ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
EPA-330/2-77-003
Evaluation and Wastewater Characterization
Northeast Philadelphia
Water Pollution Control Plant
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(SEPTEMBER 16-23, 1976)
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
DENVER. COLORADO
AND
REGION III. PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA
JANUARY 1977
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement
EPA-330/2-77-003
EVALUATION AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(September 16-23, 1976)
January 1977
National Enforcement Investigations Center - Denver, Colorado
and
Region III - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
-------
CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION
II CONCLUSIONS
. . . .
.......
. . . 0
.....
.....
.....
III EVALUATION PROCEDURES
......
. . . .
IV COMPLIANCE MONITORING. . .
.......
V WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION. . . . . . .
Delaware Low Level Interceptor. . . . . .
Somerset Low Level Interceptor. . . . . .
Frankford Low Level Interceptor. . . . .
Frankford High Level Interceptor. . . . .
Final Effluent. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VI DYE TRACING AND WATER QUALITY STUDY. . .
Background. . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . .
Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resu 1 ts .................
Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . .
VII ORGANICS INTERPRETATION. . . . . . . . .
Determining the Toxicity Index. . . . . .
Toxicity Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES.
.....
. . . .
. . . . . .
APPENDICES
A Reconnaissance Report
B Visit/Inspection of City of Philadelphia
Torresdale Water Treatment Plant
C Dye Dilution Technique for Flow Measurement
D Chain of Custody Procedures
E Analytical Procedures and Quality Control
F Organics Analytical Methodology
G Determination of Toxicity Index
iii
1
4
10
13
20
20
32
34
36
38
41
41
41
42
47
48
48
62
69
85
-------
FIGURE
1
Schematic Flow Diagram. .
. . . .
.............
TABLES
1 Samp 1 in g Summa ry .....................
2 Self-Monitoring Data Northeast WPCP Effluent. . . . . . . .
3 Field Measurements and Analytical Data. . . . . . . . . . .
4 pH Da ta .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 Summary of Major Contributing Industries. . . . . . . . . .
6 Oil and Grease Data. . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 Nutrient Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8 Heavy Metals Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 Raw Wastewater Characteristics Delaware
Low Level Interceptor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
10 Raw Wastewater Characteristics - Somerset
Low Level Interceptor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11 Raw Wastewater Characteristics - Frankford
Low Level Interceptor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
12 Raw Wastewater Characteristics - Frankford
High Level Interceptor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 Comparison of Influent and Effluent Characteristics "." ; .".
14 Mean Percent Removal and Standard Deviation. . . . . . . .
15 Delaware River Tidal Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16 Comparison of Dye Injection Rate at Northeast WPCP
and Dye Concentration at Torresda1e WTP Intake. . . . . . .
17 Comparison of Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18 Volatile Organics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19 Non-Volatile Organics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20 Summary of Reported Toxic Doses by Organism 'and
Type of Exposure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
21 Summary of Oral and Inhalation Exposures to
Toxic Organic Chemicals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22 Flow at Organic Sample Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23 Non-Volatile Organics Loadings. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24 Volatile Organics Concentrations and Estimated Loads
25 Organic Compounds Observed in Both the Northeast WPCP
Effluent and the Torresdale WTP Intake. . . . . . . . . . 83
iv
2
12
14
16
17
21
25
26
27
37
39
40
43
45
46
49
51
64
73
~4
76
-------
I.
INTRODUCTION
The Northeast Philadelphia Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP),
servicing the Northeast section of the Philadelphia metropolitan area,
:~r.eats an average 720,000 m3/day (190 mgd) of domestic and industrial
wastewaters. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit No. PA 0026689, issued December 31, 1974 and effective February 13,
1975, established certain requirem~nts for the 'plant. Following issuance
of the permit, the city' of Philadelphia by letter dated January 17, 1975,
requested an adjudicatory hearing to contest several permit requirements.
In June 1976, EPA, Region III, requested that the National Enforce-
ment Investigations Center (NEIC) conduct an intensive field survey at
the Northeast WPC~ to gather data pertinent to the upcoming hearings.
NEIC was asked to conduct routine NPDES compliance monitoring, to evaluate
possible effects due to tidal action, of the Northeast discharge on the
Torresdale Water Treatment Plant (WTP), and to evaluate the kinds and
disposition of a broad range of complex'organic compounds believed to be
discharged from the Northeast WPCP. The Northeast WPCP was of particular
concern in that the city does not have a pre-treatment ordinance to re-
gulate its many industrial users.
The Northeast plant is an intermediate plant providing approximately
60% BOD and TSS removal. Schematically [Fig. 1] the treatment process
, is a modified activated sludge system. Due to limited aeration capacity,
however, treatment efficiency is considerably less than that of a secon-
dary plant.
Raw wastewater reaches the plant via four interceptors. Flow from
three interceptors passes through grit removal facilities at the
-------
FRANIO'ORD
GnIT CHAMCER
FIWMORD
HIGi LEVU.
~
j6
ai
~o
(:J
$UPffiNATAm' ~
IJW,.TIQ.'~ TANK
LAGOON
I
I
HOT SlUDGE (J)
fU.1PS Y
S8.AS ""'TmS m
,
CO'..D StUDGE ())
rue.1PS y
-T_1_"\____,
, .
SlUDGE
COi~C(NTRA TION
tANKS
LEGEND
- '','ASTEVIATER FLOW
- -III-
SECONDARY SLUDGE FlOI'I
Nl I MARY IseCONDARY SlUI.1GE FlOIY
---,...
D
~
r--------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
J
) WASTE I
; 1 ACTIVATED SlU_D~1
f ~U1 I
I ~ Z 4 3 PLANT I
g;~ BY.PASS .J
I 1
rc--~': ...__0___0____0___0 !-!
: "-' '::"B-::-F.OAD~----
I PUMPS
I _J\- -- ----,
: II - ~\;';';~TlON I I
: I LBOX I
:~J- - . I
:21g en :--1 ~.. I~
Icil3 Z ~~11 13
ICU1< ~~ c-'
: ~ I ~ ;. 5 . 3 ~_: : C3 I~
'LU~O C:V)C::
1~~'1~ ~,! ~. ~ P{E
: b.~ SAce B A ce 8 A~"?1~.. ;)lel~I'" ; CLJ
: t
! L \- - -' ~,
I
I
I
I
SOI.IEnSET lOI'lLEVEL
fRANKFORD lOI'llEVa..
DELAWfJlE lO\'ll£VEL
....
7-
<
....
<
z
c:
LU
0...
~
U1
Z
o
o
C)
<
-'
PlANT
BY-PASS
en
ffi
u:::
~
~
u:
"'.ODlfIED AERATION TRAIN .1
(8 PASSES)
MODIFIED "£HATION mAIN "2
(12/'''S$ES. WCONTACT. 2 STABILIZATION) .
Figure l. Schematic Flow Diagram
P'h i' a del phi a No rf h . as t Wa t . r Po" u t1 0 n Con t r 0 I P I ant
2
-------
3
Northeast plant. Grit is removed from the wastewater of the fourth
interceptor at a remote facility. Additional unit processes include
primary clarification, aeration, and secondary clarification. Effluent
is discharged without disinfection to the Delaware River approximately
six miles downstream from the Torresda1e WTP. Sludge is anaerobically
digested and barged to sea for disposal.
The Torresda1e WTP, with a rated capacity of about. one million
m3/day (280 mgd), operates at full capacity during the summer and treats
an average of 0.76 x 106 m3/day (200 mgd) during the winter. The
treatment process includes the following major unit operations; screen-
ing, prech1orination, preliminary settling, flocculation, final settling,
filtration, post-chlorination, and fluoridation. Raw water from the
Delaware River enters the plant through a tide gate which automatically
operates on head differential. When the water level in the river
exceeds the water level in the preliminary settling basin by 15 cm (6
inches), the gate opens allowing the basin to fill until its level is
within 5 cm (2 inches) of the river level. Operation of the intake
closely parallels flood tide. Typically, the intake gates open about 30
minutes after the beginning of flood tide and close about 30 minutes
after the end of flood tide. Thus, tidal action brings downstream water
into the water treatment plant. NEIC was asked to evaluate Torresda1e
WTP water because of potential contamination from the Northeast WPCP and
other downstream sources.
-------
II.
CONCLUSIONS
1 .
Raw wastewater and final effluent from the Philadelphia Northeast
WPCP were monitored by NEIC for seven consecutive days from September
16 to 23, 1976. Effluent was monitored to determine compliance
with NPDES permit limitations. Raw wastewater was characterized by
monitoring for a broad range of pollutants. The Torresda1e WTP,
which intakes water during flood tide, was monitored to determine
the effect of the Northeast WPCP discharge six miles downstream.
Tracing dye was released into the Northeast effluent from September
11 to 23, 1976 to evaluate the extent to which the effluent is
diluted upon arrival at the Torresda1e intake.
2.
City of Philadelphia self-monitoring procedures have not complied
with EPA requirements. The NPDES permit states that, "Samples and
measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of
the volume and nature of the monitored parameters. II During the
NEIC survey, city officials stated that samples are equal-volume
composites. EPA also recommends a maximum six-hour holding time
for BOD samples. City officials indicated during the survey that for
about the past two years it has been the practice to hold BOD
samples 18 hours before beginning the analysis. This practice
generally results in lower than actual BOD values. It was also
det~rmined that the City monitors plant influent downsewer of
supernatant and sludge concentration tank return flows. This
practice would theoretically cause BOD and TSS percent removal
figures for the two years prior to the NEIC survey to be high by
approximately 1 and 2%, respectively.
-------
5
3.
NEIC compliance monitoring results indicated that the 7-day average
BOD and TSS limitations were met. NPDES initial limitations are
compared with survey results as follows:
BOD
TSS
NPDES 7-Day
Limitations
150 mg/l
165 mg/l
NEIC 7-Day
Results
87
69
pH limitations were exceeded on numerous occasions during the
survey. The permit requires that final effluent pH be within the
limits of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. NEIC measured effluent pH
hourly throughout) the seven-day monitoring period. Twenty-three
measurements were less than 6.0 and one measurement was greater
than 9.0.
4.
Influent reaches the Northeast WPCP via four interceptors, each of
which NEIC monitored separately. Results indicated that the major
sources of industrial wastes discharge to the DLL (Delaware Low
Level) and the SLL (Somerset Low Level) interceptors. The daily
TSS, BOD, COD and oil and grease concentrations varied widely,
ranging from 130 to 680, 150 to 600,410 to 920, and 8 to 320 mg/l,
respectively. Similarly, pH fluctuated widely in the DLL and SLL
flows ranging from 1.2 to 11.0. The pH of raw wastewater from the
DLL and SLL interceptors was severely depressed for extended
periods on several occasions. Consecutive hourly readings on
September 18, 19, and 20 showed that the pH of the DLL flow was
less than 4.0 during three major periods extending 8, 12, and 5
hours, respectively. Data indicated that limited industrial wastes
were also present in FLL (Frankford Low Level) and the FHL (Frankford
High Level) flows.
-------
, 6
5.
Final effluent monitoring results indicated that removal efficiencies
were sporadic for some pollutants and relatively constant for
others. TSS and BOD removal efficiencies changed 41 and 28%,
respectively in one day. The high variability in removal efficiency
is thought to be one of the effects of incompatible industrial
wastes on the biological treatment system. Final effluent pH
ranged from 4.0 to 9.2. On three different sampling days, consecutive
hourly pH measurements were less than 6.0 for eight, five and four
hours. It is most probable that the depressed pH impaired the
efficiency of the biological;system.
6.
Tracing dye was injected under mean tidal conditions into the
Northeast WPCP final effluent and found to be carried upstream by
flood tides to the Torresdale WTP intake within one tide cycle.
Approximately 1 to 2% of the dye concentration at Northeast was
found at the Torresdale intake. A persistent pollutant discharged
from Northeast at a concentration of 1 mg/l could be expected to be
in the Torresdale raw water at a concentration of 0.01 to 0.02
mg/l .
7.
The Delaware River and the Torresdale Water Treatment Plant were
monitored for COD and heavy metals. No correlation was found
between COD concentrations in the Northeast WPCP effluent and the
Torresdale WTP intake. Because metal concentrations at the WTP
were generally less than detectable levels it is not known whether
a correlation exists between metals concentrations from the Northeast
WPCP effluent and the Torresdale WTP intake.
8.
Heavy metals concentrations, with the exception of mercury, were
near or less than the detection limit in the Torresdale lfTP finished
water. Mercury averaged 1.3 ~g/l and reached 1.9 ~g/l on one of
-------
7
the seven days sampled. The EPA maximum contaminant level for
mercury in drinking water is 2 ~g/l. The mercury concentration in
the raw water at Torresdale exceeded 2 ~g/l and ranged from 2.7 to
3.2 ~g/l on three of the seven days sampled. Two upstream stations
in the Delaware River averaged 1.4 and 1.5 ~g/l mercury. The
Northeast WPCP final effluent averaged 3.3 ~g/l and ranged from 0.1
to 18 ~g/l mercury.
9.
For three days from September 19 to 22, 1976 nine stations were
monitored for a broad range of organic compounds. A total of 156
different organic compounds were identified, their toxicity in-
vestigated and a toxicity index developed to estimate the relative
toxicity of all compounds found. Consideration of absolute toxicity
factors, such as the development of cancer or lethal dose, was used
to indicate the compounds which are potentially more harmful than
others.
10. Seventy-one compounds were identified only in influents to the
Philadelphia Northeast WPCP. During three days of monitoring 7,650
kg (16,850 lb) of non-volatile organic compounds were discharged
into the Northeast WPCP and based on grab sample results, an estimated
51,100 kg (112~400 lb) of volatile organics also reached Northeast
in the raw wastewater. The Delaware Low Level Interceptor was by
far the major source of both volatile and non-volatile organics
contributing 95 and 92%, respectively of total influent loads to
the Northeast Plant. For the same time period, 2,440 kg (5,370 lb)
of non-volatiles and an estimated 26,310 (57,800 lb) of volatiles
were discharged through the Northeast WPCP outfall to the Delaware
River. In addition, an unknown quantity of organic compounds reach
the ocean through the barging of anaerobically digested sludge.
11.
Raw and finished. water from the Torresdale WTP was monitored for
three days from September 19 to 22, 1976. Forty-four compounds
-------
8
were detected in all. Based on extensive literature searches,
eighteen of these compounds have not previously been reported in
any other finished drinking water. During the three-day monitoring
period a total of 560 kg (1,230 1b) of non-volatile organics and an
estimated 187 kg (410 1b) of volatile organics were detected in the
Torresda1e WTP intake. Finished water monitoring showed the
presence of 46 kg (101 1b) of non-volatile organics during the
three-day period. Volatile organics were monitored only one day by
grab samples. The estimated volatile organics load for one day of
sampling was 250 kg (550 1b).;
12. Nine suspected carcinogens: ethanol (1), chloroform (9), phenol
(47), benzyl chloride (56), m-creso1 (71), naphthalene (90), indole
(97), biphenyl (112), and tetramethy1 butyl phenol (132) were
detected in the raw wastewater entering the Northeast WPCP. The
three-day total load of these compounds was: non-volatile organics --
794 kg (1,750 1b), of which 97% was from the Delaware Low Level
Interceptor, and estimated volatile organics based on grab samples
1,626 kg (3,577 1b), of which 71% was from the Somerset Low Level
Interceptor. Seven compounds -- ethanol (1), chloroform (9), bis
(2-ch10roethy1), ether (43), benzyl chloride (56), indole (97),
biphenyl (112) and tetramethy1 butyl phenol (132) -- were identified
in the Northeast WPCP final effluent. The three-day total load of
suspected carcinogens discharged from Northeast was: non-volatile
organics -- 94 kg (207 1b), and estimated volatile organics based
on grab samples -- 225 kg (494 1b).
13. Two suspected carcinogens were detected in the raw water at the
Torresda1e WTP. intake. During three ~ays of monitoring 0.1 kg
(0.3 1b) of bis (2-ch10roethy1) ether (43) and based on grab sample
results an estimated 51 kg (111 1b) of chloroform (9) passed through
the WTP intake. Finished water monitoring results indicated the
-------
9
presence of two suspected carcinogens. During three days of monitoring
0.5 kg (1.0 1b) of tetramethy1 butyl phenol (132) and based on one day's
grab sample results, an estimated 176 kg (387 1b) of chloroform (9) were
distributed to the city. Monitoring at two upstream stations in the
Delaware River revealed the presence of 0.05 ~g/l of naphthalene (90), a
suspected carcinogen.
-------
III.
EVALUATION PROCEDURES
Reconnaissance inspections of the Northeast WPCP and the Torresdale
WTP were made on June 30 and July 1,1976, respectively [Appendix A and
B]. Treatment processes were evaluated, sampling locations selected,
and flow measurement equipment inspected. NPDES self-monitoring data
and other background materials wer~ obtained during the reconnaissance
inspections and subsequent visits to local, State, and Federal offices.
NEIC conducted wastewater and water quality monitoring from Septem-
ber 16-23, 1976. The NEIC survey was designed to achieve four major ob-
jectives. First, routine monitoring was conducted to determine compliance
with NPDES effluent limitations (Section IV). Second, raw wastewater
was characterized by monitoring each of the four plant interceptors for
parameters indicative of industrial wastes (Section V). Third, dye was
injected as a tracer at the Northeast WPCP effluent channel to evaluate
the effect of the Northeast discharge on water quality at the Torresdale
intake. Two stations in the Delaware River upstream of the Torresdale
intake were monitored to ascertain the effect of upstream sources on the
water quality at the Torresdale intake (Section VI). The fourth objective
was to determine the extent to which complex organic compounds discharged
by the Northeast WPCP are present in water treatment at the Torresdale
WTP (Section VII).
Influent flows to the Northeast plant were measured using the
existing venturi meters and by the dye dilution method [Appendix C].
Effluent flow was taken as the sum of influent flows as determined by
existing venturi meters. Flow at each monitoring location was determined
hourly throughout the survey. Heavy rainfall occurred on September 16,
resulting in increased flow in the combined sewers serving the Northeast
I
'I
-------
11
plant. During and for several hours after the storm, flow through the
SLL and FLL interceptors was severly restricted at the influent gate
resulting in direct bypassing to the river.
Sampling was conducted seven consecutive days for a broad range of
parameters. Station description, sample type, and parameters are pre-
sented in Table 1. Compliance with NPOES 7-day effluent limitations for
BOD, suspended solids, and pH was evaluated. All paramenters except pH
and oil and grease were monitored on a 24-hour composite basis. Oil and
grease were grab sampled three ti~es/day and pH was measured hourly.
Hourly sample portions were manually collected and composited on a flow-
weighted basis. Samples were collected, preserved, and analyzed in
accordance with NEIC Chain of Custody [Appendix 0] and Analytical Quality
Control Procedures [Appendix E]. Analytical methodology used in organics
determinations is available [Appendix F].
Intake and finished water from the Torresdale WTP was sampled on an
equal-volume basis for seven consecutive days. Intake samples Were col-
lected only during flood tide. Two upstream river stations were monitored
. for three days [Table 1]. Sample portions were collected hourly during
ebb tide over a 24-hour period and composited on an equal-volume basis.
-------
Tab le 1
SAMPLING SIR.1MARY
PHILADELPHIA NORTHEAST WATER POLWTION CONTROL PLANT SURVEY
September 16-23, 1976
Station Description
Parameters
Date Sampled8
(Sept.)
Type of Sample
Delaware low level
Interceptor, NEWPCP
TKN, NDZ + N03'
Somerset low level
Interceptor, NEWPCP
Frankford low level
Interceptor, NEWPCP
Frankford High level
Interceptor, NEWPCP
Combined Influent, NEWPCP
Final Effluent, NEWPCP
Torresdale WTP Intake
Torresdale WTP Finished
Water
Delaware River @ Buoy 36,
5.9 Miles Upstream of
Torresdale WTP Intake
Delaware Riv(!r @ Buoy 48,
8.8 Miles Upstream
of Torresdale WTP Intake
16-23
16-23
16-23
16-23
19-21
16-23
16-23
16-23
19-2Z
19-22
24-hr Flow-Weighted Composite
Grab
24-hr Flow-Weighted Composite
Grab
24-hr Flow-Weighted Composite
Grab
24-hr Flow-Weighted Composite
Grab
Grab
24-hr Flow-Weighted Composite
Grab
Equal-Volume Composites'
Grab
Equal-Volume Compositeg
Grab
24-hr Equal-Volume Compositeh
24-hr Equal-Volume Compositeh
Organics,b COD, TSS, NH3-N,
Total P, P04' Heavy MetalsC
Volatile Organics ~,dO/Ge
Organics,b COD. TSS, NH3-N.
Total P, P04' Heavy MetalsC
Volatile Organics~.d O/Ge
Organics.b COD. TSS. NH3-II, TKN, N02 +'NOJ'
Total P, P04' Heavy MetalsC
Volatile Organics~.d O/Ge
Organics,b COD. TSS. NH3-II, TKN, N02 + NOJ'
Total p. P04' Heavy MetalsC
Volatile Organics.b,d O/Ge
TKN, N02 + N03'
Nitrosaminesb,d
~ .
Organics.b COD, TSS. NH3-II, TKN, N02 + NOJ'
Total p. P04' Heavy MetalsC
Volatile Organics,b.d O/G.e Nitrosaminesb,d
Organics.b COD. Heavy Metals.c
Volatile Organics,b,d Nitrosaminesb,d
Organics,b COD. Heavy Metalsc
Volatile Organics~d
Organics,b COD. Heavy Metalsc
Organics.b COD. Heavy Metalsc
Ending date is day finaZ 24-hr composite samples carrre
8 For 24-h}' composite sarnpZes, beginning date is day sampling began.
off. Sar.rpUng day !Jas 6 a.m.-6 a.m. .
b Organics, volatiZe organics and nitrous amines !Jere'colZected for three days September 20, 21 and 22.
C Heavy metaZs incZude Ag, Al, As. Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu,. Fe, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn, 'Sn, Se and Ti.
d VoZatUe organics and nitrosamines !Jere grab sampZed 0;1ce per dLX!J~
e oU and {Trease !Jere grab sampled three times per day.
, Composites for Sept. 17, 18, 19 and 23 covered one flood tide. Composites for Sept. 20, 21 and 22 covered tlJO nood tides.
9 Composites for Sept. 16, 17, 18 and 23 !Jere approximateZy 8-hour composites. Composites for Sept. 20, 21 and 22 !Jere
24-hr composites.
h Composites coZZected over 24-hr during ebb tide onZy.
--'
N
-------
IV. COMPLIANCE MONITORING
The Northeast WPCP was monitored to determine compliance with the
NPDES permit 7-day effluent limitations. The permit established initial
and interim limitations; however, the interim limitations among other
permit conditions were contested by the city in a formal request for
adjudicatory hearing dated January 17, 1975. The following initial ef-
fluent limitations have been in effect since February 12, 1975:
30-day Average
7-day Average
BODS
TSS
100 mg/l, 84,100 kg/day (187,000 lb/day)
. 60% removal
110 mg/l, 92,500 kg/day (205,000 lb/day)
. 65% removal
within limits of 6.0-9.0 at all times
150 mg/l
165 mg/l
pH
.City self-monitoring data [Table 2] indicates that BOD and TSS re-
moval requirements and pH limitations were exceeded during the 17-month
period from February 1975 to June 1976. BOD and TSS removal efficiencies
were exceeded on three and six months respectively, and effluent pH was
reported less than 6.0 during March 1975.
City personnel collect influent samples downsewer of sludge concen-
tration tank and digester supernatant return flows. This practice would
theoretically cause BOD and TSS percent removal figures for the two years
prior to the NEIC survey to be high by approximately 1 and 2%, respect-
ively. Therefore, reported BOD and TSS removal efficiencies [Table 2]
are greater than actual.
-------
TabZe 2
SELF-MONITORING DATA NORTHEAST WPCP EFFLUENT
Febr>uary 1975 - June 1976
BOD TSS
Date Average Average pH
mg!l % Removal mg/1 % Removal Minimum Maximum
February 1975 75 54t 95 53tt 6.3 7.4
March 62 61 75 60tt 5.4ttt 7.3
April 71 56t 79 62tt 6.9 7.0
May 57 58t 76 57tt 6.9 6.9
June 57 60 85 54tt 6.5 6.9
July 33 75 51 71 6.6 6.9
August 51 64 56 69 7.0 7. 1
September 46 71 52 .. 74 6.8 7. 1
October 58 67 59 70 6.7 7.0
November 59 66 67 70 7. 1 7.3
December 65 63 74 60tt 7.3 7.5
January 1976 64 64 68 65 7.3 7.4
February 56 66 46 76 6.8 7. 1
r~a rch 70 62 75 65 6.8 7. 1
Apri 1 60 65 63 66 . 6.3 7.3
May 54 66 60 65 6.2 7.2
June 62 61 57 71 6.9 7.5
t Less than the 60 percent BOD removal required by NPDES permit.
tt Less than the 65 percent TSS removal required by NPDES permit.
ttt Less than the 6.0 minimum pH allowed by NPDES permit.
~
-------
15
Hourly sample portions are composited on an equal-volume basis
instead of a flow-weighted basis. The NPOES permit specifies that
samples shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored
parameter. Northeast plant personnel also stated that for approximately
the last two years BOO analyses were begun 18 hours after samples were
collected. This exceeds the six-hour holding time recommended by EPAl
and probably results in BOO concentrations lower than the actual due to
bacterial decomposition and oxygen uptake.
NEIC compliance monitoring re~ults [Tables 3 and 4] show that the
.
discharge met the initial BOO and TSS permit limitations with 7-day
average effluent concentrations of 87 and 69 mg/l, respectively. BOO
and TSS removal efficiencies averaged 61 and 64%, respectively. When
influent loadings due to digester supernatant return are subtracted,
removal efficiencies for BOO and TSS are 60 and 62%, respectively. The
pH limitations, however, were exceeded on three out of the seven days.
Hourly pH measurements [Table 4] show that the effluent pH was less than
6.0 twenty-three times and greater than 9.0 once. It is probable that
the pH was depressed in the biological system and overall treatment
efficiency was reduced.
-------
Table 3
FIELD MEASURE/.fENTS AND ANALYTICAL DATA
NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA WATE:R POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
September 16-23, 1976
Station Description Datet Flowtt pH Range TSS BOD COD
mj/da~ mgd mg/1 kg/day 1 b/day mg/1 kg/day 1 b/day mg/1 kg/day 1 b/ day
x 10
Delaware low level 9/17 310 88 3.5-6.8 280 93,000 210,000 150 50,000 110,000 410 140,000 300,000
Interceptor 9/18 290 76 3.1-9.0 320 92,000 200,000 220 63,000 140,000 680 190,000 430,000
9/19 230 61 1.5-8.0 130 30,000 66,000 170 39,000 87,000 850 200,000 430,000
9/20 260 69 1.2-7.9 150 39,000 86,000 280 73,000 160,000 440 11 0 ,000 250,000
9/21 290 76 2.1-7.4 170 49,000 11 0 ,000 320 92,000 200,000 590 170,000 380,000
9/22 280 73 3.8-8.2 170 47,000 100,000 200 55,000 120,000 470 130,000 290,000
9/23 250 65 6.3-7.2 160 39,000 87,000 . 250 62,000 140,000 580 140,000 320,000
7.-Day Average 270 71 200 55,000 120,000 230 61,000 140,000 570 150,000 340,000
Somerset lO~t~evel 9/17 170 44 3.1-7.4 380 63,000 140,000 160 26,000 58,000 620 100,000 230,000
Interceptor 9/18 140 38 5.8-9.2 490 71,000 160,000 600 87,000 190,000 840 120,000 270,000
9/19 130 35 5.1-11.0 680 89.000 200.000 380 50,000 110.000 920 120,000 270,000
9/20 120 31 6.6-7.1 370 44,000 96,000 370 44,000 96,000 630 74,000 160,000
9/21 120 33 6.6-8.8 340 42,000 93,000 440 55,000 120.000 860 11 0 ,000 240.000
9/22 120 30 6.7-7.8 240 28,000 61,000 340 39,000 87,000 830 96,000 210,000
9/23 150 40 6.4-7.4 330 50.000 11 0,000 430 65,000 140,000 920 140,000 310,000
7-Day Average 140 36 400 55,000 120,000 390 52,000 11 0 .000 800 110,000 240,000
Frankford low level 9/17 36 9.4 2.3-6.6 80 2.800 6,300 76 2,700 6,000 330 12,000 26,000
Interceptor 9/18 36 9.5 5.4-8.8 85 3,100 6,700 140 5,000 11 ,0130 400 14.000 32,000
9/19 44 12 4.5-9.1 45 2,000 4,400 94 4,100 10,000 210 9,200 20,000
9/20 23 6.0 6.4-7.0 120 2,700 6,000 170 3,900 8,500 290 6,600 15,000
9/21 55 15. 2.9-8.5 88 4,900 11,000 260 14.000 32,000 330 18,000 40,000
9/22 51 13 ' 6.2-9.1 60 3,000 6.700 100 5,100 11 ,000 290 15,000 32,000
9/23 56 15 6.3-8.6 55 3.100 6,800 140 '7.900 1 7 ,000 340 19,000 42,000
7-Day Average 43 12 76 3.100 6,900 140 4,300 14,000 310 13,000 30,000
Frankford High level 9/17 270 70 5.7-6.7 110 29,000 65,000 68 18,000 40,000 240 64,000 140,000
Interceptor 9/18 220 58 5.1-6.6 82 18.000 39,000 200 44,000 100,000 330 72 ,000 160,000
9/19 200 53 6.0-7.0 58 12.000 . 26,000 80 16,000 35,000 220 44,000 100,000
9/20 200 54 6.1-7.0 90 18,000 40,000 230 47,000 100,000 280 57,000 130,000
9/21 210 56 5.5-8.1 110 24,000 52,000 170 36,000 80,000 250 53,000 120,000
9/22 210 55 6.0-8.2 85 18.000 39,000 100 21.000 46,000 250 52,000 11 0 ,000
9/23 210 55 6.4-7.8 45 9,300 21,000 110 23.000 50,000 240 50.000 110.000
7-Day Average 220 57 83 18,000 40,000 140 29,000 64,000 260 56,000 120,000
Final Effluent 9/17 760 200 4.0-7.1 55 42.000 90,000 40 30,000 67,000 200 150,000 340,000
9/18 720 190 5.4-9.2 80 58.000 130.000 76 55.000 120,000 200 140,000 320,000
9/19 6pO 180 5.5-7.7 80 53.000 120,000 59 39,000 86,000 230 150,000 340,000
9/20 640 170 6.4-7.2 88 56,000 120,000 160 100.000 220,000 190 120,000 270,000
9/21 720 190 6.5-7.2 110 79,000 170,000 140 100,000 220,000 240 170,000 380,000
9/22 680 180 6.7-7.6 28 19,000 42,000 60 40,000 90,000 240 160,000 360,000
9/23 670 180 6.5-7.3 42 28,000 62,000 77 50,000 11 0 ,000 0 270 180,003 ' 400,000
7-Day Average 690 180 69 48,000 105,000 87 59,000 130,000 220 150,000 340,000
Total --'
of Infl uents 7-Day Average 670 180 130,000 290,000 150,000 330,000 330,000 730,000 C'I
Percent Removal 7-Day Average 63% 60% 54%
t Date itt the day the sample ws composited. 24-hl' sampling day 000 from 0600 to 0600.
tt Fl(Jl,]s are avemge of hoW'ly fl(Jl,]s dW'ing each sampling day.
ttt The Somerset LotJ Level Interceptor !.laB sampled upoetJer of all plant retum fl(Jl,]o.
