EMISSIONS OF VOLATILE AND POTENTIALLY TOXIC
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FROM SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANTS AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Department of Civil Engineering
University of California, Davis
-------
FINAL REPORT
EMISSIONS OF VOLATILE AND POTENTIALLY
TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FROM
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS AND COLLECTION
SYSTEMS
by
Daniel P.Y. Chang
Edward D. Schroeder
Richard L. Corsi
Department of Civil Engineering
University of California, Davis
Submitted to the California Air Resources
Board in fulfillment of Contract No. A5-127-32
(July 1987)
-------
DISCLAIMER
"THE STATEMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THIS REPORT ARE THOSE OF THE
CONTRACTOR AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES
BOARD. THE MENTION OF COMMERICAL PRODUCTS, THEIR SOURCE OR THEIR USE IN
CONNECTION WITH MATERIAL REPORTED HEREIN IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS
EITHER AN ACTUAL OR IMPLIED ENDORSEMENT OF SUCH PRODUCTS."
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
ACRONYMS vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii
ABSTRACT x
INTRODUCTION 1
Specific Objectives 1
Scope 3
Organization of the Report 3
PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT WORKS AND
WASTEWATER TREATMENT 5
POTENTIALLY TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS OF INTEREST 9
Compounds and Characteristics 9
Sources 9
Pretreatment Requirements 9
THE FATE OF POTENTIALLY TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
IN PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT WORKS 19
Removal from Collection System 21
Volatilization Within Wastewater Treatment Plants ... 24
Removal in the Sludge Stream 26
Biodegradation 33
Formation 40
Pass-Through 41
Summary 43
EMISSIONS ESTIMATION METHODS AND DATA QUALITY
AND AVAILABILITY 46
Emissions Estimates 46
Sludge Generation Estimates 51
Estimating the Removal of PTOCs in Sludge 51
Data Quality and Availability: PTOC Sampling
Procedures 52
Sample Analysis Techniques 54
' Data Sources . . . . 55
Data Base Compilation 59
Assumptions and Limitations 63
Summary of Uncertainties 65
11
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 73
Statewide Emissions 73
County-By-County Emissions 77
MWTP-By-MWTP Emissions 82
The Significance of MWTPs in the South Coast
Air Basin 90
The Significance of Emissions Following
Wastewater Treatment 91
Sludge Generation and PTOC Removal in Sludge Streams . 94
CONCLUSIONS 98
RECOMMENDATIONS 103
REFERENCES 107
Supplemental Reading Ill
APPENDIX At Glossary 114
APPENDIX B: Regulations for the National
Pretreatment Program 121
APPENDIX Ci POTWs with Pretreatment Programs 145
APPENDIX D: Trihalomethane Formation 150
APPENDIX E: WEST Code 157
APPENDIX F: Data Base Structure 165
APPENDIX G: Wastewater Treatment Plant Visits 171
APPENDIX H: TEST (A Refined Emissions Model) 192
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 Potentially Toxic Organic Compounds 10-13
•
2 Common Uses of PTOCs 14
3 Common Sources of PTXs 15
4 PTOC Concentrations in Collection
System Atmospheres 23
5 PTOC Adsorption Parameters 29
6 Partition Coefficients for Adsorption to Sludge .... 30
7 A Comparison of Adsorption to Primary
and Secondary Sludge 32
8 PTOC Removal in Sludge Streams 34
9 The Effects of Acclimation on Stripping
and Biodegradation 37
10 Average Total Removal Efficiencies for PTOCs 42
11 Percent of Flow Accounted for by MWTPs with Data ... 50
12 Typical Detection Limits for the PTOCs 56
13 A Summary of MWTPs with Existing Concentration Data . . 61-62
14 Temporal Variation of PTOC Concentrations in
Influent Streams 68
15 Estimated Uncertainties in Emissions Estimates .... 71
16 County-By-County Emissions 79-81
17 Plant-By-Plant Emissions 83-85
18 A Comparison of Emissions from MWTPs and Other
Sources in the South Coast Air Basin 92
19 A Comparison of Emissions from the Hyperion
Treatment Plant and Large Point Sources in the
South Coast Air Basin 93
20 Worst-Case Emissions from Effluent Conveyance
• Systems and Receiving Waters 95
21 PTOC Mass Removals in Sludge Streams 96
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Simplified Representation of a POTW 6
2 The Fate of PTOCs in POTWs 20
3 Data Extrapolation Regions 49
4 Statewide Emissions of PTOCs Totalling
Less Than 10 tpy 74
5 Statewide Emissions of PTOCs Totalling
Greater Than 10 tpy 75
6 PTOC Emissions from the 10 Counties with
the Highest Emissions 78
-------
ACRONYMS
AC Adsorption Capacity (to activated carbon)
ADL Above Detection Limit
DDL Below Detection Limit
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BODS 5 day Biochemic'al Oxygen Demand
BODu Ultimate Biochemical Oxygen Demand
GARB California Air Resources Board
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CFSTR Continuous Flow Stirred-Tank Reactor
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CSDLAC County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
DAF Dissolved Air Flotation
DSE Domestic Sewage Exclusion
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
GAG Granular Activated Carbon
HTP Hyperion Treatment Plant
IU Industrial User
IUPAC International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists
JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MLSS Mixed Liqour Suspended Solids
MUD Municipal Utility District
MWTP Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant
NEEDS . A Report to EPA concerning the needs of MWTPs
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
VI
-------
NPP National Pretreatment Program
OCSD Orange County Sanitation District
ORT Odor Removal Tower
PAG Powdered Activated Carbon
PAR Pretreatment Annual Report
PCE Perchloroethylene
*
PFR Plug-Flow Reactor
POTW Publicly-Owned Treatment Work
PTOC Potentially Toxic Organic Compound (assumed volatile)
RBC Rotating Biological Contactor «
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFP Request For Proposals
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board (California)
TCA 1,1,1 Trichloroethane
TCE Trichloroethylene
TEST Toxic Emissions during Sewage Treatment (a model)
THM Trihalomethane
TSS Total Suspended Solids
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WAS Waste Activated Sludge
WEST Worst-case Emissions during Sewage Treatment (a model)
WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
VII
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study could not have been completed without several indivi-
duals and organizations who provided us with necessary data, technical
information, data management assistance, and assistance with preparation
of the final report. Foremost, the authors wish to thank the staff of
the California Air Resources Board (CARS), particularly Mr. Joseph
Pantalone, for their comments and the cooperative working relationship
that they offered throughout this study. We also thank the CARB for
funding this study in its entirety.
We would like to thank the following individuals for their coopera-
tion, and for expending their time and energy to provide us with infor-
mation and data required to complete this studyi Keith Silva and Vicky
Choy (EPA Region IX); Paul Johnston, James Kassel, Don Owens, Herb
Deardorff, and Don Anderson (California Water Resources Control Board);
Eric Hsiang (Water Quality Control Board, Region 2); Angela Charpentier
(Water Quality Control Board, Region 3); Earle Hartling, Robert Horvath,
and Norman Ackerman (Los Angeles County Sanitation District); Richard
von Langen (Orange County Sanitation District); Helen Farnham (Sunnyvale
WWTF); Ron Linden (Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant); Mark
Niver (City of San Jose Department of Water Pollution Control); Frank
Wada (Hyperion Treatment Plant); Joseph Damas, Jr. (East Bay MUD WWTF);
Walter Kanopka (Point Loma Treatment Plant); Steven Medberry (City of
San Francisco); and Michael Porter and John Woods (South Coast Air
Quality Management District).
The following individuals were kind enough to assist us during our
visits of the noted wastewater treatment facilities! Ron Linden
(Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant); Charles Turner (City
of Bakersfield Wastewater Treatment Plant); Ross Caballero (Joint Water
Pollution Control Plant); Frank Wada and Sam Cheng (Hyperion Treatment
Plant); Anderson Dill (Fresno Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility
*1); Roy Stevens (Sunnyvale WWTF); Mark Niver (San Jose-Santa Clara
Water Pollution Control Plant); and Joseph Dames, Jr., A. Greenberg, and
Mr. Frye (East Bay MUD WWTF).
Vlll
-------
Ms. Qingzeng Qiu provided valuable technical assistance with regard
to modeling. Finally, the authors would like to acknowledge and thank
Michael Horn and Mike Fong for excellent data base management, and
Barbara Nichols and Virginia Roy for their patience and efficiency
during the preparation of this manuscript.
IX
-------
ABSTRACT
Publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) are a source of potentially
toxic organic compound (PTOC) emissions for which limited data are
available. This study was commissioned by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) in order to assess the potential for PTX emissions from
municipal wastewater treatment plants (MWTPs) and collection systems
throughout California. The fates of 16 PTXs were reviewed in terms of
volatilization, biodegradation, and adsorption to solids and biomass as
the primary removal mechanisms from wastewater. For the compounds that
were studied, it was concluded that volatilization is the dominant remo-
val mechanism in MWTPs. However, the paucity of existing data regarding
the occurrence and distribution of PTOCs in collection systems made it
impossible to estimate emissions from those sources. A methodology was
developed to predict PTOC emissions from 589 MWTPs in California. A
limited but growing data base was used along with extrapolation methods
to estimate speciated PTOC emissions from MWTPs on statewide, county-by-
county, and plant-by-plant bases. The results indicated that approxi-
mately 800 tons per year (tpy) of total PTOCs were emitted from MWTPs
throughout California. Toluene and methylene chloride dominated the
total PTOC emissions. Each was estimated to have been emitted in excess
of 200 tpy. A small number of the 589 MWTPs were identified as having
accounted for a large fraction of the total PTOC emissions. Further-
more, a comparison of PTOC emissions from two large MWTPs in the South
Coast Air Basin (SCAB) suggested that emissions of some PTOCs from those
sources were comparable to, and possibly greater than, emissions from
the largest known point sources in the SCAB. Finally, specific MWTPs
and treatment processes were recommended for future source sampling, and
areas that will require future research in order to reduce the uncer-
tainties in emissions estimates were identified.
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Recent concerns regarding human exposure to potentially toxic
organic compounds (PTOCs) and the role that PTOCs play in the formation
of photochemical air pollution have necessitated a review of PTOC
emission sources. Municipal wastewater treatment plants (MWTPs) are a
source of PTX emissions for which limited data are available. This
document reports the findings of a study to assess the potential for
PTOC emissions from publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) in
California.
Specific Objectives
The work objectives that were specified in the Request for Proposals
(RFP), issued by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), are sum-
marized below.
1. Conduct a literature search to obtain information regarding emissions
of PTOCs from POTWs. The PTOCs to consider include acrylonitrile, ben-
zene, bromodichloromethane, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chloro-
form, dibromochloromethane, 1,1-dichloroethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane,
ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, toluene, 1,1,1-tri-
chloroethane, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride.
2. Develop and/or refine models for estimating emissions of the 16 PTOCs
from POTWs.
3. Complete a county-by-county inventory of POTWs in California and rank
them by capacity.
4. Estimate the quantity and ultimate method of disposal of sludge and
solid refuse recovered by MWTPs in California.
5. Estimate the fraction of each PTOC that adsorbs to sludge.
6. Using the models and methods described above, complete county-by-
county and statewide emission estimates for methane and non-methane
hydrocarbons, and total and speciated PTOCs. The level of confidence
associated with the estimates will also be addressed.
-------
7. Include a comprehensive description of all data bases used in the
compilation of the emissions inventory, and indicate explicitly which
data were taken from each data base.
8. Prepare a final report which describes, in detail, the projected
PTOC emissions, as well as the models and methods used to arrive at
those projections. A discussion of data acquisition techniques, mathe-
matical calculations, uncertainties in estimates, and recommendations
for future sampling are to be included.
In addition to the objectives specified in the RFP, the following
additional tasks were completed as it was felt that the resulting
information would be useful to the staff of the CARB during future
emission studies.
1. For emission inventory purposes, the location (latitude and longi-
tude) of every MWTP in the state of California were obtained.
2. In addition to the methodology applied to estimate the total emis-
sions from each POTW, treated as individual point sources, a model was
developed to estimate emissions from specific wastewater treatment pro-
cesses. With knowledge of the individual process locations, the model
will allow for greater spatial resolution with respect to emissions
estimates based upon entire MWTPs. The process-specific model can be
used with standard Gaussian dispersion models to predict downwind con-
centrations. The detailed emissions model is the subject of Appendix H
of this report.
3. During the course of this study, it became evident that the quantity
of trihalomethanes (THMs) formed in MWTPs is often greater, as a result
of chlorination practices in the MWTP, than that received in the
influent to the MWTP. Thus, a review of the factors affecting THM
formation, potential precursors, and evidence of THM formation in
California is included.
A combination of a lack of existing sample data on total methane
and non-methane hydrocarbon emissions or a suitable surrogate, prevented
-------
us from making reliable estimates of those emissions. That objective
was not accomplished.
Many organic compounds can be found in the influent to MWTPs.
However, because of the limited time and resources associated with this
contract, a manageable list of 16 PTOCs was selected for review as
requested in the RFP. Although many other potentially toxic organic
compounds exist, throughout the remainder of this report, the term
"PTOCs" will refer to the subset comprised of those 16 compounds
noted previously.
The contract did not provide for actual field sampling for the
PTOCs. Thus, the completion of those objectives involving quantitative
estimates of PTOCs required the use of existing data bases. Un-
fortunately, existing data bases are incomplete with respect to PTOC
mass loadings into MWTPs. In addition, those facilities that have
sampled for PTOCs typically sample on a very infrequent basis (e.g., 4
days per year). The existing data base is expected to improve in the
following years, as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Pre-
treatment Program takes full effect. Data bases that were employed
in this study will be described in detail in a later section.
Information regarding the monitoring of PTOCs in sewer lines is
virtually non-existent. At this time it is not possible to predict
emissions from collection systems. However, the factors that affect
emissions from collection systems are described in this report, and
past sampling efforts are reviewed.
Organization of the Report
It was assumed that the readers of this report may not have a
complete understanding of wastewater treatment or the important charac-
teristics of those PTOCs that are commonly discharged to wastewater
collection systems. Thus, Sections 2 and 3 provide brief overviews of
-------
wastewater treatment systems, common terminology associated with the
field of wastewater treatment, and a description of the charac-
teristics, sources, and occurrences of the PTOCs selected for review.
A glossary (Appendix A) and a list of acronyms (page vi) used in
the report are provided as well as both chemical and common names,
structural formulas and important physico-chemical parameters of the
PTOCs (Tables 1 and 5).
The fate of PTOCs in collection systems and MWTPs is reviewed in
Section 4. The results of data analyses completed to predict the
importance of removal mechanisms other than volatilization are also
presented. Previous studies regarding volatile emissions from
wastewater to the atmosphere are described.
A presentation of emissions estimation techniques, limitations,
and assumptions is included in Section 5. A discussion of uncertain-
ties based upon sampling procedures, analysis techniques, and estimation
methods is also included.
A complete analysis of predicted PTOC emissions is provided in
Section 6. Emissions estimates are provided on a county-by-county and
statewide basis. Reference is made to a data base, provided to the
CARB on magnetic recording media, which provides emissions estimates
for every MWTP in California. Special attention is given to those
counties which contribute significant emissions to the statewide total.
In Sections 7 and 8, conclusions are drawn regarding the
significance of volatilization as a PTOC removal mechanism in POTWs, and
recommendations are forwarded for future studies and source sampling,
respectively.
A process-specific model is described in Appendix H of this report.
A theoretical development is provided, along with a description of
required model inputs. An interactive FORTRAN program has been written
and provided to the CARB along with example applications.
-------
2. PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT WORKS AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
This section provides a brief overview of POTWs and wastewater
treatment facilities. The reader is referred to the glossary in
Appendix A, as needed, for further descriptions and definitions asso-
ciated with municipal wastewater treatment. A number of texts and
public documents with detailed descriptions of wastewater treatment and
associated processes are listed in the Supplemental Readings.
Wastewater systems that are referred to as publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) are defined by section 212 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1292). For the purposes of this study, a POTW is defined as a
system that is owned by a public entity, and which conveys wastewater
to or from a municipal wastewater treatment plant (MWTP). As shown in
Figure 1, this includes the wastewater collection system, wastewater
and sludge treatment facilities, and effluent, sludge disposal, or out-
fall, systems.
The wastewater collection system is typically composed of an exten-
sive network of sewerage piping used to convey wastewater discharged by
users of the POTW. Collection systems vary in type and length.
Collection systems are considered to be either combined or separate.
In combined systems, storm water and wastewater are conveyed through
the same system. Conversely, in separate systems wastewater is
j
segregated from stormwater, leading to more uniform seasonal flows.
Most systems in California are of the separate type. The collection
system length for some large POTWs, such as the County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County, are on the order of thousands of
miles!
Users of POTWs can be classified into many categories. Most com-
monly, users are classified as residential, commercial, or industrial
(see Glossary for definitions). Other users may include institutions
such as hospitals, prisons, and educational facilities. Potentially
toxic organic compounds are most often discharged by industrial users
(lUs), bat the contribution from residential, commercial, and institu-
tional users may also be significant. Specific sources of PTOCs are
addressed in detail in Section 3.
-------
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
1
, //7/
/ / / / /
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RESIDENTIAL / I/ /
V / / / /
COLLECTION SYSTEM
PRIMARY
TREATMENT
SECONDARY
TREATMENT
ADVANCED
TREATMENT
EFFLUENT
DISCHARGE
SLUDGE
TREATMENT
SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
Figure 1: Simplified Representation of a POTW
-------
Municipal wastewater treatment plants are composed of processes to
treat both the incoming wastewater and solids separated from the
wastewater or that are generated during biological treatment.
Wastewater treatment processes are typically categorized as primary,
secondary, or advanced treatment. Primary treatment may include the
use of bar screens, comminuters, grit chambers, and primary clarifiers.
While not all MWTPs employ secondary treatment, it is common practice
in large facilities and those facilities that discharge to potentially
sensitive receiving waters. Secondary treatment typically includes
biological treatment such as activated sludge systems, trickling
filters, oxidation ponds, rotating biological contactors, overland
flow, and marsh systems. Advanced, or tertiary, treatment systems may
include filtration units, biological nitrification systems, stripping
towers, and the use of activated carbon adsorption systems.
Chlorination is often employed as a treatment step to disinfect
treated wastewater before it is dis-charged to a receiving water.
Dechlorination of the effluent using sulfur dioxide commonly follows
disinfection.
Receiving systems for effluent discharge vary considerably, and
are highly dependent upon the geographic location of the POTW. For
instance, effluent from MWTPs in the Central Valley region of
California are typically discharged to surface receiving waters,
usually rivers or smaller surface waters that flow into rivers.
Effluent is also employed for restrictive agricultural uses, or may be
disposed of to the atmosphere from evaporation ponds, or to the ground-
water using percolation ponds. In LOS Angeles and Orange counties, as
well as all along the California coast, a large fraction of municipal
effluent is discharged to the ocean. Finally, many large MWTPs in the
South and East San Francisco Bay regions discharge final effluent
directly to San Francisco Bay.
Sludge is collected during primary and secondary treatment, and
sometimes during advanced treatment. Secondary and advanced treatment
sludges are typically thickened, and combined sludges are commonly sta-
bilized using anaerobic digestion. The combined, digested sludge is
-------
dewatered by centrifuge, belt press, or drying beds, before ultimate
disposal to a landfill. Incineration, composting, and discharge to the
ocean are also currently employed as disposal processes.
8
-------
3. POTENTIALLY TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS OF INTEREST
Compounds and Characteristics
The potentially toxic organic compounds, as well as several of
their important physico-chemical characteristics, are shown in Table 1.
Names approved by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists
(IUPAC) are provided under the heading of chemical name. Common syno-
nyms are also provided. The relatively low solubility, and high vapor
pressures for most of the PTOCs under consideration indicate their ten-
dency toward volatilization.
Sources
As was indicated in Section 2, several types of users discharge to
POTWs. Those classified as residential, commercial, or industrial may
be broken down further according to the specific source. Tables 2 and
3 are provided to indicate typical uses of PTOCs, and to list those
sources that have been known to discharge significant amounts of PTOCs
to POTWs.
Pretreatment Requirements
On June 26, 1978, the EPA issued regulations for a National
Pretreatment Program (NPP). Revised regulations (Appendix B) became
effective on March 30, 1981. The NPP was established to protect POTWs
and their surrounding environments from the adverse effects associated
with the discharge of hazardous and/or toxic wastes to the POTW's
wastewater system. In particular, it was desired to protect biological
treatment systems from interferences and failures, to minimize the
potential for the pass-through of toxic wastes in the MWTP effluent, to
prevent the contamination of municipal sludge, and to reduce the expo-
sure of workers to chemical hazards. The NPP is the primary mechanism
for achieving such objectives. It has gained increased importance in
that role following the Domestic Sewage Exclusion (DSE) enacted under
-------
Table 1A : POTENTIALLY TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Molecular Vapor Boiling Henry's Law
Chemical Name Synonyms
2- Propenenitrile f*"1"*
r Vinyl cyanide
Benzene
Bromodichloro-
methane
Carbon tptra~
Tetrachloromethane ., . ,
cnionae
Chemical Weight Solubility Pressure Point Constant (X1000)
Structure g/g-mole mg/l (mmHg) (°C) (atm-m3/mol)
Hs
C=C-C=N 53.06 73500 1002 77.3 0.0671
H H
H
]O£ 78.11 1800 76 80.1 5.55
H
Br
CI-C-CI 163.83 - 50 90.0 2.12
i
H
Cl
I
CI-C-CI 153.84 785 90 76.5 30.2
Cl
Solubility and vapor pressure at 20°C except (1) = 15°C, (2) = 23°C, (3) = 25°C
Henry's Law constants at 25°C except (1) • 15°C
References: Mackay et al. (1979), Nicholson et al. (1984), USEPA (1983), Verschueren (1977), CRC (1977)
-------
Table 1B : POTENTIALLY TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Molecular Vapor Boiling Henry's Law
Chemical Weight Solubility Pressure Point Constant (X1000)
Chemical Name Synonyms Structure g/g-mole mg/l (mmHg) (°C) (atm-m3/mol)
Chlorobenzene
i
Trichloromethane
Chlorodibromo-
methane
Phenyl
chloride
Chloroform
Dibromochloro-
methane
Cl
i_i ii LI
Of 112.56 500 8.8 132.0
H'^slx'^u
T **
H
Cl
I
CI-C-CI 119.38 8000 160 61.7
i
H
Cl
Br-C-Br 208.29 - 15 122.0
I
H
3.93
3.39
0.78
1,2 Dichloroethane
Cl Cl
I I
H-C-C-H
I l
H H
98.96 8690
61
83.5
1.1
Solubility and vapor pressure at 20°C except (1) - 15°C, (2) - 23°C, (3) « 25°C
Henry's Law constants at 25°C except (1) • 15°C
References: Mackay et al. (1979), Nicholson et al. (1984), USEPA (1983), Verschueren (1977), CRC (1977)
-------
Table 1C : POTENTIALLY TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Molecular Vapor Boiling Henry's Law
Chemical Weight Solubility Pressure Point Constant (X1000)
Chemical Name Synonyms Structure g/g-mole mg/l (mmHg) (°C) (atm-m3/mol)
f\t II
1,1 Dichloroethylene v'"y"°ene >=< 96.94 400 500 37.0
chloride ci H
^^i i i
Ethylbenzene Tof 106.16 152 7 136.0
W^^S?^**H
H
Cl
)ichloromethane Me%lene ci-C-H 84.94 20000 349 39.8
chloride i
H
Porrhlnrn- Cl v .Cl «
fetrachloroethene fu , tenr\ )c=c( 165.83 1502 14 121.0
ethylene (PCE) ci Cl
15.0
6.4
3.19
28.7
Solubility and vapor pressure at 20°C except (1) - 15°C, (2) * 23°C, (3) - 25°C
Henry's Law constants at 25°C except (1) - 15°C
References: Mackay et al. (1979), Nicholson et al. (1984), USEPA (1983), Verschueren (1977), CRC (1977)
-------
Table 1D : POTENTIALLY TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Molecular Vapor Boiling Henry's Law
Chemical Weight Solubility Pressure Point Constant (X1000)
Chemical Name Synonyms Structure g/g-mole mg/l (mmHg) (°C) (atm-m3/mol)
CH3
H ^Jk. H
Methyl benzene Toluene loT 92.13 515 22 110.8 5.93
H
Cl H
1,1,1 Trichloroethane M.fhyl. Cl-C-C-H 133.41 4400 100 74.1 4.92
chloroform i i
Cl H
_. , i /-»i r*i
Trichloroethene T" , ",TPCx >=< 131.39 11003 58 87.0 11.7
ethylene (TCE) ci H
Cl H
Chloroethene Vinyl chloride >=< 62.50 13 26603 -13.4 36.0
I_l ' ^LJ
n n
Solubility and vapor pressure at 20°C except (1) = 15°C, (2) = 23°C, (3) - 25°C
Henry's Law constants at 25°C except (1) • 15°C
References: Mackay et al. (1979), Nicholson et al. (1984), USEPA (1983), Verschueren (1977), CRC (1977)
-------
Table 2i Common Uses
Compound
of PTOCs
Uses
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,1 Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
1,2 Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Perchloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
production of resins and fibers; modifier for
natural polymers; stored grain fumigant,
fuel additive; solvent (waxes, resins, oils,
etc.).
solvent (oils, fats, lacquers, rubber waxes,
resins); insecticide; drying agent for spark
plugs.
solvent in insecticide and herbicide formulation;
solvent for paints; auto parts degreaser; heat
transfer medium; manufacture of phenol.
solvent (oil, rubber, alkaloids, waxes, resin);
cleansing agent; soil fumigant; solvent for
Pharmaceuticals.
intermediate in the production of vinylidene
polymer plastics.
resin solvent; conversion to styrene monomer.
solvent (fats, oils, gums, waxes, resins,
rubber); extract for tobacco; manufacture of
acetyl cellulose.
solvent for cellulose acetate; solvent in food
processing; degreasing agent; cleansing agent;
paint stripping; fire extinguisher compounds;
beer flavoring from hops; extraction of caffeine
from coffee; metal degreaser; solvent in textile
processing.
solvent in dry cleaning; solvent in textile
processing; metal degreaser.
solvent (paints, lacquers, gums, resins);
extraction of principles from plants; gasoline
additive; production of benzene, dyes, and
explosives.
cold-type metal cleaning; cleaning of plastic
molds; aerosol formulation.
solvent (fats, waxes, resins, oils, rubber,
paints, cellulose esters, ethers, varnishes);
degreasing agent; dry cleaning.
refrigerant; direct production of polyvinyl
chloride.
References! Merck Index (1983), USEPA (1986).
14
-------
Table 3i Common Sources of PTXs
Compounds
Sources
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
1,1 Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Perchloroethylene
production of resins and acrylic fiber.
metal finishing} non-ferrous metals» organic
chemicals, plastics, and synthetics industries;
Pharmaceuticals; manufacturing (dyes, artificial
leather, linoleum, varnishes, lacquers, paints);
motor vehicle services.
non-ferrous metals; organic chemicals, plastics,
and synthetics industries; chlorinated drinking
water.
adhesives industry; metal finishing; organic
chemicals, plastics, and synthetics industries;
Pharmaceuticals; food processing; fluorocarbon
production.
organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetics
industries; Pharmaceuticals; motor vehicle
services.
chlorinated drinking water.
adhesives industry; aluminum forming; leather
tanning and finishing; pulp, paper, and
fiberboard manufacture; organic chemicals,
plastics, and synthetics industries;
Pharmaceuticals; rubber industry; chlorinated
drinking water.
metal finishing.
.adhesives industry; production of electrical
products; organic chemicals, plastics, and
synthethics industries; leather tanning and
finishing; metal finishing; motor vehicle
services; Pharmaceuticals.
adhesives industry; aluminum forming; production
of electrical products; leather tanning and
finishing; non-ferrous metals; organic chemicals,
plastics, and synthetics industries;
Pharmaceuticals; wood finishing; motor vehicle
services; food processing; photographic
chemicals.
copper forming; metal finishing; textile mills;
non-ferrous metals; organic chemicals, plastics,
and synthetics industries; dry cleaners; wood
finishing.
15
-------
Table 3i Sources of PTOCs Cont'd
Compounds Sources
Toluene adhesives industry; organic chemicals, plastics,
and synthetics industries; leather tanning and
finishing; metal finishing; Pharmaceuticals;
motor vehicle services; laundries; wood
finishing.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane production of electrical products; metal
finishing; plastic forming; Pharmaceuticals;
motor vehicle services.
Trichloroethylene adhesives industry; aluminum forming; textile
mills; motor vehicle services; dry cleaners.
Vinyl chloride polyvinyl chloride manufacturers.
References: USEPA (1983), USEPA (1986).
16
-------
section 1004 (27) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The DSE provides that a hazardous waste, when mixed with domestic
sewage, is no longer considered to be hazardous according to RCRA defi-
nitions. Thus, POTWs that receive such waste are not subject to RCRA
treatment, storage and disposal facility requirements. A recent report
describes the philosophy behind and the suspected impacts of the DSE
(USEPA, 1986).
General pretreatment regulations (listed in 40 CFR 403) require
that any POTW, or POTWs operated by the same authority, with a combined
design flow of greater than 5 million gallons per day (MGD) must
establish a pretreatment program. Furthermore, that program is to be a
condition of the POTW's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. If a POTW has a design flow of less than 5 MGD, it may
be required to establish a pretreatment program if nondomestic users
discharge wastes that cause interferences or upsets, contamination of
sludge, NPDES permit violations, or if the users are subject to
pretreatment standards. In the State of California, over 100 MWTPs
exist within POTWs that are required to establish Pretreatment
programs. Those MWTPs account for approximately 90% of the total muni-
cipal wastewater that is treated in California. A summary of California
POTWs that have fully-established, or that are developing, pretreatment
programs is provided in Appendix C.
To implement an effective pretreatment program, a POTW must have
the ability to:
1. identify and evaluate its nondomestic users,
2. operate under a legal authority that will enable it to apply and en-
force the requirements of the General Pretreatment Regulations (Appendix
B),
3. characterize discharges to its treatment system and establish
sufficiently protective local effluent limits,
4. monitor industrial users to determine compliance and noncompli-
ance.
17
-------
5. provide funds, equipment, and personnel,
6. properly administer and manage its pretreatment program.
A comprehensive review of pretreatment program approval and implemen-
tation procedures can be found in the EPA's "Guidance Manual for POTW
Pretreatment Program Development," (Hanmer et al., 1983).
Two types of standards are used to control pollutant discharges to
POTWs. The first, "prohibited discharge standards", applies to all
commercial and industrial establishments which discharge to POTWs.
Prohibited standards restrict the discharge of pollutants that create
a fire or explosion hazard in sewers or treatment works, are corrosive
(pH < 5.0), obstruct flow, upset treatment processes, or increase the
temperature of the wastewater entering the plant to above 40°C.
"Categorical standards" apply to industrial and commercial discharges
in 25 industrial categories ("categorical industries"), and are in-
tended to restrict the discharge of 126 priority pollutants, including
all of the 16 PTOCs.
As part of their pretreatment programs, POTWs in California report
to the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and to
the Region IX office of the EPA. The State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) also maintains copies of a large percentage of the
reports. In general, quarterly reports document the monitoring of
industrial and commercial users, violations, and enforcement activities.
Summaries of nondomestic users, user additions, and user losses are
also common. Annual reports typically document the overall treatment
characteristics of MWTPs within the POTW. These include monitoring
results for conventional pollutant parameters such as biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and oil and grease,
as well as hydraulic loading characteristics, and the results of any
sampling for priority pollutants in the influent, effluent, and sludge
streams. This data source on PTOCs will become extremely valuable in
future years. However, because of the recent implementation of the
National Pretreatment Program, measurements for those MWTPs that have
sampled for PTOCs are typically limited to the past one or two years.
18
-------
4. THE FATE OF POTENTIALLY TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN PUBLICLY-OWNED
TREATMENT WORKS
Within a wastewater collection and treatment system PTOCs may be
removed, transformed, generated or simply transported through the
system unchanged. Five primary mechanisms are involved* (1) volatile
emissions, (2) degradation, (3) adsorption to sludge, (4) pass-through
(i.e., passage through the entire system), and (5) generation as a
result of chlorination or as byproducts of degradation of precursor
compounds. Furthermore, these mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, as
competition and simultaneous action can be significant.
A schematic summary of the mechanisms which affect PTOCs in POTWs
is provided in Figure 2. As indicated, volatile emissions can occur
throughout the collection and treatment system. Degradation, particu-
larly through biological activity (biodegradation), can also occur
throughout most of the system. Adsorption to sludge occurs during pri-
mary, secondary, and advanced treatment. Pass-through is reflected in
a total system removal efficiency of less than 100%, and the subsequent
discharge of PTOC residuals to the final receiving system. Finally,
PTOCs may be generated via the degradation of other PTOCs, or by the
formation of trihalomethanes (THMs) during and after chlorination.
The mechanisms described above are discussed in greater detail in
the remainder of this section. This section has been included to sum-
marize the extent of existing knowledge about the fate of priority
pollutants during wastewater collection and treatment. The importance
of adsorption to sludge, biodegradation, pass-through, and formation
during chlorination are also illustrated by presenting selected results
of this study. Quantitative estimates of the extent of volatile emis-
sions are described in greater detail in Section 6.
19
-------
NJ
O
MANHOLE
COVER
OR *-
STORM DRAIN
XJ-L
COLLECTION SYSTEM
LEGEND:
VOLATILE EMISSIONS
BIODEGRADATION
ADSORPTION
TREATMENT PLANT
PRIMARY
SLUDGE
SECONDARY
SLUDGE
PASS-THROUGH
SLUDGE TREATMENT
RECEIVING
WATER
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Figure 2: The Tate of PTOCs in POTWs
-------
Removal From Collection Systems
Organic compounds may be removed from the aqueous phase in the
collection system by adsorption to particles, biodegradation, exfiltra-
tion, pass-through to the treatment facility, or volatilization. Past
studies have focused upon material balances at points of entry to the
collection system and discharge to the wastewater treatment facility.
Few measurements of gas phase concentrations and air exchange with the
atmosphere have been made. Thus, the relative significance of the
removal mechanisms in collection systems is not well understood at this
time. However, based upon past studies using a shallow stream desorp-
tion model, volatile organic compounds appear to desorb rapidly to the
gas phase in sewers (USEPA, 1986). These results indicate that emis-
sions from collection systems to the ambient atmosphere are potentially
significant with respect to the other removal mechanisms. Due to the
paucity of experimental data on the topics of adsorption, biodegra-
dation, and exfiltration in collection systems, those mechanisms will
not be addressed here. Pass-through to the treatment system will be
addressed in Section 6, and appear as MWTP influent mass loadings.
Thus, this subsection will only address the existing knowledge
regarding volatilization from collection systems.
In addition to the competition among removal mechanisms, several
factors can affect the volatile emissions of PTOCs from collection
systems. Those factors include the physico-chemical characteristics
and concentrations of the PTOCs, flowrate and system geometry as they
affect turbulence, effective interfacial area, headspace volume in the
sewer line, and ventilation of the collection system (USEPA, 1986 j
Matthews, 1975). The latter is believed to be very important, as the
characteristics of air exchange between the sewer line and the ambient
atmosphere are significantly different depending upon the type of
system. For instance, in combined storm and sanitary sewers, air ex-
change occurs at manhole covers and storm drains. However, storm drains
are not employed for separate sanitary sewer systems. Thus, it is ex-
pected th'at of the two types of collection systems, combined systems
are more conducive to volatile losses of PTOCs. Unlike many older
21
-------
municipalities in the Eastern United States, most cities in California
employ separate sanitary sewers. One exception is the city and county
of San Francisco, where combined systems are still in use.
Few studies have reported the occurrence and emissions of PTOCs
from wastewater collection systems. In part, this is due to the fact
that collection systems can be both a physically difficult and danger-
ous environment in which to conduct sampling. However, recent studies
of organic compound occurrences in collection system atmospheres have
afforded some insight as to the potential magnitudes of PTOC emissions
from those sources. Lucas (1981) observed high levels of many pollu-
tants in the headspace above wastewater in interceptor sewers. A com-
bined modeling/monitoring effort indicated that volatilization from
sewer lines may have accounted for significant losses of PTOCs from
a large POTW in Philadelphia (Frederick, 1985).
Reported results of monitoring for PTOCs in California collection
systems are scarce. However, studies were recently completed that
document the concentration of several PTOCs in trunk lines in Sunnyvale
(Santa Clara County) and Huntington Park (Los Angeles County). Partial
results of those studies are summarized in Table 4. Because of a lack
of data on the ventilation flowrates, emissions from the Sunnyvale and
Huntington Park systems could not be projected.
In summary, it appears that, volatile emissions of PTOCs from col-
lection systems may be significant, particularly in sewer lines serving
industrial and commercial establishments which discharge large quanti-
ties of PTOCs to POTWs. Those emissions may be of greatest concern
where combined sanitary/storm sewers are employed. However, high con-
centrations in the atmosphere of separate systems indicates that they
may also be significant sources of PTX emissions. Unfortunately, the
lack of existing sample data does not allow for meaningful emission
estimates. This is an area where future studies would be of great value
to reduce the uncertainties associated with the relative significance
of collec€ion systems as PTOC emission sources.
22
-------
Table 4s PTOC Concentrations in Collection System Atmospheres
Gas Concentration (ppb)
1 2
Compound Sunnyvale Huntington Park
Benzene 4.9 4600
Ethylbenzene 2.9 NR
Methylene chloride 36.4 NR
Perchloroethylene NR 4300
Toluene 35.6 5800
ro
1,1,1 Trichloroethane NR 60000
NR = Not reported.
Sunnyvale values based on the average of 5 samples.
Huntington Park values based on a single bulb sample.
(1) Dixon and Bremen (1984).
(2) Porter (1986).
-------
Volatilization within Wastewater Treatment Plants
The purpose of this subsection of the report is to provide the
reader with background material regarding past efforts to measure vola-
tile PTOC emissions from wastewater treatment processes. Results from
laboratory and field tests are reviewed.
Measurements completed to assess the relative importance of
volatilization as a chemical removal mechanism appear to be sensitive
to the experimental arrangement. For instance, analyses completed in
the laboratory tend to predict that volatilization is not as important
in biological reactors as would be indicated by pilot plant and field
studies. Possible reasons for the discrepancies include such factors
as differences in the acclimation of organisms and unmeasured losses
from pilot or bench-scale equipment.
Lawson and Siegrist (1981) studied the relative importance of
volatilization and biodegradation in bench-scale biological reactors.
They found that biodegradation dominated volatilization for acrylo-
nitrile, toluene, and 1,2-dichloroethane. The latter was found to have
the highest percent volatilized (10%) during the experiments. Kincannon
et al. (1983) observed similar results for acrylonitrile, methylene
chloride, and benzene in the laboratory. However, volatilization was
found to be complete (100%) for 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 1,2-dichloro-
ethane. The fate of toxic organic compounds in activated sludge and in-
tegrated powdered activated carbon (PAC) systems were recently investi-
gated in the laboratory (Weber et al., 1983; Weber et al., 1986). After
a certain concentration of PAC addition was exceeded, the ratio of vola-
tilization to biodegradation was observed to decrease significantly.
The ratio of biodegradation to volatilization losses typically exceeded
3il for the PTOCs that were studied.
Field studies have been conducted in order to assess the relative
significance of PTOC emissions during wastewater treatment, and to cate-
gorize treatment processes according to their relative significance with
respect to emissions from other treatment processes.
24
-------
The fate of toluene in an organic chemical wastewater facility was
studied (Berglund et al., 1985). It was observed that 10-15% of the
toluene volatilized during primary treatment, 25-3556 volatilized from an
equalization basin, and 10-3436 was removed by volatilization in aera-
tion basins. This exemplifies the fact that while aerated secondary
treatment may be very efficient at stripping PTXs to the atmosphere, a
significant amount of the PTXs may be removed by volatilization before
ever reaching secondary treatment. A recent report to Congress (USEPA,
1986) described various processes from which volatilization can be ex-
pected to occur. In addition to aeration basins, other processes in-
cluded flumes, grit chambers, sumps, equalization basins, pH adjustment
stations, nutrient addition stations, clarifiers, oxidation basins, open
storage tanks, wastewater transfer lines, pipes, and ditches.
The report to Congress (USEPA, 1986) also noted the importance of
acclimation of the secondary treatment system with respect to volatile
emissions. Volatile losses from unacclimated activated sludge systems
were typically observed to be greater than 80% for VOCs. However, the
degree of volatilization was significantly reduced, as low as 25% for
benzene, ethylbenzene, and toluene, within acclimated systems.
While most studies have focused upon emissions from activated
sludge systems, some studies have also indicated the potential for
emissions from other wastewater processes. Jenkins et al. (1980)
suggested that volatile losses accounted for the high removal efficien-
cies of chloroform (78.9-98.3%) and toluene (95.7-100%) during overland
flow treatment. Biodegradation and adsorption were addressed and it was
found that neither could account for the observed losses. However, over-
land flow systems are currently rare in the state of California.
The California Air Resources Board (1985) recently conducted
source tests at two large MWTPs in California. Based upon the concen-
trations of specific PTOCs in or above individual treatment processes,
it would appear that emissions from grit chambers, digester tanks, and
aerated channels are potentially significant with respect to emissions
25
-------
from other processes. Concentrations of vinyl chloride, toluene, and
1,1-dichloroethylene were much greater in digester gases than in the
other processes that were sampled. However, the high concentrations do
not necessarily result in high emissions, as digester gases are most
often flared or combusted to generate power. The PTOCs are expected to
be efficiently destroyed during those processes. Emissions can, how-
ever, occur through out-breathing pressure-relief valves or around the
skirt of floating roof digesters.
In summary, there are limitations to the generalizations that can
be made based upon previous monitoring studies. Laboratory studies to
predict the fate of PTOCs in wastewater are usually completed under
conditions that are not typical of those found in the field. While they
may be valuable in assessing the relative affinities of various PTOCs
for specific removal pathways, the results can not be accurately extra-
polated to field conditions. Field studies are the most valuable for
obtaining direct measurements of PTOC removal. However, the lack of
existing data based upon similar studies makes it difficult to genera-
lize about the fate of PTOCs in MWTPs. More complete studies of PTOC
concentrations, in both the liquid and gas phases, and off-gas flowrates
at individual treatment processes would be desirable.
Removal in the Sludge Stream
Chemical contaminants can adsorb at the solution/air interfaces of
non-viable suspended solids or biomass. Furthermore, sorption can occur
with uptake into biomass. Because almost all of the literature regard-
ing the removal of organic compounds in sludge streams refers to adsorp-
tive processes, in this report, the mechanism for removal in the sludge
stream will be referred to as adsorption.
Adsorption to suspended solids can occur during primary treatment,
with subsequent removal in the primary sludge stream. Some fraction of
the suspended solids pass through to secondary treatment, as does the
remaining contaminant mass which is not adsorbed to solids. Some of the
26
-------
adsorbed contaminant is removed from the system as pass-through in the
effluent stream and via sludge wastage (secondary sludge removal). How-
ever, a significant amount is typically recycled. This leads to a po-
tential for accumulation on biomass, as noted in the literature for ben-
zene, ethylbenzene, and chlorobenzene (USEPA, 1982). Accumulation might
also be the explanation for detection of PTOCs in sludge, when they were
not detected in the influent stream (Feiler, 1979? USEPA, 1982).
After a compound is adsorbed to biomass and removed in the sludge
stream, it can be biodegraded to a chemical of lesser concern. However,
transformation or formation of other chemicals of concern can also
occur. An example would be reductive dechlorination during anaerobic
digestion, whereby chlorine atoms are removed from a molecule leading
to a compound with fewer chlorine atoms.
An adsorbed PTOC also has the potential to be desorbed and volati-
lized to the atmosphere during one of several stages of sludge treat-
ment. For instance, dissolved air flotation is used to thicken sludge.
This is an aerated process which might be conducive to desorption and
stripping. Also, drying processes and sludge composting expose large
amounts of surface area of the sludge to the atmosphere. Sludge is com-
monly disposed of to landfills, where desorption, degradation, leaching,
and volatilization of adsorbed contaminants can occur. Volatile emis-
sions and groundwater contamination as a result of sludge disposal prac-
tices at landfills is a growing concern.
Several factors which affect a compound's affinity for adsorption
to sludge have been described in the literature. They include the pre-
sence of other compounds which compete for adsorption sites, electroly-
tes, oils and greases, and the presence of sorbents (USEPA, 1986).
Strier and Gallup (1983) analyzed priority pollutants grouped according
to their physico-chemical properties. They concluded that the physico-
chemical parameters that favor adsorption are a low water solubility,
high partition coefficient, high molar volume, low Henry's law
constant, lov oxidizability, and low chemical reactivity. The contribu-
tion of the wastewater matrix has also been reviewed (Strier and Gallup,
27
-------
1983). A lack of emulsifiers and a high dissolved salt content both
tend to reduce solubility thereby increasing the tendency for adsorp-
tion. High total suspended solids, which serve as additional ad-
sorption sites, also promote adsorption. The presence of a light oily
phase provides a means by which contaminants may partition out of liquid
water before being adsorbed to the surface of solids, leading to de-
creased adsorption. Finally, since adsorption is usually an exothermic
process, low temperatures are expected to increase the amount of adsorp-
tion.
Two physico-chemical parameters which have been used to compare
relative affinities for adsorption are the log of the octanol/water
partition coefficient (log(Kow)) and the activated carbon adsorption
capacity (AC) (Dixon and Bremen, 1984). Table 5 shows log(Kow) and AC
values for the 16 PTCCs. It has been observed that if the log(Kow) is
greater than 3.5, a compound is significantly hydrophobic and adsorp-
tive on solid organic matter such as mixed liquor suspended solids
(M_SS) and sludge. The highest log(Kow) value for the PTOCs is 3.15 for
ethylbenzene. It has also been noted that the relative adsorption of
organics on biomass is similar to that for activated carbon, but with
the value of AC typically an order of magnitude lower (Dixon and Bremen,
1984). Thus, in terms of log(Kow) and AC, ethylbenzene, chlorobenzene,
and perchloroethylene would be expected to have a greater affinity for
adsorption than other PTOCs. Vinyl chloride and methylene chloride would
be expected to have a relatively low affinity for adsorption.
A set of categories to estimate partition coefficients (fraction
removed in sludge stream) was developed based upon a compound's
octanol/water partition coefficient, Henry's law constant and analyses
of sludge samples obtained from 50 POTWs (USEPA, 1986). The categories
and average partition coefficients are shown in Table 6. The criteria
for grouping the compounds is given in the column headings. None of
the PTOCs of interest to this study fell into group A. Aromatic PTXs
(benzene, chlorobenzene, ethylbenzene, toluene) fell into group B, as
did l,l,r-trichloroethane. Other PTOCs with partition coefficients
greater than 0.1 and falling into group C included bromodichloromethane,
28
-------
Table 5t PTOC Adsorption Parameters
Compound Log (Kow) AC (mg/g)
Acrylonitrile -0.14 1.4
Benzene 2.13 1.0
Bromodichloromethane 1.88 7.9
Carbon tetrachloride 2.64 11.
Chlorobenzene 2.84 91.
Chloroform 1.97 2.6
Dibromochloromethane 2.09 4.8
1,1 Dichloroethylene 1.48 4.9
Ethylbenzene 3.15 53.
1,2 Dichloroethane 1.48 3.6
Methylene chloride 1.25 1.3
Perchloroethylene 2.88 51.
Toluene 2.69 26.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane 2.17 2.5
Trichloroethylene 2.29 28.
Vinyl chloride 0.60
Log(Kow) = Logarithm (base 10) of the octanol/water partition coefficient
(dimensionless).
AC = Activated carbon adsorption capacity at neutral pH and a PTOC
concentration of 1 mg/L.
Referencesi USEPA (1980), USEPA (1983).
29
-------
Table 61 Partition Coefficients for Adsorption to Sludge
KH(xlOOO) Partition
Group Log(Kow) (atm-cu.m/mole) Coefficient
< 1 0.366
1-10 0.149
1-10 0.1395
< 1 0.10
1-2 0.0895
o F 2-4 < 1 0.079
> 10 0.035
> 10 0.0075
Group numbers (A-H) were adopted for this study.
Log(Kow) = Logarithm (base 10) of the octanol/water partition coefficient
(dimensionless).
KU = Henry's law constant.
Partition coefficient = fraction partitioned to sludge.
Reference! USEPA ( 1986).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
> 4
2-4
< 2
< 2
> 4
2-4
2-4
< 2
-------
chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane and methylene chloride. Acrylonitrile
fell into group D, dibromochloromethane into group F, and carbon tet-
rachloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene into group G. The
only PTOCs in group H were 1,1-dichloroethylene and vinyl chloride.
Several recent studies have addressed the analysis of organic con-
taminants in sludge (Bell and Tsezos, 1986; Lawson and Seigrist, 1981;
• •
Schroder, 1986). However, there are difficulties associated with the
measurements of contaminants in sludge, particularly for volatile organ-
ic compounds. Volatilization can occur prior to or during sampling.
Preservation of samples against degradation during sample transport, and
analysis in a complex matrix pose additional problems. Furthermore,
physical adsorption is often a reversible process, and contaminants can
return to the aqueous phase (Bell and Tsezos, 1986).
Despite the difficulties noted, laboratory studies have been
valuable in assessing the relative affinities of different chemicals
for adsorption and have led to an improved understanding of how adsorp-
tion might be affected by changes in sludge and wastewater treatment
systems. Biosorption was found to be negligible compared to volatili-
zation and biodegradation for several PTOCs studied in the laboratory
(Kincannon and Stover, 1983). Those observations were made for benzene,
chlorobenzene, ethylbenzene, 1,2-dichloroethane, methylene chloride,
toluene, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. However, in pilot plant studies
Schroder C1986) observed a significant quantity of chloroform, tri-
chloroethylene, and chlorobenzene in sludge.
The removal of PTOCs by adsorption at primary clarifiers and acti-
vated sludge tanks was reviewed (Dixon and Bremen, 1984). The results
observed for PTOCs are summarized in Table 7. It is obvious that ad-
sorption during primary treatment was much more significant than adsorp-
tion to biomass during biological treatment. This is not surprising, as
volatile stripping occurs during aerated secondary treatment. As indi-
cated by the grouping shown in Table 6, partitioning to sludge was rela-
tively high' for benzene, chlorobenzene, ethylbenzene, and toluene. How-
ever, the trichloroethylene result shown in Table 7 is inconsistent with
31
-------
tsj
Table 7t A Comparison of Adsorption to Primary and Secondary Sludge
% Adsorption to % Adsorption to
Compound Primary Sludge Secondary Sludge
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
15.6
0.08
10.6
0.52
33.3
3.2
9.4
17.5
0.09
0.16
0.03
0.23
0.25
0.04
0.06
0.09
References: Dixon and Bremen (1984).
-------
its grouping shown in Table 6. The reasons for the discrepancy between
observed and predicted behavior were not given.
The most comprehensive contaminant mass flow analysis in MWTPs to
date was completed as part of an EPA sponsored "50 POTW Study" (USEPA,
1982). An analysis of the raw mass flow data provided in that report
was completed to study the significance of adsorption as a PTOC removal
mechanism. The results are shown in Table 8. Toluene was found to be
the PTOC most effectively removed in sludge streams, with an average
removal of 9.7%. The values in Table 8 represent total removal from all
sludge streams. With the exceptions of methylene chloride and chloro-
benzene, the percent removal in sludge was less than 5% for the other
PTOCs. The surprisingly high results for methylene chloride might be an
artifact because of its use in laboratories as a solvent, and the sub-
sequent possibility of contamination during analysis. The possibility
for significant contamination is increased since the concentrations of
PTOCs in sludge are often near the detection limits.
Biodegradation
Of the four primary removal mechanisms (volatilization, adsorp-
tion, biodegradation, pass-through), biodegradation is the most complex
and difficult to resolve in terms of its significance with respect to
the other mechanisms. This subsection is provided to describe the ex-
tent of existing knowledge regarding biodegradation, especially as it
relates to PTOCs in wastewater. An overview of biodegradation and
where it occurs in MWTPs is included. Factors which are known to affect
biodegradation are reviewed. Actual measurements of biodegradation are
discussed along with the uncertainties and limitations of such tech-
niques. The objective of the discussion is to provide the reader with
background regarding the relative biodegradability of the PTOCs, a
realization of the complexity of the biodegradation process, and an
understanding of the important factors which can affect the extent of
biodegradation.
33
-------
Table 8s FIX Removal in Sludge Streams
Compound * of Plants X Removed
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Chlorobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
1,2 Dichloroethane
Benzene
Chloroform
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Bromodichloromethane
1,1 Dichloroethylene
Dibromochloromethane
44
41
6
6
43
44
38
7
10
26
37
38
3
11
0
9.7
8.0
5.1
4.3
4.1
4.1
4.0
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.
