United States
Environmental Protection
Agencv
Industrial tnvimnrripntal Hf search
Laboratory
Research Tnangle Park IMi_. 2771 1
tPA 600 .•> 78 CX34q
Jul\ 1978
Research and Development
Source Assessment
Prioritization of
Stationary Water
Pollution Sources
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Off ice of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad categories were
established to facilitate further development and application of environmental tech-
nology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related fields. The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY
series. This series describes research performed to develop and demonstrate instrumen-
tation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent environmental degradation from
point and non-point sources of pollution. This work provides the new or improved tech-
nology required for the control and treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental
quality standards.
REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade*
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
EPA-600/2-78-004q
July 1978
Source Assessment:
Prioritization of Stationary
Water Pollution Sources
by
R.B. Reznik, E.G. Eimutis, J.L Delaney, S.R. Archer,
J.C. Ochsner, W.R. McCurley, and T.W. Hughes
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
Contract No. 68-02-1874
ROAPNo. 21AXM-071
Program Element No. 1AB015
EPA Task Officer: Dale A. Denny
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
This report provides prioritization listings for use as aids in
selecting specific sources of water effluents for detailed
assessment. The report describes the general water prioritiza-
tion model, explains the manner and form of its implementation,
and gives a detailed example of its use. Hazard factors that
were developed in order to prioritize specific sources are also
described.
Various industries (source types) were ranked (prioritized) on
the basis of their water discharges. Solid residues were assumed
to contribute to water discharges as leachates. The prioritiza-
tion index for water, termed the impact factor, is based on a
ratio of actual concentration to hazardous concentration. The
water discharge prioritization model was applied to 262 station-
ary organic and inorganic sources. The source types were
divided into four subcategories and prioritized: 1) petrochem-
icals, 2) textiles, 3) pesticides, and 4) fertilizers.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract
68-02-1874 by Monsanto Research Corporation under the sponsorship
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report covers
the period August 1976 to November 1977.
li
-------
PREFACE
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibil-
ity for insuring that pollution control technology is available
for stationary sources to meet the requirements of the Clean Air
Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and solid waste
legislation. If control technology is unavailable, inadequate,
or uneconomical, then financial support is provided for the
development of the needed control techniques for industrial and
extractive process industries. The Chemical Processes Branch of
the Industrial Processes Division of IERL has the responsibility
for investing tax dollars in programs to develop control tech-
nology for a large number of operations (more than 500) in chem-
ical industries.
Monsanto Research Corporation (MRC) has contracted with EPA to
investigate the environmental impact of various industries which
represent sources of pollution in accordance with EPA's respon-
sibility as outlined above. Dr. Robert C. Binning serves as MRC
Program Manager in this overall program entitled "Source Assess-
ment," which includes the investigation of sources in each of
four categories: combustion, organic materials, inorganic mate-
rials, and open sources. Dr. Dale A. Denny of the Industrial
Processes Division at Research Triangle Park serves as EPA Pro-
ject Officer. Reports prepared in this program are of three
types: Source Assessment Documents, State-of-the-Art Reports,
and Special Project Reports.
Source Assessment Documents contain data on emissions from spe-
cific industries. Such data are gathered from literature,
government agencies, and cooperating companies. Sampling and
analysis are also performed by the contractor when available
information does not adequately characterize source emissions.
These documents contain all of the information necessary for
IERL to decide whether emissions reduction is necessary.
State-of-the-Art Reports include data on emissions from specific
industries which are also gathered from literature, government
agencies, and cooperating companies. However, no extensive
sampling is conducted by the contractor for such industries.
Results from such studies are published as State-of-the-Art Re-
ports for potential utility by government, industry, and others
having specific needs and interests.
111
-------
Special projects provide specific information on services which
are applicable to a number of source types or have special util-
ity to EPA but are not part of a particular source assessment
study. This special project report, "Source Assessment: Prior-
itization of Stationary Water Pollution Sources," was prepared
to provide prioritization listings for use as aids in the selec-
tion of specific sources of water effluents for detailed assess-
ment. This report describes the general water prioritization
model, explains the manner and form of its implementation, and
gives a detailed example of use. A description of hazard fac-
tors that were developed in order to prioritize specific sources
is also provided. This work on sources of water effluents com-
plements that completed earlier by MRC on the development of
priority listings of sources of air pollutants.