-------
17
Table 4
pH DATA
NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
September' 16-23, 1976
Time 9/17+ 9/18 9/19 9/20 9/21 9/22 9/23
DELAWARE LOW LEVEL INTERCEPTOR
0600 6.6 5.6 6.3 3.7 2.5 6.8 6.5
0700 6.7 6.0 6.7 3.5 5.0 6.5 6.9
0800 6.6 3.1 6.0 3.7 5.7 ++ 7.1
0900 5.5 6.7 5.5 3.5 5.8 8.2 7.2
1000 3.5 7.2 2.9 3.8 6.0 7.2 7.0
1100 6.4 7.0 2.5 2.5 5.6 6.9 7.1
1200 6.3 7.7 3.4 1.8 6.1 6.9 7.0
1300 6.4 7.2 2.7 2.7 3.3 6.3 7.0
1400 6.1 7.3 2.7 3.0 2.5 6.6 7.0
1500 6.2 7.2 2.8 3.0 2.1 6.6 7.0
1600 6.1 6.8 1.5 ).7 2.3 7.0 7.0
1700 6.0 7.0 3.0 1.2 2.5 3.8 6.5
1800 6.7 7.5 6.6 6.9 7.1 6.3 6.7
1900 6.4 7.9 7.4 7.2 7.2 6.5 6.9
2000 5.9 7.5 7.1 7.9 6.8 6.8 7.2
2100 6.4 9.0 7.3 6.8 6.4 6.7 6.9
2200 6.1 8.2 8.0 7.1 6.6 6.9 7.0
2300 6.8 6.4 7.3 6.8 6.8 6.9 7.0
2400 6.0 7.5 7.4 7.4 6.7 7.0 6.6
0100 6.5 7.3 7.2 7.5 7.4 7.0. 6.3
0200 6.7 7.3 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
0300 6.6 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.2 6.7 7.0
0400 6.5 7.2 6.1 7.1 6.6 6.7 7.0
0500 6.4 7.3 6.0 6.4 6.7 7.0 7.1
Maximum 6.8 9.0 8.0 7.9 7.4 8.2 7.2
Minimum 3.5 3.1 1.5 1.2 2.1 3.8 6.3
SOMERSET LOW LEVEL INTERCEPTOR+++
.0600 7.0 6.0 6.8 6.6 7.0 6.9 6.9
0700 ++ 5.8 6.8 6.8 7.4 6.9 6.8
0800 6.2 6.3 6.8 6.8 8.8 6.9 6.7
0900 6.5 6.1 6.6 6.6 7.0 6.9 7.4
1000 7.3 6.6 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.8
1100 6.3 6.2 6.6 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.9
1200 6.3 6.5 6.9 6.8 7.1 6.9 6.9
1300 6.4 6.2 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.1 6.9
1400 6.2 6.8 11.0 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.9
1500 5.9 6.3 9.0 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.7
1600 6.2 6.7 7.1 6.7 8.6 6.8 6.7
1700 6.1 6.2 6.8 6.8 6.6 6.7 6.8
1800 6.5 6.6 9.4 6.8 7.1 6.8 6.9
1900 5.9 8.5 7.5 6.8 8.5 6.9 7.0
2000 5.0 8.4 9.0 7.1 8.3 7.0 7.2
2100 3.3 7.9 9.4 6.8 7.5 6.9 6.4
2200 3.1 9.2 7.7 6.9 7.1 7.8 7.2
2300 6.9 6.2 7.3 6.8 7.8 7.2 7.2
2400 5.5 6.7 7.2 6.8 7.2 7.2 7.2
0100 4.4 6.5 6.6 7.1 6.9 7.0
0200 4.3 7.3 5.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 6.9
0300 5.1 7.2 6.0 6.9 7.2 7.0 7.1
0400 4.7 7.2 6.4 6.9 7.5 6.9 7.0
0500 6.7 7.1 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.8 7.2
Maximum 7.4 9.2 11.0 7.1 8.8 7.8 7.4
Minimum 3.1 5.8 5.1 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.4
. .
-------
18
Table 4 {Continued}
pH DATA
Time 9117t 9/18 9/19 9/20 9/21 9/22 9/23
FRANKFORD LOW LEVEL INTERCEPTOR
0600 6.1 5.4 6.7 6.6 6.8 6.2 6.8
0700 6.2 5.6 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.6
0800 6.1 5.8 6.8 6.8 8.5 7.2 6.3
0900 5.9 7.8 6.5 6.8 7.9 6.9 8.6
1000 6.1 7.6 6.6 6.9 8.1 8.7 8.5
1100 6.0 8.5 6.8 6.8 7.0 7.6 6.7
1200 5.8 6.4 6.7 6.8 7.1 8.5 7.6
1300 6.6 6.3 6.5 6.7 7.2 6.9 7.2
1400 5.9 6.2 6.9 6.8 7.1 7.2 6.9
1500 6.2 6.3 5.7 6.8 8.2 7.8 8.3
1600 6.5 6.4 6.9 6.9 7.8 9.1 8.2
1700 6.2 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3 7.1 6.9
1800 6.5 7.9 6.9 :6.7 7.3 6.8 7.5
1900 6.4 8.3 7.1 6.4 7.1 6.8 7.3
2000 5.2 7.5 6.4 7.0 2.9 6.7 7.0
2100 2.3 8.8 9.1 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.5
2200 4.2 7.9 8.4 6.8 7.8 6.9 7.5
2300 7.0 6.0 6.9 6.8 6.9 7.8 7.3
2400 5.7 6.4 7.0 7.0 6.5 7.3 7.1
0100 5.4 tt 6.9 6.7 6.8 7.0 7.2
0200 5.0 6.9 5.1 6.8 6.9 6.8 7.0
0300 5.8 6.9 4.5 6.8 7.0 6.9 7.1
0400 5.0 6.7 5.7 6.8 7.1 6.8 7.1
0500 6.4 6.8 5.7 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.1
Maximum 6.6 8.8 9.1 7.0 8.5 9.1 8.6
t.,; nimum 2.3 5.4 .4.5 6.4 2.9 6.2 6.3
FRANKFORD HIGH LEVEL INTERCEPTOR
0600 5.7 tt 6.8 6.2 8.1 7.5 6.8
0700 6.5 tt 6.8 6.6 6.9 6.7 6.9
0800 6.6 6.0 6.8 6.8 7.0 6.9 7.0
0900 6.7 5.4 7.0 6.8 6.7 7.4 7.7
1000 6.4 6.6 6.7 6.9 7.3 8.2 7.8
1100 6.5 6.3 6.8 6.9 7.3 7.3 7.4
1200 6.3 6.4 7.0 6.9 7.3 7.2 7.2
1300 6.7 6.0 6.8 6.9 7.1 6.9 6.9
1400 6.2 6.3 6.7 6.9 7.2 7.1 7.0
1500 6.2 6.2 6.5 6.9 7.0 7.2 6.4
1600 6.3 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.8
1700 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.2 6.9 7.0
1800 6.5 5.8 7.0 6.9 6.5 6.8 7.0
1900 6.3 5.4 7.0 6.9' 6.0 6.5 6.9
2000 6.5 5.2 6.8 6.9 5.5 6.0 7.0
2100 6.6 5.5 6.8 6.9 6.5 6.8 7.0
2200 6.5 5.2 6.0 6.8 6.5 6.8 6.9
2300 6.4 5.6 6.0 6.9 6.5 6.5 6.8
2400 6.5 5.7 6.1 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.8
0100 6.7. 5.1 6.5 7.0 5.5 6.8 7.0
0200 6.7 5.6 6.2 6.8 5.8 6.8 7.0
0300 6.6 6.0 6.1 6.8 5.8 6.9 7.0
0400 6.7 5.5 6.0 6.8 5.7 6.5 6.9
0500 6.5' 5.8 6.1 6.1 5.5 6.5 7.2
Maximum 6.7 6.6 7.0 7.0 8.1 8.2 7.8
Minimum 5.7 5.1 6.0 6.1 5.5 6.0 6.4
-------
Tab te 4 (Continued)
pH DATA
Time 9117t 9118 9119 9/20 9/21 9/22 9/23
FINAL EFFLUENT
0600 6.2 5.7 7.5 6.8 6.5 6.9 6.5
0700 6.2 5.4 6.8 6.8 7.2 6.7 6.9
0800 6.2 5.6 6.6 6.9 7.2 tt 7.1
0900 5.5 5.8 6.7 6.9 - 7.1 7.6 7.3
1000 5.9 5.7 6.6 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1
1100 6.5 7.6 6.7 7.0 7.2 7.0 7.1
1200 6.0 7.5 7.2 ,7.0 7.2 7.2 7.0
1300 6.5 7.2 7.7 7.0 7.1 6.8 7.1
1400 6.2 7.3 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.2 7.3
1500 6.2 7.1 6.9 7.2 7.0 7.4 7.2
1600 5.9 7.2 6.8 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.0
1700 5.9 6.5 tt 7.0 tt 7.0 6.9
1800 7.1 6.7 7.1 6.4 7.0 6.8 6.8
1900 6.1 7.5 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.8 6.9
2000 5.4 7.3 7.1 7.1 6.9 6.9 7.0
2100 6.4 8.0 6.9 6.9 7.0 6.9 6.6
2200 4.6 9.2 7.2 7.1 6.9 6.8 7.1
2300 5.2 6.0 6.8 7~0 6.7 6.9 6.9
2400 5.6 6.8 6.8 7.2 6.8 6.9 7.0
0100 5.9 6.8 6.5 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.0
0200 5.9 7.1 5.8 6.9 7.0 6.8 7.1
0300 4.0 7.1 5.8 6.9 6.8 6.9 7.1
0400 4.6 7.1 5.7 7.0 7.1 6.9 7.1
0500 4.6 7.2 5.5 6.9 6.9 6.8 7.1
Maximum 7.1 9.2 7.7 7.2 7.2 7.6 7.3
Minimum 4.0 5.4 5.5 6.4 6.5 6.7 6.5
t Sampling day ~as from 0600 to 0600. Date is end of sampling day.
tt No measurement ~as made.
ttt The Somerset Lo~ Level Interaeptor ~as monitored upsewer of an plant return
~~s exaept from 0600 to 0900 9-16-76 ~hen pH was measured at the manhole
reaeiving supernatant return f1,~s.
19
-------
v. WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
The Northeast WPCP treats domestic and industrial wastes with a
combined total average flow of approximately 720,000 m3/day (190 mgd).
About 16% or 114,000 m3/day (30 mgd) of the total flow is industrial
wastewater and originates from approximately 120 major industrial sources
[Table 5]. It is estimated that approximately 850 industries with more
than 20 employees each discharge to the Northeast system.
NEIC monitoring was conducted to characterize raw and treated waste-
water to ascertain the presence and possible effect of industrial wastes
on the treatment system. Each of the four influent flows and final
effluent were monitored for TSS, BOD, COD, oil and grease [Table 6J,
nutrients [Table 7J, heavy metals [Table 8J, complex organics, and pH.
In addition the combined influent and final effluent were monitored
for nitrosamines; however, measurable quantities were not detected.
Monitoring results except for complex organics are presented and dis-
cussed in this section. Results of complex organics analyses are pre-
sented in Section VII.
DELAWARE LOW LEVEL INTERCEPTOR (DLL)
3 3
The DLL flow averaged 270 x 10 m /day (71 mgd) and accounted for
40% of the total plant influent during NEIC sampling. Comparison of daily
pollutant concentrations [Table 9J show that industrial inputs cause a
substantial impact on DLL wastewater quality. BOD and COD concentrations
ranged from 150-320 and 410-850 mg/l, respectively - a broader range than
would be expected from domestic wastes.
The pH ranged from 1.2-9.0 during the survey. Consecutive hourly
readings on September 18, 19 and 20 [Table 4J showed that the pH was
less than 4.0 during three major periods extending 8, 12 and 5 hours,
-------
Table 6
SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONTRIBUTING INDUSTRIES.t
NORTHEAST WASTE;,./ATER TREATMENT PLANTtt
Flow t1tytttt Pre-tttt Major Constituentsttttt
Industry Address Product SI(:;ttt mJday 1,000 gpd Surcharge Trea tment
Chemica 1 s
Allied Chemical Margaret t Bermuda Sts Organic Chemicals 2815 8,140 2150 X X BOD Organics
Armak 7240 Tacony St. Cosmetic Chemicals 2318 850 225 X COD
Ha ven Chemi ca 1 5000 Langdon St. Esters, 2869 300 80 X
NL Industries Araming Ave & Thompson St Paint Chemicals 2899 1,060 280 COD, Pb*
Phil ade 1 pha Coke 4501 Richmond St. Coke 3312 340 90 X X BOD, NHJ' Organics
Rhom & Haas 5000 Richmond St. Organic Chemicals 2818 14,000 3,700 X X BOD, TSS, Organics, pH
Subtota 1: 24,690 6,525
Electroplating
Abaco P1 aters 1814 E. Russell St. Electroplating 3471 11 3 X Cu*, CN *
Accurate Electroplating 11th & Westmoreland Electroplating 3471 200 53 X CN * T
Aetna Electroplating 7770 Dungan Road Electroplating 3471 757 200 X CUT*, Zn*
Ed's Pol ishing 1920 E. Cornwall Electroplating 3471 42 11 X cdI,Cu*,Cr, Ni*, Pb*,Zn*,Hg*
Everbond Electroplating 3751 N. Second St. Electroplating 3471 757 200 '- X CNT,Pb*,Zn*
Frankford Plating 2505 Orthodox St. Electroplating 3471 23 6 X Cu,Cr,Ni*,Pb
Martin's Neta1 Co. 7327 State Road Electroplating 3471 38 10 X Cr
Philadelphia Rust R~of 3225 Frankford Ave. Electroplating 3471 ....11L ~ X Ni*,Cr
Subtota 1: 2,055 543
Electronics
Eby Company 4701 Germantown Ave. Electronic Components 3679 416 110 X Cd'* ,Cr
ITE Imperial Corp. 601 E. Eri eAve Circuit Breakers 3613 1,970 520 X C~*,Hg*CNT*
Komak, Inc. 9th & Ontario . Circuit Breakers 3679 299 79 X
Viz 335 E. Price St. Electronic Instruments 3679 --11l ..m!.
Subtotal; 3,OlB 797
Food Processing
Boulevard Baking 9088 Blue Grass Rd. Bakery 2051 265 70 X X BOD
Boulevard Beverage 2000 Bennett Soft Drinks 2086 227 60 X BOD
Canada Dry 5300 Whitaker Soft Drink 2086 378 100 X X BOD
Coca Cola Erie Ave & "G" St. Soft Dri nk 2086 662 175 X X BOD
Corenco Wheatsheaf & Aramingo Ave. Rendering 2077 208 55 X X BOD
Cross Bros. Front t Venango Abba toi r 2011 2,500 660 X X BOD, TSS '
Di etz & Wa tson Tacony & VanKirk Sts. Prepa red Mea ts 2013 284 75 X BOD
E. J. Brach & Sons 4337 Stenton Ave. Confectionery 2071 314 83
Franks Beverages 3901 "G" St. Soft Drinks 2086 606 160 X BOD N
General Baking 300 E. Godfrey Ave. Bakery 2051 X BOD,TSS --'
Harbison Dairies 3981 Kensington Ave. Da i ry Products 2026 680 180
Jacob Stern 2401 E. Ti09a St. Tallow & Oil Refining 2076 680 180 X X BOD,TSS
Keystone Rendering 300 E. Ontario Renderi ng 2077 246 65 X BOD,TSS
Mrs. Smith's Pie Co. 7th E. Lindley Sts Pies 2051 303 80 X BOD, TSS
-------
TabLe 5 {Continued}
SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONTRIBUTING INDUSTRIESt. tt
S I cttt mJday Flow Citytttt Pre-tttt
Industry Address Product 1 ,000 gpd Surcharge Treatment Major Constituentsttttt
National Biscuit 12000 Roosevelt Blvd. Cookies & Crackers 2052 379 100 X X
Northern Bakery 9801 Blue Brass Road Bakery 2051 568 150 X X BOD,TSS
Penn Packing Butler St. & Aramingo Ave. Abattoir 2011 1,440 380 X X BOO,TSS
Pepsi Cola Roosevelt Blvd. & Comly Rd Soft Drinks 2086 416 110 X BOD,Hg
Quaker City Chocolate
and Confectionery 2901 Grant Ave. Candy. .2065 227 60 X BOD,TSS
Ready Food Products 1821 E. Sedgley Ave. Dairy 2026 379 100
Sea ltest 5501 Tabor Rd. Da i ry 2026 1,325 350 X BOD,TSS
Simonins 2500 E. Tioga St. Vegetable Oils 2096 680 180 X BOD,TSS
Theresa Friedman & Sons Jamison & Tomlinson Rds. Jams & Jell ies 2033 908 240 X BOD
Whitman Chocolates 9701. Roosevelt Bl vd. Confectionery 2071 W1Q 320 X
Subtotal: 14,886 3,933
Laundry
Coyne Industries 1825 E. Atlantic Laundry 7218 265 70 X Pb*
Kline I S Laundry 4090 Frankford Ave. Laundry 7211 719 190 X BOD, TSS
Maurice Kaneff 2741 N. Sixth ST. Laundry 7211 284 75 " X
Standard Uniform 4334 N. American Laundry 7218 227 60 X
Unity Uniform Rental
Service 1696 Foulkrod St. Laundry 7218 ~ ..J..Q X
Subtota 1: 1,760 465.
Metal Products
Aldine Mfg. Co. "C" & Cl earfield St. Lighting Fixtures 3642 68 18 X
Allied Tube Co. Norcom & Red Lion Rds. Steel Tubing 3317 409 108
Budd Company Red Lion & Veree Rds. Auto Frames & RR Pass. 3711 757 200
Budd Company 2450 Hunting Park Ave. Auto Components J712 1,590 420
Bunting Corp. 1771 Tomlinson Rd. Metal Outdoor Fur. 2514 606 160
Cardo Automotive Prod. 11500 Norcom Rd. Recond. Carburetors 3717 291 77 X Cr* ,Z,,-
Crown Cork & Steel 9300 Ashton Rd. Cans 3411 1,041 275
Dodge Foun. & Mach. Co. 6501 State Rd. Steel Castings 3323 299 79
FNC Corp. 2045 W. Hunting Park Ave. Speed Reducers 3566 303 80
Fox Products Co. 4720 N. 18th St. Wire Products 3714 129 34 X
Futuro Industries 3301 N. 10th St. Dinettes 2514 246 65 X
George Garrett 8801 Torresda1e Ave.' Metal Washers 3452 908 240 Cu,Cr*,Zn*,CHT*
ITT Nesbitt State Rd. & Rhawn Air Condo & Htg. Equip. 3433 537 142
Janney Cylinder 7401 Tacony St. Cylinders 3367 553 146
Joseph Hall Co. 2121 W. C1earfie1d Hardware 3429 220 58 X Cu*
Kensey Hays Front & 01 r.ey Auto Parts 3352 1,665 440
Krometa1 Mfg. Co. 5825 Tacony Steel Tubes 2514 110 29 X
N
r,)
-------
Industry
Table S (Continued)
SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONTRIBUTING INDUSTRIEs'". tt
Flow
SICtttmJday 1,000 gpd
Cityt111 Pre-1111
Surcharge Treatment
COD,TSS
Address
Produc t
Lupton 633 Dunksferry Rd. Aluminum Windows 3400 X
Lustrik 4317 Paul St. Aluminum Anodizing 3471 284 75 X
Metal stand 11518 Roosevelt Blvd. Steel Office Furniture 2522 329 87
Midvale Happenstall 4301 Wissohickon Ave. Steel Forgings 3391 2,650 700.
Nice Ball Bearing 30th St & Huntington Park Bal1 Bearings 3562 197 52 X
Nichol son File Decatur & Red Lion Rds. Meta 1 Fil es 3444 197 52 X X
Olin Corp. 700 E. Godfrey Ave. Alum. Doors & Windows 3354 379 100
Peerless Steel Equip. 6610 Hasbrook Ave. Metal Office Furn. 3579 284 75
Phila. Steel Wire Corp. Charter & Caroline Rds. Wire Products 3316 1,703 450 X
PI umb Inc. 4837 James St. Forged Tools 3423 303 80
Progress Lighting 900 E. Erie Ave Lighting Fixtures 3642 2,763 730 X
SKF Industries Tulip & Kennedy Sts. Bal1 Bearings 3399 1,798 475
SKF industries Front & Erie Ba 11 Beari ngs 3399 757 200
Taylor Lock Co. 2024 W. Lippincott St. locks 3429 201 53 X
Tube Turns 5245 Bl eigh St. Steel Tubing 3317 _435 -1l.?.
Subtota 1: 22,012 5,815
Paper Produc ts .-
American Bag & Paper Grant Ave. & Ashton Rd. Bags 2643 303 80
Continental Can Co. 9820 Blue Grass Rd. Corrugated Paper Boxes 2653 337 89 X
David Weber Co. 3500 Richmond St. Corrugated Paper Boxes 2653 254 67
Marcal Paper 3100 N. Second St. Ti ssue Paper 2621 946 250 . X
Newman Paper 6101 Tacony St. Recycled Paperboard 2631 1,817 480 X
Paper Mfg. Co. 9800 Bustleton Ave. Gummed Paper 2621 227 60 X
United Container 9230 Ashton Rd. Corrugated Paper Boxes 2653 ~ ---ZQ.
Subtota 1: . 4,149 1,096
Textile Products
Anchor Dyeing 1300 Adams Ave. Textile Dyeing 2231 3,217 850
Brehm 3101 Trenton Ave. Textile Dyeing 2231 757 200
D.F. Waters & Sons, Inc. 47 E. Wister St. Textile Dyeing 2269 405 107
Globe Dye Works 4520 Worth St. Textile Dyeing 2231 1,798 475
Jeffries Processing 280D Jasper St. Textile Dyeing 2231 1,136 3DO
Keystone Dyeing 107 W. Clearfield Textile Dyeing 2231 1,514 400
luithlen Dye Corp. "J" & Tioga St. Textile Dyeing 2261 379 100
Ori noka Hi 11 s 2717 Jasper St. Textile Dyein9 2231 303 80
Peerless Dyeing 1825 E. Pac ific Textile Dyeing 2231 757 200
Sterling Dyeing 330D N. Third St. Textile Dyeing 2231 454 120
Victor Dye Works 227D E. Westmoreland Textile Dyeing 2231 -.lli -2!!.
Subtota 1 : 10,940 2,890
. " - .
"'''''T'''"'''''""--I'''''''''.~-'''1r:o'''''_.~....,...r ,~.,,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,, ..
Major Constttuentsttttt
COD, T5S, 0 & G
COD, T5S, 0 & G
BOD, TSS
AI, Cr
Cr
Cr*,Zn*,Hg*
Cu*,Cr*,CNT*
TSS
BOD, TSS
TSS
BOD,TSS
BOD,TSS
N
W
-------
Table 5 (Continued)
SUMl1ARY OF MAJOR CONTRIBUTING INDUSTRIES t, tt
Industry
Address
Product
Major Const1tuentsttttt
Citytttt Pre-tttt
Surcharge Treatment
Flow
SICtttmjday 1,000 gpd
Miscellaneous Products
Alco Oil & Chemical 2142 E. Williams St. Latex Components 3069 341 90 X
Black Mfg. Co. 300 W. Bristol St. 3699 95 25 X
Clover Knitting Mills Erie Ave. & "M" St. Sweaters 2253 227 60
Delaware Valley Wool
Scouring 3419 Richmond St. Wool 2297 303 80 X X
Dit tman & Penn 5155 Belfield Ave 3841 38 10 X
ESB Corp. 5691 Rising Sun Ave. Storage Batteries 3691 4,542 1,200 X
Film Corp. of America Charter & Caroline Rds. Film Developing 7395 765 202 X X
F. J. Stokes Co. 5520 E. Tabor Rd. Vacuum & Drying Equip. 3559 341 90
Frankford Arsenal Tacony & Bridge Sts. Research & Development 4,542 1,200
GAF 1900 W. Logan St. Film Developing 7395 719 190 X
General Felt 2121 Wheatsheaf Ln. Indoor-Outdoor Carpet 2279 492 130 X
Grover & Sons 2201 E. Somerset St. Wool Scouring & Dyeing 2297 757 200 X
Masland Duraleather 2121 E. Allegheny Ave. Vinyl Uphol. & Wall Cov. 2821 889 235
Northeast Incinerator Lewis St. & Delaware Ave. Municipal Trash Inciner. 4953 7,835 2,070 X
Precision Grind. Wheel 8301 Torresdale Ave. Grinding Wheels 3291 265 70 X
Proctor Schwarts/Silex 5400 N. 6th St. Textile Equip. & R & 0 3552 341 90
Quaker Lace Co. 401 W. Lehigh Ave. Lace Products 2221 416 110 X
Snyder Mfg. Co. 23rd & Westmoreland Ave. Hea lth Produc ts 3429 379 100 X
Soabar Co. 7722 Dungan Rd. Marking Equipment 2751 250 66 .. X
S. W. Evans 4639 Paul St. Umbre 11 as 3995 833 220 X
United Specialties <7501 Edmund St. Auto Vent Windows 3465 ~ --11i
Subtotal: 25,048 6,617
Major Industrial Categories
Chemical s
Electroplating
Electronics
Food Processing
Laundry
Meta I Products
Paper Products
Textile Products
Miscellaneous Products
Flow
mjday
24,690
2,055
'3,018
14,886
1,760
22,012
4,149
10,940
25,048
Tota 1: 108,558
mgd
6.625
0.543
0.797
3.933
0.465
5.815
1. 096
2.890
~
28.681
Cu
BOD,TSS
Cr*,Ni*
Pb*,Hg*
TSS
Pb
Cr*.Ni*
Cu,Ni*
...
t A majol' contributing industry is one thht: (a) has a j101J of 50,000 gallons or more pel' average LJOrkday; (b) has a fZolJ greatel' than 5:; of the
flC!J carried by the municipal system l'eceiving the !.Iaste; (c) haD in its !.Iasta a toxic pollutant in toxic amounts as defined in standards issued
under Section 307 (a) of the Act; or (d) has significant impact either singly or in combilling industl'ies on the tl'eatment oorks 01' the quality
of its effluent. .
tt Information from lIPC'ES Pel'mit Application Standard Form A-Municipal, Section IV. Industrial Waste Contl'ibution to Municipal System dated May 6,1976
ttt Standard Industrial Classification.
tttt The x i".dicates the presence of a city surcharge and/ol' pretreatment of industrial !.Iastes.
ttttt Major Constituents Qre those pa~eters lJhose concentrations, ar. l'eported on Standard Form A-~~nicipal May 6, 1976, exceeded one-half the compos-
ite sample limitation in the city of Philadelphia revised version of the Industl'ial Waste Regulations dated May 25, 1976. In addition BOD, COD
and TSS are considered major constituents if the concentration reported on Form A is greater than 300 mg/l.
4 Indicates concentrations exceeding ~ity of Philadelphia revised version of the Industrial Waste Regulations dated May 25, 1976.
N
~
-------
25
Tab'te 6
*'
OIL AND GREASE DATA t ,
NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
September 16-23, 1976
Delaware Somerset Frankford Frankford Final
low level Low Level Low Level High Level Effluent
** Interceptor
Date Interceptor Interceptor Interceptor
Time mg/l Time mg/1 Time mg/l Time mg/l Time mg/1
9/16 1002 33 1030 64 1045 37 1135 20 1020 2
1605 30 1645 22 1630 25 1720 13 1620 8
2310 30 2345 32 ,; 2335 64 2320 25 2325 5
Daily Avg. 31 39 42 19 5
9/17 1010 37 1030 44 1045 36 1010 16 1025 <1
1610 41 1630 67 1640 53 1610 32 1625 <1
2300 30 2325 19 2315 26 2310 26 2310 5
Daily Avg. 36 43 38 25 2
9/18 1210 18 1020 140 1030 60 1010 61 1235 2
1605 32 1620 74 1640 26 1640 21 1620 6
2330 26 2305 38 2320 10 2315 15 2335 7
Daily Avg. 25 84 32 32 5
9/19 1105 17 1030 320 1040 14 1010 12 1115 5
1608 34 1630 16 1640 12 1610 28 1620 7
2305 24 2330 8 2320 26 2315 27 2310 15
Daily Avg. 25 115 17 22 9
9/20 1010 18 1030 79 1040 41 1010 19 1028 4
1610 34 1630 50 1640 31 1610 18 1615 7
2305 36 2330 36 2325 12 2315 28 2315 7
Daily Avg. 29 55 28 22 6
9/21 1012 23 1030 82 1040 60 1010 19 1025 6
1600 19 1630 120 1640 27 1610 20 1615 6
2330 54 2315 31 2320 27 2315 28 2325 8
Daily Avg. 32 78 38 22 7
9/22 1007 16 1030 88 1040 62 1010 13 1014 2
1600, 20 1630 120 1640 17 1610 29 1610 5
2340 32 2320 20 2325 8 2305 19 2335 5
Daily Avg. 23 76 29 20 4
7-Day Avg. 29 70 32. 23 5
t A't't data are based on grab samples. Samp Zing day is from
6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.
'" Freon-extractable material.
** The Somerset Low Level Interceptor was sampled ups ewer of all
p'tant return flows.
-------
Tabte ?
Ill/TRIElrr DATA
NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA WATER POLLUTION COllTROL PLAllT
September 16-23, 1976
Station Datet Flowtt Total Phosphorous Ortho-Phos!Jhate OrQanic Nitroqen Arrrnonia Nitrite and Nitrate
Description mJ/day mgd iii97i kg/day 1 b/day mg/1 kg/day l b/day mg/l kg/day lb/day mg/l kg/day lb/day mg/l kg/day lb/day
x 103
Delaware 9/17 330 88 5.0 1.700 3.700 1.0 330 730 2.1 700 1,500 18 6.000 13.000 0.20 66 150
low Level 9/18 290 76 6.2 1,800 3,900 3.0 1140 1.900 2.2 630 1,400 25 7.200 16,000 0.23 66 150
Interceptor 9/19 230 61 6.0 1,400 3,000 3.7 U60 1,900 1.2 280 610 26 5,900 13,000 0.04 9.3 20
9/20 260 69 6.4 1.700 3,600 3.8 1,000 2.200 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 6,300 14,000 0.05 13 29
9/21 290 76 7.8 2,300 5,000 3.5 1.000 2.200 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 6,500 14,000 0.04 12 25
\ 9/22 280 73 5.8 1,600 3,500 3.0 1)30 1.800 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 6,600 15.000 0.08 22 49
9/23 250 65 6.2 1,500 3.400 2.0 480 1.100 0.1 25 54 24 6,000 13,000 0.05 12 27
7-0ay Average 270 71 5.8 1,700 3,700 2.9 76U 1.700 0.8 230 510 23 6.400 14.000 0.10 29 64
Somerset* 9/17 170 44 5.8 950 2,100 1.1 180 400 18 2.900 6,500 9.2 1,500 3.400 1.5 250 560
low Level 9/18 140 38 6.0 870 1.900 2.8 410 900. 18 2.600 5,600 9.4 1,400 3,000 1.4 210 460
Interceptor 9119 130 35 7.8 1.000 2,200 3.2 430 940 26 3.400 7,600 11 1.400 3,200 1.9 250 550
9/20 120 31 1.6 190 430 0.54 64 140 1.2 140 310 4.0 470 1,000 1.1 130 290
9/21 120 33 6.1 760 1,700 3.3 410 900 24 3,000 6.700 12 1,500 3,300 1.7 210 450
9/22 120 30 5.6 650 1,400 2.8 320 700 24 2,700 6.100 10 1,200 2.600 1.4 170 370
9/23 150 40 5.4 810 1,800 2.5 280 830 22 3.300 7,200 10 1.600 3.500 1.3 200 430
7-0ay Average 140 36 5.5 750 1,600 2.3 310 690 19 2,600 5.700 9.4 1.300 2.900 1.5 200 450
Frankford 9/17 36 9.4 2.6 92 200 0.72 26 56 1.5 53 120 6.8 240 530 1.3 46 100
low Level 9118 36 9.5 6.4 230 510 3.0 110 240 6.4 230 510 7.2 260 570 1.4 49 110
Interceptor 9119 44 12 4.0 170 380 1.6 71 160 2.4 110 230 7.0 310 680 1.1 50 110
9/20 23 6.0 2.6 60 130 1.2 28 62 0.50 11 25 6.8 150 340 0.99 22 50
9/21 55 15 5.0 280 620 2.6 150 320 1.2 66 150 12 650 1,400 1.3 73 160
9/22 51 13 4.7 240 530 2.8 140 310 0.70 35 78 10 530 1,200 1.1 56 120
9/23 56 15 6.5 370 810 4.3 240 540 3.0 170 370 11 610 1,300 1.1 64 140
7-0ay Average 43 12 4.5 210 690 2.3 110 240 2.2 96 210 8.7 390 860 1.2 51 110
Frankford 9/17 270 70 2.7 720 1,600 1.1 300 660 2.8 750 1,600 6.2 1.700 3.600 1.1 290 630
Hi9h level 9118 220 58 4.0 860 1.900 1.8 400 890 4.5 980 2,200 8.2 1.800 3,900 1.1 240 540
Interceptor 9/19 200 53 6.0 1,200 2.600 3.2 630 1.400 5.3 1,100 2,300 11 2,100 4,700 0.69 140 300
9/20 200 54 5.2 1,000 2,300 2.7 540 1.200 1.4 280 630 13 2,700 5,900 0.41 83 180
9/21 210 56 7.0 1,500 3,300 4.0 860 1.900 4.3 920 2,000 14 2.900 6,400 0.73 160 340
9/22 210 55 5.1 1,100 2,300 2.5 510 1.100 0.90 190 410 13 2,700 6,000 0.31 64 140
9/23 210 55 4.8 1,000 2,200 2.5 510 1.100 0.00 0.0 0.0 13 2.700 5,900 0.33 68 150
7-0ay Average 220 57 5.0 1,100 2,300 2.5 540 1,200 2.7 600 1.300 11 2,400 5,200 0.67 150 330
Final 9/17 760 200 3.2 2.400 5,300 2.3 1.700 3.800 0.0 0.0 0.01 12 9,100 20,000 0.07 53 120
Effl uent 9118 720 190 3.6 2,600 5,800 2.7 1.900 4.300 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 11,000 24,000 0.02 14 32
. 9119 660 180 4.8 3,200 7,100 3.4 2,200 4,900 0.20 130 290 17 11.000 25,000 0.02 13 29
9/20 640 170 4.6 2,900 6,400 3.0 1.900 4.100 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 12,000 26,000 0.04 25 56
9/21 720 190 5.0 3,600 7,800 3.2 2.300 5,100 0.10 72 160 19 14.000 30,000 0.11 79. 170
9/22 680 180 4.2 2,800 6,300 2.8 1.900 4.200 1.5 1.000 2.200 18 12.00027,000 0.01 7 15
9/23 670 180 4.5 3,000 6,600 3.0 . 2,000 4,400 3.1 2.1004,600 18 12,000 27,000 0.03 20 44
7-0ay Average 690 180 4.3 2.900 6,500 2.9 2.000 4,400 0.7 4701.000 17 12,000 26,000 0.03 30 67
Tota 1 of
Infl uents
7-0ay Average 670 180 3.800 8,300 12,000 32,000*
% Removal
7-0ay Average 22% 14%** N
C'\
t Date is the day the sample was composited. 24-hoUr sampting day ran from 0600 to 0600.
tt Ftow:! are avel'a3e of howoly flows dwoing each sampting day.