0.
—
Removed indicates total removal from all sludge streams.
34
-------
Microorganisms that are responsible for the breakdown of organic
contaminants are characterized by a high degree of variation in their
biological nature. Although the principal microorganisms are bacteria,
many diverse types exist. These have been summarized elsewhere
(Tchobanoglous and Schroeder, 1985). The organisms have been classified
as aerobic, anaerobic, and facultative. The former require oxygen for
survival and reproduction. Anaerobic bacteria are adversely affected
by the presence of oxygen, and facultative bacteria are able to grow
in both aerobic and anaerobic environments. Because of the wide variety
of microorganisms that occur in nature and the open characteristics of
treatment processes, a continual innoculation can be expected in any
biological wastewater treatment process. An important result is that
the species best able to compete under a set of physical and chemical
conditions will predominate.
A commonly utilized aerobic biological system is the activated
sludge process CAS). The majority of AS units employ air to provide the
oxygen to sustain the biomass of the system, in which case the aeration
basins are typically open to the atmosphere. Less typical are covered,
pure-oxygen systems. Additional aerobic systems include trickling
filters, rotating biological contactors, overland flow systems, and oxi-
dation ponds. Descriptions of such systems have been given elsewhere
CTchobanoglous and Schroeder, 1985).
A method of characterizing biological treatment process performance
is degradation efficiency; defined as the ratio of contaminant con-
centration leaving the system to the contaminant concentration entering
the system. The degradation efficiency of a biological system is
affected by the degree of acclimation of the system. Acclimation is
characterized by a lag period during which time little or no degrada-
tion takes place (Skow, 1982). The delay is thought to be caused by two
phenomena (Skow, 1982). The first involves the selection of appropriate
biological species that are capable of assimilating the contaminant, in
which case the lag period is due , to an initial phase of exponential
population growth of that microorganism. The second phenomenon involves
the adaptation of microorganisms through the induction of enzymes that
-------
facilitate degradation. The acclimation period has been noted to vary
from hours to weeks depending upon the contaminant, microbial popula-
tion, and the medium (Skow, 1982). The length of the acclimation period
can have a significant affect on the relative importance of biodegrada-
tion, adsorption, and volatilization. For instance, if a system is
unacclimated, a highly volatile contaminant may volatilize long before
biodegradation can compete as a removal mechanism. This is exemplified
by results that have been compiled by the EPA, as shown in Table 9
(Frederick, 1985). The results were developed from pilot plant studies.
They show that unacclimated systems were characterized by greater
volatilization than were acclimated systems. Similar results were ob-
served by Patterson and Kodukala (1981).
The ability of a system to acclimate and remain acclimated is very
sensitive to deviations from steady-state conditions (Blackburn et al.,
1985). However, PTOC mass loadings in influent streams are typically
characterized by a high degree of variability. In addition, it has been
noted that the actual magnitude of the contaminant concentration is sig-
nificant (Alexander, 1973). For instance, if the concentration is too
low, biodegradation will be limited because of a lack of sufficient
stimulus to initiate an enzymatic response (Alexander, 1973). There is
additional evidence that compounds which are usually degradable can be
persistent at low concentrations (Digeronimo et al., 1979 j Jannasch,
1967). This may be significant for the PTOCs, since many studies to
quantify the degree of biodegradation were completed at PTOC concentra-
tions above 10 mg/L> while typical concentrations in the influent to
MWTPs are less than 10 ug/L-
A complete assimilation and examination of existing biodegradation
data, across individual classes of compounds, has not been effectively
completed. Thus, the variables which control rates of biodegradation
are not well understood. However, several general observations have
been made regarding the factors that affect the degree of biodegrada-
tion. These can be classified as^ substrate-related, organism-related
and environment-related.
36
-------
Table 9i The Effects of Acclimation on Stripping and Biodegradation
UJ
Compound
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,1 Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
1,2 Dichloroethane
Perchloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Fraction
Stripped
Acclim. Unacclim.
0.25 0.80
0.80 0.90
0.30 0.50
0.70 0.90
0.80 0.90
0.25 0.80
0.50 0.90
0.50 0.80
0.25 0.80
0.80 0.90
0.70 0.80
0.90 0.95
Fraction
Biodegraded
Acclim.
Unacclim.
0.74 0.18
0.07 0.
0.55 0.35
0.28 0.08
0.20 0.10
0.69 0.14
0.45 0.05
0.47 0.17
0.47 0.
0.19 0.14
0.24 0.14
0.08 0.03
Reference: USEPA (1986).
-------
Much of the work that has addressed the effects of substrate
characteristics has focused upon the solubility of organic compounds
(Strier and Gallup, 1983). It has been observed that biodegradation is
facilitated for compounds with intermediate solubilities in water, or
log(Kow) values between 1.5 and 3.5 (Skow, 1982; Strier and Gallup,
1983). This range corresponds to all of the PTOCs with the exception
of 1,1-dichloroethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, methylene chloride, and
vinyl chloride, all of which have log(Kow) values less than 1.5. As
noted previously, the contaminant concentration is also an important
factor since low concentrations may not be sufficient to initiate the
biodegradation process. Also, high concentrations of toxic organic com-
pounds may lead to deleterious "shock-loading" of the biological system
(Allen et al., 1985).
Other substrate-related factors can be subclassified under chemi-
cal structure. However, the relationships among biodegradation and such
factors are not universally agreed upon. It has been observed that bio-
degradation decreases as the degree of halogenation of a compound in-
creases, and that more than one chloro or nitro group substituted on a
benzene ring tends to reduce a compound's degradability (USEPA, 1986).
Because of the complexity of viable systems, the significance of
organism-related factors are even less well understood than substrate-
related factors. A review of organism-related factors is beyond the
scope of this study.
Environment-related factors which have been observed to increase
biodegradation include the presence of emulsifiers, low non-viable sus-
pended solids concentrations, and pH values in the range of 6 to 9
CStrier and Gallup, 1983). Higher temperatures, a sufficient dissolved
oxygen concentration, the availability of co-metabolites serving as food
for biota, and sufficient reaction and solid retention times have all
been observed to assist biodegradation (Allen et al., 1985? Strier and
Gallup, 1983y USEPA, 1986).
Competing reaction mechanisms can also be significant with respect
to the degree of biodegradation. The relationship between biodegrada-
38
-------
tion and volatilization is complicated because many of the factors that
affect one mechanism also affect the other.
Most of the measurements made to quantify biodegradation are
completed by differencing (i.e., subtracting adsorption and volatile
losses from the total removal) after the completion of laboratory or
pilot scale experiments. However, difficulties often exist in measuring
and/or controlling volatile losses. Thus, inflated biodegradation rates
exist in the literature as volatilization losses are mistakenly taken to
be degradation losses (Lawson and Siegrist, 1981$ Schroder, 1986). Sig-
nificant test-to-test variabilities in measured biodegradation rates
have been observed, as some tests provide a better environment for
degradation than others. Such difficulties should be kept in mind be-
fore attempting to extrapolate from laboratory, or pilot scale, results
to actual field conditions. The factors mentioned previously are likely
to be quite different in an actual wastewater treatment facility.
Using bench-scale activated sludge systems, Blackburn et al. (1985)
found that biodegradation accounted for 67-70% of the removal of
toluene. For acrylonitrile, methylene chloride, and benzene, Kincannon
et al. (1984) observed that biodegradation accounted for 100%, 93%, and
84% of the total removal, respectively, in continuous flow biological
reactors. However, 1,1,1-trichloroethane was found to completely vola-
tilize. In similar systems, greater than 98% of the removal of acrylo-
nitrile and toluene was attributed to biodegradation (Lawson and
Siegrist, 1981). In a completely acclimated bench-scale activated
sludge system, biodegradation was observed to account for between 78 and
84% of the total removal of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and chloro-
benzene (Weber et al., 1986). However, conditions in all of the experi-
ments were greatly simplified with respect to typical field conditions.
The discussion to this point has dealt primarily with aerobic
systems. However, based upon limited digester gas sample data (Califor-
nia Air Resources Board, 1985) and,typical PTOC concentrations in the
influent stream, it appears that vinyl chloride is produced during
anaerobic digestion. The source of the vinyl chloride could be the re-
39
-------
suit of simultaneous removal of a chlorine and a hydrogen atom from a
precursor compound, such as 1,2-dichloroethane, with subsequent for-
mation of vinyl chloride. Alternatively, successive substitution of
chlorine by hydrogen atoms on compounds such as perchloroethylene might
explain the occurrence of vinyl chloride. The sequential dehalogenation
of chlorinated ethenes to form vinyl chloride in groundwater environ-
ments has been observed (Barrio-Lage et al., 1986). A recent study also
indicated that chlorinated organics form as a result of the Purifax pro-
cess due to the addition of chlorine gas to stabilize sludge (Pincince
and Fournier, 1984).
It is safe to say that little is known regarding the biodegradabi-
lity of PTOCs, or the relative importance of biodegradation with respect
to the other removal mechanisms. A better understanding of PTOC bio-
degradation (e.g., acclimation) would improve our understanding of the
extent of volatilization during wastewater treatment. Modification of
wastewater treatment processes to increase biodegradation rates might
be a useful control technique to reduce volatile losses of PTOCs, and is
an area where further research is warranted.
Formation
During the course of literature and data review for this study, it
became apparent that halogenated organics form as a result of chlorina-
tion during wastewater treatment. It was observed that THMs formed dur-
ing wastewater treatment in amounts greater than were initially present
in the influent streams of MWTPs. This was particularly true for
chloroform, and less significant for bromodichloromethane and dibro-
mochloromethane. A detailed review of THM formation is provided in
Appendix D. Factors which affect THM formation are described there,
along with potential precursors and important reaction mechanisms.
Post-chlorination emissions are also discussed. Only a cursory review
is provided bere. * >
To study the potential for the formation of chloroform, MWTPs that
40
-------
post-chlorinate on a continuous basis were separated from those that do
not regularly chlorinate. In the latter case, the ratio of chloroform
concentration in the effluent stream to concentrations in the influent
stream (Ce/Ci) was always less than 1. This reflects a net average re-
moval of chloroform. However, for those plants that do post-chlorinate,
the value of Ce/Ci was often greater than unity, and as high as 12.7.
The data are clearly suggestive of chloroform formation as a result of
chlorination. It would also be expected that Ce/Ci would be much
greater if the influent concentration was replaced by the chloroform
concentration immediately prior to chlorination, since much of the
chloroform entering a MWTP in the influent stream would be removed dur-
ing treatment prior to post-chlorination. This pattern of removal fol-
lowed by higher Ce/Ci ratios was observed during the 50 POTW study (EPA,
1982).
Pass-through
Up to this point, the removal of PTOCs during wastewater treatment
has been described in terms of volatilization, adsorption, and biode-
gradation. That portion of the PTOC mass which is not removed in the
MWTP is discharged in the effluent stream. The same removal mechanisms
that operate in a treatment plant continue to act in a receiving
water. However, conditions are typically less favorable to biodegrada-
tion than in treatment systems designed to induce biological degrada-
tion, and less solid surface area is typically available for
adsorption. Therefore, it is conceivable that volatilization could
account for an even larger percentage of the fate of PTOCs which are
discharged than occurs within MWTPs. For the purposes of this study,
calculated removal efficiencies and volatile emission estimates do not
include emissions associated with pass-through.
Average total percent removals (100% - % pass-through) for 12 PTOCs
are shown in.Table 10. Acrylonitrile was not observed above its detec-
tion limits in either the 50 POTW study or this study. In many MWTPs,
the effluent concentrations of THMs were much greater than the cor-
41
-------
Table 101 Average Total Removal Efficiencies for PTXs
ts)
No. of Plants
Average Removal
Efficiency (*)
Standard
Deviation (X)
Compound 50 POTW
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1,1 Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
1,2 Dichlo roe thane
Methylene chloride
Perchloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
21
2
7
7
38
8
49
45
48
42
46
3
Calif. 50 POTW
13
3
3
8
20
6
29
35
39
27
23
0
80.9
76.5
99.8
63.7
87.1
64.1
49.0
79.0
92.1
86.7
88.3
95.7
Calif. 50 POTW
72.1
94.7
86.7
76.8
84.0
96.7
64.6
79.0
86.4
79.5
83.1
— -
29.8
16.3
0.4
44.7
29.0
45.3
32.2
25.7
13.9
22.8
20.3
3.8
Calif.
34.6
8.4
23.1
31.3
28.9
3.7
26.3
28.9
23.5
23.8
23.5
—
-------
responding influent concentrations. Thus it was not possible to com-
pute meaningful removal efficiencies for the THMs.
It is common for influent concentrations to be above detection
limits (ADL) and effluent concentrations to be below detection limits
(BDL). One technique to handle such data is to assume a total percent
removal of 100SK. This assumption is relatively accurate for PTOCs that
are found in concentrations several times greater than their detection
limits (e.g., toluene). However, uncertainties associated with such an
assumption increase for PTOCs that are present at concentrations that
are only slightly above their detection limits (e.g., 1,2-dichloro-
ethane). Therefore, an influent concentration to effluent detection
limit ratio of three was arbitrarily chosen as the criterion for using
such data in computing average removal efficiencies. The average per-
cent removals for PTOCs other than the THMs were typically found to be
in the range of 75-95%. The exception was methylene chloride which had
a significantly lower percent removal based upon both the 50 POTW study
and the data collected for this study.
Differences in the type and degree of treatment account for some
of the variance of the data presented in Table 10. For instance, if
volatilization was the most important removal mechanism, MWTPs that uti-
lized aerated secondary treatment were likely to have high total remo-
vals. Additional removal would be expected due to biodegradation. The
results shown in Table 10 reflect average removal rates without regard
to the type or degree of treatment. For MWTPs which employ only primary
treatment, the average percent removals are likely to be lower than
those shown in Table 10.
Summary
In this section, the fate of PTOCs in both wastewater collection
and treatment systems was addressed. For collection systems it was
found that the potential exists for significant emissions, but a lack of
existing sample data does not allow for meaningful emissions estimates.
43
-------
It is believed that this is one source which deserves further attention
in order to reduce the uncertainties associated with the relative signi-
ficance of emissions.
Wastewater treatment processes were reviewed in terms of volatili-
zation, adsorption, biodegradation, and pass-through as PTOC removal
mechanisms. The formation of trihalomethanes was also discussed.
Mechanisms were described in terms of existing laboratory, pilot plant,
and field studies. From a limited data set, some general observations
were made.
Adsorption and removal in sludge streams typically accounted for
less than 10% of the incoming mass of any PTOC. In addition, the total
fraction removed in sludge streams is greater in primary sludge than in
waste-activated sludge. Although many of the PTOCs have been observed
to biodegrade during simplified laboratory analyses, little is known
regarding the biodegradation of PTOCs during treatment in actual muni-
cipal wastewater treatment plants. The most important factor can be
defined as the degree of acclimation of the microbial population to the
PTOC of interest. Based upon current knowledge of the acclimation pro-
cess, it is concluded that requirements for the acclimation to PTOCs
usually remain unsatisfied in MWTPs. If that is true, studies have in-
dicated that the percent degraded during conventional activated sludge
treatment would be typically less than 20%. One possible exception
would be chlorobenzene (% biodegraded = 35%).
Based upon PTOC concentrations in the influent and effluent
streams of MWTPs throughout California, it was clear that chloroform
formed as a result of chlorine disinfection. In addition, the degree of
formation was often significant with respect to chloroform mass loadings
in the influent stream.
The overall removal efficiency of PTOCs during wastewater treat-
ment was estimated to be, on the average, between 75% and 95%. Excep-
tions (lower than 75%) included the trihalomethanes which can form as a
result of chlorination, and methylene chloride. For most of the PTOCs,
44
-------
the remaining 5% to 25% were discharged in the effluent stream. The ul-
timate fate following discharge was expected to be volatilization.
Based upon the observations discussed above, a large fraction of
PTOCs that enter a MWTP are expected to be removed via volatile losses.
45
-------
5. EMISSIONS ESTIMATION METHODS AND DATA QUALITY AND AVAILABILITY
In this section, methods used to estimate PTX losses from waste-
water due to volatilization and adsorption to sludge are described. A
discussion of the corresponding assumptions and limitations, and an
analysis of the data available for use in the estimation methods was
also included. This was done in order to provide the reader with an
»
understanding of typical sampling and analysis techniques that are used
to measure PTOC concentrations in influent and effluent streams, as
well as to indicate the extent and representativeness of the data
collected for MWTPs in California.
Emissions Estimates
The uncontrolled emission rate, "E M, of a specific PTOC, "m", from
a MWTP can be expressed as a fraction of the average total removal of
"m" such that
n
where "f M is an average stripping factor for PTOC "m" (0 < fm < 1), "ni§
is the number of sampling periods, "0.*" is the average wastewater flow-
rate during sampling period "j", and MC_ .. /' and MC_ _ ." are the
m,i,j m»e»J
concentrations of PTOC m in the influent and effluent streams,
respectively, during sampling period "j". Of course, all parameters
should have consistent units, or should be converted to the desired
units. The worst-case emission estimate is based upon a value of "f"
equal to unity. Because this study focussed upon the potential for PTOC
emissions, worst-case, uncontrolled, emission estimates were computed.
If MCm * j" and "C_ 0 /' are replaced by flow-weighted, average
IM,I.J m,c,j
values, Hcm ^ and **Cm ", respectively, Equation 1 can be rewritten as
• fn,
where Q is the flowrate averaged over all sample periods.
46
-------
Equation 2 can be applied if concentrations are known in both the
influent and effluent streams. For MWTPs in which effluent data are
not available, the worst-case emission rate can be estimated by
E™ • b«, fm (Cm,i - Cm,e)Q' ™
where "bm" is an average total removal efficiency for PTOC "m".
Equation J is also useful for estimating the emissions of trihalometha-
nes. For THMs, Equation 2 is not suitable as formation during treatment
causes an increase in MC_ " and a corresponding decrease in the esti-
Hi y 6
mated emission rate. However, Equation 3 does not account for volatile
emissions which can occur following the formation of THMs. For this
study, values for Mbm" were based upon the total removal efficiencies
shown in Table 10. A value of b =0.9 was chosen for the THMs, based
m '
upon removal efficiencies for similar compounds. While Equation 2 is
preferred to Equation 3, it should be noted that only four of the
fifty-one MWTPs for which data were gathered did not submit effluent
data. Those four facilities accounted for only one percent of the
total municipal wastewater treated in California. The most significant
effect of the use of Equation 3 was on the estimate of chloroform
emissions. While the worst-case assumption was conservative with
respect to emissions estimates, it was partially offset by not account-
ing for volatile emissions of the chloroform that were generated as a
result of chlorination. The formation of bromodichloromethane and di-
bromochloromethane was relatively insignificant with respect to chloro-
form and was ignored.
Twenty-three percent of the municipal wastewater in California was
treated by MWTPs for which no concentration data were obtained. Several
methods were examined to extrapolate emissions estimates to those MWTPs.
The simplest was to assume average statewide concentrations at those
MWTPs without data. However, the coefficient of variation (cv) for
specific PTOCs taken over all MWTPs with available data was typically
greater than a factor of three. Using such an approach would tend to
overestimate'emissions in less-industrialized regions, and underestimate
emissions in heavily industrialized regions. A second approach was to
47
-------
maintain a statewide analysis while attempting to correlate concen-
trations with available parameters. However, normalizing the PTOC con-
centrations by total suspended solids, total phenols, phenol (acids),
cyanide, and fractional industrial flow all failed to significantly
reduce the cvs with respect to the non-normalized cvs. A more success-
ful approach was to partition the MWTPs with existing data into
geographic regions where similar mixes of industrial users discharge to
POTWs. This approach led to decreases in the cvs for most of the PTXs
in nearly every region. In addition, normalizing by the fraction of
flow accounted for by industrial users further reduced the cvs. After
comparing other methods of correlation with distinct geographic regions,
the industrial flow approach was adopted, as it appeared to be superior
to the other methods that were studied. The counties that were grouped
into specific regions for analysis are indicated in Figure 3.
For MWTPs that did not treat industrial flows and for which data
were missing, extrapolation was completed by analyzing corresponding
facilities for which data were available, i.e., which had no industrial
flow contribution. Average PTOC concentrations from those facilities
were assumed to apply to all facilities without industrial flow contri-
butions.
The significance of extrapolation, on a county-by-county basis is
indicated in Table 11 which shows the percent of total wastewater that
is accounted for by MWTPs with existing concentration data. The contri-
bution of extrapolated emissions, on a percent flow basis, was much
smaller in the populated, industrialized counties where PTOC mass
loadings to POTWs were relatively high. A larger percentage of the
extrapolated emissions estimates were needed in rural, nonindustrialized
counties with relatively lower total emissions.
The approach described above was used to estimate emissions from
approximately 600 MWTPs in California. Estimates for individual MWTPs
were summed to predict county-by-county and statewide emissions on a
speciated and- total PTOC basis. This was accomplished through the use
of a program, WEST (Worst-case Emissions during Sewage Treatment), which
was developed for this study, and coded in FORTRAN 77. WEST (Appendix
48
-------
-£•
VD
LEGEND:
1. SOUTHERN, CENTRAL, AND NORTHERN VALLEY
2. CONTRA COSTA / SOLANO
3. ALAMEDA / SANTA CLARA
4. SAN FRANCISCO / SAN MATEO
5. VENTURA
6. LOS ANGELES / ORANGE
7. RIVERSIDE / SAN BERNARDINO / SAN DIEGO
Figure 3: Data Extrapolation Regions
-------
Table Hi Percent of Flow Accounted for by MWTPs with Data
Percent of Flow
County
Alameda
Contra Costa
Fresno
Kern
Los Angeles
Marin
Merced
Monterey
Orange
Riverside
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Solano
Sonoma
Ventura
All others
Total FlowA
(MGD)
124
72
51
36
984
21
13
24
278
58
127
184
115
56
11
60
175
21
29
23
49
650
Accounted for by
MWTPs with Data
97 %
93
82
51
93
21
37
62
92
42
99
86
99
81
36
59
99
39
81
14
56
0
Statewide 2800 78
(1) Based upon annual averages from 1983 to 1986, and NEEDS data.
50
-------
E) draws upon flowrate and concentration data stored in an external file
(COUNTY.DAT).
Sludge Generation Estimates
Two methods for estimating sludge generation were compared. One
method of extrapolation (method 1) was to normalize the existing sludge
generation data by the wastewater flowrate, and analyze those facilities
without data in terms of their known flowrates. This method was crude,
as it did not account for the actual solids loading into the MWTP, or
the degree of treatment. Total suspended solids (TSS) information was
usually available for most of the MWTPs. Therefore, a second method
(method 2) to estimate sludge generation was
Sg = (S. - Se)Q, (4)
where "S" is the amount of sludge generated (mass/time), MQM is the
9
average wastewater flowrate, and "S^" and "S '* are the total suspended
solids concentrations in the influent and effluent streams, respec-
tively. If effluent TSS values were not available, an average percent
reduction of 80-903$ was assumed. Since effluent concentrations of less
than 50 mg/L were typical, the error incurred in doing so was small.
Method 2 is believed to be more appropriate than method 1, as it
accounted for the actual solids loadings to individual MWTPs. However,
for comparative purposes both methods were applied in this study. In-
fluent TSS concentrations were extracted from a data base (NEEDS) main-
tained by the California Water Resources Control Board. In order of
priority, flowrate data were obtained from direct contacts with POTWs,
reviews of Pretreatment Annual Reports, and dry weather flow data avail-
able in the NEEDS survey.
Estimating the Removal of PTOCs in Sludge
The amount of each PTOC that was removed in sludge streams was
estimated on a county-by-county and statewide basis. This was completed
by summing removal rates, *S ", at individual treatment facilities. The
SI
-------
value of Sm was estimated as the product of the mass loading in the
influent stream and the appropriate partition coefficient as listed in
Table 8. The resulting equation was
Sm ' K» Cm,iQ' t5)
where "SmM is the amount (mass/time) of PTX "mH removed in the sludge
streams of a specific MWTP, "K^* is the partition coefficient (fraction
of incoming mass of PTOC "m" that is removed in sludge), and MQM and
"C £*' are as defined previously.
Data Quality and Availabilityi PTOC Sampling Procedures
A generally approved method for PTX sample collection has not been
established. Subsequently, collection methods vary among MWTPs in
California. For instance, some MWTPs use containers with a top surface
open to the atmosphere to sample the influent and effluent streams.
Samples are typically transferred immediately to teflon-lined capped
glass vials with no observable air space in the vial. Other MWTPs pro-
ceed further to minimize exposure to air by utilizing a closed con-
tainer with a tube attached for siphoning wastewater samples into the
container. The tube opening is then sealed prior to removing the sample
container from the wastewater stream. Sludge samples are commonly taken
as a single "scoop" before being sealed in a container.
Sampling locations also vary among the MWTPs. Some treatment
plants sample influent streams in the collection system before the
wastewater ever reaches the headworks, while others sample at, or
slightly downstream of, the headworks. Effluent streams are most often
sampled after chlorination, but some are sampled prior to dechlorina-
tion. A few MWTPs report concentrations in the effluent stream at the
point of ultimate discharge, which can exist miles from the actual
treatment plant. In the latter case, volatile losses in the outfall
line may further reduce concentrations, and the additional reaction time
for those facilities that chlorinate may act to increase THM concen-
trations in the effluent stream.
S2
-------
Temporal requirements are an important part of sampling. For
influent, effluent, and sludge streams, such requirements have been
outlined in the Federal Register (FR) (1981). The FR states that the
data collected shall be representative of seasonal and yearly con-
ditions, as well as of similar quantity and quality as normal influent
and effluent flows. In addition, twelve samples are to be taken at
approximately equal intervals during the course of each annual period
of plant operation. Representative samples must be taken into account
for both workdays and non-workdays.
Requirements were also established for sampling procedures based
upon both composite and grab samples. For composite samples, influent
and effluent data must be obtained through 24-hour samples which are
proportioned by flow. Either discrete or continuous sampling is
allowed. However, for discrete sampling at least twelve samples are
recommended for compositing. These must be flow-proportioned either by
varying the volume of each aliquot, or the time interval between each
aliquot. Aliquots used for the collection of volatile pollutants must
be combined immediately prior to analysis.
The effects of lag time (hydraulic retention time) in an MWTP may
lead to influent and effluent samples which do not correspond to the
same wastewater "parcels". However, for continuous sampling over a
24-hour period, the FR states that "effluent sample collection need not
be delayed to compensate for hydraulic retention unless the POTW elects
to include retention time compensation or unless the Approval Authority
requires retention time compensation." Furthermore, if retention time
is required to be taken into account it is required "to be based on a
24-hour average daily flow value." The average daily flow corresponds
to the average flow during the same month of the previous year.
When composite samples are not feasible, grab sampling may be
necessary. Here, grab sample refers to an individual sample collected
over a time period of less than fifteen minutes. Retention time should
be taken into 'account whenever grab samples are used.
According to the FR (1981), composite sludge samples should be
taken during the same period as the influent and effluent samples. Each
53
-------
composite sample must contain a minimum of twelve discrete samples
taken over a 24-hour period. If necessary, grab samples may also be
taken.
In MWTPs in California, influent and effluent samples are typically
drawn during the same 24-hour period, without accounting for the
hydraulic retention time. In most cases, eight grab samples are taken,
once every three hours, and composited immediately prior to analysis.
The frequency between 24-hour composite/grab sampling for volatile
priority pollutants varies significantly from plant to plant. For in-
stance, the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant in San Diego reports
average influent and effluent concentrations for all volatile priority
pollutants on a once per month basis. Other facilities sample on a
quarterly, or wet season/dry season basis. Due to the infancy of the
EPA's National Pretreatment Program (NPP), volatile priority pollutant
sampling extends back only one or two years for most POTWs, and some
relatively large POTWs have yet to sample for such pollutants.
Sampling for PTOCs in sludge streams is not as common as in influ-
ent and effluent streams. Many of the MWTPs in California have not
sampled sludge streams for volatile priority pollutants, and the data
from those which have are not of great value to adsorption studies
because of sampling location. Sludge "scoops** are usually taken from
digested and partially or fully dewatered sludge. Volatilization,
transformation, and degradation during digestion, and volatilization
during dewatering make it impossible to predict the actual mass removal
in untreated (raw) sludge.
Sample Analysis Techniques
The EPA has specified a maximum time period, between the sampling
and analysis of most volatile priority pollutants, of fourteen days.
Many POTWs must contract with a private laboratory having a gas chroma-
tograph (GC) or GC/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) capabilities to analyze
the wastewater samples. However, .several major POTWs (e.g., County
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, City of Los Angeles, East
54
-------
Bay MUD, and the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant) have
laboratories which carry out the analyses.
The majority of POTWs in California, and private laboratories
contracted by POTWs, utilize EPA method 624 for the analysis of influent
and effluent samples. Detection limits for this method are listed in
Table 12. However, the method detection limit for specific wastewaters
may differ from those listed in Table 12 depending upon the nature of
interferences in the sample matrix. Method 624 is a purge-and-trap
technique which utilizes mass spectrometry as the detection method.
A recent study of the analysis methods for volatile compounds
revealed intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory differences in results
for duplicate samples analyzed using method 624 (Gurka, 1984). The
intra-laboratory study revealed differences generally less than 30%,
with a range of 5% to 3QO% depending on the compound. The inter-
laboratory differences were characterized by the same range, with dif-
ferences typically less than 70%. The highest variabilities were
reported for compounds that are common background contaminants in
laboratories (i.e., methylene chloride, 1,2 dichloroethane, and
chloroform). In the same study, it was observed that problems exist in
retaining volatile priority pollutants on solid samples, such as POTW
sludge matrices.
The preceding discussion exemplifies the fact that uncertainties in
the data exist due to sampling and analysis techniques. The intra-
laboratory study suggested that such inaccuracies can lead to overesti-
mates or underestimates of concentration by as much as a factor of
three.
Data Sources
Several sources of data were investigated as part of this study.
It is easiest to describe those sources in terms of data categorized as
concentration, flow, and other treatment characteristics (e.g., treat-
ment train). The former two types of data were needed to complete mass
flow estimates in influent, and effluent streams. The latter was re-
55
-------
Table 12i Typical Detection Limits for the PTOCs
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
1,1 Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
1,2 Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Perchloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Detection Limits
EPA Method 624 Range (Data Survey)
1.0 - 100
0.1 - 5
0.1 - 2
0.1 - 3
0.1 - 5
0.1 - 2
0.1 - 3
4.4
2.2
2.8
6.0
1.6
3.1
2.8
7.2
2.8
2.8
4.1
6.0
3.8
1.9
2.0
0.1 - 3
0.1 - 6
0.1 - 3
0.1 - 4
0.1 - 4
0.1 - 6
0.1 - 4
0.1 - 2
0.1 - 5
56
-------
quired to complete more refined analyses of individual treatment plants
(Appendix H).
Concentration data
As a preliminary step in attempting to obtain concentration data,
each of the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) were
contacted. While it was not possible for most of the RWQCBs to supply
summaries of PTOC measurements at POTWs within their respective region,
most of the RWQCBs were cooperative in assisting with the study. They
were able to provide lists of the appropriate contacts at each of the
POTWs within their region. Through such initial contacts it became
apparent that many of the POTWs that sample for volatile priority
pollutants summarize and submit sample results in their Pretreatment
Annual Reports (PARs) and/or NPDES reports.
PAR and NPDES reports are maintained by the individual POTWs that
are required to complete such reports, as well as their respective
RWQCB. In addition, the Region IX Office of the EPA, and the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), maintain copies of the reports
for POTWs throughout California. A list of the POTWs that are required
to submit PAR reports is provided in Appendix C. To obtain data from
those reports, visits to the SWRCB and the EPA Regional office were
made. This proved to be valuable, as some of the reports which had yet
to be obtained by either the SWRCB or the EPA had been received by the
other.
While most of the reports that were reviewed (> 100) contained
sample information for some priority pollutants, a majority did not con-
tain information for volatile priority pollutants. Furthermore, the
degree of data that were submitted by those POTWs that did sample
varied from influent/effluent/sludge streams to concentrations in only
one or two of those streams. Many POTWs reported concentrations on a
quarterly basis, while some reported sample measurements taken only once
in a calendar year. Less sample data were available for sludge streams
than for influent and effluent streams. Nearly all of the samples that
57
-------
were reported corresponded to sampling completed during 1985. Some
extended into the first two quarters of 1986, while a few data sets
extended back to 1984. Due to the infancy of the National Pretreatment
Program, and relatively recent concerns regarding the fate of VOCs
during wastewater treatment, a large fraction of the POTWs have com-
pleted only one or two years of sampling for volatile priority pollu-
tants. The existing data base will grow and will become a valuable
resource in the coming years.
Several major POTWs did not include sample data for volatile
priority pollutants in their PAR reports, or their PAR reports were not
found at the SWRCB or the EPA. For this reason, a follow-up survey was
completed by telephone, letters of request, and plant visits. The
response was generally positive, with most of the POTWs promptly re-
sponding to our requests. The direct survey actually accounted for data
at MWTPs that represented a higher percentage of the municipal waste-
water treated in California than did the data compiled through analyses
of the PAR reports. The extent of the concentration data base will be
discussed in the following subsection.
Flow data
Hydraulic loading data were typically provided in the PARs. Influ-
ent flowrates were commonly provided on an average annual basis. How-
ever, some POTWs submitted average monthly or average wet season and
dry season flows, and several POTWs reported flows that occurred during
the period that concentration sampling was completed. Flowrate data
were also obtained as a result of the survey described for concentration
data. Average dry-weather flows were provided by the SWRCB via the
NEEDS data base that was completed for the EPA. The NEEDS data base
(hereafter referred to simply as the NEEDS) consists of information
regarding the characteristics of municipal wastewater collection and
treatment systems. It was completed in order to assess the future
needs of POTWs in terms of federal assistance. However, the data con-
tained in the NEEDS suffers from uncertainties due to the following
reasons:
58
-------
1. Many of the quantitative values are based upon engineering estimates
rather than historical data.
2. Some of the information in the NEEDS is outdated (e.g., not updated
since 1978-82). The SWRCB is currently in the process of completing a
partial update.
3. For some of the MWTPs, no historical or estimated values are pro-
vided.
Because of these limitations, data from the NEEDS were used on a low-
priority basis (i.e., only if data could not be obtained from more reli-
able sources).
Other treatment characteristics
Other treatment characteristics refers primarily to MWTP treatment
trains, and more detailed information regarding specific treatment
processes. For the largest MWTPs in California, this information was
obtained by contacting the appropriate individuals at either the MWTP or
the POTW. Information was generally available concerning plant layouts
and process specifications. For smaller MWTPs, treatment train data
were extracted from the NEEDS and then compiled as described in the
following subsection. A cross-check of treatment train information con-
tained in the NEEDS with information provided by the MWTPs revealed that
the NEEDS was fairly accurate with respect to MWTP treatment charac-
teristics. However, because much of the information in the NEEDS has
not been updated for several years, recent modifications to MWTPs are
often not accounted for in the NEEDS data base.
Data Base Compilation
Data from the sources described in the previous subsection were
compiled and maintained on mini and microcomputers in the Department of
Civil Engineering at the University of California at Davis. The mini-
computer was" used for computational analyses of the larger data sets.
A commercial data base software package was used to maintain data for
59
-------
reporting purposes on the microcomputer. The data base structure is
described in detail in Appendix F. The remainder of this subsection
describes the extent and nature of data that were obtained for each of
the categories listed previously.
Concentration data
A summary of the MWTPs from which concentration data were compiled
is provided in Table 13. The MWTPs listed in Table 13 represent less
than 1Q%, by number, of the MWTPs in California. However, they account
for 77% of the total municipal wastewater that is treated in California.
Those with both influent and effluent data account for greater than
76%. Those with only influent data account for 1%. Table 13 also indi-
cates that, even for the largest MWTPs in California, a very limited
amount of data exists regarding mass loadings of PTOCs. As noted pre-
viously, the frequency of sampling for PTOCs is low, and for many of
the MWTPs it was non-existent until the past one or two years. The
data compiled for this study are representative of the extent of exist-
ing concentration data, but must be interpreted cautiously. Table 11
indicates the percent of total flow, on a county-by-county basis, that
is accounted for by MWTPs with either influent data alone, or concen-
tration data in both the influent and effluent streams.
Flow data
Flow data were obtained for every MWTP in the NEEDS data base. For
the major POTWs, the NEEDS data were supplemented with more recent
(e.g., 1985) flow data. Existing wastewater flowrates were maintained
in a manner that allowed for NEEDS dry weather flowrates to be
separated from the other flow values.
Other treatment characteristics
Treatment train information was obtained for all of the MWTPs in
the NEEDS. 'Major MWTPs (> 25 MGD) were contacted directly to obtain
plant specifications and treatment process information. The NEEDS
60
-------
Table 13ai A Summary of MWTPs with Existing Concentration Data
Facility Name
Number of Sample Days
Influent Effluent
M
II
tl
Contra Costa
H
ii
Fresno
ti
Kern
H
Los Angeles
Alvarado (Union City) Alameda
East Bay MUD (Oakland)
Hayward
Livermore
Oro Loma (Castro Valley)
San Leandro
C. Contra Costa (Martinez)
Delta Diablo (Pittsburg)
Richmond/San Pablo
Fresno
Selma/Kingsburg/Fowler
Bakersfield *2
Bakersfield *3
Hyperion (El Segundo)
JWPCP (Carson) »
Long Beach "
Los Coyotes (Cerritos) "
Pomona "
San Jose Creek (Whittier) "
Saugus-Newhall "
Valencia "
Whittier Narrows (El Monte) "
Ignacio Marin
Novato "
Merced b Merced
Monterey/Salinas Monterey
Irvine Ranch Orange
OCSD *1 "
OCSD *2
Riverside Riverside
Sacramento Regional Sacramento
Encina Joint Powers (Carlsbad)d san Diego
1
6
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
9
1
1
3
3
3
2
4
4
5
1
1
0
1
\*
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
12C
1
9
0
Code4*
A
D
B
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
E
A
A
B
B
A
A
61
-------
Table 13bt A Summary of MWTPs with Existing Concentration Data
Facility Name
Point Loma (San Diego)
Richmond-Sunset
Southeast/Northpoint
Stockton Regional
San Luis Obispo
San Francisco Int'l Airports
Burlingame
South Bayside (Redwood City)
South San Fran-San Bruno
Gilroy
Palo Alto WWTF
San Jose-Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Watsonville
Fairfield-Suison
Vallejo
Petaluma
Hill Canyon (Thousand Oaks)
Oxnard
Number of Sample Days
Influent Effluent
San Diego
San Francisco
it
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Solano
it
Sonoma
Ventura
18
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
6
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
18
2
2
2
1
1
4
2
1
0
2
9
4
0
5
2
4
2
1
Code'
^^^^^MH
A
A
A
A
E
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
B
B
A
A
(1) Based upon data that were collected from Pretreatment Annual Reports and
POTW survey.
(2) A = influent and effluent data correspond to same day; B = all influent
data have corresponding effluent data from the same day, but additional
effluent data exists} C = all effluent data have corresponding influent
data from the same day, but additional influent data exists; D = some,
but not all, of the influent and effluent data correspond to the same day;
E = influent and effluent data do not correspond to the same day.
(a) At 5 mile effluent outfall.
(b) Blended influent from Monterey, Salinas *1, and 4 smaller MWTPs. Monterey
and Salinas *1 WWTFs made up greater than 7Q% of the total flow.
(c) Combined effluent from OCSD #1 and XSD * 2.
(d) Data from sampling completed in 1978.
(e) Includes an industrial wastewater treatment plant, and a water quality
control plant.
62
-------
information, with minor adjustments for some of the larger MWTPs, was
compiled as a separate data set so that those facilities with specific
treatment processes or configurations could be easily identified.
Assumptions and Limitations
This subsection is provided in order to describe the assumptions
and limitations regarding the use of the compiled data. The discussion
is of fundamental importance with respect to assessing the represen-
tativeness and uncertainties associated with estimated removal and
emission rates. Those rates will be discussed in Section 6. Again,
data is addressed in terms of concentration, flow, and other treatment
characteristics.
Concentration
In the following sections, emissions and mass removal estimates
will be presented in units which suggest a long-term basis (i.e.,
tons/year). In making such estimates, it was assumed that the limited
data which are available are representative of "typical" concentration
and flow conditions. In reality, quantitative estimates based upon a
small number of samples drawn during discrete sampling periods may not
be representative of the long-term average.
One limitation to the existing data is that most of the MWTPs did
not account for hydraulic retention time when concentrations were
measured in both the influent and effluent streams. This, coupled with
uncertainties in analysis techniques, may be the reason that for a few
MWTPs the non-THM PTOC concentrations in the effluent stream were
greater than those in the influent stream. For lack of a better
approach, the effects of hydraulic retention time were neglected, and
non-THM effluent concentrations were assumed to be equal to influent
concentrations when they were actually reported to be greater than the
influent concentrations.
Another assumption was made regarding the treatment of concen-
trations that were listed as below detection limit (BDL). Such concen-
63
-------
trations were assumed to be zero. In terms of concentrations in the
effluent stream, such an assumption is conservative with respect to
emissions estimates. The opposite is true for the influent stream.
However, at major MWTPs in industrialized regions such as the South
Coast Air Basin (SCAB) most of the PTOC concentrations in influent
streams were well above detection limits, so that the BDL=0 assumption
should not lead to underestimates of emission rates. The PTXs that
were least likely to be affected by the BDL=0 assumption were those
that were frequently detected, and at concentrations well above the
detectable limit. Chloroform, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene,
and toluene satisfied these requirements.
The BDL=0 assumption also had varying degrees of significance de-
pending upon the specific PTOC detection limit. For instance, although
acrylonitrile was not detected by any MWTP that sampled for it, its
detection limit was quite high (1-100 ygA) with respect to the other
PTOCs.
Flow data
Many of the POTWs that supplied volatile priority pollutant meas-
urements did not provide corresponding flowrates. However, the use of
annual average flowrates was found to be sufficient for this study.
Throughout most of the state, temporal variations in wastewater flow
were much less significant than those in PTOC concentrations.
For those treatment facilities for which 1985 annual average flow-
rates were not readily available, the NEEDS dry weather flow data were
applied.
Most of the hydraulic flow data were available only for the influ-
ent stream. For lack of a more appropriate approach, it was assumed
that the average flowrate in the effluent stream was equal to the
average influent flow. This neglects losses due to evaporation which
may be significant during warm weather in MWTPs that employ ponds with
large surface-to-volume ratios.
64
-------
Although several uncertainties in the use of flow data were noted
above, such uncertainties were small with respect to those for concen-
tration data.
Other treatment characteristics
Except for special characteristics (e.g., fractional secondary
treatment) treatment trains were not considered in preliminary emissions
estimates. They are important for more refined emissions modeling
(Appendix H). However, for the largest MWTPs in industrialized regions,
up-to-date treatment train and process specifications were obtained
directly from the MWTP or corresponding POTW.
Summary of Uncertainties
The uncertainties in emissions or total removal rates stem from a
number of factors. These include losses arising from sampling tech-
niques, variabilities in the results obtained using existing analysis
techniques, lack of a sufficient data base to confidently extrapolate
to typical or representative conditions in individual MWTPs, and the
necessity to extrapolate to MWTPs without existing PTOC loading data.
A qualitative summary can be completed based upon the concepts
described above to alert the reader of uncertainties in the estimates
reported in Section 6. Semi-quantitative estimates are more difficult
to make. However, the concepts described above were used along with
best engineering judgement (BEJ) to compile a qualitative and semi-
quantitative summary of the uncertainties associated with the emissions
estimates described in Section 6. That summary is provided in the
remainder of this subsection.
Sampling techniques! Whenever dealing with volatile compounds, one must
be aware of the potential for volatile losses during sample collection,
preservation, and analysis* Unfortunately, such losses could not be
quantified from the existing data as they were highly dependent upon the
sampling approach and devices used, as well as the degree of care taken
in handling the samples. After reviewing the procedures that were used
65
-------
in order to obtain concentrations in the influent and effluent streams,
it is the authors' judgement that the relative significance of losses
during sampling, transport and preservation before analysis were small
in comparison to uncertainties in other factors described below.
Analysis techniques! As noted previously, comparison studies of labor-
atories conducting VOC analyses have indicated that limitations in
current analytical techniques can lead to uncertainties as high as a
factor of three for PTOCs that are commonly found in laboratory environ-
ments, e.g., methylene chloride. The limited information on intra-
laboratory errors suggested that the majority of VOC analyses were with-
in about 30SK. Differences formed from influent and effluent concentra-
tions would result in somewhat larger error bounds, the closer the
difference between influent and effluent concentrations, the larger
the relative error, but the absolute error would tend to decrease.
Thus, we believe that the larger sources of emissions, which had a
larger contribution and significance to the emission inventory, should
have had a smaller error associated with them. Similarly, for the
inter-laboratory comparisons typical errors for VOC analyses were less
than about 70%, and one would anticipate smaller errors with increasing
sample concentrations. Thus, based upon the PTOCs involved in the lab
study and experience with other VOCs, we believe a typical range of
uncertainty resulting from the chemical analyses should be less than
10Q% (a factor of two).
Temporal variations in datai The historical data available for in-
dividual MWTPs were limited either by the number of days, or sampling
periods, during which PTOC samples were drawn. The assumption that the
existing data is representative of typical flow and concentration, i.e.,
mass loading, conditions was an additional source of uncertainty in the
emission estimates. Hourly variations in wastewater flowrates were
accounted for by most POTWs, since flow-proportioned composite samples
were common. Flow variations over longer time periods were not signifi-
cant at most MWTPs. For the largest MWTPs in California, recent annual
average flowrates were available. For others, flows corresponding to
the PTOC sampling periods were available, and concentrations were
66
-------
weighted accordingly in order to better represent average mass loadings.
For smaller MWTPs that were not directly contacted and that did not sub-
mit PAR reports, average dry-weather flow data from the NEEDS data base
were used. On the average, NEEDs flows were found to underestimate
more recent annual average flowrates by approximately 2Q%. The dif-
ferences could be caused by the out-dated nature of the NEEDS data, as
well as higher flowrates due to infiltration during wet seasons which
are not accounted for by the NEEDS. The overall uncertainties in waste-
water flowrates are not expected to exceed approximately 20% on an
MWTP-by-MWTP basis, and should be even less on a county-by-county and
statewide basis.
Temporal variations in PTOC concentration were expected to be much
greater than those for flowrate. Estimating the uncertainties due to
such variations was difficult because of a lack of historical data.
Long-term reductions in the use and discharge of priority pollutants as
a result of environmental regulations and programs such as the National
Pretreatment Program could result in additional systematic errors in the
emission estimates beyond those of day-to-day variability of industrial
and commercial discharges. Furthermore, variations and uncertainties
are expected to differ according to the specific PTOC. Table 14 sum-
marizes temporal variations in the influent concentrations of the most
commonly detected PTOCs, at three large MWTPs in California. Assuming
normal distribution functions for the influent concentration, a 95%
confidence limit would correspond to about a factor of three. (In
reality, concentrations appeared to be more closely approximated by log-
normal distributions.) These tentative uncertainty estimates were based
upon a limited number of sample points at a small number of MWTPs.
Given the amount of data available , a more sophisticated statistical
analysis was not warranted. Additional, though smaller sources of
errors were associated with temporal variation of effluent concentra-
tions and lack of account of hydraulic retention time during some
sampling. Insufficient data existed for quantification.
Extrapolation to MWTPs without data: Based upon a comparison of
-»
extrapolated results for MWTPs with existing data on total PTOC emis-
67
-------
Table 14i Temporal Variation of PTOC Concentrations In Influent Streams
Concentration (Mg/1)
oo
Facility/Compound
Point Loma WWTF
Chloroform
Perchloroethylene
Toluene
Sacramento Regional WWTF
Chloroform
Perchloroethylene
Toluene
East Bay MUD WWTF
Chloroform
Perchloroethylene
Toluene
Hyperion Treatment Plant
Chloroform
Perchloroethylene
Toluene
# of sample
days
18
18
18
9
9
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
Sampling
period
4/85 - 8/86
5/83 - 5/86
9/84 - 6/86
2/86 - 4/86
Average
7.3
7.8
51.3
5.9
11.8
10.1
20.9
122.5
37.6
21.4
102.1
151.8
Extremes
min max
<2
<2
<2
6
18*
16.2
65.5
49.7
55.5
56
260
12
31
45
44
610
52
24.7
138
425
Coefficient of
Variation
1.71
1.71
1.30
0.98
1.08
1.60
0.62
1.95
0.34
0.16
0.27
1.03
(1) Values listed as below detection limit were assumed to be equal to zero.
-------
sions against those without, differences as high as a factor of five
were observed. For individual PTXs, the differences could have been
higher. However, the MWTPs that fell into the extrapolation category
accounted for only 23% of the total municipal wastewater treated
throughout California. Furthermore, most of those MWTPs were located in
non-industrialized areas where large discharges of PTXs were not
expected. In the extrapolation procedure, this was accounted for by
normalizing by the fraction of the total flow that originated from
industrial dischargers. It should be noted that a partial survey of
MWTPs and POTWs indicated that the method of classification of
industrial and commercial dischargers was not uniform. Significant
sources of emissions projected using extrapolated concentrations are
identified in Section 6 of this report.
Although, overall uncertainties in emissions due to extrapolation
may be relatively high for individual MWTPs, the uncertainties should
not be as large on a regional or statewide basis. A county-by-county
summary of the wastewater flowrate accounted for by MWTPs with con-
centration data was presented in Table 11. The information included in
Table 11 also serves as an indicator of the extent of extrapolation in
various counties.
Assuming worst-case conditions! From an emissions standpoint,
"worst-case" refers to the condition in which the total removal of PTOCs
in a MWTP is attributed entirely to volatilization. The existing
literature suggested that the errors associated with such an assumption
are probably small for volatile organic compounds (e.g., the PTOCs).
The combined removal by adsorption and unacclimated biodegradation were
typically reported to be less than 30% of the total compound removal.
The removal decreased as the volatility of the PTOC increased and the
degradability and affinity for adsorption decreased. In addition,
errors in the emissions estimate vary according to the physical pro-
cesses employed by individual MWTPs. For primary treatment facilities
biodegradation would be insignificant and the assumption of volatiliza-
tion as the only removal mechanism would be better than for facilities
*
which employ biological treatment.
69
-------
Assuming uncontrolled emissionst Some MWTPs that utilized covered
treatment processes attempted to treat off-gases, primarily to reduce
emissions of odorous gases such as hydrogen sulfide. The efficiency of
the off-gas control devices for removing gaseous PTOCs has not been
determined. Although the number of MWTPs that treat off-gases was
small, probably less that 10, the effects of efficient off-gas treatment
could be significant as some of the larger MWTPs utilize off gas control
devices.
Removal efficiencies: For those MWTPs with influent-only or no data,
Equation 3 was used to estimate emissions. Values had to be selected
for the overall removal efficiency factor Mb ". For this study, average
values of Mbm" were calculated based upon the MWTPs with existing influ-
ent and effluent data. The efficiencies were typically high (> 80SK),
and were probably conservative for many primary treatment facilities
for which extrapolation was required. On an individual MWTP basis, it
is the authors' collective judgement that the removal efficiencies led
to overestimates as high as a factor of two, and underestimates as
great as 25%. However, only 24% of the total municipal wastewater
discharged in California fell into that category.
Overall uncertainty! As was illustrated by the previous discussion, the
uncertainties in emissions estimates were a function of many factors.
Those factors included whether or not the uncertainties were based upon
estimated emissions at individual MWTPs, or on a regional or statewide
basis, the degree and quality of data available for individual MWTPs,
and the method used to estimate emissions Ci.e., direct estimate from
existing data, or extrapolation). Because of such diverse factors, the
prescription of overall uncertainties in estimated emissions must be
based upon best engineering judgement which incorporates as much of the
existing quantitative information as possible. As some facilities are
characterized by a larger historical data base than others, ranges of the
uncertainty for individual MWTPs are presented in Table 15. In addi-
tion, the degree of uncertainty associated with emissions varied from
MWTP-to-MWTP and from PTOC-to-PTOC, wh^ile the data base used for extra-
polation varied from county-to-county. A range of factors from two to
70
-------
Table 15i Estimated Uncertainties In Emissions Estimates1
Category Within a Factor of2
Individual Treatment Facilitiesi
influent and effluent data 2-5
influent data only 2-5+
extrapolation 5-10
County-by-County 2-10
Statewide 2-4
(1) Based upon "best engineering judgement"
(2) Ranges account for differences in the extent of historical data from
individual MWTPs and/or different uncertainties for different PTXs.
