of 11
9 of 11
7 of 11
10 of 11
10 of 11
6 of 11
8 of 11
10 of 11
9 of 11
10 of 11
8 of 11
10 of 11
10 of 11
10 of 11
10 of 11
* Pollutant removals between POTW influent and secondary effluent (including secondary clarification).
Based on a computer analysis of POTW removal efficiency data (derived from actual POTW influent and
effluent sampling data) provided in U.S EPA'sFate of Priority Pollutants inPublicly Owned Treatment
Works, Volume II, (EPA 440/182/303), September 1982.
* * For the purpose of deriving removal efficiencies, effluent levels reported as below detection were set
equal to the reported detection limits. All secondary trickling filter plants sampled as part of the study
were considered.
Source: U.S. EPA's Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharger
Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program, December 1987, p. 3-57.
R-3
-------
Priority Pollutant Removal Efficiencies (%) Through Tertiary Treatment*
Priority Pollutant
Range
Second
Decile
Median
Eighth
Decile
N umber of POTWs
with Removal Data
METALS/NONMETAL INORGANICS**
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
33-81
22-93
8-99
20-93
4-86
33-79
4-78
27-87
1-90
50
62
58
32
9
43
17
55
50
50
72
85
66
52
67
17
62
78
73
89
98
83
77
75
57
82
88
3 of 4
4 of 4
4 of 4
4 of 4
3 of 4
4 of 4
3 of 4
3 of 4
4 of 4
ORGAN ICS**
Benzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
Ethyl benzene
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Phenol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
5-67
16-75
50-96
65-95
11-96
25-94
33-98
45-98
25-94
14-84
20-57
67-98
50-99
50-98
50-99
40
32
50
80
31
33
80
59
50
27
29
80
83
79
62
50
53
83
89
57
73
88
76
63
50
38
91
94
94
93
54
64
93
94
78
86
96
94
85
70
50
97
97
97
98
2 of 4
3 of 4
2 of 4
3 of 4
4 of 4
3 of 4
4 of 4
4 of 4
4 of 4
4 of 4
3 of 4
4 of 4
4 of 4
4 of 4
4 of 4
* Pollutant removals between POTW influent and tertiary effluent (including final clarification). Based
on a computer analysis of POTW removal efficiency data (derived from actual POTW influent and
effluent sampling data) provided in U.S. EPA'sFate of Priority Pollutants inPublicly Owned Treatment
Works, Volume II(EPA 440/1-82/303), September 1982. Tertiary treatment was taken to include POTWs
with effluent microscreening, mixed media filtration, post aeration, and/or nitrification/denitrification.
* * For the purpose of deriving removal efficiencies, effluent levels reported as below detection were set
equal to the reported detection limits. All tertiary treatment plants sampled as part of the study were
considered.
Source: U.S. EPA's Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharger
Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program, December 1987, p. 3-58.
R-4
-------
APPENDIX S -
SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SLUDGE
The allowable headworks loading (AHL) equations presented in Chapter 5 for sewage sludge disposal contain
a factor for the specific gravity of sludge (sludge density). This factor accounts for differences in the density
of sludge based on the percent solids of sludge to disposal. The unit conversion factor (8.34) in the same
equations converts the overall units into pounds per day (Ibs/day), using a specific gravity or density of sludge
equal to 1 kg/L, which assumes that sludge has the same density as water. If the dewatered sludge density
is different from the density of water, the unit conversion factor is not fully accurate. As the percent solids
of a sludge increases, the density of the sludge increases and therefore the error introduced by the inaccurate
unit conversion factor increases. To correct this inaccuracy, the numerator of the AHL equation should be
multiplied by the specific gravity of the dewatered sludge (as noted in Chapter 6). If a sludge is not
dewatered before disposal, the inaccuracy produced by using the unit conversion factor (8.34) without a
specific gravity factor would probably not be significant.
The POTW can determine the specific gravity (density) of its sludge prior to disposal through a simple
laboratory measurement. The POTW should take this measurement as part of its local limits monitoring
program and average the resulting data set (e.g., 7-10 data points) to determine a representative sludge
specific gravity (density) factor foruse in local limits calculations. The POTW can also estimate the specific
gravity of its sludge using the equations below and information on the percent solids.
For a typical wet sludge at 10% solids, the approximate density is 1.03 kg/L. For a typical dewatered sludge
at 30% solids, the approximate density is 1.11 kg/L. A sludge at 50% solids may reach a density of 1.2 to
1.3 kg/L, which would result in a 20% to 30% conservative error in the calculation of an AHL if a specific
gravity factor is not used. All of these values depend on the amount of volatile solids in the sludge in
comparison with the amount of fixed mineral solids, which vary with percent solids, and the densities of each
of these types of solids.
Mws_ Ms+ Mw
^ws Ss Sw
Equation to determine specific gravity of wet sludge
Where:
Mws = Mass of wet sludge (kg)
Sws = Specific gravity of wet sludge (kg/L)
Ms = Mass of dry sludge solids (kg)
Ss = Specific gravity of sludge solids (kg/L)
Mw = Mass of water (kg)
Sw = Specific gravity of water (kg/L)
Mg Mp My
Sg Sp Sy
Equation to determine specific gravity of dry sludge solids
S-l
-------
Where:
MF = Mass of fixed solids (kg)
SF = Specific gravity of fixed solids (kg/L)
Mv = Mass of volatile solids (kg)
Sv = Specific gravity of volatile solids (kg/L)
The result from the second equation is used in the first equation.
Example
Sludge is 10% solids:
Assume solids consist of 33% fixed mineral solids with a specific gravity of 2.5 kg/L and 67% volatile solids
with a specific gravity of 1 .2 kg/L.
To determine the specific gravity of the dry sludge solids, use the second equation:
My My My
which results in Ss = 1.45 kg/L. Using this value in the first equation:
^]+ [(0.90)x
V '
Sws
yields Sws = 1.03 kg/L.
S-2
-------
APPENDIX T -
SLUDGE AHL EQUATIONS USING FLOW (IN METRIC UNITS)
Some POTWs may have sludge flow data available in dry metric tons per day, rather than MGD. The AHL
equations for sludge disposal in Chapter 6 can be converted to use sludge flow data in these units. Some of
the equations in Chapter 6 are presented below using flows in dry metric tons per day. Use of these "dry
flows" eliminates the need for the specific gravity factor in the equations.