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract ii
Preface iii
Figures vi
Tables vi
Abbreviations and Symbols vil
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary 2
3. Water Prioritization Model 7
The mathematical model 7
Assumptions, limitations, and caveats 10
Model applications 11
4. Source Prioritizations 18
Petrochemical source types 18
Pesticide manufacturing source types 26
Fertilizer manufacturing source types 31
Textile source types 36
References 41
Appendices
A. Derivation of a water pollution severity model. ... 50
B. Oxygen deficit relationships 60
C. Impact factor sample calculation 65
D. Examples of input data sheets 82
E. Hazard factors developed for use in water
prioritization 85
Glossary 121
Conversion Factors and Metric Prefixes 123
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Change of concentration with distance. ........ 8
TABLES
1 Prioritization of Petrochemical Sources of Water
Pollution 2
2 Prioritization of Pesticide Sources of Water Pollution 4
3 Prioritization of Fertilizer Sources of Water Pollution 5
4 Prioritization of Textile Sources of Water Pollution . 6
5 Example of Input Data and Results for Calculation of
Water Severity 16
6 List of Pollutants and Indicators of Pollution .... 19
7 Acrylonitrile Plant Wastewater 19
8 Average Water Discharge Characterization by Category
Type 20
9 Effluent Limitations, Maximum for any One Day, for the
BPCTCA 22
10 Alphabetical Listing of Petrochemical Source Types
Prioritized 23
11 Prioritization of Petrochemical Sources of Water
Pollution 24
12 Raw Wastewater Characteristics of Organic Pesticide
Manufactures 27
13 Alphabetical Listing of Pesticide Source Types
Prioritized 32
14 Prioritization of Pesticide Sources of Water Pollution 32
15 Alphabetical Listing of Fertilizer Source Types
Prioritized 36
16 Prioritization of Fertilizer Sources of Water Pollution 37
17 Alphabetical Listing of Textile Source Types
Prioritized 40
18 Prioritization of Textile Sources of Water Pollution . 40
VI
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
A
A,B,C,D
AMZ
AQTX
ar
s
BG
BI.
BOD
BODT
L
BOD 5
BPCTCA
BT
c
C
ca. .
cd
cd
cd(t)
cdo
C . .
COD
CO .
cs .
cs
c(t)
fraction of river flow in mixing zones
uncertainty levels associated with impact factor
aftermixing zone
aquatic toxicity
absorption retention coefficient, m3/s
bluegill
biodegradability index for the ith species
biochemical oxygen demand, mg/liter
ultimate BOD, mg/liter
amount of dissolved oxygen consumed in 5 days by
biological processes breaking down organic matter
in an effluent
best practicable control technology currently
available
brook trout
pollutant concentration resulting from Outfall 1
and Outfall 2 after full dilution
concentration of species in discharge, mg/liter
ambient concentration of the ith species at the jth
plant, g/m3
concentration of pollutant in effluent, g/m3
average discharge concentration, g/m3
discharge concentration as a function of time, g/m3
pollutant concentration in Outfall 1
pollutant concentration in Outfall 2
concentration of the ith species in the £th outfall
at the jth plant, g/m3
fraction of the ith constituent on a dry basis in
the solid waste at the jth plant, g/m3
fraction of the ith constituent on a dry basis in
the kth pile at the jth plant, g/m3
final aftermixing zone concentration of ith species
at jth plant
chemical oxygen demand, mg/liter
final aftermixing zone oxygen demand concentration
at jth plant
saturated dissolved oxygen concentration at the jth
plant receiving stream, g/m3
saturated dissolved oxygen concentration, g/m3
aftermixing zone concentration as a function of
time, g/m3
vii
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS (continued)
D — Daphnia
D — actual delivered dose, g
D — potentially hazardous dose, g
DO — dissolved oxygen freshwater quality criterion, g/m3
e — natural base logarithm (2.72)
E_ — effluent factor, Ib/ton
EF. . — total effluent factor for the ith species at the
13 jth plant, Ib/ton
EM. — ecological magnification factor for the ith
1 discharged species
E — effluent rate, tons/yr
£\
F,F!...