-------
ten is estimated for counties. Those counties at the lower end of the
range include Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento,
San Francisco, and Santa Clara. In those counties, the degree of extra-
polation was low, as MWTPs with both influent and effluent data
accounted for a large fraction of the county's wastewater discharge.
The statewide uncertainty factor range is based upon the fact that most
of the emissions in California occurred in those counties mentioned
above. A range is given, as uncertainties vary according to the speci-
fic PTOC. PTOCs at the lower end of the range include perchloro-
ethylene, toluene, and 1,1,1 trichloroethane. The PTOCs at the upper
end of the range include bromodichloromethane, carbon tetrachloride,
chlorobenzene, chloroform, dibromochloromethane, 1,1 dichloroethylene,
1,1 dichloroethane, methylene chloride, and vinyl chloride. These ob-
servations were based upon the frequency and magnitude of detected con-
centrations, the potential for emissions that were not accounted for
from the formation of THMs during chlorination, and other sources of
errors (e.g., analytical techniques) noted for individual PTOCs as pre-
viously described.
The trend in uncertainty of the estimates was such that the larger
the emissions, both by PTOC and by individual source, the smaller the
uncertainty, i.e., closer to a factor of two. The largest contributors
to the uncertainty being the temporal variation of influent loadings in
those cases. With increased data availability expected as a result of
recent reporting requirements, the uncertainty in future estimates
should be reduced.
72
-------
6. RESULTS and DISCUSSION
Emissions estimates are presented in this section based upon Equations
2 and 3 of Section 5. The estimates represent a "worst-case" scenario in
the sense that the difference between the mass of PTOCs entering the MWTP
in the influent and leaving in the effluent was assumed to completely
volatilize. The estimates do not account for adsorption to sludge,
biodegradation within the plant, nor the possible presence of control
devices on off-gas streams. In spite of those limitations, it is felt that
the estimates provide a good approximation to the potential levels of
emissions from MWTPs in California given the available data, and are an
improvement over estimates previously reported (Dixon and Bremen, 1984).
The format of the presentation is such that a successively more detailed
breakdown of the emissions is provided, first on a statewide basis,
followed by county-by-county and individual MWTP analyses. Thus, the
reader can easily trace statewide emissions to the most significant
counties, and the county-wide emissions to the MWTPs which were the most
significant sources of either speciated or total PTOC emissions. Estimates
of sludge generation and the removal of PTOCs in sludge streams are also
presented on a statewide and county-by-county basis. These are followed by
a discussion of the results. Conclusions and recommendations are provided
in Sections 7 and 8.
Statewide Emissions
On an annual basis an estimated 803 tons of the 16 PTOCs were
emitted from MWTPs throughout California during the period roughly
corresponding to 1983 to 1985. If emissions of THMs, formed as a result
of chlorination, as well as emissions of PTOCs that pass through the
treatment system were to be taken into account, that total would have
risen to approximately 1400 tons/year (tpy). For scaling purposes,
those PTOCs with emissions less than 10 tpy are shown in Figure 4 while
those with emissions of greater than or equal to 10 tpy are shown in
Figure 5.
73
-------
or
CO
O
3
2.8 -
2.6 -
2.4- -
2.2 -
2 -
1 .8 -
1 .6 -
1 .4 -
1.2 -
1 -
O.8 -
O.6 -
O.4 -
0.2 -
O
STATEWIDE EMISSIONS
< 10 TONS/YEAR
(2.8)
(2.8)
(1.0)
(0.0)
(1.7)
(0.2)
x x
XXX x
I 0)
O rH
rH «H
h M
H 4J
$-a
•H i at
rQ O C
o n id
Bo*
O rH 4-1
H 43 d)
PQ o @
(U
•o
•H
M
O
rH
a "8
O 4J
I
-------
tn
3OO
280 -
26O -
24-O -
220 -
2OO -
1 80 -
1 6O -
1 40 -
1 20 -
1 DO -
SO -
6O -
4-O -
20 -
O
STATEWIDE EMISSIONS
> 1O TON5/YEAR
(46)
(36)
(21)
(10)
(270)
(61)
(94)
(30)
,
rl J2
01 4J
PL, 01
(U
a
O)
O
M
O
rH
•s
o,
Figure 5:
Statewide Emissions of PTOCs Totalling Greater Than 10 tpy.
Values in parenthesis above bars are emissions in tpy.
I
o
M a)
o c
rH 0)
M 4-1
H 0)
-------
The zero emissions estimate for acrylonitrile was based on the
fact that acrylonitrile was never detected at any of the MWTPs for
which existing concentration data were obtained. However, detection
limits for acrylonitrile were typically much higher (10-100 ygA) than
those for the other PTOCs. It is possible that acrylonitrile could
have been discharged and emitted without detection. Based upon a flow-
weighted average detection limit of 30 ugA, acrylonitrile emissions
could have been as high as 140 tpy. However, knowledge of its limited
uses and sources (Tables 2 and 3), and the fact that it went unde-
tected consistently, suggests that there were very low emissions of
acrylonitrile from MWTPs in California.
The estimated emissions for bromodichloromethane and dibromochloro-
methane would have been higher if THM formation had been considered.
For instance, at a number of MWTPs, one or both of those PTOCs were
detected in the effluent stream but not in the influent stream. While
accounting for the formation resulting from chlorination would have in-
creased the estimated emissions of both PTOCs by a factor of approxi-
mately two, the statewide emissions for each would have remained rela-
tively low.
A review of past data at MWTPs in Los Angeles County suggested that
carbon tetrachloride emissions from MWTPs have decreased significantly
(greater than an order of magnitude) during the past decade, as the use of
carbon tetrachloride has been severely restricted. The estimate reported
here reflects the newer data.
It is possible that emissions of both 1,1 dichloroethylene and vinyl
chloride have been underestimated, as the estimates did not account for
their formation as a result of the degradation of more halogenated
compounds, particularly during anaerobic digestion. A lack of existing
data made it impossible to estimate such emissions. This is an area where
future measurements could prove to be valuable.
The estimated emissions for chloroform may be low for the same
reasons listed previously for bromodichloromethane and dibromochloro-
76
-------
methane. If THM formation had been taken into account, the estimated
statewide emissions of chloroform would have been approximately 50 tpy.
The increase is lower than a factor of two, because a large percentage
of the chloroform emissions were attributed to MWTPs that did not
chlorinate on a regular basis. The two PTOCs with emissions estimated
to be greater than 200 tpy were methylene chloride and toluene. The
combined emissions for those two PTOCs accounted for greater than 62% of
the total mass emissions of all PTOCs.
County-By-County Emissions
The ten counties with the highest total PTOC emissions are shown in
Figure 6. The total and speciated PTOC emissions for each of the 58
counties in California are listed in Table 16. The ten counties shown
in Figure 6 accounted for 93% of the total PTOC emissions throughout the
state. Los Angeles County alone accounted for 59% of those emissions.
Thirty-seven counties individually contributed less than 1.0 tpy to the
statewide emission total. Of the ten counties shown in Figure 6, Los
Angeles, San Diego and Stanislaus counties require additional comments
to clarify the nature of uncertainties in the estimates.
In San Diego County, high emissions (47 tpy) were estimated from
the Encina Joint Powers WWTF in Carlsbad. However, that estimate was
based upon data collected in 1978, when very high concentrations of
methylene chloride and 1,1,1 trichloroethane were observed in the in-
fluent stream. Based upon reductions in influent concentrations
observed in other MWTP data over the same period, emissions from the
Encina Joint Powers WWTF, and San Diego County, were likely to have been
over-estimated.
Emissions in Stanislaus County were based entirely upon extrapola-
tion from other MWTPs in the Central Valley. Large "industrial flow"
contributions were reported at the Modesto and Riverbank treatment
facilities and resulted in most of the estimated emissions for that
county. It was not known whether the "industrial flows" were represen-
77
-------
(474)
00
TOTAL PTOC EMISSIONS
COUNTY—BY—COU NTY
(92)
(60)
(39)
(36)
(14)
K /'.' s I v -••' ••• i r
(13) (12) (9.1) (8.3)
n
0)
rH
0)
m to
co «
u M
C co
co -H
CD U
CO
o
00
0)
cd
T)
i
0)
00
O
0)
co eg
w S
to
(0
•H
C
(0
4J
5
9
C cd
cd o
ra
C (0
O O
O U
Figure 6: PTOC Emissions from the 10 Counties with the Highest Emissions.
Values in parenthesis above bars are emissions in tpy.
o
o
(0
•H
u
c n>
(0 M
en (K
-------
Table 16a: County-By-County Emissions
COUNTY NAME
TOTAL EMISSIONS
(TONS/YEAR)
INDIVIDUAL PTOC EMISSIONS
(TONS/YEAR)
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Los Angelas
Santa Clara
San Diego
Alameda
Orange
San Mateo
Stanislaus
San Joaquin
Contra Costa
San Francisco
Sacramento
San Bernardino
Fresno
Solano
Ventura
Tulare
Yolo
Merced
Riverside
Santa Barbara
Kern
Sutter
Monterey
Sonoma
Marin
Santa Cruz
Kings
Humboldt
Imperial
San Luis Obispo
Shasta
Napa
Butte
Placer
El Dorado
San Benito
Nevada
Madera
Mendocino
Tehama
Lake
Glenn
Siskiyou
Tuolumne
Yuba
Plumas
Inyo
Colusa
Mono
Lassen
Del Norte
Amador
Calavaras
Mariposa
Trinity
Modoc
Sierra
Alpine
473.53
92.30
59.77
38.66
35.70
14.20
13.03
11.65
9.06
8.28
6.93
5.93
5.85
3.30
2.95
2.62
2.41
2.26
1.90
1.11
1.08
0.89
0.88
0.85
0.70
0.65
0.47
0.39
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.34
0.33
0.31
0.30
0.28
0.23
0.22
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
41.44
0.00
0.30
1.24
1.24
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.67
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.07
0.64
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.37
0.18
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.93
0.00
0.00
1.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.34
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.32
3.13
0.62
0.35
1.36
1.85
0.95
0.52
3.68
0.83
1.23
0.64
0.22
1.42
0.76
0.26
0.26
0.18
0.47
0.43
0.20
0.07
0.23
0.31
0.26
0.26
0.04
0.15
0.11
0.17
0.14
0.13
0.07
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
(2) Benzene
(3) Bromodichloromethane
(4) Carbon tetrachloride
(5) Chlorobenzene
(6) Chloroform
79
-------
Table I6b: County-By-County Emissions
COUNTY
(7)
EMISSIONS INDIVIDUAL PTOCS
(TONS/YEAR)
(6) (9) (10) (11) (12)
(13)
Los Angeles
Santa Clara
San Diego
Alameda
Orange
San Mateo
Stanislaus
San Joaquin
Contra Costa
San Francisco
Sacramento
San Bernardino
Fresno
Solano
Ventura
Tulare
Yolo
Merced
Riverside
Santa Barbara
Kern
Sutter
Monterey
Sonoma
Marin
Santa Cruz
Kings
H umbel dt
Imperial
San Luis Obispo
Shasta
Napa
Butte
Placer
El Dorado
San Benito
Nevada
Madera
Mendocino
Tehama
Lake
Glenn
Siskiyou
Tuolumne
Yuba
Plumas
Inyo
Colusa
Mono
Lassen
Del Norte
Amador
Calavaras
Mariposa
Trinity
Modoc
Sierra
Alpine
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.34
0.00
0.00
1.24
0.00
0.90
O.OB
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.40
0.04
2.20
0.13
0.18
0.55
0.27
0.03
0.06
0.45
0.00
0.63
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.05
o.oe
0.12
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
B.19
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.14
1.B9
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
136. 4B
42.75
14.06
4.34
14.43
2.64
0.71
0.06
3.30
0.62
0.87
0.95
0.31
0.69
0.05
0.17
0.17
0.13
0.32
0.19
0.08
0.05
0.17
0.14
0.12
0.09
0.03
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.62
8.33
1.03
14.19
1.69
1.78
2.95
2.40
0.81
0.00
2.08
0.44
0.56
0.45
0.48
0.57
0.51
0.57
0.15
0.14
0.29
0.20
0.25
0.14
0.08
0.11
0.10
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
191.36
32.65
4.94
7.21
8.75
1.40
2.71
7.69
0.71
2.47
2.16
2.56
0.87
0.40
0.13
0.53
0.48
0.43
0.56
0.17
0.23
0.18
0.10
0.14
0.12
0.09
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(7) DibromocKloromethane
(6) 1.1 Dichloroethylene
(9) Ethylbenzene
(10) 1,2 Dichloroethane
(11) Methylene chloride
(12) Perchloroethylene
(13) Toluene
80
-------
Table l6c: County-By-County Emissions
EMISSIONS INDIVIDUAL PTOCS
(TONS/YEAR)
COUNTY (14) (15) (16)
Los Angeles
Santa Clara
San Diego
Alameda
Orange
San Mateo
Stanislaus
San Joaquin
Contra Costa
San Francisco
Sacramento
San Bernardino
Fresno
Solano
Ventura
Tulare
Yolo
Merced
Riverside
Santa Barbara
Kern
Sutter
Monterey
Sonoma
Marin
Santa Cruz
Kings
Humboldt
Imperial
San Luis Obispo
Shasta
Napa
Butte
Placer
El Dorado
San Benito
Nevada
Madera
Mendocino
Tehama
Lake
Glenn
Siskiyou
Tuolumne
Yuba
Plumas
Inyo
Colusa
Mono
Lassen
Del Norte
Amador
Calavaras
Mariposa
Trinity
Modoc
Sierra
Alpine
35.95
2.64
36.01
6.54
6.87
1.10
0.64
0.07
0.24
1.02
0.29
0.31
0.40
0.09
0.46
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.11
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.18
2.76
0.03
1.54
1.00
0.67
4.69
1.14
0.10
2.02
0.30
0.04
3.30
0.13
0.03
0.88
0.76
0.74
0.06
0.05
0.18
0.32
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.16
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(14) 1,1,1 Trichloroethane
(15) Trichloroethylene
(16) Vinyl chloride
81
-------
tative of "industrial flows" at MWTPs in the Central Valley for which
data were available.
Several of the PTOCs were emitted in relatively small quantities on
a county-by-county basis. For instance, the maximum county-wide emis-
sions of bromodichloromethane, chlorobenzene, dibromochloromethane, and
1,1-dichloroethylene were each less than 1.5 tpy.
Los Angeles County was responsible for large fractions of the
statewide emissions of other PTOCs. In particular, Los Angeles County
accounted for 100% and 89% of the vinyl chloride and benzene emissions,
respectively. It also accounted for greater than 70% of the emissions
of ethylbenzene, 1,2 dichloroethane, and toluene, and greater than 50%
of the statewide emissions of methylene chloride. Two large plants
contributed the majority of the estimated potential emissions. As will
be subsequently discussed, the controlled emissions from one of those
plants could be substantially lower.
With the exception of Los Angeles County, only a few other counties
contributed large fractions of individual PTOCs to the statewide total.
For instance, Alameda County accounted for 67% and 435K of the statewide
emissions of carbon tetrachloride and 1,1 dichloroethylene, respective-
ly. In addition, 77% of the chlorobenzene emitted by MWTPs in Califor-
nia was emitted in San Mateo County.
MWTP-By-MWTP Emissions
The MWTPs with total PTOC emissions of greater than 2.0 tpy were
ranked according to total PTOC emissions, and are listed in Table 17.
Twenty-nine MWTPs emitted greater than 2.0 tpy of total PTOCs. Of those
29 treatment facilities, 8 were located in Los Angeles County. The
emissions estimates for those facilities noted with asterisks were
based upon extrapolation techniques described in Section 5 and were
characterized by a' greater degree of uncertainty than most of the other
facilities listed in Table 17.
82
-------
Table 1?a: Plant-By-Plant Emissions
INDIVIDUAL PTOC EMISSIONS
PLANT NAME
TOTAL EMISSIONS
(TONS/YEAR)
(TONS/YEAR)
(2) (3) (4)
Joint WPCP
Hyperion WWTF
San Jose/Santa Clara WPCP
Encina Joint Powers STP
* Terminal Island WWTF
Palo Alto WWTF
East Bay MUD WWTF
OCSD WWTF No. 2
Los Coyotes WRP
OCSD WWTF No. 1
Pt Loma WWTF
Stockton Reg. WWTF
Hayward WWTF
South Bayside WWTP
Southeast/North Point
Sacto Reg WWTF
* Modesto WWTF
* L.A. Glendale WWRP
Richmond/San Pablo WWTF
Sunnyvale WWTF
* Chino Basin Reg TP 31
* Riverbank WWTF
Fresno WWTF
* Burbank WWRF
San Francisco Intnl. Airp
Pomona WRP
Whittier Narrows WRP
San Leandro WWTF
Central Contra Costa WWTF
296.09
112.32
58.67
46.94
29.75
29.14
25.07
20.42
14.82
13.26
11.41
10.35
10.10
8.66
7.56
6.87
6.71
5.46
5.30
4.37
3.93
3.85
3.78
3.19
3.07
2.50
2.42
2.17
2.01
29.55
8.50
0.00
0.00
1.34
0.00
1.21
1.07
1.54
0.13
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.05
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.87
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
* = emissions based upon extrapolation
(2) Benzene
(3) Bromodichloromethane
(4) Carbon tetrachloride
83
-------
Table 1?b: Plant-By-Plant Emissions
PLANT NAME
(5)
IN-DIVIDUAL PTOC EMISSIONS
(TONS/YEAR)
(6) (7) (8) (9)
* = emissions based upon extrapolation
(5) Chlorobenzene
(6) Chloroform
(7) Dibromochloromethane
(8) 1,1 Dichloroethylene
(9) Ethylbenzene
(10) 1,2 Dichloroethane
(10)
Joint WPCP
Hyperion WWTF
San Jose/Santa Clara WPCP
Encina Joint Powers STP
* Terminal Island WWTF
Palo Alto WWTF
East Bay MUD WWTF
OCSD WWTF No. 2
Los Coyotes WRP
OCSD WWTF No. 1
Pt Loma WWTF
Stockton Reg. WWTF
Hayward WWTF
South Bayside WWTP
Southeast/North Point
Sacto Reg WWTF
* Modesto WWTF
* L.A. Glendale WWRP
Richmond/San Pablo WWTF
Sunnyvale WWTF
* Chino Basin Reg TP #1
* Riverbank WWTF
Fresno WWTF
* Burbank WWRF
San Francisco Intnl. Airp
Pomona WRP
Whittier Narrows WRP
San Leandro WWTF
Central Contra Costa WWTF
0.00
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.33
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.63
6.57
1.73
0.12
2.17
0.97
0.04
0.48
0.48
0.33
0.42
0.41
0.19
1.47
0.43
1.22
0.48
0.40
3.05
' 0.38
0.34
0.27
0.03
0.23
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.03
0,00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.24
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
3.99
8.87
0.00
0.00
1.44
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.47
0.02
2.09
0.00
0.06
0.47
0.44
0.00
0.14
0.26
0.00
0.04
0.45
0.08
0.05
0.15
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
7.70
0.00
0.00
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
84
-------
Table 1?c: Plant-By-Plant Emissions
PLANT NAME
(11)
INDIVIDUAL PTOC EMISSIONS
(TONS/YEAR)
(12) (13) (14) (15)
* = emissions based upon extrapolation
(11) Methylene chloride
(12) Perchloroethylene
(13) Toluene
(14) 1,1,1 Trichloroethane
(15) Trichloroethylene
(16) Vinyl chloride
(16)
Joint WPCP
Hyperion WWTF
San Jose/Santa Clara WPCP
Encina Joint Powers STP
* Terminal Island WWTF
Palo Alto WWTF
East Bay MUD WWTF
OCSD WWTF No. 2
Los Coyotes WRP
OCSD WWTF No. 1
Pt Loma WWTF
Stockton Reg. WWTF
Hayward WWTF
South Bayside WWTP
Southeast/North Point
Sacto Reg WWTF
* Modesto WWTF
* L.A. Glendale WWRP
Richmond/San Pablo WWTF
Sunnyvale WWTF
* Chino Basin Reg TP #1
* Riverbank WWTF
Fresno WWTF
* Burbank WWRF
San Francisco Intnl. Airp
Pomona WRP
Whittier Narrows WRP
San Leandro WWTF
Central Contra Costa WWTF
120.93
5.00
18.65
11.44
5.70
22.18
3.97
7.25
1.25
6.84
2.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.82
0.86
0.36
1.05
1.64
1.90
0.62
0.21
0.20
0.61
2.37
0.11
0.57
0.09
1.21
5.86
4.37
7.32
0.00
4.66
0.26
13.13
0.96
1.44
0.44
0.90
2.06
0.72
1.08
0.00
2.07
1.53
0.86
0.16
0.73
0.28
0.88
0.00
0.50
0.02
0.03
0.66
0.11
0.41
124.76
48.73
28.29
0.00
7.82
3.69
4.60
5.48
6.05
2.88
4.45
7.28
0.20
0.74
2.46
2.15
1.40
1.44
0.30
0.65
1.78
0.80
0.48
0.84
0.12
0.02
0.56
1.93
0.19
5.47
15.62
0.72
35.37
5.21
1.59
0.68
4.30
3.49
2.32
0.56
0.00
5.59
0.39
1.02
0.29
0.33
0.96
0.07
0.33
0.20
0.19
0.31
0.56
0.42
2.30
0.36
0.00
0.13
2.46
4.37
1.97
0.00
0.75
0.45
1.20
0.73
0.04
0.22
0.00
0.60
0.26
0.38
1.75
0.29
2.43
0.14
0.03
0.33
0.01
1.39
2.65
0.08
0.03
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.44
1.01
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
85
-------
While Los Angeles County was responsible for 59% of the PTOC emis-
sions statewide, two MWTPs were responsible for 86% of the emissions
in Los Angeles County and 5Q% of the total PTOC emissions from MWTPs
throughout the entire state. The total estimated emissions from the
Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) were 296 tpy (uncontrolled),
and the total emissions from the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP) were 112
tpy. It should be noted that the JWPCP is not a "typical" MWTP, as it
utilizes a covered conveyance and primary treatment system with control
devices on off-gas vents of processes ahead of the pure-oxygen aeration
units used for secondary treatment. Other large pure-oxygen treatment
facilities in California include the East Bay MUD WWTF, the Orange
County Sanitation District Plant *2 (OCSD *2), and the Sacramento
Regional WWTP. However, these are not believed to employ as extensive a
set of air pollution control devices on vented gases.
The emissions from the JWPCP reported herein were inconsistent with
emissions estimated by the staff of the County Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County (CSDLAC). The CSDLAC completed gas-phase measure-
ments at gas scrubbers installed principally for odor control, at pri-
mary treatment off-gas vents, at aerated channels, and at vents leading
from the pure-oxygen biological reactors. Preliminary results of an
ongoing study by the CSDLAC indicated that total emissions of 23 VOCs,
including most of the PTOCs, were 150 Ib/day (27 tpy) (Caballero, 1987).
Most of those emissions were attributed to PTOCs. A large fraction
(80%) of the emissions were detected after passage through off-gas
scrubbers. PTOC emissions resulting from gases vented from the pure-oxygen
system were particularly low (< 3 Ib/day), which could possibly be
attributed to the fact that surface oxygenation rather than submerged
diffuser oxygenation was utilized. The order of magnitude difference in
total emissions as observed by the CSDLAC and estimated for this study can
possibly be explained by one or more of the following reasonst
1. The time periods during which the liquid and gas-phase samples were
drawn did not coincide. It is possible that unusually high PTOC loadings
86
-------
in the influent stream were experienced, although for the two 24 hour
periods (12-6-85 and 5-14-86) for which data were available, the
influent concentrations differed by only a factor of 2.6. By the same
token, the gas-phase samples could have been drawn during a period
characterized by unusually low PTOC mass loadings in the influent
stream.
2. Scrubbers that were designed to reduce emissions of odorous gases
(e.g., hydrogen sulfide) could have also been efficient at removing
PTOCs. The off-gases from most of the aerated processes were passed
through caustic scrubbers, activated carbon beds, or both. The authors
do not believe that removal in caustic scrubbers could have accounted
for an order-of-magnitude reduction in PTOC emissions. However, the
PTOCs could have adsorbed in the activated carbon beds, thereby
reducing emissions. Previous testing by the CSDLAC has indicated break-
through times for the beds as low as two weeks for some of the PTOCs
(Caballero, 1987). The activated carbon was being replaced with rege-
nerated or virgin carbon at intervals of approximately four to six
months. However, even following break-through, some fraction of the
stripped PTOCs could continue to be removed. The extent of this removal
is not known, and further research would be valuable in order to study
the treatment of off-gases as a method for reducing PTOC emissions.
3. Although many processes were analyzed as part of the gas-sampling
study, additional processes which were not considered could be sources
of PTOC emissions. These included emissions after adsorption to solids
(e.g., stripping in, and leakage from, digestersj volatilization during
composting). However, as noted in Section 4 of this report, only a
small fraction of the incoming PTOC mass is typically removed in sludge
streams.
4. The "worst-case" assumption (i.e., all removal of PTOCs is by
volatilization) might not be valid for pure-oxygen treatment facilities
which, in comparison to conventional activated sludge systems, typically
contact much less gas with the liquid phase. Because pass-through was
accounted for by subtracting the effluent concentrations from the in-
87
-------
fluent concentrations, the removal of PTOCs, if not by volatile losses,
would be expected to result from adsorption and biodegradation. As
noted above, adsorption was expected to be low, leaving only biodegrada-
tion to account for PTOC removals. Such a conclusion can not be veri-
fied at the present time. However, further studies are warranted in
light of the potential significance with respect to reducing PTOC
emissions during wastewater treatment.
The HTP is currently a partial secondary treatment facility. On
the average, 300 MGD (75/6) of the incoming wastewater is treated using
only primary treatment processes. The remaining 100 MGD (25%} is
treated using conventional activated sludge systems. Higher in-plant
PTOC emissions would be expected if a larger percentage of the
wastewater was subjected to aerated secondary treatment. Emissions from
the HTP could change significantly, as the facility was scheduled to be
modified to a pure-oxygen activated sludge plant by 1993. At that
time, four 130 MGD pure-oxygen systems will go on-line. The overall
effects of the modification on emissions can not be accurately predicted
at this time. The added treatment could lead to either an increase or
a decrease in PTOC emissions, depending upon the importance of biode-
gradation or installation of off-gas control systems. In either case, a
study of the PTOC emissions before and after the modifications would be
valuable and would provide a better understanding of the role of such
modifications on PTOC emissions.
Other Los Angeles County treatment facilities that emitted greater
than 15 tpy of total PTOCs were the Terminal Island Treatment Plant (30
tpy) and the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant in Cerritos (15 tpy).
Estimated emissions at the Terminal Island Treatment Plant were based
upon extrapolation using data from other MWTPs in Los Angeles and
Orange Counties. The high emissions estimates were a result of a large
industrial flow contribution to the total wastewater flow.
Throughout the rest of California, other MWTPs with total PTOC
emissions greater than 10 tpy included the San Jose/ Santa Clara WPCP
(59 tpy) and the Palo Alto WWTF (29 tpy) in Santa Clara County, the
East Bay MUD WWTF in Oakland (25 tpy) and the Hayward WWTF (10 tpy),
-------
each in Alameda County, the OCSD plants *2 (22 tpy) and #1 (13 tpy) in
Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, respectively, the Encina Joint
Powers WWTF (47 tpy) and the Point Loma WWTF (11 tpy), each in San Diego
County, and the Stockton Regional WWTF (10 tpy) in San Joaquin County.
None of the emissions from those facilities were based upon extrapola-
tion. The use of possibly outdated data for the Encina Joint Powers
WWTF was discussed previously.
The combined benzene emissions from the JWPCP and the HTP accounted
for 82% of the total benzene emissions from all MWTPs in the state (as-
suming no control systems). The third and fourth largest sources were
also from Los Angeles County; the Los Coyotes WRP (1.5 tpy), and the
Terminal Island Treatment Plant (1.3 tpy).
Ninety-eight percent of the statewide carbon tetrachloride emis-
sions were accounted for by the Hayward WWTF (1.8 tpy) and the HTP (0.9
tpy).
Seventy-six percent of the statewide chlorobenzene emissions were
emitted by the South Bayside WWTF in Redwood City.
The two largest sources of chloroform emissions were the HTP (6.6
tpy) and the Richmond/San Pablo WWTF (3.1 tpy). Recall that volatile
losses after in-plant formation were not considered.
At 8.9 tpy, the HTP was the largest source of ethylbenzene emis-
sions. The HTP also emitted 7.7 tpy of 1,2 dichloroethane.
The JWPCP was responsible for 89% (121 tpy) of the methylene
chloride emissions in Los Angeles County (and 54% of the methylene
chloride emissions statewide (assuming no control systems). Emissions
of methylene chloride were also significant at the Palo Alto WWTF (22
tpy) and the San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (19
tpy).
Perchloroethylene emissions at the East Bay MUD WWTF (13 tpy) ac-
counted for 52% of the total PTOC emissions from that plant. Other
89
-------
sources which emitted greater than 5.0 tpy were the San Jose/Santa Clara
WPCP (7.3 tpy) and the JWPCP (5.9 tpy).
An estimated 46% of the toluene (uncontrolled) emitted by MWTPs in
California was emitted by the JWPCP (125 tpy). The HTP added 49 tpy.
The San Jose/Santa Clara WPCP added 28 tpy, and the Terminal Island
Treatment Plant and the Stockton Regional WWTF each emitted greater than
7 tpy.
The largest sources of 1,1,1 trichloroethane emissions were the
Encina Joint Powers WWTF (35 tpy), the HTP (16 tpy), the Hayward WWTF
(5.6 tpy), and the JWPCP (5.5 tpy).
No single MWTP dominated in terms of trichloroethylene emissions.
The largest sources were the HTP (4.4 tpy), the Fresno Regional WWTF *1
(2.7 tpy), the JWPCP (2.5 tpy), the Modesto WWTF (2.4 tpy), and the San
Jose/Santa Clara WPCP (2.0 tpy).
Finally, emissions of vinyl chloride occurred only at MWTPs in Los
Angeles County. The MWTPs included the HTP (1.0 tpy), the JWPCP (0.4
typ), and the Terminal Island Treatment Plant (0.2 tpy).
A data base which included speciated PTOC emissions from all of the
MWTPs in California was provided to the CARB on floppy-disk in partial
fulfillment of the contract which sponsored this report. It also in-
cluded information regarding the locations and treatment characteristics
of individual MWTPs throughout California. The data base is described
in detail in Appendix F.
The Significance of MWTPs in the South Coast Air Basin
In the previous subsections, quantitative estimates of worst-case,
uncontrolled, emissions of PTOCs were presented on a statewide, county-
by-county, and MWTP-by-MWTP bases. For completeness, the significance
of such emissions will be addressed. While a discussion of the signifi-
90
-------
cance of those emissions with respect to public health and/or photoche-
mical oxidant formation was beyond the scope of this study, it was
possible to compare the predicted emissions with known or predicted
emissions from other sources. A well documented summary of the
emissions of potentially toxic air contaminants exists for the South
Coast Air Basin (SCAB) (Zwiacher et al., 1985). The report contains
estimates of emissions from point sources (> 20 tpy) and combined area
sources (< 20 tpy) throughout Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San
Bernardino Counties (the SCAB). Because such a summary exists, and
because most of the predicted emissions from MWTPs in California
occurred in the SCAB, that region was chosen for further analysis. It
is important to note that the emissions report for the SCAB was updated
as of 1984, and that MWTPs were not incorporated as emissions sources.
Therefore, the emissions estimates completed for this study could be
added to the existing emissions base.
In Table 18, emissions from all of the MWTPs in the South Coast Air
Basin are compared with total emissions from other sources. From a basin-
wide perspective, emissions of benzene, methylene chloride, perchloro-
ethylene, 1,1,1 trichloroethane, and trichloroethylene from MWTPs were
much less than emissions from other sources. However, emissions of
toluene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, 1,2 dichloroethane, and vinyl
chloride from MWTPs were comparable to other sources.
Predicted emissions from individual MWTPs, particularly the JWPCP,
HTP, and the Terminal Island Treatment Plant, indicated that each faci-
lity could be a major source of some PTOCs with respect to other known
point sources. As an example, in Table 19, emissions from the HTP are
compared with emissions from the largest known sources of each PTOC in
the SCAB.
The Significance of Emissions Following Wastewater Treatment
The emissions estimates presented in this section were based upon
in-plant volatilization. However, at several major MWTPs, a significant
quantity of PTOCs passed through the entire treatment train or were gen-
91
-------
Table 18i A Comparison of Emissions from MWTPs and Other Sources in the
South Coast Air Basin
to
Compounds
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1,2 Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Perchloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
MWTPS
43.
0.9
16.
8.3
152.
22.
203.
43.
9.3
1.7
Emissions (tons/year)
Other Sources
7983.
3.
negligible
12.5
14304.
12756.
1010.
16495.
546.
1.3
(1) From Zwiacher et al. (1985),
-------
Table 19i A Comparison of Emissions from the Hyperion Treatment Plant and
Large Point Sources in the South Coast Air Basin
to
04
Compound
Emissions (tons/year)
Hyperion
Largest Point
Source*
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1,2 Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Perchloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
8.5
0.9
6.6
7.7
5.0
4.4
49.
15.6
4.4
1.0
34.
3.
<0.025
1.8
529.
214.
103.
588.
5.0
1.32
(1) From Zwiacher et al (1985).
(2) Combined emissions from three PVC producing facilities.
-------
erated during the chlorination process. Those PTOCs were not accounted
for in the emissions estimates. Ultimately, those PTOCs could have
volatilized from either the effluent conveyance system or the receiving
water to which they were discharged. In many cases it would have been
inappropriate to add such emissions to the total emissions from a MWTP,
as the point of discharge was often located several miles from the
treatment facility. On a statewide basis, greater than 50% of the total
wastewater treated by MWTPs is discharged directly to the Pacific Ocean.
Furthermore, such MWTPs in the South Coast Air Basin and San Diego
account for a large percentage of the total statewide loading of PTOCs
in effluent streams. It should also be noted that the ultimate fate of
PTOCs that are discharged to receiving waters, particularly to the
ocean, is not well understood.
The quantity of PTOCs that annually pass-through a MWTP can be
estimated. An analysis was completed using PTOC concentration data for
the effluent streams of MWTPs in the largest, most industrialized coun-
ties. These included the five counties with the highest total PTOC
emissions from MWTPs. The results are shown in Table 20. If one
further assumes that volatilization was the ultimate fate of the PTOCs,
"worst-case" emissions following treatment were nearly equal to those
that occurred during treatment in Los Angeles County. In Orange County,
the 94 tpy emitted from effluent streams would be a factor of 2.6
greater than emissions during treatment. In both San Diego County and
Alameda County emissions from effluent streams were approximately 35% of
the total in-plant emissions, and emissions from MWTPs in Santa Clara
County were relatively small compared to emissions during treatment.
The latter was due to strict discharge requirements for those facilities
which discharged into the southern end of San Francisco Bay. Bearing in
mind the above caveats, the statewide PTOC emissions would have risen
from 803 tpy to approximately 1400 tpy.
Sludge Generation and PTOC Removal in Sludge Streams
Table 21 provides a list of counties ranked according to the total
removal of all PTOCs by adsorption, sludge treatment, and sludge dispo-
94
-------
Table 20i Worst-Case Emissions from Effluent Conveyance Systems and
Receiving Waters
Total PTX
County Emissions (tons/year)
Los Angeles 446
Orange 94
San Diego 20
Alameda 14
Santa Clara 7
Statewide 600
-------
Table 21: PTOC Mass Removals in Sludge Streams
Estimated Hass Reiovals in Sludge Streams (tons/year)
<£>
Estimated
Sludge
Generation Total
County (1000 tons/yr) PTOCs
Los Angeles
Santa Clara
Orange
San Diego
Alaieda
San Joaquin
Stanislaus
San Francicso
San Hateo
Contra Costa
Sacraiento
San Bernardino
Fresno
Sol ano
Tulare
Merced
Yolo
Riverside
Monterey
Ventura
Kern
Santa Barbara
Sonoia
Sutter
All Others
243
43
122
54
40
17
16
17
17
21
24
20
13
9
6
6
6
IB
8
22
7
9
8
2
47
58.60
7.20
4.30
2.80
2.40
0.91
0.80
0.79
0.62
0.50
0.47
0.47
0.42
0.21
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.29
N
PQ
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
EH
EH
0
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
tsi
1
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
o
0.18
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
i
1.70
0.01
0.13
0.12
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
s
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
i
18.50
3.50
2.20
1.30
0.62
0.01
0.09
0.24
0.23
0.34
0.12
0.12
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.08
o
4.00
0.35
0.41
0.08
0.70
0.10
0.15
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.11
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
1
32.20
3.20
1.30
1.00
0.74
0.74
0.30
0.27
0.14
0.07
0.21
0.2B
0.09
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.06
EH
0.50
0.02
0.11
0.25
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
8
EH
0.49
0.12
0.10
0.00
0.09
0.05
0.23
0.09
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.19
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
B
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
Statexide
0.00 = (0.01
795
81.7 0.98 0.15 0.15 0.40 2.10 0.13 27.7 6.45 41.0 0.98 1.61 0.03
Where BEMZ = benzene; CTET = carbon tetrachloride: CBEHZ = chlorobenzene;
CFORM = chloroform; EBENZ = ethylbenzene; DCA = 1,2 dichloroethane;
METH = methylene chloride; PERC = perchloroethylene; TOL = toluene;
TCA = 1,1,1 trichloroethane; TOE = trichloroethylene; and VIN = vinyl chloride.
-------
sal. The estimated amount of sludge generated is shown, as are spe-
ciated PTOC removals. Negligible removals were assumed for
acrylonitrile, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and 1,1 dich-
loroethylene.
The estimated amount of sludge generated was based on the average
of amounts obtained by using both the flow-correlation and total sus-
pended solids approaches that were described in Section 5. The estima-
tes were corrected for known values. The resultant estimate was 0.8
million dry tpy were generated. Los Angeles and Orange Counties
accounted for 46% of that total.
The sum of PTOCs removed in sludge streams statewide was 81.7 tpy,
with Los Angeles County accounting for 72% of the total.
Only four individual PTOCs were removed in quantities of more than
1.0 tpy for any given county. An estimated 1.7 tpy of ethylbenzene were
removed in the sludges generated in Los Angeles County. Methylene
chloride and toluene removals were both greater than 1.0 tpy in Los
Angeles, Santa Clara, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Perchloroethylene
removals in Los Angeles County were estimated to be 4.0 tpy. On a state-
wide basis, only toluene (41 tpy), methylene chloride (28 tpy), per-
chloroethylene (6.5 tpy), ethylbenzene (2.1 tpy), and trichloroethylene
(1.6 tpy) were removed in sludge at quantities exceeding 1.0 tpy.
A large fraction of the sludge that was generated in California was
placed in landfills. The Hyperion Treatment Plant has practiced sludge
disposal to the ocean, but will soon convert to sludge incineration and
removal to landfills. A small fraction of the total sludge generated
in California was composted and utilized commercially as a soil amend-
ment.
Finally, the PTOC removals in sludge could be subtracted from
statewide and county emissions to arrive at new, less than worst-case,
estimates for PTOC emissions. In most counties this would have led to
less than a 10% reduction in the emissions estimates.
97
-------
7. CONCLUSIONS
Potentially toxic organic compounds (PTOCs) have been observed in
the influent of MWTPs in California. With the exception of trihalo-
methanes, concentrations of PTOCs have been generally observed to de-
crease in passing from the influent to the effluent of the plant. A
review of the literature has shown that the following processes are
significant in removing volatile PTOCs from wastewatert volatilization,
adsorption to solid particles and biomass, and biodegradation. For
volatile PTOCs the literature, expert opinion, and limited data favor
removal from wastewater primarily by volatilization with a lesser amount
being degraded or removed with sludge. This conclusion was largely
based on the following observations:
1) Biodegradation of PTOCs is known to be slow for unacclimated systems.
Based upon the data collected for this study, acclimation of organisms
was unlikely at the levels of PTOC concentrations typically observed in
influents to MWTPs in California.
2) Volatile PTOCS have a low affinity for adsorption. The two PTOCs
with the highest Henry's law constants, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl
chloride, were observed to be the PTOCs that were the most efficiently
removed in MWTPs.
3) An analysis of raw data obtained from previous studies indicated
that adsorption to sludge accounts for only a small fraction (<105B) of
the total removal of PTOCs during wastewater treatment. Furthermore,
sludge treatment processes such as dissolved air flotation and sludge
drying are conducive to volatile emissions of PTOCs. It was estimated
that 0.8 million tons/year (tpy) of sludge were produced in California,
and that 82 tpy of PTOCs were removed in sludge streams. The most com-
mon sludge disposal practice was landfilling, from which volatile
emissions of PTOCs was also possible.
For those reasons, a conservative estimate of PTOC loss by
volatilization was carried out by assuming that all removal of PTOCs in
a MWTP would occur by volatilization.
98
-------
Little is known regarding the fate of PTOCs in collection systems
or after discharge to a receiving water. However, the limited data
available suggests that volatile emissions from collection systems could
be significant with respect to emissions during wastewater treatment,
depending upon the type of collection system, degree of "breathing"
losses from the collection system and possible degradation in the
collection system. Further conclusions regarding the magnitude of these
losses could not be made. The fate of PTOCS in receiving waters was
also uncertain, though for most surface receiving waters one would
expect a high degree of volatilization. However, a large portion of
treated effluent in California was being discharged to the ocean by sub-
merged outfalls.
This study has focussed upon the fate of PTOCs during wastewater
treatment, with a particular emphasis on assessing the potential for in-
plant volatile emissions and losses to sludge streams. The following
points can be made on the basis of the literature reviewed and the data
gathered*
1) PTOCs are potentially emitted from large MWTPS in industrialized areas
in significant quantities in comparison with other known point sources on a
statewide, county-by-county, or individual basis.
2) Counties in which MWTPs were predicted to be major sources of total
and speciated PTOC emissions have now been identified.
3) MWTPs which were potentially significant individual sources of PTOC
emissions have also been identified.
4) Sources of data that can be used to predict volatile PTOC emissions
have been identified. The data base is expected to increase in future
years leading to improved estimates of PTOC emissions.
5) Individual treatment processes that are most conducive to emissions
have been identified. As a result, recommendations regarding areas
99
-------
where further field sampling and research would be valuable, in order to
reduce the uncertainties associated with PTOC emissions and to develop
control techniques if they are deemed to be necessary, can be given.
Item 5 is discussed in detail in Section 8 and in Appendix G.
Specific conclusions relating to items 1 through 4 are discussed in the
remainder of this section.
A total volatilization assumption was necessary, as emissions esti-
mates based upon sophisticated models could not be made because of
limited, and sometimes non-existent, PTOC data. As federally mandated
industrial pretreatment programs mature, more influent and effluent data
will become available. The additional data should reduce uncertainties
associated with the temporal representativeness of PTOC mass loading
data at individual treatment plants (a major source of uncertainty in
the values reported). However, substantial uncertainties in emissions
estimates will probably continue to exist as a result of a lack of
understanding regarding the roles of different removal mechanisms,
sample and analysis techniques, and the necessity to extrapolate
emissions to MWTPs that do not sample for PTOCs.
For this study, Pretreatment Annual Reports and surveys of regional
water quality control boards, POTWs, and MWTPs allowed for PTOC data to
be collected at MWTPs that treated 77% of the municipal wastewater that
was discharged to POTWs in California. Extrapolation techniques were
studied and applied to account for the remaining 23*. The uncertainties
associated with emissions estimates were reviewed and estimated to be
within a factor of two to four, depending on the PTOC, on a statewide
basis. A summary of those findings is given belowi
1) In recent years (1983-1986), an estimated 803 tons/year (tpy) of
PTOCs were emitted during wastewater treatment throughout California.
A review of past data suggested that emissions of PTOCs from MWTPs have
been reduced significantly during the past decade.
2) An additional 600 tpy of total PTOCs were discharged in the effluent
100
-------
streams of MWTPs throughout California. Such discharges may have led to
significant additional emissions of PTOCs.
3) On a statewide basis, emissions were low (<3.0 tpy) for acrylo-
nitrile, bromodichloromethane, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene,
dibromochloromethane, 1,1 dichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride.
Emissions were relatively high (> 200 tpy) for methylene chloride and
toluene. Emissions of benzene, chloroform, ethylbenzene, 1,2 dich-
loroethane, perchloroethylene, 1,1,1 trichloroethane, and trich-
loroethylene were in the range of 10 tpy to 100 tpy.
4) Total PTOC emissions from MWTPs were relatively low in most coun-
ties and from all but a few individual MWTPs. The regions of most sig-
nificant emissions were the South Coast Air Basin, particularly Los
Angeles County, and the region consisting of Alameda and Santa Clara
Counties.
5) The Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) and the Hyperion
Treatment Plant (HTP), both in Los Angeles County, appeared to be po-
tentially significant sources of total and speciated PTOC emissions in
comparison to existing point sources in the SCAQMD. However, the JWPCP
utilized pure-oxygen activated sludge treatment with off-gas controls on
many aerated processes. These control devices could have led to actual
controlled emissions which that were significantly lower than the uncon-
trolled emissions estimated for this study. The HTP was scheduled to be
modified to a pure-oxygen treatment facility by 1993, leading to future
changes in the emissions from that source. A few other MWTPs could be
significant point sources of PTOCs in comparison to other sources in
their respective air basins.
6) Chlorination of wastewater led to significant increases in the
concentration of chloroform in the effluent streams of those MWTPs that
post-chlorinate. On a statewide basis, Chlorination may have led to an
increase in chloroform emissions from 36 tpy to approximately 50 tpy.
Chlorination did not lead to significant production or emissions of
bromodichloromethane or dibromochloromethane.
101
-------
The study of MWTPs as sources of potentially toxic organic compound
emissions to the atmosphere is a recent topic of concern. Large uncer-
tainties continue to exist regarding several key elements associated
with emissions from POTWs. Hopefully, this study will provide an im-
proved understanding of the potential of MWTPs as PTX emissions sources
in California. However, in order to reduce uncertainties, to improve
emissions estimates and gain a better understanding of the factors that
affect the fate of PTOCs in POTWs, additional sampling and research is
needed. The completion of this study has allowed for the identification
of specific research needs and sampling efforts that would be valuable
in the future. These will be discussed in the following section.
102
-------
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
Precise estimates of emissions of volatile PTOCs from POTWs were
not possible given the data base and level of understanding of the fate
of PTOCs. Future sampling efforts would lead to a better understanding
of the extent of PTOC emissions from POTWs, particularly from those
which have the potential for large emissions. Additional research could
build upon existing knowledge of the factors that affect the fate of
PTOCs in POTWs, and investigate methods of controlling PTOC emissions.
General recommendations in those areas are discussed in this section.
More detailed recommendations for sampling at specific treatment facili-
ties are provided at the end of Appendix G.
Collection Systems* Although we suspect that emissions from collection
systems are relatively small, possibly the greatest uncertainty in total
emission estimates stems from potential emissions from that source. To
reduce the uncertainty, sampling should be undertaken in collection
systems which serve industrial users known to discharge PTOCs. Collec-
tion system air exchange (Hbreathing") rates need to be measured to
determine whether significant air exchange with the atmosphere occurs.
Concurrent measurements of wastewater flowrates, surface levels and tem-
perature gradients would be valuable for future modeling of air displa-
cement. Concentrations in both the collection system atmosphere and the
wastewater should be monitored as well in order to determine whether
acclimation and significant biodegradation can occur before the
wastewater reaches the treatment facility. In light of the size of the
collection system and the characteristics of industrial users, collec-
tion systems in Los Angeles County may be the most appropriate for
future sampling.
Emissions at MWTPs with Significant PTOC Loadingst The most appropriate
method to study PTOC emissions that occur during wastewater treatment
would be to complete an extensive gas and liquid-phase sampling effort
at one or more MWTPS that were identified as having potentially high
uncontrolled emissions. The results of this study indicated that the
103
-------
joint Water Pollution Control Plant, the Hyperion Treatment Plant, and
the San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant would be suitable
candidates in that respect. Specific treatment processes which should
be investigated through field sampling include bar screens, aerated grit
chambers, aerated conveyance channels, primary clarifiers and clarifier
weirs, conventional and pure-oxygen activated sludge systems, trickling
filters, anaerobic digesters, chlorine contact chambers, and effluent
outfall systems. The identification of treatment facilities with specific
processes that should be considered for future sampling are listed at the
end of Appendix G.
Pure-Oxygen Activated Sludge Treatment: Several of the MWTPs that were
ranked highly as individual sources of PTOC emissions utilized pure-oxy-
gen activated sludge treatment. Because those systems were covered and
employed lower gas-to-liquid volume ratios than conventional activated
sludge treatment processes, reduced PTOC emissions would be expected
from such systems. The Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP) was scheduled to
be converted from a primary/conventional activated sludge system to a
pure-oxygen activated sludge plant by 1993. To study the stripping
efficiencies of conventional and pure-oxygen systems it would be valu-
able to complete gas and liquid-phase sampling at the HTP's aeration
basins before and after the process modifications. Concurrent labora-
tory and pilot-scale studies of the effects of different oxygenation
systems (i.e., surface oxygenators, and coarse and fine bubble dif-
fusers) on volatilization might also suggest the most appropriate design
considerations for simultaneously satisfying the requirements of efficient
biological treatment and reduced PTOC emissions.
Biodegradation as an Emissions Control Techniquei Biodegradation could
be a feasible method for reducing PTOC emissions during secondary waste-
water treatment. However, it is believed that conditions necessary to
maintain a microbial population fully acclimated to PTOCs are rarely, if
ever, met at municipal wastewater treatment plants. Research to study
the factors that affect acclimation could lead to physical, chemical, or
biological treatment modifications, e.g., sequenced batch reactor opera-
tion, which would increase the relative fraction of PTOCs degraded while
reducing the fraction volatilized.
104
-------
Production of PTOCs by Degradation! Biodegradation, particularly during
anaerobic digestion, can lead to the production of PTOCs through sequen-
tial dehalogenation of other halogenated compounds. For instance, the
more volatile vinyl chloride can be formed as a result of the degrada-
tion of perchloroethylene or trichloroethylene. Great uncertainties
exist regarding losses of digester gases and the subsequent emissions of
PTOCs such as vinyl chloride and 1,1 dichloroethylene. Knowledge of the
degradation/formation process could be improved through laboratory or
pilot-scale studies. Emissions of PTOCs from anaerobic digesters should
be investigated through field sampling. Pressure-relief valves are a
potential source of PTOC releases from digesters, as are openings on the
roofs of floating roof digesters.
Off-Gas Control Devicest Spray scrubbers and activated carbon filters
are control devices sometimes used to treat off-gases from those MWTPs
characterized by covered treatment processes. The Joint Water Pollution
Control Plant utilized both caustic scrubbers and activated carbon
filters to treat off-gases. However, the efficiencies of those devices
at removing PTOCs from off-gases were not known. Field studies to in-
vestigate the efficiencies of those devices are warranted, particularly
at the JWPCP, where high uncontrolled emissions of PTOCs were estimated.
Formation of Trihalomethanest The formation of chloroform during and
after chlorination can occur at MWTPs. The results of this study indi-
cated that chloroform formation could be significant, not only with
respect to emissions of chloroform prior to chlorination, but also to
other known sources of chloroform. Field studies of liquid-phase
chloroform concentrations immediately before, during, and after chlorine
injection, and gas-phase sampling for chloroform above and downwind of
chlorine contact chambers would be valuable to further assess the magni-
tude of the chloroform formation problem. Treatment facilities that
appeared to form chloroform in significant amounts relative to detect-
able influent mass loadings included the San Jose-Santa Clara WPCP,
Sunnyvale WWTF, Sacramento Regional WWTF, East Bay MUD WWTF, and
Fairfield-Suisun WWTF.
105
-------
Research regarding the formation of chloroform could be valuable in
order to identify important precursor compounds. In addition, methods
to remove precursors prior to chlorination, or to modify disinfection
processes in order to operate with less chlorine available for reaction
to form THMs, could lead to reductions in chloroform formation and
emissions.
Volatilization from Effluent Outfall and Receiving Watersi The results
of this study indicated that approximately 600 tons/year of PTOCs were
discharged in the effluent streams of MWTPs. The potential emissions of
those PTOCs from effluent conveyance channels and from receiving waters
was not well understood. A large fraction of the PTOCs were discharged
to the ocean where they could have subsequently risen, volatilized, and
been carried onshore. However, great uncertainty exists regarding the
roles of chemical and biological reactions in the degradation of PTOCs
in an ocean environment. Similarly, large quantities of sludge have
been placed in the ocean. If sludge deposits have built up, it is con-
ceivable that anaerobic decomposition will occur (perhaps at greatly
reduced rates in comparison to sludge digesters) and produce bulk gas
releases which will transport volatile PTOCs to the surface where they
can subsequently be advected on shore. Additional research in these
areas should be undertaken.