GENERAL SLUDGE EQUATION FOR CONSERVATIVE POLLUTANTS
(0^X2^X0.0022)
"INFL
R
POTW
Where:
LINFL
CCRIT
QSLDG
0.0022
Allowable influent loading, Ibs/day
Sludge criteria, mg/kg dry sludge
Total sludge flow to disposal, dry metric tons per day
Removal efficiency across POTW (as decimal)
Unit conversion factor
LAND APPLICATION
As explained in Chapter 6, determining the land application sludge criteria for use in the general sludge
equation requires that the POTW first convert 40 CFR §503 Table 2 and Table 4 sludge criteria into values
in mg/kg of dry sludge units. Because Table 2 and Table 4 criteria are in metric units (kg/ha), they must be
converted into English units (Ibs/acre) so that they can be used with the equations in Chapter 6 which use
other English units (e.g., flow in MGD, area in acres). Table 2 and Table 4 criteria are provided in both
metric and English units in Appendix E.
Another option is for POTWs to use the land application criteria equations in metric units (e.g., area in
hectares, flow in dry metric tons per day), thus eliminating the need to convert Table 2 and Table 4 values
to English units. These equations are provided below. These equations avoid the need for a specific gravity
factor because they use also use a "dry flow" for sludge.
'CRIT
Where:
CCRIT = Sludge criteria, mg/kg dry sludge
CCUM = Federal (Table 2 of 40 CFR 503.13) or State land application cumulative pollutant loading
rate, kg/ha
SA = Site area, hectares
SL = Site life, years
QLA = Sludge flow to bulk land application at an agricultural, forest, public contact, or reclamation
site, dry metric tons per day
0.365 = Unit conversion factor
T-l
-------
(AWSAR)(O.OOl)
Where:
CCRIT = Sludge criteria, mg/kg dry sludge
CANN = Federal (Table 4 of 40 CFR 503.13) or State land application annual pollutant loading rate,
kg/ha
AWSAR = Annual whole sludge application rate, metric tons per hectare per year dry weight basis
0.001 = Unit conversion factor
INCINERATION
Sludge standards for maximum pollutant concentrations in sludge feed to the incinerator need to be in mg/kg
dry sludge to be used in the equations at the beginning of Section 6.2.3 to calculate AHLs. A POTW
disposing of sludge through incineration may already have sludge standards in mg/kg dry sludge, such as
through a waste disposal agreement with the operator of a sludge incincerator. As noted in Chapter 6, if no
sludge standards have been calculated for the sludge feed to the incinerator, POTWs should use the Part 503
equations (provided below) to determine the maximum pollutant concentrations for the incinerator feed.
These maximum concentrations are then used in the equations at the beginning of Section 6.2.3 to calculate
AHLs.
C.
CR1T
(JKC)(86.400) Arsenic, Cadmium,
(DF)(\ - CE)(Qmc) Chromium, Nickel
(DF)(\-CE)(Qmc)
Lead
C,
CRIT
NESHAP Beryllium, Mercury,
(1 - CE)(Qmc) pollutants with State limits
Where:
CCRIT = Sludge criteria, mg/kg dry sludge
NESFfAP = National emission standard for beryllium or mercury from 40 CFR Part 61, g/day
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead, ug/m3
RSC = Federal risk specific concentration limit for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, or nickel
from 40 CFR 503.43, ug/m3
CE = Control efficiency (removal efficiency) for sewage sludge incinerator for the given
pollutant (as a decimal)
QINC = Sludge flow to incinerator (i.e., sewage sludge feed rate), dry metric tons per day
DF = Dispersion factor, ug/m3/g/sec
0.1 and 86,400 = Unit conversion factors
For pollutants with State incinerator emissions standards, limits should be entered in g/day in place of the
NESFfAPs limits in the first equation above.
T-2
-------
APPENDIX U -
POTW CONFIGURATIONS
The diagrams and discussions below demonstrate sampling locations to develop allowable headworks
loadings (AHLs). For illustrative purposes, in this appendix all three plants must determine the AHLs based
upon effluent limitations, secondary treatment inhibition, sludge digester inhibition, and sludge land
application. Three different plants, with very different secondary treatmenttrains, are diagramed below along
with sampling points for the AHL calculations.
Raw Wastewater
A
Diagram A
Bar
Screen
and Grit
Chamber
^[ Secondary
Clarifier
Trickling
Filter
Chlorine
Contact
Chambers
Aeration
Basin
/ Secondary
Clarifier
Primary
Clarifier
High Rate
Sludge »-X--
Digester
D
Sludge
Degritter
Gravity
Thickener
Belt Filter
Press
Land
Application
AHL FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT INHIBITION
At this POTW a trickling filter and an activated sludge system (aeration basin) operated in parallel provide
secondary treatment of the raw wastewater. The concentration of a pollutant that could cause inhibition at
the trickling filter may be different than the pollutant concentration that causes inhibition (known as the
inhibition threshold level) at the aeration basin. The plant must determine a headworks loading protective
of these two secondary treatment units. Using Equation 5.10, an AHL based on secondary treatment
inhibition can be calculated.
U-l
-------
AHL _T.,, F,t
AHLmhtf T,v: Tncklmg Filter
~
,m napo A . D .
AtlLinhab T, Aeration Basin
Where:
AHLinhab = AHL based on aeration basin inhibition, Ibs/day
AHLinhtf = AHL based on trickling filter inhibition, Ibs/day
Cinhab = Inhibition criteria for aeration basin, mg/L
Cinhtf = Inhibition criteria for trickling filter, mg/L
Qpotw = Total POTW flow, MOD
Rprim = Removal efficiency from headworks to primary treatment effluent as a decimal (See
Section 5.1.1 for calculating removal efficiencies)
8.34 = Unit conversion factor
The equations to calculate the AHL based on trickling filter and aeration basin inhibition includes an
inhibition criteria for the trickling filter, Cinhtf, and aeration basin, Cinhab, respectively. Both equations use the
same removal rate, Rprim, from the headworks to the primary treatment effluent. Rprim can be determined by
sampling loading at point "A," the headworks, and point "B," primary clarifier effluent (See Section 5.1 for
these calculations). Qpotw can be determined through flow sampling at point "A" as well. AHLah andtheAHL^
would be calculated, compared and the more stringent selected.