F7,F. — hazard factors
FM — fathead minnow
F . — hazard factor of the oxygen demand at jth plant
f , . — leachable residue fraction
f ~ . . . — fraction of the ith constituent on a wet basis, in
II)K the kth pile at the jth plant
G — Gammarus laeustris (amphipod)
gpg — guinea pig
HF — harlequin fish
hmn — human
— immobilization concentration 50
ihl — inhalation
imp — implant
ipr — intraperitoneal
ivg — intravaginal
ivn — intravenous
Iw — overall water impact factor
Jv
I'w — weighted water impact factor
J^
k1 — BOD 5 rate constant, days"1
ki...ks — conversion factors, g/ton, g/lb, 9 aai ' Ib/ton,
s/yr 9 9
L — wastewater loading, gal/ton
LC_ — lethal concentration low
Lo
LC50 — lethal concentration 50
LDT — lethal dose low
Lo
LD50 — lethal dose 50
iiicf — average mass discharge rate, g/s
Md. . — annual discharge rate of the ith species at the
^ jth plant, g/yr
triii
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS (continued)
md.. — combined mass discharge rate for the ith species at
13 the jth plant, g/s
md(t) — mass discharge rate as a function of time, g/s
MF — mosquito fish
min|LC50| — lethal concentration to 50% of species most
sensitive to a particular pollutant, g/m3
mod. — total oxygen deficit rate at the jth plant, g/s
mos. — oxygen deficit rate of the solid residue leachate
-* at the jth plant, g/s
mow. — oxygen deficit rate of the direct water discharges
-1 at the jth plant, g/s
ms.. — water mass discharge rate due to solid residue
-1 leaching for the ith species at the jth plant, g/s
mw.. — direct water mass discharge rate for the ith species
3 at the jth plant, g/s
mus — mouse
MZ — mixing zone
mi/ m2 — pollutant mass discharge rate from Outfalls 1 and 2
m3, mi+ — pollutant mass discharge rate from Piles 1 and 2
N — naiads (aquatic young of dragonfly, stonefly); also
number of chemical species destroyed
Op — outfall effluent factor, Ib/ton
O . — outfall effluent factor for the ith species, Ib/ton
orl — oral
P — number of discharging outfalls
PC — plant capacity, ton/yr
PC. — plant capacity of the jth plant, ton/yr
ppm — parts per million
Q — number of leachable piles
rbt — rabbit
R. — rainfall rate at the jth plant, m/yr
RT — rainbow trout
S — severity used as a starting basis for the water
prioritization model
S — severity due to a pollutant in a discharge stream
before dilution
S — severity due to a pollutant in a mixing zone
S — severity due to a pollutant after a mixing zone
scu — subcutaneous
S.. — water severity for the ith pollutant at the jth
_^^ plant
S. . — defined average severity for the ith pollutant at
3 the jth plant
ix
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS (continued)
S. — total water severity at the jth plant (including
3 oxygen demand severity)
skn — skin
So. — oxygen deficit severity at the jth plant
So — aftermixing zone oxygen deficit severity
S(t) — severity as a function of time
S — average severity for averaging time, T
S — total severity resulting from Outfall 1 and
ot Outfall 2 after full dilution
S' — total severity resulting from various outfalls and
leachable solid waste piles after full dilution
SWF — solid waste effluent factor, Ib/ton
SWp.. — solid waste effluent factor for the ith species at
3 the jth plant, Ib/ton
SW.. — solid waste generation rate in the kth pile at the
3 jth plant, g/s
Sj — aftermixing zone pollutant severity for Outfall 1
S2 — aftermixing zone pollutant severity for Outfall 2
C I
h? 1 • * •
S^ — aftermixing zone severity for specific outfall or
leachable, solid waste pile
t — time (tj and t2 are initial and final times,
respectively), s; for BOD, days
T — reference time period; t2-t1; s
TCL — toxic concentration low
Lo
TDT — toxic dose low
Lo
TLV — threshold limit value
TOC — total organic carbon, mg/liter
TOD — total oxygen demand, mg/liter
TODs., — total oxygen demand of the leachable, solid residue
3 in the kth pile at the jth plant, g/m3
TODw.. — total oxygen demand of the direct water discharge
11 in the Jlth outfall at the jth plant, g/m3
vd — effluent discharge rate, mVs
vd — average discharge flow rate, m3/s
vd! — discharge flow rate of Outfall 1
vd2 — discharge flow rate of Outfall 2
vd.. — discharge flow rate of the ith outfall at the jth
3 plant, m3/s
vd(t) — discharge flow rate as a function of time, m3/s
vr — river flow rate, m3/s
vr — average river flow rate, m3/s
vr. — river flow rate for the jth plant, m3/s
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS (continued)
vr(t) — river flow rate as a function of time, m3/s
wf . — fraction of water in the solid waste at the jth
J plant
wf-k — fraction of water in the kth pile at the jth plant
wmh — woman
WQC — water quality criteria, g/m3
Wl.. — ambient water quality weighting factor for ith
-* species at the jth plant
W2. — ecological magnification and biodegradation
weighting factor for ith species
x — specific source types
X — annual water effluent mass loading, g/yr
X.. — total annual effluent mass loading for the ith
-* species at the jth plant, g/yr
X . — total annual effluent mass loading for dissolved
-* oxygen at the jth plant, g/yr
Z — number of plants
a and g — dimensionless constants
¥ — actual exposure
¥„ — potentially hazardous exposure
XI
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
A wide variety of industrial sources discharge wastewater into
the environment. In order to characterize the effluents from
these sources, evaluate their environmental effects, and develop
appropriate control technologies, it is desirable first to rank
them in order of their potential environmental impact. In this
way when limited resources are available those sources with the
highest ranking can be studied first, while sources of lower
priority can be addressed at a later time.