* The Somerset Low Levet Interceptor LIaS sampled upSeLJer of aH pZa;;"t ;eturn -!tows.
** Influent and percent removal are calcutated from total nitrogen, which is the sum ()f organic, amnonia, nitrite and nitrate nitrogen fo'!Or.s. .
-------
Tab le 8
HEAVY METALS DATA
NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
September 16-23, 1976
Station Datet F10wtt Silver* Aluminum Arsenic Barium Cadmium
Description m"j/day mgd ~g/l kg/day 1b/day mg/l kg/day lb/day ~g/l kg/day 1b/day mg/l kg/day lb/day mg/l kg/day lb/day
x 103
Delaware 9/17 310 88 35 12 26 <1 <330 <730 <4 <1.3 <2.9 0.4 130 290 0.04 13 29
Low Level 9/18 290 76 35 10 22 11 3,100 6,900 <4 <1.1 <2.5 0.4 110 250 0.02 6 13
Interceptor 9/19 " 200 53 15 3.5 8.0 <1 <230 <510 <4 <0.93 <2.0 0.4 93 200 0.01 2 5
9/20 260 69 13 3.4 7.0 7 1,800 4,000 <4 <1.0 <2.3 0.3 78 170 0.01 3 6
9/21 290 76 41 12 26 5 1,400 3,200 <4 <1.2 <2.5 0.3 87 190 0.02 6 13
9/22 280 73 24 6.6 15' <1 <220 <610 <4 <1.1 <2.4 0.4 110 240 0.02 6 12
9/23 250 65 35 8.6 19 18 4,400 9,800 <4 <0.99 <2.2 0.3 74 160 0.04 10 22
7-Day Average 270 71 28 8.0 18 6 1,500 3,400 <4 <1.1 <2.4 0.4 97 210 0.02 7 14
Somerset 9/17 170 44 59 9.8 22 <1 <170 <360 12 2.0 4.4' 0.2 33 73 0.17 28 62
Low Level 9/18 140 38 43 6.2 14 <1 <140 <320 4 0.6 1.3 <0.2 <29 <64 0.24 35 76
Interceptor** 9/19 130 35 10 1.3 2.9 "7 920 2,000 17 2.2 4.9 0.2 26 58 0.04 5.2 12
9/20 120 31 <8 <0.94 <2.1 18 2,100 4,700 <4 <0.5 <1.0 0.3 35 78 0.01 1.2 2.6
9/21 120 33 55 6.8 15 .16 2,000 4,400 890 110 240 0.4 50 110 0.23 29 63
9/22 120 30 116 13 30 7 810 1,800 41 4.7 10 <0.2 <23 <51 0.31 36 79
9/23 150 40 54 8.2 18 8 1,200 2,700 42 6.4 14 0.2 30 67 0.29 44 97
7-Day Average 140 36 48 6.5 15 8 1,200 2,200 140 18 39 9..2 25 55 0.18 25 60
Frankford 9/17 36 9.4 12 0.43 0.94 30 1,100 2,400 <4 <0.14 <0.31 0.3 11 24 0.01 0.36 0.78
Low Level 9/18 36 9.5 17 0.61 1.3 6 220 480 <4 <0.14 <0.32 0.5 18 40 0.02 0.72 1.6
Interceptor 9/19 44 12 12 0.53 1.2 27 1,200 2,600 <4 <0.18 <0.39 0.2 8.8 19 0.06 2.6 5.8
9/20 23 6.0 13 0.30 0.65 7 160 350 <4 <0.09 <0.20 0.3 6.8 15 <0.01 <0.23 <0.50
9/21 55 15 <8 <0.44 <0.97 18 990 2,200 <4 <0.22 <0.49 0.4 22 49 0.03 1.7 3.7
9/22 51 14 <8 <0.40 <0.89 12 610 1,300 <4 <0.20 <0.45 0.4 20 45 0.04 2.0 4.5
9/23 56 15 <8 <0.45 <0.99 <1 <56 <120 <4 <0.23 <0.50 0.4 23 50 0.04 2.3 5.0'
7-Day Average 43 12 8 0.27 0.58 14 610 1,300 0.4 16 35 0.03 1.4 3.1
Frankford 9/17 270 70 12 3.2 7.0 13 3,500 7,600 <4 <1.1 <2.3 0.4 110 230 0.01 2.7 5.9
High Level 9/18 220 58 23 5.0 11 35 7,600 17 ,000 <4 <0.87 <1. 9 0.4 90 190 <0.01 <2.2 <4.8
Interceptor 9/19 200 53 11 2.2 4.8 17 3,400 7,500 <4 <0.80 <1.8 0.5 100 220 <0.01 <2.0 <4.4
9/20 200 54 <8 <1.6 <3.6 25 5,100 11,000 <4 <0.81 <1.8 0.4 80 180 <0.01 <2.0 <4.5
9/21 210 56 9 1.9 4.2 15 3,200 7,100 <4 <0.86 <1.9 0.4 90 190 <0.01 <2.1 <4.7
9/22 210 55 13 2.7 5.9 16 3,300 7,300 <4 <0.83 <1.8 0.4 80 180 <0.01 <2.1 <4.6
9/23 210 55 33 6.8 15 13 2,700 5,900 <4 <0.83 <1.8 0.5 100 230 <0.01 <2.1 <4.6
7-0ay Average 220 57 14 3.1 6.8 19 4,100 9,100 0.4 90 200 <0.01 <0.4 <0.8
Final 9/17 760 200 19 15 33 22 18,000 39,000 <4 <3.2 <7.0 0.5 400 880 0.01 8.0 18
Effluent 9118 720 190 9 ' 6.2 14 17 12,000 26,000 <4 <2.7 <6.0 0.2 140 300 0.02 14 30
9/19 660 180 12 7.3 16 7 4,200 9,300 <4 <2.4 <5.3 0.5 300 670 0.02 12 27
9/20 640 170 <8 <4.8 <11 5 3,000 6,700 <4 <2.4 <5.3 0.3 180 400 0.01 6.1 13
9/21 720 190 13 8.9 20 4 2,700 6,000 <4 <2.7 <6.0 0.5 340 750 0.02 14 30
9/22 680 180 21 14 30 <1 <650 <1,400 <4 <2.6 <5.7 0.3 200 430 0.01 6.5 14
9/23 670 180 22 15 32 <1 <660 <1,500 <4 <2.6 <5.8 0.4 260 580 0.02 13 29 N
7-Day Average 690 180 14 9.5 21 8 5,700 12,000 0.4 260 570 0.02 11 23 ......
Total of Influents
7-Day Average 18 40 7,400 16,000 18 39 230 500 34 78
Percent Removal
7-Day Average 47 24 85 0 70
-------
Table 8 {Continued}
HEAVY METALS DATA
Station Datet Flowtt Chromium* Copper Iron Mercur~ ~
Description mj/day mgd mg/l kg/day lb/day mg/l kg/day lb/day mg/l kg/day lb/day ug/1 kg/day 1 ay mg g/day day
x 103
Delaware 9/17 310 88 0.34 110 250 0.01 3.3 7.3 3.5 1,200 2,600 0.2 0.07 0.15 0.95 320 700
low Level 9/18 290 76 0.40 110 250 0.01 2.9 6.3 2.5 720 1,600 0.1 0.03 0.06 1.90 540 1,200
Interceptor 9/19 200 53 0.07 16 36 <0.01 <2.3 <5.1 1.7 390 870 0.5 0.12 0.26 1.39 320 710
9/20 260 69 0.05 13 29 <0.01 <2.6 <5.7 1.6 420 920 0.9 0.23 0.52 1.36 350 780
9/21 290 76 0.31 89 200 0.01 2.9 6.4 3.2 920 2,000 0.5 0.14 0.32 1.66 480 1,100
9/22 280 73 0.44 120 270 0.02 5.9 12 3.9 1,100 2,400 0.5 0.14 0.30 1. 33 370 810
9/23 250 65 0.29 72 160 0.01 2.5 5.4 8.4 2,100 4,600 1.1 0.27 0.60 1.84 450 1,000
7-Day Average 270 71 0.27 76 170 0.01 3.2 6.9 3.5 920 2,100 0.5 0.14 0.32 1.49 400 900
Somerset 9/17 170 44 0.57 94 210 2.1 350 770 6.8 1,100 2,500 0.7 0.12 0.26 0.44 73 160
Low level 9/18 140 38 0.84 120 270 3.7 530 1,200 5.2 750 1,700 0.2 0.03 0.06 0.47 68 150
Interceptor** 9/19 130 35 1.32 170 380 1.1 140 320 6.5 850 1 ,900. 1.0 0.13 0.29 0.65 85 190
9/20 120 31 0.06 0.71 1.6 0.02 2.4 5.2 5.8 680 1,500 <0.1 <0.01 <0.03 0.82 97 210
9121 120 33 1.00 120 270 15 1,900 4;100 5.2 650 1,400 0.1 0.01 0.03 0.44 55 120
9122 120 30 1.23 140 3 0 2.6 300 660 6.2 720 1,600 1.2 0.14 0.30 0.42 48 110
9/23 150 40 1.00 150 330 2.4 360 800 5.7 860 1,900 0.5 0.08 0.17 0.42 64 140
7-Day Average 140 36 0.86 110 250 3.8 510 1,100 5.9 800 1,800 0.5 0.07 0.16 0.52 70 150
Frankford 9/17 36 9.4 0.04 1.4 3.1 0.02 0.71 1.6 3.0 110 240 0.4 0.01 0.03 0.25 8.9 20
low Level 9/18 36 9.5 0.04 1.4 3.1 <0.01<0.36 <0.79 2.4 86 190 ,. 0.6 0.02 0.05 0.28 10 22
Interceptor 9/19 44 12 0.04 1.8 3.9 <0.01<0.44 <0.97 2.4 110 230 0.9 0.04 0.09 0.35 15 34
9/20 23 6.0 <0.02 <0.45 <1.0 <0.01<0.23 <0.50 1.8 41 90 0.7 0.02 0.04 0.41 9.3 21
9/21 55 15 0.16 8.8 19 0.02 1.1 2.4 4.3 240 520 0.3 0.02 0.04 0.34 19 41
9122 51 14 0.04 2.0 4.5 0.02 1.0 2.2 2.5 130 280 0.3 0.02 0.03 0.31 16 35
9/23 56 15 0.07 3.9 8.7 0.01 0.56 1.2 3.5 200 440 1.0 0.06 0.12 0.41 23 51
7-Day Average 43 12 0.06 2.8 6.0 0.01 0.48 1.1 2.8 130 280 0.6 0.03 0.06 0.34 14 32
Frankford 9/17 270 70 0.03 8.0 18 <0.01 <2.7 <5.9 1.7 450 1,000 1.0 0.27 0.59 0.08 21 47
High level 9/18 220 58 0.03 6.6 14 <0.01 <2.2 <4.8 1.3 290 640 0.5 0.11 0.24 0.08 17 39
Interceptor 9/19 200 53 <0.02 <4.0 <8.8 <0.01 <2.0 <4.4 0.8 150 330 0.5 0.10 0.22 0.10 20 44
9/20 200 54 <0.02 <4.1 <9.0 <0.01 <2.0. <4.5 0.9 180 400 0.4 0.08 0.18 0.08 16 36
9/21 210 56 0.03 6.4 14 <0.01 <2.1 <4.7 1.3 270 590 0.3 0.06 0.14 0.08 17 38
9/22 210 55 0.02 4.1 9.1 <0.01 <2.1 <4.6 1.5 310 690 0.5 0.10 0.23 0.10 21 46
9/23 210 55 0.03 6.2 14 <0.01.<2.1 <4.6 1.0 210 460 0.5 0.10 0.23 0.08 17 36
7-Day Average 220 57 0.02 4.5 9.9 1.2 270 590 0.5 0.12 0.26 0.09 18 41
Final 9/17 760 200 0.07 56 120 <0.01 <8.0 <18 1.2 930 2,000 0.9 0.72 1.6 0.48 380 850
Efn uent 9/18 720 190 0.05 34 76 <0.01 <6.9 <15 1.3 860 1,900 1.4 0.96 2.1 0.72 490 1,100
9/19 660 180 0.06 36 80 <0.01 <6.1 <13 1.3 800 1,800 1.2 0.71 1.6 0.74 450 990
9/20 640 170 0.02 '12 27 <0.01 <6.1 <13 1.0 610 1,300 1.0 0.60 1.3 0.65 390 870
9/21 720 190 0.07 48 110 <0.01 <6.8 <15 1.2 820 1,800 0.6 0.41 0.90 0.62 420 930
9/22 680 180 0.09 59 130 <0.01 <6.5 <14 : 2.0 1,300 2,900 0.10.065 0.14 0.75 490 1,100
9123 670 180 0.09 60 130 <0.01 <6.6 <15 l.C 1,200 2,600 18 12 26 0.85 560 1,200
7-Day Average 690 180 0.06 44 96 1.4 930 2,000 3.3 2.2 4.8 0.79 450 1,000
Total of Influents N
7-Day Average 200 440 510 1,100 2,100 4,800 0.36 0.80 500 1,100 CO
Percent Removal
7-Day Average 78 >99 57 0 90
-------
Table 8 (Continued)
HEAVY NETALS DATA
Station Datet Flowtt Nickel* Lead Zinc
Description mj/day mgd mg/l kg/day lb/day mg/l kg/day lb/day mg/l kg/day lb/day
x 103
Delaware. 9/17 310 88 0.08 27 59 0.27 9D 200 0.82 2.70 600
Low level 9118 290 76 0.33 94 210 0.27 77 170 0.79 230 500
Interceptor 9119 200 53 0.06 14 31 0.24 56 120 0.22 51 110
9/20 260 69 0.04 10 23 0.22 57 130 0.22 57 130
9/21 290 76 0.09 26 57 <0.17 <49 <110 0.78 220 500
9/22 280 73 0.18 50 110 0.18 50 110 0.72 200 440
9/23 250 65 0.07 17 38 0.17 42 90 0.71 180 390
7-Day Average 270 71 0.12 34 75 0.19 53 120 0.61 170 380
Somerset 9117 170 44 0.38 63 140 0.45 74 160 1.35 220 490
Low Level 9118 140 38 0.43 62 140 <0.17 <25 <54 1.03 150 330
Interceptor ** 9119 130 35 0.37 48 110 <0.17 <22 <49 0.47 62 140
9/20 120 31 0.38 45 99 <0.17 <20 <44 0.28 33 73
9/21 120 33 1.65 200 450 0.21 26 57 0.64 79 180
9/22 120 30 1.37 160 350 0.18 21 46 0.53 61 135
9/23 150 40 1.11 170 370 0.27 41 90 0.54 82 180
7-Day Average 140 36 0.81 110 240 0.16 23 50 0.69 98 220
Frankford 9117 36 9.4 0.16 5.7 13 0.24 8.5 19 0.44 16 35
low Level 9118 36 9.5 0.26 9.3 21 <0.17 <6.1 <13 0.59 21 47
Interceptor 9119 44 12 0.22 9.7 21 <0.17 <7.5 <16 .0.62 27 60
9/20 23 6.0 0.03 0.68 1.5 <0.17 <3.9 <8.5 0.17 3.9 8.5
9/21 55 15 0.40 22 49 0.21 12 26 .0.72 40 88
9/22 51 14 0.47 24 53 0.18 9.1 20 0.52 26 58
9/23 56 1.5 0.36 20 45 0.22 12 27 0.60 34 75
7-Day Average 43 12 0.27 13 29 0.12 5.9 13 0.52 24 53
Frankford 9117 270 70 <0.03 <8 <18 0.42 110 250 0.36 96 210
High Level 9118 220 58 <0.03 <7 <14 0.31 68 150 0.30 66 140
Interceptor 9119 200 53 <0.03 <6 <13 0.17 34 75 0.19 38 84
9/20 200 54 <0.03 <6 <13 <0.17 <35 <76 0.19 39 85
9/21 210 56 <0.03 <6 <1.4 0.21 45 99 0.31 66 150
9/22 210 55 <0.03 <6 <14 0.32 66 150 0.33 68 150
9/23 210 55 <0.03 <6 <14 0.37 76 170 0.24 50 110
7-Day Average 220 57 0.26 57 130 0.27 60 130
Final 9117 760 200 0.08 64 140 <0.17 <140 <300 0.27 220 480
Effluent 9/18 720 190 0.14 96 210 <0.17 <120 <260 0.33 230 500
9/19 660 180 0.09 54 120 0.18 110 240 0.52 310 690
9/20 640 170 0.09 54 120 <0.17 <100 <230 0.32 190 430
9/21 720 190 0.12 82 180 0.22 150 330 0.45 310 680
9/22 680 180 0.11 72 160 <0.17 <110 <240 0.34 220 490
9/23 670 180 0.12 79 180 <0.17 <110 <250 0.36 240 530
7-Day Average 690 180 0.11 72 160 0.06 37 81 0.37 250 540
Total of Influents
7-Day Average 160 340 140 310 350 780 N
I.D
Percent Removal
7-Day AVerage 54 74 30
t Date is the day the sample !Jas composited. 24-hro sampling day !Jas from 0600 to 0600.
tt Flo!Js are average of hourly [lOLls during each sampling do.y.
* Analyses for selenium, tin and titanium indicated.concentrations less than detectability
'limits of 5 pgll, 1 mgll and 1 mgll, respectively.
** The Somerset Lo!J Level Interceptor !JaS sampled upse!Jer of all plant return [lOLlS.
-------
30
Table 9
RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS-DELAWARE LOW LEVEL INTERCEPTOR
PHILADELPHIA NORTHEAST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
SEPTEMBER 16-23, 1976
Parametert 9-17tt 9-18 9-19 9-20 9-21 9-22 9-23
Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun. t~on. Tue. Wed.
Flow m3/day x 103 310 290 200 260 290 280 250
(mgd) 88 76 53 69 76 73 65
pH range q. u.) 3.5-6.8 3.1-9.0 1. 5- 8 . 0 1.2- 7 .9 2.1-7.4 3.8-8.2 6 . 3- 7 . 2
Oil/Grease tt 31 36 25 25 29 32 23
Suspended Solids 280 320 130 150 170 170 160
BOD 150 220 .; 170 280 320 200 250
COD 410 680 850 440 590 470 580
Organic-N 2.1 2.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 o. 1
Ammonia-N 18 25 26 24 22 24 24
Nitrite+Nitrate-N 0.20 0.23 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.05
Total Phosphorus 5.0 6.2 6.0 6.4 7.8 5.8 6.2
Ortho Phosphate 1.0 3.0 3.7 3.8 3.5 3.0 2.0
Sil ver (J.lg/l) 35 35 15 13 41 24 35
Aluminum <1 11 <1 7 5 <1 18
Arsenic (J.lg/l) <°4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4
Barium 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3
Cadmium 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0;02 0.04
Chromium 0.34 0.40 0.07 0.05 0.31 0.44 0.29
Copper 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
Iron 3.5 2.5 1.7 1.6 3.2 3.9 8.4
Mercury (J.lg/l) 0.2 o. 1 0.5 . 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.1
Manganese 0.95 1. 90 1. 39 1. 36 1.66 1. 33 1.84
Nickel 0.08 0.33 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.07
Lead 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.22 <0.17 0.18 0.17
Selenium (J.lg/l) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Tin <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Titani urn <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Zinc 0.82 0.79 0.22 0.22 0.78 0.72 0.71
t Units are mg/l except as noted.
tt" Date is the day sample was composited. 24-hr sampling day was from 0600 to
0600.
ttt Average of three grab samples during sampling day.
-------
31
respectively. Seventeen percent of the hourly pH readings were less than
5.0. On six different occasions the pH changed three or more standard
units within one hour, apparently due to the intermittent discharge of
industrial wastes. A continuous recording pH meter, installed ,by NEIC
and operated from September 15-19, verified the low hourly readings on
September 18 and 19. The data indicated the intermittent presence of
acidic wastes. During the survey, the discharge of these strong acidic
wastes probably caused adverse effects on operation of the biological
system.
Suspended solids [Table 3J a:nd oil and grease [Table 6J concentra-
tions were approximately that expected for domestic sewage. Nutrients
[Table 7J were present at concentrations typical of domestic wastewater.
The ammonia nitrogen concentration in the DLL interceptor was approxi-
mately twice that present in the other influents.
The wastewater was analyzed for 16 heavy metals. NEIC average con-
centrations of eight metals are compared with 1974 city of Philadelphia
monitoring results for the DLL as follows:
mg!l ~g/l
Cd Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn Hg
NEIC (1976) 0.02 0.27 0.01 3.54 0.12 0.19 0.61 0.54
City (1974) 0.17 0.4 0.88 9.88 0.27 0.21 5.73 3.3
City samples were 24-hour equal-volume composites collected for 10 con-
secutive days from September 17-26, 1974. / Each daily composite consisted
of portions collected on a four-hour cycle. NEIC samples were 24-hour
flow-weighted composites consisting of portions collected on a one-hour
cycle. NEIC results in each case are less than 1974 city results. When
NEIC results, however, are compared on a weekend vs. weekday basis
[Table 9], it is apparent that five metals, Ag, Cd, Cr, Fe and Zn, are
'-.. '''7C"I
-------
32
present in lower concentrations on weekends than weekdays. The differences
in concentrations are apparently due to industries which operate less than
seven days per week.
SOMERSET LOW LEVEL INTERCEPTOR (SLL)
During the NEIC survey, an average of 140 x 103 m3/day (36 mgd) or
21% of the total influent flow entered the plant through the SLL inter-
ceptor. Daily monitoring results .[Tab1e 10J indicate that industrial
wastes are also discharged to the SLL interceptor. The pH ranged from
3.1-11.0 and 16 hourly pH readings were either greater than 9.0 or less
than 6.0. On three different occasions the pH changed three or more
standard units within one hour, indicating an intermittent discharge of
industrial wastes or their changing characteristics.
Other parameters including oil and grease, TSS, BOD and COD were
present in concentrations considerably in excess of those normally found
in domestic sewage. The maximum concentration of these parameters was:
Oil &
TSS
BOD
COD
Grease
320 mg/1
680
600
920
Nutrient concentrations were similar to those of domestic wastewater.
Organic nitrogen averaged 19 mg/l and showed a marked decline along with
. other nutrients on Sunday, suggesting that the major input of nutrients
was from industrial sources.
Heavy metals concentrations during NEIC monitoring were generally
less than those observed in the DLL influent. Distinct decreases in Ag,
As, Cd, Cr, Cu and Zn concentrations during the weekend indicated that
these heavy metals were primarily from industrial sources. On September
-------
33
Table 10
RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS-SOMERSET LOr., LEVEL INTERCEPTOR
PHILADELPHIA NORTHEAST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
SEPTEMBER 16-23, 1976
parametert 9-17tt 9-18 9-19 9-20 9-21 9-22 9-23
Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun. ~1on. Tue. Hed.
Flow m3/day x 103 170 140 130 120 120 120 150
(mgd) 44 38 : 35 31 33 30 40
pH range (S.U.) 3.1-7.4 5.8-9.2 5.1-11.0 6.6-7.1 6.6-8.8 6.7-7.8 6.4-7.4
Oi1/Greasettt 39 43 84 115 55 78 76
Suspended Solids 380 490 680 370 340 240 330
BOD 160 600 380 370 440 340 430
COD 620 840 920 630 860 830 920
Organic-N 18 18 26 1.2 24 24 22
Ammonia-N 9.2 9.4 11 4.0 12 10 10
Nitrite+Nitrate-N 1.5 1.4 1.9 1.1 1.7 1.4 1.3
Total Phosphorus 5.8 6.0 7.8 1.6 6.1 5.6 5.4
Ortho Phosphate 1.1 2.8 3.2 0.5 3.3 2.8 2.5
Silver (~g/l) 59 43 10 <8 55 116 54
Aluminum <1 <1 7 18 16 7 8
Arsenic (~g/l) 12 4 17 <4 890 41 42
Barium 0.2 <0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 <0.2 0.2
Cadmium 0.17 0.24 0.04 0.01 0.23 0.31 0.29
Chromium 0.57 0.84 1.32 0.06 1.00 1. 23 1.00
Copper 2.1 3.7 1.1 0.02 15 2.6 2.4
Iron 6.8 5.2 6.5 5.8 5.2 6.2 5.7
Mercury (~g/l) 0.7 0.2 1.0 <0.1 0.1 1.2 0.5
Manganese 0.44 0.47 0.65 0.82 0.44 0.42 0.42
Nickel 0.38 0.43 0.37 0.38 1.65 1. 37 1.11
lead 0.45 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 0.21 0.18 0.27
Selenium (~g/l) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Tin <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Titani urn <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Zinc 1. 35 1.03. 0.47 0.28 0.64 0.53 0.54
t Units al'e mg/Z except as noted.
,tt Date is the day sampZe was composited. 24-hr sampling day was from 0600 to
0600.
ttt'Average of three grab samples during sampling day.
-------
34
21 the As concentration was more than 20 times that of other days.
In 1974 the city of Philadelphia monitored the SLL interceptor down-
sewer of supernatant return flows for eight metals recycled in the
sludge.2 These results and NEIC monitoring are summarized as follows: .
mg/l ~g/l
Cd Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn Hg
NEIC (1976) 0.18 0.86 3.8 5.9 0.81 0.16 0.69 0.5
City (1974) 0.24 1.10 1.14 22.19 1.25 0.41 3.92 5.76
The sampling regimen was the same as that described under DLL.
NEIC results are less than City results for every parameter except
copper. This may be the case partly as a result of sampling location.
FRANKFORD LOW LEVEL INTERCEPTOR (FLL)
During NEIC monitoring at the Northeast plant the FLL interceptor
discharged approximately 6% of the total influent flow. The flow av-
eraged 43 x 103 m3/day (12 mgd) during the seven-day period. Monitoring
results [Table 11] suggest that limited amounts of industrial wastes are
discharged to the FLL interceptor. The pH ranged from 2.3-9.1, with 21
separate hourly readings in violation of permit criteria (i.e. 6-9). On
one occasion the pH changed three or more standard units within one hour.
There were, however, four periods of three-hour duration or longer in
which hourly pH readings were less than 6.0 [Table 4]. These results
indicate that acidic industrial wastes were intermittently discharged to
the interceptor. Results of the other parameters monitored were typical
for domestic sewage.
Concentrations of selected heavy metals during the NEIC survey are
compared below with the 1974 city of Philadelphia results.2
-------
35
Table 11
RAW WASTEIvATER CHARACTERISTICS-FRANKFORD LOW LEVEL INTERCEPTOR
PHILADELPHIA NORTHEAST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
SEPTEMBER 16-23, 1976
Parameter t 9-17tt 9-18 9-19 9-20 9-21 9-22 9-23
Thur. Frio Sat. Sun. Mon. Tue. \'Ied.
Flow m3/day x 103 36 36 44 23 55 51 56
(mgd) 9.4 9.5 12 6.0 15 14 15
pH range (¥,V,) 2.3-6.6 5.4-8.8 '0 4.5-9.1 6.4-7.0 2.9-8.5 6.2-9.1 6.3-8.6
Oil/Grease T 42 38 32 17 28 38 29
Suspended Solids 80 85 45 120 88 60 55
BOD 76 140 94 170 260 100 140
COD 330 400 210 290 330 290 340
Organic-N 1.5 6.4 2.4 0.5 1.2 0.7 3.0
Ammonia-N 6.8 7.2 7.0 6.8 12 10 . 11
Nitrite+Nitrate-N 1.3 1.4 1.1 0.99 1.3 1.1 1.1
Total Phosphorus 2.6 6.4 4.0 2.6 5.0 4.7 6.5
Ortho Phosphate 0.7 3.0 1.6 1.2 2.6 2.8 4.3
Silver (~g/l) 12 17 12 13 <8 <8 <8
Aluminum 30 6 27 7 18 12 <1
Arsenic (~g/l) <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4
Barium 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
Cadmium 0.01 0.02 0.06 <0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04
Chromium 0.04 0.04 0.04 <0.02 0.16 0.04 0.07
Copper 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01
Iron 3.0 2.4 2.4 1.8 4.3 2.5 2.5
Mercury (~g/l) 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.0
Manganese 0.25 0.28 0.35 0.41 0.34 0.31 0.41
Nickel <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03
Lead 0.42 0.31 0.17 <0.17 0.21 0.32 0.37
Selenium (~g/l) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Tin <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Ti tani urn <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Zinc 0.44 0.59 0.62 0.17 0.72 0.52 0.60
t Units are mg/l except as noted.
tt Date is the day sample was composited. 24-hr sampling day was from 0600 to
0600.
ttt Average of three grab samples during sampling day.
-------
36
mgll llgll
Cd Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn Hg
NEIC (1976) 0.03 0.06 0.01 2.8 0.27 0.12 0.52 0.6
City (1974) 0.17 0.32 0.34 5.47 0.33 0.03 1.49 0.93
The sampling regimen was the same as that described under DLL. Each metal,
with the exception of lead, was present in lower concentrations during the
NEIC survey than in 1974.
..
FRANKFORD HIGH LEVEL INTERCEPTOR (FHL)
Thirty-three percent of the total flow entered the plant through the
FHL interceptor. Flow as relatively constant, ranging from 200-270 x 103
m3/day (53-70 mgd) and averaged 220 x 103 m3/day (57 mgd). NEIC monitoring
results [Tables 4 and 12J indicate that of the four inf1uents to Northeast,
the FHL flow was least affected by industrial wastes. During seven days,
the pH was less than 6.0 for 19 measurements and the lowest reading was
5.1. Two intervals, 12 hours on September 17 and 18 and five hours on
September 21, resulted in hourly pH readings of 6.0 or less. All other
pollutants monitored were present in concentrations typical of domestic
wastewater. Eight heavy metals were present in lower concentrations than
found by the city in 1974.2 Results are compared as follows:
mg/1 llg/l
Cd Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn Hg
NEIC (1976) <0. 10 0.02 <0.01 1.21 <0.03 0.26 0.27 0.5
City (1974) 0.16 0.56 0.34 2.4 0.21 0.06 1.1 1.06
The sampling regimen was the same. as that described for DLL.
-------
37
Table 12
RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS-FRANKFORD HIGH LEVEL INTERCEPTOR
PHILADELPHIA NORTHEAST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
SEPTEMBER 16-23, 1976
parametert 9- 17 tt 9-18 9-19 9-20 9-21 9-22 9-23
Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun. Non. Tue. Wed.
Flow m3/day x 103 270 220 200 200 210 210 210
(mgd) 70 58 '. 53 54 56 55 55
pH range (S.U.) 5.7-6.7 5.1-6.6 6.0-7.0 6.1-7.0 5.5- 8. 1 6.0-8.2 6.4-7.8
Oil/Grease 19 25 32 22 22 22 20
Suspended Solids 110 82 58 90 110 85 45
BOD 68 200 80 230 170 100 110
COD 240 330 220 280 250 250 240
Organic-N 2.8 4.5 5.3 1.4 4.3 0.9 0.0
Arnmonia-N 6.2 8.2 11 13 14 13 13
Nitrite+Nitrate-N 1.1 1.1 0.69 0.41 0.73 0.31 0.33
Total Phosphorus 1.1 1.8 3.2 2.7 4.0 2.5 2.5
Ortho Phosphate 1.1 1.8 3.2 2.7 4.0 2.5 2.5
Silver (\Jg/1) 12 23 11 <8 9 13 33.
Aluminum 13 35 17 25 15 16 13
Arsenic (\Jg/l) <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4
Barium 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5
Cadmium 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0;01 <0.01 <0.01
Chromium 0.03 0.03 <0.02 <0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03
Copper <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Iron 1. 70 1.33 O. i5 0.89 1. 26 1. 51 1.02
Mercury (\Jg/1) 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5
Manganese 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.08
Nickel <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03
lead 0.42 0.31 0.17 <0.17 0.21 0.32 0.37
Selenium (\Jg/l) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Tin <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Titani urn <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Zinc 0.36 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.31 0.33 0.24
t Units are mg/Z except as noted.
tt Date is the day sampZe was cqmposited. 24-hr sampZing day was from 0600 to
0600.
-------
38
FINAL EFFLUENT
Final effluent ranged from 640-760 x 103 m3/day (170-200 mgd) and
averaged 690 x 103 m3/day (180 mgd). Monitoring results [Table 13J in-
dicate that removal efficiencies were sporadic for some pollutants and
relatively constant for others. In addition, removal efficiencies of
several pollutants were different for weekdays than for weekends. The
mean percent removal and the standard deviation for pollutant removals
varied widely [Table 14J. Removal efficiencies for silver, cadmium,
chromium, copper, nickel and zi~c declined markedly during the weekend,
primarily due to a reduction in pollutant concentrations in the influent.