AHL FOR SLUDGE DIGESTER INHIBITION
This plant must determine a headworks loading protecting the high-rate sludge digester from inhibition.
Using Equation 5.12, an AHL based on sludge digester inhibition can be calculated.
Where:
AHLinhhrsd = AHL based on high-rate sludge digester inhibition, Ibs/day
Cinbhrsd = High-rate sludge digester inhibition criteria, mg/L
Qhrsd = Sludge flow to high-rate sludge digester, MOD
Rpotw = Plant removal efficiency from headworks to plant effluent (as decimal)
8.34 = Unit conversion factor
The equation to calculate the AHL based on high-rate sludge digester inhibition includes an inhibition criteria
for the digester, Cinbhrsd, sludge flow to the digester, Qhrsd, and an overall plant removal rate from headworks
to plant effluent, Rpotw. Qhrsd can be determined by sampling flow at point "C," the sludge wastestream from
gravity thickener to digester. Rpotw can be determined by sampling at point "A," the headworks before the
bar screen and grit chamber, and at point "E," the effluent after the chlorine contact chambers.
U-2
-------
AHL FOR EFFLUENT LIMITS
The plant must determine headworks loading that would lead to effluent from its chlorine contact chambers
(CCC) comply with NPDES Permit limits. Using Equation 5.5, the AHL based on NPDES Permit limit can
be calculated.
Where:
AHLeffccc = AHL based on CCC effluent compliance with NPDES, Ibs/day
Cnpdes = NPDES permit limit, mg/L
Qpotw = POTW flow, average, MOD
Rpotw = Plant removal efficiency from headworks to plant effluent (as decimal)
8.34 = Conversion factor
The equation to calculate the AHL based on CCC effluent compliance with NPDES includes the NPDES
permit limit, Cnpdes, total POTW flow, Qpotw, and an overall plant removal rate from headworks to plant
effluent, Rpotw. Rpotw can be determined by sampling loading at point "A," the headworks before the bar
screen and grit chamber, and at point "E," the effluent after the chlorine contact chambers. Qpotw can be
determined through sampling flow at point "A" as well.
AHL FOR SLUDGE APPLICATION
The plant must determine a headworks that would lead to sludge from the belt filter press suitable for land
application. Using equation 5.9 an AHL based on sludge land application can be calculated.
SabJp n
potw
Where:
AHLsabjp = AHL based on compliance with sludge application standards, Ibs/day
CsigStd = Sludge standard, mg/kg dry sludge
PS = Percent solids of sludge leading to belt filter press
Qbjp = Total sludge flow to belt filter press, MOD
Rpotw = Plant removal efficiency from headworks to plant effluent (as decimal)
Gsldg = Specific gravity of sludge leading to filter press, kg/L
8.34 = Unit conversion factor
The equation to calculate the AHL based on belt filter press sludge compliance with sludge standards includes
the sludge limit, Cslgstd; the flow, percent solids and specific gravity of sludge leading to the belt filter press,
Qbfp, PS, and Gsldg, respectively; and the overall plant removal rate from headworks to plant effluent, Rpotw.
Rpotw can be determined by sampling loading at point "A," the headworks before the bar screen and grit
chamber, and at point "E," the effluent after the chlorine contact chambers. Qbfp, PS, and Gsldg, can be
determined through sampling point "D" the sludge waste stream to the belt filter press.
U-3
-------
AHL FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT INHIBITION
At this POTW a standard rate trickling filter, a high rate trickling filter, and rotating biological contactors
(RBCs) operated in parallel provide secondary treatment of the raw wastewater. Each of these biological
units is preceded by a different primary clarifier. An AHL (to prevent inhibition) should be determined for
each of these biological unit processes because:
Raw Wastewater
A
Diagram B
Effluent
Secondary
Clarifier #1
Chlorine
Contact
Chamber
/ Secondary
Digester
Land
Application
The concentration of a pollutant that could cause inhibition at the standard rate trickling filter, high rate
trickling filter, and RBCs are different.
The design and operational loadings to each of the secondary treatment units are different and therefore
loading is different.
The primary clarifiers may have different removal efficiencies and therefore the pollutant concentrations
to each of the secondary treatment unit may be different.
The three equations listed below can be used to calculate secondary treatment inhibition.
U-4
-------
AHL
'inhsif
Standard Trickling Filter
AHLinhhrtf=
,,
V1 Kprim2)
High-Rate Trickling Filter
AHL
inhrbc
RBCs
Where:
AHL,,
AHL
'inhhrtf
Q
c,,
inhrbc
inhstf
inhhrtf
inhrbc
zipotw
D
priml
n
*^prim2
n
prim3
8.34
AHL based on standard trickling filter inhibition, Ibs/day
AHL based on high-rate trickling filter inhibition, Ibs/day
AHL based on RBC inhibition, Ibs/day
Inhibition criteria for standard trickling filter, mg/L
Inhibition criteria for high-rate trickling filter, mg/L
Inhibition criteria for RBC, mg/L
Total POTW flow, MOD
Removal efficiency from headworks to primary clarifier # 1 effluent as a decimal (See
Section 5.1.1 for calculating removal efficiencies)
Removal efficiency from headworks to primary clarifier #2 effluent as a decimal
Removal efficiency from headworks to primary clarifier #3 effluent as a decimal
Unit conversion factor
Each of the AHL equations has an inhibition criteria for each secondary treatment unit, Cinhstf, Cinhhr^, and
Cinhrbc and removal rates from the headworks to corresponding primary clarifier unit effluent, Rpriml, Rprim2,
and Rprim3. Data from sampling locations "A" and "B" is used to calculate the removal efficiency from
headworks to the primary clarifier #1 effluent, Rpriml. Data from sampling locations "A"and "C" is used to
calculate the removal efficiency from headworks to primary clarifier #2 effluent, Rprim2. Data from sampling
locations "A" and "D" is used to calculate the removal efficiency from headworks to primary clarifier #3
effluent, Rprim3. Qpotw can be determined at sampling point "A." The AHLinhs^ AHLin
be calculated, compared, and the most stringent (smallest) selected.
ar\dAHLmhrbc should
AHL FOR SLUDGE DIGESTER INHIBITION
This plant must determine a headworks loading protecting both the primary and secondary sludge digesters
from inhibition. Using Equation 5.12, an AHL based on sludge digester inhibition can be calculated.