This report includes a general description of water and solid
residue prioritization models used for the ranking of a selected
set of industrial sources. Models are applied to selected petro-
chemical, agricultural, textile, and pesticide sources, and
resulting relative prioritizations are presented. Computation of
a relative impact factor for each discharge source provides the
basis for each ranking.
No attempt in any fashion is made to relate industrial discharges
to their effects on aquatic life. Based upon a set of common
assumptions which are clearly identified, the model provides a
ranking (within the framework of these assumptions) of stationary
sources of water discharges and solid residue generation.
It must be understood that the prioritization models are at best
a "first-cut" attempt at ranking numerous source types based on
the potential burden they place upon the environment. In the
water model, for example, potential severity is expressed as a
concentration ratio of a discharged material relative to a
hazard potential factor.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY
Procedures were developed whereby various industries (source
types) were ranked (prioritized) on the basis of their water
discharges. Solid residues were assumed to contribute to water
discharges as leachates. The prioritization index for water,
termed the water impact factor, is based on a ratio of estimated
effluent concentration to hazardous effluent concentration and
is described fully herein.
The water discharge prioritization model was applied to 262 sta-
tionary organic and inorganic sources. The source types were
divided into four subcategories for ranking: 1) petrochemicals,
2) pesticides, 3) fertilizers, and 4) textiles. The resulting
prioritization listings are shown in Tables 1 through 4 and dis-
cussed in detail in the report.
TABLE 1. PRIORITIZATION OF PETROCHEMICAL
SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
SOURCE TTPt
IMPACT FACTOR* c\*> CALCC
PROPTLENE OXIDE - CHLOROHYORIN PROCESS
ADIPONITRILE
N-BUTYRALDCHYOE
PHENOL - COHEN! PROCESS
CHLOROBENZENE - CHLOR1NATION Of BENZENE
CLYCCRIN - ALLYL ALCOHOL
eLTCCRIN ' EPICHLOROHYDRIN
P'DICHLOROBENZCNE
ETMYLCNE DICHLORIOE . CTHTLCNC CHLORINATION
ETHTLENE OICHLORIDE - OXYCHLON1NATION
CYCLOMCXANONE
AOIPIC ACID
VINTL CHLORIDE - ETHTLCNE
CTCLONCXANOL - FROM CYCLOHCXARt
BUTADIENE - N-BUTENE
ISOPROPANOL • PROPTLtNC
PERCHLOROETHYLENE - CHLORINATION OF PROPANE
ISOOCTTL ALCOHOLS
ETHYL HEXANOL - 0X0 PROCESS
N-BUTYL ALCOHOL
ETHYLENE
EPICHLOROHYDRIN
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE - METHANE
ACEYONC - FROM ISOPROPANOL
S-BUTYL ALCOHOL
ETHYL BENZENE - BENZENE AND DIKED XYLCNES
8ISPMCNOL-A
CRESYLIC ACID
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONC
0-OICMLOROBEN2ENE
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE > CHLORINATtON OF RCTHANC
POLYBUTENCS - BUTANE
l.lfl-TftlCHLOROCTHANC - VINYL CHLORIDE CHLONIMTION
PROPYLENE ' RtFININC - VIA PYROLYSIS
OIISOeUTYLENC
T-BUTYL ALCOHOL
BENZENE - CATALYTIC RCFORRATE
DOOCCYL ALCOHOL - 0X0 PROCESS
TOLUENE - CATALYTIC REFORMING
NAPHTHALENE
lOtOCOiBtO.OOO
S.PCOiOOOtOOO
••01.000.008
,000.000,900
.000.000.000
.000.000.010
.000.000.000
.000.000.000
.000.000.000
.000.000.000
.000.000.000
,000.000,000
.000.000.000
.000.000.000
.••0.000.000
.000.000.000
.•00.0*0.000
.000.000.000
.000.000.000
.000.000.000
.000.000.000
.•••.000.000
.000.000.000
•00.000.000
•00.000.000
700.000.000
TOO.000.000
700.000.000
7*0.000.000
500.000.000
300,000.000
SOO.000,000
»oo.goo,ooo
too.ooo.ooo
too.ooo.ooo
301.0*0.0*0
300,000.000