Other parameters including TSS, BOD, total-N, aluminum, arsenic, barium,
mercury, manganese and lead showed sporadic variation in removal ef-
ficiency. The percent removal standard deviation for these parameters
[Table 14J exceeded ten. The high variability in TSS and BOD removal
efficiency is undoubtedly due to the effects of industrial wastes on the
biological treatment system. TSS and BOD removal efficiencies changed
as much as 41 and 28%, respectively, from one day to the next. Oil and
grease, COD, total phosphorus and iron removals were relatively constant
during NEIC monitoring.
Final effluent pH [Table 4J ranged from 4.0 to 9.2 and exceeded NPDES
limitations 24 times (see Section IV). On three different days, con-
secutive hourly pH measurements were less thah 6.0 fcir eight, five and
four hours. The depressed pH very likely caused an overall reduction
in the efficiency of the biological system.
-------
Table 13
COI.fPARISOll OF INFLUEllT AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA WASTEWATER TREATlfEllT PLANT
Septembel' 16-23, 1976
9/17 9/18 9/19 9/20 9/21 9/22 9/23
Inf. Eff. '; Inf. Eff. '; Inf. Eff. '; Inf. Eff. '; Inf. Eff. '; Inf. Eff. " Inf. Eff. "
~ "
Rem. Rem. Rem. Rem. Rem. Rem. Rem.
Flowt m3/day x 10-3 800 760 690 720 610 660 610 640 680 720 650 680 660 670
m9d 210 200 180 190 160 180 160 170 180 190 170 180 180 180
pH Range 2.3- 4.0- 3.1- 5.4- 1.5- 5.5- 1.2- 6.4- 2.1- 6.5- 3.8- 6.7- 6.3- 6.5-
7.4 7.1 9.2 9.2 11.0 7.7 7.9 7.2 8.8 7.2 9.1 7.6 8.6 7.3
Oil and Grease 30 5 83 36 2 94 49 5 90 40 9 78 33 6 82 35 7 80 35 4 89
Suspended Solids 240 55 77 270 80 70 230 80 65 170 88 48 180 110 39 140 28 80 150 42 72
BOO 120 40 67 290 76 74 190 59 69 270 160 41 290 140 52 180 60 67 240 77 68
COO 400 200 50 590 200 66 640 230 64 420 190 55 520 240 54 450 240 47 520 270 48
Organic-N 5.5 0.0 6.4 0.0 8.4 0.20 0.7 0.0 5.9 0.10 4.6 1.5 5.2 3.1
Arrrnonia-N 12 12 34tt 15 15 32tt 17 17 34+t 16 19 tt,. 17 19 tt,. 17 18 12tt 16 18 3tt
Ni tri te+fU trate-N 0.82 0.07 0.83 0.02 0.78 0.02 0.41 0.04 0.65 0.11 0.47 0.01 0.51 0.03
Total Phosphorus 4.3 3.2 26 5.4 3.6 33 6.4 4.8 25 4.8 4.6 4 7.1 5.0 30 5.4 4.2 32 5.6 4.5 20
Ortho Phosphorus 1.0 2.3 ttt 2.6 2.7 ttt 3.4 3.4 ttt 2.7 3.0 ttt 3.5 3.2 ttt 2.7 2.8 ttt 2.4 3.0 ttt
Silver (ug/l)tttt 32 19 41 32 9 72 13 12 8 <8 <8 0 30 13 57 35 21 40 36 22 39
Aluminum 6 22 . 16 17 . 9 7 22 15 5 67 11 4 64 7 <1 86 13 <1 92
Arsenic (ug/l) <4 <4 t. <4 <4 .. 4 <4 0 <4 <4 .. 160 <4 98 7 <4 43 10 <4 40
Barium 0.3 0.5 . 0.3 0.2 33 0.4 0.5 . 0.3 0.3 0 0.4 0.5 . 0.3 0.3 0 0.3 0.4 *
Cadmium 0.06 0.01 83 0.06 0.02 67 0.02 0.02 0 <0.01 0.01 * 0.05 0.02 60 0.07 0.01 86 0.08 0.02 75
Chromium 0.27 0.07 74 0.35 0.05 86 0.33 0.06 82 0.02 0.02 0 0.33 0.07 79 0.41 0.09 78 0.35 0.09 74
Copper 0.44 <0.01 98 0.80 <0.01 99 0.25 <0.01 96 <0.01 <0.01 *. 2.7 <0.01 100 0.47 <0.01 98 0.55 <0.01 98
Iron 3.6 1.2 67 2.7 1.3 52 2.6 1.3 50 2.2 1.0 55 3.0 1.2 60 3.5 2.0 43 5.1 1.8 65
Mercury 0.6 0.9 . 0.3 1.4 . 0.7 1.2 . 0.6 1.0 . 0.4 0.6 . 0.6 0.1 83 0.8 18
l~an9anese 0.53 0.48 9 0.93 0.72 23 0.77 0.74 4 0.78 0.65 17 0.86 0.62 28 0.70 0.75 0.84 0.85 .
Nickel 0.12 0.08 33 0.24 0.14 42 0.13 0.09 31 0.09 0.09 0 0.37 0.12 68 0.36 0.11 69 0.31 0.12 61
lead 0.36<0.17 53 0.21 <0.17 19 <0.17 0.18 . <0.17<0.17 .* <0.17 0.22 . 0.23 <0.17 26 0.26 <0.17 35
Zinc 0.76 0.27 64 0.67 0.33 51 0.31 0.52 . 0.22 0.32 * 0.66 0.45 32 0.55 0.34 38 0.52 0.36 31
t Influent flOO! was detemined by adding the flow from foul' individual interco1ptors. Individual interce?tor ll(J'..)s !Jare dete",""l:~ ci "if
eristing venturi meters and the dye dilution technique. Effluent flow is a swr.rnation of influent flow as deta!~nin::d soleZi! by
eristing venturi meters. Influent (pollutant concentrations) were derived by calculation using pollutant concentrations of i".dividw::l
interceptor flu..)s.
tt Percent removal is based on total nitrogen
ttt Ortho phosphorwJ changes fom, therefore removal efficiency is not meaningful.
tttt Analyces for selenium, tin and titaniWTI ind.icated concentrations less than detectability limits of 5 ug/l, 1 ug/l and 1 ug/l, respectively. W
* Effluent concentration exceeded influent concentration \.0
.. Influent and effluent concentrations !Jere less than detectable.
-------
Table 14
MEAN PERCENT REMOVAL AND STANDARD DEVIATION
PHILADELPHIA NORTHEAST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
SEPTEMBER 16-233 1976
Pollutant
Mean Percent
Removal
Standard
Deviation
0/6
TSS
BOD
COD.
Total-N
Total-P
Silver
Aluminum
Arseni c .
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Manganese
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
85. 1
64.4
62.6
54.9
16.4
24.3
36.7
47.3
25.9
4.7
53
67.6
84. 1
56.0
11.9 .
11.6
43.4
19.0
30.9
5.9
15.3
11. 7
7.5
16.3
10.0
25.4
39.3
37.4.
12.5
37.3
30.1
37.1
8.6
31.4
11. 3
24.9
20.6
24.0
40
-------
VI.
DYE TRACING AND WATER QUALITY STUDY
BACKGROUND
Potable water is supplied to the City of Philadelphia through three
water treatment plants with a total capacity of 1.8 x 106 m3/day (480
mgd). Largest of these plants is the Torresda1e WTP, serving the northeast
part of the Philadelphia metropolitan area and located on the west bank
of the Delaware River approximately six miles upstream from the Northeast
WPCP. The Torresdale WTP has a rated capacity of 1.07 x 106 m3/day (282
mgd) and intakes water by gravity from the Delaware River during flood
tide.
EPA, Region III, inspected the Philadelphia water supply system
from February 7 to 11., 1972, and made the following recommendations in a
letter dated April 21,1972.3
It is recommended that tracer.studies be conducted on the
Delaware River downstream from the Torresdale intake to conclusively
and quantitatively demonstrate the effect of discharges upon the
water quality in the vicinity of the water supply intake. These
studies could be conducted in cooperation with the Delaware River
Basin Commission.
In July 1974, the EPA,
dye study and verified
intake.
Region III, Annapolis Field Office conducted a
that effluent from Northeast reaches the Torresda1e
METHODOLOGY
NEIC, in conjunction with monitoring for complex organic compounds
(Section VII) from the Northeast WPCP, injected tracing dye into the
-------
42
Northeast final effluent channel and monitored for its presence at the
Torres~a1e intake. Dye injection began at 1130 hrs. September 11 and
ended at 1030 hrs. September 21, 1976. In addition, a batch release of
dye was made September 22, 1976 at 2030 hrs. During the dye injection
period, dye concentration at Torresda1e was continuously monitored and
recorded with the exception of brief intervals, usually during ebb tide,
when the fluorometer and recorder were used to determine dye concentrations
at other locations in the Delaware River. Details pertinent to the dye-
dilution technique are provided in Appendix C. Freshwater inflow and
tide height varied during NEIC monitoring [Table 15].
In addition, monitoring was conducted by NEIC at two stations in
the Delaware River upstream of the Torresda1e intake. Raw and finished
water at Torresda1e was also monitored. Upstream stations were sampled
during ebb tide only on an equal-volume composite basis while raw water
at the Torresda1e intake was sampled only during flood tide. Samples
from all four stations were analyzed for COD, heavy metals, and complex
organics. The Torresdale intake was also monitored for nitrosamines;
however, measurable quantities were not detected. COD and heavy metals
results are presented in this section and complex organics are discussed
in Section VII.
RESULTS
The time necessary for wastewater from Northeast to reach the
Torresda1e intake is dependent upon several variables including tide
height, wind, and upstream freshwater flow. During the NEIC survey,
tides ranged from 1.5 m (4.9 ft) to 2.2 m (7.1 ft). NEIC results
confirmed that the dye injected into the Northeast WPCP effluent reached
the Torresda1e intake within one tidal cycle. A flood tide lasts for
approximately five and one-half hours. Study findings showed that when
a batch of dye was released into the Northeast effluent on September 22,
1976, at 2030 hrs., the peak concentration reached Torresda1e seven
hours later September 23 at approximately 0345 hrs., about midway
-------
43
Table 15
DELAWARE RIVER TIDAL CONDITIONS
September 11-23, 1976
Freshwater Inflow Tide Heightt tt
Gate at Trenton at Torresdale Range
ems efs m ft.
9-11 105 3720 1.9 6.1 M
1.9 6.1 M
9-12 116 4100.. 1.8 5.8 M
1.9 6.1 M
9-13 113 3980 1.7 5.5 M
1.8 6.0 M
9-14 107 3760 1.6 5..3 M
1.8 5.9 M
9-15 105 3720 1.5 5.0 M
1.8 5.8 M
9-16 111 3910 1.5 4.9 M
1.8 5.9 M
9-17 151 5340 1.5 5.0 .M
1.8 6.0 M
9-18 . 182 6420 1.6 5.1 M
1.8 5.9 M
9-19 179 .6300 1.6 5.4 M
2.0 6.4 M
9-20 158 5580 1.7 5.7 M
2.0 6.6 S
9-21 149 5260 1.9 6.3 M
2.1 7.0 S
9-22 149 5260 2.1 6.8 S
9-23 130 4580 2.2 7..1 S
2.2 7.2 S
.t Tide heights are reported as net difference be~een lo~
and high tide and occur approximate ly ~ice every 25 hours.
tt Mean tide (M) is 1.9 meters (6.2 ft) or less; spring tide
(5) is 2.0 meters (6.5 ft) or more.
-------
44
through ebb tide. Theoretically this means that the dye mass moved
upstream past Torresdale during flood tide. During the NEIC study a
recording fluorometer monitored the Torresdale intake water. Apparently
the dye slug moved near center channel during flood tide and did not
become mixed with water near the intake until ebb tide. The peak dye
concentration passed the intake, moving downstream 2-1/4 hours after the
beginning of ebb tide.
During the survey, the dye injection rate varied. However,
relatively constant injection rates occurred for three distinct periods
between September 11 and 21. The dye concentration measured at Torresdale
was partly a function of the injection rate [Table 16].
Delaware River and Torresdale WTP raw and finished water were
monitored for COD and heavy metals [Table 17]. COD of the river stations
and the intake ranged from 6 to 25 mg/l and averaged 15 mg/l, while
finished water COD averaged 12 mg/l. Heavy metals concentrations were
very low with many of the metals analyzed either undetected or present
in concentrations near the detection limit. The maximum contaminant
levels for drinking water as established by EPA4 for heavy metals are
compared with NEIC survey findings for Torresdale WTP finished water as
follows:
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Max. Level
mg/l
0.05
1
0.010
0.05
0.05
0.002
0.01
0.05
NEIC Survey Level
Average Max. Day
mg/l
<0.004 <0.004
<0.2 0.2
<0 . 01 0 . 01
<0 . 02 <0 . 02
<0.17 <0.17
0.0013 0.0019
<0.005 <0.005
<0.008 <0.008
-------
Time Period
9- 11 /1130 to .
9/13/0330
9- 13/ 1300 to
9-16/1130
9- 18/1600 to
9-21/0630
Tabl,e 16
COMPARISON OF DYE INJECTION RATE AT NORTHEAST WPCP AND
DYE CONCENTRATION AT TORRESDALE WTP INTAKE
September 11-21, 1976
Average Dye Average
Concentration Net Dye
in Northeast Concentration
Effluent During Flood
(m~/l)t Tide
Average
Injection
Rate
(gr/hr active
ingredient)
Average Peak
Net Dye
Concentration
Duri n~ F1.pftd
Tlde .
Average
Oil utif.p
% .
Peak
Dilution
..%
493 17.4 0.13 0 .75
720 25.4 0.20 0 .79
300 10.6 0.11 1.0
0.23
0.32
0.20
1.3
1.3
1.9
t Based on f7,OUJ of 680 x 103 m3/day (180 mgdJ final eff7,uent from Northeast WPCP.
tt Dilution attained after approximately 24 hoUl's. The dilution is the peraent of the
original dye aonaentration.
ttt Peak aonaentration oaaUl'red at the end of eaah f7,ood tide.
~
(J1
-------
Table 17
COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY
DELAWARE RIVER, TORRESDALE W'l'P AND NORTHEAST WPCP
Station Datet COD Ag As Hg Se A1 Ba Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Sn T1 Zn
Description mg/1 IIg/1 mgll
Delaware River 9-20 6 <8 <4 1.8 <5 18 <0.2 0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.34 0.06 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.03
@ Buoy 48, 8.8 miles 9-21 20 <8 <4 1.1 <5 <1 <0.2 0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.29 0.07 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.02
upstream of 9-22 17 <8 <4 1.4 <5 11 <0.2 0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.41 0.10 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.03
TorresdHe WTP Average 14 <8 <4 1.4 <5 10 <0.2 0.01 <0.02 0.01 0.35 0.08 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.03
intake~
Delaware River @ 9-20 13 <8 <4 2.4 <5 17 <0.2 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.29 0.10 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.02
Buoy 36, 5.9 miles 9-21 25 <8 <4 1.3 <5 <1 <0.2 0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.22 0.06 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.02
upstream of 9-22 16 9 <4 0.9 <5 10 <0.2 0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.48 0.07 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.03
TorresdHe WTP . Average 18 <8 <4 1.5 <5 9 <0.2 0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.33 0.08 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.02
intake. .
~orres~He WTP 9-16 14 <8 <4 0.6 <5 2 0.2 0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.39 0.06 0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.02
lntake 9-17 12 <8 <4 0.7 <5 2 0.3 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.33 0.06 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 <0.01
9-18 15 <8 <4 1.4 <5 <1 <0.2 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 .' 0.59 0.06 0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.01
9-20 8 <8 <4 2.9 <5 <1 0.3 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.28 0.06 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.03
9-21 23 <8 <4 3.2 <5 4 <0.2 0.01 <0.02 <0.01 '0.19 0.06 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.02
9-22 11 <8 <4 2.7 <5 5 <0.2 0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.38 0.06 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.02
9-23 24 <8 <4 1.3 <5 <1 0.2 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.68 0.10 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.04
Average 15 <8 <4 1.8 <5 2 0.2 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.41 0.07 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 .0.02
Torresdale WTP 9-16 14 <8 <4 1.9 <5 7 0.2 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.08 <0.01 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 <0.01
finished water 9-17 6 <8 <4 1.5 <5 13 <0.2 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.01
9-18 9 <8 <4 0.8 <5 15 <0.2 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.07 <0.01 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.02
9-20 17 <8 <4 1.3 <5 25 0.2 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.06 <0.01 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.03
9-21 8 <8 <4 0.8 <5 4 <0.2 0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.07 <0.01 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.02
9-22 15 <8 <4 1.2 <5 4 <0.2 0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.06 <0.01 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.01
9-23 14 <8 <4 1.3 <5 2 <0.2 0.01 <0.02 <0.01 <0.04 <0.01 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 <0.01
Average 12 <8 <4 1.3 <5 10 <0.2 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.05 <0.01 <0.03 <0.17 <1 <1 0.01
Northeast WPCP 9-17 200 19 <4 0.9 <5 22 0.5 0.01 0.07 <0.01 1.16 0.48 0.08 <0.17 <1 <1 0.27
final effluent 9-18 200 9 <4 1.4 <5 17 0.2 0.02 0.05 <0.01 1.26 0.72 0.14 <0.17 <1 <1 0.33
9-19 230 12 <4 1.2 <5 7 0.5 0.02 0.06 <0.01 1.32 0.74 0.09 0.18 <1 <1 0.52
9-20 190 <8 <4 1.0 <5 5 0.3 0.01 0.02 <0.01 1.00 0.65 0.09 <0.17 <1 <1 0.32
9-21 240 13 <4 0.6 <5 4 0.5 0.02 0.07 <0.01 1.21 0.62 0.12 0.22 <1 <1 0.45
9-22 240 21 <4 0.1 <5 <1 '0.3 0.01 0.09 <0.01 2.05 0.75 0.11 <0.17 <1 <1 0.34
9-23 270 22 <4 18 <5 <1 0.4 0.02 0.09 <0.01 1. 75 0.85 0.12 <0.17 <1 <1 0.36 ~
Average 220 14 <4 3.3 <5 8 0.4 0.02 0.06 <0.01 1.39 0.69 0.11 <0.17 <1 <1 0.37 en
t Date is day in which composite ended.
tt Sa;r.ples for 9-20, 9-21, and 9-22 a2'e. 24-hour composites collected during ebb tides.
ttt Samples for 9-16, 9-17, 9-18, and 9-23 are 6-hour composites cvZlected at the intake gate during flood tide. Samples for 9-20, 9-21,
and 9-22 are 24-hr composites collected in the Delaware Riv~r 100 yd out from the intake gate during flood tides.
-------
47
INTERPRETATION
NEIC findings indicate that soluble pollutants discharged from the
Northeast WPCP will reach the Torresdale WTP intake under normal tidal
conditions within one tide cycle. Average and peak dilution ranged from
0.75 to 1.0% and 1.3 to 1.9%, of effluent concentration respectively.
Therefore, under tidal conditions similar to those experienced from
September 11 to 23, 1976, a soluble pollutant discharged from the Northeast
Plant at a concentration of 10 mg/l will be present in the raw water at
Torresdale at an average concentration of 0.075 to 0.10 mg/l and a peak
concentration of 0.13 to 0.19 mg/l.
With respect to water quality monitoring for COD no correlation was
apparent between the Northeast WPCP and Torresdale WTP raw water.
Because metal concentrations at the WTP were generally less than detectable
levels it is not known whether a correlation exists between metals
concentrations from the Northeast WPCP effluent and the Torresdale WTP
intake. In addition, river monitoring did not indicate the presence of
significant concentrations of COD or metals upstream from the Torresdale
intake.
Heavy metals concentrations, with the exception of mercury, were
near or less than the detection limit in the Torresdale WTP finished
water. Mercury averaged 1.3 ~g/l and reached 1.9 ~g/l, on one of the
seven days sampled. The EPA maximum contaminant level for mercury in
drinking water is 2 ~g/l. The mercury concentration in the raw water at
Torresdale exceeded 2 ~g/l and ranged from 2.7 to 3.2 ~g/l on three of
the seven days sampled. Two upstream stations in the Delaware River
averaged 1.4 and 1.5 ~g/l mercury. The Northeast WPCP final effluent
averaged 3.3 ~g/l and ranged from 0.1 to 18 ~g/l mercury.
-------
VII.
ORGANICS INTERPRETATION
Samples collected September 19-22 from nine stations, five at the
Northeast WPCP, two at the Torresda1e WTP and two in the Delaware River
upstream of the Torresda1e intake [Table 1J, were analyzed for volatile
and non-volatile organic compounds. A total of 155 compounds were
identified. Volatile organics were grab sampled while non-volatiles
were sampled on a 24-hr composite 'basis. Non-volatile samples from
Northeast were composited on an hourly flow-weighted basis. Samples at
the Torresda1e intake were collected only during flood tide. Samples
from upstream of Torresdale were collected only during ebb tide.
The purpose of this section is to interpret the significance of the
organic compounds found in the survey, with particular emphasis on
adverse environmental and health effects. Because of the large number
of compounds involved (155), much of the information has been condensed
into a tabular format by sampling point and day [Tables 18 and 19J.
.
Each compound has been assigned a unique number which is given with the
chemical compound for quick reference to Tables 18 and 19. The compound
reference number is listed in the left hand column in ascending order,
followed by the compound name and Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)
Registry number if available.
DETERMINING THE TOXICITY INDEX
It has been commonly accepted that organic compounds occur in
sewage effluents, rivers and, more recently, drinking water. In the
past, most data relating to these occurrences were from gross measure-
ments, such as carbon-chloroform extracts and non-volatile total organic
-------
49
Tabla 18
VOLATlLF. OlIr;/lNTCS
PHILAVb'f,rH T /I IIOIi1'IIr.'/I.'iT frt'CP SUliVb'r t
Septembaj' 1976
Plant Influent
.. .. .. .. +'
.- 0 0 0 0 VI
+' +' +' +' .~
+- a 0. a s: a. 0.." ....1 i.
.. QI QI ~ QI ~ QI I-QI >. i-
QI +- ~ v ~v av .~ v ::::+-J ... QI +- +'
n +- 0" 0" ....I" x.. '" v .. VI ><
5 i- ....IQI ....I", QI QI QIQI QI:': v e: .." .~ QI
>. ... ... .." +' .." +' ~.>< ~ .~ "' .. ....I .."
:;: '" Qle: ...e: .. e: .. e: +' "'''' "'.." >< +' '" e:
Chemical c ..- QI- 0- 0- e: .."... .." QI 0 VI "0 e: -
QI '" VI ..... ..... QI Vie: VIs: I- .L:J e: .."QI
u Abstracts <7. 3:~ ..~ .><~ .><~ ~" QI- QlVI " '" QI "" >.
c e: "'QI "'QI e:QI e: QI "'~ .. ...~ v VI ... "'0 QI +' I
QI ~ervice .~ ~ > E> '" > "'> e:..... ..0.. .. e: VI ve: e: I
L Compound Name '0 OJ OJ OQl .. QI .. QI .~..... 01- o.~ ... v QJ'"" ,~ v
QI Number CI....I VI....I u.. -' u.. -' u..W t- 3 .. I- u.. '" ..: a.v X
It- [; " x :I; VI .. ><
QI '" ~g/1 c;r 0 VI "'" 0 0
"" VI c:( I- C> VlU I- l-
I Ethanol 000064175 1 6 21 3 3112 a 319 360b I
2 600 9,300 510 1,200 250 - - - I
3 3 TD5 7 I
2 n-Pentane 000109660 1 MSI 1 3 5 I
2 -
3 TCI
3 Acetone 000067641 1 33,000 1,600 140 50 2,200 50 15 1 3 104 132 I
2 43,000 2,000 550 1,700 600 50 50 - - I
3 740 380 230 4,400 120 5 TD4
f
4 Dimetho~ymethane 000109875 1 14,000 980 59 1 3 0 7 I
I
2 17 , 000 3,100 - !
3 1,700 LD3 ,
5 4 39 52 i'
5 Dich1oromethane 000075092 1 110 28 59 28 I
2 750 170 130 802 80 16 --
.. 3 120 38 25 802 16 LD4 i
MSI --1
6 Carbon di sulfide 000075150 1 rlS 1 1 2 5 128 144 r
2 - - ~
3 MS3 4 LD4 t
7 1,2-Dich1oroethene 000107062 1 I.\S 1 29 29 ~
2 .
3 J
MSI ---\
8 2-Butanone 000078933 1 '
1 3 4 16 26 ~
2 - - ;:
3 2 LD3 ~
.. "
9 Ch 1 orofonn 1 48 43 43 33 20 144 ~
000067663 2 15 4 3111 108 ~
2 110 59 11 12 4 160 - - - ~
3 180 22 22 4 TC5 6 --l
10 I-Butanol 000071363 1 1 '5 4 18 36 f
2 - - ~
3 3 TC 5
-,
11 l,2-Dichloroethane~ 00DI07063 1 26,000 130 4,000 34 1 16 4 14 43 '
1.2-Dichloroethane3 2 40,000 38 12,000 28 9 - -
l,2-Dich1oroethane~ 3 42 8,700 4 LD4 ~
12 l,l.i-lrichloroethane 000071556 1 MSI 1 4 3 31 47
1.1.I-Trichloroethane~ 2 70 - -
l,l,l-Trichloroethanes 3 46 23 4 TC4 ~
r
13 Trich1oroethene 000079016 1 15 17 10 103 123
2 25 140 - ~
3 26 LD5 f>
b
14 Bromodich1oromethane 000075274 1 MS1 4 4 r
o
Bromodich1oromethanes 2 20 -
Bromodich1oromethaneo 3 65 48 0
15 Dimethyl disulfide 000624920 1 0 17 lr
2 MsG -
3 MS2 0
16 Tetrachloroethane ' 001299907 1 130 4 1.8 26 f
2 500 240 -
.. 3 370 51 lD4
g
(j
D
J
~
~
~
~
J
i:
..
~~
~
!
-------
50
Table 18 (Continued)
VOLATILE ORGANICS
PHILADELPHIA NORTHEAST WPCP SURVEyt
t Column headings are explained in the text.
tt The chemical compounds have beGn assigned unique numbers ~hich appear in ascending order.
ttt Non-volatile organics ~ere 21-lzr composited, based on a sampling day from 6 a.m. to 6 a.m.
sampling days 1, 2, J ~ere September 20, 21, 22, 1976.
tttt The OSHA Standard toxicity rating is explained in Appendix G.
Ending dates for
8 Ethanol is listed in the Suspected Carcinogens List but is not listed in An Ordering of the NIOSH Suspected Carcinogens,
List. The carcinogenicity ranking was calculated in accord with the system described in the explanation of hn Ordering
of the NIOSH Suspected Carcinogens List.
bThe toxicity index for both corrq;ounds 110. 2 rrnd 247 (Ethanol and Caffeine) are biased beaau,qe they are not normal human
metabolites. They CU"e consumed in foods, thus there is a great deal of literature on their health effects.
Day2H
Detection limits ~ill vary ~ith sample size and response.
Estimated only, interference from oimethoxymethane.
Conce,ztJ'::ztions estimated using responsc of
1.2-Dichloropropane.
3 Detection limits vary ~ith sample size and response.
4 Concentrations estimated using response of
1.2-0ichloropropane.
4 Estimated o'zly, interference fro"'! OimethoXlJmethane.
S Concentrations estimated using response of C;,lorofoJ'm.
6 Mass spec IO only, unable to qumztitate.
Day l {2' Mass spec ID only, unable to quantitate.
No sample at Torresdale i{TP Intake available for Day 1.
~, \;
No samples available for De~re Lo~ Level Interceptor
and Somerset Lo~ Level Interceptor this day.
Mass spec ID only, unable to qu~ztitate results.
Concentrations estimated using response of Trichloroethane.
4 Dichloromethane masked by Dimethoxymethane.
5 ConcentJ~tions estimated usinq response of
1,2-Dichlo~opropane.
6 Concentrations estimated using response of Chloroform.
-------
. ..
"L
f
'"
II
u
"
II
L
:!
:!
COf:1pound Name
Chemtcal I
Abstracts I
Serv ice I
Number j
I
17
Methyl Isobutylketone
,
000108101 !
I
i
18
0060322971
000108112 i
!
2-Pentanol
19 I 4-Hethyl-2-Pentanol I
20 'I IJonadecane
000629295 i
i
I
0001088831
000123864 i
21
Toluene
22
n-Butylacetate
23
000127184 I
I
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
24
Olacetone Alcohol
000123422 '
1
25 11.2-EPOXY CYc10he,anel
. 26 Ch 1 orobenzene
000286004
000108907
-Ch 1 orccyc lohexene I
28 Ethyl benzene 000100414 '
29 m & p-Xylene .. . 000108383
P . 000106423
30 2-Cyclohexenol 000822673
31 Styrene 000100425
32 a-Xylene 000095476
TabZe 19
NON-VOLA'l'ILE ORGANICS
PHILADELPHIA NOR'l'BEAST WPCP SURVEyt
September 19Z6
I
I ::
I ..
! ~
O!
go'
0.
~
:; PllJn~lnf1uf1 ~r-
~ ~ n.1.co.
:a~ :t~ ~:::1~~
o L.. 0"- -" ~ I ::z:: "".
~~I~~ ~~I~~!
~- I ~- :~...! ~-i
~~ ' ~~ ; ~~ I ~~I
c;l; g~1~~f~~'
0-' "".,j. I.i..~ : Lo--'
I
I ....
~I -;;~I
g ~~
-:3' cu-,
~::~ ta.l
~~ ~;;:!
I,
2'
3 '
10
I
,
1 :
2, lOCI I
3 ( 1Z01 .
I
i
1 I 120
2:
3 i
~ I
3 I
1: 590
2 '1.000
3 11,740
I
1 ' 280 I
2 I 290 "
3 ! 2
1 i
2 I
3 I
1 ' 100
2; 210
3 '1,400
25
1 i
~ !
1 :
2 I
3 :
I!
n
30
25
20
I I 250 I 21
2 j 220
3; 450 16 12
1 i 490 7 4
2 990 3 47
3 i 1,670 31 46
I
2
3
550
570
1,050
\11
j J
, 32
5
12
6
, ' I I
! j I, l' i 4 13
! i ! I-!, I
, ( I f TC4 ' ;
i --"-"r"'----HI-"T~r"';---T"';'~-
+-HI' : !~I; 3;1: ; I 111;-
, ! i, LC3 : I I I
i !-~-T-"-:"'" I ""~l~'-'
. --11.~.i.~-I--8;;-
-I~, I I I
j 5 I l~L--_+--t---+--
I I T:41 4 i j! 4 114 '
i 4 --r-- '-:;is:
. 1 i Li-+4+-l' o! 13 -
-1-1 I I
~+-i------.L
0.211 I 3, I: 8 15
It; I I ! -
26 43
21
I 27
. 7
112
I I
5! 650 I
I 200 I
180 I
I
I 30 I
I 50 !
60 ~
171
40
29
10
10
20
0.50
0.42
I I 0.09
I 0.04 I 0.18
I 0.08
0.081
120
70 0.20
50
2
14
19
2
3
4
20
,
i
a. L 1
~~:
4I:~ .
-;;; 'a ;
'U .. ,
~"'"
.."
.......,
5.~ .
t- "'- :
I
I
I
i
L I
~ '- f
a: tA o~:
4141 r: 00'
~::z~.
~ e ~.-!
-O"""a..,
c:J . 0..1-
car.n ~~
51
li~
I :;! ..i , I
~ . ! ~ J..i i ;
~ - : ;:-: CJ I:: . ... i
cc.,.o~~ ~~ ~ ..~ .... I
~ ~ !;~. a l ~ I ~ -;: !
~'E ~~. .... t.g :; ~ ~
fO .~; U V).~ ~g
~:g~~~' ~I~ ~e
! ~: ~ :g a~ :
..
~
I~
~ !~
.. I'';
o 0
I- I I-
4
5---LQ~,. '" - --'- -
; 0 0 0
o
4 3 10 30
5 lO4 ! ._A'__- ---
---.--
6 0 9 20
0.08
0 12
I
5 3g; 52
L04 --_t-
6
0.05 -
5 L03
--
-------
..
..)
..
~
f
:!
..
'"
Compound Name
33
34
3-Octanone
35
36
Cumene
37
2-Rexanane
-
38
2-Cyclohexenone
39./ C-7 Alcohol
40 I Methyl heunol
I
I
41 I G-Chlorotoluene
I
42
Benzaldehyde
43
Bis (2-Chloro-
ethyl) Ether
44
2-£thyl-4-methyl
pen lanD I
45 .
.- [thy1to 1 uene
46
£thyl.,ethylbenzene
47
Phenol
48
1.1.1.3-Tetrachloro-
2-cnethyl-2-pronano I
.
I Chemical
Abstracts
Service
Number
000930665
000106683
000111762
000098828
000591786
000111706
I 000627985
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
000111444
000620144
025550145
000108952
TabZe 19 (Continued)
NON-VOL~TILE ORGANICS
PHILADELPHIA NORTHEAST riPCP SURVEy.t
September 1976
L I L;
~ 31
... ....