AHL
inbpd~
R
'potvf
Primary Digester
U-5
-------
I inbsd)V*Jsd> Secondary Digester
potw
Where:
AHLinbpd = AHL based on primary digester inhibition, Ibs/day
AHLinbsd = AHL based on secondary digester inhibition, Ibs/day
Cinbpd = Primary digester inhibition criteria, mg/L
Cmbsd = Primary digester inhibition criteria, mg/L
Qpd = Sludge flow to primary digester, MGD
Qsd = Sludge flow to secondary digester, MGD
Rpotw = Plant removal efficiency from headworks to plant effluent (as decimal)
8.34 = Unit conversion factor
The equations to calculate the AHL based on sludge digester inhibition include primary and secondary
inhibition criteria, Cinbpd and Cinbsd, sludge flow to the primary and secondary digesters, Qpd and Qsd, and an
overall plant removal rate from headworks to plant effluent, Rpotw. Qpd can be determined by sampling flow
at point "E," the sludge wastestream to the primary digester. Qsd can be determined by sampling flow at
point "F," the sludge wastestream from the primary digester to the secondary digester. Rpotw can be
determined by sampling loading at point "A," the headworks before the bar screen and grit chamber, and at
point "H," the effluent after the chlorine contact chambers. AHLinbpd and AHLinbsd should be calculated,
compared and the more stringent selected.
AHL FOR EFFLUENT LIMITS
The plant must determine headworks loading that would lead to effluent from its chlorine contact chambers
(CCC) comply with NPDES Permit limits. Using Equation 5 .5, the AHL based on NPDES Permit limit can
be calculated.
~
~ Rotw)
potw
Where:
AHLeffccc = AHL based on CCC effluent compliance with NPDES, Ibs/day
Cnpdes = NPDES permit limit, mg/L
Qpotw = POTW flow, average, MGD
Rpotw = Plant removal efficiency from headworks to plant effluent (as decimal)
8.34 = Conversion factor
The equation to calculate the AHL based on CCC effluent compliance with NPDES includes the NPDES
permit limit, Cnpdes, total POTW flow, Qpotv, and an overall plant removal rate from headworks to plant
effluent, Rpotw. Rpotw can be determined by sampling at point "A," the headworks before the bar screen and
grit chamber, and at point "H," the effluent after the chlorine contact chambers. Qpotw can be determined
through sampling flow at point "A" as well.
U-6
-------
AHL FOR SLUDGE APPLICATION
The plant must determine a headworks that would lead to sludge from the vacuum filter suitable for land
application. Using equation 5.9 an AHL based on sludge land application can be calculated.
^smf
R
"potw
Where:
PS
8.34
AHL based on compliance with sludge application standards, Ibs/day
Sludge standard, mg/kg dry sludge
Percent solids of sludge leading to vacuum filter
Total sludge flow to vacuum filter, MOD
Plant removal efficiency from headworks to plant effluent (as decimal)
Specific gravity of sludge leading to vacuum filter, kg/L
Unit conversion factor
The equation to calculate the AHL based on vacuum filter sludge compliance with sludge standards includes
the sludge limit, Cslgstd; the flow, percent solids and specific gravity of sludge leading to the belt filter press,
Qvf, PS, and Gsldg, respectively; and the overall plant removal rate from headworks to plant effluent, Rpotw.
Rpotw can be determined by sampling at point "A," the headworks before the bar screen and grit chamber, and
at point "H," the effluent after the chlorine contact chambers. Qvf, PS, and Gsldg, can be determined through
sampling at point "G" the sludge waste stream to the vacuum filter.
Raw Waste water
A
Diagram C
Effluent
1st Stage
Aeration
Basin
2nd Stage
Aeration
Basin
3rd Stage
Aeration
Basin
Primary
Clarifier
Air
Flotation
Thickener
G Landfill
X>
U-7
-------
AHL FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT INHIBITION
At this POTW three activated sludge units (aeration basins) operated in series provide secondary treatment
of the raw wastewater. The concentration of a pollutant entering the First Stage Aeration Basin would be
different from the concentration of that pollutant entering the Second Stage Aeration Basin and the Third
Stage Aeration Basin because of the removal occurring in each unit. An AHL (to prevent inhibition) should
be determined for each of these secondary treatment units.
1st Stage Aeration Basin
2 Stage Aeration Basin
AHL
inhabS
3rd Stage Aeration Basin
Where:
AHLinhabl
AHLinhab2
AHLinhah3
Qpotw
Rprim
Rabl
R,,b2
8.34
AHL based on 1st Stage Aeration Basin inhibition, Ibs/day
AHL based on 2nd Stage Aeration Basin inhibition, Ibs/day
AHL based on 3rd Stage Aeration Basin inhibition, Ibs/day
Inhibition criteria for 1st Stage Aeration Basin, mg/L
Inhibition criteria for 2nd Stage Aeration Basin, mg/L
Inhibition criteria for 3rd Stage Aeration Basin, mg/L
Total POTW flow, MOD
Removal efficiency from headworks to primary treatment effluent as a decimal (See Section
5.1.1 for calculating removal efficiencies)
Removal efficiency from headworks to 1st Stage Aeration Basin effluent as a decimal
Removal efficiency from headworks to 2nd Stage Aeration Basin effluent as a decimal
Unit conversion factor
Each of the equations to calculate AHLs for secondary treatment has it own inhibition criteria for each basin,
Cmhabi, C,nhab2, ^^ Cmhab3 and corresponding removal rate, Rprim, RAh and Rab2, respectively, for the 1st, 2nd ,
and 3rd stage aeration basins. Data from sampling locations "A" and "B" is used to determine the removal
efficiency from headworks to primary clarifier effluent, Rprim. Data from sampling locations "A" and "C" is
used to determine the removal efficiency from headworks to 1st stage clarifier effluent, RabL Data from
sampling locations "A" and "D" is used to determine the removal efficiency from headworks to 2nd stage
clarifier effluent, Rab2. Qpotw can be determined by sampling at location "A." The AHLinhabl, AHLinhab2 , and
AHLinhah3 should be calculated, compared, and the most stringent (smallest) selected.