300.000.000
300,000,000
3*0.000.000
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
SOURCE TYPE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE - CHLORINATIOH OF PROPAHE
HEXAOECYL ALCOHOL - 0X0 PROCESS
ISOBUTYLENE - EXTRACTION OF HYDROCARBONS
ISOBUTYR ALDEHYDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE - CARBON DISULFIOC
ACRYLONITRILE
ISOOCCANOL ' OXOPROCESS
"ETHYL ISOBUTYL CARBINOL
TRICHLOROErHYLCME - CHLORINATN THEN OCNYOROCHLOMINATN OT EOC
OECYL ALCOHOL
XTLENES - MIXED - PETROCHEMICAL
ISOPRENE - DEHYOROGENEAYION Of ISOAMYLENCS
NONENE
PROPYLENE • FROM ETHTLENE - VI* PYROLYSIS
NONYLPHENOL
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE • NAPTHALCNC
PROPYLCNE - FROM ETHYLENE AND REFINING - VIA PYROLYSIS
ISOPENTANE
CYCLOHEXANt
BUTADIENE - ETHTLENE BY-PRODUCT
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
0-XYLENE
BENZENE - PETROCHEMICAL FEEDSTOCKS
CARBON BLACK - FURNACE
N-PENTANE
ACRYLAMIOE . FROM ACRYLONITRILE
TOLUENE - PETROCHEMICAL FEEDSTOCKS
ETHTL CHLORIDE - HTDROCHLORINATION OF ETHYLENE
PHOSGENE
DIMETHYL TEREPHTHALATt
HEPTANE
TRIISOBUTYLENE
BUTADIENE - OEHYDROCENATION OF N-BUTANE
HEXAMETHYLENEOIAHINE - ADIPONITRILE
T-BUTYL AMINE • ISOBUTYLENE
OIACETONE ALCOHOL - CONDENSATION
1 « 2 1 S-TR ICHLOROPROPANE
GLYCERIN - ACROLEIN
BENZENE - COAL DERIVED
ETHYL BENZENE - MIXED XYLENCS
METHYL CHLORIDE - CHtORINATION OF METHANE
HEXAHETHTLENEOIAHINE - AMMONOLYSIS OF l.t-HEXANEOIOL
TEREPHTHALIC ACID
Sir RENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE - CHLORINATION OF ACETYLENE
CHLOROFORM
MESITYL OXIDE - OEHYOROGENATION
VINYL CHLORIDE - ACETYLENE
CARBON BLACK - THERMAL
1.1.1-TRICHLOROETHANC - VINYLIUENE CHLORIDE HYWOCHLORINATN
ACROLEIN
TOLUENE - COAL
DODECENE - NON-LINEAR
ETHYLENE SLTCOL - ETHTLENE OXIDE
ETHYLENC OXIDE
ISOAMYLENE
XYLENES - MIXED - COAL
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE - 0-XYLENE
NEOPENTANOIC ACID
CYCLOOCTADIENE - BUTADIENE
N-BUTYL ALCOHOL - ZICGLER PROCESS
METHYL ETHYL KETONE • FROM S-BUTTL ALCOHOL
P-XYLENE
ISOPHORONE
METHYL CHLORIDE - METHAWOL
OIETHYLENE SLTCOL
ISOPRENE - PETROLEUM FRACTIONS
SULFOLANE
1.1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE - ETHANE CHLORINATION
BENZENE - OTHER
ALKYLNAPHTHALENE
POLYETHYLENE GLTCOLS
CUMENE
IMPACT FACTOR" (
200.000.000
200.000.000
200.000.000
200.000.000
200,000.000
200.000.000
200.000,000
200.000,000
100.000.000
100.000,000
ioo.oeo.ooo
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
»0. 000. 000
»0. 000. 000
80.000.000
ao. ooo. ooo
70.000.000
70.000,000
to. too. ooo
50.000,000
50.000.000
*0. 000. 000
40.000.000
»0. 000. 000
*0. 000.000
30.000.000
SO. 000. 000
SO. 000. 000
90.000.000
30.000.000
30.000.000
30.004.000
20.000.000
20.000.000
20.000.000
10.000.000
9.000.000
9.000.000
(.000.000
t. 000. 000
t. 000. 000
t. 000. 000
t. 000. 000
6.000.000
t. 000. 000
S. 000. 000
3.000.000
3.000.000
3.000.000
t. 000. 000
2.000.000
900^000
too. ooo
too. ooo
900.000
500.0)0
»oo.eoo
300.000
300.000
300.000
200.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
90.000
50.000
40.000
50.000
10.000
^b c
c
c
c
c
c
8
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
D
c
B
c
c
c
c
D
c
c
c
c
B
c
0
D
B
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
B
B
c
c
D
c
c
c
c
c
c
B
0
0
c
B
c
0
c
B
B
D
B
B
0
D
c
c
c
c
B
ALCC
3
S
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
S
2
2
S
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
S
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
Impact factors have been multiplied by a scaling factor of 106 to avoid dealing with numbers
much less than 1.0.