106
-------
REFERENCES
Alexander, M., (1973), "Biodegradation: Problems of Molecular
Recalcitrance and Microbial Fallibility," Adv. Appl. Microbiol.,
7, 35.
Allen, C.C.; Green, D.A.; White, O.B.; and J.B. Coburn, (1986),
Preliminary Assessment of Air Emissions from Aerated Waste Treatment
Systems at Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities,
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,HazardousWasteEngineering
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Amy, G.L.; Chadik, P.A.; King, P.H.; and W.J. Cooper, (1984), "Chlorine
Utilization During Trihalomethane Formation in the Presence of Ammonia
and Bromide," Environmental Science Technology, 18(10), 781-786.
Barrio-Lage, G.; Parsons, F.Z.; Nassar, R.S.j and P.A. Lorenzo, (1986),
"Sequential Dehalogenation of Chlorinated Ethenes," Environmental
Science Technology, 20(1), 96-99.
Bell, J.P.; and M. Tsezos, (1987), "Removal of Hazardous Organic
Pollutants by Adsorption on Microbial Biomass," Water Sci. Tech., 19,
409-416.
Berglund, R.L.; Whipple, G.M.; Hansen, J.L.; Alsop, G.M.j Siegrist,
T.W.; Wilker, B.E.; and C.R. Dempsey, (1985), "Fate of Low Solubility
Chemicals in a Petroleum Chemical Wastewater Treatment Facility,
Presented at the National Meeting of AICHE.
Blackburn, J.W.; Troxler, W.L.; Truong, K.N.; Zink, R.P.; Meckstroth,
S.C.; Florance, J.R.; Groen, A.; Sayler, G.S.; Beck, R.W.; Minear, R.A.;
Breen, A.; and 0. Yagi, (1985), Organic Chemical Fate Prediction in
Activated Sludge Treatment Processes,EPA/600/S2-85/102, U.S. Environ-
mentalProtection Agency,Water Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH.
Caballero, R., (1987), County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County, personal communication.
California Air Resources Board, (1985), "Source Tests for Vinyl Chloride
and Other VOCs at Sewage Treatment Plants," a CARB memorandum.
Chemical Rubber Company (CRC), (1977), CRC Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics, ed. R. C. Weast, CRC Press, Inc., Cleveland.
Chow, B.M.j and P.V. Roberts, (1981), "Halogenated Byproduct Formation
by C102 and CL2," Proceedings of the ASCE. 107, (EE4), 609-618.
107
-------
Cooper, W.J.j Villate, j.T.j Ott, E.M.; Slifker, R.A.; Parsons, F.Z.;
and G.A. Graves, (1985), "Formation of Organohalogen Compounds in
Chlorinated Secondary Wastewater Effluent, Chapter 34 in Water
Chlorination; Environmental Impact and Health Effect, ed. by R.L. Jolley
et al, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan, 483-497.
Digeronimo, M.J.; Boethling, R.S.j and M. Alexander, (1979), "Effects of
Chemical Structure and Concentration on Microbial Degradation in Model
Ecosystems," in Proceedings of the Workshopt Microbial Degradation of
Pollutants in Marine Environments, ecJI byATvTBourquin and PTHT
Pritchard, EPA-600/9-79-012.
Dixon, G.; and B. Bremen, (1984), "Technical Background and Estimation
Methods for Assessing Air Releases from Sewage Treatment Plants,"
Versar, Inc., Memorandum.
Dore, M.; Merlet, N.; De Laat, J.j and J. Goichon, (1982), "Reactivity
of Halogens with Aqueous Micropollutants: A Mechanism for the Formation
of Trihalomethanes," Journal of the American Water Works Assoc., 74(2),
103-107.
Federal Register, (1981), "Part II. Environmental Protection Agency.
General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources," 46(18),
9439-9460.
Feiler, H., (1979), Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treat-
ment Works (Pilot Study),EPA-440/1-79-300, U.S.Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Office of Water and Waste Management, Washington, DC.
Frederick, R., (1985), "Removal of Pollutants by POTW's - Best Available
Information," EPA Memorandum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Gurka, D.F., (1984), Interlaboratory Comparison Study; Methods for
Volatile and Semivolatile Compounds, EPA-600/S4-84-027,U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
Las Vegas, NV.
Hanmer, R.; Barrett, B.R.; Prothro, M.G.; and J.D. Gallup, (1983),
Guidance Manual for Pretreatment Program Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits.
Helz, G.R.; Uhler, A.D.; and R. Sugam, (1985), "Dechlorination and
Trihalomethane Yields," Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 34(4), 497-503.
Itoh, S.I.j Naito, S.j and T. Unemoto, (1985), "Acetoacetic Acid as a
Potential Trihalomethane Precursor in the Biodegradation Intermediates
Produced By Sewage Bacteria," Water Research. 19(10), 1305-1309.
Jannasch, H.W., (1967), "Growth of Marine Bacteria at Limiting Concen-
trations of Organic Carbon in Seawater," Limnol. Oceanogr., 12, 264.
108
-------
Jenkins, T.F.j Leggett, D.C.j and C.J. Martel, (1980), "Removal of
Volatile Trace Organics from Wastewater by Overland Flow Land
Treatment," J. Environ. Sci. Health, A15(3), 211-224.
Kavanaugh, M.C.; Trussell, A.R.j Kromer, J.j and R.R. Trussell, (1980),
"An Empirical Kinetic Model of Trihalomethane Formation: Applications
to Meet the Proposed THM Standard," journal of the American Water Works
Assoc., October, 578-582.
Kincannon, D.F.j Stover, E.L.j Nichols, V.j and D. Medley, (1983),
"Removal Mechanisms for Toxic Priority Pollutants," Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 55(2), 157-183.
Kincannon, D.F.; and E.L. Stover, (1983), Determination of Activated
Sludge Biokinetic Constants for Chemical and Plastic Industrial WasTe^
water, EPA-600/2-83-073A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Lawson, C.T.; and S.A. Siegrist, (1981), "Removal Mechanism for Selected
Priority Pollutants in Activated Sludge Systems," 1981 Natl. Conference
on Environmental Engineering, Proceedings of the ASCE Environmental
Engineering Division Specialty Conference. F.M. Saunders, ed.. 356-363.
Lucas, A.D., (1981), Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 81-207-
945, Metropolitan Sewer District, Cincinnati, Ohio.Cincinnati, Ohio:
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Mackay, D.; Shiu, W.Y.; and R.P. Sutherland, (1979), "Determination of
Air-Water Henry's Law Constants for Hydrophobic Pollutants," Environ-
mental Science Technology, 13(3), 333-337.
Matthews, P.J., (1975), "Limits for Volatile Organic Liquids in Sewers.
Part 1," Journal of Effluent Water Treat.. 15(11), 565-567.
Merck Index, (1983), The Merck Index, eds. M. Windholz, S. Budavari, R.
Blumetti, E. Otterbein, Merck and Co,., Inc., New Jersey.
Nicholson, B.C.; Maguire, B.P.; and D.B. Bursill, (1984), "Henry's Law
Constants for the Trihalomethanes: Effects of Water Composition and
Temperature," Environmental Science Technology, 18(7), 518-521.
Patterson, j.W.j and P.S. Kodukala, (1981), "Biodegradation of Hazardous
Organic Pollutants," Chemical Engineering Progress, 77(4), 48-55.
Pincince, A.B.j and C.J. Fournier, (1984), Chlorinated Organic Compounds
in Digested, Heat-Conditioned, and Purifax-Treated Sludges, EPA-600/S2-
84-117, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Porter, M., (1986), South Coast Air Quality Management District, per-
sonal communication. .
109
-------
Riznychok, W.M.; Mueller, J.A.; and 3.3. Giunta, (1983), "Air Stripping
of Volatile Organic Compounds from Sanitary and Industrial Effluents,*
Toxic Hazard. Waste. Proceedings of the Mid-Atlantic Ind. Waste Confer-
ence, 15tht M.D. LaGrega. et al7. eds.. 390-401.
Sax, N.I., (1975), Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co., Litton Educational Publishing, Inc., New York.
Schroder, H. Fr., (1987), "Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Biological Sewage
Purification - Fate and Difficulties in Balancing," Water Sci. Tech.,
19, 429-438.
Skow, K.M., (1982), "Rate of Biodegradation," Chapter 9 in Handbook of
Chemical Property Estimation Methods, ed. by W.J. Lyman, W.F. Reehl,
and D.H. Rosenblatt, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Strier, M.P.; and J.D. Gallup, (1983), "Removal Pathways and Fate of
Organic Priority Pollutants in Treatment Systems: Chemical Consider-
ations." Proc. Ind. Waste Conf., 37, 813-824.
Takehisa, M.; Arai, H.; Arai, M.; Miyata, T.; Sakumoto, A.; Hashimoto,
S.; Nishimura, K.; Watanabe, H.; Kawakami, W.; and I. Kuriyama, (1985),
"inhibition of Trihalomethane Formation in City Water By Radiation-Ozone
Treatment and Rapid Composting of Radiation Disinfected Sewage Sludge,"
Radiat. Phys. Chem., 25,, 1-3, 63-71.
Tchobanoglous, G; and E.D. Schroeder, (1985), Water Quality, Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, Menlo Park, 123-150 and 616-617.
Thomas, R.G., (1982), "Volatilization from Water," Chap. 15 in Handbook
of Chemical Property Estimation Methods, Ed. by W.J. Lyman, W.F. Reehl,
and D.H. Rosenblatt. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
Verschueren, K., (1977), Handbook of Environmental Data of Organic Chem-
icals, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (1980), Carbon Adsorption Iso-
therms for Toxic Organics, EPA-600/8-80-023, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (1982), Fate of Priority Pollu-
tants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works, vol. 1, EPA 440/1-82/303, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Stand-
ards, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (1983), Treatability Manual,
EPA-600/2-82-001a, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (1986), Report to Congress on the
Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to' Publicly Owned Treatment Works,
EPA/530-SW-86-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C.
110
-------
Weber, W.J.; Corfis, N.H.; and B.E. Jones, (1983), "Removal of Priority
Pollutants in Integrated Activated Sludge-Activated Carbon Treatment
Systems," Journal WPCFt 55(4), 369-376.
Weber, W.J.; Jones, B.E.; and L.E. Katz, (1987), "Fate of Toxic Organic
Compounds in Activated Sludge and Integrated PAC Systems," Water Sci.
Tech., 19, 471-482.
Zwiacher, W.E.; L.D. Yuhas; J. Whittaker; J. Fakhoury; B. Rogers; R.
Olivares; E. Sunico; and S. Weiss, (1985), South Coast Air Quality Man-
agement District Engineering Division Report on Emissions of Potentially
Toxic/Hazardous Air Contaminants in the South Coast Air Basin. 1984 Up-
date.
SUPPLEMENTAL READING
Clark, C.S.; Bjornson, H.S.; Linnemann, Jr., C.C.j and P.S. Gartside,
(1984), Evaluation of Health Risks Associated with Wastewater Treatment
and Sludge Composting, EPA-600/S1-84-014, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Health Effects Research Lboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Eckenfelder, W.W.; and A. Wadkins, (1983), "The Removal of Priority Pol-
lutants in the Acativated Sludge Process," Australian Water and Waste-
water Association Technical Papers, Tenth Federal Convention,Sydney,
Australia.
Edzwald, J.K., (1984), Removal of Trihalomethane Precursors by Direct
Filtration and ConventionaTTreatment, EPA-600/2-84-068,U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH.
Glaze, W.H.; Burieson, J.L.; Henderson, J.E.; Jones, P.C.j and W.
Kinstley, (1982), Analysis of Chlorinated Organic Compounds Formed
During Chlprination of Wastewater Products,EPA-600/4-82-072,U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency.
Jekel, M.R.; and P.V. Roberts, (1980), "Total Organic Halogen as a
Parameter for the Characterization of Reclaimed Waters: Measurement,
Occurance, Formation, and Removal," Environmental Science Technology,
14(8), 970-975.
Jordan, E.G., (1982), Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly-Owned
Treatment Works, EPA-440/1-82/302, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C.
Levins, P.; Adams, J.; Brenner, P.j Coons, S.j Thrun, K.j and A.
Wechsler, (1979), Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to
Sewage Treatment Plants 2. Muddy Creek Drainage Basin, Cincinnati.
Ohio, EPA/440/4-81/004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
WaTer Planning and Standards, Washington, D.C.
Ill
-------
Levins, P.; Adams, J.; Brenner, P.; Coons, S.; Thrun, K.; and J. Varone,
(1979), Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to Sewage Treat-
ment Plants 3. Coldwater Creek Drainage Basin, St. Louis. Missouri,
EPA/440/4-81-005, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DOffice of Water
Planning and Standards, Washington, D.C.
Levins, P.; Adams, J.j Brenner, P.? Coons, S.j Thrun, K.; and J. Varone,
(1979), Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influent to Sewage Treat-
ment Plants 4. R.M. Clayton Drainage Basin, Atlanta, Georgia, EPA/4407
4-81-006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Planning
and Standards, Washington, D.C.
Levins, P.; Adams, J.; Brenner, P.; Coons, S.; Freitas, C.; Thrun, K.;
and J. Varone, (1979), Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to
Sewage Treatment Plants 5. Hartford Water Pollution Control Plant,
Hartford, Connecticut, EPA/440/4-81/OD7, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water Planning and Standards, Washington, D.C.
Levins, P.; Adams, J.j Brenner, P.; Coons, S.j Harris, G.; Jones, C.;
Thrun, K.; and A. Wachsler, (1979), Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in
Influents to Sewage Treatment Plants 6. Integrated Interpretation,"
EPA/440/4-81/007, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Planning and Standards, Washington, D.C.
Lewis, J., (9/1985) "Pretreatment of Industrial Waste," EPA Journal,
5-7.
Lurker, P.A.; Clark, C.S.; and V.J. Elia, (1982), "Atmosphere Release of
Chlorinated Organic Compounds from the Activated Sludge Process,"
Journal WPCF, 54(12), 1566-1573.
Lurker, P.A.j Clark, C.S.; Elia, V.J.j Gartside, P.S.j and Kinman, R.N.,
(1984), "Aerial Organic Chemical Release from Activated Sludge," Water
Res.t 18(4), 489-494.
Meuser, J.W.; and W.M. Cooke, (1981), Fate of Semivolatile Priority Pol-
lutants in a Wastewater Treatment Plant, EPA-600/2-81-056. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Overcash, M.R.; Weber, J.B.; and W. Tucker, (1986), Toxic and Priority
Organics in Municipal Sludge Land Treatment Systems, EPA/600/S2-86/010,
UTsIEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,WaterEngineering Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Sievers, R.E.; Barkley, R.M.j Eiceman, G.A.; Haack, L.P.; Shapiro, R.H.;
and H.F. Walton, (1978), "Generation of Volatile Organic Compounds from
Nonvolatile Precursors in Water by Treatment With Chlorine or Ozone,"
Water Chlorination: Proceedings of the Conference on Environ. Impact
Health Eff., 2, R.L. Jolley, et al., eds., 615-624.
Singh, H.B.j Jaber, H.M.j and J.E. Davenport, (1984), React iyityAola-
tility Classification of Selected Organic Chemicalsi Existing Data,
EPA-600/S3-84-082, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Sciences Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC.
112
-------
Wilson, J.L., (1981), Determination of Volatile Organlcs in Industrial
and Municipal Wastewatefs^EPA-600/4-81-071,uTs.Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
113
-------
APPENDIX Ai Glossary
114
-------
APPENDIX Ai GLOSSARY
The following definitions are intended to serve those readers with
a limited knowledge of wastewater treatment. To avoid confusion, many of
the definitions are not general, and refer only to descriptions appro-
priate to wastewater treatment.
Absorption: Dissolution of a substance into the body of another.
Acclimation: The process by which biomass adjusts to the utilization
of an organic contaminant.
Activated carbon (AC)* Porous wood or coal char particles used to col-
lect soluble substances through the process of adsorption. AC is typi-
cally categorized as granular (GAC) or powdered (PAC).
Activated sludge system (AS): A commonly used biological process in
which a suspended, aerobic, microbial culture is used to treat primary
effluent.
Adsorption: The physical and/or chemical process in which a substance
is accumulated at an interface between distinct phases.
Advanced treatment: Tertiary treatment. Treatment used to accomplish
further removal of suspended and dissolved materials remaining after
secondary treatment.
Aeration: The addition of oxygen to a wastewater in order to meet the
biological requirements of aerobic biomass, or to meet effluent dis-
solved oxygen requirements. Diffused bubble and surface agitation by
mechanical means are two common aeration methods. Both air and pure
oxygen have been utilized for aeration purposes. The former is also
employed for particle suspension.
Aerobic processes: Biological treatment processes that occur in the
presence of oxygen. Certain bacteria (obligate aerobes) can survive
only in the presence of dissolved oxygen.
Anaerobic processes: Biological treatment processes that occur in the
absence of oxygen. Certain bacteria (obligate anaerobes) can survive
only in the absence of dissolved oxygen.
Anaerobic digestion: The stabilization of organic matter in sludge,
carried out under anaerobic conditions. Methane and carbon dioxide are
the principal conversion products.
Bar screen: A screen used to catch and remove large solids (e.g., rags)
from wastewater. Bar screens are an initial treatment process employed
in order to reduce the possibility of pump or other equipment damage.
Batch reactor: A reactor characterized by no inflow or outflow, and
completely mixed conditions.
115
-------
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)i The amount of oxygen used in the
metabolism of biodegradable organic compounds.
Biodegradationi A biologically induced change in the chemical structure
of a specific compound.
Biological treatment: The use of microbial cultures to remove organic
material from wastewater.
Biomass: Living organisms, usually microbial that play an active role
in treating wastewater through the biodegradation of organic matter.
Biomass yield: The mass of biomass cells produced per unit mass of
organic matter removed (utilized) by the biomass.
Building sewers« Building connections. Building sewers connect to the
building plumbing and are used to convey wastewater from the buildings
to lateral sewers.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD): The oxygen equivalent of the organic
matter that can be oxidized by a certain test procedure.
Chlorination: The addition of chlorine to wastewater to achieve disin-
fection, odor control, corrosion control, bacterial reduction, and sev-
eral other objectives. The most common use of chlorine addition is for
the disinfection (destruction) of disease-causing organisms prior to
discharge from the treatment plant to a receiving water.
Clarifier: A sedimentation basin. Clarifiers are used to separate
suspended particles from wastewater by gravitational settling.
Collection systemi The network of sewerage piping used to convey waste-
water from discharging sources to a treatment facility.
Combined sewers: Sewers used for the collection of both wastewater and
storm water.
Combined sludge: A mixture of both primary and secondary sludge.
Commercial user: A privately-owned commercial establishment that dis-
charges to a POTW collection system. Commercial users include such
dischargers as restaurants, dry cleaners, gasoline and motor vehicle
services, supermarkets, and office buildings.
Comminuter: A device used to reduce the size of solids in wastewater.
Desorption: The process of detachment from a solid surface.
Digested sludge: Sludge which has been stabilized as a result of
anaerobic digestion.
-•
Digester gas: Gas formed as a result of the degradation of organic
matter during anaerobic digestion. The principal components of di-
gestor gas are methane and carbon dioxide.
116
-------
Effluenti The wastewater stream which flows out of the treatment plant,
or from a specific treatment stage (e.g., primary effluent).
Equalization basini A wastewater holding basin used to dampen flowrate
variations.
Exfiltrationi The process in which wastewater is lost from the collec-
tion system to the ground as a result of defective pipes, pipe joints,
connections, or other means.
Facultative processi Biological-treatment processes in which the orga-
nisms are indifferent to the presence of dissolved oxygen.
Grit: Solids with relatively large specific gravities (e.g., sand,
gravel, cinders, seeds, eggshells, bone chips, coffee grounds, food
wastes, etc.).
Grit chamber: A device used to remove grit from the wastewater stream.
Grit chambers are typically aerated in order to provide a mixing pattern
in which grit particles are removed by centrifugal action and friction
against the chamber wall.
Industrial user: An industrial establishment, usually involved with
product manufacture, that discharges to a POTW collection system. Ex-
amples of industrial users are electroplaters, oil refineries, textile
mills, power plants, and pulp mills.
Infiltration: The process in which water enters a collection system
from the ground due to defective pipes, pipe joints, connections, or
other means.
Influent: The raw wastewater entering a treatment plant, or the treated
wastewater entering a specific treatment stage (e.g., secondary influ-
ent).
Institutional usert A private or public institution which is not class-
ified as commercial, industrial, or residential, that discharges to a
POTW collection system. Examples of institutional users are hospitals,
educational institutions, prisons, and military bases.
Interceptor sewer: Large sewers that are used to intercept a number of
main or trunk sewers and convey the wastewater to treatment or other
disposal facilities.
Lateral sewers: Branch sewers. The first element of a wastewater col-
lection system. Lateral sewers collect wastewater from one or more
building sewers and convey it to a main sewer.
Main sewers* Sewers used to convey wastewater from one or more lateral
sewers to trunk or interceptor sewers.
NEEDS: An EPA data base which consists of information regarding the
treatment characteristics of municipal wastewater treatment and collec-
tion systems.
117
-------
Nitrificationi The conversion of nitrogen in the form of ammonia to
nitrate.
Outfalli The effluent wastewater stream that is conveyed from a treat-
ment plant to an ultimate receiving system.
Overland flowi The treatment of wastewater by application to sloped
terraces. The wastewater flows across the vegetated surfaces where
physical, chemical, and biological processes improve the quality of the
wastewater.
Pass-through: The process in which a compound is not removed during
treatment (i.e., it passes through the entire treatment plant from the
influent to the effluent stream).
Percolation pond: A holding basin designed to remove wastewater by per-
colation to the underlying soil column.
Pretreatment: The treatment of industrial-wastewater streams prior to
discharge to a municipal sewerage system.
Pretreatment annual report (PAR): A report submitted by POTWs, with de-
sign flows greater than 5 MGD, to the EPA, California Water Resources
Control Board, and the RWQCB. PARs typically consist of information
regarding the enforcement of industrial pretreatment programs, and the
monitoring of pollutants in influent and effluent wastewater streams.
Primary sludge: Solid material removed as a result of sedimentation
(gravitational settling) prior to secondary treatment.
Primary treatment: The removal of a portion of the suspended solids and
organic matter in wastewater as it enters a treatment plant. Primary
treatment is usually accomplished through physical processes (e.g., bar
screens and primary clarifiers).
Priority pollutant: One of approximately 126 pollutants identified to
be regulated by categorical discharge standards established by the EPA.
Priority pollutants were selected on the basis of their known or
suspected carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or teratogenicity.
Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW): A system which is owned by a
public entity, and which involves wastewater collection systems, treat-
ment systems, or both.
Pure-oxygen activated sludge system: An activated sludge system which
utilizes nearly pure oxygen, rather than air, to sustain aerobic micro-
bial processes.
Purifax process: A patented commercial process in which chlorine gas is
added to wastewater sludge, septage, or digester supernatant to stabi-
lize and condition the material before dewatering and disposal.
Recyclet The return of effluent to the influent or some intermediate
point.
118
-------
Residential user: A POTW user that discharges household wastewaters
from toilets, drains, etc..
Retention time (hydraulic): The average time that a "parcel" of waste-
water exists in a treatment process or group of processes. The
hydraulic residence time is taken to be the process volume divided by
the wastewater flowrate into the process.
Rotating biological contactor (RBC): A series of closely spaced cir-
cular disks which are partially submerged in wastewater and slowly
rotated to promote contact with the air. Biological growths become
attached to the surfaces of the disks, and act to degrade organic matter
present in the wastewater.
Secondary sludge: Solid material removed as a result of sedimentation
(gravitational settling) or other secondary clarification process.
Secondary sludge typically contains a large amount of biomass, in
addition to non-viable solids.
Secondary treatment: Further treatment, of the effluent from primary
treatment, to remove the residual organic matter and suspended material.
Secondary treatment typically consists of the use of biological pro-
cesses.
Separated sewers: Sewers intended solely for the collection of waste-
water.
Shock loading: The upset of a biological treatment process due to a
high dose of a contaminant which is detrimental to biomass in the
system.
Sludge: The solid material removed, collected, and disposed of during
wastewater treatment.
Stabilization: The biological process by which the organic matter in
sludges is stabilized, usually by conversion to gases and cell tissue.
Tertiary treatment: See advanced treatment.
Total suspended solids: The concentration sum of all solid materials
that are suspended, as opposed to dissolved, in a wastewater.
Trickling filter: An aerobic, attached-growth, biological-treatment
process used to remove organic matter or to achieve nitrification. The
trickling filter consists of a bed of highly permeable media in which
microorganisms are attached and through which wastewater is percolated.
Trihalomethane: A compound with the chemical structure of methane with
three of the hydrogen atoms replaced by halogens.
Trunkline: Trunk sewer. A Large sewer that is used to convey waste-
water from main sewers to treatment or disposal facilities, or to larger
intercepting sewers.
119
-------
Useri A source of wastewater that is discharged to a municipal sewerage
system.
Volatilization: The process whereby liquids and solids vaporize and
escape to the atmosphere.
Wastewateri Used, unwanted water discharged to municipal sewerage
systems by residential, commercial, industrial and institutional users.
Wastewater treatment: An improvement in the quality of wastewater due
to a combination of physical, chemical, and biological processes.
120
-------
APPENDIX B* Regulations for the National Pretreatment Program
121
-------
Wednesday
January 28, 1981
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
General Pretreatment Regulations for
Existing and New Sources
122
-------
Federal Register / VoL 4& No.'16 / Wednesday. Jacuary 23. 1361 / 3des and Regulations 9439
the date of issuance of the June 23.1978
regulation*.
Douglas M. Cortk,
Administrator.
January 13.1981.
40 CFR Part 403 is rerimad to read as
follows:
PART 403—GENERAL
PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR
EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES OF
POLLUTION
Ste.
403.1 Purpose end applicability.
403.2 Objective of general pretreatment
regulation.
403.3 Definitions.
403.4 State or local law.
403J National pre treatment standards:
prohibited discharge*.
4OLB National pretreatment standard*
categorical itaadards.
403.7 Revision of categorical pretreatment
- - standard* to reflect POTW removal of
pollutant*.
4O3J POTW pre^ncsitffient programs.
development by POTW.
403J POTW pretreatmeni program* and/or
authorization to revise pretreatment
standards: rabiaiaaioa for approraL
403.10 Development and submission of
NPDES State pretreatmeat program*.
403.11 Approval procedures for POTW
program* and revision* of categorical '"
pretreatment standards.
403J2 Reporting requirement* toe POTW*
and industrial OMTS.
403.13 Variances from categorical
prt treatment standards for
fundamentally different (actor*.
403.14 Confidentiality. ^
403.13 Net/Grow calculation.
403.10 Upset proviaioo.
Appendix A—PRM 75-34.
Appendix B—65 Toxic pollutants.
. Appendix C—34 Industrial categoriaa.
' Appendix D—Selected industrial
•ubcategorie* exempted from regulated
punuant to paragraph a of the NRDC v.
Cattle concent decree.
Authority: Section S4(c)(2) of the dean
Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217).
II 204(b)(l)(Q. 208(b](2)(Q(Iii).
301(b)(l)IA](il). 301(bK2)(A)(iO. 301(bK2KC%
301(h)(3). 301(0(2). 304(e). 304(g). 307. SOB. MO.
402fb). 405. and 501(a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (Pub. L 92-5001 a*
_ amended by the Clean Water Act of 1877.
1403.1 PurpoM and applicability.
(a) This part implements sections
204(b)(l)(C). 208(bK2)(C)(iii).
301(b)(lKA)(ii). 30l(b)(2}(AJ(li). 301(h)(5)
and 301(i)(2). 304 (e) and (g). 307. 308.
309.402(b). 405. and 501(3) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
amended by the Clean Water Act of
1977 (Pub. L 95-217) or "The Act." It
establishes responsibilities of Federal
State, and local government, industry
ard the public to implement National
Prstreatment Standards to control
pollutant* which pa<« through or
interfere with treatment processes in
Pubady Owned Treatment Works
(POTW*) or which may contaminate
sewage sludge. •
(b) This regulation applies: (1) to
pollutant* from non-domestic source*
covered by Pretreatment Standards
which are indirectly discharged into or
transported by truck or rail or otherwise
introduced into POTW* a* defined
below in i 4013; (2) to POTW* which
receive wastewater from sources subject
to National Pretreatment Standards: (3)
to States which have or are applying for
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) programs
approved in accordance with section 402
of the Act and (4) to any new or
existing source subject to Pretreatment
Standards. National Pretreatment
Standards do not apply to sources which
Discharge to a sewer which is not
connected to a POTW Treatment Plant
|40U Obf»ctfv«aolganatd
pratraatiMflt ragutetfora.
By establishing die responsibilities of
governmentmnt^ industry to impiemenl
National Pretreatment Standards this
regulation fulfills three objectives: (a) to
invent the introduction of pollutants
ntoPOTWs which will interfere with
the operation of a POTW.
interference with ita use or disposal of
municipal sludge; (b) to prevent the
introduction of pollutants into POTW*
which will paaa through the treatment
works or otherwise be incompatible
with such works: and (c) to improve
' opportunities to recycle and reclaim
industrial wastewaten
sludges.
I403J. .DcflnWona.
For the purpose of this regulation:
(a] Except as discussed below, the
general definitions, abbreviations, and
methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR
Part 401 shall apply to this regulation.
(b) The term "Act" means Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. also
known as the dean Water Act as
amended 33 U.S.C. 1251. et leq. '
(c) The term "Approval Authority"
means the Director in an NPDES State
with an approved State pretreatment
program and the appropriate Regional
Administrator in a non-NPDES State or
NPDES State without an approved Slate
pretreatment program.
(d) The terra "Approved POTW
Pretreatraent Program" or "Program" or
"POTW Precreannent Program ' means a
program administered by a POTW that
meets the c-:ena established ia this
regulation (I J 403.3 and 403.91 and
whsch hss been unproved by a Regional
Adsumstraicr cr State D^ecicr in
accordance with J 403.11 of this
regulation.
{e) The term "Director" means the
chief administrative officer of a State cr
Interstate water pollution control agency
with an NPDES permit program
approved pursuant to section 402(b) of
the Act and an approved Slate
pretreatment program.
(f) The term "Enforcement Division
Director" means one of the Directors .f
the Enforcement Divisions within the
Regional offices of the Environmental
Protection Agency or this person's
delegated representative.
(g) The term "Indirect Discharge" or
"Discharge" means the introduction of
pollutants into a POTW from any non-
domestic source regulated under section
307(b), (c) or (d) of the Act
(h) The term "Industrial User" or
"User" means a source of Indirect
Discharge.
_ (i] The term "Interference" means an
inhibition or disruption of the POTW, its
treatment processes or operations, or its
sludge processes, use or disposal which
is a cause of or significantly contributes
to either aviolation of any requirement
of the POTW* NPDES permit (including
an increase in the magnitude or duration
of a violation) or to the prevention of
-aewage sludge use or disposal by the
POTW hi accordance with the following
statutory provisions and regulations or
permits issued thereunder (or more
stringent State or local regulations):
Section 405 of the Clean Water Act the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)
(
-------
344Q Federal Register /
No. IB / Wednesday. January 28. 1981 / Rules and
(j]The term "National Pretreacrient
" "Pretreaunent Standard," or
"Stanoard" means any regulation
containing pollutant discharge limits
promulgated by the EPA in accoraance
Jrith section 307 (b) and (c) of the Act
^hich applies to Industrial Users. This
ternj includes prohibitive discharge
jjuuts established pursuant to } 403.5.
(k) The term "New Source" means any
building, structure, facility, or
installation from which there is or may
be a Discharge, the construction of
ivhich commenced:
(1) After promulgation of Pretreatment
Standards under section 307(c) of the
Act which are applicable to such source:
or
(2) After proposal of Pretreatment
Standards in accordance with section
~307(c) of the Act which are applicable to
•such source, but only if the Standards
ire promulgated in accordance with
lection 307(c) within 120 days of their
proposal
0) Th» terms "NPDES Permit" or
"Permit" means a permit issued to a
POTW pursuant to section 402 of tha
Act
' (m) The term "NPDES State" meana a
State (as defined in 40 CFR { 122J) or
Jnterstate water pollution control agency
.with an NPDES permit program
approved pursuant to section 402fb] of
, the Act
^ (n) The term "Pass Through" means
the Discharge of pollutants through the
K7TW into navigable waters in
quantities or concentrations which are a
' cause of or significantly contribute to a
violation of any requirement of the
POTWs NPDES permit (including an
'increase in the magnitude or duration of
i violation). An Industrial User
significantly contributes to such permit
Delation where it
(1) Discharges a daily pollutant
loading in excess of that allowed by
contract with the POTW or by Federal
State, or local law;
(2) Discharges wastewater which
lubstantially differs in nature and
constituents from the User s average
Discharge:
(3) Knows or has reason to know that
"> Discharge, alone or in conjunction
*!& Discharges from other sources.
would result in a permit violation: or
(4) Knows or has reason to know that
toe POTW is. for any reason. v.oiaiL-.:
"s final effluent liraitat;or.s in its permit
jnd that such Industrial User s
J^schargg either alone or in ccr.iur.ccsr.
1 Discharges from other sources.
""eases the macr.itude or carat::- cf
' POTWs v.ola'tior.s.
°l The term "Puo.iciv C---.-r.e2
!9nr.ent Vcrks" or TOT"'.'" .—.»•-.-
a'rr.ent worxs as cef.nec cv «rc.: •-
212 of the Act which is owned by a
State cr municipality (as denned by
section 502(4) of the Act). This denninon
includes any devices and systems used
in the storage, treatment recycling and
reclamation of municipal sewage or
industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It
also includes sewers, pipe* and outer
conveyances only if they convey
wastewater to a POTW Treatment
Plant The term also meana the
municipality as defined in section 502(4)
of the Act which has jurisdiction over
the Indirect Discharges to and the
discharges from such a treatment works.
(p) The term "POTW Treatment
Plant" means that portion of the POTW
which is designed to provide treatment
(including recycling and reclamation) of
municipal sewage and industrial waste.
(oj The term "Pretreatment" means
the reduction of the amount of
pollutants, the elimination of pollutants,
or the alteration of the nature of
pollutant properties in wastewater prior
to or in lieu of discharging or otherwise
Introducing such pollutants into a
POTW. The reduction or alteration may
be obtained by physical chemical or
biological processes, process changes or
by other means, except as prohibited by
i 403£(d). Appropriate pretreatmcnt
technology includes control equipment
such as equalization tanks or facilities,
for protection against surges or slog
loadings that might interfere with or
otherwise be incompatible with the
POTW. However, where wastewater
from a regulated process is mixed in an
equalization facility with unregulated
wastewater or with wastewater from
another regulated process, the effluent
from the equalization facility must meet
an adjusted pretreatment limit
calculated in accordance with i 403.8(e).
(r) The term "Pretreatment
Requirements" means any substantive
or procedural requirement related to
Pretreatment other than a National
Pretreatment Standard, imposed on an
Industrial User.
(s) The term "Regional Administrator"
means the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator.
(t) The term "Submission" means: (1)
a request by a POTW for approval of a
Pretreatment Program to the EPA or a
Director. (2) a request by a POTW to the
EPA or a Director for authority to revue
the discharge lin-jts in categorical
Pretreatment Standards to reflect POTW
pollutant removals: or (3) a request to
the EPA by an NPDES State for approval
of.its State pretreatraent program.
j 403.4 SUlt or Iocs) law.
Nothing in this regulation is intended
•3 offset any Pretreaur.ent
r.eau'.rements. includes any standards
or prohibitions, established by State or
locsJ law as ion? as the State or.
requirements are not lest s:nnsec:
any set forth in Nanonjtj Pjejeezsgr-
Stanoaros. or any omer revere menu or
prohibitions estabiisned vnnrr use Ac1
or this regulation. States with tx NTEEE
permit program aporovec in eccorcanc!
with secton 4O2 (b) and fc) of the Act cr
States requesting NPDES programs, are
responsible for developing a State
pretreatment program in accordance
with { 403.10 of this regulation.
| 403-5 Nation* pr*tr**tm«nt stinojrflt
prorubttvd dlsenar?**.
(a) General prohibitions. Pollutants
introduced into POTWs by an non-
demesne source shall not Pass Through
the POTW or Interfere wiUi the
opera non or performance of the works.
These general prohibitions and the
specific prohibitions in paragraph (b) of
this section apply to all non-domestic
sources introducing pollutants into a
POTW whether or not the source is
subject to other National Pretreatment
Standards or any national State, or
local Pretreatment Requirements.
(b) Specific prohibitions. In addition.
the following pollutants shall not be
introduced into a POTW:
(1) Pollutants which creat a Ere or
explosion hazard in the POTW:
(2) Pollutants which will cause
corrosive structural damage to the
POTW. but in no case Discharges with
pH lower than 5.0. unless the works is
specifically designed to accommodate
such Discharges:
(3) Solid or viscous pollutants in
amounts which will cause obstruction to
the flow in the POTW resulting in
Interference:
(4) Any pollutant including oxygen
demanding pollutants (BOD. etc.)
released in a Discharge at a flow rate
and/or pollutant concentration which
will cause Interference with the POTW.
(5) Heat in amounts which will inhibit
biological Activity in die POTW
resulting in Interference, but in no case
heat in such quantities that the
temperature at the POTW Treatment
Plant exceeds 40'C (104*F] unless the
Approval Authority, upon request of the
POTW. approves alternate temperate
limits.
(c) When S:ec:':: L.~::z .'.f-s: ie
Deve.:czea by PCT.','. .:' FTT-Vs
developing FCTY/ "rstrs2-_~.e"t
Programs pursuar.: '.: '. -.02.8 snail
deveiop and enfcrce «3sci:"ic limits 10
implement the prrh'.b-.nc-s iis;ed ;n
5403.S :a) ar.c r .
i:1 A.i cir.er ?C~'.'; sh^il. .r. cases
and such v.oizi.rr. :.• •; :;;
124
-------
Federal Register / VoL 4fr No. 18 / Wednesday. January 26. 1981 / Rules and Regulations 9441
develop end enforce specific effluent
limits for Industrial Uaeri». and all
other users, as appropriate, which.
together with appropriate changes in the
POTW Treatment Plant's Facilities or
operation, ire necessary to ensure
renewed end continued compliance with
the POTWa NPDES permit or stodge use
or disposal practices.
(3) Specific efDoent limits shall not be
developed and enforced without
individual notice to persons or groups
who have requested such notice and an
opportunity to respond.
td) Local Limit*. When specific
prohibitions or limits on pollutants or
pollutant parameters an developed by a
POTW in accordance with paragraph fc)
•bove. such limits shall be deemed
Pntreatment Standards for the purposes
of section SOTTd) of the Act
(e) 'EPA ana State Enforcement
Actions. It within 30 days after notice of
an Interference or Pan Through
violation has been sent by EPA or the
NPDES State to the POTW. and to
'persons or groups who have requested
each notice, the POTW fafls to
commence appropriate enforcement
action to correct the violation, EPA or
the NPDES State may tike appropriate
(f) Compliance Deadlines. Compliance
with the provisions of this section is
required beginning on {44 days after —-
publication in the Federal Register].
except for paragraph (bX5] of this
section which must be complied with by
August 25,1961.
|40U Netted •tefreatmei
National Pretreetment Standards
specifying quantities or concentrations
of pollutants or pollutant properties^
which may be Discharged to a POTW by
existing or new Industrial Users in
specific industrial subcategories will be
established es separate regulations
under the appropriate subpart of 40 CFR
Chapter L Subchapter N. These
Standards, unless specifically noted
otherwise, shall be in addition to the
general prohibitions established in
1403J of this regulation.
(a) Category Determination Request
(1) Application Deadline. Within CO
days after the effective date of a
Pretreatment Standard for a subcategory
under which an Industrial User may be
included, or within 60 days after the
Federal Register notice ennouncing the
availability of the technical
development document for that
subcategory, whichever is later, the
existing Industrial User or POTW may
request that the Enforcement Division
Director or Director, as appropriate.
provide written certification on whether •
the Industrial User falls within that
particular subcategory. A new source
must request this certification prior to
commencing discharge. Where e request
for certification is submitted by a
POTW. the POTW shall notify any
affected Industrial User of such
submission. The Industrial User may
provide written comments on the POTW
submission to the Enforcement Division
Director or Director, as appropriate,
within 30 days of notification.
(2] CoatenU of application. Each
request shall contain a statement:
P) Describing which subcategories
might be applicable and
(ii) Citing evidence and reasons why a
particular subcategory is applicable and
why others are not applicable. Each
such statement •I**!! contain an oath
stating that the facts contained therein
are true on the basis of the applicant's
personal knowledge or to the best of his
information and belief. The oath shall be
that set forth in |403J(b)(2)(ii), except
that the phreM "| 403.7(d}" shall be
replaced with "I ttSJfa)."
(3) Deficient Request*. The
Enforcement Division Director or
Director will only act on written
requests for determinations that «*"*•<"
all of the information required. Persons
who have niadf incomplete submissions
will be notified by the Enforcement .
Division Director or Director that their
requests are deficient and. unless the
time period is extended, will be given 30
days to correct the deficiency. If the
deficiency is not corrected within 30
days or within an extended period
allowed by the Enforcement Division
Director or the Director, the request for
a determination shalljfce denied.
[4) Final Decision. •
(i) When the Enforcement Division
Director or Director receives a submitted
he or she will, after determining that it
contains all of the information required
by paragraph (2) of this section, consider
the submission, any additional evidence
that may have been requested, and any
other available information relevant to
the request The Enforcement Division
Director or Director will then make a
written determination of the applicable
subcategory and state the reasons for
the determination.
(ii) Where the request is submitted to
the Director, the Director shall forward
the determination described in this
paragraph to the Enforcement Division
Director who may make a final
determination. The Enforcement
Division Director may waive receipt of
these determinations. If the Enforcement
Division Director does not modify the
Director's decision within 60 days after
receipt thereof, or if the Enforcement
Division Director waives receipt of the
determination, the Director's decision is
final
(iii) Where the request is submitted by
the Industrial User or POTW to the
Enforcement Division Director or where
the Enforcement Division Director elects
to modify the Director's decision, the
Enforcement Division Director's
decision will be final
(iv) The Enforcement Division
Director or Director, e* appropriate.
§ full gftfifj A copy of th^i Determination
to the affected Industrial User and the
POTW. Where the final determination is
made by the Enforcement Division
Director, he or she shall send a copy of
the determination to the Director.
(6) Request* for Hearing and/or Legal
Decision. Within 30 days following the
date of receipt of notice of the final
determination as provided for by
paragraph (a)(4](iv) of this section, the
Requester may submit a petition to
reconsider or contest the decision to the
Regional Administrator who shall act on
such petition expeditiously and state the
reasons for his or her determination in
writing.
(b) Deadline for Compliance With
Categorical Standard*. Compliance by
existing sources with categorical
Pretreatment Standards shall be within
3 yean of the date the Standard is
effective unless a shorter compliance
time is specified in the appropriate
subpart of 40 CFR Chapter L Subchapter
N but in any case no later than July 1.
1984. Direct Discharges with NPDES
permits modified or reissued to provide
• variance pursuant to section 301(i)(2)
of the Act shall be required to meet
compliance dates set forth in any
applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standard. Pirf«H"g sources which
become Industrial Users subsequent to
promulgation of an applicable
categorical Pretreatment Standard shall
be considered existing Industrial Users
except where such sources meet the
definition of e New Source as defined in
1403 J(k). Compliance with categorical
Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources will be required upon
promulgation.
(c) Concentration and Mass Limits.
Pollutant discharge limits in categorical
Pretreetment Standards will be
expressed either as concentration or
mass limits. Wherever possible, where
concentration limits are specified in
standards, equivalent mass limits will
be provided so that local State or
Federal authorities responsible for
enforcement may use either
concentration or mass limits. Limits in
categorical Pretreatment Standards shall
apply to the effluent of the process
regulated by the Standard, or as
otherwise specified by the Standard.
125
-------
9442 Federal Register ' Vc!. 45. No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28. 1981 / Rules and Rerjia::or.s
(d) Dilution Prohibited at Substitute
for Treatment. Except where express;y
(uShonred to do so by an appiicaa.e
categories! Pretreatment Standard, no
Industrial Uier shall ever Increase the
gje of process water or, in any other
way. attempt to dilute a Discharge ai a
partial or complete tubttitute for
adequate treatment to achieve
Compliance with a categorical
Pretreatment Standard. The Control
Authority (aa defined in | 403.12(a)) may
Impose mats limitation* on Industrial
Users which are using dilution to meet
applicable P.etreatmeni Standards or in
other case* where the imposition of
matt limitation* is appropriate.
(e) Combined Wastestream Formula.
Where process effluent is mixed prior to
treatment with wastewaten other than
.{note generated by the regulated
.process, fixed alternative discharge
Emits may be derived by the Control
Authority, as defined in { 403.12(a). or
by the Industrial User with the written
concurrence of the Control Authority.
; These alternative limits shall be applied
to the mixed effluent When deriving
alternative categorical limits, the
'Control Authority or Industrial User
.shall calculate both an alternative daily
pmrimnm value using the daily
Tnaximnm value(i) specified In the
"•appropriate categorical Pretreatment
Standardly) and an alternative
.•consecutive sampling day average value
•sing the long-term average value(s)
specified In the appropriate categorical
Pretreatment Standard(s). The Industrial
•User shall comply with the alternative
daily m«irimiim and long-term average
limits fixed by the Control Authority
until the Control Authority modifies the
limits or approves an Industrial User
modification request. Modification it
authorized whenever there is a material
or significant change in the values used
In the calculation to fix alternative limits
'or the regulated pollutant An Industrial
User must immediately report any such
Material or significant change to the
Control Authority. Where appropriate
oew alternative categorical limits thall
*e calculated within 30 days.
(1) Alternative limit calculation. For
Purposes-of these formulas, the "average
daily flow" meant a reasonable measure
of the average daily flow for a 3O-day
P«riod. For new sources, flows thaU be
'•'imated using projected vaiuet. The
'"ernative limit for a specified poiiutant
''' be derived by the use of either of
*"« following formulas:
"l A'temative Concentration Limit:
when
Or—the alternative concentration limit for
the combined waiteitream.
C,-lhe categorical Pr*treatment Standard
concratnoon limit for • pollutant in the
regulated § cream L
F,-th* avenge daily flow (at lent a 30-
day avenge) of itream I (a the extent
thai It u regulated for luch pollutant.
FO—the avermge daily flow (at leait a 30-
day avtr*gej from boiler blowdown
itream*. noa-contact cooling itream*.
tamUry wajteitreamj (where iucfa
itream* are not regulated by a
categoncaJ Pretreatment Standard) and
from any procea* waiteitream* which
wen or could have been entirety
exempted from categorical Pretreatment
Standard* pomant to pangnph 6 of the
NRDC v. Ca»tli CdOMnt Decree (12 ERC
1S33J for on* or more of the following
rea*oo* (te« Appendix D):
(1) the pollutants of concern are not
detectable in the effluent from the
bsdosmal Uier (pangnph (8)(a)(iii));
(2) the pollutants of concern are preient
only in tnce amount* and an neither
causing nor likely to cau*a toxic effects
(pangnph (8Ht)(iii)t
(3) (he pollutant* of concern an present in
amoont* too tmall to be effectively
reduced by technologies known to the
Admmittrator (pangnph (8)(a)(Ui)}; or
(4) the waiteitream contain* only
pollutant* which an compatible wfth the
POTW (pangnph (8)(b)(i)).
FT• the avenge daily flow (at leait a 30-
day avenge) through the combined
treatment facility (include* F, FD aad
unregulated itream*).
N— the total number of regulated itream*.
(ii) Alternative Mass Limit
*
/
1 FT
N
1
-po
p.
where
M»-the ailernative man limit for a
pollutant in the combined waiiestream.
M,- the calegoncal Pretreatment Standard
mat* limit (or a pollutant in the rsgu.ated
itrftrr i (the cate^orcaj pretreairr.f.Tt
man uma.mu.:ip:ied by L'-.e appr=pra:e
measure of prcauctioa).
F,-tie average "ow (at l««it a 30-day
average) of itr im i to Lk.e extent iP.ai it
1* revuiated for luch poiluunt
Fo—lie averase f.ow (at ieas: a io-:av
averaeei from boiler biowdowu itreamj.
con-contact cooling icnamj. taruiary
waueitream* (where luch itream* are
not regulated by a categorical
Pretreatment Standard) and from any
procesa wa«estreamt wmch were or
couid have been entirely exempted from
categoncaJ Pretreaunent Stanaarcs
punuaci la paxagrapn 8 of the NRDC •••
Cotue Contest Decree (12 ERC 1333) (cr
•one or more of the following reaaona (see
Appencix D):
(1) the pouutant* of concern are not
detectable in the effluent from the
Incuatnal L'ler (pangrspo (8)(a)(iiil):
(2) the poilatanu of concern are preient
only m tnce amount* and are neither
cauamg nor likely to cau*e toxic effect*
(pangnph (8)(*)(iii)):
(3) the pollutant* of concern are present In
amounts too amail to be effectively
reduced by techaologiet known to the
Adminiatntor (paragraph (8](a)(lii]]: or
(4) the wa*te*tream contain* only
- - pollutant* which are compatible with the
.POTW (paragraph (8)(b)(i)).
FT'the avenge flow (at leait a 30-day
avenge) through the combined treatment
facility (indudet F» F, and unregulated
stream*).
N—the total number of regulated streams.
(2) Alternate Limits Below Detection
Limit- An alternative pretreatment limit
may not be used if the alternative limit
Is below the analytical detection limit
for any of the regulated pollutants.
(3) Seif-monitoring. Self-monitoring
required to insure compliance with the
alternative categorical Limit snail be as
follows:
(1) The type and frequency of
sampling, analysis and flow
measurement shall be determined by
reference to the self-mom tonrtg
requirements of the appropriate
categorical Pretreatment Stanaarc(s);
(ii) Where the seif-mcr.ucr.na
scheaules for the apprcc::a;e Siandarcs
differ, monjiorr.s sasu :e ccne
according to the mos; -rcuer: scheauie:
(iiil '.Vhere f.aw cs:e.—..-.;£ tre
frequency of seif-ncr.::.:::-; ~. a
categoncal rr?:reat—.e.-.'. i;3.-.card. :^.s
turn of all resrjiatea f.jw? .F 1 is t.ie f;;w
which shaii be usec to ac'.er-r.ir.e s?:f-
monito.-ir.e freouencv.
126
-------
/ VoL 46. No. 18 / Wednesday. January 28. 1981 / Rules and Regulations S44:
§400.7 Revision oi categories*
preiieeuiieiU ctanaares to reflect POTW
rcflwvsj of poMutxnts.
This section provides the criteria and
procedures to be used by a POTW in
revising the pollutant discharge limits
specified in categorical Pretreatment
Standards to reflect Removal of
pollutants by. the POTW.
(a) Definitions, For the purpose of this
section; (1) "Removal" shall mean a
reduction in the amount of a pollutant in
the POTWs effluent or alteration of the
tuture of a pollutant during treatment at
the POTW. The reduction or alteration
can be obtained by physical chemical
or biological means and may be the
result of specifically designed POTW
capabilities or it may be incidental to
the operation of the treatment system.
Removal as used in this subpart shall
not mean dilution of a pollutant in the
POTW. The demonstration of Removal
shall consist of data which reflect the
Removal achieved "by the POTW for
those specific pollutants of concern
included on the list developed pursuant
to section 307(a) of the Act Each
categorical Pretreatment Standard will
specify whether or not a Removal
Allowance may be granted for indicator
or surrogate pollutants regulated in.that
Standard -
(2) "Consistent Removal" (hall im»nn
the average of the lowest 50 percent of
the removals measured according to
paragraph (d)(2) of this section. All
•ample data obtained for the measured
pollutant during the time period
prescribed in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section must be reported and used in
computing Consistent Removal If a
substance is measurable in the influent
but not in the effluent the effluent level
may be assumed to be the limit of
measurement and those data may be
used by the POTW at its discretion and
subject to approval by the Approval
Authority. If the substance is not
measurable in the influent the data may
not be used. Where the number of
samples with concentrations equal to or
above the limit of measurement is
between 8 and 1Z the average of the
lowest 6 removals shall be used. If there
are leas than 8 samples with
concentrations equal to or above the
limit of measurement the Approval
Authority may approve alternate means
for demonstrating Consistent Removal
The term "measurement refers to the
ability of the analytical method or
protocol to quantify as well as identify
the presence of the substance in
question.
(3) "Overflow' means the intentional
or unintentjor;-. reversion of Cow from
the POTV; bs:_.c i__' POTW Treatment
Plant.