:: ~~ I~~;
... ..J G.I -II ~ I
"" .. .. ,
:l : f"s ~-=.
. '" ~
en .:1:- L.-
! c :~~ Jg~:
I c. I C-' 111)-,
. ~ .
Pl~nt Influent
L I L I
o I ~
:tg-l~~
.3~ j%t!
~~ !~.... ,
~.: 1- ~.:;! ~
~- ~-I - ~
c cu c ~ 10-
fO> fQ> C:"-
L. G.I I ~ CJ . -"-
""'''''''' ......... : ..........
I' 1 i
2 I
3 I
I
1 1
2 :
3
1 j
2 I
3 I
1 I, 110
2 160
3 I 180
1 ~
~ I
1 '
2 !
3 ,
1 I
I
2 i
3 I
1 !
2 I
3 ,
1
~
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
i
I
I 251!
I 6111
! 3801;
I
I
I
501.~
601 :
401 :
t
I
"
I
,
i
750
820
120
t-.
i
I
31
l-Chlorocyclohexene !
I
I
2-..-~utoxyethanol I
I
I
I
I
I
I 000930687
i I
000095498 I i I
I '
000095498 I ! I
I i
000100527 I i I
i I
171:
!
I
7 !
I
I
I
I
1
i
361
i
I
j
251 I
23
"0/1
1
i
i
I
10 !
10 '
10 ;
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
101;
1'011
, '
!g j 0.131
I
4
5
10
: 0 i' '0 ' 0
I -; j i I J
; 1,--;- ,-:-i--~- i-;-
I _I; I I
i 0 I I '
-i-"-----+-'---
I I' f1;' : 3 :22
~ _,4 I I 1
I T04" I!
--_. -,-- '.' ..... -- -...-~. ... ---4- -- - 1"'> -..-
i ~ : 4; \ 6115
L03 . I I
,~.._-t--'-
4 I I 9121
-:4 I i
L04 ; I
5;/ 0:- i r"I;I'jj'''-
, - -' I I
5 0' i ! !
: f ;-, 1---1" 4: 4-
,',I ~ i !r-D~--
I 0 I 2: 2
- \
I 0 i-
i 3 . : ri5~21
! - I I,
L~3._...L-..LL,-
...!..: 5 . !!!!! 5j 26
T:~,-Pl: 6 ~._-o-
01 I I
I ,I
~
: :~
'0 I
.-1-.- --I..
. ~ j ~ \76:226
- ---- . ~iL~[l-
i~
:::-
L"-
0""
....'"
i. :
I .. L I
I !a ~ :
..'"
,~..,
.., .,
~.c
e.:
L"
~~
i 0.2511
! I
! !
I 0.9] i
, 0.89 I
I 0.71 ,
0.08'
-- --.,-
1-'
! . /
... ! ... I
GI . cu ~
> >
- ~ ,- -- .
a:",O~'c:r",O~
"4.16'" 4.1"6."
~-~-.j.~-~~
OO-ClC.OO-CJC
~ e ~"- . :: E ~ -'
-------
..
....
i
a:
II
u
t
..
...
..
0::
. . Compound Name
Chemical
Abstracts
Serv tee
Number
000108678
000611143
001653403
000542109
55
Ch-2-thlorocyclohexanol 016536586
000100447
000095636
000541731
000124185
001334787
000104767
64 2,3-0thydrobcnzaldehydc 000095012
.---_..___L_____..
49
2.2.3.4-Tetra-
IOOthylpentane
50
1,3,5-Trlmethylbenzene
51
o-Ethyltol uene
52
6-Methyl-I-heptano 1
53
Ethylldene Dlace to te
"
"
54
2-Bror.>o.l-methyl-
propy1aceta te
56
BenZ11 chloride
57
1,2,4-Trlmethvlbenzene
.'
58
...Otch lorobenzene
59
Isopropyl propanoa te
60
..t-IO Oecane
61°
62
Methyl Benzaldohyde
63
2-Ethyl-1-H..anol
TabLe 19 (Continued)
NOll-VOl./iTlU: ORGANICS t
PHILADELPllIA NORT!!EAS'l' rIPcP SURVEY
Scptcml)ero 19'16
::
..
..
~
!
0-
~
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
I
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
I
2
3
1
2
3
I
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
....._-- ---.-....--
Plant Influent
..
~
c>.
..
~u
0"
-'..
..
.."
~-
:>~
.:~
....
'" -'
I
,
2901 i
2201 ;
!
I
I'
10 i
250 I
60
11
4201,'
500'"
290
..
~
~
~u
OL
-'1::
.."
~-
L~
....
B~
..... -'
3
3
I
L
Z
0.
.. ..
OU
-'~
~~
~:
"o.
.. >
t~
L
Z
;~ ~
xt, iQlCl
~~ ... I";~
0- c:: I-,;:)~
:;;~ " - 5 '~.:;
=:41 od- "-
IQ> c:: "- '- a...
~C.I 0-
'--' L.Io-~ -:x
29
4
16
36
16
17
831
.-..- .-.-...
41
4
n
4
10
6
7
7
211
17
131
uel1
I
i
!
i
j
,.
I
I
901
.nl
20
~o
0.211
I
I
)
I
!
i 0.05
i 0.13
I
1001" 0.92
250"> ,0.20
70 0.49
I
...... I
~~ I
4I~ f
..." I
~~ I
f~ I
L" .
0-
>-~
I
I
! 0.081
i
0.0171~
2.5;)1
..
~
- ...
ex 0 c""
fE ~~I
~.- C,I c::
:J 6 ""'o-!
~t:I1:::o..l
C.I .c::..-.
c.n ~:EI
I
i
0.11
4.6 0.02
5.00 0.25
3.25 n 17
, j
I ... I
.. I ~:..
~.... E~ ~."
ex: 041 u c: ~
CJ~E-;I 10( ~ ~
,--.'O.,J 0 "" '"C
oa.- C.I c: - n. c
~e~'-: u ~. a
c;~~~}.., u
CCJJ~:;: ~ K ~
~ ::! 0
0.07
(£03; i i i
! ! i I j 1! 1
I :! I ; 0 I
1-' , ! j 0
-r~I' i'
,. I J
i~! I i 0 \ 0
. ~ o-Ll-++~
I: I I
! ~ i I 0 i 0
o t :
OlD
,--
I
4101 13 ' 34
- i
6 ,
-.-.1-
,
5 j 10
j
6 ! 6
I o'
in:
0.05
I
~ ..!..i
0.091
i
o '
-I
nl
,
4 I 6
-!
yes i
0.13
2 i
-,
LD3 I
o !
- I
o !
o I
~I
~r
n !
I
o
-
o
5
I~]
o
-
. _..~..,---------- ..---.
o
"-1 ..-- --
53
I
,
.
::r
::;:
c:!
... o..
o.'"
~o
u"
o.-
~~
a~
"
..
v
,.c;
:;
~
~
~
o
.-
~
~
,
i
O'
o
; 10! IS
o
o
o
o
----
3
3
-
7
15
--
o
o
--
-------
54
Table 19 {Continued}
NON-VOLATILE ORGANICS
PHILADELPlJIA NORTiIE'I1S7' IVPCP SURVEy.t
September 1976
Plant Influent
L L L .. ~
~ ~ ~ 2
:: 0. a. a. .<: a. 0." " L -' +-
L .. .. ,... 2'~ ~~ ~ ~ !: ..
i +- ,. u :>u o.U j "
+- 0" 0." ....... x~ .- - - - - ~ ~
.. .....:: .....:: .. ~.: ..'" «lI8o~ o:.""o~ U ... :; ..
~ "e~ ...~ ~ "
..c .. co "c " ~ ~ ""0 ~~~~ ~CJ~O'Q " ;;
c ~- ::- ~- ~- ~ "O.. ..... "--""" 0. ~ ~ e
ll Chemical E-= ~.<: .,,- C,I c: '1:1'- CI c: I- .Q "..
u go ~~. "0- ~~ xo- -:;;2 ~.~ ;J e !-.- ~E:.- .;: .. '" !:
c: Ab, trac 10 .... ~~ ~ ~ U ..a g
t 111:; ~S ..a.. .. c -0'1""0.. -co...,o.. U c -
Service Q. .... .... 0.1- 0.- .. '''1- .. . 0..... ~ ~ "'" "'- ~
u c-' "'... ~..... ........ .....:< I-~ C\J'1::J:;:: OCQ:;':;: ~ i~
~ Compound Name Nurr.ber j 6- " ;;; " "
tJo/1 "'" ::. C) 0. .2
65 2-Butyloctanol 1 81 41 0 0 0
2 -
3 0
..---
66 ..-Olchlorobenzene 000095501 1 6 : 5 2 5 11 32
2 69 - -
3 62 5 L04
.~
67 ..-Cruol 000095487 1 7 5 5 5 31
2 - -
000095487 3 200 5 L04
,n ..~---
68 Ch-l,2-01chlorocyc10- 1 1.9 0 0 0
hexane 2 0.04 0.13 0.08 -
3 0.08 0.07 0.21 0
69 Acetophenone 000098862 1 160 1 70 2 10 16
2 230 70 -
, 3 180 60 L04
70c 1
2 "
3 -
71 II-Cruol 000108394 1 140 4 5 5 3121 4 34
2 230 - - -
3 180 5 L04 7
-
72 Olethylbenzene 000141935 1 5 1 4 8
2 SO -
3 L03
73 tra,,-I,2-dich 1 orocyc1 0- 000141935 1 .!. 0 0
hexane 2 4.20
.. .. 3 2,95 0
74 2-Phenyl-2-propanol 000617947 1 540] 170' 0
2 640 200 0.08 0.15 0.17 - 2 2
3 800 220 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.16 0
75 1,2,3,5- Tetramethyl benzene 1 0 0 0
2 15 -
3 17 0
76 n-Nonana 1 000124196 1 71 0 .~_L
2
3 -~ --
--
77 4,8- Oill>ethyHrldecane 1 171 41 O.
2 - 0 0
3 0
78 3-Hethyllndene 000767602 1 201 0 0 0
2 80 -
3 0
.-
79 1-/lcthylpyrrole 000096549 1 131 0
2 - 7 7
3 JL .-
-- - -
80 1,4-Dlchlorocyc lohexane 024955633 1 15 0 0 0
2 10 -
3 0
I
~
-------
55
Table 19 {Continued}
NON-VOLATILE ORGANICS
PHILADELPHIA NOU'l'FlEAS'l' rvpcp SURVEY t
September 1976
PI~nt Influent
.. .. .. .. ~
0 ~ ;;. ~~
.. +> ...... .. .. =-
.. .... .... ..
.. .. '" " "" ~~ -'" '" '" ?J .. ~
'" ~~ "v 0,", ,.~ > > ~
! .. 0" -'.. "'.. ;;: ... ", '" v ~ ..
.. -'~ -'~ " " ~.: "'''' "'o~ "'o~ ~ ~ "
:;- '" ~ "'.. -:;;'" -' "
"'c: +>c: .." .. c: .. .... ~~!;~ CI~Eoa '" .=
o ~.- r: ~; ,2- :5 "" "'''' ~- "3 ~ 0 ~ c:
.. Chemical ", " "C: ~~ .".- C,I C oU'- c:J c: >- .c "''''
v ,,- ~- -;~ ~- ~ E ~.- ::1:8"-- " "'" ?J
c: Abstracts c: ~~ "''' c:" .... v '" E~ "
f 5~ .. > " > ~::: ...... .. c: -0"0""0.. -~V'lo.. - '" .;: -
Service a. "''' ..., .." 0- ~~ ", . 0.- -:,1..::.- .. v ~
~ 0-' '" -' .... -' .... -' ......... >-,. O..n:J~ CCJ=::Z: .. .., ~~
Compound Name Nu!:".:>er ~ " .. .:;; '" '"
.. a ~ ~ !'!
"" ~QI1 <: 0
81 8en1Y I cyan, Ge 000140294 I 0.33 6 9 19
2 -
3 LOS
B2 nC-l1 Undecane 001120214 I 1 12 0 8 8
2 2 18 : 8 -
3 10 4 27 14 0
83 /\ethylacetGphenane 000122009 1 51 4 4 12
2 ~
3
84 1,2.4,5-Tetra- 000095932 I 7 0 1 1
Ilethylben1ene 2 21 -
3 22 0
85 2,4 & 000105679 1 50 20
2 ,5-Dlmethyl phena I OC0095874 2 0 12 12
3 n
86 Dimethyl Cyclohexyl- 1 211 0 0 0
carbinol 2
3 "
87 Dhnethy1cyclaoctyl- 1 211 30' 0 0 0
carbinol 2 171
3 17 n
B8 II-Ethylphenol 000620177 I 0 2 2
2 30 '..
-
3 0
89 hOborneal 000124765 1 3 13 25 21 0 4 4
2 21 10 -
3 . 14 25 17 10 0
90 ~aphtha.lene 000091203 I 50 4101
2 80 0.05 ....! 5 70 89
, 6
3 20 LD4
91 Aloha Terpineol 000098555 I 36 75 130 80 0 40 40
2 37 246 103 80 0.03 -
3 38 15 100 90 0
92 Tert-8utyl acetate 000540885 I 4 I I
2
3 -I
93 nC-l? CIodecane .. 000112403 ; 10 ' 0 8 8
1
2 16 '4 -
3 3 10 ; 13 0
94 -/\ethyl trldecane 1 ' 0 0 0
2 -
3 41 0
95 Qulnal tne 000091225 I 3 7 14
2 4 -
3 5 I.D4
96 .2-bfs(Z-Chlora- 000112265 ~ ZO'
tthaxyl.thane 80 1.17' 0.671. 0.50' 2 0 6
13 330 30 0.30 0.72 I--
75 0.33' 0.40
~1>4
!
[
i
f
i
,
,
,
.
I
i
l
i
I'
f
i,
i
-------
..
..
!
Ii
""
..
~
~
&
Compound Name
97
Indole
98
l-Heptyne
99
p- tert-Butylphenol
100
2-Methyl naph tha lene
101
Olmethyllndan
102
I-Methyl naphtha lene
103
nC-13 Trfdecane
-.
104
~Iycerol t rlacetate
105
Tetrahobutylene
106
~etralsobutylene homers
107
Butyl butanoa te
108
5-8romobenlofuran
109
!'.ethyl butyl bromide
110'
111
Isobutyl butanoate
112
81 phenyl
the",lcal
Abstracts
Service
Number
000120729
000628717
000098544
000091576
000629505
000102761
015220856
000109217
000107824
000109217
000092524
Table 19 (Continued)
NON-VOLATILE ORGANICS
PHILADELPHIA NORTHEAST ({PCP SURVEy"t
September 1976
..
..
+
....
..
<>
'"
c
a.
~
'" ,
I
I I
~ !
Plant Influent
I; It: ~ I ~,
~ ~i o.t .1:0.'.
~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ e! ~~ f
-'~l-':::; /11' (}
~~ !~~; ~~I; ~~!
Gj~ ig~ s.. '"'
c.... JV)....J u..~ I ......3
I
20 I
I
I
I
!
I
i
!
51 I
I
2
3
I
~ I
50
i
i 3
!
I
2
3
1
2
3
10
20
1
2
3
I
'2
3
I
2
3
80
110
1
2
3
110
200
370
.
J
,
.
I
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
I
2
3
I
2
3
10
18
23
10
10
2
31
9
180
240
:
6
8
14
I 5
I 5
! 5
I I
14
4
15
I
I ~~ I
I I
II~ '\
I
.
J
~~
....
'" ~
~c
~-
Lo...
0-:
...:> ,
"011
51
I
.;
c,
"
-'"
..~
~~
0.121
. 0.081
0.041
5
10
I.
o..L
I !; ~ .
.,:: I
~~ I
~""
,,~ ,
L- I
~;: J
...... ,
t it 1....1 ~!: \
~ .... i ~ ..... I ~ ~::::
a:",o~'a:""O~1.~ ~ ~.
IU QJ E: 10 IU <;.I E I';J; J( U ",,'
'--",,)~ L-",_, 0 "0
IO'.-"e: ""-(.Ie .... D c
~Ct.- ~c1:;-! u ~ ~'
8: g~ g: g~ J i; ~ ;:
'gj ~. ~
0.19
0.17
0.071
i
t
I
I
0.22 I 0.27
0.33 I 0.47
0.21 0.25
I
I
!
I
r
0.051
; ! 6
! 1_:
f ! l04 ~
} : 0 !
i i ; i
i : 2 1
! . L03 '
o I
I
o \
o I
I ; j
I O!
! ; ~!
\ ! I
o !
I ILC: I
1 ! I
! 0 ,
! 0 I,
i - ~
t i
4.. 0
I o' I
I -
rtf
o
-
o
o
-
o
3
-
LO]
56
I
.-
~'
I ::
i~
i;
g:
u
1oC; J(
~I ~
,
13: 28
::;
c'
"''-'
~~
~~
; 3101
-.
, 5
,
0: 0
i
; 81 13
i ;
-.--
I 4 i 4
I :
I j 0: 0
~ ---t-.._-~-
I I 51 5
I . 91 9-
4110
I
I
,
i
!
,
!!
~
i
11
"
)1
,
0\0
"
"
I
-- __1._-
o 0
,.
~41
,
;:'
,-
1 i 1
I
-,
j'
\
.
'"
o
o
-- .-
2
2
-
o
o
--
6
3101 17
34
-
5
,1\
."
!'
II
I
)
-------
..
..
..
~
£
co
~
:!
:J.
113
Compound Name
'-Butyl methyl phenol
114
DIphenyl ether
115
p-tert-Amylphenol
116
Trlbutyl phenyl ether
117
nC-14 Tetrade~ane
118
2-Hethyl trldecane
119
Dimethyl n.ohtha 1 ene
120
2-Propyl-4-methyl-pen tano 1
121
ollllCthyl phtha late
122
2-tert-Butyl-p-hydroxy-an; sole
. .
123
Heptano lac tone
124
2-Tert-Cutyl-
4-lII>thoxy-phenol
-
125
Trldecanol
126
.-Phenyl phenol
127
nC-1S Pentadecane
Chemical
Abstracts
Service
Number
000101848
000529954
000573988
000131113
000121005
000112709
000090437
000629629
128
2.6-01. tert-butyl-4 -methyl ph.flOl~
J 000128310
TabZe 19 {Continued}
NON-VOLIITILEORGlIlIICS .
PHILADELPHIII NORTHEAST r{pcp SURVEY t
Septcmbcr' 1976
P1Jnt Influe!,.!.-
.. .. ..
~ ~ E
0. o...co.
cu ): ~ Qt4.1
~v ou -u
o L ..... '- ::: \-
-' CJ aJ CJ
~ "0"" 't;J....
.., c: L C L c:
~- 0- ~-
L- ~- oX-
CIJ CIJ C Cot c: CJ
E> oa> 00 >
o eLl \". CJ L ~
V)-' fo6.-' ""--'
..
..
..
>,
.,
o
'"
.:=
c.
~
'"
I ~
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3 .
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
.2
3
1
2
3
1
~
1
2
3
1
2
3
..
o
..
0-
~~
-':;:
t~
~~
....
0-'
20
20
301
101
4
171
201
850
~~:
1
2
12
4
-
c
"
- "
.,-
c.
-.
......
f
,"'..
>-..
3-
Q.I aJ ILl::
-"'" -
<'0 00 ~"O
~~ ~~
~- ~ ~~
L'""- ! L c::
~~ t ~~
:
uall
I
I
13
3
14
16
17
20
.
0.22
0.05
n 05
I
0.331 0.33
0.251 0.33
on
0.231 0.321
1
161
'ft
15
1~
"
0.~1
~
.;: ....,
c: !.It 0 ~
~= ~ ~
~ e 1:;-1
- 0\"'0...
CJ . c.....
C...", :J:i'
0.03
0.04
0.02
.
0.031
0.07
0.331
0.121
0.351
0.16
0.28
0.20
0.331
-~.
..
..
>
- -
a:",o~ u
CJ CJ e I'Q I(
~= Z ~ :!.
J:E'--
., - u
- Q:) ",'a.
CJ . c.- ....
CCQ:':;: O'Q
"
<:'
<:
0.12
0.251
0.211
0.18
0.28
?J
'L.. T03
-!1~
11
-I
-- _.L03 I
1
~ !
- '..
...J J::
~ .1+-
:; ,i ~
. .,
... . "0
"5 11 ~
'" .::;
~ !~ :2
o '"
... ,<>
;1
~I
o
o
-
o
o
-
o
o
-
o
o
-
o
o
-
o
o
o
-
-
~~~.
2
-
T04
o
-
57
I I
I .. I
, -' ~
lei
I ~ ~ I
- 0 ,
~ -= .
~~ 1
! ".,
, "'...
I
,~
r:
~,~
";(.";(
o . 0
~'...
. I
I 0 ! 0
!
; 1 t 7
1 0
o
I 0
I 20
o
20
!
\
1
I
t
o
o
5
5
5
! 0
r
j 20
J 2
o 0
o
5
33
6
7
11
,.
3
7
9
15
9
9
o
o
o
67
67
-------
..
..
j
a:
u
~
:!
II
."
Compound Name
129
.
A-OI-a- t sopropy1 t dene-
I-sorbose
130
Subs t Iluted Phenol
'"
131
O!ethyl phthalate
"
132
letramethyl butyl phenol
133
nC-16 H~)tadccane
134
Tr1-n-tlu tyl P hospha te
135
Benzyl ether
136
2-Methy1 hexadecane
137
Tetradecano'1
138
BIs(2-Ethylhexy1 )ether
139
p.Nonyl pheno 1
140
Isoamyl benzoa te
141
nC-17 Heptadecane
142
01a11yl phthalate
143
Pentadecanol
J .'''''''''''''''.
ChemIcal
Abstracts
Service
N"r.\ber
032717650
000034662
oo054H53
000126738
000103504
000112721
000104405
000094462
000629787
000131179
I
'"
.
TabLe 19 (Continued)
NON-VOLATILE ORGANICS
PHILADELPHIA NORTHEAST rfPCP SURVEY't
Septcmber 1976
Pl.nt Influent
I ~ ~
.!~ ' .!::
00 oU fO 'Q
~~ ~~
~- ~~
\.- c.. '- C
01- 0-
-:I: ~.....
::
..
,.,
..
D
'"
c
..
o
.'
0.
..
~~
-'::
uc
~-
:0-
~~
.."
D'"
..
~
0.
..
:0 U
OL
-'::
~c
~-
L-
....
5~
"'...
L
o
~
:0"
OU
-,L
..
"O~
L C
~-
~~
L..
"-...
L
3
"'0-
~~
"':;
v~
L C
~-
.-<-
c ..
~ ..
L"
"-...
~~
~~
0.
~
'"
uoll
0.1711
0.13' t
1
2
3
:
0.12t
0.171
1
2
3
1
2
3
801
101 0.24'
9
10
9
8
13
5
8
6
0.09
0.16
30
10
501
0.10
0.411
301
1
2
3
1
2
3
6
8
3
13
10
16
7
1
2
3
1
2
3
0.38
0.33
0.38
0.31
0.42
0.33
50
10
166
125
10
1
~
,n'
1
2
.
1
~
",
31
1
~
I
2
3
80'
20'
31
101 0.33'
0.211 .
0.121 I
1
~
9
3
15
14
12
5.0 I
1 . 0.12 I
~1"
LLLLL:LLLJ
1
~
.. ..
.. ..
.. >-
-.... -...
c:at:: 0 fU c::c 0 CI
"".;Ill "" ~
Q.lAoIEI'O GlClE
-------
..
..
..
..
A
!i
8:
.. themtca1
u Abstracts
c:
co
.. Service
.:! to"'pound Name Number
..
'"
145 2-Hethy1 heptadecane
146 nC-18 Octadecane 000593453
147 Caffetne 000058082
148 t-15 A1cohol
149 Ot -t sobutyl phtha1ate 000084695
150 2(p-tert-Butyl phenoxy)e thano I
151 Trtmethyl hexadecane
152 Hexadecano I
153 nC-19 Nonadecane
154 OI-n.Butyl Phthalate
155 Ceranyl Formate
156 t-17 Alcohol
036653824
000629925
000084742
001454859
157
2.4.6- Tr! - Tert-Butyl Phenol
I -
I "'"''''
]
Octadecanol
59
TabZe 19 (Continued)
NON- VOLATILE ORGANICS
PHILADELPHIA NORTlIEAST r.pcp SURV/:.'Y t
September> 1976
L
..I :;
" -
- u
" "
:f!. :!!.
P13nt Influont
..
..
.... ::
~ ,,""
v 1 ~ ..
"';; : ~
o . ~
... A
:>
vo
u
"
~
t
..
"-
..
o
~
0.
~
..
~
0.
..
~ U
00-
-'~
.."
~-
~-
;!~
'" ..
c....
0-1 0-
~ 3
~ ~ I ~ ~
.3~ -'~
w .., w
.., c:: ~ c:.
~- ~-
1..- .'IIi.-
~ ~ ! ~ ~
a.3 ~~
w
"
u
- :>
..-
;:::
~
0-
~
~~
:<:~
'Ow
0- <:
~-
-"'-
<: u
.. >
~.3
..
~
0-
~
c...
~~
~~ I ~~
VI c: ""..;:
CI- G.I ""
0- 0--
~ Q. ~ c:
01- 0',,-
.....:1: - '-
..
..
'O -
~ ...
'O "
<: 'O u
~ ~ g' .
i; I ~~ !
1 ~ : ~5 I
;ffi! . 0 0
8 --
~.!I .2020.
t ,: ~-~I ; ~66 170b
, I..
. ~;jj. --;-
I:.! t~r~.
I -l----
o~
--A~-
.r 4
J'
t'
E
~,
E
I
~
h
II
"
II
.'
I
jl
II
il
..... - .-....
cr. VI 0 ~ 0:: '" 0 ~
CI Co! S ~ "4.1 E fQ
~- "':~ \-- fIJ'"
-0- CJ C ..,.- U c:
~ a .....- :c E '- -..
:! C'o :;: 0.. I ;! co ~ o..~ ~
g~g-;; I 6o:)g.~i ~
CT
, <:
coil
I
2
3
I
2
3
I i
121 0.33' 0.25' 0.331 l
27 4
20 14 \I
70 20
3
2001
0.16. 0.17 0.08 1 0.12
0.20 0.18 1.40 I 0.18
0.12 0.38
201
81 I
81
20 0.20 !
0.08'
12 6 I
0.14 0.77 0.10 0.09
0.17 1.00 0.17 0.08
0.07 0.89 0.09
20 26
I
2
3
I
2
3
I
2
3
'1
2
3
1
2
3
I
2
3
o
o
--
1
2
3
1
2
3
o
o
3
3
~r.tV.
2
lD4
-t 11
I~[
21 2
:'-J~-
.. ,r~.-
-.-. --
1
2
3
1
2
3
--
601
4501
o
o
~-
1
2 .
. 3 60'
~
-------
60
Table 19 (Continued)
NON- VOLATILE ORGANICS
PHILADELPHIA NORTHEAST WPCP SURVEyt
September 19'16
t Colwrrn heOOi"r/s QI'e ernlai"ed in the text.
f The che.o:-zical. ~o:7t'Otmd8' havc octJu Gssi;:'"}:ed w1iquc numbzra which appear in a.:;cer.di~lg order.
flon-vol:J.tiZe orilalZics /Jel'e 24-hr corrrpC'sited, based on a samplir.a day from 6 a.m. to 6 a."'.
j~ 21 J L}al'e Se'?te.-:WtJr 20, 21, 22, 19i6.
t Th'3 OSHA Standa,'.! toxicity rat-:'1I(1 is eJ.plai,!ed in Appendix G.
(
Ethanol is listeJ i" the Suspected Caminogens List but 'is not tist~d in ,;" 01"'''1'-0''[1 of the NIOS.={ S:;spected Carair.o£!ar!s List. The
carci>:oge'licity rankinfi /JaS calculated ir. accord with the system dcscribed i" the cxplana!;ion of An Ordering of the NIOSH Suspected
Carc-inogel!s Lis t.
T:le toxicity indo::: for both cor.;polmds "'0. 1 and 147 (Ethanol ,md Caf:eineJ al'e biased bec'Iuse they are not normal ;..i-..:n ",etabo1-:tc".
1'f1tdy are conmc,"/ed i'l foods, thU3 the1~e is a gpeat deal of Zite~~1tu.l'(3 O~ theit> health effects.
c Co"'pou,;do 61, 70 awl 110 /Jere d:Ices List but are listed as beina toxic if they
occur with 7, 12-Dir.:ethyl b."lz(aJanth:,acer.e.
e No toxicir;y data aJ'e give" for compou',d No. ~2 but there is an OSHA Standard. Also, see Table 21.
1. Theso compo;mds ha:;e bO"11 identified by combined gas
Ch1'Of:latcgl'.:zpJzy/masB cpecnromer-ry, but have not bee~l corzfi:r>r.1ed
bec""se standcJ'd co."'pounds I;)el'e not available to chook GC
retention timas wid mass svcatra r:m on ()~r mass aveCCl'omater.
Quantitative j"coults LJe:r~e estimated based en corr:rJl:ll'J.bLe
standtu'd compola1ds havir!J co:r;:r'8sponding l'ete~tiQn times.
2. 2-Ethyl-l-Hexa"oL can be identified but "ot OO>1Firmed as
positiveLy because of an interfering compou'ld in these tWo
samples.
3. 2-PI,enyL-2-propanoL and bis(2-Chloroethox~Jethane ~ere reported
aD >lot confi","ed in the i."itial reporti>lg oj' this day's
sampling. Standarda have become avaiLabLe a>td these two
compow:ds can noW be co"j'irmed.
1.
These compounds have beer. ide>ltified by c,,,,bined gas
cllromatography/n:aas spect:'ometry, but have IIOt been confirmed
because sta.nda:r'd comu:1wda ~.Jcre llOt a;;a-:..l.ahle to check GC
J'Ctention timeu and ;r.:.zGS S;:SCtllQ l'W'2 O~l O~l1' inatf'ltr.wnt.
Quantitative rec~Lt8 were e:;timatcd basad Oll compurwle
Dtandal'Gl CQmpozmdc with cQrrespo,:ding rotcJ1tion timqs.
The identity of 2-Ethyl-l-hexa>zoL i'l Delawa,'e LOLl Level
Intel'o.:epto1' a'id f'iwJ.l EffLuent w.~s unoe:'tain beo.?use
o[ another i>1te1'fering compound preae"t. i'he GC retention
time is the same aD the standard.
2.
1.
These compounds haw: br.e/1 iden tifi"d by combi'led gas
ch1'omat"graphy/masr. Dp"ct1'Orn"t"y, l.«t h.ove not bem:
cOlltil,,"cd beoa!we r.t:mdar'.1 c:omr,-,'md:; wr".J not uv,lilabl.a
to check GC l'atcrl:.:io~l t1:"jeC and ma.:;c s/J(]f:tl':l l'W: on our
inotrwnant. Quantitativ.; ,'csult:; were caci,,;a.tfJd baaed
on cornp'.11'Oblc Dtandurd campou"dD with C01'l'eGrond-i"g
retcntion times.
Toc1'ac:illo1'oathylene /'yiS ",,,ok,,r] by tha a"OIlB f1)I/OWlt 'of
:oJ-Butyl acetate i., tilia "..unpl'"
7'/zc prCDcnr.W of o-Xy l.ey:;! in ~hia Damp It; can hI) (!onfir"'11cd
but cap",'atio" [rom sty,>.,,,e i~ not comf,Lete enou(JiI to
dete".i'!6 qU(lIItitatiacly.
2.
3.
Ending dates for sampling days
4.
and thesa oan readil~ be
in tl!e a ta',dC'.J'd .
as the sa'"p l6 alid are
5.
Tetraisobutyle>le shc:Js t:'.JO isomers
identified. TI:e~ are aLso pl'esent
TetraisobutylcnJ in the same ratio
obvious imp~itiea.
This compoi-md t.:c:.s ir.-:,:'!'u.z,Z:J l-epopteJ '..lS 2,6-Di-t.-!;A~yt-
p-cresolJ but we decided to report it as 2,6-Di-icrt-
butyl.-1-met;hylphenoZ. 3:Jt.h names Q)"e co)"re\Jt but in
keeping with the reportina of other phenols we c;":lIIfie:1 it.
J.
TWo tqtraisobutylene isomers can be readily identified in
the sample, arod they /Jere al30 p"oJsent as obvio:: the sar.:;J 1'a t,:o as the samp La.
4.
On previoua sampling daya this D~~Lo was ida>lti[ied as
1.!ethyL hexr.not. It. c,)"ld not be idwltified on chia day.
2-Etll'l~-I-h(!x(1I!0l "an be C?n(i,>mad mora l'eadily ,:.. this
car.zpt~. A.n iHitJPrt3.,-in~ comp~w1d t,JaB prenent iH aft e~rlier
sampl.e and irlttrttij"ic=:ti\ftI tJ~w not as poaitipe.
Aaai'l the icomer:; oj" t.atrai,::;obut!lLcna lJere ppt;!llent ~n the
sampLe ill the (''V!Ie ratio a:; in the standard oj'
tetrui3'Jbu t!llen~.
5.