Uncertainty level (see page 17).
Type of calculation (degree of data aggregation):
1 * aggregated according to population;
2 = aggregated on a state basis;
3 = detailed plant data.
-------
TABLE 2. PRIORITIZATION OF PESTICIDE
SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
SOURCE rm
PHORATE
EKOOSULFAN
OIHETHOATE
CHLORAMEN
HALATHJOM
AZOORIN
DIAZINON
PARATHIOH
CHLOROBENZILATE
LI WANE
OICAHBA
PROPACNLOR
BUT AC ML OR
ALACW.OR
NANEB
PCP
OISULFOTON
COAA
BENSULIOC
CHLOROANC
ATRAZINE
CARBOPHENOTHI OM
AHITROLE
FONOPHOS
NETHOXTCHLM
SOOIUH CHLORATE
DICOFOL
SILVEX
SINAZINE
COPPER SULFATE
CHLORONEB
HETHTL PAMTMION
FENSULFOTHION
PROPAZINC
CTHION
2,»-0
OEF
PROftCTONE
THIONAZIN
ABATE
AZINPHOS - HETHTL
FENAC
OtET
1 • » . S-TR 1 CHLOROPHCNOL
BOCAP
HEPTACNLOR
CAPTAN
NITRALIN
BETMOBrL
PCM
FERBAR
MCTRIBU2IN
2i*,9-T
BENOflYL
FENTHXON
CARBAMTL
2.1.9-T SALTS
RONNCL
OINOSEB
MCTALKAMTE
ALOICARB
DEnCTOM
DIOXATHION
LI HURON
VCRNOLATE
FENITNOTMION
CARBOFURAN
TEPP
EMORIN
CHLORPTRIFOS
EPTC
TERRAZOLE
OICHLOFENTHION
COUftAPHOS
TRIFLURALIN
BROHACIL
POLTRAB
10LINATE
LEAD ARSEMATE
OIURON
CtCLOATE
PE8ULATE
TOXAPNCNE
CHLORPROPHAH
TRIALLATE
PR OP ANIL
NABAB
"ETHYL DERETON
ZINCB
CDCC
DIALLATC
CRUFOftATE
NALEO
IRPACT FACTOR'
»00. 000. 900
jeo.ooa.ooo
300.000,000
200.000*000
100,000.000
*0. 000. 000
90.000.000
»0. 000, 000
30,000.000
30.000.000
30.000.000
10,000,000
JO. 000, 000
20.000.000
20.000.000
10.000.000
10.000.000
10.000.000
10.000.000
10.000.000
10.000.000
tOOO.OOO
.000.000
.000.000
.000.000
.000.000
.000.000
.000.000
.000.000
.000.000
.000.000
.000.000
.000.000
.000.000
.000.000
3.000.000
3.000.000
3.000.000
2.000,000
2.000.000
2.000.000
.000.000
.000.000
.000.000
.000.000
.000,000
too. ooo
600,000
too, ooo
000,000
too, ooo
too, ooo
900,000
900,000
»00.000
300.000
300,000
300,000
200.000
200,000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100,000
80.000
•0,000
70,000
to, ooo
CO, 000
90,000
90,000
90,000
90,000
90,000
30.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
to. ooo
20,000
10,000
10.000
10,000
10,000
10.000
9,000
9,000
7,000
9.000
9.000
9.000
1.0 tu
3,000
CLk
0
0
D
0
D
0
B
B
c
0
0
c
0
c
B
B
B
c
0
c
0
0
D
0
D
B
D
0
c
B
D
B
B
o
D
C
D
D
0
0
C
D
0
0
D
C
D
0
0
B
D
8
C
D
B
C
C
C
B
D
0
C
0
C
0
D
0
0
B
C
D
C
0
c
D
C
0
D
0
C
D
0
C
D
0
D
D
C
g
D
0
0
C
CALC°
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
S
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
SOURCE TYPE
TCRBACIL
OICROTOPHOS
TEBUTHIUKON
0»L»PON
BENEFIN
RONUKON
PHOSPHAHIOON
FLUONETRON
NE8URON
HEVINPHOS
OICHtORVOS
ASPON
BUTYLATE
PTRETHKINS
CACOOYUIC ACIO
IMPACT FACTOR"
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
1.000
1«000
ItOOO
900
600
500
100
90
80
70
(0
0
o
c
c
c
o
o
o
o
D
CALC0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Impact factors have been multiplied by a scaling factor of 106 to avoid dealing with numbers
much less than 1.0.