U-8
-------
AHL FOR SLUDGE DIGESTER INHIBITION
This plant must determine a headworks loading protecting the sludge digester from inhibition. Using
Equation 5.12, an AHL based on sludge digester inhibition can be calculated.
"
potw
Where:
AHL
nhsd
Qsd
Rpotw
8.34
AHL based on sludge digester inhibition, Ibs/day
Sludge digester inhibition criteria, mg/L
Sludge flow to sludge digester, MOD
Plant removal efficiency from headworks to plant effluent (as decimal)
Unit conversion factor
The equation to calculate the AHL based on high-rate sludge digester inhibition includes an inhibition criteria
for the digester, Cinhsd, sludge flow to the digester, Qsd , and an overall plant removal rate from headworks to
plant effluent, Rpotw. Qsd can be determined by sampling flow at point "E," the sludge wastestream from air
flotation thickener to the digester. Rpotw can be determined by sampling loading at point "A," the headworks
before the bar screen and grit chamber, and at point "H," the effluent after the ozone treatment unit.
AHL FOR EFFLUENT LIMITS
The plant must determine headworks loading that would lead to effluent from its ozone treatment unit (OTU)
comply with NPDES Permit limits. Using Equation 5.5, the AHL based on NPDES Permit limit can be
calculated.
AHL
effotu'
Where:
AHL
Cnpdes
Qpotw
Rp0tw
8.34
effotu
AHL based on OTU effluent compliance with NPDES, Ibs/day
NPDES permit limit, mg/L
POTW flow, average, MOD
Plant removal efficiency from headworks to plant effluent (as decimal)
Conversion factor
The equation to calculate the AHL based on OTU effluent compliance with NPDES includes the NPDES
permit limit, Cnpdes, total POTW flow, Qpohv, and an overall plant removal rate from headworks to plant
effluent, Rpotw. Rpotw can be determined by sampling loading at point "A," the headworks before the bar
screen and grit chamber, and at point "H," the effluent after the OTU. Qpotw can be determined through
sampling flow at point "A" as well.
U-9
-------
AHL FOR SLUDGE APPLICATION
The plant must determine a headworks that would lead to sludge from the plate and frame press (PFP) suitable
for land application. Using equation 5.9 an AHL based on sludge land application can be calculated.
AHL
Where:
AHLsapJp = AHL based on compliance with sludge application standards, Ibs/day
Csigsa = Sludge standard, mg/kg dry sludge
PS = Percent solids of sludge leading to PFP
Qpfp = Total sludge flow to PFP, MOD
Rpotw = Plant removal efficiency from headworks to plant effluent (as decimal)
Gsldg = Specific gravity of sludge leading to PFP, kg/L
8.34 = Unit conversion factor
The equation to calculate the AHL based on PFP sludge compliance with sludge standards includes the sludge
limit, Cslgstd; the flow, percent solids and specific gravity of sludge leading to the PFP, Qpip, PS, and Gsldg,
respectively; and the overall plant removal rate from headworks to plant effluent, Rpohv. Rpotw can be
determined by sampling loading at point "A," the headworks before the bar screen and grit chamber, and at
point "H," the effluent after the OTU. Qpjp, PS, and Gsldg, can be determined through sampling flow at point
"E" the sludge waste stream to the PFP.
U-10
-------
APPENDIX V -
DOMESTIC POLLUTANT LOADINGS
Residential/Commercial Trunkline Monitoring Data
Pollutant
Number of
Detections
Number of
Samples
Minimum
Concentration
(mg/L)
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/L)
Average
Concentration
(mg/L)
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium (III)
Chromium (T)
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphate
Total Phosphorous
Silver
Zinc
140
3
4
361
1
311
603
7
2
18
433
2
3
218
313
2
1
181
636
205
3
4
538
2
522
607
7
2
18
540
2
3
235
540
2
1
224
638
0.0004
0.04
0.1
0.00076
< 0.005
< 0.001
0.005
0.01
0.24
0.0002
0.001
0.03
0.04
< 0.0001
< 0.001
27.4
0.7
0.0007
0.01
0.088
0.216
0.42
0.11
0.007
1.2
0.74
0.37
0.27
3.4
2.04
0.031
0.161
0.054
1.6
30.2
0.7
1.052
1.28
0.007
0.115
0.3
0.008
0.006
0.034
0.14
0.082
0.255
0.989
0.058
0.031
0.087
0.002
0.047
28.8
0.7
0.019
0.231
ORGANICS
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Fluoranthene
Methylene Chloride
Phenols
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
21
2
1
1
2
7
2
5
2
5
1
30
29
28
28
5
30
2
5
3
29
3
<0.002
0.005
0.026
0.013
0.00001
0.00008
0.00002
0.00002
0.00001
0.00001
<0.002
0.069
0.008
0.026
0.013
<0.001
0.055
0.00003
0.022
<0.005
0.037
0.035
0.009
0.007
0.026
0.013
0.001
0.027
0.000025
0.006
0.0002
0.014
0.013
PESTICIDES
Total BHC
4,4-DDD
Total Endosulfan
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.001
0.00026
0.002
0.001
0.0004
0.002
0.001
0.0003
0.002
V-l
-------
Source: U.S. EPA's Supplemental Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge
Limitations Under the PretreatmentPrograms, May 1991. "Pollutant levels reported below specified
detection limit were considered in the data analysis and, for the purpose of statistical analysis, were
considered equal to the detection limit."
V-2
-------
APPENDIX W -
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MINI-CASE STUDIES
POTWs can implement best management practice (BMP) programs to gain control over wastewater
discharges from commercial sources. By developing a less formal source control program with emphasis
on source control, education, BMPs, as-needed inspections, and individual or "general" permits, POTWs can
gain additional control over uncontrolled wastewater discharges from commercial sources. Source control
programs should place emphasis on certain specific pollutants of concern. For example, silver and mercury
are often of great concern to POTWs because of NPDES permit requirements.
The commercial sources of wastewater that are addressed by BMP-based source control tend to have lower
pollutant concentrations and loadings than other more traditional industrial facilities regulated by the
traditional pretreatment program. Taken as a group, however, numerous uncontrolled commercial
establishments may represent a significant source control opportunity that can lead to measurable
improvement in environmental quality. Several pretreatment programs have documented pollutant
reductions after the implementation of BMP and source reduction programs.