6.-
-------
61
carbon. Today the use of ultra-sensitive analytical tools, such as the
computer-assisted gas chromatography-mass spectrometer scan, has led to
definitive understanding of the many organic molecules present in small
amounts in such waters. (For NEIC analytical methodology, see Appendix
F.) Although Tables 18 and 19 list 155 compounds, recent EPA estimates
indicate that these identified compounds constitute about 10% by weight
of the total organic compounds present in such waters. A much fuller
discussion of these methods is found in the recently published book
Identification and Analysis of Organic Pollutants in Water.s
The compounds listed in Table:18 and 19 are not unique to the
waters sampled. Concurrent exposure to the compounds, by various seg-
ments of the United States population, exists via some foods, ambient
air, occupational environment, and household products including over-
the-counter medications, cleaning solutions, and cosmetics. Exposure to
such chemicals can cause adverse reactions in people, modified by indivi-
dual susceptibility in terms of specific adaptation. Adverse reactions,
which are manifested in a wide variety of physical and mental symptoms,
are often chronic in nature and cyclic in occurrence, producing condi-
tions which are frequently undiagnosed or poorly identified. Interpre-
tation of the clinical ecological effects of data in Tables 18 and 19 is
difficult and beyond the scope of this report, but may be found in
Clinical Ecology. 6 The compounds identified during the survey [Tables
18 and 19J were evaluated and a toxicity index developed [Appendix GJ.
The toxicity index developed herein is a number estimating the relative
toxicity of all the organic compounds found. Consideration of absolute
toxicity factors, such as the development of cancer or lethal dose, was
used to indicate the compounds which are potentially more harmful than
others. The toxicity index is more a safety hazard evaluation than a
clinical ecological interpretation.
One of the most critical aspects of this study to emerge is that
the effects of long-term exposure to anyone or exposure to the whole
-------
62
spectrum of 155 compounds identified and listed in Tables 18 and 19 are
unknown. It has been determined that 60 of these compounds have been
identified as toxic substances and that 10 are listed as suspected
carcinogens [Tables 18, 19, 20, and 21].
TOXICITY DATA
Table 20 summarizes the number of reported toxic doses to various
organisms of the chemicals identified. Although 155 chemicals were
identified [Tables 18 and 19] toxit dose data are reported for only 60
in the 1974 NIOSHToxic Substances List7 or in the 1975 NIOSH Suspected
Carcinogens - a Subfile of the NIOSH Toxic Substances List.8 For
several of these chemicals there are multiple reports as to toxicity by
each of several modes of exposure. For example for ethanol there are
four reports concerning human toxicity through oral exposure, for other
chemicals there may be several reported toxicities for "Oral dog," "Oral
rat," "Inhalation human," etc. A total of 261 individual bits of
toxicity data are reported for the 60 chemicals identified.
To refine the significance of this'tabulation a more detailed
presentation was made of the data relating to oral and inhalation
exposure as these are the more likely modes of human contact [Table 21].
This table also lists the U.S. Occupational Standards of chemicals for
which data are reported in references 7 and 8.
Most of the analytical data, from the several sampling locations
involved, indicate that concentrations were one or more orders of magni-
tude less than toxic doses, lethal doses and the U. S. Occupational
Standards. However, important considerations remain unknown. Most of
the toxic dosage and lethal dosage studies were of short duration using
relatively high concentrations of the substances investigated, and,
importantly, the toxic and lethal effects of each substance was evaluated
-------
Table 20
SUMMARY OF REPORTED TOXIC DOSES BY ORGANISM AND TYPE OF EXPOSURE
NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA WPCP SURVEY
September 16 - 23. 1976
Toxicity Sca1et Number of Reported Toxic Doses
Oral Inhalation Subcutaneous Intraperitoneal Skin Intravenous Parenteral Ocular Total
7 Human 9 21 - 1 31
6 Monkeys 0
5 Cat, Dog, Pig,
Cattle, or
Domestic Animal 5 2 3 1 8 19
4 Rat 49 12 11 19 2 94
3 Mouse 14 4 14 10 3 4 1 50
2 Guinea Pig, Gerbil,
Hamster, Rabbit,
etc. 21 5 10 5 17 6 64
1 Wild Bird, Bird,
Chicken, Duck,
Quail, Turkey 1
0 Frog "'\ - 2 2
Tota 1 99 44 38 .35 21 20 2 2 261
t Refer to text Section VII for explanation.
0)
w
-------
64
TabZe 21
SUMMARY OF ORAL AND INF/ALATION EXPOSURES TO TOXIC ORGANIC CF/EMICALSt
NORTHE::AST PF/ILIIDE.'LPF/IA WPCP SURVEY
September 16 - 23, 1976
Lethal Dose or U.S. Occurational Std.
Ref. Chemical Lowest Published Lowest Published Concentration Time Weighted Avg. Cone.
No. Toxic Dose Letha 1 Dose 50% Ki 11 in Air
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/l
ETHANOL 1 ,000 ttt
Oral Human 50 1,400
Ora 1 r,ta n 6,000
Oral Child 2,770tt 2,000
Oral House 220
Oral Cat 6,000
Ora 1 Rabbit 9,500 6,300
Oral Guinea Pig 5,560
2 n-PENTANE l,OOOttt
Inhalation Human 130,000
3 ACETONE 500ttt 1,000
Inhalation Human
4 DIMETHOXY METHANE 1,000
5 DICHLORO METHArjE ttt 500
,Inhalation Human 500t~/1 yr.
Inhalation Human 500 ' /8 hrs.
Oral Oog 200
6 CARBON DISULFIDE 20
8 2-BUTANONE 200
Oral Rat 3,100
Inhalation Rat 2,000
9 CHLOROFORM '10 ttt /l yr. 50
Inhalation Human
Oral Rat 300
Oral Rat 8,OOOttt/4 hrs. 800
Inhalation Rat
Ora 1 Mouse 18 (Int.120 d.) 2,400
Oral Dog 1,000
Inhalation Dog 75
Inhalation Dog 100 59ttt
Inhalation Rabbit 20,OOOttt/2 hrs.
Inhalation Guinea Pig
10 1 , BUTANOL 25ttt 100
Inhalation Human
Oral Rat 2,510
Ora 1 Rabbit 4,250
11 l,2-DICHLOROETHANE 4,OOOttt 50
Inhalation Human
Oral Human 845
Oral Rat l,OOOttt/4 hrs. 680
Inhalation Rat
Oral Mouse 600
Ora 1 Oog 2,OOOttt
Inhalation Rabbit 3,OOOttt
Inhalation Pig 3,OOOtttP hrs.
Inhalation Guine~ Pig 9,000
-------
65
Tab~e 21 rContirwad}
SUMMARY OF ORAL AND INHALATION EXPOSURES TO. TOXIC ORGA/lIC CHEf.lICALS t
Lethal Dose or U.S. Occupational Std.
Ref. Chemical Lowest Published Lowest Published Concentration Time Weighted Avg. Cone.
No. Toxic Dose Lethal Dose 50% Kill in Air
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mgll
12 l,l,l-TRICHLOROETHANE 920:~~1l70 min. 350
Inhalation Human
Inhil1ation r1an 350'
Ora 1 Rabbit 5,660
Oral Guinea Pig 9.470
16 TETRACHLOROETHANE
Ora 1 Rat 1.000ttt/4 hrs. 200
Inhalation Rat
17 METHYLISOBUTYL KETONE 100
2-PENTANONE, 4 METHYL 200ttt
Inhalation Human
Oral Rat 2.080
18 2-PENTANOL
Oral Rat 1.470
Ora 1 Rabbit 3.500
19 4-METHYL-2-PENTANOL 2.600
Oral Rat 2.000ttt/4 hrs.
Inhalation Rat
21 TOLUENE 200ttt 200
Inhalation Human
Inhalation 11an 100ttt
Oral Rat 4.0DOttt/4 hrs. 3,000
Inha 1 ati on Rat
22 BUTYL ACETATE 200ttt 150
Inhalation Human
23 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 230ttt 100
Inhalation Human 4.000ttt
Inhalation Rat
24 DIACETONE ALCOHOL 50
Oral Rat 4.000
25 l,2-EPOXY CYCLOHEXANE
Oral Rat 2 ,ooottt /4 hrs. 1.090
Inhalation Rat
26 CHLOROBENZENE 75
Oral Rat 2.910
28 ETHYLBENZENE 100
Oral Rat 4.000ttt/4 hrs. 3,500
Inhalation Rat
-------
66
Tabla 21 (Con t intted)
SUMMARY OF ORAL AND INHALATION EXPOSURES TO TOXIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS.~
lethal Dose or U.S. OccupatIonal Std.
Ref. Chemical lowest Published lowest Published Concentration Time Weighted Avg. Cone.
No. Toxic Oose lethal Dose 50% Kill in Air
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/l
31 STYRENE 6DOttt 100
Inhalation Human
Inhalation Human 376ttt
Inhalation Man 500ttt
Oral Rat 4,920
Ora 1 Mouse 316
35 2-n-BUTOXYETHANOl 195ttt/8 hrs. 50
Inhalation Human
Oral Rat 1,480
Oral Mouse 1,230
Inhalation Mouse 700ttt17 hrs.
Oral Rabbit 320
Oral Guinea Pig 1,200
36 CUMENE 50
Oral Rat 2,OOOttt 1,400
Inhalation Mouse
37 2-H[XAtm::E 100
Ora 1 Rat 2,590
Oral Guinea Pig 6,OOOttt/7 hrs. 914
Inhalation Guinea Pig
42 BENZALDEHYDE
Ora 1 Rat 1,300
Oral Guinea Pig 1,000
43 BIS (2-CHlOROETHYl) ETHER 15
Oral Rat l,OODttt/45 weeks 75
Inhalation Rat
Oral Mouse 192
Ora 1 Mouse 33179 wks.
47. PHENOL 5(skin)
Oral Human 14
Oral Human 140
Oral Rat 414
Oral Mouse 500
Oral Rabbit 420
Oral Mouse 300
S6 BENZYL CHlOR IDE 16ttt
Inhalation Human 1,2362
Ora 1 Iiouse 1,624
63 2-ETHYl-l-IIEXANOl
Oral Rat 4,125
Oral Rabbit 3,580
Oral Guinea Pig 1,300
66 a-DICHLOROBENZENE 50 (ce ill ng c.)
Ora 1 Rat 500
-------
67
Table 21 {Continued}
SUMUARY OF ORAL AND INHALATION EXPOSURES TO TOXIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS-t
Lethal Dose or U.S. Occupational Std.
Ref. Chemical Lowest Published Lowest Published Concentration Time Weighted Avg. Cone.
No. Toxic Dose Lethal Dose 50% Kill in Air
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/l
67 a-CRESOL 5 (skin)
Oral Rat 121
Oral Rabbit 940
69 ACETOPHENONE
Oral Rat 3,000
71 M-CRESOL 5 (skin)
Oral Rat 242
Oral Rabbit 1,400
72 DIETHYLBENZENE
Oral Rat 1,200
81 BENZYL CYANIDE
Oral Rat 270 3
Inhalation Rat 430 mg/m /2 hrs.
Ora 1 Mouse 100 mg/m3 78
Inhalation Mouse
85 METHYL ACETOPHENONE 500
Oral Rat
90 NAPHTHALENE 10
Oral Child 100
Oral Rat 1,780
92 TERT-BUTYL ACETATE 200
95 QUINOLINE
Oral Rat 400
96 l,2-BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) ETHANE
Oral Rat 250
Oral Guinea Pig 120
97 INDOLE
Oral Rat 1,000
99 p-TERT-BUTYLPHENOL
Oral Rat 3,250
104 GLYCEROL TRIACETATE
Oral Rat 3,000
112 BIPHENYL 0.2
Oral Rat 2,180
Oral Rabbit 2,400
121 DIMETlIYL' PHTHALATE 5 mg/m3
(PHTtIALIC ACID. DIMETlIYL ESTER)
Ora 1 Rabbit 4,400
Oral Guinea Pig 2,400
Oral Chicken 8,500
-------
68
Table 21 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ORAL AND INHALATION EXPOSURES TO' TOXIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS t
Ref.
No.
Chemical
Lowest Published
Toxic Dose
mg/kg
Lowest Pub1ished
Letha 1 Dose
mg/kg
Letha1 Dose or
Cone en tra t i on
50::; Ki 11
mg/kg
U.S. Occupationa1 Std.
Time Weighted Avg. Cone.
in Air
mg/l
122 2 TERT -BUTYL-p-ItYDROXY -AN I SOLE
(without "2-TERT" and without
Up") ANISOLE. BUTYLHYOROXY
Oral Rat
1.000
124 2-TERT-BUTYL-4-METHOXY-PHENOL
Oral Rat
4.000
125 TRIOECArIOL
Oral Rat
126 o-PHENYLPHENOL
Oral Rat
4.750
2,700
132 1,1.3.3(TETRAI1ETHYLBUTYL)PHEfIDL
Oral Rat
2,160
135 BENZYL ETHER
Oral Rat
142 DIALL YL PHTHALATE
Ora 1 Rat
Oral Rabbit
2.740
770
1,500
147' CAFFEINE
Oral Human
Oral Rat
Oral Rat
Oral Mouse
Oral Rabbit
192
1.650 (2-15 days preg.)
650.(6-18 days preg.)
1,500 (1-15 days preg.)
192
t From references 9 and 10.
. tt bltermittent expOSU1'e for 79 weeks.
ttt Concentration in parts pe,' million.
tttt Milligrams per cubic meter for 120 min.
-------
69
on an individual basis. Virtually no reports are available concerning
long-term effects of exposure to most of the substances identified and
data are not available on the combined effects of exposure to this wide
spectrum of toxic substances.
ASSESSMENT
Although other surveys of similar nature have been made there were
fewer compounds identified than in this study. The principal reasons
are the large number of industries: discharging wastewater to the Phila-
delphia Northeast WPCP and improved analytical techniques which have
made it possible to identify a greater number of compounds at lower
concentrations than in previous studies. There were 155 separate com-
pounds identified in this survey: 71 compounds were identified only in
the influent to the Northeast WPCP, 40 additional compounds were found
in the Northeast WPCP effluent and/or two upstream stations in the
Delaware River, and 44 more compounds were detected in the Torresdale
WTP intake and/or finished water. A number of trends can be discerned
by noting their place of occurrence and non-occurrence as discussed in
the following paragraphs.
Raw Wastewater Influents
There were 71 compounds identified only in influents to the Phila-
delphia Northeast WPCP. These are listed below:
Compound
Number
2
7
8
10
12
13
15
16
17
Compound
Name
n-pentane
1,2 dichloroethene
2-butanone
1-butanol
1,1,1-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
dimethyl disulfide
tetrachloroethene
methyl isobutyl ketone
-------
Compound
Number
18
19
20
22
34
35
39
41
44
45
47
49
51
59
60
62
64
65
66
67
71
72
75
76
77
78
79
82
83
84
86
88
93
94
98
101
102
103
109
114
116
117
118
119
120
123
Compound
Name
2-pentanol
4-methyl-2-pentanol
nonadecane
n-butyl acetate
n-octanone
2n-butoxy ethanol
C-7 alcohol
a-chlorotoluene
2-ethyl-4-methyl-pentanol
m-ethyltoluene
phenol
2,2,3,4-tetramethylpentane
: a-ethyl toluene
isopropyl propanoate
decane
methyl benzaldehyde
dihydrobenzaldehyde
2-butyl-l-octanol
a-dichlorobenzene
a-cresol
m-cresol
diethylbenzene
1,2,3,5-tetramethylbenzene
n-nonanol
trimethyltridecane
3-methyindene
l-methyl pyrrole
undecane
methyl acetophenone
tetramethylbenzene
dimethyl cyclohexylcarbinol
m-ethylphenol
dodecane
3-methyl tridecane
l-heptyne
dimethyl indan
l-methylnaphthalene
tridecane
methyl butyl bromide
diphenyl ether
tributylphenyl ether
tetradecane
2-methyltridecane
dimethylnaphthalene
2-propyl-4-methyl-pentanol
heptanolactone
70
-------
Compound
Number
.125
127
133
136
137
138
143
144
146
148
150
151
153
155
156
157
71
Compound
Name
tridecano1
pentadecane
hexadecane
2-methy1 hexadecane
tetradecanol
bis-(2-ethy1hexyl) ether
pentadecanol
methy1heptadecane
octadecane
C-15 alcohol
2(p-tert-buty1phenoxy) ethanol
trimethyl hexadecane
nonadecane
geranyl formate
C-17 alcohol
2,4,6-tri-tert-butyl phenol
The concern with these chemicals is related to their potential for harm
in the environment, since, at present they have only been reported
within the confines of the wastewater treatment system. Although these
chemicals were only found in the wastewater it is possible that some may
represent slugs which were entering but had not passed through the plant
during sampling. Although the low concentration detected may not inter-
fere with treatment efficiency, if concentrations increase with time or
if heavy slugs enter the system the probability of interference with
treatment efficiency should increase.
The most general observation is that none of these compounds rep-
resent normal human metabolites. They are all of industrial origin. It
is likely that many of these compounds are foreign and inhibitory to the
metabolism of organisms normally found in biological treatment systems.
A second observation is the wide range in concentration, 1400 fold, from
1 ppb for isopropyl propanoate (59) to 1.4 ppm for n-butyl acetate (22).
This latter compound also demonstrates another noticeable trend, namely
that daily waste concentrations varied by a factor of more than 10
during sampling. Such rapid fluxes in concentration of these foreign
-------
72
chemicals makes it that much more difficult for activated sludge organ-
isms to attempt to adjust their metabolic processes to accommodate them.
Table 22 shows the flows for each sampling station. For the up-
stream stations, flows are daily river means taken at Trenton, New
Jersey. The daily load of n-butyl-acetate (22) discharged during the
survey was 26 kg (57 lb), 60.9 kg (134 lb), 392 kg (863 lb) for days 1,
2, and 3, respectively. Since this compound is of industrial origin,
and it occurs only in one interceptor, it most likely represents a
chronic discharge from a single manufacturing operation in which cleaning
processes result in intermittent ~igh concentrations. A single indus-
trial operation therefore probably discharged 479 kg (1,054 lb) of n-
butyl-acetate in a three-day period. Similar inferences can be found
throughout Tables 18 and 19 where a periodic or one-time significant
discharge occurred along with chronic low-level discharges.
Nine suspected carcinogens -- ethanol (1), chloroform (9), phenol
(47), benzyl chloride (56), m-cresol (71), naphthalene (90), indole
(97), biphenyl (112) and tetramethyl butyl phenol (132) -- were detected
in the raw wastewater entering the Northeast WPCP. The three-day total
load of these compounds was, non-volatile organics, 794 kg (1,750 lb),
of which 97% was from the Delaware Low Level Interceptor and estimated
volatile organics based on grab samples, 1,626 kg (3,577 lb), of which
71% was from the Somerset Low Level Interceptor. Substantial amounts of
such hazardous compounds were introduced to the collection system, even
though they were apparently treated and removed on the days sampled.
Overall, approximately 7,650 kg (16,850 lb) of non-volatile organic
compounds were discharged to the Philadelphia Northeast WPCP during
three days of sampling [Table 23].
The Delaware Low Level Interceptor was by far the major source of
both volatile and non-volatile organics contributing 95% and 92%, re-
spectively, of total influent loads to the Northeast Plant.
~.- ~
-------
73
Table 22
FLOW AT ORGANIC SAMPLE SITES
Phi lade lr.hia, Pennsyvania
September 19-22, 1976
Station Description Flowt Day Datett
mld
Delaware Low Level Interceptorttt 260 1 9-20
290 2 9-21
I 280 3 9-22
Somerset Low Level Interceptor 120 1 9-20
120 2 9-21
120 3 9-22
Frankford Low Level Interceptor 23 1 9-20
55 2 9-21
51 3 9-22
Frankford High Level Interceptor 200 1 9-20
210 2 9-21
210 3 9-22
Final Effluent 640 1 9-20
720 2 9-21
680 3 9-22
Torresdale WTP Intake 1,100 1 9-20
1,100 2 9-21
1,100 3 9-22
Torresdale WTP Finished Water 1,100 1 9-20
1,100 2 9-21
Rivertttt 1,100 3 9-22
Delaware 14,000 1 9-20
1 3 , 000 2 9-21
12,000 3 9-22
t Flow is reported in million liters per day average flow during
the sampling day from 6 a.m. to 6 a.m.
tt The date refers to the date of the end of the sampling day.
ttt Each interceptor carries raw wastewater into the Philadelphia
Northeast WPCP.
tttt TWo stations were on the Delaware River 5.9 miles and 8.8 miles
upstream of the Torresdale WTP intake respectively.
t,
-------
TabZe 23
NON-VOLATILE ORGANICS LOADINGS
NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA WPCP SURVEY
September 16-23. 1976
Day 1 mg/1 Day 2 Day'3 1b/day 3-Day Average 3-Day Total
mg/l kg/day lb/day kg/day lb/day mg/l kg/day mg/l kg/day 1b/day kg lb
6 1.570 3.450 9.4 2.700 5.960 10 2.760 6.090 8.5 2.340 5.170 7.030 15.500'
0.2 23 52 0.7 87 190 0.7 80 180 0.5 63 140 190 422
0.4 9 20 2.1 120 260 0.9 44 98 1.1 58 130 173 378
0.29 59 130 0.5 110 230 0.42 87 190 0.40 85 180 256 550
1 .660 3.650 3~020 6.640 2.970 6.560 ,2.550 5.620 7.650 16.850
1.5 970 2.130 1.0 720 1.590 1.1 750 1.650 1.2 810 1.790 2.440 5.370
0.19 200 440 0.18 190 420 0.16 170 370 0.18 190 410 560 1.230
Parameter
Delaware Low Level
Interceptor
Somerset Low Level
Interceptor
Frankford Low Level
Interceptor
Frankford High Level
Interceptor
. Total Influent
Final Effluent,
Torresdale WTP Intaket
Delaware River. 9.5 km
(5.9 mi) upstream of
Torresdale WTP Intake
Delaware River. 14 km
(8.8 mi) upstream of
Torresda1e WTP Intake
0.0018 -
0.0043
0.0019
0.0027
0.0017 -
0.0027
0.0021
0.0022
t Loads computed for f'l0/,) of 1.060 mZd (280 mgdJ
.......
~
-------
75
Significant concentrations of volatile organic compounds were
detect~d. Because grab samples were collected for volatile organics
actual daily loads discharged could not be calculated. Daily loads were
estimated, however, based on instantaneous concentration and average
daily flows [Table 24]. The estimated total load of volatile organics
discharged to the Northeast WPCP during three days of sampling was
51,100 kg (112,400 lb). Although these loads are only estimates, their
magnitude in combination with the non-volatile organics and the relatively
unknown environmental effects of many compounds raises serious question
as to their long-term impact upon the waste treatment process, the
Delaware River and the Torresdale WTP.
Due to the substantial quantities of organics in the four inter-
ceptors, the distribution of manufacturing industries potentially dis-
charging to the Philadelphia Northeast WPCP was evaluated. The North-
east WPCP sewerage area was translated into zip code districts which
were machine searched in a computerized file of manufacturers in the
area. There are 869 industrial plants within the area served by the
Northeast collection system employing 20 or more people. Of these
companies, 98 are in Fortune's top 1,000 manufacturing establishments
for the entire U.S.
The 869 industries are categorized into 20 broad SIC or product
codes as follows.
SIC
Code
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Number
of Plants
68
1
89
60
14
25
59
38
44
Industry
Food and kindred products
Tobacco Products
Textile Mill Products
Apparel and Related Products
Wood and Wood Products
Furniture
Paper and Allied Products
Printing and Publishing
Chemicals and Allied Products
-------
Table 24
VOLATILE ORGANICS CONCENTRATIONS AND ESTIMATED LOADSt
NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA WPCP SURVEY
September 16-23. 1976
mg/l Day 1 1b/day Day 2 Day 3 3-Day Averaqe 3-Day Total
Parameter kg/day mg/l kg/day 1b/day mg/l kg/day 1b/day mg/1 kg/day lb/day kg 1b
Delaware Low Level
Interceptor 73 19.000 41.800 101 29.300 64.400 0 0 0 58 16.100 35.400 48.300 106.200
Somerset Low Level
Interceptor 1.9 230 500 12.3 1.480 3,250 1.1 130 290 5.1 615 1,350 1,840 4.040
Frankford Low Level
Interceptor 0.36 8 18 1.8 99 220 0.88 45 99 1.0 51 112 152 337
Frankford High Level 1816
Interceptor 0.15 30 66 3.4 710 1.570 0.38 80 180 1.3 273. 605 820
Total Influent 19.300 42.400 31.600 69.400 250 570 17.000 37.500 51.100112.400
Final Effluent 7.2 4.610 10.100 16 11 .500 25,300 15 10.200 22.400 13 8.770 19.300 26.310 57.800
Torresda1e WTP Intake 0.19 200 440 0.18 190 420 0.16 170 370 .0.18 187 410 560 1 .230
t Vo~tile Organics are daily grab samples. therefore loads are only estimates based on
instantaneous concentration and average daily flows.
""-J
C'\
-------
SIC
Code
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
77
Number
of Plants
8
16
3
26
30
143
131
40
9
30
35
Industry
Petroleum and Energy Products
Rubber and Allied Products
Leather and Products
Stone, Clay and Glass Products
Metals
Fabricated Metal Products
Machinery, Electric
Electric and Electronic Equipment
Transport Equipment
Instruments and Related Products
Manufacturing, Miscellaneous
An alphabetized list of all 869 ma~ufacturing industries, including
employment, share of market, and sales statistics is on record at NEIC.9
Wastewater Effluent and Delaware River
Forty additional compounds (see the following ~ist) were identified
either in the effluent from the Philadelphia Northeast WPCP or at samp-
ling locations upstream from the water treatment plant intake. The
upstream locations are included because compounds present there could
have been discharged from other sources and represent a potential
threat to the environment and to the water treatment plant. However,
these compounds were not detected in either the intake to or the fin-
ished water from the Torresdale WTP. In the following list, the com-
pounds marked with an asterisk also occurred in one or more influents to
the Northeast WPCP.
Compound
Number
1*
6*
21*
23*
24*
25*
26*
28*
Compound
Name
ethanol
carbon disulphide
toluene
tetrachloroethylene
diacetone alcohol
1,2-epoxy cyclohexane
chlorobenzene
ethyl benzene
-------
78
Compound
Number
30
32*
36*
38
40*
46
50
52*
53
56*
57*
69*
80
85*
87*
89*
90*
91*
92
95
97
100*
104*
105*
106*
112*
113
115
126*
135*
141*
147*
Compound
Name
2-cyclohexenol
a-xylene
cumene
2-cyclohexenone
methyl hexanol
ethyl methyl benzene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
6-ethyl-l-heptanol
ethylidene diacetate
benzyl chloride
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
acetophenone
cis-l,3-dichlorocyclohexane
dimethyl phenol
dimethyl cyclooctyl carbinol
isoborneol
naphthalene
alpha terpineol
tert-butyl acetate
quinoline
indole
2-methylnaphthalene
glycerol triacetate
tetraisobutylene
tetraisobutylene isomers
biphenyl
tert-butylmethylphenol
p-tert-amylphenol
a-phenyl phenol
benzyl ether
heptadecane
caffeine
The potential for environmental harm from these 40 compounds in the ef-
fluent or upstream locations is certainly greater than for those which
were not being discharged by the Northeast WPCP at the time of sampling.
Of the approximately 7,650 kg (16,850 lb) of non-volatiles and an
estimated 51,100 kg (112,400 lb) of volatiles discharged to the Northeast
WPCP collection system during the 3 days of sampling, 2,440 kg (5,370
lb) of non-volatiles and an estimated 26,310 kg (57,800 lb) of volatiles
were discharged through the Northeast WPCP outfall to the Delaware River.
-------
79
These industrial chemicals are then available to cause harm to organisms
living-in the river, or to organisms feeding on aquatic life or consuming
the water. In general then about 49% by weight of the chemicals entering
the Northeast WPCP were discharged to the river environment. In addition,
an unknown quantity of the organic compounds reach the ocean through the
barging of anaerobically digested sludge.
Since 30 of the above 40 compounds were in one or more of the
influents to the Northeast WPCP it would seem likely that almost all
could be from this source. Some specific samples will be dealt with in
the next section.
By contrast, the amounts of non-volatile organic industrial chemicals
in the Delaware River upstream of the Torresdale intake were only an
average of about 32 kg (70 lb) per day, or, for the three days of sampling,
about 95 kg (210 lb). This is only about 2% of the load discharged by
the Northeast effluent. It appears that a great deal of the industrial
chemical burden in the Delaware River comes from the Northeast WPCP
discharge.
In all, seven suspected carcinogens; ethanol (1), chloroform (9),
bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (43), benzyl chloride (56), indole (97),
biphenyl (112) and tetramethy1 butyl phenol (132) were identified in the
Northeast WPCP final effluent. Naphthalene (90), another suspected
carcinogen, occurred in the Northeast WPCP influent and in an upstream
discharge, but was not detected in the Northeast WPCP effluent discharged
during the NEIC survey. The three-day total load of suspected carcinogens
discharged to the Delaware River from Northeast was, non-volatile organics "--
94 kg (207 lb) and estimated volatile organics based on grab sampl~s --
225 kg (4 94 1 b ) .
Monitoring at two upstream stations in the Delaware
the presence of naphthalene (90), a suspected carcinogen
of 0.05 ~g/l.
River revealed
at a concentration
-------
80
Torresda1e Water Treatment Plant
Forty-four compounds were detected in the Torresda1e WTP intake,
the finished water or both. Many of these compounds occurred in one or
more inf1uents to the Northeast WPCP and some also occurred in upstream
samples from the Delaware River. One important finding was that 18
compounds that have not been previously reported in the literature were
discovered in the finished drinking water of the Torresdale WTP. The
scope of the literature survey, included extensive computerized searches
[Appendix G]. Of the following 1ist of compounds detected at the
.
Torresda1e WTP, those compounds with an asterisk have not previously
been reported in drinking water.
Compound
Number
3
4
5
9
11
14
27*
29
31
33*
37
42
43
48*
54*
55*
58
63*
68*
73*
74*
81*
96
99
107*
108
111*
121
Compound
Name
acetone
dimethoxymethane
dich1oromethane
chloroform
1,2-dich1oroethane
bromodich1oromethane
3-ch1orocyc1ohexene
m + p xylene
styrene
1-ch1orocyc1ohexene
2-hexanone
benzaldehyde
bis(2-ch1oroethy1)ether
1,1,1,3-tetrachloro-2-methyl-2-propanol
2-bromo-1-methy1-propy1acetate
cis-2-ch1orocyc1ohexano1
m-dich1orobenzene
2-ethy1-1-hexano1
cis-1,2-dich1orocyc1ohexane
trans-1,2-dich1orocyc1ohexane
2-phenyl-2-propano1
benzyl cyanide
1,2-bis(2-chloroethoxy) ethane
p-tert-buty1pheno1
butyl butanoate
5-bromobenzofuran
isobutyl butanoate
dimethyl phthalate
-------
81
Compound
Number
122*
124*
128*
129
130
131
132
134
139*
140*
142*
145
149
152
154
158
Compound
Name
2-tert-butyl-p-hydroxy anizole
2-tert-butyl-4-methoxy-phenol
2~6-di-tert-butyl-4-methyl-phenol
A-di-a-isopropylidene-l-sorbose
substituted phenol
diethyl phthalate
tetramethyl butyl phenol
tri-n-butyl-phosphate
p-nonyl-pheno 1
isoamyl benzoate
diallyl phthalate
2-methyl heptadecane
di-isobutyl phthalate
hexadecanol
di-n-butyl phthalate
octadecanol
The chemicals are not human metabolites~ but are either of industrial
origin or chlorinated derivatives of chemicals of industrial origin.
EPA is currently studying the effect of organic chemicals on chlori-
nation in the water treatment processes.
However~ 13 of the 19 chemicals not previously reported are not
products of chlorination. Since such chemicals were not added during
the water treatment process~ they were presumed to have been present in
the intake water from the Delaware River.
Two suspected carcinogens were detected in the raw water at the
Torresdale WTP intake. During three days of monitoring 0.1 kg (0.3 lb)
of bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (43) and~ based on grab sample results~ an
estimated 51 kg (111 lb) of chloroform (9) passed through the WTP
intake. Finished water monitoring results indicated the presence of two
suspected carcinogens. During three days of monitoring 0.5 kg (1.0 lb)
of tetramethyl butyl phenol (132) and based on one day's grab sample
results~ an estimated 176 kg (387 lb) of chloroform (9) were distributed
to the City. Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (43) was present in effluent from
the Northeast WPCP at an average concentration of 17 ~g/l and in in-
fluent to the Torresdale WTP at a concentration of 0.13 ~g/l.
-------
82
Stated another way, effluent was diluted to 0.8% by the time
discharged pollutants reached the Torresdale WTP intake. Because
industrial chemical inputs to the Northeast WPCP are not uniform,
neither are effluent discharges to the Delaware River. A dye study by
NEIC (Section VI), combined with other studies, showed that the North-
east discharge was diluted to about 1% by the time it reached the Torres-
dale WTP intake during flood tide. In the case of chloroform (9), a
suspected carcinogen, it has been shown that chlorination will produce
chloroform (9) from other chemicals not removed in the water treatment
process.3,4 During the NEIC study 0.16 ~g/l of chloroform (9) was
present in the finished drinking water from the Torresdale WTP on day 2,
but none was detected for day 1 or day 3. Were this the average concen-
tration for day two, 170 kg (370 lb) would have been released.