Uncertainty level (see page 17).
Type of calculation (degree of data aggregation):
1 = aggregated according to population;
2 = aggregated on a state basis;
3 = detailed plant data.
TABLE 3. PRIORITIZATION OF FERTILIZER
SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
SOURCE TYPE IMPACT FACTOR3
AMMONIUM NITRATE
AMMONIA
UREA
NITRIC ACIO
FERTILIZER MIXING - AMNONIATION - GRANULATION PLANTS
PHOSPHORIC ACID - UET PROCESS
FERTILIZER MIXING - LIQUID MIX PLANTS
SUPERPHOSPHATE - NORMAL
SULFURIC ACIO
PHOSPHATE ROCK - DRYING, GRINDING, CALCINING
AMMONIUM PHOSPHATES
FERTILIZER MIXING - BULK BLENDING PLANTS
AMMONIUM SULFATE
TRIPLE SUPERPHOSPHATES
POTASH - POTASSIUM SALTS
MANGANESE SULFATE
60,000,000 C
60,000,000 C
50*000,000 C
2,000,000 C
C
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
alrapact factors have been multiplied by a scaling factor of 106 to avoid dealing with numbers
much less than 1.0.
Uncertainty level (see page 17).
Type of calculation (degree of data aggregation):
1 = aggregated according to population;
2 = aggregated on a state basis;
3 = detailed plant data.
-------
TABLE 4. PRIORITIZATION OF TEXTILE
SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
SOURCE TYPE
KNITTING MILLS
MAN-HADE FIBER AND SILK FINISHING HILLS
THROUING AND WINDING HILLS
COTTON WEAVING HILLS
FELT GOODS EXCEPT WOVEN FELTS AND HATS
COTTON FINISHING HILLS
HAN-HADE FIBER AND SILK WEAVING HILLS
WOOL YARN HILLS
NONWOVEN FABRICS
FINISHING HILLS -NEC
FLOOR COVERING HILLS
YARN HILLS EXCEPT WOOL
WOOL WEAVING AND FINISHING HILLS
COATED FABRICS NOT RUBBERIZED
NARROW FABRIC HILLS
TIRE CORD AND FABRIC
PROCESSED TEXTILE WASTE
PADDINGS AND UPHOLSTERY FILLING
CORDAGE AND TWINE
TEXTILE GOODS -NEC
THREAD HILLS
LACE GOODS
IHPACT FACTOR3
1,000,000,000
l.OOOtOOO.OOO
1.000,000.000
800,000.000
700,000,000
700.000,000
600,000,000
300,000.000
200,000,000
70,000,000
30,000,000
30,000,000
30,000,000
. 10,000,000
8,000*000
3,000,000
2,000.000
2,000,000
1,000,000
900,000
200,000
200,000
CLb
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
0
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
CALCC
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
aImpact factors have been multiplied by a scaling factor of 106 to avoid dealing with numbers
much less than 1.0.
Uncertainty level (see page 17).
Type of calculation (degree of data aggregation):
1 = aggregated according to population;
2 = aggregated on a state basis;
3 = detailed plant data.
-------
SECTION 3
WATER PRIORITIZATION MODEL
THE MATHEMATICAL MODEL
A mathematical model was developed to provide a ranking of indus-
trial wastewater sources. Although this approach does not
eliminate subjective judgment, it does make the prioritization
process visible and open to scrutiny. Many different mathemati-
cal models can be conceived in this instance because the system
to be studied is complex and not fully understood. Pertinent
factors that deserve consideration are: the number of industrial
source types, the flow rate of each discharge stream, discharge
stream composition (chemical and physical characteristics), vol-
ume and flow rate of the receiving body, water quality of the
receiving body, and the hazardous nature of the discharge stream.
In an effluent stream containing many materials, each species
may have a different environmental impact, and there may be syn-
ergestic interactions.