Several BMP/source control programs implemented at several POTWs are summarized in the following
paragraphs to illustrate a variety of approaches that have been taken to utilize BMPs for the control of
commercial sources of wastewater. Programs reviewed include: East Bay Municipal Utility District
(EBMUD) in Oakland, California; Metropolitan Wastewater in San Diego, California; Seattle
Metropolitan/King County in Washington State; Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, Duluth, Minnesota;
and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP), Hartford, Connecticut.
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL DISTRICT (EBMUD), OAKLAND, CA
EBMUD has been issuing pollution prevention permits (PPPs) since 1988. EBMUD began their PPP
program in response to tighter air emission standards and more stringent NPDES permit requirements. As
a result, EBMUD had to augment headworks sampling and analysis programs for the development and local
limits. Based on attentive tracking of regulatory requirements over the past 10 years, EBMUD has
sequentially identified POCs, identified commercial users contributing those pollutants, and developed PPPs
with best management practice requirements.
When EBMUD recognizes a pollutant of concern, they follow step-wise procedures. First, information on
businesses and commercial activities that may be contributing the targeted POC is collected and refined.
Next, EBMUD engages in an outreach program and works with the businesses to define BMPs. Finally,
EBMUD issues the PPP and evaluates compliance. Generally, there is one sector of business activity that
is responsible for the specific pollutant. For example, silver is linked to the photo finishers. EBMUD works
with representatives of the commercial sector to research and develop BMPs that will effectively minimize
the pollutant in effluent wastewater.
EBMUD believes that the most important aspect of a successful PPP program is education, outreach, and user
awareness combined with an enforceable permit. When conducting outreach, EBMUD gets in touch with
each user to confirm the nature of their business and the processes they use at the business that can contribute
wastewater and pollutants of concern. The establishment is asked to participate in educational workshops
to review EBMUD's concerns, review and refine preliminary methods to prevent pollutant releases and lay
the groundwork for successful communications and understanding of the problem and the solution. Users
are introduced to the permitting and enforcement process in a non-threatening forum. EBMUD's inventory
of users is based on water supply account information. Whenever a user opens a water account, it is
W-l
-------
automatically characterized for wastewater and source control purposes. A revenue collection system ($3.25
per commercial account per month) assures adequate funding for the PPP program.
EBMUD staff researches ideas for generalized BMPs through discussions with the business sector and State
trade group associations. Each of the EBMUD staff tracks one or more business sectors and are responsible
for knowing current pollution control measures and trends. During the research phase of BMP development,
each user that is a potential contributor of a POC is sent a letter to notify them that EBMUD is working on
a PPP and reviewing the anticipated time frame for permit issuance.
The PPP includes similar BMPs for each permittee. Some examples include silver recovery canisters
connected in series to optimize removal of silver with a required logging procedure that assures canisters are
changed at the appropriate frequency to eliminate break through. EBMUD PPPs vary in length from two to
8 pages and are issued in industry group batches for a duration of 5 years. In the administration of their PPP
program, EBMUD conducts visits/inspections of the permittees, provides follow up education, distributes fact
sheets, procedures and posters illustrating acceptable waste and wastewater disposal procedures. During the
life of a 5-year permit, EBMUD tries to inspect the permittee at least once or twice. Based on the findings
of the initial visit, and the degree to which the permittee is implementing the prescribed BMPs, the follow
up frequency is set. When EBMUD fails to get cooperation from businesses, they initiate enforcement
actions. As an example, EBMUD sought and obtained a $27,000 penalty from a dry cleaner.
A partial list of the businesses for which EBMUD has developed BMPs and PPP permits includes:
Photofmishers
Boat Yards
Dry Cleaners
Auto Repairs
Print Shop
Radiator Repair Shops
Furniture Stripping
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER, SAN DIEGO, CA
Metropolitan Wastewater issues sector-specific BMP discharge authorizations to commercial customers.
These authorizations require:
Specific pollution prevention measures.
An initial certification of compliance.
On-going semi-annual "reminder" certifications for businesses to demonstrate familiarity
with their pollution prevention measures.
Metropolitan Wastewater covers a variety of sectors with this program. General permits are issued to film
processing and dry cleaners. The photo processing BMPs are based on the Code of Management Practice for
Silver Dischargers (AMSA 1996) developed by the Silver Council in concert with the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies and EPA. Metropolitan Wastewater conducted workshops to review silver
control BMPs with their users. Boat repair yards or dry docks are required to submit their own customized
BMPs which are incorporated into a permit. Food establishment discharge permits are also issued and require
grease removal equipment, operation and maintenance, and compliance with general and specific discharge
prohibitions. Auto repair shops that have steam-cleaning operations are required to have a sump for all O&G
W-2
-------
wastewater from steam cleaning operations. San Diego has initiated a more aggressive program to enforce
grease trap cleaning particularly at food establishments. They have discovered that excessive amounts of
grease buildup contribute to dry weather flows into San Diego and Mission Bay. Analytical/Research Labs
are required to implement a solvent certification program that is very similar to the total toxic organic (TTO)
certification program for metal finishers and electroplaters.
San Diego has a 301(h) waiver for their wastewater treatment facility, allowing conditional discharge of
wastewater without full secondary treatment. One condition of the waiver requires the City to reexamine their
local limits every year and reassess loadings from all sources (domestic, SIU, and non-SIU contributions).
The IU is considered a "contributor" of a pollutant of concern (presently one of six heavy metals) if the user
has one of the six metals in its effluent at a concentration that is two standard deviations above the average
domestic concentration. Once the IU is deemed to be a "contributor" of a pollutant of concern, wastewater
flow is evaluated to determine whether the load is significant enough to be assigned to the "allocated" versus
"non-allocated" load for their local limits accounting procedures. When the load is significant, the user is
included in the allocated portion of headworks load calculations and the user is required to comply with local
limits. Users with minor concentrations or loadings of pollutants of concern are not required to comply with
local limits. However, they may still be required to comply with BMPs and general permit requirements.