Of the 44 compounds under consideration in this section, 29 occurred
at the Torresdale WTP intake. Included in this group were cis-l,2-
dichlorocyclohexane (68), 1,2-bis(2-chloroethoxy)ethane (96), and 2-
methyl heptadecane (145), which occurred upstream from the WTP intake,
but not in the Northeast WPCP effluent. As discussed previously, these
compounds are of industrial origin. Accordingly, 2-methyl heptadecane
(145) was reported in the influent to the Northeast WPCP. Twenty-one
industrial chemicals in this subgroup were reported in one or more
influents to the Northeast WPCP. Fourteen of these compounds occurred
both in the discharge from Northeast and in the Torresdale WTP intake.
These compounds, and their relative dilution from discharge to inlet are
given in Table 25. This greater than threefold difference in dilution
can be better understood in view of both the complicated tidal regime
and the wide variance in waste loading to the Delaware River. For
example, 13 kg (28 lb) of diethyl phthalate (13) were discharged during
the three days of sampling, while an estimated 3,830 kg (8,430 lb) of
acetone (3) were discharged, a difference in concentration of almost 300
times.
-------
83
Table 25
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS OBSERVED IN BOTH THE
NORTHEAST WPCP EFFLUENT AND THE TORRESDALE WTP INTAKE
Compound
Number
Compound
Name
Relativet
Dil uti on
%
3
4
5
9
11
29
31
43
63
74
96
121
130
131
139
Acetone
Dimethoxymethane
Dich1oromethane
Chloroform
1,2-dichloroethane
m & p xylene
Styrene
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
2-ethyl-1-hexano1
2-phenyl-2-propanol
1,2-bis(2-chloroethoxy)ethane
Dimethyl phthalate
Substituted phenol
Diethy1 phthalate
p-nonyl-phenol
3
1
50
70
0.3
0.01
0.09
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.6
2
2
1
3
t Relative dilution was computed from average concentrations during
the three-day sampling period.
-------
84
During the three-day monitoring period, a total of 560 kg (1,230
lb) of non-volatile organics and an estimated 187 kg (410 lb) of volatile
organics were detected in the Torresdale WTP intake. Finished water
monitoring showed the presence of 46 kg (101 lb) of non-volatile organics
during the three-day period. Volatile organics were monitored only one
day by grab samples. The estimated volatile organics load for one day
of sampling was 250 kg (550 lb).
-------
85
REFERENCES
1.
Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, 1974,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Technology Transfer,
Washington, D.C.
Influent and Effluent Metal Loadings at Philadelphia's Wastewater
Pollution Control Plants, November, 1974. Industrial Waste Unit,
Philadelphia Water Department.
2.
3.
Letter from EPA Regional Administrator to Mayor [rank L. Rizzo,
dated April 21, 1972. ;
4.
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Federal
Register, Vol. 40, No. 248 - Wednesday, December 24, 1975.
Lawrence H. Keith, 1976. Identification and Analysis of Organic
Pollutants in Water, Ann Arbor Science, Box 1425, Ann Arbor, Mich.
48106, 553 p.
5.
6.
Clinical Ecology, 1976. Lawrence C. Dickey. Ed.; Charles C.
Thomas, Pub., Springfield, 111.,807 p.
7.
8.
Herbert E. Christensen and T. T. Luginbyhl, Eds., 1974.
Substances List 1974. U. S. Dept. HEW, Rockville, Md.
Herbert E. Christensen and T. T. Luginbyhl, Eds., 1975. Suspected
Carcinogens - A Subfile of the NIOSH Toxic Substances List. U. S.
Dept. HEW, Rockville, Md.
Toxic
9.
Douglas B. Seba, Toxic Substances Coordinator, EPA National Enforcement
Investigations Center, Bldg. 53, DFC, Denver, Colorado, 303/234-
5306.
-------
APPENDICES
A Reconnaissance Report
B Visit/Inspection of City of Philadelphia
Torresdale Water Treatment Plant
C Dye Dilution Technique for Flow
Measuremeht
D Chain of Custody Procedures
E Analytical Procedures and Quality Control
F Organics Analytical Methodology
G Determination of Toxicity Index
-------
APPENDIX A
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
-------
RECONNAISSANCE REPQHT/
PIliLADELPHIJ\ NOIHIIEJ\ST l.JATER POLLUTIOn CONTROL PLANT
A reconnaissance inspection of the Philadelphia Northeast Water Pollution
Control Plant was conducted on June 30. 1976. The following people'
participated:
Francis Crumety. Plant Operator
Bob Sharp, Assistant Superintendent
Bill Blackman, Ed Struzeski> Jim Vincent,
and Ed Rogan, EPJ\ Region III
and Jim Pennington of NEIC
Mr. Rick Dimenna, the Plant Superintendent, was on vacation. It was
explained that NEIC at the request of EPA Region III will conduct
compliance monitoring in the near future.
. .
#
General Information
The existing Northeast Plant was constructed in 1951. Additional
secondary treatment capacity \'as added in 1962 and 1970 \'/ith the
addition of aeration basin No.5 and an additional blower installed
in 1961 and 1970 respectively. Major plant operations include grit
removal, raw se\'age pumping, flovi measurement, primary sedimentation,
aeration, final sedimentation, and discharge to the Delaware River.
Anaerobically digested sludge is barged to sea for final disposal.
Ra\' se\-Jage reaches the plant via four main intet'ceptors. Three
of these interceptors are referred to as low level interceptors and
wastewater is pumped after grit removal and prior to treatment. The
low level interceptors are the Delaware.Low Level (DLL). the Frankford
Low Level (FLL), and the Somerset Low Level (SLL). A fourth interceptor,
the Frankford High Level (FHL), discharges to the primary clarifiers by
gravi ty. Gri tis removed at a grit remova 1 facil i ty 1 oca ted several
miles from the plant. Average flow to the plant is 190 mgd. Four
Venturi meters measure and record plant influent flow. During the
inspection flow through the major interceptors was as follows: DLL
84 mgd; SLL and FLL comJined 34 mgd; and FHL 60 mgd for a total of
178 mgd. Major industrial input to the system is reportedly on the
DLL interceptor while the FHL interceptor sewers primarily residential
area. ..
Because much of the system is combined sewers, influent flow rapidly
increases during a rain storm. When this happens the Somerset gate
is the first to be closed causing wastewater to back up into the sewer
until it. reaches a relief point. A map at the plant indicated that
several such relief points .were located on the SLL interceptor adjacent
to the river. Mr. Crumety estimated that during the first 6 months of
197~ the Somerset gate was closed approximately 20 times. Thus the
vast majority of combined seHer overflO\'/S logically occur from the SLL
interceptor. .
-------
2
Pl anLQper'! ti o,!
Mr. Sharp indicated that the plant removes approximately 30~{. of the
BOD and suspended 501 i cis duri n9 pdmary trecltment and an additi on(\ 1
40% through secondary trea tmcnt. Gri tis y'emovcd from the gri t chauibers
by mechani ca 1 SCI"apers \'Ihi cll operate approxi ma te ly tvlO hours per shi ft.
Screenings and grit are trucked to lagoon A. Primary sludge is pumped'
once per day from each of four primary clarifiers for ClPPI'oximatel.v 6 hours.
Plant officials reported that oil and grease from each tank is skimm~d
for approximately 6 hours pel" day. Accumulated scum is collected in
a manually operated scum trough and pumped to lagoon B by pneumatic
ejectors.
Mr. Sharp repor~ed that the following control parameters are used to
operate the aeration system. The dissolved oxygen level is maintained
at from 2.6 to 3.0 mg/l. The mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
(MLVSS) is maintained at 2,000-3,000 mg/l. A sludge age of 6 to 7
is maintained. Sharp reported that {he sludge volume index is 50
to 60. The aeration basin is operated on a modified aeration-contact
stabilization process. Total air supply is 85,000 cfm. A good descrip-
tion of the operating mode for the five basins could not be obtained
from ei ther ~1r. Sharp or Mr. Crumety. They referred to Bas ins 1 and 2
as the modified aeration process and maintain an MLVSS of 1,000 mg/l:
Basins 3 and 4 are reportedly contact basins i~ which an MLVSS of 7.000
to 9.000 mg/l is maintained. Basin 5 is a reaeration basin.
The return sludge rate is approximately 15-22% of the flow. Plant
flow meters indicated a return sludge flow of 21 mgd (12% of the total
flow) during the inspection~ The activated sludge basins vlere very
dark brown to black in color and had little of the normal earthy odor
present in the activated sludge process.
Additional scum has accumulated in the ~nf1uent channels to the rectangular
secondary clarifiers. No facilities for removal of secondary scum Here
included in the original plant design. Hovlever, temporary piping has
been installed and secondary scum is pumped to lagoon B.
Sludge is anaerobically digested in eight heated digesters. Reportedly
only primary sludge is pumped to the digesters. Prior to reaching the
digesters, however, primary sludge is gravity thickened. Digester
supernatant is returned to the head of.the plant via the SLL or the FHL
interceptor. .
Plant personnel reported that all secondary sludge is recycled \'lith
intermittent wasting back to the head of the plant via the Somerset
interceptor. Secondary sludge is \'Iasted only on an emergency basis.
Five sludge lagoons cover an extensive area south and east of the plant.
Lagoon A receives all grit and screenings. Lagoon B receives all
primary and secondary scum. Lagoon C,. presently oui of service, is
approximately hlo-thirds full of dried sludge and is maintained for
-------
3
J~iI1crgcncy IIse. Lagoon D I'eceives digested sllld~Jc and slJpernutant.
'FrC1I:l L<1goon D digest('(1.~,ludge is pumped into bar~Jes for sea dis:,',:'.al.
Appl~oxill1utcly 120 x l!/' St:l/yr of sludge is barged to sea. La~"'Jn E
pn~sently out of service, is full of dried sludge. All storm drainage
in the plant area drains to the SLL interceptor.
Observations
Essenti a lly a 11 phases of the plant operati on \'Je.re run dO\'ln and poorly
maintained. The grit I'ernoval and screening facilities \'Jel'e cluttered
with debris consisting of screenings and ~ccumulated dried sludge
apparently from previous overflow of the facilities. The primary
sedimentation basins showed an accumulation of floating scum at
several locations. Influent to the basins was not being distributed
evenly resulting in several stagnant areas in the basiri. Scum removal
troughs were badly in need of cleaning and casual observation indicated
that consistent cleanup is not practiced.
Observation of the aeration basins revealed that diffusers were apparently
'clogged resulting in uneven distribution of air along the basin legs.
Secondary clarifier influent channels \'Jerebadly clogged \'Jith accumulated
scum. Although temporary piping is installed for pumping of secondary
scum to lagoon B, observation during the survey indicated that scum
had not been removed for some time.
During the inspection influent to the primary sedimentation basins
\-/as green in color for several minutes. Nr. Crumety stated that
wastewater from the Globe Dye Company often caused color changes in
the influent. Although a multitude of industries discharge to the Northeast
Plant, t1r. Sharp and Nr. Crumety both stated that they have not experienced
problems from industrial wastes. A pH meter located at Grit Chamber 2
provides an instantaneous readout of influent pH. However, pH is
not recorded or connected to an alarm system. Industries discharging
to Northeast routinely collect and transport samples to the city for
.(!n:-t lys is by ci ty personnel. Ana lyses are conducted at three 1 abs,
h:o operated by the city and a private lab.
.Th~ plant effluent discharges to the Delaware River through 3 or 4
ou~fall pipes at the end of a pier 150-200 yds long. Observation \'laS
dIn'; ng hi gh ti de and a 11 outfa 11 pi pes were submerged.
~onitoring Locations
tombined influent from the four interceptors is currently sampled on
a routine basis from IIPit A" (entire flow) and IIPit B" (DLL, FLL. SLL).
Effluent is sampled at the IICombined Effluent Shack".
The attached schemati c of the Northeast HPCP i nfl uent \'lorks ShO\'/5 that
.under normal operating conditions the only interceptor for which
individual flO\'J 'is m2asured is the FilL. Gate A is normully open to
prevent flooding of the bar screen serving the FLL and the SLL. As a
-------
c ," 11 r: "', ,,--. "
;j.J n c:: t . : I \ I \ .,,'
\-" '",' f,".:. J.., ~,. ,\ , \' ,- ' : \ ,'" \ J,.t. . \ J '"'. '." \/ C
1c..,.:1f.., "'J I" -~I'\ - 1. ',I' '-J''::'I' \ "!',~ ,JI',{,,-.i
t,.. \' \. ",., \ .. . , ,,'
,....) ,\ \.... r "G :' i.. ~'.: . f.\,
\ \ .. ",.,' ,." ' .'...,.,
'~ .) \':, ' ..~, -::" I.,. ~, "
\N F) t \::>
~.l.L,
D,L.L.
S.L.L.
!,
GAT2:' It
A ...-. .-.,.- - ...- .
.--
.. ...
{;; R. f\
'c \\ {'.:(,\ 0'2?- S
. '...'- '--'---
NO::?.I'.\H'lLYi I
.' I ,..,.,,~, C')
.~\......._......U Q
\,,~
. "
, Pvf-IPS
~
-4
g
'1
. -.- .. -_. --..'--- ..-
--
.,~
~ " . '(?~'....,"
----.._-- ... .- __H no -- .. ... . .._H-~~~\-7c:? ~_.- - --~. .....-...-
.. --. m ... . .- -H_---- ... . .m__m_~~~:=:- .m____?:_~~:_-_:_" ~'-::~~ _~:n.-
. ... .... ..'Pl\~ 9----
" '..... .-...-.-,........ '-"""'''-- .__n._"'" , ." ,_.,.' ..-.. .. .. .. _.... -----.-...' ......",.,. ".. ,.- ..-,......-,...... - ,.... ....-.. ..-..- .'fl, .... ---------
""" .. _-4
n".. . -...' .. ..
. .. .
. . ..... n,-. . .. ~ .
... .. ~ . . -.. .. ... on"
. '0""-." _. """"-"-'.'.--'.'-
-------
4.
result, flows metered at the Venturi's do not represent flows from
individual interceptors. Thus it appears that flow weighted monitoring
of each individual interceptor \.lill necessitate flO'.'J measurement by NEIC.
-------
APPENDIX B
VISIT/INSPECTION OF CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
TORRESDALE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CENTER- DENVER
BUILDING 53, BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
TO
: Fi 1 es
DATE: September 24, 1976
_ROM;
Industrial Waste Consultant
$lIBJECT:
Visit/Inspection of City of Philadelphia Torresdale Hater Treatment
Plant
Dates:
,
Messrs. W. C. Blackman, J. Vincent, E. Struzeski, Jr.,
and J. Pennington, all of EPA, NEIC and E. J. Rogan, Reg. III
June 30 and July 1, 1976
Visit t1ade By:
Mr. John Boettger, Assistant Superintendent and
Mr. Ed Sheryin, Superintendent (absent)
Field Observations and Results for the Philadelphia Water Treatment
Plants
Plant Personnel:
A.
The Torresdale water treatment plant is a complete, large-scale facility
with a rated capacity of around 282 MGD. However, peak rate at the Torresdale
Plant can be as high as 423 MGD. Unit operations include withdrawal of
Delaware River waters through tide or sluice gates; bar screens; traveling
screens; prechlorination by chlorine gas or by chlorine dioxide; a pre-
settling basin holding up to 12 hours of plant flow; a low lift pumping
station having a 360 MGD capacity; addition of ferric or ferrous chloride,
lime, carbon, chlorine or chlorine dioxide; rapid mixing for a few seconds
followed by slow mixing and flocculation for 45 minutes or longer in eight
chambers; four settling basins having a total of 40 MG capacity and pro-
viding 2.5 hours of plant detention; up to 94 rapid sand filter beds
capable of passing through 282 MGD water; final addition of lime, fluoride,
chlorine or chlorine dioxide as post treatment; and five filtered water,
storage basins holding up to 193 MG water before release into the Philadelphia'
water distribution system. The Torresdale plant around the time of the
EPA visit was experiencing a peak daily water demand around 280 MGD,
and on the day of the vi~it was exceeding peaks of 360 MGD.
The City of Philadelphia through its three water treatment plants
(Torresdale, Belmont and Queen Lane) serves a population of around 2.0
million persons plus heavy industrial usage. Approximately 40%
this supply is derived from the Delaware River through Torresdale. The
remainder is derived from the Schuylkill River via the Belmont and Queen
-------
-2-
Lane water treatment plants. The Torresda1e plant within the city
generally' serves municipal and industrial customers east of Broad
. Street. Delaware River water compared to Schuylkill River water contains
only half as much hardness as the latter. Delaware River water averages
about 100 mg/1 hardness vs 165 mg/l for the Schuylkill.
A series of butterfly valves actually control the entry of Delaware
River water into the large earthen presedimentation basin at Torresdale
of approximately 140 MG capacity. River water is received into the
. Torresdale facility on the rising tide. Thusly, M and I discharges
from a number of miles downriver including the Philadelphia NE STP
together with upstream sources can enter and affect the Torresdale
Works. Delaware River water is drawn through a tide gate which opens
when there is a 6 inch differential between the River and the pre-
sedimentation basin. The intake is shut when the differential eventually
becomes 2 inches or less between the River and the basin. Mr. Boettger
indicated water is taken into the Torresdale plant over 2 tide cycles
per day. Each cycle is about 8 hours in duration which means water is
drawn into the plant about 16 out of every 25 hours. However occasionally
an entire cycle may be missed, i.e. no water is drawn into the pre-
sedimentation basin. Intake flow rates may range upward to 600 MGD and
the zone of influence of the takeoff may extend as far as the center
channel of the River. .
The City people were asked if the Torresdale intake could be sampled
without chlorine being present. Mr. Boettger reported that chlorine
backs up through the intake and even into the River. In subsequent
conversation with Mr. Alan Hess of the City Water Department (Chief of
Water Treatment at 3110 W. Queen Lane), we were however told that a
chlorine-free sample could probably be obtained ahead of the traveling
screen being careful to stay clear of a chlorinated backwash return on
the same screen. Intake water can be sampled if desired between the
initial gate and the bar screens. The Water Company has installed a
continuous recording t~rbidometer at this particular intake location.
Prechlorination is practiced immediately before the supply enters the
presedimentation basin. The Company in previous years had employed
breakpoint chlorination but this had been discontinued in favor of
maintaining a reasonable combined chlorine just short of obtaining a
chlorine residual. Torresdale employs about 20 lb. chlorine/MG water
equivalent to a dosage of ~ 2 mg/l for prechlorination purposes.
Effluent from the presedimentation basin to flocculation contains in the
range of 0.15 to 0.50 mg/l total or combined chlorine and 0.0 to 0.05
m~/l free chlorine. .
Delaware River waters have a slightly higher pH compared to the Schuylkill
and this may be part of the reason why iron chlorides are used as the
coagulant agent at Torresdale vs alum salts used at the Belmont and
Queen Lane water plants. The pH of the Torresdale finished water is
around 8.4.
-------
..3-
The presedimentation basin is dredged or cleaned about once every seven
years. This basin additionally receives the backwashes and sludges from
inside the plant. Chemical treatment residues are planned in the future
to be directed into a separate settling basin and transferred out of the
presedimentation basin. .
Chlorine is again added following presettling and just prior to floccu-
lation at the rate of 35 to 50 lb/MG. Breakpoint is exceeded with the
free chlorine residual reaching a level of 2.0 to 2.2 mg/l. Free chlorine
is eventually reduced to 1.2 to 1.3 mg/l near the end of the water
treatment plant. Immediately following chlorine, lime is added at the
rate of about 170 lb/MG water. Crude pebble lime received at the !~Y'resda1e
plant is slaked prior to use. The lime causes the pH of the treatii!ent
process to rise to 9.0 to 9.4. Ferric chloride is then added at the
rate of 70 lb (MG/dry lbs. of FeC13r. The ferric chloride is actually a
waste liquid byproduct derived from titanium dioxide manufactured at
DuPont's Edgemore plant in Wilmington, Delaware. The Philadelphia Water
Department hopes in the future to use the FeC13 waste product at. its
. Belmont and Queen Lane water treatment plants because it is considerably
cheaper than conventional flocculating chemicals.
POlyelectrolytes, ammonia and activated carbon represent other chemicals
added after flocculation but before the sand filters. No pOlyelectrolytes
are used on a routine basis but the Water Department is experimenting
with a few different types. Am~onia has been introduced in the past at
the end of the settling basins when tastes and odors were high. Ammonia
was stopped in January of this year because of cost. Approximately one
part of ammonia was added for each 4 parts of chlorine residual, say 0.4
mg/l ammonia for each 1.6 mg/l chlorine residual. When ammonia dosage is
kept on the low side, the tendency is to form monochloramines which are
preferred to di- and trich10ramines. The higher operating Phis also
favor the formation of the mono form over the di- and tri-forms.
Powdered activated carbon was added for approximately 6 weeks around
April, 1975 following strange odors in the Delaware River water supply
at that time. Critical months for tastes and odors in Philadelphia's
water supplies more often than not seeni to be March through May, that is
in early-spring. PAC, mostly of the Westvaco type, was introduced in
the spring of 1975 at the rate of about 50 lb/MG but only for a relatively
limited time. The City's consultant did not attach any great advantages
in using activated carbon. Carbon addition was made either just ahead
of the rapid mixers or at the end of the four settling basins.
Final chemical conditioning at Torresdale is made following the sand
filters on the water being directed into the five filtered water storage
basins. Chlorine and fluoride are added at this final point. Post-
chlorination usually amounts to about 4 to 10 lbs/MG. Flu~ro-salicylic
acid is added at the approximate rate of one gallon of 24% acid for
each 1 MG water. The Department strives for 1.2 to 1.4 mg/l chlorine
residual and about 1.0 mg/l fluoride in the final treated waters.
-------
-4-
The City is believed to have conducted considerable collection and
analy.sis .of trace organics especially in their water supplies but these
results will be difficult to obtain. Two of the more important trace
organics found in the Torresdale supply include chloroform and BCEE
reported in 1975. The City conducts weekly sampling on the Delaware
River together with river stations close to the Torresdale intake.
River iamples are analyzed for pH, alkalinity, conductance, chlorides,
. Nitrogen series, BOD, DO, COD, phenols, phosphates, temperature, turbidity,
Al, td, Ca, Hg, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Pb, Zn, Co, Hg, Ag~ Ni, Ba, total and
fecal coliforms. The Torresdale intake is analyzed routinely for
various parameters some of which include S04' Si, Na, K, total and
filterable solids, Fe, Mn, filtered color and C02' The intake is
sampled at the tide gate before pre-chlorination.
B. Recommendations and Comments from Reports of Survey of the Philadelphia
Water Supply Systems Made By the EPA, Region III in April 1972 and
in June 1973
1)
The City initiated a cooperative agreement with Drexel University
in the amount of $25,000 for a comprehensive monitoring program on
organic compounds in the finished water. Purpose of this program
was to identify and quantify an organics problem, association of
these organics with taste and odor and to observe fluctuations
caused by upstream and natural sources. Special laboratory
facilities for liquid extraction of organics were placed under
development at the Torresdale Plant.
2)
"Through the use of a steady-state continuity model, the Water
Department has determined that the effluent from the Northeast
Water Pollution Control Plant does affect the raw water quality at
the Torresdale intake, particularly during low flow conditions.11 At
a meeting in August, 1976, City of Philadelphia personnel would not J;f
confirm the above statement.
3)
"It is recommended that tracer studies be conducted on effluent
from the Northeast Water Pollution Control Plant in order to
demonstrate the effects on raw water quality at the Torresdale
intake. An attempt should be made to correlate the effects with
increased chemical costs. II
4)
The intake for the Torresdale Plant normally receives water from
the Delaware River on the flood tide. Consequently downstream
sources of pollution such as the NE STP, the Rohm and Haas Co., and
the Allied Chemical Co. are of interest since their discharges
could adversely affect water quality at the Torresdale intake.
Extent of upstream miqration of these discharges during flood
tide and their degree of influence on water quality in the vicinity
of the intake are unknown. The processes in the water treatment
train should be based upon the quality of the raw water. Therefore,
all factors which influence the quality of the raw water should be
thor~ughly evaluated.
-------
-5-
5)
The Water Department samples raw and finished waters at its water
treatment plants by a new technique designed to measure organic
concentrations in water. Results showed as follows for the finished
water supplies:
Schuylkill River
Carbon Chloroform
Extract, (mg/l)
0.7
Carbon Alcohol
Extract,(mg/l)
2.3
Delaware River
0.5
1.2
Results were generally in excess of the then-established limits of
0.3 mg/l and 1.5 mg/l respectively of CCE and CAE. However, these
1imi~s were based upon a high flow rate method of sample collection
and were consequently considered too stringent for the new sampling
and analysis techniques that were utilized by the City of Philadelphia.
The results did lead to the consideration that further means should
be taken to reducing organic content of finished water. Organic
materials were deemed responsible for taste and odor, and additionaily
it was reported that CCE contains toxic materials such as pesticides
and petrochemicals. CAE although partially measuring naturally-
occurring substances, was reported as a caustive agent in shortening
life in rates.
6)
It is recommended that the relative removal efficiencies of the
various unit operations at the three water treatment plants be
evaluated with respect to organic materials. Such results would
provide a meaningful basis for possible alteration or addition of
unit processes in the treatment train in order to satisfactorily
reduce the level of organics in the finished waters.
Trace Organics Investigations and Analysis, City of Philadelphia
And Drexel University
C.
Cooperative studies were undertaken with Drexel University in 1972
or before, dealing with the isolation, identification and removal
of organic substances in the Philadelphia water supplies. Some
$186,000 was budgeted for organic pollutants and optimization of
treatment processes in removing trace organic compounds over the
period of November 1972 through November 1975.
In 1972-1973, study was directed to developing analytical methods
for monitoring organoleptic compounds and a rapid organoleptic
. testing method. . The latter consisted of an odor panel receiving a
knowri concentration of the compound being tested in distilled water
and pouring this solution into a spray nozzle bottle which in turn
was pressured with nitrogen. When the vapor from the solution
comes into equilibrium, the panelist then sprays and smells the
-------
-6-
sample. The panelists were sho\vn to respond well to identifying
odors. Three analytical methods were particularly developed for
the extraction and concentration of trace organics. The first
method involves use of a Rohm and Haas XAD-2 macroreticular resin
with ether extraction, the concentrate then injected into a gas
chromatograph together with mass spectrophotometer. The second
method utilizes continuous or batch chloroform liquid-liquid
extraction to extt'act trace organ-ics from \'Iater. The chloroform
extract is concentrated and analyzed by GC. The third method-head.
. gas analysis, is specific for volatile organics. A water sample i~
heated and the gas vapor withdrawn into a head gas container. The
City augments .its GC-t1S capabil ities with Rohm and Haas instru-
mentation. Interpretation of mass spectral data has been greatly
improved by use of the Cornell :University STIRS and PBM Systems.
Many trace organics have been isolated and identified to date by
the City of Philadelphia investigations.
Advanced Water Treatment Pilot Plant at Torresdale
D.
Construction of a 30,000 gpd research pilot plant was started at the
Torresdale water treatment plant in mid-1975. This special facility
at a cost of around $300,000 is expected to be com~leted in September
1976. The pilot facility is constructed of stainless steel, glass
and teflon. The pilot plant is essentially installed inside the NE
end of the filter gallery at the Torresdale plant. Hater will be
pumped from the belaware River some 3,000 feet to a raw water basin
and from the raw water basin to a stainless steel circular clarifier.
From the clarifier, the water travels to two stainless steel and
glass rectangular rapid sand filters. Glass adsorption columns
. filled with activated carbon and macroreticular resins follow the
rapid sand filters. The various types of chemicals to be used at
the pilot plant will include chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone,
coagulants, polyelectrolytes, ammonia, lime, and powdered activated
carbon. Concentration of trace organics and subsequent analysis
will be undertaken by analytical resin columns, continuous liquid-
liquid extraction, and the head gas method.
Edmund J. Struzeski, Jr.
cc:
Gallagher
Blackman
Struzeski
Vincent /
Penn i ngton v/
Hd i'p .
Files
Region III (2)
-------
APPENDIX C
DYE DILUTION TECHNIQUE FOR FLOW MEASUREMENT
-------
DYE DILUTION TECHNIQUE FOR FLOW MEASUREMENT
Flow determinations were made using dye dilution with fluorometric
detecti on techni que. In thi s procedI1l',~ t a dye of known concentrati on is
injected at constant rate upstream of the sample sitet an adequJte
distance to insure mixing. Samples are collected and the dye concen-
tration is determined by a fluorometer. Knowing the dye injection rate.
initial dye concentration, and codcentration after. the dye hus mixed
with the wastewater flow, the flow can be calculated.
The G: K. Turner Madel III fluorometer was used. Calibration of
the fluorometer was. accomplished daily using dye standards prepared in
the NEIC laboratory. Rhodamine \H dye \./as used due to its low sorptive
tendency and stabil ity under varyi.ng pH conditi ons.
Background investigations of all stations were conducted to deter-
mine if any substances in the waste stream would fluoresce in the range
.that could induce errors in flow determinations. Background samples
were taken each time samples for flow detet'mination were collected. The
fluorescence measured on background samples was subtracted from the
fluorescence measured on the flow samples.
Sp2cial precautions taken to insure against interference in flow
~eilSIl:'ei;lents consisted of: 1) cuvettes triple rinsed with d'istilled
"/.:Ite:- betl"leen each sample; 2) cuvettes cleaned daily \'lith solvent; 3)
cuvettes filled with distilled water and fluorescence measured twice
daily to insure against contamination from operator handling; 4) fluoro-
~etcr checked for 110" reference bebleen each reading and after use,
using 110" r~fercnce blank; 5) all readings \'/ere taken on up\'Iard movement
of i/~dicator t.0 eliminate any error due to gear "slop;" and 6) rubbe!~
glo\'es Hel'C \.:o'rn \'lhcn handl ing ra\'! dye to avoid contamination during
f 1 \
~O:-C:;:<:~.~r Op~rlltion.
-------
Dye was injected into the Somerset Low Level Interceptor (SLL) and
sampled for fluorescence downsewer after completely mixing with the SLL
flow. Further downsewer, after the SLL flow has completely mixed with
the Frankford Low Level Interceptor (FLL) flow, fluorescence was determined
and the combined flow of SLL and FLL calculated. The difference in the
combined flow (SLL + FLL) and the SLL flow is equal to the FLL flow.
Some of the combined SLL plus FLL flow is bypassed [Figure 2J to
the Delaware Low Level (DLL) influent channel. The quantity of flow
bypassed was determined by takin~ the difference between the combined
SLL plus FLL flow and the flow measured by the venturi meter associated
with pumps 4, 5, and 6. Similarly the DLL flow was determined by
subtracting the bypassed flow from the flow measured by the venturi
meters associated with pumps 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9. The Frankford High
Level (FHL) Interceptor flow was determined directly by a venturi meter.
-------
F.L.L.
S.L~
D.L.L.
BYPASS
6
5
4
I<
BAR SCREENS
1
'2
7
8
9
3
-
--.....
"""'-
-
-
CHAMI?ERS
TO PRIMARY
SETTLING BASINS
Figure 2. Schematic Diagram - Influent Works
Philadelphia Northeast WPCP
-------
APPENDIX D
CHAIN OF CUSTODY PROCEDURES
-------
GENERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
CHAIN OF CUSTODY PROCEDURES
\June 1, 1975
The evidence gathering portion of a survey should be characterized by the minimum
number of samples required to give a fair representation of the effluent or water body
from which taken. To the extent possibl~, the quantity of samples and sample loca-
tions will be determined prior to the survey.
Chain of Custody procedures must be followed to maintain the documentation necessary
to trace sample possession from the time taken until the evidence is introduced into
court. A sample is in your "custody" if:
1.
2.
It is in your actual physical possession, or
,
,
It is in your view, after being in your physical possession, or
It was in your physical possession and then you locked it up in a manner so
that no one could tamper with it.
3.
All survey participants will receive a copy of the survey study plan and will be
knowledgeable of its contents prior to the survey. A pre-survey briefing will be held
to re-appraise all participants of the survey objectives, sample locations and Chain
of Custody procedures. After all Chain of Custody samples are collected. a de-briefing
will be held in the field to determine adherence to Chain of Custody procedures and
whether additional evidence type samples are required.
SAMPLE COLLECTION
1.
To the maximum extent achievable, as few people as possible should handle
the sample.
Stream and effluent samples shall be obtained, using standard field sampling,
techniques.
2.
3.
Sample"tags(Exhibit I) shall be securely attached to the sample container
at the time the complete sample is collected and shall contain. at a minimum,
the following information: station number, station location. data taken,
time taken, type of sample, sequence number (first sample of the day -
sequence No.1. second sample - sequence No.2. etc.). analyses required and
samplers. The tags must be legibly filled out in ballpoint (waterproof ink).
Blank samples shaYl also be taken with preservatives which will be analyzed
by the laboratory to exclude the possibility of container or preservative
contamination.
4.
5.