(b) Revision of Categorical
Pntnatment Standards to Reflect
POTW Pollutant Removal Any POTW
receiving wastes from an Industrial User
to which a categorical Pretreatment
Standard applies may, subject to the
conditions of this section, revise the
discharge limits for a specific
pollutants) covered in the categorical
Pretreatment Standard applicable to
that User. Revisions will only be made
where the POTW demonstrates
Consistent Removal of each pollutant
for which the discharge limit in a
categorical Pretreatment Standard is to
be revised at a level which justifies the
amount of revision to the discharge
limit In addition, revision of pollutant
discharge limits in categorical
Pretreatment Standards by a POTW
may only be made provided that:
(1) Application. The POTW applies
for. and receives, authorization from the
. .Regional Administrator and/ or Director
to revise the discharge limits in
Pretreatment Standards, for specific
pollutants, in accordance with the
requirements and procedures set out hi
this section and I § 403.9 and 403.11: and
(2) POTW Pntnatment Program*.
The POTW has a Pretreatment Program
approved in accordance with { § 403 .8.
403.9. and 403.11: provided, however, a
POTW may conditionally revise the
discharge limits for specific pollutants.
even though a Pretreatment Program has
not been approved, in accordance with
the following terms and conditions.
These provision also govern the
issuance of provisional authorizations
under { 403.7(d)(2)(vii):
(i) All Industrial Users who wish to
receive a conditional or provisional
revision of categorical Pretreatment
Standards must submit to the POTW the
information required in $ 403.12(b)(lH7]
pertaining to the categorical
Pretreatment Standard as modified by
the conditional or provisional removal
allowance, except that the compliance
schedule required by 8 403.12(b)(7) is
not required where a provisional
allowance is requested. The submission
shall indicate what additional
technology, if any, will be needed to
comply with the categorical
Pretreatment Standards as revised by
the POTW:
(ii) The POTW must compile and
submit data demonstrating removal in
accordance with the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(l)-{7) of this section. The
POTW shall submit to the Approval
Authority a removal report which
comports with the signatory and
certification requirements of S 4O3.12 (1]
and (m). This report shall contain a
certification by any of the persons
specified in $ 403.12(1) or by an
independent engineer containing the
following statement "I have personally
examined and am familiar with the
information submitted in the attached
document and I hereby certify under
penalty of law that this information wai
obtained in accordance with the
requirements of S 403.7(d). Moreover.
based upon my inquiry of those
individuals immediately responsible for
obtaining the information reported
herein. I believe that the submitted.
information is true, accurate and
complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of
fine and imprisonment";
(iii) The POTW must submit to the
Approval Authority an application for
pretreatment program approval meeting
the requirements of S S 403.8 and 403.9(a
or (b) in a timely manner, not to exceed
the time limitation set forth in a
-compliance schedule for development o
a pretreatment program included in the
POTWs NPDES permit
(iv) If a POTW grants conditional or
provisional revision(s) and the Approve
Authority subsequently makes a final
determination, after notice and an
opportunity for a hearing, that the
POTW failed to comply with the
conditions in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) or (iii
of this section, or that its sludge use or
disposal practices are not in'compliano
with the provisions of paragraph (b)(4]
of this section, the revision shall be
terminated by the Approval Authority
and all Industrial Users to whom the
revised discharge limits had been
applied shall achieve compliance with
the applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standard(s] within a reasonable time
(not to exceed the period of time
prescribed in the applicable categorical
Pretreatment Standard(a)) as specified
by the Approval Authority. However.
the revision(s) shall not be terminated
where the POTW has not made a timel;
application for program approval if the
POTW has made demonstrable progree
towards and has demonstrated and
continues to demonstrate an intention t
submit an approveble pretreatment
program as expeditiously as possible
within an additional period of time, not
to exceed one year, established by the
Approval Authority,
(v) If a POTW grants conditional or
provisional revisions) and the POTW <
Approval Authority subsequently maki
a final determination, after notice and
an opportunity for a hearing, that the
Industrial Userfs) failed to comply with
conditions in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section, including :r. the case of a
conditional rev.s:or.. the dates speofiei
-: Lr.e cocpiiance scbeauie rsquired b>
127
-------
Federal Register / VoL 4«. No. 18 / Wednesday. Tan'j=ry 23. 1S81 / Rules and R«ru]arior.s
i revision shall be
• POTW or tha
• for thenoo-
> Users and all i
I Uaers to whoa tna
lid discharge limits had been
i ghall achieve ^J*IIIIJ'Q«*^T with
'^'applicable categorical Pretreaoncnt
SundardW within the time penod
•pjnfaMJ in soch Standards). The
^2Jijion(a) snail not be terminated -
•-here a viola Don of the proviajons of
JQI fubpara graph results Luu> rnsn
mtirery oataide of tha cootroi of the
Lyjostnal Uaer or the Indoatnal Uaer
im demonstrated snnatanoai
- sand
g-iri) Tha POTW shall aobmit to the
Approval Anthonty by December 31 of
isdi year tha name and addreaa of each
Bdustrial Uaer that haa received a
conditionally or provisionally revised
rftfcbarge limit. If the revised discharge
Jnit is revoked, the POTW must submit
; (hi information in paragraph (b)'2)(i)
Mbove to tha Approval Aathonty.
« (3) Compensation for ovmrflow.
rfOTWs which at least once annually
^Overflow untreated waatewater to
siceving waters may claim Consistent
fteooval of a poDutaat only by
feompiytng with either paragraphs
-(b)(3](l) or (if) below. However. this_ —
|Kbsectkm shall not apply where
bdnttrial User(s) can demonstrate that
Overflow dees not occur between the
bdustrial User(s) and the POTW
Iteatment Plane
SfH The Industrial User provides
Bootainment or otherwise ceases or
*duces Discharges from the regulated
ipocejses which contain the pollutant
aa which an allowance is requested
! all circanistances in which an
low event can reasonably be
led to occur at the POTW or at a
«**er to which the Industrial User is
l^wcted. Discharges must cease or be
jyfaced. orpretreatment must be
•creased, to the extent necessary to
*Bpensate for the removal not being
JJ^ded by the POTW. Allowances
r!der this proyjaioa will only be granted
Tr*'* the POTW submits to the
af Authority evidence7 that
Jl Industrial Users to which the
proposes to apply this provision
^demonstrated the ability to contain
cease or reduce, during
* in which an Overflow
reasonably be expected to
^•charges from me regulated
which contain pollutants for
allowance is requested:
'TW has identified
in which an Overflow
can reasonably be expected to
**>d has a notificaDon or other
Tiable plan to insore that IncusiriaJ
Users wiD learn of an impending
Orrraow D snfrtoeat ts» la contain.
cesse or redrice Discssjycg to prevent
untreated Overfknrs iron occurring.
The POTW most also demonstrate that
H wifl monitor and verify the data
required in paragraph (bK3KTKQ herein
to insure that Inouatnal Users are
containing, ceasing or redncmg
operations during. POTW System
Overflow; and
(Q All Industrial Users to which the
POTW proposes to apply this provision
hare demonstrated the ability and
commitment to collect and maxe
available upon request by the POTW.
State Director or EPA Regional
Administrator daily flow reports or
other data sufficient to demonstrate that
ail Discharges from regulated processes
^nn»«iniTvg the poOutant for which, the
allowance is requested were contained.
reduced or otherwise ceased, aa
appropriate, daring all orrarm stances hi
which an Overflow event was
reasonably expected to occur or
(li)(A) The Consistent Removal
claimed Is reduced pursuant to the
following equation:
r - r
8760-2
8l60~~
.r.-POTW• Concistrot Ramoval rate for
that p«3iiit««n M tiublisbad coder
paragraphs (aXD and (dX2) of Ihia
section
t,«Rffloval ooiractad by tha Overflow
tictor
Z« ocTBi per year that Overflow utxiuied
betwteB the Industrial Uter(s) and the
POTW Treatment Plant, tin hours either
to b« shown ta the POTWf current
NPDES pemil appliance or the boors.
as demonstrated by vcnfiabla
Uctuuquet. that a particular industrial
Uteri Oischar(« Overflow* between the
Industrial Utcr and tba POTW Treatment
Plane sad
(Byj; After July 1.1863. Consistent
Removal may be claimed only where
efforts to correct the conditions resulting
in untreated Discharges by the POTW
are underway in accordance with the
policy and procedures «et forth in "PRM
75-34" or "Program Guidance
Memorandum-61" (same document)
published on December 13.1S75 by EPA
Office of Water Program Operaaocs
(WH-546). (See Appendix A.J Revisions
to discharge limits in categorical
Pretreatment Standards may not be
made where efforts have cot been
committed to by the POTiV ta c:r_=:ze
pollution from Overflows. At rr.:^...T.um.
by July 1.1983. the POTiV most have
completed the analysis required by PRM
75-34 ted be making an effort to
implement the plan.
12) If. by July 1.1583. a POTW has
begun the PRM 75-34 analysis but due to
circumstances beyond its control has
not completed it. Consistent Removal
subject to the approval of the Approval
Authority, may continue to be claimed
according to the formula in paragraph
rb](3p)(A) above so long as the POTW
acts in a timely fashion to complete the
analysis and makes an effort to
implement the non-structural cost-
effecnve measures identified by the
analysis: and so long as the POTW has
expressed its willingness to appiy. after
completing the analysis, for a
construction grant necessary to
implement any other coat-effective
Overflow controls identified in the
analysis should federal funds become
available, so applies for such funds, and
proceeds with the required construction
in an expeditious manner. In addition.
Consistent Removal may. subject to the
approval of the Approval Authority.
continue to be daimed according to the
formula in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) above
where the POTW has completed and the
Approval Authority has accepted the
analysis required by PRM 75-34 and the
POTW has requested inclusion hi its
NPDES permit of an acceptable
compliance schedule providing for
timely implementation of cost-effective
measures identified in the analysis. (In
considering what is timely
Implementation, the Approval Authority
•hall consider the availability of funds,
cost of control measures, and
seriousness of the water quality
problem.); and
C4) Compliance with applicable sludge
requirements. Such revision will not
contribute to the POTWs inability to
comply with its NPDES permit or with
the following statutory provisions and
regulations or permits issued thereunder
(or more stringent State or local
regulations) as they appry to the sludge
management methods being used:
section 405 of the Clean Water Act: the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (SV.'DA)
(including Title 11 more commoojy
referred to as the Resource
Conservaucn Recovery Ac: (RCP.A1 ana
inciudi.-^ Slate rec^auons coctainec ui
any State siucge zar.agemer.t p.an
prepared pursuant tc Subtuie D of
SWDA)). the Cean Air Act and the
Toxic Substances Controi Ac:. The
POTW wui be autSonze^i to rev.se
discr.arre LT-J:S CE:\ for ihcse rcii'jtar.r:
that Co cot coctnbuie :o L".e v:o.fi:;c- c;'
128
-------
Federal .".c-insigr / Vol. 46. No. 18 / Wednesday. January 28. 1981 / Rules and Regulations
its NPDES permit or aay of the above
statutes.
(c) POTW application for
authorization to revise aischargi limit*.
(1) Application for authorization to
revise dischajgs limits for Industrial
Usan who an or in tha future may ba
•object to categorical Pretreatment
Standards, or approval of discharge
limits conditionally or provisionally
revised for Industrial Users by the
POTW pnrraa&t to paragraphs (bH2)
and (d)(2)[vli) shall ba fubmitted by the
POTW to theApproval Authority.
(2) Each POTW may lubmit such an
application no more than once per year
with respect to either:
• (I) any categorical Pretreatment
Standard promulgated hi me prior 18
months;
(if) any new or modified facilities or
production changes restdting in the
Discharge of pollutants which were no:
previously discharged and which are
subject to promulgated categorical
Standards; or
' (ill) any significant increase in
Removal efficiency attributable to
specific identifiable <^«^*"T""**rrTt or
corrective measures {such aa
improvements in operation and
maintenance practices, new treatment
or treatment capacity, or a significant
change in Hw <"fl"»"* to the POTW
Treatment Punt).
(3) The Approval Authority may.
however, elect not to review such
application^ upon receipt, La which
case (he POTWs conditionally or
provisionally revised discharge limits
will remain in effect until reviewed by
the Approval Authority. This review
may occur at any time in accordance
with the procedures of i 403.11. but in
no event later than the time of any
pretreatment program approval or any
NPDES permit reissuance thereafter.
(4) If the Consistent Removal claimed
is based on an analytical technique
other than the technique specified for
the applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standard, tha Approval Authority may
require the POTW perform edditional
analyses.
(d) Contents of application to revise
discharge limit*. Requests for
authorization to revise discharge limits
in categorical Pretreatment Standards
must be supported by the following
informations
(1) Lift of Pollutants. A list of
pollutants for which discharge limit
revisions are proposed.
(2) Consistent Removal Data. Influent
and effluent operational data
demonstrating Continent Removal or
other information, ai provided for in
paragraph (a)(2) of tks sac::on. which
demonstrates Comment Removal of the
pollutants for which discharge limit
revisions are proposed. This data shall
meet the following requirements:
be taken approximately one detention
fil Rt>nrf
luantitv ofa
if such
sucn data are uno
data or information may be pres
of this section.
ow-oroDortional composite sample*.
must be flow-propornona
stream flow at time of collection ot
influent aliquot or to -the total influent
•Hmint
t >e laboratory immBdiaialy.
Authority determines that this schedule
will not be most representative of the
actual operation of the POTW
Treatment Plant an alternative
sampling schedule will be approved.
(2) In addition, upon the Approval
Authority's concurrence, a POTW may
utilize an historical data base amassed
prior to the effective date of this section
provided that such data otherwise meet
the requirements of this paragraph. In
order for the historical data base to be
approved it must present a statistically
valid description of daily, weekly and
seasonal sewege treatment plant
loadings and performance for at leest
cne year.
fCI E*fflii»tit ••trml» collection need
uthority reouires ( etentiontime
vl Samolina Procedures: Crab.
yalug. The average dafly flow used will
be based upon the average of the daily
flows during the same month of the
previous year. Grab samples will be
required, for example, where the
parameters being evaluated are those.
such as cyanide and phenol, which may
not be held for any extended period
because of biological, chemical or
physical interactions which take piece
after sample collection and affect the
results. A grab s>>TrDle is *"
llected
over s peri
jfg that eacn frnlusnt satnoifl
oti of tima
not exceeding-15-ininiitBa.
(v) Analytical methods. The sampling
referred to in paragraphs (d)(2)(iHiv)
and (d}(5) of this section and an analyst!
of these samples shall be performed in
accordance with the techniques
prescribed in 40 CFR Part 136 and
amendments thereto. Where 40 CFR Par
136 does not contain sampling or
analytical techniques for the pollutant it
question, or where the Administrator
determines that the Part 136 sampling
and analytical techniques are
inappropriate for the pollutant hi
question, sampling and analysis shall be
performed using validated analytical
methods or any other applicable
sampling and analytical procedures.
including procedures suggested by the
POTW or other parties, approved by the
Administrator.
(vi) Calculation of removal All data
acquired under the provisions of this
section must be submitted to the
Approval Authority. Removal for a
speculc pollutant snail be determined
either, for each sample, by measuring
the difference between the
concentrations of the pollutant in the
influent and effluent of the POTW and
expressing the difference as a percent c
the influent concentration, or. where
such date cirr.ct =e obtained. Remov*'
nay be cleir.onsira'.ed using other data
129
-------
3446 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 18 / Wednesday. January 22. 1381 / Ruies and Regulations
or procedures subject to concurrence by
ihe Apprcval Authority es provided for
-jp paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
' (vii) Exception to sampting data
ffqairement provisional removal
demonstration. For pollutants which are
n0t currently being discharged (new or
modified facilities, or production
changes) application may be made by
the POTW for provisional authorization
-to revise the applicable categoricai
- pretreatment Standard prior to initial
discharge of the pollutant. Consistent
Removal may b« based provisionally oc
data from treatebility studies or
demonstrated removal at other
. treatment facilities where the qnality
' and quantity of influent are similar. la
calculating and applying for provisional
removal allowances, the POTW must
"comply with the provisions of
.'paragraphs (b)(l}-(4) of this section.
•- Within IS months after the
^commencement of Discharge cf the
^pollutants in question. Consistent
'Removal must be demonstrated
•pursuant to the requirements of
^paragraphs (aH2J and (dXZ](iH*Q of
gmii section.
• *' [3] List of industrial subeateyariea. A
L llit of the industrial subcategohes for
-wliich discharge limits in categorical
fPretreatment Standards will be revised.
c including the number of Industrial Users
[in each such subcategory and an
i Identification of which of the pollutants
yra the list prepared under paragraph
fW(l) of mis section are Discharged by
;each subcategory.
t -(4) Calculation of revised discharge
h/un/is. Proposed revised discharge limits
.for each of the subcategories of
_ Industrial Users identified in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section calculated in the
-following manner
. (i) The proposed revised discharge
"Oil for a specified pollutant shall be
derived by use of the following formula:
-•*•«.
* "pollutant discharge limit speafied in tt*
•Ppliaable categaricaj Pre treatment
r* POTWs Consistent Removal rate for
thai pollutant as estab'uihed under
Paragraphs (a)(2). (d)C) and if
•Ppropnate. (b)(3)(ii)(A) of Ait section.
(percentage expressed is a decimal)
r*f«vised discharged limit for the
I poflnfam (expmaad in SXOM
emts u xj
(if) In calculating revised discharge
limits, such revision for POTW Removal
of a specified poUutent shall be applied
equally to all existing and new
industrial Users in an industrial
cubcategory subject to categorical
Pretreatment Standards wcich '
Discharge that poDutant to the POTW.
f51 Daln on thiHoi* rhamrt0r*ftf/*i
Data showing the concentrations and
amounts in the POTWt sludge of the
pollutants for which discharge limit
revisions are proposed and for which
EPA. the State or locality have
published sludge disposal or use criteria
applicable to the POTWs corrent
method of sludge use or disposal These
data shall meet the following
requirements.
(i) The data «k»n b« obtained
: in
poles taV»Ti at
i 24 hour
t sample is not
tchniavft-guh^
lysis of the
samples referred to in paragraph (d}(5)(f)
of this section shall be performed in
accordance with the sampling and
analytical techniques described
previously in paragraph (d)(2Kv) of this
section.
(6) Description of dodge management.
A specific description of the POTWs
current methods of use or disposal of its
sludge and data demonstrating that the
current sludge use or disposal methods
comply and will continue to comply with
the requirements of paragraph (b)(4) of
this section.
-. (7) Certification statement The
certification statement required by
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section
stating that the pollutant Removals and
associated revised discharged limits
have been or will be calculated in
accordance with *hi« regulation and any
guidelines issued by EPA under Secaon
304
-------
to maintain a removal allowance, the
POTW ir.ust comply with all federal.
Slate and local Statutes, regulation* and
permits applicable to the POTWi
•elected method of sludge use or
disposal In addition, where Overflows
of untreated waste by the POTW
continue to occur the Regional
Administrator may condition continued
authorization to revise discharge limits
upon the POTW performing additional
analysis and/or implementing
additional control measures as is
consistent with EPA policy on POTW
Overflows.
(3] Inclusion la POTW permit Once
authority to revise discharge limits for a
specified pollutant is granted, the
revised discharge limits for Industrial
Users of the system as well as the
Consistent Removal documented by the
POTW for that pollutant and the other
requirements of paragraph (b] of this
section, shall be included in the POTWs
. NPDES Permit upon the earliest
reissuance or modification (at or
following Program approval] and shall
become enforceable requirements of the
POTWs NPDES Permit
(4) EPA review of state removal
allowance approvals. Where the NPDES
State has an approved pretreatment
program, the Regional Administrator
may agree, in the Memorandum of
Agreement under 40 CFR 123.7. to waive
the right to review and object to
Submissions for authority to revise
discharge limits under this section. Such
an agreement shall not restrict the
Regional Administrator's right to
comment upon or object to permits
issued to POTWs except to the extent
permitted under 40 CFR 123.7(b)(3)(i)(D).
(5) Modification or withdrawal of
revised limits.—{1} Notice to POTW.
The Approval Authority shall notify the
POTW if. on the basis of pollutant
removal capability reports received
pursuant to paragraph (f)(l) of this
section or other information available to
it the Approval Authority determines:
(A) that one or more of the discharge
limit revisions made by the POTW. or
the POTW itself, no longer meets the
requirements of this section, or
(B) that such discharge limit revisions
are causing or significantly contributing
to a violation of any conditions or limits
contained in the POTWs NPDES Permit
A revised discharge limit is significantly
contributing to a violation of the
POTWs permit if it satisfies the
definition set forth in i 40.33 (i) or (n).
(ii) Corrective action. If appropriate
corrective action is not taken within a
reasonable time, not to exceed 60 days
unless the POTW or The affected
Industrial Users demonstrate that a
longer cme cenoti is reasonably
necessary to undertake the appropriate
corrective action, the Approval
Authority shall either withdraw such
discharge limit* or require modification!
in the revised discharge limits.
' (iii) Public notice of withdrawal or
modification. The Approval Authority
•hall not withdraw or modify revised
discharge limits unless it (hall first have
notified the POTW and all Industrial
Users to whom revised discharge limits
have been applied, and made public, in
writing, the reasons for such withdrawal
or modification, and an opportunity is
provided for a hearing. Following such
notice and withdrawal or modification.
all Industrial Users to whom revised
discharge limits had been applied, shall
be subject to the modified discharge
limits or the discharge limits prescribed
in the applicable categorical
Pretreatment Standards, as appropriate.
and shall achieve compliance with such
limits within a reasonable time (not to
exceed the period of time prescribed in
the applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standard(s) as may be specified by the
Approval Authority.
(g) Removal allowances in State-run
pretreatment programs under
i 403.10(e). Where an NPDES State with
an approved pratreatment program
elects to implement a local pretreatment
program in lien of requiring the POTW
to develop such • program (see '
1403.10(e)) the POTW shall
nevertheless be responsible for
demonstrating Consistent Removal as
provided for in this section. The POTW
will not however, be required to
develop a pretreatment program as a
precondition to obtaining approval of
the allowance as required by paragraph
(b)(2) of this section. Instead, before a
removal allowance is approved, the
State will be required to demonstrate
that sufficient technical personnel and
resources an available to ensure that
modified discharge limits are correctly
applied to affected Users and that
Consistent Removal is maintained.
140OJ POTW prvtrcatmMrt programs:
davctopiMflt by POTW. .
(a) POTWt required to develop a
pretreatment program. Any POTW (of
combination of POTWs operated by the
same authority) with a total design flow
greater than 5 million gallons per day
(mgd) and receiving from Industrial
Users pollutants which Pass Through or
Interfere with the operation of the
POTW or are otherwise subject to
Pretreatment Standards will be required
to establish a POTW Pretreatment
Program unless the NPDES State
exercises its option to assume local
responsibilities as provided for in
S 403.10(ej. The Regional Administrator
or Director may require that a POTW
with a design flow of 5 mgd or less
develop a POTW Pretreatment Program
if he 6r she finds that the nature or
volume of the industrial influent
treatment process upsets, violations of
POTW effluent limitations.
contamination of municipal sludge, or
other circumstances warrant in order to
prevent Interference with the POTW or
Pass Through. In addition, any POTW
desiring to modify categorical
Pretreatment Standards for pollutants
Removed by the POTW (as provided for
by i 403.7} must have an approved
POTW Pretreatment Program prior to
obtaining final approval of a removal
allowance. POTWs may receive
conditional approval of a removal
allowance, as provided for by
i 403^(b)(2). prior to obtaining POTW
Pretreatment Program Approval A
POTW may receive { 403.7(g] authority
to revise Pretreatment Standards
without being required to develop a
POTW Pretreatment Program where the
NPDES State has assumed responsibility
for running a local program in lieu of the
POTW in accordance with § 403.10(e).
(b) Deadline for Program Approval A
POTW which meets the criteria of
paragraph (a) of this section must
receive approval of a POTW
Pretreatment Program no later than 3
years after the reissuance or
modification of its existing NPDES-
permit but in no case later than July 1,
1983. POTWs whose NPDES permits are
modified under section 301(h) of the Act>
•hall have a Pretreatment Program
within less than 3 years as provided for
in 40 CFR Part 125. Subpart G (44 FR
34783 (1979). The POTW Pretreatment
Program shall meet the criteria set forth
in paragraph (f) of this section and will
be administered by the POTW to ensure
compliance by Industrial Users with
applicable Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements.
(c) Incorporation of approved
programs in permits. A POTW may
develop an approvable POTW
Pretreatment Program any time before
the time limit set forth in paragraph fb)
of this section. If (1) the POTW is
located in a State which has an
approved State permit program under
section 402 of the Act and an approved
State pretreatment program in
accordance with § 403.10: or [2] the
POTW is located in a State which does
not have an approved permit program
under section 402 of the Act: the
POTWs NPDES Permit will be reissued
or modified by the NPDEs State or EPA.
respectively, to incorporate the
approved Program conditions as
enforceable conc:::or.s of the Permit. U
131
-------
P448 Federal Renter / Vol. 46. No. IB / 'WednKs.-v. January 23. 1981 / Rdes and Regulations
the POTW is located in an KPDES State
which does not have en approved Slate
nfcU&atment program, the £pproved
_jOTW Pretrostmerrt Program shaflbe
[Incorporated into the POTiVi NPDES
permit a» provided for in § 4Q3.1D(d).
. (d) Incorporation of compliance
igcjiedulet in permits. If the POTW dc st
pot have «o approved Pretreatment
program at the time the-POTWs
0xittmg Permit it reissued or modified.
the reisiued or modified Permit will
-contain the shortest reasonable
compliance schedule, not to exceed
'three years or July 1. 1983. whichever if
gooner, for the approval of the legal
l nthority. procedures «od funding
required by paragraph (f) of mis section.
''Where the POTW is located in an
fipDES Stale currently without authority
to require a POTW Pretreatment
Program, the Permit shall incorporate a
"modification or termination daiue as
•provided for m f 403.10(cf) and the
• compliance schedule shall b«
rjncorporated when the PenmtJa
or reissued pursuant to such
(e) Caaxe for Reitruanes or
• Modificatioa of Permits. Under the
^minority of section 4Q2(bKlKQ of the
*Act the Approval Anthohty may
^modify, or alternatively, revoke and
Lttiinte a POTWs Permit in order tec
r: (1) pat the POTW on a compliance
-schedule for the development of a
5POTW Pretreatment Program where the
^addition of pollutants JP*« a POTW by
'Tin Industrial User or «*«nhin«Kn»i of
^Industrial Users presents a «nh«t«ntial
(hazard tO the ftmrtinning of *h*
treatment works, quality of the receiving
£ Waters, human health, ot th»
•f environment;
?-• (2) coordinate the isauance of a
iHction 201 construction grant with the
^corporation into a permit of a
"compliance schedule for POTW
Pretreatment Program;
• (3) incorporate a modification of the
P«nnit approved under sections 301(h)
* 30101 of the Act
(4) incorporate an approved POTW
"^treatment Program in the POTW
P«nnit: or
. (5) incorporate a compliance schedule
Ior the development of a POTW
^treatment program in the POTW
.
(f) POTW prctnatment prwrum
enu. A POTW Pretreatment
ihall meet the folljwing
'. The POTW shaB
e pursuant to legal authority
Federal. Slate or local
• which authorizes or enables the
to apply and to enforce ti>e
of sections 307 (b) and (c).
and 402(bK6) of the Act and any
regulations implementing thoee sections.
Such authority may be contained in a
f tatnte. ordinance, or series of contracts
or joint powers agreements vrhich the
POTW is authorized to enact, enter into
or Implement, and which are authorized
by State law. At a Birmmirm. this legal
authority shall enable the POTW to:
(i) Deny or condition new or increased
contributions of pollutants, or changes
in the nature of pollutants, to the POTW
by Industrial Users where such
contributions do not meet applicable
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements or where such
contributions would cause the POTW to
violate ita NPDES permit
(il) Require compliance with
applicable Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements by Industrial Userc
(Hi] Control, through permit contract
order, or similar means, the contribution
to the POTW by each Industrial User to
ensure compliance with applicable
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements;
(iv) Require (A) the development of a
> compliance schedule by each Industrial
User for the installation of technology
required to meet applicable
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements and (B) the submission of
aH notices end self-monitoring reports
from Industrial Users cs are necessary
to assess and assure compliance by
Industrial Users with Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements, including
but not limited to the reports required hi
1403.12
(v) Carry out aH inspection.
surveillance and monitoring procedures]
necessary to determine, independent of
information supplied by Industrial
Users, compliance or noncomptiance
with applicable Pretreatment Standards
and Requirements by industrial Users.
Representatives of the POTW shall be
authorized to enter any premises of any
Industrial User in which a Discharge
source or treatment system is located or
in which records are required to be kept
under $ 403.12f m) to assure compliance
with Pretreatment Standards. Such
authority ihall be at least as extensive
as the authority provided under section
306 of the Act
(vi) (A) Obtain remedies for
noncompliance by any Industrial User
with any Pretreatment Standard and
Requirement All POTWi shall be able
to seek injuctive relief for
noncompliance by Industrial Users with
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements. In cases where State law
has authorized the municipality or
POT'/V to pass ordinances cr ctr.er local
leg-.siaUon. the POTW sha.l pxe.-rr.se
rucn authorities in passir? >. •T.c.aasn to
seek and assets civil or criminal
penalties for noncompiiance by
Industrial Users with Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements. POTW*
without such authorities shall enter into
contracts with Industrial Users to asaore
compliance by Industrial Users with
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements. An adequate contract
will provide for liquidated damages for
violation of Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements and will include an
agreement by the Industrial U*er to
submit to the remedy of specific
performance for breach of contract
(B} Pretreatment Requirements which
will be enforced through the remedies
set forth to paragraph (f)(l](vi)f A) will
include but not be limited to. the duty to
allow or carry out Inspections, entry, or
monitoring activities; any rules,
regulations, or orders issued by the
POTW; or any reporting requirementa
Imposed by the POTW or these
regulations. The POTW shall have
authority and procedures (after informal
notice to the discharger) immediately
and effectively to halt or prevent any
Discharge of pollutants to the POTW
which reasonably appears to present an
iTnTniT!»nf endangerment to the health or
welfare of persona. The POTW shall
also have authority and procedures
(which shall include notice to the
affected Industrial Users and an
opportunity to respond] to halt or
prevent any Discharge to the POTW
which presents or may present an
endangerment to
-------
Federal Rc---j;er / Vol. 46. No. 18 / Wednesday. January 28, 1981 / Rules and
(ii) Identify the character and volume
of pollutant! contributed to the POTW
by the Industrial Users identified under
f 403.8(0(2)(0. This information shall be
made available to the Regional
Administrator or Director upon request
(ill) Notify Industrial Users identified
under 1403J(fH2)(0 of applicable
Pretreatment Standards and any
applicable requirements under section
204(b) and 405 of the Act and Subtitles C
and D of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
• (iv) Receive and analyze self-
monitoring reports and other notices
submitted by industrial Users in
Accordance with the self-monitoring
requirements in f 403.12
(v) Randomly sample and analyze the
effluent from Industrial Users and
conduct surveillance and inspection
activities in order to identify,
independent of information supplied by
Industrial Users, occasional and
continuing noncompliance with
Pretreatment Standards. The results of
these activities shall be made available
to the Regional Administrator or
Director upon request
(vi) Investigate jpf*-"^* of
noncomplianca with Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements, as
indicated in the reports and notices
required under { 403.12, or indicated by
analysis, inspection, and surveillance
activities described in paragraph
(f}(2)(v) of this section. Sample taking
and analysis and the collection of other
information shall be performed with
sufficient can to produce evidence
admissible in enforcement proceedings
or in judicial actions: and
(vii) Comply with the public
participation requirements of 40 CFR
Part 25 in the enforcement of National
Pretreatment Standards. These
procedures shall include provision for at
least annually providing public
notification, in the largest daily
newspaper published in the municipality
in which the POTW is located, of
Industrial Users which, during the
previous 12 months, were significantly
violating applicable Pretreatment
Standards or other Pretreatment
Requirements. For the purposes of this
provision, a significant violation is a
violation which remains uncorrected 45
days after notification of
noncompliance: which is part of a
pattern of noncompliance over a twelve
month period which involves a failure
to accurately report noncompliance: or
which resulted in the POTW exercising
its emergency authority under
f 403JCfMlKtvMB).
(3) Funding. The FOTV -hall have
sufficient resources tn= c.uaiifisd
personnel to carry out -b; : uizorides
and procedures described in paragraphs
(f) (1) and (2} of this section. In some
limited circumstances, funding and
personnel may be delayed where (i) the
POTW has adequate legal authority and
procedures to carry out the Pretreatment
Program requirements described in this
section, and (ii) a limited aspect of the
Program does not need to be
implemented immediately (see
|40&* POTW pretreatment programa
and/or authorization to ntvte* pretreatment
standards; submission for approval.
(a) Who Approves Program. A POTW
requesting approval of a POTW
Pretreatment Program shall develop a
program description which includes the
information set forth in paragraphs
(b)(lH4) of this section. This
description shall be submitted to the
Approval Authority which will make a
determination on the request for
program approval in accordance with
the procedures described in i 403.11.
(b) Content* of POTW program
fubmisu'on. The program description
must contain the following information:
(1} A statement from the City Solicitor
or a dry official acting in a comparable
capacity (or the attorney for those
. POTWs which have independent legal
counsel) that the POTW has authority
adequate to carry out the programa
described hi i 403.8. This statement
•haQ:
(i) Identify the provision of the legal
authority under i 403.8(i](l) which
provides the basis for each procedure
under { 403 J(f](2);
(ii) Identify the manner in which the
POTW will implement the program
requirements set forth hi | 403.8.
including the means by which
Pretreatment Standards will be applied
to individual Industrial Users (e.g., by
order, permit ordinance, contract etc.);
and.
(iii) Identify how the POTW intends to
ensure compliance with Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements, and to
enforce them in the event of
noncompliance by Industrial Users;
(2) A copy of any statutes, ordinances.
regulations, contracts, agreements, or
other authorities relied upon by the
POTW for its administration of the
Program. This Submission shall include
a statement reflecting the endorsement
or approval of the local boards or bodies
responsible for supervising and/or
funding the POTW Pretreatment
Program if approved:
(3) A brief description (Including
organization charts) of the POTW
organization which will administer the
Pretreatment Program. If more than one
agency is responsible for administration
of the Program the responsible agencies
should be identified, their respective
responsibilities delineated, and their
procedures for coordination set forth:
and
(4) A description of the funding levels
and full- and part-time manpower
available to implement the Program:
(c) Conditional POTW' prosram
approval. The POTW nay request
conditional approval of the Pretreatme:
Program pending the acquisition of
funding and personnel for certain
elements of the Program. The request f<
conditional approval must meet the
requirements set fonh in paragraph (b)
of this section except that the
requirements of paragraph (b) may be
relaxed if the Submission demonstrate
that:
(1) A limited aspect of the Program
does not need to be implemented
immediately;
(2) The POTW had adequate legal
authority and procedures to carry out
those aspects of the Program which wi
not be implemented immediately; and
(3) Funding and personnel for the
Program aspects to be implemented at
later date will be available when
needed. The POTW will describe In th
Submission the mechanism by which
- this funding will be acquired. Upon
receipt of a request for conditional
approval, the Approval Authority will
establish a fixed date for the acquisiti
of the needed funding and personnel \
funding is not acquired by this date, ti
conditional approval of the POTW
Pretreatment Program and any removi
allowances granted to the POTW. ma;
be modified or withdrawn.
(d) Content of removal allowance
tabmission. The request for authority
revise categorical Pretreatment
Standards must contain the infonnatii
required hi { 403.r;d).
(e) Approval authority action. Any
POTW requesting POTW Pretreatmer
Program approval shall submit to the
Approval Authority three copies of th
Submission described in paragraph (I
and. if appropriate, (d) of this section
Upon a preliminary determination th;
the Submission meets the requirenen
of paragraph (b) and. if appropriate. (
of this section, the Approval Author!:
shall:
(1) Notify the FOTW that the
Submission hen been received and is
under review: ar.d
(21 Commence '--.e puciic r.oace an
evaluation activities set forth in § 40'
(f) Notification wnere submission:
defective. If. after review of the
Submission as pr-v.ded for in paracr
(e) of this secacr_ -JIB Approval
Author.r/ cistem^-.es that u-.e
133
-------
9450
Federal Register / VoL 44 No. IS / Wednesday, fanuar. 'J3. :33t / Ruies and Re*-_Jaucr.3
i of paragrachi (b) or (c).
f appropriate, fd). of this section.
1 Authority shall provide
'• in wnang to the applying POTW
i person who has requested
Dividual notice. This notification shall
'^gjjtify any defects in the Submission
-led sdvise the POTW and each person
do. has requested individual notice of
^ means by which the POTW can
Damply with the applicable
j-mjirements of paragraphs (b). (c), and.
'^Appropriate, (d) of this sectioa.
(j) Consistency with water quality
management plans. (1) In order to be
i the POTW Pretreatment
^program shall be consistent with any
fjpproved water quality management
- pim developed in accordance with 40
"£fR Parts 130.131. as revised, when
r^ch 208 plan includes Management
icy designations and addresses
itreatment in a manner consistent
40 CFR Part 403. In order to aasnra
consistency the Approval
ithority shall solidt the review and
ent of the appropriate 208
Agency during the public
t period provided for in
403.11(b)(l}(ii) prior to approval or
pproval of the Program.
) Where no 208 plan haj baen
pproved or where a plan has been
pproved but lacks Management
jency designations and/or does not
iddreas pretreatment in a nuntw
osistent with this regulation, the
ipprovaJ Authority shall nevertheless
oiidi the review and comment of the
pprapriate 206 planning agency. •
48110 Oev^oonwnt and submfs*tan of
Slat* pmi «au»»»t ixoeiatm.
-MS) Approval of State Programs. No
Jute NPDES program shall be approved
voder section 402 of the Act after the
effective date of these regulations unless
• U determined to meet the
tquiremenu of paragraph (f) of this
section. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this regulation, a Slate wiD
*> required to act upon those authorities
*"ch U currently possesses before the
Approval of a State Pretreatment
J^gram.
~l°) Deadline for requesting approval.
"' NPDES State with a permit program
under section 402 of the Ac:
' «o December 27.1977. which
i modification to, conform to the
JL^Tements set forth in paragraph (f) of
r11 tection will be required to submit a
JtnUe*' ^or 8PProva' °f a modified
S^°ram (hereafter State Pretreaunent
raai approval) by March 27.1979
e'» an NPDES State must amend or
a law to make required
s. in which case the NPDES
State shall request State Pretreaocent
Progreni approval by MATCH 27.1380.
(c) Failure to request approval The
EPA thai! exerese the authonces
aveilable CD it to appty and enforce
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements until the necessary
implementing action is ta*en by the
State. Failure of a State to see* approval
of a State Pretreatment Program as
provided for in paragraph (b) and failure
of an approved State lo administer its
Slate Pretreatment Program in
accordance with the requirements of
this section constitutes grounds for
withdrawal of NPDES program approval
under section 403c)(3) of the Act.
(d) Modification douse in POTW
permits prior to submission deadline. (1)
Before the submission deadline for State
Pretreatment Program approval set forth
in paragraph (b) of this section, any
Permit issued to a POTW which meets
the requirements of { 403.B(a) by an
NPDES State without an approved State
pretreatment program shall axcnde a
modification clause. This clause wifl
require that such Permits be promptly
modified or. alternatively, revoked and
reissued after the submission deadline
for State Pretreatment Program approval
set forth in (b) of this section to
incorporate into the POTWs Penult an
approved POTW Pretreabsent Program
or a compliance schedule for the
development of a POTW Pretreatment
Program according to the requirements
of I 403.8 (b) and (d) and I 403.12(h).
The following language is an acceptable
clause for the purposes of this
lubparagraph:
This penult shall b« •«Hm««i_ or
altanativelv. nroked and rtiMued. by
September 27.197V (or September 27.1980. a*
appropriate) to incorporate in approved
POTW Pretreianent Program or a compliance
•chedult for the development of • POTW
Preocatmeai Program as required under
•tenon 402Jb)(8) of the Clean Water Act and
implemcaanf teguiatioos or by me
ttqmrnneat* of tb« approved State
Pretreatment Program, as appropriate.
(2) All Permits subject to the
requirements of paragraph (d](l) of this
section which do not contain the
modification clause referred to in that
paragraph will be subject to objection
by EPA under section 4Q2(d) of the Ac:
as being outside the guidelines and
requirements of the Act
(3) Permits issued by an NFDES Sute
after the Submission deadline for State
Pretreatraent Program approval (set
forth in paragraph (b) of this secuoaj
shall contain conditions of an aocroved
Pretreatment Program or a coEouar.ce
schedule for developing such e r—t-:s
in accordance with { 40o.fi (bj ana ic.<
and i 403.UXh).
(e) State Pro^rcjn in Lea of POTW
Program. Notwithstanding the prows;cn
of { 403.3,'a). a State wi± an d pproved
PreL-eaonest Program cay assume
responsibility for implementing Lne
POTW Pren-eauBent Program
requirements set forth in J 403. Eff) is
Leu of requiring the POTW to deveiop a
Pretreatment Program. However, irus
does not preclude POTWt from
independently deveiopir^ Pretreauner.t
Programs.
(f) State Pretreatment Program
recuiretr.enis. In order to be approved, a
request for State Pretrea'-nent Program
Approval must demonstrate that the
State Pretreatment Program has the
following elements:
(1) Le^aJ authority. The Attorney
General's Statement submitted in
accordance with subparagraph (g)(l)(i)
shall certify that the Director has
authority under State Law to operate and
enforce the State Pre treatment Program
to the extent required by this Part and
by 40 CFR 1 123.9. At a minimum, the
Director shall have the authority to:
(i) Incorporate POTW Pretreaunent
Program conditions into permits issued
to POTWs: require compliance by
POTWs with these incorporated permit
conditions: and require compliance by
Industrial Users with Pretreatment
Standards:
(u) Ensure continuing compliance by
POTVVs with pretreaonent conditions
incorporated into the POTW Permit
through review of monitoring reports
submitted to the Director by the POTW
in accordance with f 403.12 and ensure
continuing compliance by Industrial
Users with Pretreatment Standards
through the review of self-monitonng
reports submitted to the POTW or to the
Director by the Industrial Users in
accordance with i 4O3 12:
(iii) Carry out inspection, surveillance
and monitoring procedures which will
determine, independent of information
supplied by the POTW, compliance or
noncompiiance by the POTW with
pretreaonent conditions inccrportated
into the POTW Permit; ana carry out
inspection, surveillance and morutonixg
procedures which will deternnne.
independent of information supplied by
the Industrial User, whether tie
Industnai User is in compliance with
PreL-eatmen: Stancaros:
(ivl Seex avii and cr.rsiaai persaites.
ana lEiur.cuve resie:. fcr ccr.ic~c..aac2
by the POTW with preir«ai=er.'.
conditions incorporated .mo the FOTA'
Perrr.it and for r.oncomp.:ar.ce with
Pretreatrnent Standards ;y L-.cjsL-.ai
'sers ?s sit fortn in 5
)uaic:ai reuei lor c
Lr.c^£L":£j L'serseven
The
jir.cs cv
z t;e FGTA'
134
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 18 / Wednesday.. January 28. 1981 / Rules and Regulations "9451
has acted to nek rich relief (e.g_'if the
POTW.has sought • penalty which the
Director find* to be insufficient);
(v) Approve and deny requests for
approval of POTW Pretreatment
Programs submitted by a POTW to the
Director •'•'.•
(vi) Deny and recommend approval of
(but not approve) requests for
Fundamentally Different Factors
variances submitted by Industrial Users
in accordance with the criteria and
procedures set forth in i 403.13; and
(vii) Approve and deny requests for
authority to modify categorical
Pretreatment Standards to reflect
removals achieved by the POTW in
ir?CT?rfl»nr'> with the criteria
procedures set forth inii 40&7.403.0
and 40111.
(2) Procedures. The Director shall
have developed procedures to carry out
.- the requirements of sections 307 (b) and
(c). and 402(b)(l). 402(b)(2). 4O2(b)(8),
and 402(b)(9) of the Act At a minimum.
these procedures shall enable the
Director toe ;,^- ^ ..
P) Identify POTWs required to
develop Pretreatment Programs in
accordance with 140&8(a) and notify
these POTWs of the need to develop a
—POTW Pretreatment Program. In the
absence of a POTW Pretreatment _
Program, the State shall have ~ ~'
edures to 'carry out the activities set
i in 1403.8(f)(2);
(ii) Provide technical "
assistance to POTWs in
Pretreatment Programs:
(Ui) Develop compliance schedules for
inclusion in POTW Permits which set
forth the shortest reasonable time
schedule for the completion of tasks
needed to implement a POTW
Pretreatment Program. The final' _
compliance date in these schedules shall
be no later than July 1.1983;
(iv) Sample and analyze:
(A) Influent and effluent of the POTW
to identify, independent of information
supplied by the POTW, compliance or
noncompliance with pollutant removal
levels set forth in the POTW permit (see
§ 403.7); and
(B) The contents of sludge from the
POTW and methods of sludge disposal
and use to identify, independent of
information supplied by the POTW,
compliance or noncompliance with
requirements applicable to the selected
method of sludge management
(v) Investigate evidence of violations
of pretreatment conditions set forth in
the POTW Permit by taking samples and
acquiring other information as needed.
This data acquisition shall be performed
with sufficient care as to produce
evidence admissible in an enforcement
proceeding or in court;
(vi) Review and approve requests for
. approval of POTW Pretreatment
Programs and authority to modify
categorical Pretreatment Standards
submitted by a POTW to the Director.
mnA
(vii) Consider requests tor
Fundamentally Different Factors
variances submitted by Industrial Users
in accordance with the criteria and
procedures set forth in 1403.13.
(3) Funding. The Director shall assure
that funding and qualified personnel are
available to carry out the authorities
and procedures described in paragraphs
(f)(l) and (2) of this section.
(g) Content of State Pntnatment
Program Submission. The request for
State Pretreatment Program approval
will consist oc
(1) (i) A statement from the State
Attorney General (or the Attorney for
those State agencies which have
independent legal counsel) that the laws
of the State provide adequate authority
to implement the requirements of this
Part. The authorities died by the
Attorney General in this statement shall
: be in the form of lawfully adopted State
'" statutes or regulations which shall be •
• effective by the time of approval of the
-State Pretreatment Program: and .
\~-'i\ (if) Copies of all State statutes and
regulations died in the above statement
(iii) Notwithstanding paragraphs
(g){l)(i) and (ii) of this section; if the
State has the statutory authority to
implement the requirements of this Part
and if the State at the time of
submission of this request has an
approved NPDES Program, then
regulations setting forth the
requirements of this section need not be
promulgated by the State if the
Administrator finds that the State has
submitted a complete description of
procedures to administer its program in
confonnance with the requirements of
this section. States without an approved
NPDES program will be required to
comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (g)(l)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(2] A description of the funding levels
and full- and part-time personnel
available to implement the program; and
(3) Any modifications or additions to
the Memorandum of Agreement
(required by 40 CFR 123.6) which may be
necessary for EPA and the State to
implement the requirements of this Part
(h) EPA Action. Any approved NPDES
Slate requesting State Pretreatment
Program approval shall submit to-the
Regional Administrator three copies of
the Sucirussion described in paragraph
(g) of this section. Upon a preliminary
defe.Tr.'.ieuon ihat the Submission
meets the requirements of paragraph (g)
the Regional Administrator shalL
(1) Notify the Director that the
Submission has been received and is
under review; and
(2) Commence the program revision
process set out in 40 CFR { 123.13. For
purposes of that section all requests for
approval of State Pretreatment Programs
shall be deemed substantial program
modifications. A comment period of at
least 30 days and the opportunity for a
hearing shall be afforded the public on
all such proposed program revisions.
(i) Notification when submission is
defective. IL after review of the
Submission as provided for in paragraph
(h) of this section. EPA determines that
the Submission does not comply with
the requirements of paragraphs (f) or (g)
of this section EPA shall so notify the
applying NPDES State in writing. This
notification shall identify any defects in
..the Submission and advise the NPDES
State of the means by which it can
comply with the requirements of this
Part
rsJPr
idurs* for POTW
1403.11 App
Pr«ti««un«nl Programs and POTW Revision
' of Categoric* PrafrwtiMnt Standards.
The following procedures shall be
. adopted in approving or denying
requests for approval of POTW
Pretreatment Programs and revising
Categorical Pretreatment Standards.
including requests for authorization to
grant conditional revised discharge
limitations and provisional limitations:
(a) Deadline for review of submission.
The Approval Authority shall have 90
days from the date of public notice of
any Submission complying with the
requirements of { 403.9(b) and. where
removal allowance approval is sought
with {! 403.7(d) and 403.S(d), to review
the Submission. The Approval Authority
shall review the Submission to
determine compliance with the
requirements of { 403.8(b) and (f). and,
where removal allowance approval is
sought with § 403.7(aHe) and (g). The
Approval Authority may have up to an
additional 90 days to complete the
evaluation of the Submission if the
public comment period provided for in
paragraph (b)(l)(ii) of this section is
extended beyond 30 days or if a public
hearing is held as provided for in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section. In no
event however, shall the time for
evaluation of the Submission exceed a
total of 180 days from the date cf rubhc
notice of a Submission meeting ine
requirements of § 403.9(b) and, in the
case of removal allowance application.
S5403.7(d)and403.°:d).
(b) Public notice cr.a opportunity r'Sr
hearing. Upon receipt of a Submission
135
-------
0452 recaral Regular / VoL 46. No. 18 / Wednesday. January 28. 1981 / Rde: ---
be Approval Authority thall commenes
U review. Within 5 dcyt after ""^-"g t
[etermination that a Submission meets
be requirement* of { 403 -fl{b). and.
/here removaJ allowance approval if
ought i I 403.7ld) and 4O3.P(d). or id
uch later time under i 403.7[c) that the
Approval Authority elects toTeview the
emoval allowance Submission, the
Approval Authority shall:
(1) Issue a public notice of request for
.pprovaJ of the Submission;
(i) This public notice shall be
irculated in s manner designed to
oform interested and potentially
atemted persons of the Submission.
Tocedures for the circulation of public
lotice shall include:
(A) Mailing notice* of the request for
pproval of the Submission to
designated 208 planning agencies,
'ederal and State f«h, shellfish,
nldlife resourca agencies: and to any
ther person or group who has
equested individual notice, including
tiose on appropriate mating lists; and
(B) Publication of a notice of request
at approval of the Submission in the
irgest daily newspaper within the m..
irisdictionfs) served by the POTW.
(if) The public notice shall provide a
criod of not less than 30 days following
lie date of the public notice during __„
irhich time interested persons may _-,
ubmit their written view* on the
lubmission,
- (iii) All written comments submitted
luring the 30 day comment period shall
* retained by the Approval Authority
nd considered in the decision on
rhether or not to approve the
Submission. The penod for comment
lay be extended at the discretion of the
Approval Authority; and
(2) Provide an opportunity for the
ppucant any affected State, any
nterested State or Federal agency.
«rson or group of persons to request a
lublic hearing with respect to the
Jubmission. ^ v
(i) This request for public hearing
shall be filed within the 30 day (or
extended) comment period described in
paragraph (b)(l](ii) of this section and
shall indicate the interest of the person
filing such request and the reasons why
a hearing is warranted.
(ii) The Approval Authority shall hold
a hearing if the POTW «o requests. In
addition, a hearing will be held if there
'•s a significant public interest in issues
relating to wheifter or not the
Submission should be approved.
Instances of doubt should be resolved It
favor of holding the hearing.
!uil Public notice of a hearina to
csnsic'er a Submission and sufficient to
i^-rz LSterestea parties of the nature of
:-s r.carir^ and the right to pamcpate
shall be pnbliabec4n.the same
newspaper as the DO tee of the or dnaJ
request lor approval of the Sobmimon
under paragraph fbXl KO(B) of this
•action, in •ririirint. notice of the
bearing shall be sect to those persons
requesting individual notice.
(3) Whenever the approval authority
elects to defer review of a submission
which authorize* the POTW to grant
conditional revised discharge limits
under J 403.7(b)(2) and 403J(c). the
Approval Authority shall publish public
no ace of its election in accordance with
paragraph (b)(l) of this lemon.
(c) Approval authority decision. At
the end of the 30 day (or extended)
comment period and within the 90 day
(or extended) penod provided for in
paragraph (a) of this section, the
Approval Authority shall approve or
deny the Submission based upon the
evaluation m paragraph (a) of this
section and tailing into consideration
comments submitted during the
comment period and the record of the
public hearing, if held. Where the
Approval Authority makes a - •' - ' '-'
determination to deny the request, the
"^Approval Authority shall so notify the
POTW and each person who has - "
.requested individual notice. This __
notification shall include suggested
""modifications and the Approval
Authority may allow the requestor ~~
'additional time to bring the Submission
into compliance with applicable
'requirements, as..^—i-j-.w i*v- v?