SEATTLE METROPOLITAN/KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Seattle Metropolitan /King County (Seattle Metro) has a very large and active pollution prevention program
that has acquired a great deal of information on dental mercury source control. Dental facilities in the Seattle
Metro collection system are subject to the mercury local limits. After strong lobbying by the Dental
Association against mandatory BMPs, dental facilities currently have latitude in controlling mercury through
BMPs. Seattle Metro has developed a variety of tools to control mercury, including:
A certified list of the vendors and technologies that are able to achieve a 90% reduction in metals.
Videotape on mercury and silver source control from dental offices entitled "Amalgam Waste
Conference."
A dental facility waste management poster and a booklet entitled, "Waste Management Guidelines
for Dental Facilities."
Records on the amount of amalgam that is being reclaimed by recyclers as a means of tracking the
success of their education efforts.
Voucher program that gives $500 to dental offices to obtain one of the approved metal removal units
identified in the list above.
Educational materials (posters, videos, booklets).
WESTERN LAKE SUPERIOR SANITARY DISTRICT (WLSSD), DULUTH, MINNESOTA
With support from the Great Lakes Protection Fund, the WLSSD conducted a two-year Mercury Zero
Discharge Project to examine the sources of mercury to its wastewater treatment plant and to determine how
to reduce or eliminate those sources. This project included cooperative initiatives with industries known to
be discharging mercury, programs aimed at specific uses of mercury, a monitoring program to identify
additional sources and a public awareness campaign. In addition to these external programs, WLSSD also
examined its own facilities and practices.
W-3
-------
WLSSD has authored the Blueprint for Mercury Elimination, Mercury Reduction Project Guidance for
Wastewater Treatment Plants, March, 1997. Selected for an AMSA National Environmental Achievement
Award for excellence in Public Information & Education, the document examines sources of mercury in the
environment, reviews contributions to the wastewater collection system, and gives examples of success stories
on mercury source reduction. Appendices to the document provide useful "how to" references for
implementing a source reduction program, such as a sample news release for a mercury reduction project,
sample letters to mercury contributors, telephone survey forms to interview possible contributors, survey
forms for hospitals and dental offices.
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (CT DEP), HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
In 1992, CT DEP began a Statewide general permit program. The program established requirements for
industries that were not SIUs, regulated by CT DEP's State-run pretreatment permitting program, but were
a potential source of concern for POTWs. The general permitting program is "self implementing" and
expects commercial establishments to be made aware of general permit program requirements by the local
Town officials, the State, or through consultants. Thus, the general permitting program avoids the resource
intensive individual permitting of traditional programs.
The program works in the following manner. An IU assesses their eligibility for a general permit (versus a
traditional pretreatment permit). CT DEP encourages industries to determine eligibility for a general permit,
as the permitting process is quicker and less costly for the IU and CT DEP. Each general permit identifies
BMPs that must be followed by each permit holder. CT DEP conducts selective auditing and enforcement
of general permit holders, and facilities that may have failed to register for a general permit. By publicizing
the enforcement actions and penalties, industries are made aware of their duties to have a permit and comply
with the BMPs, record keeping, monitoring, and where applicable, effluent limits. General permits
developed by CT DEP include the following sectors:
1. Constructions and Operation of Certain Recycling Facilities
2. Car Wash Wastewater
3. Domestic Sewage of 50,000 gallons per day or 5% of the POTW Design Flow
4. Groundwater Contamination Recovery Systems
5. Hydrostatic Pressure Testing
6. Minor Boiler Blowdown
7. Minor Non-Contact Cooling Water
8. Minor Photographic Processing
9. Minor Tumbling and Cleaning of Parts Wastewater
10. Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activities
11. Storm Water and Dewatering Wastewaters - Construction Activities
12. Vehicle Service Floor Drain and Car Wash Wastewater
13. Storm Water Associated with Commercial Activities
14. Minor Printing and Publishing Wastewater
15. Water Treatment Wastewater - Commercial
16. Food Processing Wastewater
17. Public Swimming Pool Backwash
18. Water Softening/Treatment Unit Wastewater-Individual Homes (under development)
W-4
-------
APPENDIX X -
REGION 1, REASSESSMENT OF TECHNICALLY BASED INDUSTRIAL
DISCHARGE LIMITS CHECKLIST
Attachment A.
EPA - New England
Reassessment of Technically Based Industrial Discharge Limits
Under 40 CFR 122.21(j)(4), all Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) with approved Industrial
Pretreatment Programs (IPPs) shall provide the following information to the Director: a written evaluation
of the need to revise local industrial discharge limits under 40 CFR 403.5(c)(l).
Below is a form designed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA - New England) to assist
POTWs with approved IPPs in evaluating whether their existing Technically Based Local Limits
(TBLLs) need to be recalculated. The form allows the permittee and EPA to evaluate and compare
pertinent information used in previous TBLLs calculations against present conditions at the POTW.
Please read direction below before filling out form.
ITEM I.
* In Column (1), list what your POTW's influent flow rate was when your existing TBLLs were
calculated. In Column (2), list your POTW's present influent flow rate. Your current flow rate
should be calculated using the POTW's average daily flow rate from the previous 12 months.
* In Column (1) list what your POTW's SIU flow rate was when your existing TBLLs were
calculated. In Column (2), list your POTW's present SIU flow rate.
* In Column (1), list what dilution ratio and/or 7Q10 value was used in your old/expired NPDES
permit. In Column (2), list what dilution ratio and/or 7Q10 value is presently being used in your
new/reissued NPDES permit.
The 7Q10 value is the lowest seven day average flow rate, in the river, over a ten-year period.
The 7Q10 value and/or dilution ratio used by EPA in your new NPDES permit can be found in
your NPDES permit "Fact Sheet."
* In Column (1), list the safety factor, if any, that was used when your existing TBLLs were
calculated.
* In Column (1), note how your biosolids were managed when your existing TBLLs were
calculated. In Column (2), note how your POTW is presently disposing of its biosolids and how
your POTW will be disposing of its biosolids in the future.
ITEM II.
* List what your existing TBLLs are - as they appear in your current Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO).
X-l
-------
ITEM III.
Identify how your existing TBLLs are allocated out to your industrial community. Some
pollutants may be allocated differently than others, if so please explain.
ITEM IV.
Since your existing TBLLs were calculated, identify the following in detail:
(1) if your POTW has experienced any upsets, inhibition, interference or pass-through as a
result of an industrial discharge.