, A pre-printed, bound Field Data Record logbook shall be maintained to re-
cord field measurements and other pertinent information necessary to refresh
the sampler's memory in the event he later takes the stand to testify re-
garding his actions during the evidence gathering activity. A separate
set of field note0ooks shall be maintained for each survey and stored in a
safe place where they could be protected and accounted for at all times.
Standard formats (Exhibits II and III) have been established to minimize
field entries and include the date, time, survey, type of samples taken,
volume of each sample, type of analysis, sample numbers, preservatives,
sample location and field measurements such as temperature, conductivity,
-------
2
6.
DO. pH. flow and any other pertinent information or observations. The.
-entries shall be signed by the field sampler. The preparation and conser-
vation of the field logbooks during the survey will be the responsibility
of the survey coordinator. Once the survey is complete, field logs will be
retained by the survey coordinator, or his designated representative, as a
part of the permanent record.
The field sampler is responsible for the care and custody of the samples
collected until properly dispatched to the receiving laboratory or turned
over to an assigned custodian. He must assure that each container is in his
physical possession or in his view at all times, or locked in such a place
and manner that no one can tamper with it. ,
7.
Colored slides or photographs should be taken which would visually show the
outfall sample location and any water pollution to substantiate any con-
clusions of the investigation. Written documentation on the back of the
photo should include the signature of the photographer, time, date and site
location. Photographs of this nature, which may be used as evidence, shall
be handled recognizing Chain of Custody procedures to prevent alteration.
TRANSFER OF CUSTODY AND SHIPMENT
1. Samples will be accompanied by a Chain of Custody Record which includes the
name of the survey, samplers' signatures, station number, station location,
date, time, type of sample, sequence number, number of container~ and analy-
ses required (Fig. IV). When turning over the possession of samples, the
transferor and transferee will sign, date and time the sheet. This re~o~d ,
.. sheet allows transfer of custody of a group of samples in th'e field, to 'the '
mobile laboratory or when samples are dispatched to the NEIC - Denver labora-
tory. When transferring a portion of the samples identified on the sheet to
the field mobile laboratory, the individual samples must be noted in the
column with the signature of the person relinquishing the samples. The field
laboratory person receiving the samples will acknowledge receipt by signing
in the appropriate column.
2.
The field custodian or field sampler, if a custodian has not been assigned,
will have the responsibility of properly packaging and dispatching samples
to the proper laboratory for analysis. The "Dispatch" portion of the "Chain
of Custody Record shall be properly filled out, dated, and signed.
3.
Samples will be properly packed in shipment containers such as ice chests, to
avoid breakage. The shipping containers will be padlocked for shipment to
the receiving laboratory.
All packages will be accompanied by the Chain of Custody Record showing iden-
tification of the contents. The original will accompany the shipment, and a
copy will be retained by the survey coordinator.
4.
5.
If sent by mail, register the package with return receipt requested. If sent
by common carrier, a Government Bill of Lading should be obtained. Receipts
from post offices, and bills of lading will be retained as part of the perma-
nent Chain of Custody documentation.
If samples are delivered to the laboratory when appropriate personnel are not
there to receive them, the samples must be locked in a designated area within
the laboratory in a manner so that no one can tamper with them. The same per-
son must then return to the laboratory and unlock the samples and deliver
custody to the appropriate custodian.
6.
-------
3
LABORATORY CUSTODY PROCEDURES
1.
The laboratory shall designate a "sample custodian." An alternate will be
designated in his absence. In addition, the laboratory shall set aside a
"sample storage security area." This should be a clean, dry, isolated room
which can be securely locked from the outside.
All samples should be handled by the minimum possible number of persons.
2.
3.
All incoming samples shall be received only by the custodian, who will in-
dicate receipt by signing the Chain of Custody Sheet accompanying the samples
and retaining the sheet as permanent records. Couriers picking up samples at
the airport, post office, etc. shall sign jointly with the laboratory custodian.
Immediately upon receipt, the custodian will place the sample in the sample
room, which will be locked at all times except when samples are removed or
replaced by the custodian. To the maximum extent possible, only the custo-
dian should be permitted in the ~amp1e room.
4.
5.
The custodian shall ensure that heat-sensitive or light-sensitive samples,
or other sample materials having unusual physical characteristics, or re-
quiring special handling, are properly stored and maintained.
Only the custodian will distribute samples to personnel who are to perform
tests.
6.
7.
The analyst will record in his laboratory notebook or analytical worksheet~
identifying information describing the sample, the procedures performed
and the results of the testing. The notes shall be dated and indicate who
performed the tests. The notes shall be retained as a permanent record in
the laboratory and should note any abnormal ties which occurred during the
testing procedure., In the event that the person who performed the tests is
not available as a witness at time of trial, the government may be able to
introduce the notes in evidence under the Federal Business Records Act.
8.
Standard methods of laboratory analyses shall be used as described in the
"Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants,"
38 F.R. 28758, October 16, 1973. If laboratory personnel deviate from
standard procedures, they should be prepared to justify their decision dur-
. 1ng cross-examination.
Laboratory personnel are responsible for the care and custody of the sample
once it is handed over to them and should be prepared to testify that the
sample was in their possession and view or secured in the laboratory at all
times from the moment it was received from the custodian until the tests
were run.
9.
10.
Once the sample testing is completed, the unused portion of the sample to-
gether with all identifying tags and laboratory records, should be returned
to the custodian. The returned tagged sample will be retained in the sample
room. until it is required for trial. Strip charts and other documentation
of work will also be turned over to the custodian.
11.
Samples, tags and laboratory records of tests may be destroyed only upon the
order of the laboratory director, who will first confer with the Chief,
Enforcement Specialist Office, to make certain that the information is no
longer required or the samples have deteriorated.
-------
EXHIBIT I
i
2
"
.
'EPA, NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Station No. I Dato Time Sequonco No.
Station Localion
Grab
Compo
BOD
Solids
COD
Motals
Oil ana Grease
D.O.
Remarks' Prcservalive:
Nutrients
Bad.
Other.
Samplers:
. .
----.-...-
Front
".
..
0';.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
. BUILDING 53, BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
. ~ 8T-4~~
~. ~ \
W~
~"#
Back
-------
. .
EXHIBIT' II .
-
FOR
rVPE OF SAMPLE
SURVEY, PHASE
ANALYSES
DATE
II)
~ Q ~ ~ w t) .
UJ ::; VI
UJ Z 0 . <{
~ >- . 0 0 z
< II) VI >- UJ W <{
~ Q u. ,... ~
> ~ :::; t.:>
-' .... ::; Q >- ::> -' t.:> \II
0 Z VI w >= 0 0 ~
.... 0 >- >- >- w
> 0 z VI 0 Z U <1. U U >- a 0 0 -,
u '. Z :::J D.: Z VI 0
W 0 0
-' .' -' w ::; 0 U.J -' -' .q: -' uJ
<{ ~ <{ >= -.
STAttON w ', Q <1. a... <{ Z Q. -t 13 w >= <::1 U .....
>- a. .. >- 0 u >- VI ~ , ~ >- c.: >- U \II D.: <{ L.J.J
o ~ 0 0 0 0 O :z: 0 0 ::::! UJ --t ..... :z:
NUMBER STATION DESCRIPTION i: PRESERVATIVE :::J -' UJ w :::> 0 ~ w Co;
>- z co U >- >- VI --t Q a. U >- >- u.. >- a) a... :z: >- ~
1- f-
. .
.
.
.-
.
I' ;
-"
REQUIRED
REMARKS
-------
EI8iIIT .
Samplers:
FIELD DATA RECORD
. Gage HI.
TEMPERATURE CONDUCTIVITY pH D.O. or Flow
STATION . NUMBER DATE TIME °C p.mhos/cm S.U. mg/1 Fl. or CFS
.
"
.
-------
EXHIBIT IV
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office Of Enforcement .
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Building 53, 80)( 25227, Denver F~deral Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
SURVEY SAMPLERS: (Signa/ure)
SAMPLE TYPE .. . a___....-.
STATION STATION lOCATION DATE TIME WeIer SEQ. NO. OF ANAL YSIS
NUMBER Air NO. CONTAINERS REQUIRED
Compo Grob.
-
,
-
o.
. .
-
.
'.
,
Relinquished by: (Signa/ure) Received by: (Signa/ure) Date/Time
I
Relinquished by: (Signa/ure) Received by: (Signa/ule) Date/Time
I
Relinquished by: (Signa/ure) Received by: (Signa/ure) Date/Time
I
Relinquished by: (Signa/ule) Received by Mobile laboratory for field Date/Time
analysis: (Signa/ule) I .
Dispatched by: (Signa/ule) Date/Time Received for laboratory by: Date/Time
I I
Method of Shipment:
Distribution: Origo - Accompony Shipment
1 Copy- Survey Co.ordinator Field Files
r;po ,1111'1.('. - :1\." I
-------
APPENDIX E
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES AND QUALITY CONTROL
'.'r i",/;"
-------
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES AND QUALITY CONTROL
Samples collected during this survey were analyzed, where appro-
priate, according to procedures approved by EPA for the monitoring of
industrial effluents.* The procedures are listed in the following table.
Parameter
.
, Method
Reference
Cd, Mn, Ni, Al, Cr, Fe,
Hg, Ag, As, Pb, Sn, Zn,
Cu, Ba, Se
Atomic absorption
TSS
Gravimetric
EPA Methods for Chemical
Analyses of Water and Wastes
1974, p 78.
ibid., P 268
Ammonia
. Automated Colorimetric
phenate
i bi d., page 168
Oil and grease
(Freon-extractable
materials)
Separatory funnel
extraction
ibid., P 229
P04
Serial dilution i bi d., page 11
(Winkler-Azide)
Dichromate reduction i bi d., page 20
Automated phenate i bi d., page 182
Automate Codminum re-' i bi d., page 207
duction
Automated ascorbic i bi d., page 256
acid reduction
Automated ascorbic i bi d., page 256
acid reduction
BOD
COD
TKN
N03 + N02
Total P
* Federal Register~ Vol. 44~ No. 232~ December l~ 1976.
-------
Reliability of the analytical results was documented through an
active Analytical Quality Control Program.
.
As part of this program,
replicate analyses were normally performed with every tenth sample to
ascertain the reproducibility of the results.
In addition, where appropriate,
every tenth sample was spiked with a known amount of the constituents to
be measured and reanalyzed to determine the percent recovery.
These
results were evaluated in regard to past AQC data on the precision,
accuracy and detection limits of each test.
On the basis of these
findings, all analytical results reported for the survey were found to
be acceptable with respect to the precision and accuracy control of this
laboratory.
-------
APPEN 01 X F
ORGANICS ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
-------
PHILADELPHIA SURVEY
ORGANICS ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
Samples collected for general organics analyses were divided into
three categories to facilitate characterization of the constituents.
The first category, 3 and 6 liter extracts, were composite samples
collected at sewage treatment plant (STP) influent and effluent stations.
These samples were expected to contain the highest concentrations of
.
I
organic constituents.
The second category, 60 1 extracts, were field
extracted and composited on site so that very large sample volumes could
be utilized where organics concentrations were expected to be lower,
such as in open waters and finished water from the water treatment plant
(WTP).
The .final category, volatile orQanics, were collected at all
sites using the same technique since this method can tolerate a large
range of concentrations of constituents. .
EXTRACTION TECHNIQUES
3 and 6 Liter Samples
Composited 3 or 6 liter (1) samples were received at the laboratory
packed in ice.
Each sample was warmed to room temperature and 3 1 from
each gallon container of composited sample was extracted with 300 milli-
liters (ml) of methylene chloride (MeC12). The MeC12 extract was passed
through prewashed (100 ml acetone) anhydrous sodium sulfate (Na2S04) to
~ .~~
-------
Page 2
to remove any residual water.
The Na2S04 was then washed with 100 m1 of
acetone and the MeC12 extract and acetone wash combined in a 500 ml .
Kadurna-Danish (KD) equipped with a 3 ball Snyder column.
After the
volume was reduced to 10 ml,.the extracts were transferred to graduated
centrifuge tubes and concentrated to 5 m1 under a stream of organic
free air.
60 1 Samples
. .Samples were received at the mobile laboratory as 4 five.gallon
glass containers of water for each 24 hour composite.
container were tra.nsferred to a 5 gallon pyrex bottle.
15 liter of each
1 1 iter of
MeC12 was added and the mixture stirred for 10 minutes using a hand-
held industrial mixer.
After allowing time for the MeC12 to separate,
the water layer was siphoned off and the remaining mixture transferred
to a 2 liter separatory tunnel.
The MeC12.was drained and transferred
to a 500 m1 KD and the volume reduced to approximately 25 ml.
On
average, 600 ml of MeC12 were recovered.
The extracts were transported
to the NEIC laboratory where they were dried, composited and reduced
in volume in the same manner as the 3 liter extracts.
..Volatile Organics
The technique for volatile organics is attached as a separate
section.
-------
Page 3
Gas Chromatography
The extracts from 3, 6 and 60 liter samples were analyzed using a
gas chromatograph (GC) equipped with a 10 foot 2 mm ID glass column
. packed with 6% OV 101 on Gas~Chrom Q support and a flame ionization
detector (FID).
1 microliter (~l) of the extracts (or dilutions as
necessary to maintain peaks on scale) were injected onto the column.
Analytical conditions were:
injector temperature 220°C, detector
" /"
temperature 250°C,
He flow rate 20:ml/minute, initial oven temperature
80°C, final oven temperature 220°C, oven temperature program rate
6°C/min.
Mass Spectrometry
The constituents of each extract were identified using a gas
chromatograph-mass spectrometer (GC-MS). The GC conditions were
identical to those described" sarlier.
Samples were injected onto the
column and the oven program started.
Mass spectrometer data acquisition
was initiated after the solvent eluted from the GC column. A complete
mass spectrum was collected in less than 4se~onds from 20-350 am~.
Mass spectra were selected on each peak of the chromatogram and
identified by comparison to reference spectra obtained at the NEIC
laboratory; Eiqht Peak Index of Mass Spectra, Second Edition, 1974;
EPA mass spectral search system on the Cyphernetics Computer System
-------
Page 4
or the Registry of Mass Spectral Data, Wiley & Sons, 1974.
Constituents
.
identified are considered only tentative unless verified by reference
spectra obtained from the standard compound at NEIC.
.Quantitati on
After identification of the constituents by GC-MS, available
standards were analyzed on FID GC.
Retention times and peak heights
of the standards were measured and used to calculate the concentrations
of the identified constituents in the samples.
Comparisons were also
made of retention times to provide an additional verification of the
identification.
'Numerous other compounds were identified by GC-MS that could not
be verified due to the lack of an appropriate standard at NEIC.
In
cases where the identification was considered very good when compared
to external reference spectra, the concentrations were estimated using
, .
response factors of similar compounds with similar retention times.
-------
NEIC METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF VOLATILE ORGANICS
September 1976
1. ~and Application, .
.1 .This method is applicable to open, waste, and drinking waters
where volatile components are present at and abov~'20 'ug/1.
1.2 Since purging of the sample may not remove 100% of some com-
ponents and the detector response~ vary for classes of compounds,
the'sensitivity of the method may vary significantly for differ-
ent compounds.
2. Summary of the Method
2.1 Volatile components of the sample are purged with helium and
trapped on a polymer adsorbant. The components are then de-
sorbed and readsorbed at the head of a porous polymer analytical
GC column. The GC oven is temperature programmed and the com-
ponents analyzed by mass spectrometer (MS) or flame ionization
.detector (FIO) detectors.; The working range is 20 to 250 ug/l
for most compounds using FIO. The upper limit may be increased
" by using smaller sample volumes. '
Comments '
. 3.1 This method requires a well conditioned GC column to avoid ex-
cessive baseline drift due to column bleed during temperature
programmi ng. . .
3.2. The purging and desorbing procedure is 'applicable to either
FID or MS detectors and is presented here independent of detector.
3.3 . The initial GC oven temperature (now l700C) may be lowered to
accommodate lower boiling components; however, some loss in in-
formation will occur due to peak broadening and decreased sensi-
tivi~y. .
3.
4.' 'Precision and Accuracy ~
4.1 Replicate analyses of chloroform were performed at 500 ug/1 at
, NEIC. Standard deviations were 0.50 and 0.006 for peak height,
and retention time (in cm) respectively.
. 4.2 No accuracy data are available.
5.' Sample Handling and Preservation
5.1 Samples are collected in small (2 to 8 oz) glass bottles with
Teflon lined screw caps and stored in ice or refrigerated at
4°C. .
,5.2 Sample bottles should be filled completely to leave no air spaces.
During analysis, the samples should be opened for as short a
,time as practicable to remove sufficient sample for analysis.
'6.' Apparatus .
~.1 Gas Chromatograph: Varian 1400 series or other unit capable
of accepting FIO or MS detectors. Unit should be temperature
programmable and operable from ambient to 2100C.
-------
. 8.
.....
6.2 GC column: 6 ft. by 2 mm 10 glass column packed with 60/80 mesh
Chrgmosorb 101. The column should be conditioned 16 hours at
230 C with 20 ml/min He flow before use.
.' 6.3 Liquid Sample Concentrator: Tekmar lSC-l or ~quivalent unit ca-
. pab1e of purging 5 ml or more sample with He onto a Tenex adsorber
. column, then desorbing at 140°C from the Tenex into the injector
of the GC. Bake the trap for 16 hours at 1400C with .20 ml/min
He flow before use.
6.4 Mass spectrometer: Finnigan 1015 or similar.
6.5 Syringe: 5 ml gas tight syringe.
7.
Reagents . .
7.1 Volatile organics free water: Tap or distilled water purged with
. He to remove volatile organics.
7.2 Helium: Zero grade He for use to purge the water samples.
7.3 Standards: Pure compounds diluted to working concentrations with
water. tightly capped and stored at 40C. .
Procedure '
8.1 Set up liquid sample concentrator elSC) as described in the
owner's manual. Adjust the purge flow rate to 20 ml/min with
65 psig He pressure at the tank. Adjust the desorb flow rate
. to 20 ml/min. .
8.2 Set up the gas chromatograph as follows:
Injector temperature: 190-2000C
FID temperature: 2500C
GC column flow rate: 20 ml/min He @ 60 ps;g
Program rate: . 4oC/min
Initial temperature: 170oC'
Limit temperature: 2000C
8.3 Attach the lSC to the GC by pushing the hypodermic needle from
the lSC trap effluent through the injector septum. Remove the
LSC tubing and push a fine wire from the back of the needle
,'. through the point to remove any septum material that may have
clogged the needle. Reattach the LSC to the needle.
8.4 Place 5 ml of sample into the lSC purging chamber and purge the
sample for 5 minutes at 20 ml/min. '. ,
8.5 Desorb the sample components from the Tenex column. for 5 minutes
at 1400C onto the GC column at ambient temperature.
8.6 Immediately after 8.5, switch back to purge mode on the lSC, close
the GC oven door and raise the oven temperature to 170°C by
switching to "hold" with the initial temperature set to 170oC.
Wait 2 minutes as the temperature rises. . '.
8.7 Start the GC oven program at 4oC/min and the chart recorder or
mass sgectrometer. Note that the oven may not have stabilized
'at 170 C but should have just reached 170°C by this time. Col-
lect data as necessary then repeat procedure for subsequent
samples. 2000C is a sufficient upper limit for most analyses.
-------
-.;,-
9. Results
9.1 Table I gives approximate retention times for a
pounds. Figure 1 is a chromatogram showing the
th1 s method. .
, .
,
. .
'.
number of com-
response using
.~-
..
-------
TABLE I
. Retention Times of Selected Volatile Organic Compounds
Name Minutes
-
Acetone 1.4
&
Methlene Chloride 1.7
Chloroform 2.9
Benzene 3.9
Toluene 6.2
Ethyl Benzene 9.2
Cumene 13.9
.
, .
--
,
-------
!..
::':E'.'. _t=.~-~, I - --=-~!~-0.= --~_+~.1.=-~:::~_.. .:.:~r~r.".:~<~-::~F'=~' . -I-:.~=t-.I--' -..... -.,.:
:"',--i--H-r' -~~--i-' ":'-1--' . - --+--:''':''-1----::'- _.=-:-,~~~i- --1.'- --. ,.-- - ...
.-I.-.!..- r-i ' "- _L-'--'-I-- 'I r--"- j- l ~ -C~-rcT i r-I-_C-f- - ----
7""-+--~-'i='~~" ...1 ..i.'" :'~..j~::'~~; ._~.".'. :.. -":'.."'~-.j~.=l~L~~---;--i
++- ~.. : :.- ; ~ ~ : '.'. I - I-~~~- -7-r-1 .~. ,..' :-:';.'; :i.: .-7f' - I ;'-~ -'-:'_'~"'--f'
H ' , ,.; .- I ., , . J~--i ' .. . I . I
~'-;.'.. ~~~;~ .:1:: ~;-:-.". :: :..~~:; ..~::; ..:. ,)E~~ t. .:f-~ ~::. --., ..::-:-_. .~::.:.:.: I :~ -;-.-':.
7f.:-.R==, .:.' ~. ":.~ .. :~-:~:.:: '.' ~7:":-r~i~~+--.~ ... :..~ : - .' I ...~- ~... ,.. -~~. -
.. .;. :::.. :'~~~-:.~' ~>"::'~~fl' -~.::. !:.k -~--- ;-.-~'.': .~- .I-.:~ .. -I :::. :.... ; . .~~
I..... .- ..1.- ..1._...;.:-:::1-H _.L.::.:~ _. ~ .... ..0 ~.._. I .. I _.- .--,.-- t. --1 - .._.
.~._- ._...-........~~If "".""14.. .....-...... .. ...- t..-... .. I ..~
:.~=:.::~:~.:~::':.!..I t:=.Y:"iJ~~- :~~.~:_-'--'~~~'.~--~'. ~~~~i~~:.:. o~.':'_._~: ~~';:'-:'~'i.:::: .':'. ._--:--<~
-~- ~:'-~::::~:-':-=:: + '~..'-'-.:~..~ ;..-::- , '--".:~-:.--: ,--- -...~: ~.--=-~:~~-;..- '::..I--~-':; ::.:;~~:~. . ~...' ,.-....::1
~~:-~ :~---t<~~~l_~~';;!/Yj!7~~~\~-fYl:1Y~_\:=r-~~~-t/0:!~I~~=~:;l
-~_. - L - in-.----_- ~ -e- ",817 ,- -_._-:- ~- - .-+- - '---'--e-~ ~_.r-'=~
~~~t~ :' .~~;\: :;--:-; _:t=:;~~:n~CE~-~~--~I-~' ;::~- ~-~____~e :~:~TJ>~rfJ~:C l~:1~~
: ::-t::t_- L:-~-~~
r
.-.\
-0'-'
. .... ,
--..,...--- -.
..:-1 .'-' . I .....
.. . I. ... . , ..! - - ,.
~.I.. -.....;
~.:.:~::..+~.'~
.-
..'''' .--. , 'N-
-.::-:::..- "!
-:::.-,'.. .1
.-.---l
...'-" I - ..,......;
..... J-... I....
""~'-I.-"';' .-..--
-, , --1
.':~ r=-'-- t~ . " :. -. ~ . ~~:;~ .~ .;. .~-~-
-- ,..---.--1-... ~ ...-.,..- .,-.--
1- ,.
-., ..-
.. .. ...
f.
r
;T-
i£
~
~
IT
r
i
f
!
~
}
~
--
.._--.---
~
.._--, - -.-
--'-----
---.-.
--..--.
.-.---
. . ,
------.
I--..I---~- ~.~
.._~ ~ --:..~ ..:.t--+-
1-.-'1-'-4.- -r.--r
1--'1--.-:.f-- '--.,.--"1~
.~-"'I"_'-~- .- '
10f' -:-. ---. :.:.....: ...:.... -.:. -
- , -, - ~- - .. ..
I I .. .
..!.."-I-'-T=T-: -. .
,-;F .!W.:_~:~.tC~;~{~f~: ~~.\~ijY~~~~._:-n~n :~+=.'.~;~-<:.~~..[]Cr~~ -£i:~'
pn , I ~; '-If, . - .-- .' Cn +-n-- _._~--;nml-+n en n,=< --1--' 'n. -- --,_.,_.; --. '-.{ <=
.' :-:':.i-::.._~ .~:.- .::.:. :.~.' '::-+-:-:-. .H~'-:;':I..__t~~7":~...:.- - .'-L~~J,
FI~URE L. TYPIC~L. (HRo~~7b&RQm. l1~s ;t;
1-.~-
-.. I"
... ..!
. . -.:. i .
- ..... .
--+-
. . "! .
1"-.. . . . ~...._.+-~.:..t.-..:.-:-t
, .. .. ..-.J--- =t=.-
! "I -. i...
-- "'-----i- +--
:._._~" ._..J.. - . " .. ~...
._~.c=:-::_..L..~ r<
..-
-~-~:..:r
, . . [tl
:.~.:-~~~.~r
-:'~i
--,---
., t
-------
.
APPE'NDIX G
DETERMINATION OF TOXICITY INDEX
-------
APPENDIX G
DETERMINATION OF TOXICITY INDEX
The compounds identified during the survey [Tables 18 and 19J were
evaluated and a toxicity index developed. The toxicity index developed
herein is a number estimating the relative toxicity of all the organic
compounds found. Consideration of absolute toxicity factors, such as
the development of cancer or lethal dose, was used to indicate the
compounds which are potentially more harmful than others. The toxicity
index is more a safety hazard evaluation than a clinical ecological
interpretation.
Aquatic Toxicity
Data on acute doses required for intoxication serve first as a
yardstick against which to compare one compound with another, and se-
cond, as a starting point in the design of repeated exposure and meta-
bolism studies. The compounds listed in Tables 18 and 19 underwent an
extensive literature search. The column heading "Aquatic Toxicity" was
taken from the five-volume set Water QuaZity Criteria Data Book, pub-
lished by EPA in the Water Pollution Control Research series over a
period of several years. The numerator indicates the number of times a
separate reference was found on the effects of that chemical on aquatic
life. The denominator indicates the most toxic doses reported, accord-
ing to the rating system of Gleason, et all, as follows:
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR ACUTE TOXICITY OF CHEMICALS
Toxicity Rating or Class
6 - Super toxic
5 - Extremely toxic
4 - Very toxic
3 - Moderately toxic
2 - Slightly toxic
1 - Practically
non-toxic
Lowest published toxic dose
(TO) or LD50 for animals (LD)
Less than 5 mg/kg (5 ppm)
5 to 50 mg/kg (5 to 50 ppm)
50 to 500 mg/kg (50 to 500 ppm)
500 to 5,000 mg/kg (0.5 to 5 ppt)
5 to 15 gm/kg (5 to 15 ppt)
Greater than 15 gm/kg (>15 ppt)
-------
The specific toxicity doses (oral and inhalation) for which data
.
are provided in reference 2 are given in Table 21. The number of
citations addressing toxicity of one or another compound may reflect
either the duration of the period of concern over the compound or the
extraordinary recent recognition of its toxicity. Either of these
motives could cause an abundance of literature citations with respect to
. the toxicity of a given compound. Conversely, many of the compounds
which were identified have not been assigned a CAS (Chemical Abstract
Registry Number) and no data concerning their toxicity and/or carcinogen-
icity are reported in the literatuTe. Hence, although the number of
.
references found is not a strict measure of the toxicity of a given
substance, it is indicative of the concern and attention provided in
literature. Presumably, the higher the sum of the numerator and denomina-
tor, the more toxic the chemical, the more widespread its effects, and
the more cause for concern. Such a measurement does not necessarily
take into account the difference between species nor does it necessarily
bear any relationship to chronic toxicity which is more relevant to the
low levels reported in Tables 18 and 19. This "measure" used in con-
junction with other data provided in Tables 18, 19, 20 and 21 should be
used collectively in evaluating the health effects of exposure to the
compounds identified.
In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) standards
have been developed for some chemicals and are given in the column "OSHA
'Standard. Standards were also taken from the Toxic Substances List,
1974 Edition.2 The OSHA standards were rated in the same manner as was
. aquatic toxicity. For example, the OSHA standard for compound number 1
(Ethanol) in Table 18 is 1,000 ppm which would give it a toxicity rating
of 3 (moderately toxic). This rating system, based on a scale of 1
(practically non-toxic) to 6 (super toxic) is used to aid in weighting
the overall toxicity index.
-------
Suspected Carcinogen List
The column "Suspected Carcinogen List" contains a numerator from
which the four digits are summed to yield the denominator. The infor-
mation came from the Suspected Carcinogens: A Subfile of the NIOSH
Toxic Substances List.3 However, in an ateempt to solve the same prob-
lems encountered in interpreting the data presented in this report, the
Suspected Carcinogens List was computer permuted by EPA4 to produce a
ranking of hazard, according to the following schedule:
The first digit, A, represents the species in which a carcinogenic
- J
(CAR) or neoplastic (NED) response was reported, and assignments were
made thus:
7:
6:
5:
4:
3:
2:
1 :
human
monkey
cat, dog, pig, cattle, or domestic animal
rat
mouse
guinea pig, gerbil, hamster, rabbit, squirrel,
unspecified mammal
wild bird, bird, chicken, duck, pigeon, quail
or turkey .
frog
D:
For compounds where CAR or NED responses were reported in more than
one species, the highest number was assigned.
The second digit, ~, designates the number of different species for
which a CAR or NED response was reported, up to a maximum number of 9.
The third digit, f, was assigned on the basis of the route of
administration for which a CAR or NED response was reported:
2:
1 :
0:
inhalation, ocular or skin application
oral administration
all other routes of administration
, . pt
-------
Only the highest number was retained where CAR or NED responses
.
were reported for more than one route or administration.
The final digit, Q, is the total number of CAR and/or NED responses
reported for this substance, up to a maximum of 9. Because the NIOSH
Registry included only one entry for any route/species combination
(specifically, the study in which the lowest effective dose was reported
for that combination), this digit is a count of the number of different
species/route combinations reported to result in a carcinogenic or
neoplastic response.
Toxline
The column "Tox1ine" lists the relative frequency of occurrence of
toxic substance literature. The computerized data bases of the National
Libraries of Medicine TOXLINE were exhaustively searched, both on-line
for current files and off-line for historical files. This base contains
data on toxicity and adverse effects of environmental pollutants and
chemicals on the human food chain, laboratory animals, and biological
systems; it also contains analytical techniques.
Accessible through Toxline are citations, and abstracts where
available, from the following indexes for a total of 878,000 records,
spanning the last 3-1/2 decades of medical literature.
CANCERLINE 1963-76 - Cancer Abstracts
CANCER PROJ 1975-76 - Cancer Projects
CBAC - 1965-76 - Chemical Abstracts, biochemistry sections
CHEMLINE 1973-76 - Chemical Information on Structure
and Nomenclature
EMIC - 1971-74 - Environmental Mutagen Information Center
EPILEPSY - 1945-76 - Epilepsy Abstracts
HEEP - 1972-76 - Health Effects of Environmental Pollutants
PESTAB - 1966-76 - Pesticide Abstracts, EPA
HAYES - 1930-76 - EPA Pesticide File
IPA - 1970-76 - International Pharmaceutical Abstracts
TOXBIB - 1968-76 - Index Medicus toxicity subset
-------
the search logic used was broadly constructed to retrieve any
references to the adverse effects of any of the 156 chemicals listed.
Science Citation IndexR determines the apparent scientific merit of
an author's work by determining the number of times his work has been
cited by other authors. Similarly~ it was assumed that the more ref-
erences there were in the literature to the adverse effects of a chemi-
cal ~ the more toxic it was in fact. Thus~ the "Toxline" column lists
the number of citations to the literature on the adverse effects of each
chemical found in the TOXLINE.
Toxicity Index
All of these columns are mechanically summed~ including both the
numerators and denominators~ if they occur~ to create the "Toxicity
Index" column. The exception is the "Suspected Carcinogen List" column~
in which only the denominator was included. The "Toxicity Index"
serves only as a guide to the potential hazard of those compounds found.
The larger the index~ the greater the potential hazard.
The total number of separate literature references gathered in the
development of this report is substantial.* It should be recognized
that 156 chemicals were evaluated against 19 data bases~ resulting in
some 3~OOO possible intersections. The actual number of references
located was 2~182 and some intersections contained more than one
reference.
* ObviouslY3 to explore this much information in depth on the adverse
effects of these 156 chemicals would have required a report of
inordinate length. However3 the adverse aspects of a particular
chemical can be further investigated by consulting the references on
file at NEIC3 Denver.5
-------
APPENDIX REFERENCES
1.
Marion N. Gleason, R. E. Gosselin, H. F. Hodge and R. P. Smith,
1969. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products: Acute
Poisoning, 3 ed., Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore.
2.
,
Herbert E. Christensen and T: T. Luginbyhl, Eds., 1974.
Substances List 1974. U. S. Dept. HEW, Rockville, Md.
Herbert E. Christensen and T. T. Luginbyhl, Eds., 1975. Suspected
Carcinogens - A Subfile of the NIOSH Toxic Substances List. U. S.
Dept. HEW, Rockville, Md.
Toxi c .
3.
4.
An Ordering of the NIOSH Suspected Carcinogens List (based only
on data contained in the List), March 1976. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C., 436 p.
Douglas B. Seba, Toxic Substances Coordinator, EPA National
Enforcement Investigations Center, Bldg. 53, DFC, Denver, Colorado,
303/234-5306.
5.
------- |