(d) EPA objection to Director's • -"*
decision. No POTW pretreatment
program or authorization to grant
removal allowances shall be approved
by the Director if following the 30 day
(or extended) evaluation penod
provided for in paragraph (b)(l)(ii) of
this section and any hearing held
pursuant to paragraph (b){2) of this
section the Regional Administrator sets
forth in writing objections to the
approval of such Submission and the
reasons for rach objections. A copy of
the Regional Administrator's objections
shall be provided to the applicant and
each person who has requested
individual notice. The Regional
Administrator shall provide an
opportunity for written comments and
may convene a public hearing on his or
her objections. Unless retracted, the
Regional Administrator s objections
shad cor.sunne a final ruii.-jz to deny
approval of a FGTA' pretreaunent
program or authorization to grant
removal allowances 90 days after the
date the objections are issu=d.
(e) \once of dec:s:or.. The Approval
Auincr.:y snail 2cufy ir.cse persons who
submitted c:r7_— ems ar.c par'jc'.oaied la
the public hear.r.g. -.:" held, cf the
approval cr cisacprcvai cf the
Submission, la eaiiuon. the ApprovaJ
Authority mail cause to be published a
Douce of approval or disapproval in the
same newspapers as the engine! notice
of request for approval of the
Submission was published. The
Approval Authority shall identify in any
nonce of POTW Prs^eamient. Program
approval any au'x:riation to mocify
categorical Pretreatnent Standards
which the POTW may make, in
accordance with $ 403.7. for removal of
pollutants subject to Pretreatment
Stanaarcs.
(H Public access to submission. The
Approval Authority shall ensure that the
Submission and any comments upon
such Submission are available to the
public for inspection and copying.
| 403.12 Raporttno. requirements for
POTWs and lndu*inai UMT*.
(a) Definition. The term "Control
Authority" as it is used in this section
refers to: (1) The POTW if the POTWs
Submission for its pretreatment program
(i 403J(t)(l)] has been approved in
accordance with the requirements of
i 403.11: or (2) the Approval Authority if
the Submission has not been approved.
(b) Reporting requirement for
-industrial user* upon effective date of
categorical pntreatment standard—
baseline report. Within ISO days after
the effective date of a categorical
Pretreatment Standard, or 180 days after
the final administrative decision made
upon a category determination
submission under i 403.6(a)(4).
whichever is later, existing Industrial
Users subject to such categorical
Pretreatment Standards and currently
discharging to or scheduled to discharge
to a POTW shall be required to submit
•o the Control Authority a report which
contains the information listed in
paragraph (b)(lH") of this section,
Where reports containing this
information already have been
submitted to the Director or Regional
Administrator in compliance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 123.140(b i. the
Industrial user will not be required to
submit this information again. New
sources shall be recuired to su'crry.: to
the Control Authonry a report w.i;ch
contains the irJorrr.ation nstez in
paracrer.is ib : V— 5', 01 L-.IS secticr-.:
: i.-.c ^^^353 c:
list of jr.v er.--.rcr-T.er.ia: conirc: perrr.
held bv •:: .:: •-« :sc:.i:>:
User s.--.. - — .r_: ; :.-;: C3scr.rv.cr. o:
136
-------
Federal Register / VoL 46, No. 18 / Wednesday.. January 28, 1981 / .Rules and Regulations 945;
" •*"* Standard Industrial Qassificati
the operations) carried out by such
Industrial User. This description she
iff
a J i •! :.. -
ppiTf""g data shaft be submitted to -
ld
Igthe Control Authority; -,
^(v4) Sampling and analysis sl^ be
Unerformed m accordance with the ^
, --.
(ii) If the categorical Pretreatment
Standard Is modified by a removal
allowanca (i 4017). the combined
a schematic process diagram Unperformed m accordance with the ^^ ?.; wastestream formula (i 403.6(ej), and/o;
which indicates points of Discharge to -~%*schnique« prescribed in 40 OH Part 138 a Fundamentally Diflerent Factors
the POTWfroorthe regulated processes, and amendments thereto. Where 40 CFR * variance (1 403.13) after the User
(4) Flow measurement Tbe User shall Part 138 does nof w*"^ sampling or * submits the report required by
t^fripit MnmmHnn sho«»"B «*"» • -.' r -^analytical techniques for the pollutant m paragraph (b) of this section, any
measured avenge dafly and rnayfrmrm 'T^auestlon. at where the Administrator . ^necessary amendments to the
'
daily flow, m gallons per day. to die
POTW from each of die foUowing:
0) regulated process stre*™: mad
mat the Part 138 sampling
u^ analytical techniques are y
inappropriate for the p«»»«*««* in
question, sampling and analysis shall be
-performed by n«faig validated analytical
Im^hgdt or any other applicable
(ii) other streams as necessary to
allow use of the combined wastestream
'. formula of f 40&d(e). (See paragraph .
~ fb)(5)(v) of this section.) .^S^r^yfW sampling and analytical procedur
The Control Authority mayaHow far -1 facluding procedures suggested by the
' verifiable estimates of these flows. ;U'""**OTW or other parties, approved by die
• where Justified by cost or feasibility r --^Administrator; .. ^~^i-jT_r.r-;-
T considerations. _ - . •;'-^jv^.-.- r- I ;*'-- (»"! The Control Authority may allow
',"„ (3) Measurement of Poflutant*."(Qtrbg ?Tme submission of a baseline report,,:
^roserahafl identify the Pretreatment -J-^-fpWhkh utilizes only historical date so
^Standards applicable to each regulated XUong as the data provides information _
^' ' •- „.„. i-VCV •*-**•-**&•£• -. J-'V.*—«C—J A A_ J-A i *• • * ^»
information requested by paragraphs
** 0>HB) end (7) of this section shall be
^u submitted by the User to the Control
Authority within 60 days after the
modified limit is approved.
-• M Compliance Schedule for Meeting
^Categorical Pretreatment Standard*.
'-The following conditions shall apply to
jhe schedule required by paragraph
fjftl) The schedule shall contain
i the form >
H
-**S5^.»Y*y- -^Siuffident to determine the need for JT^^.f^1"""0"'" opersnon «
set shall submit *^ndustrial pretreetment measures: -S^t^^i^'^^111™!? f?i e
phng and analysis *'«vflflThebaseU™reportsh^ ^
^identifying the nature end concentration .^indicate the time, date end place, of &
^(or mass, where required by 4he ~4$*£? -$*aampling. and methods of analysis, and
„, Standard or Control Antiiority) of* '^H.?ehall certify mat such sampling and ^
".regulated pollutants in the Discharge *^**nalyds is representative of normal^
^tfrbm each regulated process/Both daily "Swork cycles and expected poDutant • ,-^
_"maximum and average concentration tor ^Discharges to the POTW; ^stg
where required) shall be reported. %i<8) Certification. A statement
ghafl
categorical Pretreatment Standards (e.g.
firing m engineer, completing * •
•preliminary plans, completing final
'j£ plans, executing contract for major
^compenents, commencing construction.
^completing construction, etc.).
y**{2) No increment referred to in
^thesampledi^^representativenf ^ ;»viewriby«.n^ ^^^.^E^Tm^^^""^011*11*11
: ^f^^S™11^''£• i^^*^^^K^?i?ti^Lof ** ^^JIS1.!?**tM J^lS) Not kter man 14 days foDowing
^-|iU) Where feasible, samples must be irfdefined in subparagraph (k) of this ^^tmudi date in the schedule and the final
^obtained through the flow-proportional injection) and certified to by a qualified s^aedate fo, compliance, the Industrial User
composite sampling techniques specified rprofessionai indicating whether ..r-r^r^- shafl submit a progress report to the
^Pretreatment Standards an being met > Control Authority taduding. at a
;- ta% m femmimtimt tfftiff, ^"^, if P"*, « •. - -• —
, in the applicable i
, Pretreatment Standard. Where
p composite sampling is not feasible, a "\
:,grab sample is acceptable: <--- - - • -_'
(iv) Where the flow of the stream
being sampled is less than or equal to
950,000 liters/day (approximately
250,000 gpd). the User must take three
samples within a two-week period.
Where the flow of the stream being
sampled is greater than 950,000 liters
day (approximately 250,000 gpd). the
User must take six samples within a
two-week period:
(v) Samples should be taken
immediately downstream from
pretreatment facilities if such exist or
immediately downstream from the
regulated process if no pretreatment
exists. If other wastewaters are mixed
with the regulated wastewater prior to
pretreatment the User should measure
the flows and concentrations necessary
to allow use of the combined
wastestream formula of 5 403.B(e) in
order to evaluate compliance with the
Pretreatment Standards. Where an
alternate concentration or mass limit
has been calculated in accordance with
J 403.6(e) this adjusted limit along with
^whether additional operation and
tQ ^n^ ]yfl md/
: additional pretreatment is required for
the Industrial User to meet the
.Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements; and
.. (7) Compliance Schedule. If additional
pretreatment and/or O and M will be
required to meet the Pretreatment
Standards: the shortest schedule by
which the Industrial User will provide
such additional pretreatment and/or O
and M. The completion date in this
schedule shall not be later than the
compliance date established for the
applicable Pretreatment Standard.
(i) Where the Industrial User's
categorical Pretreatment Standard has
been modified by a removal allowance
(1 4017), the combined wastestream
formula (} 403.8(e)). and/or a
Fundamentally Different Factors
variance (J 403.13) at the time the User
submits the report required by
paragraph (b) of this section, the
information required by paragraphs
(b)(8) and (7) of this section shall pertain
to the modified limits.
v^nininrum, whether or not it complied
--aawith die increment of progress to be met
"~on such date and. if not the date on
• which it expects to comply with this
increment of progress, the reason for
; delay, and the steps being taken by the
Industrial User to return the
construction to the schedule established.
In no event shall more than 9 months
->elapse between such progress reports to
the Control Authority.
(d) Report on compliance with
categorical pretreatment standard
deadline. Within 90 days following the
date for final compliance with
applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standards or in the case of a New
Source foUowing commencement of the
introduction of wastewater into the
POTW. any Industrial User subject to
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements shall submit to the
Control Authority a report indicating the
nature and concentration of ail
pollutants in the Discharge from the
regulated process which are limited by
Pretreatment Standards a-d
Requirements and the average and
maximum daily flow for these nrocess
137
-------
'g454 Federal Register / Vol. 4& No. 18 / Wednesday. Jan-jarr 2&. 1981 / Rules tnd
i in the Industrial User which are' ~.
E^jmited by such Pretreatment Standards
tad Requirements. The report shall state
^'whether the applicable Pretreatment
"Standards or Requirements are being. v
fjnel on a consistent basis and. if not' .•
lwhat additional O and M and/or
^pretreatment is necessary to bring the
^Industrial User into compliance with tha
Applicable Pretreatment Standards or ..
(^Requirements. This statement shall be ~
signed by an authorized representative
of the lndu»trial User, as defined in
paragraph (k) of this section, and
""certified to by a qualified professional
•ft,- (e) Periodic reporu on continued - "
^compliance, (l) Any Industrial User
^subject to a categorical Pretreatment
Standard, after the complianca date of
asuch Pretreatment Standard, or, in tha
»The frequency of monitoring «J»«H be _•_ which contains the mionDStioc requires
prescnbed m the applicable •- " _L~by | i 4OX7ldX2i. 403^fi ..-authorized representative of the
Tease of a New Source, after ~^J_*tv;-V-'.£.\Jvalidated analytical methods or any • ati* Indus trial User. An authorized
^commencement of the discharge into th*-Bother sampling and analytical - .•-•-• ,-* K v nepreseatativsj may be -;-----
' "~7TW. shall submit to the Control **v i» procedures, including procedures •**»«•«• (1) A principal executive officer of at
ithoriry during the months of June and suggested by the POTW or other parties, vleast the level of vice president if the
iber. unless required more :.-r *. - T5tapproved by the Administrator. •*•••— **--rv-Industrial User submitting the reports -
[frequently in the Pretreatment Standard -I ^) CoatpUanca schedule for POTW's.^ ^J9Vund\3j paragraphs (b). (d) and (e) of
tor by the Control Authority or the 4f^grThe following conditions and reporting - H ;**"« section is a corporation, -unr - •.- i .-
lApproval Authority, a report indicating. ^^requirements shall apply to the ^ xa£*ttt4a%^ (2) A general partner or proprietor if -•
•(the nature and concentration of "^-^^zj^ompliance schedule for development of - the Industrial User submitting the report
^pollutants in the effluent which an .-_/*• an approvable POTW Pretreatment .j.-j .^required by paragraphs (b). (d) and (e} of
-limited by such categorical Pretreatmant ^Program required by i 403-6. . M,*.*F;I -this section is a partnership or sole i
Standards. In addition, this report shall -^ {\} The schedule shall contain-—rsc»:proprietorship respectivaly.
pnchide a record of measured or.- ayt'. • j^Jncrements of progress in the form of . t& - (3) A duly authorized representative _-?
-'estimated average and rnn-inmnm ?«rty ^t^dates for the «wnm*m-gm»nt and t5^.*?p"of the individual designated in -; •
_ _ * C-^^ • - - - ___.
..flows for the reporting period for tha ~^?ex£ampletion of major events leading to ^ jc^ubparagraph (1) or (2) of this paragraph
•.Discharge reported in paragraph (bX4) 4 the development and implementation of ^ such representative is responsible for
wf this section except that the Control .SOKA POTW Pretreatment Program («4« «*¥& <&* overall operation of the facility from
^Authority may require more detailed ^ acquiring required authorities. --%-^ -L which the Indirect Discharge originates.
reporting of flows. At the discretion of —developing funding ro'"-*'w'""«i ^^:r..r OJ Signatory requirements for POTW
!"the Control Authority and in •^^iz^^jf- .acquiring equipment); ~.~-1~-- t~~^R'- — :_7wpo/ts. Reports submitted to the
^eonsideraton of such factore as local ^v*. {2J No increment referred to fa i-; -^ Approval Authority by the POTW in ^
"aigh or low flow rates, holidays, budget .^paragraph (h)(l) of this section shall •-•-: rjccordance with paragraphs fh), (i) and
• ' (J] of this section must be signed by a
cycles, etc. the Control Authority may
agree to alter the months during which
.the above reports are to be submitted.
" (2) Where the Control Authority has
imposed mass limitations on Industrial
Users as provided for by I 403.6(d). the
report required by paragraph (e)(l) of
this section shall indicate the mass of
pollutants regulated by Pretreatment
Standards in the Discharge from the
Industrial User.
(0-A/b6'c* of slug loading. The
Industrial User shall notify the POTW
Immediately of any slue loading, as
defined by $ 403.5(bK4)". by the
Industrial User.
(g) Monitoring and analysis to
dtfnanstrcte continued compliance. The
"ports required in pawgraphs (b)(5).
(d). and (e) of this section shall contain
the results of sampling and analysis cf
^e Discharge, including the flow and
"ie nature and cencer.tration. cr
Production and mass where requested
°y the Control Auincr.t •, cf poiljtants
c°ntamea therein whicr ar« iimiec by
to* applicable PretreaL—.er.t Standards.
exceed nine months;
(3) Not later than 14 days following
each date in the schedule and the final
date for compliance, the POTW shall
submit a progress report to the Approval
Authority including, as a minimum.
>. whether or not it complied with the
increment of progress to be met on such
date and. if not the date on which it
expects to comply with this increment of
progress, the reason for delay, and the
steps taxen by the POTW to return to
.the schedule established. In no event
shall more than nine ccnths elapse
between such progress reports to the
Approval Authority.
(i) InitialPOTIVreport on compliance
with approved removal "allowance. A
POTW which has received authorization
to modify categorical Pretreaanent
Standards for pollutants removed by the
POTtV Ln accordance with the
recuirscents of } 403." must subrrut to
the Acorovai Auih ir.ry wiih:n 60 days
a:ter --.e e:Tec:;ve da;e cf
Siar.cara fcrwmrh auu-.cnzauoa to
~:c_fy tas bees scprcved. - rsport
principal executive officer, ranking
elected official or oiher duly authorized
employee if such employee is
responsible for overall operation of the
POTW.
(m) Provisions governing fraud and
false statements. The reports required
by paragraphs (b). (d). (e). fh). (i) and (j)
of this lection shall be subject to the
provisions of 18 U.S.C. section 10C1
relating to fraud and false statements
and the provisions of section 309(c)(2) of
the Act governing false statements.
representations or certification* m
reports required under the Act.
(a) Reccra'-keeping rf^^;.-e.Ts.iLs
(1) Any Industrial User and POTvV
subject to the reporting requirements
established in this section shall
mainta-n records of ail information
resulting from any mo-.tonne activities
required by this sect.:-. S-cr. reccrcs
shaii ir.ciude for ail jarr.ries:
(i) The date, exact p.ace. -eir.cd. and
time of sampling and !he na-.es cf the
person or persons taicr.i L~.e sair.pies;
138
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 4& No. 18 / Wednesday. January 28, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 9-153
(ii) The dates analyses were
performed: . -A .c.
(iii) Who-performed the analyi
(iv) The analytical techniques/
methods use; and
(v) The results of such analyses.
(2) Any Industrial User or POTW
subject to-the reporting requirements
established in this seotion shall be
required to retain for a minimnm of 3
years any records of monitoring -:
activities and results (whether or not
such monitoring activities are required
by this section) and shall make such
records available for inspection and
copying by the Director and the
Regional Administrator (and POTW in
the case of an Industrial User). This
period of retention shall be extended
during the course of any unresolved
litigation regarding the Industrial User
or POTW or wben requested by the
Director or the Regional Administrator.
(3) Any POTW to which reports are _
the limit at issue. Any interested person stringent than required by the Standards
believing that factors relating to an -K- •hall be approved only if: - • •
-(1) The alternative hmit request is no
more stringent than Justified by the
fundamental difference: and
(ii) Compliance with the alternative
Hmit would not result in either
-(A) A removal cost (adjusted for
Industrial User are fundamentally
different from the factors considered
during development of a categorical
Pretreatment Standard applicable to ^
that User and further, that the existence
of those factors Justifies a different • * "
discharge limit from that specified in the
applicable categorical Pretreatment
inflation) wholly out of proportion to the
removal cost considered during
r1- ^Standard, may request a fanHmmmtatly ^development of the Standards: or
• different factors variance under this
•3 section or such a variance request may
be initiated by the EPA.
(c) Criteria.—{\) General criteria. A
.request for a variance based upon
fundamentally different lectors shall be
^ approved only it *Vt?T«.'.*r.r «.•»•*"'-
'* (i) There is an applicable categorical
^Pretreatment Standard which
--specifically controls the pollutant for -
*• .'which alternative limits have been >
^requested: and •. ? t8tt(Mr%6 * V .--• •-< "
(ii) Factors relating to the discharge .
•2 (B) A non-water quality
-4-environmental impact (including energy
requirements) fundamentally more
adverse than the impact considered
- - during development of the Standards.
(d) Factors considered fundamentally
: si different Factors which may be
" considered fundamentally different are:
-v (i) The nature or quality of pollutants
>-jtConUined in the raw waste load of the
••*••User'sprocess wastewater
-' •• (2) The volume of the User's process
Lcwastewater and effluent discharged:
(3) Non-water quality environmental
•Impact of control and treatment of the
User's raw waste load: '
(4) Energy requirements of the ~ -"-
- - - treetment
submitted by an Industrial User > ^-controe y te cat
pursuant to paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) ^Pretreetment Standard are •
of this section shall retain such reports -^fundamentally different from the factors
for a minimum of 3 years and shall make ^considered by EPALta establishing the
such reports available for inspection • uiStandards; and >£lBig3 Sg«M?»(^Afjgp
and copying by the Director and the &&£«[,; Xiii) The request for a variance is iwfatfMechnologv; "•qpPMjsj'iy.xg
Regional Administrator. This period of "^inade in accordance with the procedural T> (5) Age, size, land availability, and
retention shall be extended during the •-- requirements in paragraphs (gj and (h) * configuration as they .relate to the User's
-coune of any unresolved litigation——™-of this section, •.* ^•ftia" i-^'~'T.*"-~r~~«quipment or facilities; processes '
regarding the discharge of pollutants by " ; - (2) Criteria applicable to lea ^te^fcgg^^mployed; process changes: and
the Industrial User or the operation of -^Stringent limit*. A variance request for -^engineering aspects of the application of
the POTW Pretreatmenl Program or *>*fc**ha establishment of limits leas stringent ^control I _
when requested by the Director or the H* ^than required by the Standard shall be *-. (o) Cost of compliance with required
Regional Administrator, 'sf «te.:c?&^!3^*PProV8d °nJjr if: '.J^^it^^^i^j^ ^control technology, .^t-^v-:-. ^
* 10 The alternative omit requested la T»* *fe) Factor* which will not be v
no less stringent than Justified by the ?~+considered fundamentally different. A
roe for funoamefltaly
dWferent factors.
(a) Definition^The term "Requester"
means an Industrial User or e POTW or
other interested person seeking a ---->•-
variance from the limits specified in a
categorical Pretreatment Standard.
(b) Purpose and scope. In establishing
categorical Pretreatment Standards for
existing sources, the EPA will take into
account all the information it can
collect develop and solicit regarding the
factors relevant to pretreatment
standards under section 307(b). In some
cases, information which may affect
these Pretreatment Standards will not
be available or. for other reasons. wiD
not be considered during their
development As a result it may be
necessary on a case-by-case basis to
adjust the limits in categorical
Pretreatment Standards, making them
either more or less stringent, as they
apply to a certain Industrial User within
an industrial category or subcategory.
This will only be done if data specific to
that Industrial User indicates it presents
factors fundamentally different from
*.h33r- :r.:.dc.-cc by EFA in developing
vrfundamental difference;
'.*. (ii) The alternative limit wffl not result
^v4n a violation of prohibitive discharge
•f standards prescribed by or established
• -under i 403J: • v ' -
• (iii) The alternative Jimit wfll not
result in a non-water quality
environmental impact(inchicUng energy
requirements) fundamentally more
adverse than the impact considered
during development of the Pretreatment
Standards: and
(iv) Compliance with the Standards
(either by using the technologies upon
which the Standards are based or by
using other control alternatives) would
result in either
(A) A removal cost (adjusted for
Inflation) wholly out of proportion to the
removal cost considered during
development of the Standards; or
(B) A non-water quality
environmental impact (including energy
requirements) fundamentally more
adverse than the impact considered
during development of the Standards.
(3) Criteria applicable to more
ttringent limits. A variance request for
the establishment of limits more
"variance request or portion of such a
request under this section may not be
granted on any of the following grounds:
• (1) The feasibility of installing the
required waste treatment equipment
within the time the Act allows;
(2) The assertion that the Standards
cannot be achieved with the appropriate
waste treatment facilities installed, if
such assertion is not based on factors
listed in paragraph (d) of this section:
(3) The User's ability to pay for the
required waste treatment: or
(4) The impact of a Discharge on the
quality of the POTWs receiving waters.
(f) State or local law. Nothing in this
section shall be consfrued to impair the
right of any state or locality under
section 510 of the Act to impose more
stringent limitations than required by
Federal law.
(g) Application deadline.
(1) Requests for a variance and
supporting information must be
submitted in writing to the Director or to
the Enforcement Division Director, as
appropriate.
(2) In order to be considered, reaues:
for variances must be submitted witn;n
139
-------
9456 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 18 / Wednesday, January 22. 1931 / Rules and Regulations
180 days after the effective date of the
categorical Pretreatment Standard
^unless the User ha* requested a _*.
'categorical determination punuant to
- ' ~
(3) Where the User hat requested a
catargorical determination punuant to
?.! 403.a(a). the User may elect to await
the results of the category determination
-before submitting a variance request
,_nnder this section. Where thfe User so
Felects, he or ahe must nibmit the
.-variance request within 30 day* after a
final dedaion baa been made on the
categorical determination punuant to
1 403.B(a)(4).
(h) Content* of inbnu'tsion. Written
.Submissions for variance request
iwhether made to the Enforcement
,. Division Director or to the Director must
i include?
'"• '• (1) The name and address of the
t person making the request
(2) Identification of the interest of the
^Requester which is affected by the
^categorical Pretreatment Standard for
l which the variance is requested:
£• (3) Identification of the POTW
' taurently receiving the waste from the
•"Industrial User for which alternative
^discharge limits are requested:
*" (4) Identification of the categorical
^Pretreatment Standards which are _____
'.applicable to the Industrial User.
* (S) A list of each pollutant or pollutant
'_ parameter for which an alternative
-discharge Emit is sought
e" («) The alternative discharge limits
'proposed by the Requester for each
^pollutant or pollutant parameter •«*-
'identified to item (5) of this paragraph:
•- [7] A description of the Industrial
User's existing water pollution control
.facilities:
• (6) A schematic flow representation of
the Industrial User's water system
Including water supply, process
wastewater systems, and points of
Discharge: and
(8) A Statement ef facts dearly
establishing why the variance request
should be approved, including detailed
support data, documentation, and
evidence necessary to fully evaluate the
merits of the request e.g.. technical and
economic data collected by the EPA and
used to developing each pollutant
discharge limit to the Pretreatment
Standard.
(i) Deficient requests. The
Enforcement Division Director or
Director will only act on written
requests for variances that contain all of
the information required. Persons who
have made incomplete Submissions will
be notified by the Enforcement Division
Director or Director that their requests
•re deficient and unless the time per.od
1* extended, will be given up to 30 days
to correct the deficiency.' If the
; deficiency is not corrected within the
time period allowed by the Enforcement
Division Director or the Director, the
~ request for a variance shall be denied.
• CO Public notice. Upon receipt of a
_ complete request the Director or
Enforcement Division Director will
provide notice of receipt opportunity to
review the submission, and opportunity
-to comment
(1) The public notice shall be
circulated to a manner designed to
inform interested and potentially
interested persons of the request
Procedures for the circulation of public
notice shall include mailing notices to:
(i) The POTW into which the
Industrial User requesting the variance
discharges:
(ii) Adjoining States whose waters
may be affected: and
(lii) Designated 208 planning agencies,
Federal and State fish, shellfish and
..' wildlife resource agencies; and to any
— other person or group who has
requested individual notice. inrh«Hi«g
..- those -on appropriate mailing hats.
*•.... ft) The public notice shall provide for
r a period not less than 30 days following
the date of the public notir^ Himnp
which time interested persons may
~review the request and submit their
^written views on the request
"" (3) Following the comment period the
; Director or Enforcement Division
'Director will make a determination on
* the request taking into consideration
r any comments received. Notice of this
_' final decision shall be provided to the
' requestor (and the Industrial User for
which the variance is requested if
different), the POTW into which the
Industrial User discharges and all
persons who submitted comments on the
request
(k) Review of requests by ttate. (1)'
Where the Director finds that
fundamentally different factors do not
exist he may deny the request and
notify the requester (and Industrial User
where they are not the same) and the
POTW of the denial
(2) Where the director finds that
fundamentally different factors do exist
he shall forward the request and a
recommendation that the request be
approved, to the Enforcement Division
Director.
(1) Review of requests by EPA. (1)
Where the Enforcement Division
Director finds that fundamentally
different factors do not exist he shall
deny the request for a variance and
send u copy of his determination to the
Director, to the POTW. and to the
Requester (and to the Industrial User.
where ihey are not the tame).
[2] Where the Enforcement Division
Director finds that fundamentally
different factors do exist and that a
partial or full variance is Justified, he
will approve the variance. In approving
the variance, the Enforcement Division
Director will •
(i) Prepare recommended alternative
discharge limits forlhe Industrial User
either more or lest stringent than those
prescribed by the applicable categorical
Pretreatment Standard to the extent
warranted by the demonstrated
fundamentally different factors:
(U) Provide the following information
to his written determination:
(A) the recommended alternative
discharge limits for the Industrial User
concerned:
(B) the rationale for the adjustment of
the Pretreatment Standard (including the
Enforcement Division Director's reasons
for recommending that a fundamentally
different factor variance be granted) and
an explanation, of how the Enforcement
Division Director's recommended
alternative discharge limits were
derived "-
•. (C) the supporting evidence submitted
to the Enforcement Division Director
and '
(D) other Information considered by
—the Enforcement Division Director in
-developing the recommended
.alternative discharge limits;
iri-{lH) Notify the Director and the POTW
of his or her determination: and
, /. (hr) Send the information described to
^paragraphs (1)(2) (i) and (ii) above to Uje
J< 'Requestor (and to the Industrial User
where they are not the same).
(m) Request for hearing. (1) Within 30
days following the date of receipt of
notice of the Enforcement Division
Director's decision on a variance
request the Requester or any other
interested person may submit a petition
to the Regional Administrator for a
hearing to reconsider or contest the
decision. If such a request is submitted
by a person other than the Industrial
User the person shall simultaneously
serve a copy of the request on the
Industrial User.
(2) If the Regional Administrator
declines to hold a hearing and the
Regional Administrator affirms the
Enforcement Division Director's
findings, the Requester may submit a
petition for a hearing to the
Administrator within 30 days of the
Regional Administrator's decision.
{403.14 Confidentiality.
(a) EPA authorities. In accordance
with 40 CFR Part 2. any information
submitted to EPA pursuant to these
regulations may be claimed as
confidential by the submitter. Any such
140
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 18 / Wednesday. January 28. 1981 / Rules and Regulations 9457
"claim must be asserted at the time of
submission in the manner prescribed on
the application form or instructions, or.
in the case of other submissions, by
stamping the words "confidential
business information" on each page
containing such information. If no claim
is made at the time of submission. EPA
may make the information available to
'the public without further notice. If a
claim is asserted, the information will be
treated in accordance with the
procedures in 40 CFR Part 2 (Public
Information).
(b) Effluent data. Information and
data provided to the Control Authority
pursuant to this part which is effluent
data shall be available to the public
without restriction.
~ (c) State or POTW. All other
-information which is submitted to the
State or POTW shall be available to the '
.public at least to the extent provided by
• 40 CFR i 2J02. -?*y>~3
water which are limited by the Standard
are not removed by the treatment - —
technology employed by the User.
(c) Notice. The User shall notify the
Regional Enforcement Officer if then
are any significant changes in the J-
quantity of the pollutants in the intake
water or in the level of treatment
provided.
- (d) EPA decision. The Enforcement
Division Director shall require the User
to conduct additional monitoring (i.e.,
for flow and concentration of pollutants)
as necessary to determine continued
eligibility for and compliance with any
adjustments. The Enforcement Division
Director shall consider aU timely
applications for credits for intake
pollutants plus any additional evidence
that may have been submitted to ,
response to the EPA's request The
Enforcement Division Director shall then
maka a written determination of the
applicable credits), if any, state the
. and Control Authority within 24 hours of
- becoming aware of the Upset (if this
information is provided orally, a written
submission must be provided within five
j,. (1) A description of the Indirect .
^Discharge and cause of noncompliance;
(ii) The period of noncompliance.
including exact dates *nfi times or. if not
.corrected, the anticipated time the
noncompliance is expected to continue:
- fill] Steps being taken and/or planned
to reduce, eliminate and prevent
recurrence of the noncompliance.
(d) Burden of proof. In any
'enforcement proceeding the Industrial
User seeking to establish the occurrence
of an Upset shall have the burden of
proof.
(e) Reriewability of agency
consideration of claims of upset. In the
^. Casual exercise of prosecutorial
"^discretion. Agency enforcement
; 1403.15 Net/arose calculation.
Categorical Pretreatment Standards
_ may be adjusted to reflect the presence
*of pollutants in the Industrial Users'
'intake water in accordance with the
(aHd) below:
reasons for its determination, state what -personnel should review any claims that
additional monitoring is necessary, and -^non-compliance was caused by an
.-send a copy of said determination to the ^Upset. No determinations made in the
Applicant and the applicant's POTW. . -.course of the review constitute final
jThe decision of the Enforcement
Division Director shall be final.
•Any Industrial User-wishing to obtain a
.credit for intake pollutants must make ,
application therefore within 60 days
'after the effective date of the applicable
• categorical Pretreatment Standard. -,£
hApplication shall be made to the - -^ — 3 ^ •>
Appropriate Enforcement Division _ reasonable control of the Industrial
, Director. Upon request of the Industrial 'User. An Upset does not Include "*
User, the applicable Standard will be
-^calculated on a "net" basis, i-e., adjusted
^Ua) Definition. For the purposes
section. "Upset" means an exceptional
Incident in which there is unintentional
and temporary noncompliance with
categorical Pretreatment Standards .
of factor, beyond the
-^Agency action subject to judicial review.
^industrial Users will have the
-
-*-»«r--» r
to the
-.te reflect credit for pollutants in the
intake water, if the User demonstrates
that
(1) Its intake water is drawn from the
same body of water into which the
discharge from its publicity owned
treatment works is made;
(2) The pollutants present in the
intake water will not be entirely
removed by the treatment system
operated by the User,
(3) The pollutants in the intake water
do not vary chemically or biologically
from the pollutants limited by the
applicable Standards: and
(4) The User does not significantly
increase concentrations of pollutants in
the intake water, even if the total
amount of pollutants remains the tame.
(b) Criteria. Standards-adjusted under
this paragraph shall be calculated on the
basis of the amount of pollutants
present after a.iy treaur.ent steps have
been performed on the intake water by
or for Lke :.-c-i?irii User. Adiusanents
iindsr L-..n •=••-... -.r.--^ :•« gives cn,v :o
the extent ~.a. aia.v.a in ur.e _T;axe
noncompliance to the extent caused by
operational error, improperly designed
treatment facilities. Inadequate
treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper
operation.
(b) Effect of an upset. An Upset shall
constitute an affirmative defense to an
action brought for noncompliance with
categorical Pretreatment Standards if
the requirements of paragraph (c) are
met
(c) Conditions necessary for a
demonstration of upset. An Industrial
User who wishes to establish the
affirmative defense of Upset shall
demonstrate, through properly signed.
contemporaneous operating logs, or
other relevant evidence that:
(1) An Upset occurred and the
Industrial User can identify the specific
cause(s) of the Upset:
(2) The facility was at the time being
operated in a prudent and workman-like
manner and in compliance with
applicable operation and maintenance
procedures:
(21 The Industrial User has submitted
_.•.« following information to the POTA'
^extent necessary to a
rr compliance with categorical '• \-
"•' Pretreatment Standards upon reduction.
~rJoss. or failure of its treatment facility
~- until the facility is restored or an
alternative method of treatment is
provided. This requirement applies in
the situation where, among other things,
the primary source of power of the
treatment facility is reduced, lost or
fails.
Appendix A^—United State* Environmental
Protection Agency
December 16.1975.
Program Guidance Memorandum—Si
Subject Grants for Treatment and Control of
Combined Sewer Overflows and
Stormwater Discharges.
From: |ohn T. Rbett Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Water Program
Operation* (\VH-M6).
To: Regional Administrators. Regions 1-X.
This memorandum jummanzes the
Agency i policy on the use of construction
grants far treatment an= control of combined
sewer overflow! and rcrrrwater discharges
during wet-weather conations. The purpose
is to assure thai prciec'.s a.*» funded only
wnen care-_ s.^.-jv..-^ ;.» ^errcnstra-.ed 'j:e\
are cci:-*:7. :L-.-B.
141
-------
9458 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 18 / Wednesday. January 28. 1981 / Rule* and Regulations
t Coabinad Sewe> Overflows
_
The cotU and benefit* of control of varicne
"" portion* of pollution dn» to combined tewer
overflow* and by-paw** vary greatly with
, the characfenttict of the tewer end . ^ '. t
' trtatment fyjtcm, the don boa. Intentity. * ,
frequency tod area} extent of precipitation. '
the type tad extra! of development in the
tervica ana. and lh« characterittics. at**
^and water quality ttaadard* of the receiving
"water*. DecUion* oa granU for control of
combined *ewer overflown, therefore, muat
be made on a caae-by-ca*c bati* after
detailed planning at the local level
Where detailed planning has been
-completed, treatment or control of pollution
, from wet-weather overflow* and bypa**e*
«»*y be given priority for coaitmctjon grant
fund* only after proviaion haa been made for
aecondary treatment of dry-weather flow* in
_lhe area. The detailed planning requirementa
j and criteria for project approval fallow. ~~
•-• B. Flaming Rtqainmmts -v
!r—Conjuuuiuu grant* may be approved for "
^control of pollution from combined t«wer
-overflow* only if planning for the project wma
^thoroughly analysed for the 20 year planning
.period: ttv,-~-- -- -* -— -.~
~ -. 1. Alteraathre control technique* which ~*<
Bight be utilized to attain varion* level* of *
lotion control (related to alternative - 3~-:*
; beneficial use*. If appropriate). m<-i»rfirtj at
laaat fy11*^! consideration of all fy* ~ ~ • "
^alternative* described in the aection on •- ^
^Combined tewer and atormwater control in :
•^Alternative Watte Management Technique*
plad Best Practicable Wa*te Treatment" - *
t-(Section C of Chapter ID of the information
Epropoeed for «*mm»«it in March 1074). -*-•- •
yf^ The co*t* of achieving the variou* level*
{of pollution control by each of the technique*
appearing to be the mo*t feasible and coet-
; effective after the preliminary analysis. * "
?"• S. The benefit* to the receiving water* of a
•grange of level* of pollution control during i
'.wet-weather condition*. Thi* analytic will
normally be conducted a* part of State water
Quality management planning. 206 areawide
management planning, or other State. .
regional or local planning effort
4, The cott* and benefit* of addition of
advanced watte treatment procetaet to dry-
weather flow* in the area. X
C Criteria for Project AppraraJ
The final alternative (elected thaU meet
the following criteria:
1. The~anaJy*i* required above hat
demonstrated that the level of polluCon
control provided will be necettary to protect
• beneficial u*e of the receiving water even
after technology baied ttandard* required by
Section SOI of Pi. 82-500 are achieved by
mduttnal point toorcet and at leatt
aecondary treatment it achieved for dry-
weather municipal flow* in the area.
i Proviiion hat already been mad* for
funding of tecondary treatment of dry-
weather flow* in the area.
3. The pollution control technique proposed
for combined icwer overflow ii a more coit-
effective meant of protecting the beneficial
uie of the receiving water* than other
combined icwer pollution control technique!
and the addition of treatment higher 'K«n
.,. aecondary treatment far dry-weather
* municipal Cow* in the uta. •• . • • —.
4. The margical coet* are not tubttanbal
eoap«red to marginal benefit*.
MargmsJ coitt and benefit! for each
alternative may be diiplayed graphically to
assist with determining a project'*
acceptability under thi* critenca. Doflar coet*
thouJd be compared with quantified poilution
reduction and water quality improvement*. A
detcripbve narrative should alto be included
analyzing monatary. social and '-—•—• —
environmental cottt coeipared to benefit*.
particularly the tignificance of the beneficial
ue* to be protected by the project.
IL Stonnweter Discharges
Approache* for reducing pollution from
•eparate ttormweter discharge* are now in
the early *tege* of development and
evaluation. We anticipate, however, that in
many catea the benefit* obtained by > *
eonttmction of treatment work* for thi* ----^
pnrpoae will be email compared with the •f
. coat*, and other technique* of control and
•^prevention wvQ be more cost-effective. The
policy of the Agency U, therefore, that -- *
eonttmction grant* thall not be uaed for • •* •;
oonttniction of treatment work* to control
>•• pollution from separata di*charge* of
,-t- atormwater except i
^ where the project deariy ha* been
demonatrated to meet the planning
requirement* and criteria described above for
_eombiaed tewer overflow*. - - ~> *•--••
Thit condition thooid. ai a minimum contain
a province iirruUi to the following:
"The grantee explicitly sdsnowlecget and ,
' agreei that ccttt are allowable only to the
extent they are incurred for the water
pollution cor jol element* of Uut protect.*
Additional tpeaal condition* should be
included ai •ppropnat* to assure that the
grantee deany understand* which element!
of the protect are eligible for con*traction
grants unaer Puoiic Law 82-600.
Appendix B S3 Toxic PoDutant*
Acenaphthena
Acroiein • - _ .-
Acrylonitnle
Aldnn/Dieldna
Antimony and compound*1
Anenic and compound*
Atbcitoa _- ,, • ...
Benzene :_^—- -
Benzidine •:-_..--
-=- m. MnloVpvpoee Proiecta
Project* with multiple purpose*, tnch a*
* flood control and recreation m addition to ^
.. pollution control may be eligible for an "'
amount not to exceed die cott of the moat ""'
cost-effect!v* tingle purpose pollution ~*^
abatement tyttem. Normally the Separable
,. Costo-Remaining Benefit* (SCRB) method ~
•honld be ued to allocate cost* between *
poQution control and other purposes.
~; although in mutual case* another method
may be appropriate For cuch cost allocation.
the cost of the leatt cost pollution abatement
alternative may be uted at a substitute
measure of tbe benefits for that piirpo**. The
•"method 1* described tn "Propoted Practice*
for Economic Analyst* of River Batin
ProiecU." CPO. Wathington. O.C. 1958. and
"Efficiency in Government through System*
' Analyiu." by Roland N. McKean. John Wiley
^ Son*. Inc. 1954.
Enlargement of or otherwise adding to
combined lewer conveyance lyttemi is one
meant of reducing or eliminating flooding
caused by wet-weather condition*. These
addition* may be designed to at to produce
•ome benefit* in termt of reduced discharge
of pollutant* to surrounding waterway!. The
pollution control benefit! of tuch flood
control meaiures. however, are lively to be
small compared with the cotu. and the
metiures therefore would normaily be
ineligible for funding under the construction
grant! program.
All multi-purpose proieci! where leu than
IOCS of the costs are e jgiole (or ccnstrucccn
grants under this poncy shall contain a
ipecial gram condition preducuig EPA
cl tcr:-;oiJ.-:n ccnvrol eienents.
f^j<4miniT< and compounda .^
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane (technical mixture and
Jl" metabolite*) _ •— tr . - .
Chlorinated benzene* (other than —.. ~.^~
dichlorobenzeaei) ^ —>• ~ -~.-.
Qilonneted ethanes (Including U- -^ .-
• dichloroethane. l.ia-trichioroethane. and
_ hexachloroeUiane) "-' - •'to~'*"•'» ~
'Chloralkyi ether* (chloromethyi chloroethyi
•"' and mixed ethers) y q-y ^ p-j^it^-j,.
Chlorinated naphthalene ^ ^.- •-. -*•--»'
-Chlorinated phenola (other than those listed
•?—el*ewhere: include* tnchlorophenol* and
- chlorinated creiol*) - - : i-r_ ^ . ^
' Chloroform '-_ • rrh..-'^- •' ~^*^-~,:
2*CAloropoeoOi ?*~, **"itc"^ 'i3^i%--"^."-•^•--
^ CTlff^m^m, nnA compOUDd* V" *^ -T* *V**S ^
, Copper and compound* ^-±SK*. a,*.••c-.a^-
'.Cyanides T* «.--•*£ -.- " *-.-£T-r
" DOT and meubolites +f^, ~?* 'i .»*. «•- :
Dichlorobenxeae* (U% 1^% and 1.4- ,-—TV -<
- dichlorobenzene*) ». '-,- .- . . ^ . _~
Dichlorobenzidine .."-.-•.
Dichloroethylene* (1.1- and U- . -
dichloroelhylene) . c« - * .^..
2.4-dichloropbenoi
Dichloropropane and dichloropropene
2.4-dimethylphenol
Dinitrotoluene
Diphenyihydrazine
Endotulfan and metabolites
Endrin and metabolite*
Ethylbenzene
Fluoroanthene
Haloethera (other than those lilted
elsewhere: include! chlorophenylphenyl
ethers, bromophenyiphenyl ether.
bts(ojichloroisopropyl) ether, bit-
(chloroethoxy) methane and
poiychlonnated diphenyl ethen)
rUlomethanes (other than those litted
elsewhere: includes methylene
chioromethyl-chlonde. methylbromide,
broraotorm. dichiorobromomeuiane.
tnchioronuororaeLnane.
dichlorodifluoromethane)
Heptachlor and metaboiites
Hexac^crooutadiene
1 AJ uiea Lhrouihout Lin Appendix B the term
' >n«U uiciudt orj>n>c tnd inorjtmc
142
-------
Federal Register / VoL 46. No. 18 / Wednesday. January 28. 1981 / Rules and Regulations 9459
Hexachlorocydohexane (all isomen)
HexacUorocydopeatadiane
Isophorons
Lead and compounds
Mercury and compounds
Naphthalene
Nickel and compounda
Nltrot
Nitropheaols flnrhidtng 2,4-dinItrophenoL
dinitrocrMol)
Nitrosamines -• - -; -- - -
Panuchlaropnanol
Phenol -,'--..-
Phthalate esters " * —"- '••'
Polychlormatad biphaayU (PCBa)
Polynudaar aroma oc hydrocarbons
(Including benzanthracenes.
benzopyrenesJMnxofiuroranthaae.
chrysene*. dibenzanthracenes. and '
tndenopyrenes) - ^IT
Selenium and compound*
Silver and compounds
ti7A-T«trachlorodib«Bo-p-dlo3dn (TCDD)
Tetrachloroethylene
^TtalHittii mrut COOIpOII&ds
Toluene ; •? i ~_ —-_ _-*
Toxaphene
«-.'-'• f
Decree for on* or man at ma following 1'i
reasons: (1) tfaa pollutants of umcain an not
detectable to me effluent from ma industrial
Uaar (paragrmph 6(aKiii)): (2) ma pollutants of
concern an present only In tract amounts
and an neither causing nor likely to causa
toxic effects (paragrpah 8(aXUi)): (3) the > • --
pollutants of concara an pnaant in amoont*
too small to ba effectively raducad by -w - -
technologies known to ma Admmistraior
(paragraph aUXUi)): or (4) m* waataM«asi
contains only potlatanttwhicn an -s-,±*^iS
compatibla with taa POTW (paragraph — -
•tbXO). In soma instancaa. diflanat ranonak
w*n glvan far txclnaion ondar parafraph ».
However. EPA has nrnwed thesa
wbcategorias and has detarminad that
axclusion could bava occumd dua to^ona of
ma four reasons Ustad abort. .:' .-.- —.
This Bst mdndaa afl sabcatagoriaa that -<
hava bs«n axcludad for tht abor«-4iatad
nasons as of (data of publication in tha "-«
Fadaral Ra«istar|. TUs list wiD ba opdatad :
ptrtodicallyfortbacaBvaniaacaaftDa - "--U ,;
raadar. -u "
Vinyl chloride
Tinr aini composuMia
. ytdhaafra* and Saalanta
Aluminum Forming •
Auto and Other Laundries
— Battarr Manufacturing
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Catogoriaa
_.'.
Auto end Other Lauadriet Industry
• Carpet Cleaners - -;: ..-- «-4jr>-TS£
• Coin Operated Lsondrias -i
• Diaper Services
• Dry CUaners .
• Power Laundries
' "JMcrM
• Carbon Zinc Air Cell Batteries
• Lithium Batteries - - ' ^titJ
Electrical and Electronic Co
Bactroplating , taa*
Explosives Manofactnring
Foundries --' "-1- -? - -
Com and Wood Chemicals
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
Iron and Sleel Manufacturing . ^-^
Leather Tanning and Finishing '•• '
Mechanical Products Manufacturing '-'--'-
. Nonferrous MelaJs Manufacturing '• -
On Mining
Organic Chemicals Manufactnring
Paint and Ink Formulation
Pesticides
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Photographic Equipment and Supplies
Plastics Processing
Plastic and Synthetic Materials
Manufacturing
Porcelain Enameling
Printing and Publishing
Pulp and Paper Mills
Rubber Processing
Soap and Detergent Manufactnring
Steam Electric Power Plants
Textile Mills
Timber Products Processing -
Appendix D Selected Industrial
Subcatefories Exempted From Regulation
Pursuant of Paragraph • of the NROC ».
Costle Consent Decim
The following industrial tubcategones
have been excluded from further rulemaking
pursuant to paragraoh a c: Lhe Natural
ftftource* Deftnte Coanai v. Cotue Consent
Magnesium Carbon Batteries
• Magnesium CaO Batteries *"
• Miniatnre Alkaline Batteries
• Nickel Zinc Batteries
•• -"• *-*-> "
. * Carbon and Graphite Pioducta
•PlxadCapacitorf
• Fluorescent Lamps -^aftR*.-' «E»* •
• Incandescent Lamps -r^..;',- •>•»«•« •.
• Magnetic/Coatings <--_' .~.^~ -
• Mica Paper ,^^. ^iV " rrzrV- --3 »^
"
Ehctrophting ' -* "'"-;;;• v' ** K ^~
• Alkaline Qeaning
• Bright Dipping
• Chemical Machining
• Galvanizing
• Immersion Plating
• Indite Dipping
• Pickling
Explotivm Industry
• Military Explosive Manufactnring
foundries Industry
• Nickel Casting
• Tin Casting
• Titanium Casting
Goat and Wood Chemicoh
• Chsr and Charcoal Briquets
• Gum Resin. Turpentine and Essential Oils
Iron and SIM! India try
•* Basic Oxygen Furasce (Semmet)
• Beehive Coke Process
• Electric Arc Fumsce (Semiwet)
Inorganic Chemical* Manufacturing Industry
• Aluminum Sulfste
• Ammonium Chloride
• Ammonium Hydroxide
• Banum Carbonate
• Borax
•BoricAdd "=""' r
• Bromine ',
r • Calcium Carbide _'
• Calcium Carbonate
• Calcium Chloride
• Calcium Hydroxide
• Calcium Oxide _
• Carbon Dioxide '. ^
• Carbon Monoxide
• Chromic Acid
• Cuprous Oxide
• Ferric Chloride
• Ferrous Sulfste
• Fluorine ; ^
• Hydrogen ^ ,
• Hydrochloric Add
• Hydrogen Peroxide
• Iodine
• Lead Monoxide
• Lithium Carbonate
• Manganese Sulfate
jlHltricAdd . -
• Oxygen and Nitrogen
• Potasaium Chloride «
• Potassium Dichromate
• Potassium Iodide
• Potassium Metal ^. -
• Potassium Permanganate
• Potassium Sulfate .-.>
• SodiuBLBicarbonate
• Sodium Carbonate
-• Sodium Chloride —[:.-:.
Sodium Fluoride -». ..
r. Sodium Hydroaulflde
• Sodium Metal > --. --
• Sodium Silicate "- —
• Sodium Snlfite '•<• .-. -,
v*.-Sodium TfaJoaulfate
•-Stannic Oxide *^--atv
• Sulfur Dioxide : -:. *»-
• Sulfuric Add
• Zinc Oxide
• ZincSulfata
Leather Indusinet
• Gloves
• Luggage
• Shoes and Relsted Footwear
• Personal Goods
Non ferrous Metal* Industry
• Primary Arsenic
• Primary Antimony
• Secondary Babbin
• Primary Barium
• Secondary Beryllium
• Primary Bismuth
• Primary Boron
• Secondary Boron
• •Bauxite
• Secondary Cadmium
• Primary Calcium
• Primary Cesium
• Primary Chromium
• Primary Cobalt
• Secondary Cobalt
• Secondary Columbian
• Primary Callium
• Primary Germanium
• Primary Gold
• Secondary Precious Meia:j
• Primary Hsfruunj
143
-------
9460 Federal Register / VoL 46. No. 18 / Wednesday. January 22. 1981 / Rules and Regulations
» •--- - -r
Secondary
• Primary Lithium **
""• Primary Manganese '
• Primary Magnesium
• Secondary Magnesium
• Primary Mercury
• Secondary Mercury "-
- Primary Molybdenum
• Secondary Molybdenum
• Primary Nickel
• Secondary Nickel
• Secondary Plutonian ~'
• Primary Potassium
• Primary Rare Earth* '
• Primary Rhenium
• Secondary Rhenium
• Primary Rubidium
• Primary Platinum Group
- « Primary Silicon •
"• Primary Sodium * '
• Secondary Tantahim
• Primary Tin
• Secondary Tin
• Primary Titanium ;
• Secondary Titanium '"
*» Secondary Tungsten
-• Primary Uranium ;^_
• Secondary Uraninm >. -~
• Secondary Zinc -.'
• Primary Zirconium ~
^Painlandlnklnduttrj
j, • SolTeat Base Proceae
. • Solvent Wash Process
.Par ing cod Roofing Industry
_• Aaphalt Concrete ^-.^v .
• Asphalt Emulsion j ;J-j,
/•Linoleum . ,.",
• Printed Asphalt Felt . !^
'••Roofing ..-••-- ..-'-"'
yPuJp. Paptr. Papwbuard andCotmrtnJ
• Veneer . — „
•" • Wet Storage -.>"-'-
* Wood Preserving (Inorganlcs> Process
PART 125-CmTCTIA AND
STANDARDS FOR THE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
Subpvt D—Criteria and Standards for
, Determining Fundamentally Different
Factor* Under Sections 301(bX1XA),
301(bX2) (A) end (EXANO MT(B)] Of
THt ACT
2.40 CFR Part J25 tubpart D is
•mended by deleting "and 307(5)" from
.•the title of the robpart.