(2) if your POTW is presently violating any of its current NPDES permit limitations -
include toxicity.
ITEM V.
Using current sampling data, list in Column (1) the average and maximum amount of pollutants
(in pounds per day) received in the POTW's influent. Current sampling data is defined as data
obtained over the last 24 month period.
All influent data collected and analyzed must be in accordance with 40 CFR 136. Sampling data
collected should be analyzed using the lowest possible detection method(s), e.g., graphite furnace.
Based on your existing TBLLs, as presented in Item II., list in Column (2), for each pollutant the
Maximum Allowable Industrial Headwork Loading (MAIHL) values derived from an applicable
environmental criteria or standard, e.g., water quality, sludge, NPDES, inhibition, etc. For each
pollutant, the MAIHL equals the calculated Maximum Allowable Headwork Loading (MAHL)
minus the POTW's domestic loading source(s). For more information, please see p. 3-28 in
EPA's Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Limits Under the
Pretreatment Program, 12/87.
ITEM VI.
Using current sampling data, list in Column (1) the average and maximum amount of pollutants
(in micrograms per liter) present in your POTW's effluent. Current sampling data is defined as
data obtained during the last 24-month period.
All effluent data collected and analyzed must be in accordance with 40 CFR 136. Sampling data
collected should be analyzed using the lowest possible detection method(s), e.g., graphite furnace.
List in Column (2A) what the Water Quality Standards (WQS) were (in micrograms per liter)
when your TBLLs were calculated, please note what hardness value was used at that time.
Hardness should be expressed in milligram per liter of calcium carbonate.
List in Column (2B) the current WQSs or "Chronic Gold Book" values for each pollutant
multiplied by the dilution ratio used in your new/reissued NPDES permit. For example, with a
dilution ratio of 25:1 at a hardness of 25 mg/L - calcium carbonate (copper's chronic WQS equals
6.54 ug/L) the chronic NPDES permit limit for copper would equal 156.25 ug/L.
X-2
-------
ITEM VII.
* In Column (1), list all pollutants (in micrograms per liter) limited in your new/reissued NPDES
permit. In Column (2), list all pollutants limited in your old/expired NPDES permit.
ITEM VIII.
* Using current sampling data, list in Column (1) the average and maximum amount of pollutants
in your POTW's biosolids. Current data is defined as data obtained during the last 24 month
period. Results are to be expressed as total dry weight.
All biosolids data collected and analyzed must be in accordance with 40 CFR 136.
In Column (2A), list current State and/or Federal sludge standards that your facility's biosolids
must comply with. Also note how your POTW currently manages the disposal of its biosolids. If
your POTW is planing on managing its biosolids differently, list in Column (2B) what your new
biosolids criteria will be and method of disposal.
In general, please be sure the units reported are correct and all pertinent information is included in your
evaluation. If you have any questions, please contact your pretreatment representative at EPA - New
England.
X-3
-------
REASSESSMENT OF TECHNICALLY BASED LOCAL LIMITS
(TBLLs)
POTW Name & Address
NPDES PERMIT # :
Date EPA approved current TBLLs :
Date EPA approved current Sewer Use Ordinance
ITEM I.
In Column (1), list the conditions that existed when your current
TBLLs were calculated. In Column (2), list current conditions or
expected conditions at your POTW.
Column (1) Column (2)
EXISTING TBLLs PRESENT CONDITIONS
POTW Flow (MGD)
SIU Flow (MGD)
Dilution Ratio or
7Q10 (from NPDES Permit)
Safety Factor N/A
Biosolids Disposal
Method(s)
ITEM II.
EXISTING TBLLs
POLLUTANT NUMERICAL LIMIT POLLUTANT NUMERICAL
LIMIT
(mg/L) or (Ib/day) (mg/L) or (Ib/day)
X-4
-------
ITEM III.
Note how your existing TBLLs, listed in Item II., are allocated
to your Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), i.e., uniform
concentration, contributory flow, mass proportioning, other.
Please specify by circling.
ITEM IV.
Has your POTW experienced any upsets, inhibition, interference or
pass-through from industrial sources since your existing TBLLs
were calculated?
If yes, explain.
Has your POTW violated any of its NPDES permit limits and/or
toxicity test requirements?
If yes, explain.
ITEM V.
Using current POTW influent sampling data fill in Column (1). In
Column (2), list your Maximum Allowable Headwork Loading (MAHL)
values used to derive your TBLLs listed in Item II. In addition,
please note the Environmental Criteria for which each MAHL value
was established, i.e., water quality, sludge, NPDES, etc.
Column (1) Column (2)
Pollutant Influent Data Analyses MAHL Values Criteria
Maximum Average
(Ib/day) (Ib/day) (Ib/day)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Other (List)
X-5
-------
ITEM VI.
Using current POTW effluent sampling data, fill in Column (1).
In Column (2A) list what the Water Quality Standards (Gold Book
Criteria) were at the time your existing TBLLs were developed.
List in Column (2B) current Gold Book values multiplied by the
dilution ratio used in your new/reissued NPDES permit.
Columns
Column (1) (2A) (2B)
Pollutant Effluent Data Analyses Water Quality Criteria
Maximum Average (Gold Book)
From TBLLsToday
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
Arsenic
*Cadmium
*Chromium -
*Copper
Cyanide
*Lead
Mercury
*Nickel
Silver
*Zinc
Other (List;
*Hardness Dependent (mg/L - CaCCG)
ITEM VII.
In Column (1), identify all pollutants limited in your
new/reissued NPDES permit. In Column (2), identify all
pollutants that were limited in your old/expired NPDES permit
Column (1)
NEW PERMIT
PollutantsLimitations
(ug/L)
Column (2)
OLD PERMIT
PollutantsLimitations
(ug/L)
X-6
-------
ITEM VIII.
Using current POTW biosolids data, fill in Column (1). In Column
(2A), list the biosolids criteria that was used at the time your
existing TBLLs were calculated. If your POTW is planing on
managing its biosolids differently, list in Column (2B) what your
new biosolids criteria would be and method of disposal.
Column (1)
Pollutant Biosolids Data Analyses
Average
(mg/kg)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Molybdenum
Selenium
Other (List)
Columns
(2A) (2B)
Biosolids Criteria
From TBLLs New
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
X-7
-------
------- |