3.40 CFR { 1?^v ia «tnyiHH to reed
ajfbllowi:
• Conrerted Paper Indostry '*
- Rubber Pmcetting Industry
• Latex-Dipped. Latex-Extruded, and Latex
Molded Goods
• Latex Foam
• Small-sized General Molded. Extruded and
Fabricated Rubber Plants x
• Medium-sued General Molded. Extruded
and Fabricated Rubber Plants
• Large-sized General Molded. Extruded and
Fabricated Rubber Plants x
• Synthetic Crumb Rubber Production—
Emulsion Polymerization ^
• Synthetic Crumb Rubber Production-
Solution Polymerization
• Synthetic Latex Rubber Production
• Tire ft Inner Tube Production
Textile Induitry
• Apparel Manufacturing
• Cordage and Twine
• Low Water Use Processing (Greige Mills)
• Padding and UphoIItery. Filling
Timber Products Processing
• Barking Process
• Finishing Processes
• Hardboard — Dry Proctss
• Log Wishing
• Panicleboard
• Planing Mills
• Sswtmils
I12SJO •vpoeeendi
-- (•) This nbpart estabiisije* the
'•criteria and standard! to be used in
determining whether »ffl"»rif limitations
< alternative to those required by
•~ promulgated EPA »ffl"»"» limitation!
;_, guideline* under section* 301 and 304 of
:/, the Act (hereinafter referred to as
^"national limita"] should be impoMd on
,. a discharger because factors relating to
' the discharger's facilities, equipment
-—processes of other factors related to the
~- discharger are fundamentally different
%~ from the factors considered by EPA in
"development of the national limit*. This
- a •nbpart applies to all national limits
^ promulgated under sections 401 and 304
l^-of the Act except for those contained m
~ 40 CFR Part 423 (steam electric
- generating point source category!
; (b) In establishing national limits. EPA
takes into account all the information it
can collect develop and solicit
regarding the factors listed in sections
304(b) and 304(g) of the Act
• * • • •
(Ft Doc. tl-aa fifed t-V-«l: MS e*|
144
-------
APPENDIX Ci POTWs With Pretreatment Programs
145
-------
REVISED 9/30/85
NPDES NO. AUTHORITY NAME
CALIFORNIA
69 Programs ) 5 MGD
100 PROGRAMS REQUIRED
100 9 PROGRAMS
*CA0038091
*CA0055531
*CA0053597
•CA0038628
*CA0037648
*CAO105279
*CA
*CA0037940
*CA0110604
*CA
*CA0022756
*CA0079049
*CA0037613
*CA
•CA0037702
•CAU079171
*CA0107981
*CAO107395
*CA0023418
*CA0038377
*CA
*CA
*CA
*CA0048160
•CA0037656
*CA0105970
*CA
*CAO 109991
CA0053953
CA0053856
•CA0053813
*CA0056014
BENICIA, CITY OF
BURBANK, CITY OF
CAMARILLO S.D.
CENTRAL MARIN S.A.
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA
CHINO BASIN MMN WD
CHINO CITY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CO SAN DIST OF ORAN
aiCAHONGA WT. DIST.
CRESCENT CITY
DAVIS, CITY OF
DUBLIN-SAN RAMON SO
EASTERN MUNICIPAL W
EAST BAY MUD
EAST YOU) COMM SERV
ESCONDIDO, CITY OF
ENCIMA JT SEWERARE
EUREKA
FAIRFIELD-SUISUN SD
FONTANA, CITY OF
FRESNO, CITY OF
Gil JOY, CITY OF
GOLRTA SANITARY DIS
HAYWARD, CITY OF
IRVINE RANCH WATER
JURUPA CO. SAN.
LA CITY PUB WRKS
LA CITY PUB WRKS
LA CITY PUB WRKS
LA COUNTY S.D.
LAS VIRGENES MUNWD
FACILITY NAME
BENICIA WWTF
BURBANK WWTF
CAMARILLO WWTF
CENTRAL MARIN
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA
CHINO BASIN REG TPf1
7-A
OCSD STP NO 2
CRESCENT CITY WWTF
DAVIS WWTF
DUBLIN-SAN RAMON WWT
HEMET-SAN JACINTO WW
EAST BAY MUD WWTF
WEST SACRAMENTO WWTF
HALE AVENUE WWTF
KNCINA JOINT POWERS
HILL STRECT WWTF
FAtRKIELD SUISUN WvVT
FKESNO WWTF
GILROY WWTF
GOLCTA WWTF
HAYWARD WWTF
MICHAELSON WWTF
HYPERION WWTF
L.A. GLENDALE'WWJP
TERMINAL ISLAND WWTF
JWPCP
TAPIA WWTF
CITY NAME
BENICIA
BURBANK
CAMARILLO
SAN RAFAEL
MARTINEZ
ONTARIO
CHINO
W. PITTSBURG
FOUNTAIN VAL.
CUCAMONGA
CRESCENT CITY
DAVIS
PLEASANTON
SAN JACINTO
OAKLAND
W. SACRAMENTO
KSCDNDIDO
CARUSBAD
KUREKA
FAIRKIELD
FONfANA
FRI-SNO
GILROY
GOLETA
HAYWARD
IRVINE
RIVERSIDE
LOS ANGRLES
DOS ANGELES
SAN PEDRO
CARSON
CALABASAS
DISCHARGE
FLOW (MGD)
3.00
9.00+
6.71}-!-
10.00+
35.00+
24.50+
9.50+
227.00+
1.96
5.00
9.00+
3.50
128.00+
8.00+
16.50+
13.75+
1.09
15.58+
37.90+
0.09
10.50+
21.50+
4.00
352.30+
20.00
30.00
385.00+
8.00+
INDUSTRIAL
FLOW (MGD)
neg.
1.05
0.15
neg.
0.79
3.58
0.41
31.80
0.04
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.65
0.81
0.83
0.00
2.08
2.30
0.04
8.00
0.00
32.00
2.00
8.00
96.25
0.30
PROGRAM STATUS
APP
e
0
§
e
@
e
e
e
e
@
e
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
MO/YR
8/81
7/82
3/83
6/83
9/82
5/83
5/83
7/82
1/84
5/83
7/82
3/83
6/83
8/83
6/83
5/83
3/83
7/83
1/83
8/82
5/83
6/83
9/83
7/83
8/81
3/83
5/83
6/83
3/85
6/82
-------
CALIFORNIA (Continued)
NPDES NO. AUTHORITY NAME
*CA0038008
•CA0079243
*CA0048127
*CA
•CA0079219
*CA0079103
*CA0048551
CA
*CA0037575
*CA0079472
*CA0037737
•CA0037958
*CA0053961
*CA0107433
*CA0039591
*CA0037834
*CA0037810
*CA0079731
*CA010S759
*CAO105295
*CA0037729
'CA0105350
CA
*CA0079502
*CA
*CA0079lll
*CA0048101
*CAO105392
*CA0053651
*CAO107409
*CA0107999
*CA0038610
LIVERMORE, CITY OF
LODI CITY OF
LOMPOC, CITY OF
MADERA, CITY OF
MERCED, CITY OF
MODESTO, CITY OF
MONTEREY REGIONAL
MONTCLAIR
NAPA S.D.
NEWMAN, CITY OF
N. SAN MATED CO SAN
NOVATO S.D.
OAK VIEW
OCEANSIDE, CITY OF
ORO-LOMA SAN DIST
PALO ALTO, CITY OF
PETALUMA, CITY OF
REDDING, CITY OF
REDLANDS, CITY OF
RIALTO, CITY OF
RICHMOND MUNICIPAL
RIVERSIDE, CITY OF
RIVERBANK, CITY OF
ROSEVILLE, CITY OF
RUBIDUX OOMM. SD
SACRAMENTO REG CSD
SALINAS, CITY OF
SAN BBRNARDINO,CITY
SAN RUENA VENTURA
SAN DIEGO, CITY OF
SAN DIEGO, COUNTY
SAN FRANCISCO,CITY
FACILITY NAME
LIVERMORE WWTF
WHITE SLOUGH WWTF
LOMPOC WWTF
MADERA STP
MERCED STP
MODESTO WWTF
MONTEREY REG. WWTF
NAPA SANIT. DIST WWT
NEWMAN WWTF
DALY CITY WWTF
NOVATO WWTF (MAIN)
OAK VIEW WWTF
LA SALINA WWTF
ORO LOMA WWTF
PALO ALTO WWTF
PETAUUMA WWTF
REDDING REG WWTF
REDLANDS WWTF
RIALTO WWTF
RICHMOND WWTF
RIVERSIDE CITY WWTF
RIVERBANK WWTF
ROSEVILLE WWTF
SACTO REG WWTF
SALINAS IND WWTF
SAN BERNARDINO WWTF
VENTURA WWTF .
PT LOMA WWTF
SAN ELIJO JP REG SEW
N.POINT & SOUTHEAST
CITY NAME
LIVERMORE
LODI
LOMPOC
MADERA
MERCED
MODESTO
PACIFIC GROVE
MONTCLAIR
NAPA
NEWMAN
DALY CITY
NOVATO
VENTURA
OCEANSIDE
SAN LORENZO
PALO ALTO
PBTALUMA
REDDING
REDLANDS
RIALTO
RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
RIVERBANK
ROSEVILLE
RUBIDUX
SACRAMENTO
SALINAS
SAN BERNARDINO
VENTURA
SAN DIEGO
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
DISCHARGE
FLOW (MGD)
6.25+
5.80+
5.00
9.20+
45.00+
16.30+
15.40+
0.85
5.40+
4.53
3.00
15.10+
20.00+
35.00+
2.64
8.80+
6.00+
6.00+
16.00+
21.75+
7.60
11.50+
150.00+
6.00+
28.00+
14.00+
116.89+
3.70
85.00+
INDUSTRIAL
FLOW (MGD)
0.55
0.86
0.08
0.03
0.43
10.00
2.80
0.30
0.00
0.05
neg.
0.20
0.32
0.80
6.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.20
1.00
3.00
7.00
0.25
11.50
2.71
1.50
0.25
8.40
0.00
neg.
PROGRAM STATUS
APP
e
e
e
@
e
@
e
e
@
e
@
e
e
@
§
@
@
@
@
@
@
e
@
e
@
e
e
@
e
@
@
MO/YR
8/83
3/83
7/83
9/83
3/83
3/83
5/83
5/83
5/83
4/83
6/83
9/82
5/83
12/82
8/82
7/82
6/83
2/83
5/83
1/83
4/82
5/83
1/84
5/83
1/83
5/83
8/83
6/82
6/82
6/82
1/83
-------
NPDES NO. AUTHORITY NAME
00
*CA0037842
*CA0037745
•CA0049224
*CA0037541
*CA0048143
*CA0048194
*CA0048275
*"A0022764
.A
*CA0037711
*CA0055221
*CA0107417
*CA0038130
*CAO102709
*CA0079138
*CA0037621
*CA0078948
*CA0079154
*CA0056294
*CA0037591
*CA
*CA0077691
'A0037699
"CA
CA0054097
*CA0079189
*CA0048216
*CA0037974
*CA0077950
*CA0079260
*CAO107611
*CA
*CA0037788
SAN JOSE, CITY OF
SAN LEANDRO, CITY
SAN LUIS OBISPO
SAN MATEO, CITY OF
SANTA BARBARA, CITY
SANTA CRUZ, CITY OF
SANTA MARIA, CITY
SANTA ROSA
SELMA-KINGS.-FLOWER
SO. MARIN SA
SIMI VALLEY COUNTY
SO EAST REG REC AUT
SO SAN FRAN DPT PUB
SOUTH TAHOE PUD
STOCKTON DEPT OF PU
SUNNYVALE, CITY OF
TURLOCK, CITY OF
TRACY, CITY OF
THOUSAND OAKS DPT
UNION SANITARY DIST
UPLAND, CITY OF
VACAVILLE DEPT OF P
VALLEJO SAN & PC DI
VENTURA RCSD
OXNARD, CITY OF
VISALIA, CITY OF
WATSONVILLE; CITY
WEST CONTRA COSTA
WOODLAND, CITY OF
YUBA CITY, CITY OF
ALISO WAT MANAGEMNT
BAKERSFIELD, CITY
BURLINGAME, CITY OF
FACILITY NAME
SAN JOSE/SANTA CLARA
SAN LEANDRO WWTF
SAN LUIS OBISPO WWTF
SAN MATEO WWTF
SANTA BARBARA WWTF
SANTA CRUZ WWTF
PUBLIC AIRPORT WWTF
LACUNA WWTF
SO.MARIN WWTF
SIMI VALLEY WWTF
SERRA REG WWTF
SO SF-SAN BRUNO WWTF
SOUTH TAHOE WWTF
STOCKTON REG. WWTF
SUNNYVALE WWTF
TURLOCK WWTF
TRACY WWTF
HILL CANYON WWTF
ALVARADO #3 WWTF
EASTERLY WWTF
VSTED WWTF & RECL
OXNARD WWTF
VISALIA WWTF
WATSONVILLE WWTF
WCCSD WWTF
WOODLAND WWTF
YUBA CITY WWTF .
AWNA COASTAL WWTF
BAKERSFIELD WrfTF #2
BURLINGAME WWTF
CITY NAME
SAN JOSE
SAN LEANDRO
SAN LUIS OBISPO
SAN MATEO
SANTA BARBARA
SANTA CRUZ
SANTA MARIA
SANTA ROSA
KINGSBURG
MILL VALLEY
SIMI VALLEY
DANA POINT
SO.SAN FRAN.
SO.LAKE TAHOE
STOCKTON
SUNNYVALE
TURLOCK
TRACY
CAMARILLO
UNION CITY
UPLAND
ELMIRA
VALLEJO
FILLMORE
OXNARD
VISALIA
WATSONVILLE
SAN PABLO
WOODLAND
YUBA CITY
SOUTH LAGUNA
BAKERSFIELD
BURLINGAME
DISCHARGE
FLOW (HGD)
160.00+
11.00+
5.10+
13.60+
11.00+
21.00+
2.90
15.00+
2.90
9.10+
17.80+
13.00+
7.00+
67.00+
21.38+
12.75+
5.50+
10.00+
4.50
10.00+
12.50+
+
22.50
7.70+
13.40+
12.50+
4.00
7.00+
2.50
15.00+
5.50+
INDUSTRIAL
FLOW (MGD)
40.00
3.10
0.50
0.00
0.19
1.20
1.50
0.75
0.00
0.38
0.03
1.70
0.00
8.00
10.30
8.10
1.60
0.20
0.61
0.33
0.20
2.55
1.57
3.00
0.65
1.60
0.00
0.77
0.50
PROGRAM STATUS
APP
@
e
@
@
e
e
§
@
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
@
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
MO/YR
1/83
4/82
5/83
9/83
3/83
10/83
7/83
6/83
6/83
6/83
6/82
2/83
2/83
6/82
6/82
6/82
9/82
3/83
6/82
9/81
5/83
3/83
7/82
6/82
5/83
5/83
4/82
8/83
7/82
2/83
9/85
1/84
-------
CALIFORNIA (Continued)
NPDES NO. AUTHORITY NAME
*CAO105236
*CA0105848
*CA0037532
*CA
*CA0038369
*CA
*CA0059021
DELETIONS:
*CA
*CAO104426
*CA0078905
*CA
*CA
*CA
*CA
*CA
COLTON, CITY OF
CORONA, CITY Of
MILLBRAE, CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO CO.
SOUTH BAYSIDE SYS A
ONTARIO, CITY OF
VENTURA R.C.S.O.
BACKSVILLE
EL CENTRO, CITY OF
RECCING, CITY OF
MOUNT VERNON CO. SA
VENECIA
CLARK CO.
SAN FRAN AIRPORT
PORTERVILLE, CITY OF
FACILITY NAME
COLTON WWTF
CORONA hWTF
MILLBRAE WWTF
S BAYSIDE WWTF
FILLMORE WWTF
EL CENTRO WWTF
ENTERPRISES WWTF
MOUNT VERNON WWTF
CITY NAME
COLTOI
CORONA
MILLBRAE
REDWOOD CITY
ONTARIO
FILLMORE
EL CENTRO
REDDING
PORTGRVILLE
DISCHARGE
FLOW (MGD)
5.40+
5.50+
3.00
26.00+
1.33
5.00
1.00
INDUSTRIAL
FLOW (MGD)
0.70
0.43
0.05
2.70
0.00
PROGRAM STATUS
APP
e
§
e
e
e
§
e
MO/YR
6/85
3/85
1/84
9/85
6/85
7/83
9/83
-------
APPENDIX Di Trihalomethane Formation
150
-------
APPENDIX D. TRIHALOMETHANE FORMATION
General
Trihalomethanes (THMs) are compounds characterized by a methane
structure with three hydrogen atoms replaced by halogen atoms. For
instance, chloroform (trichloromethane) has the structural formula
CHC13. Of the 16 PTOCs of interest, three are classified as THMs;
chloroform, bromodichloromethane, and chlorodibromomethane.
Under the appropriate conditions, the chlorination of wastewater
can lead to the formation of THMs. in this section, the important fac-
tors which affect the formation of THMs are described, along with
possible precursors, and formation and reaction mechanisms. Although a
comprehensive review of THM formation is beyond the scope of this study,
references are noted so that the reader may pursue additional infor-
mation on the subject.
Factors Affecting THM Formation
Several factors can influence the relative magnitude of THM for-
mation. These can be classified into three groups; (1) general
wastewater characteristics, (2) specific biological and chemical charac-
teristics of the wastewater, and (3) characteristics of the chlorination
system. A brief review of the factors associated with each group is
presented in the following subsections.
General wastewater characteristics
The two general wastewater conditions which can influence THM for-
mation are pH and temperature. From a practical standpoint, the
wastewater pH should have a very small impact on haloform reactions.
This is due to the typically narrow pH range of most wastewaters. Dore
et. al. (1982) found that the THM yield peaked at much higher pH values
than are usually observed in municipal wastewater. However, the peak
151
-------
was found to be a function of the halogen compound used and the precur-
sors present.
Changes in the temperature of the wastewater affect the reaction
rate of THM formation and competing reactions. As with pH, a typically
narrow wastewater temperature range leads to the conclusion that tem-
perature does not significantly influence THM formation.
Specific biological and chemical characteristics of the wastewater
Competing halogens, ammonia, precursor compounds, and chemical and
biological agents which lead to the formation of precursors, can all
affect the quantity of individual THMs which are formed as a result of
the chlorination of wastewater. The effects of competing halogens and
ammonia will be discussed here. Precursors and precursor formation are
addressed later.
Three halogens which may be present in wastewater are chlorine,
bromine, and iodine, with iodine considered to be present in insignifi-
cant amounts relative to chlorine and bromine. Chlorine and bromine can
react to form hypochlorous and hypobromous acid, respectively, which
when exposed to the appropriate precursors lead to the formation of
chlorinated and brominated THMs (Dore et al., 1982). In general,
hypochlorous acid is considered to be more reactive with THM precursors
than is hypobromous acid (Dore et al., 1982). However, brominated spe-
cies have been found to be significant, even at high chlorine doses (Amy
et al., 1984).
The presence of ammonia in wastewater plays an important role in
the formation of trihalomethanes. Naturally occurring or added ammonia
reacts with available chlorine to form chloramines, thus exerting a free
chlorine demand and reducing the ultimate trihalomethane levels. It is
generally believed that chloramines do not react to form THMs (Amy et
al., 1984). However, Riznychok et. al. (1983) has suggested that
chloramines are part of the total combined available chlorine which can
react to form THMs. In either case, the presence of ammonia appears to
reduce, but not totally eliminate THM production. The lack of complete
152
-------
inhibition suggests that the reactivity of some precursors may be very
high CDore et al., 1982). It has been observed that complete elimina-
tion of THMs in chlorinated water containing humic substances is rare
(Amy et al., 1984). Furthermore, greater quantities of THMS were formed
during the chlorination of nitrified (ammonia reduced) effluent than
during the chlorination in non-nitrified wastewater effluent (Chow and
Roberts, 1981).
The significant effect of ammonia on THM formation suggests the
importance of the degree of nitrification and the point of chlorine
application. For instance, a sewage treatment plant that discharges to
a sensitive receiving water may be required to meet stringent ammonia
discharge standards. A high degree of nitrification before chlorination
favors the formation of THMs. The opposite would be true for wastewa-
ters with high ammonia concentrations and sewage treatment plants not
designed for ammonia removal.
Characteristics of the chlorination system
Three important characteristics of the chlorination system are the
chlorine dose, reaction time, and the location of chlorine addition.
The formation of trihalomethanes has been shown to be proportional
to the chlorine dose, or amount of chlorine added to the wastewater per
unit time (Dore et al., 1982; Amy et al., 1984). For a better
understanding of the effect that the chlorine dose has on the THM yield,
breakpoint chlorination and chlorine breakpoint curves should be con-
sidered. A thorough review of breakpoint chlorination is beyond the
scope of this work.
The reaction time during which trihalomethanes can form after
chlorine addition is important, but not well understood for wastewater
streams. The reaction time is dependent upon the wastewater flowrate
and the residence time in the chlorine contact and effluent outfall
systems. The use and location of dechlorination systems are also impor-
tant factors. Chloroform, bromodichloromethane, and chlorodibromo-
methane have all been shown to increase with increases in the reaction
153
-------
time (Cooper et. al., 1983). Dechlorination tends to reduce, but not
completely eliminate THM yields, even after a very short reaction time
of 2 minutes (Helz et al., 1985). This suggests that the chemical pro-
cesses involved in the production of THMs occur rapidly after chlorine
addition.
The location of chlorine addition can seriously impact the relative
significance of THM formation. Where disinfection is necessary, final
effluent is typically chlorinated. However, some facilities require
chlorination of the influent to control odors, and some require chlori-
nated odor control on the influent, as well as disinfection by chlorina-
tion of the effluent, stream. If the influent stream is chlorinated,
several mechanisms can affect the THM yield. For instance, without
influent dechlorination the increased reaction time and precursor con-
centration tend to favor an increase in the THM yield, while a higher
ammonia concentration in the influent stream favors a reduction in the
yield. In addition, the precursor concentration may actually be lower
in the influent stream as precursors may form during biological treat-
ment later in the treatment process.
Precursors
Although it would be desirable to be able to correlate the for-
mation of trihalomethanes with a common organic parameter such as BOD or
COD, such correlations are not possible, as the formation of THMs is
closely related to the chemical structure of the precursor compounds
(Dore et al., 1982; Takehisa et al., 1985). The most commonly noted THM
percursors are humic substances (Amy et al., 1984). Takehisa et al.
(1985) observed that both humic acid and fulvic acid in natural water
were precursors leading to the formation of THMs in drinking water.
Aquatic algae and their metabolic products can produce precursors
of THMs, but the precursor molecules have not been identified conclusi-
vely (Itoh et al., 1985). Acetoacetic acid, known to be an intermediate
of fatty acid catabolism, is typically produced by sewage bacteria
during the biodegradation of organic materials (Itoh et al., 1985). In
154
-------
addition, the chlorination of a solution containing acetoacetic acid led
to a chloroform yield of 55.5% on a molar basis, and it was suggested
that between 51 - 8795 of the total chloroform yield of a wastewater was
explained by reactions involving acetoacetic acid (Itoh et al., 1985).
Dore et. al. (1982) studied a number of potential precursors and
the chloroform yield when waters containing those precursors were spiked
with a known amount of chlorine. Potentially significant precursors
were noted to be those compounds bearing acetyl groups, and those com-
pounds susceptible to forming acetyl groups by oxidation. The precur-
sors that were studied had a wide range of molar percent yields of
chloroform, ranging from Q.15% for acetone, to 91.5% for resorcinol.
Additional precursors and their molar percent yields included phenol
(0.4*), pyruvic acid (1*), acetophenone (1.2%), phloroglucinol (55%),
and acetyl acetone (91%).
Reaction Mechanisms
The reactions of greatest concern are the THM formation reaction
and the chloramine formation reaction. The reaction between hypoch-
lorous acid and ammonia to form chloramines has a reaction rate on the
order of 1.0 x 106 L/mol-s. Such a high rate would tend to indicate a
low amount of THM formation when ammonia is present during chlorination.
However, THMs have been observed to form even under such conditions.
Cooper et al. (1983) suggested that such results can be explained by a
multi-step process for THM formation. The first step is believed to be
relatively fast with respect to the hypochlorous acid / ammonia reac-
tion. Slower formation reactions follow for a period of 24 hours or
more after chlorination. Amy et al. (1984) also observed an initial THM
formation rate that is competitive with the formation of chloramines.
It was suggested that following the initial step the THM formation
mechanism is slow, but it acts in parallel with the chloramine formation
mechanism. The THM formation peak has been noted to occur approximately
15 minutes after the initial chlorine contact (Riznychok et al., 1983).
The overall time frame for formation has been observed to be on the
order of days (Kavanaugh et al., 1980).
155
-------
Emissions of Trihalomethanes Following Chlorination
Volatile emissions of THMs following chlorination can be signifi-
cantly affected by the location of chlorination, as well as effluent
outfall characteristics. For instance, if the wastewater is chlorinated
as influent, THMs have ample opportunity to volatilize throughout the
entire treatment process, if the effluent is chlorinated at the sewage
treatment plant and then conveyed to an ultimate receiving water, the
characteristics of the effluent outfall line (e.g., open, enclosed,
vented, length, etc.) can affect emissions during outfall. The nature
of the receiving system is also very important. While volatilization
may not occur at the sewage treatment plant or in the outfall line, if
the effluent is discharged to a surface receiving water the THMs are
likely to volatilize downstream.
Summary
Trihalomethanes form during the chlorination of municipal
wastewater. However, studies to date have focussed upon drinking water
chlorination, and an understanding of THM formation during wastewater
treatment is incomplete. The most important factors that affect THM
formation are the presence of competing halogens, ammonia that competes
for available chlorine, and organic precursors. The chlorine dose,
reaction time, and the location of chlorine addition are also factors
that affect THM formation. The most important precursors appear to be
humic substances that bear acetyl groups. The reaction between such
precursors and hypochlorous acid is able to compete with the formation
of chloramines for a short period of time following the initial chlorine
contact. Thus, even in the presence of ammonia, some degree of THM for-
mation is expected to occur. Finally, the importance of the generated
chloroform with respect to airborne emissions is believed to be depen-
dent upon the location of chlorine addition and the effluent outfall
characteristics.
156
-------
APPENDIX Ei WEST Code
157
-------
C PROGRAM WEST (WORST-CASE EMISSIONS DURING SEWAGE TREATMENT)
C
C DEVELOPED BY: RICHARD L. CORSI
C UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS
C DECEMBER 1986
C
C PROGRAM WEST UTILIZES AVERAGE FLOW AND CONCENTRATION DATA THAT
C ARE STORED IN EXTERNAL FILE COUNTY.DAT. THESE DATA ARE THEN USED
C TO COMPUTE AVERAGE EMISSION RATES FROM INDIVIDUAL WASTEWATER
C TREATMENT PLANTS. EMISSIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL PLANTS ARE OUTPUT TO
C EXTERNAL FILE EMSTP.PRT. COUNTY-BY-COUNTY EMISSIONS ARE OUTPUT
C TO EXTERNAL FILE CSUM.PRT. '
C
C
REAL PR(16),SUMS(16),SUMC(16),C(16),CFLO(58),TOTF(58),PFLOW(58)
1,EOUT(16),SR(16),SLUMC(16),SLUMS(16)
C
OPEN(UNIT=3,FILE='CSUM.PRT',STATUS='NEW' )
OPEN(UNIT=5,FILE='COUNTY.DAT',STATUS='OLD')
OPEN(UNIT=6,FILE='EMSTP.PRT',STATUS='NEW')
C
C THROUGHOUT ANALYSIS, THE FOLLOWING SUBSCRIPTS ARE USED:
C
C 1 ACRYLONITRILE
C 2 BENZENE
C 3 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
C 4 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
C 5 CHLOROBENZENE
C 6 CHLOROFORM
C 7 DIBROMOOCHLOROBENZENE
C 8 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE
C 9 ETHYLBENZENE
C 10 1,2 DICHLOROETHANE
C 11 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
C 12 PERCHLOROETHYLENE
C 13 TOLUENE
C 14 1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE
C 15 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
C 16 VINYL CHLORIDE
C
C ASSIGN THE FRACTIONAL REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
C
PR(1)=0.90
PR(2)=0.72
PR(3)=0.90
PR(4)=0.95
PR(5)=0.87
PR(6)=0.90
PR(7)=0.90
PR(8)=0.77
PR(9)=0.84
PR(10)=0.97
PR(11)=0.65
PR(12)=0.79
PR(13)=0.89
PR(14)=0.79
PR(15)=0.83
PR(16)=1.0
C
C ASSIGN THE SLUDGE ADSORPTION FACTORS
C
SR(1)=0.0
SR(2)=0.01
SR(3)=0.0
SR(4)=0.043
SR(5)=0.051
SR(6)=0.0067
SR(7)=0.0
SR(8)=0.0
SR(9)=0.043
SR(10)=0.011
158
-------
SR(11)=0.0799
SR(12)=0.0414
SR(13)=0.0974
SR(14)=0.0067
SR(15)=0.0408
SR(16)=0.0126
C
C READ NUMBER OF COUNTIES IN DATABASE COUNTY.DAT (NC)
READ(5,*)NC
C
C INITIALIZE THE STATEWIDE EMISSIONS AND SLUDGE TOTALS
C
DO 9 MM=1,16,1
SUMS(MM)=0.0
SLUMS(MM)=0.0
9 CONTINUE
SUMD=0.0
SUMF=0.0
C
C LOOP THROUGH THE COUNTIES
C I=COUNTY NUMBER (1=ALAMEDA 58=YUBA)
C
DO 10 I=1,NC,1
C
C ICTY = COUNTY NUMBER; NP = NUMBER OF PLANTS IN COUNTY ICTY
C
READ(5,*)ICTY,NP
C
C INITIALIZE THE EMISSIONS AND SLUDGE TOTALS FOR COUNTY I
C
DO 11 MM=1,16,1
SUMC(MM)=0.0
SLUMC(MM)=0.0
11 CONTINUE
C
C INITIALIZE THE TOTAL FLOW (TOTF) FOR COUNTY I, AND FLOW
C (CFLO) ACCOUNTED FOR BY MWTPS WITH CONCENTRATION DATA
C
TOTF(I)=0.0
CFLO(I)=0.0
C
C LOOP THROUGH ALL NP PLANTS IN COUNTY I
C
DO 20 J=1,NP,1
SPLANT=0.0
READ(5,1000)
C
C IFLAG INDICATES THE DEGREE OF AVAILABLE DATA
C
READ(5,1050)IFLAG
C
C READ FLOW DATA AND ASSIGN THE MOST APPROPRIATE FLOWRATE
C
C AF IS THE TOTAL FLOW LISTED IN THE NEEDS DATA BASE;
C AIND IS THE INDUSTRIAL FLOW; ACT IS AN UPDATED FLOWRATE IF SUCH
C A VALUE IS AVAILABLE. ALL FLOWS ARE READ AS MGD.
C
READ(5,1100)AF,AIND,ACT
C
C SELECT APPROPRIATE FLOWRATE
C
IF(ACT .EQ. 0.0)THEN
FLOW=AF
ELSE
FLOW=ACT
END IF
C
C COMPLETE SUMMATION OF FLOWS IN COUNTY I
C
TOTF(I)=TOTF(I)+FLOW
SUMF=SUMF+FLOW
159
-------
C CODE (IUP) TO INDICATE IF THE DATA IN COUNTY.DAT IS UPDATED
Vj
IF(ACT .GT. O.OJTHEN
IUP=1
ELSE
IUP=0
END IF
C
C DEFINE THE FRACTION INDUSTRIAL FLOW (R)
C
R=AIND/FLOW
C
C ANALYSIS FOR STPS WITH KNOWN INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT DATA
C
IF(IFLAQ .EQ. 1 .OR. IFLAG .EQ. 3)THEN
CFLO(I)=CFLO(I)+FLOW
SUMD=SUMD+FLOW
C
C LOOP THROUGH EACH OF THE 16 PTOCS
C
DO 30 M=l,16,l
READ(5,1200)CI,CE,ICODE
SLOUT=SR(M)*FLOW*CI*1.52E-3
IF(ICODE .EQ. 5)THEN
IF(CE .GT. CIJTHEN
IF(M .EQ. 3 .OR. M .EQ. 6 .OR. M .EQ. 7)THEN
D=CI*PR(M)
ELSE
D=0.0
END IF
ELSE
D=CI-CE
END IF
ELSE IF(ICODE .EQ. 2JTHEN
D=CI
ELSE
D=0.0
END IF
C
C CALCULATE THE EMISSION RATE (EOUT) IN TONS/YEAR
C
EOUT(M)=D*FLOW*1.5 2E-3
SPLANT=SPLANT+EOUT(M)
SUMC(M)=SUMC(M)+EOUT(M)
SUMS(M)=SUMS(M)+EOUT(M)
SLUMC(M)=SLUMC(M)+SLOUT
SLUMS(M)=SLUMS(M)+SLOUT
30 CONTINUE
WRITE(6,1300)ICTY,JISPLANT,(EOUT(LM),LM=2,16,1)
C
C ANALYSIS FOR STPS WITH KNOWN INFLUENT DATA
C
ELSE IF(IFLAG .EQ. 2)THEN
CFLO(I)=CFLO(I)+FLOW
SUMD=SUMD+FLOW
DO 40 M=l,16,l
READ(5,1400)CI,ICODE
SLOUT=SR(M)*FLOW*CI*1.52E-3
IF(ICODE .EQ. 5)THEN
D=PR(M)*CI
ELSE
D=0.0
END IF
EOUT(M)=D*FLOW*1.5 2E-3
SPLANT=SPLANT+EOUT(M)
SUMC(M)=SUMC(M)+EOUT(M)
SUMS(M)=SUMS(M)+EOUT(M)
SLUMC(M)=SLUMC(M)+SLOUT
SLUMS(M)=SLUMS(M)+SLOUT
40 CONTINUE
WRITE(6,1300)ICTY,J,SPLANT,(EOUT(LM),LM=2,16,1)
160
-------
C ANALYSIS FOR STPS WITH KNOWN INFLUENT DATA
C
ELSE IF(IFLAG .EQ. 2)THEN
CFLO(I)=CFLO(I)+FLOW
SUMD=SUMD+FLOW
DO 40 M=l,16,l
READ(5,1400)CI,ICODE
SLOUT=SR(M)*FLOW*CI*1.52E-3
IF(ICODE .EQ. 6)THEN
D=PR(M)*CI
ELSE
D=0.0
END IF
EOUT(M)=D*FLOW*l.«2E-3
SPLANT=SPLANT+EOUT(M)
SUMC(M)=SUMC(M)+EOUT(M)
SUMS(M)=SOMS(M)+EOUT(M)
SLUMC(M)=SLUMC(M)+SLOUT
SLUMS(M)=SLUMS(M)+SLOUT
40 CONTINUE
WRITE(6,1300)ICTY,J,SPLANT,(EOUT(LM),LM=2,16,1)
C
C ENTER THE EXTRAPOLATION SEGMENT
C
ELSE
C
C EXTRAPOLATE CONCENTRATIONS TO THOSE STPS WITH NO INDUSTRIAL FLOW
C
IF(R .EQ. 0.0)THEN
C(l)=0.0
C(2)=0.60
C(3)=0.13
C(4)=0.0
C(5)=0.0
C(6)=11.2
C(7)=0.17
C(8)=0.0
C(9)=0.32
C(10)=0.30
C(ll)=6.93
C(12)=4.25
C(13)=4.35
C(14)=2.13
C(15)=1.42
C(16)=0.0
ELSE
C
C EXTRAPOLATE CONCENTRATIONS TO STPS IN THE INLAND VALLEY
C IFdCTY .EQ. 4 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 6 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 10 .OR.
1 ICTY .EQ. 11 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 13 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 15 .OR.
1 ICTY .EQ. 16 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 20 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 24 .OR.
1 ICTY EQ. 34 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 39 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 45 .OR.
1 ICTY EQ 45 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 50 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 51 .OR.
1 ICTY .EQ. 52 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 54 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 57 .OR.
1 ICTY .EQ. 58)THEN
C(l)=0.0
C(2)=0.08*R
C(3)=0.0
C(4)=0.0
C(5)=0.71*R
C(6)=28.47*R
C(7)=0.0
C(8)=3.06*R
C(9)=8.91*R
C(10)=0.0
C(11)=30.06*R
C(12)=104.18*R
C(13)=84.61*R
C(14)=22.38*R
C(15)=157.7*R
C(16)=0.0
161
-------
r Pnn^T?cATE CONCENTRATIONS TO STPS IN CONTRA COSTA AND SOLANO
\j
c
ELSE IF(ICTY .EQ. 7 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 48JTHEN
C(l)=0.0
C(2)=23.3*R
C(3)=0.0
C(4)=0.0
C(5)=0.0
C(6)=548.6*R
C(7)=0.0
C(8)=0.0
C(9)=30.74*R-
C(10)=7.69*R
C(11)=555.3*R
C(12)=254.2*R
C(13)=161.7*R
C(14)=34.97*R
C(15)=64.65*R
C(16)=0.0
C
C EXTRAPOLATE CONCENTRATIONS TO STPS IN ALAMEDA AND SANTA CLARA
C COUNTIES
C
ELSE IF(ICTY .EQ. 1 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 43JTHEN
C(l)=0.0
C(2)=21.2*R
C(3)=1.6*R
C(4)=16.82*R
C(5)=0.0
C(6)=65.03*R
C(7)=0.93*R
C(8)=11.71*R
C(9)=9.55*R
C(10)=0.0
C(11)=174.45*R
C(12)=168.89*R
C(13)=182.59*R
C(14)=88.71*R
C(15)=27.66*R
C(16)=0.0
C
C EXTRAPOLATE CONCENTRATIONS TO STPS IN SAN MATED AND SF COUNTIES
C
ELSE IF(ICTY .EQ. 38 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 41JTHEN
C(l)=0.0
C(2)=9.9*R
C(3)=1.94*R
C(4)=0.0
C(5)=81.18*R
C(6)=178.8*R
C(7)=0.0
C(8)=54.93*R
C(9)=51.78*R
C(10)=120.94*R
C(11)=102.88*R
C(12)=273.27*R
C(13)=200.31*R
C(14)=116.49*R
C(15)=111.29*R
C(16)=0.0
rv
C EXTRAPOLATE CONCENTRATIONS TO STPS IN LA AND ORANGE COUNTIES
° ELSE IFCICTY .EQ. 19 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 30)THEN
C(l)=0.0
C(2)=124.57*R
C(3)=2.43*R
C(4)=1.52*R
C(5X-0.66*R
C(6)=161.63*R
C(7)=0.62*R
162
-------
C(8)=7.38*R
C(9)=115.2*R
C(10)=22.29*R
C(11)=589.1*R
C(12)=395.89*R
C(13)=589.6*R
C(14)=442.4*R
C(15)=60.86*R
C(16)=12.87*R
C
C EXTRAPOLATE CONCENTRATIONS TO STPS IN VENTURA COUNTY
C
ELSE IF(ICTY .EQ. 56)THEN
C(l)=0.0
C(2)=73.2*R
C(3)=33.6*R
C(4)=0.0
C(5)=0.0
C(6)=113.19*R
C(7)=15.4*R
C(8)=38.5*R
C(9)=14.0*R
C(10)=0.0
C(ll)=0.0
C(12)=230.3*R
C(13)=51.8*R
C(14)=228.2*R
C(15)=10.5*R
C(16)=0.0
C
C EXTRAPOLATE CONCENTRATIONS TO STPS IN RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO,
C AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES
C
ELSE IF(ICTY .EQ. 33 .OR. ICTY .EQ. 36 .OR. ICTY
1 .EQ. 37)THEN
C(l)=0.0
C(2)=45.61*R
C(3)=12.47*R
C(4)=0.0
C(5)=0.0
C(6)=69.71*R
C(7)=0.0
C(8)=0.36*R
C(9)=97.98*R
C(10)=0.0
C(11)=176.35*R
C(12)=64.67*R
C(13)=367.10*R
C(14)=47.09*R
C(15)=2.93*R
C(16)=0.0
p
C EXTRAPOLATE CONCENTRATIONS TO THOSE COUNTIES NOT LISTED ABOVE
C
ELSE
C(l)=0.0
C(2)=0.60
C(3)=0.13
C(4)=0.0
C(5)=0.0
C(6)=11.2
C(7)=0.17
C(8)=0.0
C(9)=0.32
C(10)=0.3
C(ll)=6.93
C(12)=4.25
C(13)=4.35
C(14)=2.13
C(15)=1.42
C(16)=0.00
END IF'
163
-------
c
C ESTIMATE THE EMISSION RATE (EOUT).. (TONS/YEAR) FOR THE STPS
C WITHOUT KNOWN INFLUENT OR INFLUENT/EFFLUENT DATA
C
END IF
DO 50 M=l,16,l
SLOUT=C(M)*FLOW*SR(M)*1.52E-3
D=C(M)*PR(M)
EOUT(M)=D*FLOW*1.52E-3
SPLANT=SPLANT+EOUT(M)
SUMC(M)=SUMC(M)+EOUT(M)
SUMS(M)=SUMS(M)+EOUT(M)
SLUMC(M)=SLUMC(M)+SLOUT
SLUMS(M)=SLUMS(M)+SLOUT
50 CONTINUE
WRITE(6,1300)ICTY,J,SPLANT,(EOUT(LM),LM=2,16,1)
END IF
20 CONTINUE
C
C COMPUTE THE TOTAL EMISSIONS FOR EACH PTOC IN COUNTY I
C
SUM=0.0
SLUD=0.0
DO 60 L=l,16,l
SUM=SUM+SUMC(L)
SLUD=SLUD+SLUMC(L)
60 CONTINUE
C
C COUNTY OUTPUT: TOTAL EMISSIONS (BUM), SPECIATED EMISSIONS (SUMC),
C TOTAL REMOVAL IN SLUDGE (SLUD), SPECIATED REMOVAL IN SLUDGE,
C SLUMC
C
WRITE(3,1500)1,SUM,(SUMC(LM),LM=2,16,1),
1 SLUD,(SLUMC(LM),LM=2,16,1)
10 CONTINUE
C
C OUTPUT STATEWIDE LOSSES IN SLUDGE STREAMS (SPECIATED - SLUMS;
C TOTAL = SSLUG), AND EMISSIONS (SUMS).
C
SSLUG=0.0
DO 70 M=l,16,l
SSLUG=SSLUG+SLUMS(M)
70 CONTINUE
WRITE(3,1600)SSLUQ,(SLUMS(LM),LM=2I16,1)
WRITE(3,1700)(SUMS(M),M=1,16,1)
C
C FORMAT GROUPING
C
1000 FORMAT(IX)
1050 FORMATU2)
1100 FORMAT(1X,F9.2,11X,F9.2,21X,F9.2,/)
1200 FORMATUlX.Fg^^lX.Fg^.llX.IlO)
1300 FORMAT(2(1X,I2),16(1X,F6.2))
1400 FORMAT(11X,F9.2,41X,I10)
1500 FORMAT(1X,I2,16(1X,F6.2),/,3X,16(1X,F6.2))
1600 FORMAT(//,3X,16(1X,F6.2))
1700 FORMAT(5(/),16(1X,F6.2))
END
164
-------
APPENDIX Ft Data Base Structure
165
-------
APPENDIX Fi DATA BASE STRUCTURE
In this appendix, descriptions of four data files, submitted to the
staff of the CARB for future analyses relative to MWTPs, are provided.
Three of the four files (TTRAIN, POTW, and SLUDGE) are related by MWTP
facility numbers to establish a "linked" data base structure. Those
three files contain records associated with individual MWTPs in
California. File COUNTY contains information regarding emissions of
PTOCs and PTOC removals in sludge streams throughout individual coun-
ties. Descriptions of the data records and data fields are provided
below for each file. Equivalent FORTRAN field formats are listed for
each data field.
POTW
File POTW contains information related to the location, flow
characteristics, and estimated emissions from every MWTP identified in
this study. All emissions estimates are reported in tons/year to two
decimal places. Those listed as 0.00 should be assumed to be less than
10 Ib/year. The most recent annual average flowrates were used whenever
possible (i.e., for most of the MWTPs identified in Table 13 of this
report). Otherwise, average dry weather flowrates from the NEEDS data
base were used. Latitude and longitude coordinates were also extracted
from the NEEDS data base, although coordinates for a small number of the
facilities were not available. Most of the location coordinates
correspond to the site of effluent discharge, which in some cases may be
several miles from the actual treatment facility. The record for each
MWTP has the following two-line structure.
SNME CNUM SNUM FNUM LA LO TF IF TEM P2 P3 P6
P7 P8 P9 P16
SNME Name of facility columns 1-25 A25
CNUM County number 28-29 12
SNUM Plant number in county CNUM 32-33 12
FNUM Facility ID number 36-43 18
LA Latitude (degrees.minutes,seconds) 46-52 F7.4
166
-------
LO LongitudeC" ••) 55_62 F8.4
TF Total flow (MGD) 65-70 F6.2
IF Industrial flow (MGD) 73-77 F5.2
TEM Total PTOC emissions 80-85 F6.2
P2 Benzene emissions 88-93 F6.2
P3 Bromodichloromethane emissions 96-101
P4 Carbon tetrachloride emissions 104-109
P5 Chlorobenzene emissions 112-117
P6 Chloroform emissions 120-125
P7 Dibromochloromethane emissions 1-6
P8 1,1 Dichloroethylene emissions 9-14
P9 Ethylbenzene emissions 17-22
P10 1,2 Dichloroethane emissions 25-30
Pll Methylene chloride emissions 33-38
P12 Perchloroethylene emissions 41-46 F6.2
P13 Toluene emissions 49-54
P14 1,1,1 Trichloroethane emissions 57-62
P15 Trichloroethylene emissions 65-70
P16 Vinyl chloride emissions 73-78
TTRAIN
File TTRAIN contains information regarding specific treatment pro-
cesses at individual MWTPs. Twenty-eight treatment processes were cho-
sen for entry into the data base. A 1 was entered in the record field
if the MWTP utilizes the indicated process. Otherwise, a 0 was entered
in the process data field. It should be noted that the treatment train
data was extracted from the NEEDS data base which was observed to be
outdated for some of the MWTPs. For major MWTPs, such as the eight that
were visited for this study (Appendix G), revisions were made to the
data base using more recent data. In addition, TTRAIN only indicates
whether or not a process exists at a specific MWTP, and not where that
process is located with respect to other processes in the treatment
train. We have found that the use of TTRAIN with commercially available
data base software can be valuable for readily identifying MWTPs in
167
-------
California that utilize specific treatment processes (e.g., pure-oxygen
activated sludge, multi-media filtration, etc.). The record for each
MWTP consists of one row of data as indicated below.
FNUM PR1 PR2 PR3 ................................ PR27 PR28
FNUM Facility ID number
PR1 Bar screening
PR2 Grit or scum removal
PR3 Comminution
PR4 Flow equalization
PR5 Pre-aeration
PR6 Primary clarification
PR7 Non-aerated ponds
PR8 Aerated lagoons
PR9 Trickling filters
PR10 Attached growth processes
PR11 Conventional activated sludge
PR12 Pure-oxygen activated sludge
PR13 Oxidation ditch
PR14 Other suspended growth processes
PR15 Land treatment
PR16 Secondary clarification
PR17 Sand filtration
PR18 Mixed media filtration
PR19 Pressure filtration
PR20 Rock filtration
PR21 Other filtration
PR22 Activated carbon treatment
PR23 Neutralization
PR24 Breakpoint chlorination
PR25 Ammonia stripping
PR26 Dechlorination
PR27 Post-aeration
PR28 Chlorination
Columns 1-8
11
14
17
20
23
26
29
32
35
38
41
44
47
50
53
56
59
62
65
68
71
74
77
80
83
86
89
92
18
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
168
-------
SLUDGE
File SLUDGE contains information associated with sludge treatment
and disposal operations at individual MWTPs. Identification of an
existing process is completed by the code described in TTRAIN CO = does
not utilizej 1 = does utilize). The sludge treatment and disposal
characteristics were extracted from the NEEDS data base and are subject
to the uncertainties noted previously for POTW and TTRAIN. The record
for each MWTP consists of one row as indicated below.
FNUM ST1 ST2 ST9 SD1 SD2 SD3 SD4 SD5
FNUM Facility ID number
ST1 Aerobic digestion
ST2 Anaerobic digestion
ST3 Composting
ST4 Purifax treatment
ST5 Air drying
ST6 Sludge lagoons
ST7 Mechanical dewatering
ST8 Air flotation thickening
ST9 Incineration
SD1 Landfill/trenching
SD2 Land spreading
SD3 Ocean disposal
SD4 Sludge distribution or marketing
SD5 Other sludge disposal mechanisms
Columns 1-8
11
14
17
20
23
26
29
32
35
38
41
44
47
50
18
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
COUNTY
File COUNTY contains information regarding estimates of total and
speciated PTOC emissions for each county in California. Estimated PTOC
removals in sludge streams are also provided for each county. Emissions
and quantities removed in sludge are recorded in tons/year to two deci-
mal places. Values listed as 0.00 should be taken to be less than 10
Ib/year. The record for each county has the following two-line struc-
ture.
169
-------
E16
CNUM
CNME
TEC
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
E10
Ell
E12
E13
E14
E15
E16
TS
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
Sll
512
S13
S14
S15
S16
TS S2 S3
County number
County name
Total PTOC emissions
Benzene emissions
Bromodichloromethane emissions
Carbon tetrachloride emissions
Chlorobenzene emissions
Chloroform emissions
Dibromochloromethane emissions
1,1 Dichloroethylene emissions
Ethylbenzene emissions
1,2 Dichloroethane emissions
Methylene chloride emissions
Perchloroethylene emissions
Toluene emissions
1,1,1 Trichloroethane emissions
Trichloroethylene emissions
Vinyl chloride emissions
Total PTOC removal in sludge
Benzene removal
Bromodichloromethane removal
Carbon tetrachloride removal
Chlorobenzene removal
Chloroform removal
Dibromochloromethane removal
1,1 Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene removal
1,2 Dichloroethane removal
Methylene chloride removal
Perchloroethylene removal
Toluene removal
1,1,1 Trichloroethane removal
Trichloroethylene removal
Vinyl chloride removal
Columns 1-2
5-19
22-27
30-35
38-43
46-51
54-59
62-67
70-75
78-83
86-91
94-99
102-107
110-115
118-123
126-131
1-6
9-14
17-21
24-28
31-35
38-42
45-49
52-56
59-63
66-70
73-77
80-84
87-91
94-98
101-105
108-112
-115-119
122-126
12
A15
F6.2
it
it
F6.2
M
M
II
II
M
II
II
It
II
M
II
II
F5.2
ti
M
ti
M
it
ii
11
ti
it
ti
M
it
ii
it
it
170
-------
APPENDIX G« Wastewater Treatment Plant Visits
171
-------
APPENDIX Gi WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT VISITS
Eight municipal wastewater treatment plants (MWTPs) were visited.
The MWTPs were selected on the basis of a number of factorsi represen-
tative of a wide geographic cross-section of California, location in an
air basin where photochemical air pollution was of concern, proximity to
population centers, MWTP size, the amount of industrial flow, and
characteristics of industries that discharged to the MWTP. The eight
plants accounted for greater than i\2% of the total dry-weather waste-
water treated in California. A review of the visit to each MWTP and
the general characteristics of each MWTP are provided in this section.
Where available, past liquid and gas-phase sampling efforts are sum-
marized. Finally, recommendations are made regarding future sampling
efforts.
Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (July 16, 1986)
The Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP) was the
largest sewage treatment plant (STP) in the Central Valley and the fifth
largest STP, with respect to influent flow, in the state of California.
The SRWTP was subjected to an average seasonal dry weather flow of 136
MGD, and an average wet weather flow of 142 MGD. The plant served an
estimated 750,000 residents, as well as various commercial and
industrial users. The principal industrial users were two canneries
which discharged as much as 10 MGD during canning season.
Major treatment processes at the SRWTP included primary treatment,
followed by pure-oxygen activated sludge treatment, chlorination, out-
fall, dechlorination, and discharge to the Sacramento River. Primary
treatment involved influent screening, aerated grit removal, and primary
sedimentation using 12 sedimentation tanks. All of the primary treat-
ment processes were fully enclosed. Secondary treatment included eight
pure-oxygen activated sludge aeration basins, followed by 16 secondary
sedimentation tanks. The latter were not enclosed. Sixty to seventy
172
-------
tons of sludge were generated each day. Secondary sludge was thickened
by flotation before being mixed with primary sludge. The mixture was
treated for approximately three weeks in anaerobic digesters. The
sludge was then stored in solids storage basin ponds before being
disposed of on-site by subsurface injection.
Liquid-phase samples were drawn from the influent and the effluent
streams on a quarterly basis. Pre-chlorination and post-chlorination
samples were completed on a less frequent basis. Influent and effluent
samples were drawn by using a single "grab" sample, with the effluent
sample time lagged by the estimated amount of time it would take a
"plug" of water to pass through the entire treatment process. Past
sampling indicated consistently higher chloroform concentrations in the
effluent as compared to the influent. The formation of brominated THMs
appeared to be insignificant. Sludge was not analyzed for the presence
of PTOCs.
The efforts to reduce odors by enclosing most of the treatment pro-
cesses, treatment of process off-gases, and the nature of industrial
users, are believed to have led to lower PTOC emissions from the SRWTP
relative to conventional treatment plants of comparable size.
Very few processes were noted as potential sources of PTOC
emissions. Minor emissions might have occurred from the soil at the
sludge disposal site. However, subsurface injection as well as a
(retainer) wall, which acted to reduce air flow over the soil surface,
should have reduced those emissions. In addition, the fraction of PTOCs
partitioned to sludge was expected to be low, and those PTOCs in the
sludge were likely to volatilize and be flared or degraded during
anaerobic digestion. Another source of emissions might have been hot
sludge foam which escaped from the floating roof digesters and became
exposed to the atmosphere. However, this accounted for only a small
fraction of the sludge, and the total exposed surface area was small.
Some emissions may have occurred from uncovered secondary clarifiers,
but the PTOC concentrations at that stage of the treatment process were
probably very low. Emissions of trihalomethanes from the Sacramento
River could have occurred following effluent chlorination and discharge.
173
-------
A major source of PTOC emissions at the SRWTP was expected to be an
odor removal tower (ORT) through which off-gases from primary and secon-
dary treatment were vented to the atmosphere through an induced draft
fan. The ventilation system would be suitable for sampling. Other
sources of PTOC emissions could have been pressure-relief valves on each
of the nine digester tanks. Each tank was equipped with up to four
valves. Digester gases can contain significant concentrations of vinyl
chloride. Past gas-phase sampling tests of digester gases have indi-
cated significant concentrations of toluene, dichloroethylene, trich-
loroethylene, and perchloroethylene, in digester gases (California Air
Resources Board, 1985). Both the ORT and out-gassing pressure-relief
valves would be conducive to emissions sampling. In addition, large
vacant fields surrounding the treatment plant would allow for upwind and
downwind sampling if necessary.
Bakersfield Wastewater Treatment Plant -*2 (August 4, 1986)
The Bakersfield WWTP *2 (BWTP2) was managed by the city of
Bakersfield. It treated an annual average wastewater flow of 14.3 MGD.
The BWTP2 served a population of approximately 130,000 residents, as
well as 350 commercial and industrial users that accounted for 5% of the
wastewater that was treated. The plant had not treated petroleum refi-
nery wastewater.
The treatment train for the BWTP2 was relatively simple. Influent
passed through bar screens and a comminutor, followed by an aerated grit
chamber, and two 110 ft. diameter primary clarifiers in parallel.
Secondary treatment included two aerated waste lagoon systems in
parallel. Each lagoon system was composed of two lagoons. Secondary
effluent was pumped to storage reservoirs. Stored effluent was ultima-
tely used for restricted agricultural purposes. The effluent was not
chlorinated. Primary and secondary sludge both underwent anaerobic
digestion before being spread upon 150,000 sq. ft. of sludge drying beds
located on-site. Between one-and two equivalent dry tons of sludge were
treated each day.
174
-------
The most significant sources of PTOC emissions at the BWTF2 were
expected to be the two aerated processes, grit removal and waste
lagoons. Primary clarification, digester gas relief, and stripping from
sludge drying beds could have also been emissions sources. Previous
sampling for priority pollutants at the BWTP2 indicated that ethylben-
zene accumulated to significant concentrations in sludge. None of the
other 16 PTOCs were detected in sludge samples. The last sample analy-
sis for volatile priority pollutants was completed in 1983. At that
time chloroform, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene,
and toluene were all detected. However, all of those compounds occurred
at relatively low concentrations (<7 yg/L). Because PTOC emissions
were expected to be very low from the BWTP2, ambient or process sampling
there would probably not be of great practical benefit.
Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (August 6, 1986)
The Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) was managed by the
County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County (CSDLAC). With an
annual average flow of 365 MGD, it treated the second largest flow of
wastewater in the state of California. Approximately 15% of the total
flow was discharged by industrial users, which included several oil
refineries and metal finishing plants. The area that it served was den-
sely populated, with greater than 3,000,000 domestic users. In addition
to the sludge generated at the plant, the JWPCP treated sludge from
several other CSDLAC MWTPs. The amount of sludge treated and disposed
of averaged approximately 380 tons/day.
Approximately 33* of the incoming wastewater was subjected only to
primary treatment. Primary treatment at the JWPCP consisted of eight
bar screens, six covered grit chambers in parallel, and fifty-two
covered primary clarifiers. The grit chambers were aerated. The
wastewater that underwent only primary treatment was also subjected to
aeration using three traveling water screens before being discharged to
the Pacific Ocean. Off-gases generated during primary treatment were
vented through caustic scrubbers, activated carbon filters, or both.
175
-------
The remainder (67%} of the incoming wastewater was subjected to
both primary and secondary treatment. The primary effluent was treated
using a pure-oxygen activated sludge system. Secondary sludge was
removed using up to fifty-two secondary clarifiers in parallel. The
secondary wastewater transport channel was aerated for particle suspen-
sion. Off-gases from the channel were treated by wet scrubbing. Final
effluent was chlorinated only when disinfection was found to be
necessary. The final effluent was discharged to the Pacific Ocean.
Secondary sludge was thickened by using up to four dissolved air
flotation (DAP) tanks. Off-gases were treated using a two-stage blower
with an activated carbon filter. Primary sludge and thickened secondary
sludge were treated using anaerobic digestion. Approximately 7,000,000
SCF/day of digester was burned in engines for power generation, with a
portion having been intermittently flared. Following digestion, the
sludge was dewatered using low speed scroll or basket centrifuges.
Dewatered sludge cake was transported by conveyor belts to twelve 550
ton capacity storage silos. Air in the enclosure above the silos was
scrubbed using activated carbon before being vented to the atmosphere.
Approximately 67% of the sludge was trucked to landfills for ultimate
disposal. The remainder was composted on-site for commercial use as a
soil amendment. The composting area consisted of approximately 540
windrows which covered twenty-five acres. Each windrow averaged 825
feet in length, and had a capacity of 525 wet tons of sludge. For the
purpose of mixing and aeration, windrows were turned daily using a
mobile composter. By 1988, a large fraction of the dewatered sludge was
scheduled to be used for combustion to produce additional electricity
for the plant.
Although many of the processes at the JWPCP were covered, and off-
gases were typically scrubbed for odor control, many potential emission
sources existed. Sources of emissions could have included aerated
wastewater transport channels, fugitive emissions from the activated
sludge system, leaking digesters, out-gassing pressure-relief valves on
B -v
digesters, off-gases vented from scrubbers, and emissions from sludge
composting operations.
176
-------
Previous gas-phase sampling for some PTOCs was completed by the
staff of the CSDLAC, and indicated that, compared to other processes
that were analyzed, the aerated primary effluent channel was a signifi-
cant source of PTOC emissions. The sum total of emissions for 23 VOCs,
including twelve PTOCs, was estimated to be approximately 150 Ib/day
from all of the processes analyzed. Those processes included several
off-gas scrubbers, the aerated primary effluent channel, and the acti-
vated sludge aeration basins.
Past analyses of digester gases indicated high concentrations of
VOCs. However, no emissions estimates were made for PTOCs escaping from
the digesters. Because of the large amount of digester gas that was
produced at the JWPCP, it may be beneficial to complete an analysis of
digester gas components. A study of the amount of digester gas lost by
leakage and out-gassing pressure-relief valves would also be valuable.
Estimates of emissions from sludge compost piles had not been
completed. The process of sludge aeration by turning might have been a
source of volatile emissions. However, the amount of PTOCs partitioned
to sludge and remaining at that stage of treatment was not expected to
be significant. Future sampling efforts during sludge aeration would
lead to a better understanding of the significance of sludge composting
as a PTOC emission source.
Liquid-phase sampling of the JWPCP influent has indicated high con-
centrations (> 100 vgA) of benzene, methylene chloride, and toluene.
Chloroform, 1,1 dichloroethylene, ethylbenzene, perchloroethylene, 1,1,1
trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride have also been
detected.
Because of its size, location, and readily measurable con-
centrations of PTOCs, the JWPCP should be considered for future
sampling. Unfortunately, ambient sampling will be complicated by
background sources which are common in the industrialized region
surrounding the JWPCP. Grit' chambers, digesters, aerated conveyance
channels, and aeration basins are sources that should be considered for
177
-------
future emissions sampling. An opportunity also exists for determining
the efficiency of odor scrubbers and activated carbon filters.
Hyperion Treatment Plant (August 7, 1986)
The Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP) was managed by the Department of
Public Works of the City of Los Angeles, treated more municipal
wastewater (> 400 MGD) than any MWTP in California. The population
served exceeded three million people, and included a large number of
industrial users. Approximately twelve percent of the incoming
wastewater was attributed to industrial users. Those users were varied
in nature. However, they included several large industries (e.g., metal
finishers, electroplaters, and oil refineries) which possibly discharged
significant amounts of PTOCs to the HTP.
Two sets of headworks were used to treat the influent streams con-
veyed by four main sewers. Only two of the five grit chambers that
followed the headworks were aerated. Following grit removal, wastewater
was passed through twelve clarifiers in parallel. Of the 400 MGD of
wastewater received by the HTP, seventy-five percent was discharged to
the Pacific Ocean after undergoing only primary treatment. The primary
effluent which underwent secondary treatment was passed through sixteen
rectangular, uncovered, biological reactors in parallel. Tapered coarse
bubble aeration was employed. The secondary effluent was passed through
20 uncovered sedimentation tanks in parallel. The final effluent, pri-
mary and secondary, was discharged five miles offshore into the Pacific
Ocean. Final effluent was chlorinated only in the event that a the
effluent was discharged through a one mile outfall.
Secondary sludge was thickened prior to anaerobic digestion. A
total of eighteen floating roof digesters were used. Digester gas was
stored in tanks, flared, and intermittently vented for pressure-relief.
Ultimately, approximately 250 tons/day of dry sludge was being
discharged, primarily through a seven mile offshore outfall. The
remainder was trucked to landfills.
178
-------
In comparison to other MWTPs in California, emissions from the HTP
were expected to be significant because of relatively high PTOC con-
centrations in the influent stream, and the application of uncovered,
aerated processes. For instance, during six sampling periods during the
first quarter of 1986, the average toluene concentration in the influent
stream was 152 ug/L. The most significant source of emissions was
expected to be from the aerated biological reactors in the activated
sludge system. Other potentially significant emissions sources included
the main sewer vents, aerated grit chambers, an aerated channel used to
convey primary effluent to biological reactors, and the venting of
digester gas.
Liquid-phase sampling of primary clarifier influent and effluent
had been completed by the staff of the HTP. However, interferences
caused a general increase in PTOC concentrations across the clarifier.
Thus, emissions from primary clarifiers could not be estimated.
Additional sampling of clarifiers would be appropriate. Sampling at the
aerated grit chambers and transport channels would be valuable in order
to assess the significance of those processes as PTOC emission sources.
The floating roof digesters should be investigated as a source of
emissions. An analysis of digester gas and gas-phase sampling at
digester tank roof edges would be desirable to complete such an analy-
sis. Finally, ambient sampling at the HTP would be appropriate, par-
ticularly at the eastern border of the plant. Onshore airflow could
cause residents to the east of the HTP to be exposed to PTOCs emitted
from the HTP.
The HTP was scheduled for modification to a pure-oxygen treatment
plant by 1993. Four 130 MGD pure-oxygen systems were to be implemented
by that time. The additional aeration could lead to increased PTOC
emissions. However, covered pure-oxygen treatment systems are believed
to be less conducive to volatile emissions than are conventional acti-
vated sludge systems which utilize higher gas-to-liquid volume ratios
for aeration. The modification affords the opportunity to complete gas
and liquid-phase sampling of aeration basins before and after the con-
version to a pure-oxygen plant. This could lead to a better under-
179
-------
standing of the relative efficiencies of pure-oxygen and conventional
activated sludge systems at stripping PTOCs to the atmosphere.
A system to dehydrate and incinerate the sludge was to be employed
by 1987. This would completely eliminate the need for offshore dis-
charge of the sludge. The effects of such a modification on PTOC emis-
sions is not well understood.
Fresno Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 (August 8, 1986)
The Fresno Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 (FRWTP1) was
managed by the Department of Public Works of the city of Fresno. It was
the second largest MWTP, with respect to influent flowrate, in the
interior valley region of California. The plant was located approxima-
tely six miles west of Fresno. The FRWTP1 treated an annual average
flow of 42 MGD, and up to 8 MGD of effluent from the Fresno Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2 which was located approximately one
mile south of the FRWTP1. In addition to having served a residential
population of greater than 300,000, approximately six percent of the
wastewater treated by the FRWTP1 was attributed to commercial and
industrial users. Those users included electroplaters, industrial
cleaners, hospitals, and independent and educational laboratories.
The FRWTP1 employed treatment up to the secondary level. Pre-
chlorination was practiced at the headworks to control odors. After
passing through bar screens, the wastewater was treated using up to four
primary clarifiers in parallel. Primary effluent was conveyed via non-
aerated channels to four activated sludge aeration basins. The basins
were aerated using four coarse bubble donut diffusers per basin.
Secondary effluent flowed to four final clarifiers before being pumped
to a series of percolation ponds.
Primary sludge was thickened by utilizing two uncovered primary
thickeners which were operated in either gravity or -air flotation mode.
Secondary sludge was simply being returned to the plant's headworks.
180
-------
The blended sludge was stabilized using four anaerobic digesters, two of
which were of the floating roof type. The staff of the FRWTP1 noted
that sludge foam appeared infrequently on digester roofs. Sludge
resided in the digesters for 25 to 30 days, before being placed in on-
site drying beds. Digester gas was used to fire burners which produced
heat necessary for the anaerobic digestion process. The gas was also
compressed and used for mixing the sludge in the digesters. Some gas
was flared in waste-gas burners, and the remainder was used for power
generation. Approximately 250,000 cubic feet of digester gas was being
produced each day.
No gas-phase sampling had been completed at the FRWTP1. However,
based upon liquid-phase PTOC concentrations in the plant influent, PTOC
emissions were expected to be low. The major sources of emissions were
expected to be the four activated sludge aeration basins, as well as the
headworks, where odors were the most pronounced. Other PTOC emission
sources included the primary sludge thickeners in flotation mode,
floating roof digesters, percolation ponds, and sludge drying beds.
Because of the relatively low expected PTOC emissions, gas-phase
sampling at the FRWTP1 is not recommended. However, the chlorination of
influent wastewater does afford the opportunity to study the formation
of trihalomethanes as a result of pre-chlorination. Such THMs have
ample time to volatilize as they travel through the treatment system.
The aeration basins were scheduled to be modified to fine bubble systems
by 1987, and secondary sludge thickeners similar to the primary sludge
thickeners were to be employed. Both of the modifications would tend to
increase volatilization. However, even with the expected increase in
emissions, the overall PTOC emissions would probably remain low with
respect to treatment plants of comparable size.
Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant (August 13, 1986)
The Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant (SWPCP) was managed by
the City of Sunnyvale's Department of Public Works. The SWPCP employed
181
-------
specific secondary and advanced treatment processes which the other
seven MWTPs that were chosen for review did not employ. Furthermore,
the SWPCP was characterized by an active sampling, analysis, and enfor-
cement program, which stemmed from strict restrictions regarding the
discharge of wastewater effluent into the southern end of San Francisco
Bay. The SWPCP was located at the southern shore of the San Francisco
Bay. It served the city of Sunnyvale, a small residential area in
Cupertino, and a portion of the Moffett field naval air base. These
areas accounted for a service population of greater than 100,000, and an
average annual flow of approximately 20 MGD. In 1985, 69 industrial
users discharged to the plant. These included several electroplaters
and metal finishers, in addition to 28 electrical and electronic manu-
facturers. Commercial and industrial users contributed approximately
50% of the wastewater treated by the SWPCP.
The treatment train at the SWPCP included primary, secondary, and
advanced treatment. Influent passed through bar screens located within
an enclosed structure which was vented in order to reduce worker expo-
sure to airborne emissions. The wastewater was then pumped to ten
aerated, uncovered grit chambers, up to 10 in parallel. Primary
clarification followed grit removal. Primary effluent then flowed to
two oxidation ponds in parallel. All transport channels were covered
and non-aerated. The two oxidation ponds covered 540 acres. They were
no longer being aerated on a regular basis. However, surface aeration
could be employed whenever necessary to raise dissolved oxygen levels
in the ponds. Plans existed to convert the ponds to shallower, high-
rate, channel ponds. Wastewater residence time in the ponds averaged 35
to 40 days before being pumped to trickling filters, one to three
operated in parallel. The trickling filters were used to reduce ammonia
concentrations in order to meet discharge requirements. The trickling
filters were 35 feet deep, 92 feet in diameter, and they employed a
corrugated aluminum packing material which presented a large surface
area for biological growth. Trickling filter effluent, which included
algae from the oxidation ponds, was then treated to remove the algae by
employing a maximum of four 'air flotation tanks (AFTs). One to three
AFTs were operated in parallel. Effluent from the AFTs flowed through
182
-------
eight dual-media filters in parallel before being chlorinated in contact
chambers with a chlorine dose rate of 2000-6000 Ib/day. The chlorine
contact time, before dechlorination using sulfur dioxide, ranged from 30
to 60 minutes. Final effluent was discharged to a slough where it
flowed into the San Francisco Bay.
All primary sludge and 15% of the thickened algae removed in the
AFTs was treated using four floating roof digesters. The remainder of
the thickened algae was returned to the oxidation ponds. Digested
sludge was placed in two drying beds which covered approximately 2.5
acres.
Liquid-phase sampling in 1985 indicated periods of relatively high
concentrations (> 20 ygA) of chloroform, methylene chloride, perch-
loroethylene, and toluene in the plant's influent stream. Composite
influent and effluent samples also suggested that a significant amount
of chloroform was being produced as a result of chlorination. This
could be significant for the SWPCP, since final effluent was discharged
to an uncovered slough which provided an opportunity for THM volatiliza-
tion. In addition, a significant reduction in ammonia concentration by
advanced treatment prior to chlorination reduced the competition among
halogens and ammonia for available chlorine, which probably favored
increased halogenation of organics.
Additional PTOC emissions could have occurred from the venting of
the bar screen room, grit chambers, oxidation ponds, digester gas
releases, trickling filters, and air flotation tanks. The latter two
were expected to be insignificant, as PTOC concentrations were probably
low at the advanced stage of treatment. The aeration of grit chambers
could have lead to significant emissions of PTOCs. The termination of
oxidation pond aeration should have reduced PTOC emissions during secon-
dary treatment. However, the large surface area of the ponds is con-
ducive to volatilization. Finally, as noted for the other plants that
were visited, emissions from floating roof digesters were possible.
Because of the size of the SWPCP, extensive ambient sampling within
183
-------
the plant's boundaries is not recommended. In addition, other nearby
sources, including a landfill which bordered the SWPCP, would make it
difficult to separate background concentrations from those attributed to
the SWPCP. The most valuable future studies at the SWPCP would be
upwind/downwind measurements of the chlorine contact chambers, and the
slough which conveys effluent to the San Francisco Bay. Particular
attention should be paid to concentrations of chloroform.
San Jose - Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (8-13-1986)
The San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJSCWP) was
managed by the City of San Jose Department of Water Pollution Control.
At an average annual flowrate of approximately 110 MGD, the SJSCWP was
the sixth largest MWTP, with respect to flow, in California. It was the
largest in the San Francisco Bay region. In addition to serving a resi-
dential population of 1.1 million, the SJSCWP treated wastewater from a
diverse cross-section of commercial and industrial users that accounted
for greater than 30% (based upon the NEEDS data base) of the total
wastewater discharged to the plant. Industrial users included
electroplaters, metal finishers, and several circuit board manufac-
turers.
The SJSCWP employed a relatively high degree of treatment.
Influent screening was composed of above-ground bar screens followed by
finer screens. Wastewater was then passed through two non-aerated grit
chambers in parallel, before passing through a maximum of 24 rec-
tangular, primary clarifiers in parallel. Primary effluent was conveyed
in an aerated open channel to an average of eight four-stage, coarse
bubble, activated sludge treatment units operated in parallel. A maximum
of sixteen aeration basins were available for biological treatment.
Secondary effluent was clarified before being conveyed to an average of
12 on-line, aerated (coarse bubble) nitrification basins. The average
aeration rates in the secondary and advanced aeration basins were
160,000 SCF per minute and 120,000 SCF per minute, respectively. Fol-
lowing nitrification, the wastewater was filtered using a multi-media
184
-------
filtration system before being chlorinated, dechlorinated using sulfur
dioxide, and discharged to the San Francisco Bay. The chlorine contact
time was approximately one hour before dechlorination. Available
chlorine was exposed to organics in the wastewater in addition to a
small amount of ammonia added to the wastewater stream after nitrifica-
tion but before multi-media filtration.
Primary sludge and thickened secondary sludge was mixed in 16
floating roof anaerobic digesters. The sludge residence time in the
digesters was approximately 30 days. Sludge from the digesters was
stored for several years in lagoons which cover 400 acres at the SJSCWP.
Approximately 85 dry tons/day of sludge were dried in on-site drying
beds before being disposed of to sludge piles. An average of 1.5
million cubic feet/day of digester gas was being produced, nearly all of
which was used to run engines in order to generate power for the plant.
In turn, engine cooling water was used to heat sludge in the digesters.
Liquid-phase sampling of the influent stream from 1984 to 1986
indicated high average concnetrations of several PTOCs. For instance,
during six 24-hour composite samples drawn during the noted period, the
average concentrations for methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and
toluene were 104.0, 48.0, and 159.0 ug/1, respectively. Aside from
chloroform (10.7 ug/D, 1,1,1 trichloroethane (4.0 ug/1), and trichloro-
ethylene (11.0 ug/1), all other PTOCs were reported to be below detec-
tion limit in the influent stream. However, the detection of bromodi-
chloromethane, and a high average concentration of chloroform in the
effluent stream suggested the formation of THMs as a result of chlorina-
tion. Finally, influent samples were reportedly drawn after grit remo-
val. Thus, some PTOC volatilization could have occurred prior to
sampling.
The emissions of PTOCs were most likely from aerated processes such
as the primary effluent channel, and activated sludge and nitrification
aeration basins. The latter might not be a significant source, since
if volatilization occurred it "probably occurred to a great extent in the
activated sludge basins. Additional emissions could have occurred as
185
-------
digester gases excaped from the floating roof digesters, and THMs vola-
tilized following chlorination. If gas-phase sampling is to be com-
pleted in the future, it is recommended that emissions from the aerated
channel, aerated activated sludge basins, chlorine contact chambers, and
digester roofs be investigated.
East Bay Municipal Utility District WWTF (August 19t 1986)
The East Bay Municipal Utility District WWTF (EBMUB) was managed by
the East Bay Municipal Utility District. It was located on the North-
west boundary of Oakland, near the eastern edge of the San Francisco Bay
Bridge. It served the cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland,
Piedmont, El Cerrito, Kensington, and a small area of Richmond. In
total, 567,000 residential customers, and over 20,000 business and
industrial users, discharged an annual average flow of approximately
eighty million gallons of wastewater per day. Industrial users contri-
buted approximately 10% of the total flow. As of 1985, 91 of those
users were subject to the EPA's categorical standards for industries.
Included in the list, with the number of facilities indicated in
parentheses, were industries involved with electroplating (35), metal
molding and casting (19), metal finishing (14), Pharmaceuticals (7), and
iron and steel (5).
The EBMUD operated a secondary treatment facility. The influent
was pre-chlorinated as an odor control measure. Five bar screens were
operated in parallel inside of a covered facility. Air from the
facility was vented through a chlorine spray scrubber before being
discharged to the atmosphere. After screening, wastewater was pumped to
up to five gravity-flow grit tanks in parallel. The wastewater flowed
over a weir at the end of each tank. During storms, up to eight aerated
grit tanks could be employed as needed. From the grit tanks, the waste-
water was clarified using a maximum of sixteen primary clarifiers in
parallel. Primary effluent was conveyed in an aerated, covered channel,
where it fed into a pure-oxygen activated sludge system. The activated
sludge reactors were covered, and involved eight four-stage trains which
186
-------
utilized submerged turbine mixer/spargers for oxygen transfer. The
mixed liquor recycle channel was aerated for particle suspension.
Twelve final clarifiers were used to collect secondary sludge.
Secondary effluent was chlorinated and later dechlorinated using sulfur
dioxide. The effluent outfall was composed of a 1.75 mile long par-
tially-open channel followed by a 1.1 mile long conveyance line leading
to a discharge at the bottom of San Francisco Bay. A 700 foot length of
diffuser was employed.
An average of 1850 dry tons of sludge was disposed of each month.
Approximately 75% of the sludge was trucked to landfills, and 25% was
mixed with woodchips and composted for commercial use. Primary sludge
was pumped directly to anaerobic digesters. Secondary sludge was
thickened by centrifuge before being mixed with primary sludge in the
digesters. Ten high-rate, floating roof digesters were being used, each
with an eight day sludge residence time. Digested sludge was dewatered
by centrifuge and vacuum filters before being disposed of to landfills
or to the on-site composting area. The 1.2-1.4 million cubic feet per
day of digester gas was burned in three large engines which supplied up
to 50% of the facility's power requirements. Waste heat was utilized to
heat digesters, sludge conveyance pipes, and buildings at the plant.
The EBMUD maintained a well-equipped laboratory which allowed for
relatively extensive priority pollutant analyses for samples drawn from
the influent, effluent and sludge streams. Liquid-phase influent
sampling completed from 1984 to 1986 indicated relatively high average
concentrations of several PTOCs, including benzene, chloroform, methy-
lene chloride, perchloroethylene, and toluene. In addition, average
chloroform concentrations in the effluent stream were approximately
equal to those in the influent stream. Bromodichloromethane was also
infrequently detected in the effluent stream, and never detected in the
influent stream. Finally, sampling for PTOCs in dewatered sludge indi-
cated some accumulation of ethylbenzene and toluene.
Previous gas-phase sampling of activated sludge off-gases and the
air above the mixed-liquor recycle channel were completed by the staff
187
-------
of the EBMUD. However, all of the PTOCs were observed to be below
detection limit.
A number of processes could have contributed to PTOC emissions from
the EBMUD WWTF. Those included the large weirs on the gravity grit
chambers, vented activated sludge off-gases, the aerated mixed-liquor
recycle channel, floating roof digesters, and sludge composting.
Emissions from grit tank weirs could be addressed using either gas
sampling above the weir or pre-weir and post-weir liquid-phase sampling.
Additional gas-phase sampling is needed to verify the previous results
regarding emissions from the aerated recycle channel and activated
sludge basins.
Recommendations for Future Sampling
It is recommended that extensive future sampling be completed at
the JWPCP, to investigate the difference between estimated uncontrolled
emissions and measured controlled emissions, and to study the relative
stripping efficiencies of control devices at removing PTOCs from off-gas
streams. A complete study would include liquid-phase sampling for PTOCs
in the JWPCP's influent and effluent streams, as well as in the influent
and effluent streams of several processes; bar screens, grit chambers,
primary clarifiers, and pure-oxygen activated sludge reactors. Waste-
water flowrates should either be measured or obtained from plant
records. During the same time period that liquid-phase samples are
drawn, gas-phase PTOC concentrations and off-gas flowrates should be
measured in the air spaces above individual processes, as well as at the
exit vents of caustic scrubbers and activated carbon filters. It would
also be desireable to account for wastewater residence times in each
process stream. Aerated channels, sludge composting operations, and
pure-oxygen activated sludge reactors should also be investigated as
emissions sources.
In the remainder of this appendix, recommendations are made for
studying emissions from individual treatment processes that are most
conducive to both volatile emissions and sampling.
188
-------
Primary Treatmenti Because PTOC concentrations are generally the
highest as they enter treatment facilities, bar screens, grit chambers,
and primary clarifiers require further attention as potential sources of
PTOC emissions. As noted above, simultaneous liquid and gas-phase
measurements of concentrations and flowrates would be desireable. The
Sunnyvale WWTF and the East Bay MUD WWTF both utilize bar screens
enclosed in buildings. Each would provide suitable sampling conditions.
The East Bay MUD WWTF also employs grit chamber effluent weirs which
should be considered for sampling, as the weirs are characterized by
several feet of free-falling water, a condition conducive to volatiliza-
tion. The JWPCP utilizes covered primary clarifiers and enclosed,
aerated grit chambers which should be further studied as PTOC emissions
sources. Because grit chambers at the San Jose-Santa Clara WPCP and the
East Headworks at the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP) are not aerated,
and because PTOC mass loadings into those two facilities have been rela-
tively high, PTOC concentrations in the primary clarifiers of those two
systems may be high enough to cause significant volatile emissions. It
is recommended that they be considered for future sampling.
Aerated Transport Channels: Aerated primary transport channels may be
significant sources of PTOC emissions. In addition to the JWPCP, other
MWTPs that utilize aerated transport channels include the HTP, the San
Jose-Santa Clara WPCP, and the East Bay MUD WWTF. The Aerated channels
at the JWPCP and the East Bay MUD WWTF are covered and more conducive to
off-gas sampling than are the channels at the other two plants.
Biological Reactorsi Conventional and pure-oxygen activated sludge (AS)
systems should be considered for future sampling of PTOCs in both the
liquid and gas phases. Of the eight plants that were visited, the
Sacramento Regional WWTF, the East Bay MUD WWTF, and the JWPCP employ
pure-oxygen AS systems. That latter differs from the former two in that
it utilizes surface, rather than submerged, oxygenation. Both types of
oxygenation should be studied in order to gain a better understanding of
their PTOC stripping efficiencies. Because the East Bay MUD WWTF has
been subjected to higher PTOC -loadings than has the Sacramento Regional
WWTF, it may be preferable for comparison with the JWPCP's pure-oxygen
189
-------
AS system. In addition, the HTP will be converted to a pure-oxygen AS
plant in the future. Thus, it affords the opportunity to complete
sampling of PTOC emissions from both conventional and pure-oxygen AS
systems at the same facility. The San Jose-Santa Clara WPCP also utili-
zes conventional AS treatment.
Chlorination Systems: To study the emissions of chloroform following
chlorination, influent and effluent streams, and the air upwind, above,
and downwind of chlorine contact chambers should be sampled. Of the
eight MWTPs that were visited, the four that appeared to generate the
greatest amount of chloroform were the Sacramento Regional WWTF, the
East Bay MUD WWTF, the San Jose-Santa Clara WWTF, and the Sunnyvale
WWTF. The latter two may be the most conducive to volatile emissions,
as both the chlorine contact chambers and the effluent outfall systems
are open to the atmosphere.
Digestersi A great deal of uncertainty exists regarding emissions from
digesters. However, high concentrations of some PTOCs have been
observed in digester gases. Component analyses of digester gases, and
gas-phase sampling at the openings of floating roof digesters and
pressure-relief valves could lead to a better understanding of the
importance of digesters as PTOC emissions sources. Based upon the
amount of digester gas produced, PTOC mass loadings, and the type of
digesters utilized, digesters at the JWPCP, the HTP, and the San
Jose-Santa Clara WPCP are recommended for future sampling.
Ambient Sampling» As noted in Section B of this report, the HTP is
recommended for ambient sampling, particularly at the eastern border of
the plant. During periods of onshore breezes, simultaneous measurements
to the west of the plant would be desirable to distinguish concen-
trations attributed to the HTP from background PTOC levels.
Other Plants to Consider! Only eight MWTPs were visited as part of
this study. Uncontrolled emissions estimates indicated that three other
MWTPs that were not visited may be significant sources of PTOC
emissions. Those plants are the Terminal Island Treatment Plant, the
190
-------
Palo Alto WWTF, and the OCSD WWTF *2. It is recommended that those
facilities be visited and studied to indicate whether or not future
sampling is warranted.
191
-------
APPENDIX H: TEST (A Refined Emissions Model)
192
-------
Modeling the Emissions of Volatile and
Potentially Toxic Organic Compounds From
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Richard L. Corsi
Daniel P.Y. Chang
Edward D. Schroeder
Qingzeng Qiu
Department of Civil Engineering
University of California at Davis
Davis, California 95616
193
-------
INTRODUCTION
Occurrences of potentially toxic organic compounds (PTOCs) in the
influent streams of municipal wastewater treatment plants (MWTPs) are of
concern for several reasons. Such compounds may contaminate sludge,
interfere with biological treatment processes, endanger the health of
treatment plant employees, and cause adverse effects to sensitive
effluent receiving waters. Because of their affinity for the gaseous
phase, volatile PTOCs (VTOCs) have been the focus of recent studies
regarding emissions from MWTPs.1-3 Volatile PTOCs that are frequently
detected in the influent streams of MWTPs include benzene, chloroform,
ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, toluene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and trichloroethylene.
Because of the cost and experimental difficulties associated with
VTOC emissions measurements, the application of semi-empirical mass
transport models is an attractive and valuable method to study the
emissions associated with wastewater treatment. Models can be used to
estimate emissions from entire treatment trains or from individual
treatment processes. The resulting emissions estimates can then be used
for emissions inventories, as input into transport models, or to analyze
the effects of treatment modifications on the fate of organic con-
taminants.
This paper discusses methods used to model the distribution of VTOCs
in MWTPs. The development of a user-oriented model to predict VTOC
emissions throughout entire treatment trains is then described.
Individual treatment processes and the competition among removal mecha-
nisms are emphasized.
TRANSPORT AND REMOVAL OF VTOCS DURING WASTEWATER TREATMENT
The primary transport and removal mechanisms for organic con-
taminants in wastewater are volatilization, adsorption and removal in
sludge streams, biodegradation, and pass-through to receiving waters.
In addition, formation of organic contaminants can occur during
wastewater treatment. To provide readers unfamiliar with wastewater
treatment some background regarding the systems to be modeled, each of
the removal and formation mechanisms is briefly described below.
Volatilization
Several treatment processes have characteristics that are conducive
to the volatilization of VTOCs. For instance, high concentrations of
contaminants are first exposed to the atmosphere at uncovered primary
treatment processes such as bar screens and grit removal tanks. While
the hydraulic residence times in such processes are low, the bars and
racks on screening systems induce turbulence at the surface of the
wastewater. Furthermore, grit tanks are often aerated, thus increasing
the potential for stripping to the atmosphere. Residence times in pri-
mary clarifiers are generally' much longer than those in screening
systems or grit tanks. The large open clarifier surfaces and flow over
clarifier weirs can lead to VTOC emissions.4
194
-------
Secondary treatment processes such as trickling filters and acti-
vated sludge systems present additional opportunities for volatiliza-
tion. In trickling filters, wastewater is contacted with biological
organisms adhering to rock or plastic media. To promote efficient
biodegradation of organic contaminants, large surface areas are exposed
to reduce mass transfer resistance. In order to supply the aerobic
organisms with oxygen, air is either actively blown or allowed to rise
through the filter media by drafts induced by natural temperature gra-
dients. Activated sludge systems and aerated waste lagoons also promote
volatilization because both are aerated or oxygenated and have relati-
vely long residence times.
Other treatment processes where volatilization can occur include
aerated conveyance channels, rotating biological contactors, overland
flow systems, and equalization basins.
Removal in Sludge Streams
Organic compounds can adsorb to suspended solids and biomass with
subsequent removal in primary and secondary clarifiers. A previous
study indicated that adsorption and removal of VTOCs in primary sludge
streams is significantly greater than removal in waste activated sludge
streams.5 This may be due to higher concentrations during primary
treatment, as well as efficient stripping as a result of aeration in
secondary systems. The adsorption of individual organic compounds to
solids found in wastewater is not well understood. However,
octanol/water partition coefficients have been used to rank VTOCs
according to their relative affinity for adsorption.5 it was concluded
from analysis of raw mass flow data that removal in sludge streams typi-
cally accounts for less than five percent of the total removal of VTOCs
throughout an entire treatment train.6
Biodegradation
Biochemical oxidation of organic contaminants occurs at secondary
and advanced treatment processes such as trickling filters, waste
lagoons, activated sludge systems, oxidation ponds, rotating biological
contactors, overland flow systems, and wetland systems. However, little
is known regarding the bio-oxidation efficiency of VTOCs during munici-
pal wastewater treatment. Laboratory research has indicated that
several VTOCs (i.e., benzene, chlorobenzene, ethylbenzene, and toluene}
can be efficiently bio-oxidized under the appropriate conditions.?**!
However, such research is typically completed using high contaminant
concentrations (> 10 mg/1) and steady-state contaminant feeds, con-
ditions which are necessary to maintain acclimated microbial popula-
tions. Volatile PTOC concentrations in municipal wastewaters rarely
exceed 0.1 mg/1, and slug discharges are common. MWTPs are not believed
to meet the conditions that are necessary for acclimation, and thus
efficient bio-oxidation of VTOCs is not expected to occur. Some degra-
dation in unacclimated systems is expected to occur as a result of co-
metabolism by bacteria that utilize other organic material as their
carbon source.9 For most of the VTOCs the average percent degraded in
195
-------
unacclimated secondary treatment facilities has been reported to be bet-
ween 0.0 and 20%, as opposed to values as high as 74%, for benzene, in
acclimated systems.10
Formation
Pre-chlorination for odor control and post-chlorination for disin-
fection can lead to the formation of trihalomenthanes (THMs) such as
bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and chloroform. The ratio
of average THM mass loadings in effluent streams to the mass loadings in
influent streams is typically greater than 1.0 for those MWTPs that
post-chlorinate, and much less than 1.0 in those MWTPs that do not
post-chlorinate.6*11 The factors that affect the formation of THMs
during municipal wastewater treatment are complex, not well understood,
and were not treated in the present modeling effort.
Pass-Through
The VTOCs that enter a MWTP or that form during the treatment pro-
cess, and that are not removed by one of the removal mechanisms
described above, are passed through the treatment system and discharged
in the effluent stream. An analysis of data compiled from previous stu-
dies indicated that the average percent pass-through (100% - percent
removed) for VTOCs is typically less than 20%.6 The fate of VTOCs
following pass-through is not well documented. No attempt was made to
model VTOCs which passed through a MWTP.
VTOC DISTRIBUTION MODELS
The simplest predictive distribution models (PDMs) are based upon
the assumption of steady-state conditions. While such conditions are
typically not satisfied at MWTPs, steady-state PDMs can be valuable in
order to assess the effects of treatment plant modifications on the fate
of VTOCs. Furthermore, existing data are insufficient to establish con-
centration distributions as input into more complex transient models.
The following analysis is based upon the assumption of steady-state con-
ditions. Models are presented for continuous flow stirred-tank reactors
(CFSTRs), plug-flow reactors (PFRs), and trickling filters. A brief
discussion of approaches to estimating model parameters is then given.
CFSTRs
' The concentration "c" of a VTOC in a CFSTR is assumed to be equal to
the effluent concentration. This simplifies the distribution model,
particularly for the case when a portion of the treated flow is
recycled. For a CFSTR the steady-state effluent concentration, "CeM, is
estimated by
+ r(kv + kb + ks)}, (1)
where Ci is the influent concentration, r is the hydraulic residence
196
-------
time (volume of process/wastewater flowrate), and kv, kD, and ks are
the rate constants for removal by volatilization, biodegradation, and
adsorption to sludge, respectively. The CFSTR model can be used to
estimate VTOC losses from well-mixed systems, which can include aerated
lagoons and aeration basins.
PFRs
Plug-flow reactors are characterized by ideal mixing in the lateral
direction and no mixing in the longitudinal direction. A simplified
method for modeling transport in PFRs is to treat the PFR as a series of
successive CFSTRs. The effluent concentration from the PFR can then be
calculated as
Ce = Ci/U.O + (r/n)(kv + kb + ks)}? (2)
where Ci, r, kv, kD, and ks are as defined previously, and n is the
number of CFSTRs used to model the PFR. Equation 2 can be used to
estimate VTOC losses from grit removal tanks, clarifiers, aeration
basins, conveyance channels, and other systems with negligible mixing in
the longitudinal direction. When effluent from a PFR is recycled, an
iterative procedure is required to solve the equation because the con-
centration is not uniform throughout the reactor.
Trickling Filter Models
For this study, a model for the removal of VTOCs in trickling
filters was assumed to have a form similar to models which are used to
predict reductions in biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). A simplified
exponential model is
Ce = Ci exp{-(kv + kD + ks)[pAh/(Q + pQ)]}, (3)
where p is the porosity of the filter media, A is the cross-sectional
area of the filter, h is the depth of the filter, Q is the wastewater
flowrate, and all other variables are as described previously. For
systems with recycle, Equation 3 must be modified using an "effective"
influent concentration Ci' such that
Ci' = (Ci + bCe)/(l + b), (4)
where b is the fraction of the incoming flow recycled from the effluent
to the influent stream (recycle ratio). An iterative solution algorithm
is then required.
Estimating kv
Values for kv are typically estimated by calculating the mass
transfer coefficient for oxygen (reaeration rate), "ko", and then
applying the relationship
197
-------
kv = a'k0, (5)
where a' is the transfer rate proportionality coefficient. The basis
for a constant kv/lI6 The bio-oxidation rates that have been reported for
VTOCs are believed to overestimate the removals caused by biodegrada-
tion. The reason for overestimation is because the rates are commonly
based upon laboratory experiments completed under conditions required to
maintain biological acclimation -to the VTOCs. Large uncertainties are
associated with the extrapolation of those values to field conditions.
198
-------
Estimating ks
Few models exist to estimate adsorption to solids and biomass.
Empirical models have been developed to estimate the partitioning of
VTOCs between the wastewater and activated sludge.4*1' However, the
models are limited because they do not allow for time variations, or
they are based upon laboratory studies that suppressed other removal
mechanisms.
INTEGRATED EMISSIONS MODEL
General
An integrated emissions model (TEST; Toxic Emissions during Sewage
Treatment) was developed in order to estimate VTOC emissions from entire
wastewater treatment systems. The individual process models described
in the previous section, in addition to several less commonly used
models, were incorporated into the TEST model. The TEST model is user-
oriented, and flexible in its ability to model user-specified treatment
configurations. An option flow diagram for the TEST model is shown
Figure 1. Initial input requirements include the choice of VTOCs to be
modeled. Following the initial input segment, treatment processes are
selected in sequence until the entire treatment train is modeled.
Processes can be specified to be in series or in parallel. The effluent
concentrations from individual processes are used as influent concen-
trations in the nearest downstream processes. The process options are
described below.
The grit chamber option is used to estimate emissions from either
aerated or non-aerated grit removal tanks. In either case, plug flow is
assumed and modeled using a series of successive CFSTRs. Volatilization
is assumed to be the only removal mechanism.
The clarifier option allows for either plug or radial flow to be
modeled. Emissions from either primary or secondary clarifiers can be
estimated. The user may choose to enter adsorption rate constants if
they are available.
An option to estimate emissions from conveyance channels is also
included. Emissions from aerated channels can be modeled. Regardless
of the degree of aeration, plug flow is assumed and modeled using suc-
cessive CFSTRs.
The trickling filter submodel is based upon Equation 3. In addition
to the physical specifications of the trickling filter, the user must
input a volatilization rate for each VTOC based upon a range specified
on the model menu. Bio-oxidation and adsorption rates may be input
interactively. The trickling filter option also allows for recycle of
the effluent flow. If recycle is used, an iterative procedure is
required with the user having td prescribe an initial estimate for the
effluent concentration of each VTOC.
199
-------
The activated sludge model allows several user options. The system
can be modeled as a CFSTR or a PFR. Surface or bubble aeration can be
prescribed. For bubble aeration, coarse, medium, or fine bubble dif-
fuser systems can be analyzed. Uniform and tapered aeration options are
available. Bio-oxidation and adsorption rates are entered by the user.
If a PFR with recycle is modeled, an iterative solution is required.
Other treatment processes can be "constructed" during the model exe-
cution by specifying the appropriate reactor models and requirements for
aeration.
Following the analysis of one process, the user than specifies the
next process to be analyzed. Once all of the processes in the treatment
train have been analyzed, process specifications, concentrations, remo-
val efficiencies, and emissions for the selected VTOCs at each indivi-
dual treatment process are output.
Example Application
To exemplify the use of the TEST model, an example application is
provided. A simplified treatment configuration was chosen as depicted
in Figure 2. The treatment processes that were involved included an
aerated grit tank, followed by two rectangular clarifiers (sedimentation
basins) in parallel, three CFSTR activated sludge aeration basins in
parallel, and three secondary clarifiers in parallel. Specifications
for each process are also listed in Figure 2. Benzene and vinyl
chloride were analyzed using an influent concentration of 100 yg/1 for
each. Bio-oxidation rates of 0.005 hours-1 were selected for the acti-
vated sludge systems. Adsorption was assumed to be insignificant. An
influent flowrate of 2.2 mVsec (50 million gallons per day) was
assumed.
The predicted emission rates and removal efficiencies are provided
for each individual process in Figure 2. For both benzene and vinyl
chloride, most of the total removal occurred in the activated sludge
aeration basins. The percent removal was significantly greater for
vinyl chloride, which has a much higher Henry's law constant than ben-
zene. For each VTOC, greater than 99% of the total removal in the aera-
tion basins was attributed to volatilization which clearly dominated
bio-oxidation as the primary removal mechanism. Removal in each of the
clarifiers was relatively insignificant. Removals in the aerated grit
chambers were greater than removals in the clarifiers. However, because
the aeration rates and hydraulic residence times in grit chambers are
typically very low, emissions from those devices appear to be much lower
than emissions from activated sludge aeration basins. The overall
removal efficiencies for benzene and vinyl chloride were 32% and 75%,
respectively. Emissions throughout the entire treatment train amounted
to 6*.l kg/day for benzene and 14.1 kg/day for vinyl chloride.
200
-------
SUMMARY
A model (TEST) has been developed to predict the distribution of
organic contaminants during municipal wastewater treatment. The model
was exercised in an example application which exemplified the signifi-
cance of aerated secondary treatment processes as emissions sources.
For VTOCs, the primary removal mechanism appears to be volatilization.
Further validation will be required, but even at this stage TEST can be
used to predict emissions of VTOCs throughout entire treatment systems.
Moreover, the relative importance of specific treatment processes can be
studied and the effects of process modifications as emission control
measures can be assessed. The model has been delivered to the
California Air Resources Board for further evaluation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was supported by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) under contract HW5-127-32. The authors would like to thank the
staff of the CARB, particularly Mr. Joseph Pantalone, for their
assistance. Ms. Barbara Nichols and Ms. Virginia Roy were of great
assistance in preparing the final manuscript.
DISCLAIMER
"The statements and conclusions in this paper are those of the
contractor and not necessarily those of the California Air Resources
Board. The mention of commercial products, their source or their use in
connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as
either an actual or implied endorsement of such products.
201
-------
REFERENCES
1. California Air Resources Board, Source Tests for Vinyl Chloride and
Other ygCs at Sewage Treatment Plants, memorandum to D.C. Simeroth,
P. Ouchida and K. Jones, 1985.
2. V.S. Dunovant, C.S. Clark, S.S. Que Hee, V.S. Hertzberg, and J.G.
Trapp, "Volatile organics in the wastewater and airspaces of three
wastewater treatment plants," Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, 58(9)t 886 (1986).
3. P.A. Lurker, C.S. Clark and V.J. Elia, "Atmospheric release of
chlorinated organic compounds from the activated sludge process,"
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 54(12)t 1566
(1982).
4. C.C. Allen, D.A. Green, J.B. White and J.B. Coburn, Preliminary
Assessment of Air Emissions From Aerated Waste Treatment Systems at
Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities,U.S.
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,HazardousWasteEngineering
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1986.
5. G. Dixon and B. Bremen, Technical Background and Estimation Methods
for Assessing Air Releases from Sewage Treatment Plants,Versar,
Inc., memorandum to F. Reinhardt, 1984.
6. D.P.Y. Chang, E.D. Schroeder and R.L. Corsi, Emissions of Volatile
and Potentially Toxic Organic Compounds From Wastewater Treatment
and Collection Systems, Draft Report Submitted to the California Air
Resources Board, 1987.
7. D.F. Kincannon, E.L. Stover, V. Nichols and D. Medley, "Removal
mechanisms for toxic priority pollutants," Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 55(2): 157 (1983).
8. C.T. Lawson and S.A. Siegrist, "Removal mechanisms for selected
priority pollutants in activated sludge systems," Proceedings of the
ASCE Environmental Engineering Division Specialty Conference, 1981
National Conference on Environmental Engineering,F.M.Saunders,
EdTl356 (1981).
9. C.J. Kim and W.J. Maier, "Acclimation and biodegradation of chlori-
nated organic compounds in the presence of alternate substrates,"
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 58(2)i 157
(1986).
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress on the Dis-
charge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works,
EPA/530-SW-86-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C., 1986.
202
-------
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fate of Priority Pollutants in
Publicly Owned Treatment Works, vol. £",EPA440/1-82/303,OTsT
Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, D.C., 1982.
12. J.H. Smith, D.C. Bomberger, Jr. and D.L. Haynes, "Prediction of the
volatilization rates of high-volatility chemicals from natural water
bodies," Environmental Science and Technology, 14(11)t 1332 (1980).
13. P.V. Roberts, C. Munz, P. Dandliker and C. Matter-Muller,
Volatilization of Organic Pollutants in Wastewater-Model Studies,
EPA-600/52-84-047, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1984.
14. R.G. Thomas, Volatilization from Water, Chapter 15 in Hardbook of
Chemical Property Estimation Methods, W.J. Lyman et al.,Ed.,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1982.
15. J.W. Patterson and P.S. Kodukala, "Biodegradation of hazardous orga-
nic pollutants," Chemical Engineering Progress, 77(4); 48 (1981).
16. W.J. Weber, B.E. Jones and L.E. Katz, "Fate of toxic organic com-
pounds in activated sludge and integrated PAC systems," Water Sci.
Tech., 19; 471 (1987).
17. J.W. Blackburn, W.L. Troxler, K.N. Truong, R.P. Zink, S.C.
Meckstroth, J.R. Florence, A. Groen, G.S. Sayler, R.W. Beck, R.A.
Minear, A. Breen and 0. Yagi, Organic Chemical Fate Prediction in
Activated Sludge Treatment ProcessesTEPA/600/52-85/102,DTsT
Environmental ProtectionAgency, Water Engineering Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1985.
203
-------
INPUT
to
o
GRIT
CHAMBER
CLARIFIER
PROCESS
SELECTION
T
CHANNEL
TRICKLING
FILTER
NO
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
1
YES
OUTPUT
FIGURE 1. OPTION FLOW DIAGRAM FOR THE TEST MODEL
-------
to
o
in
AERATED GRIT
TANK
JFLUENT
O^*\
o
O 0
o o
o e
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
TANKS
AERATION
BASINS
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
EFFLUENT
*>
PRIMARY SLUDGE
SECONDARY SLUDGE
INFLUENT
GRIT TANK
PRIMARY SED. TANKS AERATION BASINS SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
Flow: 2.2 m3/sec Depth: 3.5 m Rectangular
Width: 8.0 m Two in parallel
Benzene: 100 M 9/1 Length: 25.0m Depth: 4.0m
Vinyl Aeration: 0.08 m3/sec Width: 14.0 m
chloride: 100 ftg/1 HRT: 0.09 hours Length: 80.0 m
HRT: 1.14 hours
CFSTR
Three in parallel
Volume: 7000m3
Aeration: 1.4 m3/s
HRT: 2.66 hours
Rectangular
Three in parallel
Depth: 4.0 m
Width: 14.0m
Length: 80.0 m
HRT: 1.71 hours
E (kg/day) % REM
Benzene
Vinyl chloride
0.2
.6
0.9
3.3
0.01
0.01
E (kg/day) %REM
0.04
0.04
E (kg/day) %REM E (kg/day) %REM
5.9
13.5
31.0
73.9
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.04
RGURE 2. EXAMPLE APPLICATION USING THE TEST MODEL. HRT • HYDRAULIC RESIDENCE TIME, E - EMISSION RATE (KG/DAY),
AND % REM - PERCENT OF EACH VTOC REMOVED ACROSS THE PROCESS
------- |