For prioritization purposes it was decided to adopt a simplified
approach because the model is intended only to rank sources in a
relative way as a basis for further study. Four simple models
were considered, based on the degree of mixing with the receiving
stream. In the first case, the source severity (S) was defined
for each discharge by:
s = cd m
SA F U)
where SA = severity due to a pollutant in a discharge stream
before dilution
cd = concentration of pollutant in effluent, g/m3
F = hazard factor egual to a potentially hazardous con-
centration, g/m^ (see Equations 11 to 17 later in
text)
Equation 1 describes what may be termed the end-of-pipe severity
for the discharge stream. Once an effluent enters a receiving
body it is diluted by the receiving body water so that the
severity decreases. The severity within a mixing zone, MZ, is
defined as follows:
-------
s -I vd \(cd\
B \vd + A»vr/\F /
where SB = severity due to a pollutant in a mixing zone
vd = effluent discharge rate, m3/s
vr = river flow rate, m3/s
A = fraction of river flow in mixing zone; i.e.,
1/3, 1/4
The severity after the mixing zone, S_, is given by:
= /
\
\/cd
vd + vr/\F
where SG = severity due to a pollutant after a mixing zone
These relationships are shown in Figure 1.
(2)
(3;
POINT OF
DISCHARGE
DOWNSTREAM DISTANCE
Figure 1. Change of concentration with distance.
If vr is much greater than vd, then
s _
SC -v
(4)
-------
Equation 4 defines the severity used as a starting basis for the
water prioritization model. It is important to note that this
severity is not an aggregate parameter, but instead refers to one
pollutant within one discharge stream. A complete discussion of
the severity model is presented in Appendix A.
Oxygen Demand Severity
For pollutant species that deplete the dissolved oxygen content
of receiving streams, a different approach was required. The
aftermixing zone, AMZ, severity for oxygen demand was defined in
a manner analogous to that for other pollutants. First, an ex-
cess oxygen concentration, F , is defined by
Fo =
cs - DO when cs - DO -1.0
i
1.0 When cs - DO <1.0
(5)
where cs = saturated dissolved oxygen concentration, g/m3
DO = dissolved oxygen freshwater quality criterion, g/m3
The AMZ oxygen deficit severity is
So = (^1^1 (6)
where So = oxygen deficit severity
TOD = total oxygen demand, g/m3
Oxygen demand can also be measured as COD (chemical oxygen
demand) or BOD (biological oxygen demand). Appendic B discusses
the relationship between TOD, COD, and BOD, and presents the
methodology for determining So when COD, BOD, and/or TOG (total
organic carbon) data are available for an effluent stream.
Solid Leachate Contribution
Whenever solid wastes from an industrial source are exposed to
rainfall, soluble materials leach out and can potentially enter
surface waterways. This leachate contribution to the environ-
mental impact is included in the severity model. A description
of the solid leachate contribution to the water severity model
is given in Appendix A.
Water Impact Factor
Once severities have been defined for each pollutant, it is
necessary to aggregate them on a plant and industry basis. In
this way the environmental impact of many different industries
can all be compared on a relative basis.
-------
A plant source severity was computed as the square root of the
sum of individual squares of all pollutants' source severities
as follows:
q = (Qo 2 +
-------
A large number of plants may discharge directly into municipal
treatment facilities, with subsequent discharge into a receiving
stream. For the purposes of this initial ranking, these plants
were assumed to discharge directly into the receiving stream.
An attempt was made to make an overall potential industry burden
determination and not necessarily a detailed plant-by-plant
evaluation. A detailed assessment of the actual water pollution
problem will be performed on an industry-by-industry basis using
the initial ranking as one of several guides to selecting indus-
tries for in-depth assessment.
Intake water quality was considered initially, but was later
deleted from the model. Since water pollution regulations are
written for discharged mass of various species regardless of
intake water quality, the model was formulated in an analogous
fashion.
The solid residue portion of the prioritization model is simplis-
tic; but from a worst case point of view, it should be adequate
for a relative ranking. A number of factors were considered but
not included; biodegradability and transformation rates, eco-
logical magnification in food chains, and ambient species concen-
trations were the major omissions. Time and cost constraints or
lack of information were the major reasons for their exclusion.
The following caveats pertain to this model:
• This prioritization model was designed to be used as just
one tool in aiding the IERL decision makers in their plan-
ning process. The ranking of industries should not be
considered rigid; rather, industries in the top 25% are
likely to impose a greater environmental burden than indus-
tries in the bottom 25%.
• Usage of the models described in Appendix A for purposes
other than relative ranking of water severity may not be
appropriate.
• The absolute value of any impact factor taken out of
context has no significance.
• Synergistic effects among multiple pollutants in a discharge
were not considered.
• Reaeration of streams was not considered.
MODEL APPLICATIONS
To calculate impact factors for a given source type the basic
input parameters are vd, cd, vr, and F. These must be known on
a plant-by-plant basis for each pollutant species. For prioriti-
zation purposes it was impossible to identify the receiving body
(and thus vr) for every plant, and an average river flow rate
was therefore determined for each state. Appendix C presents a
11
-------
tabulation of the average river flow rates, which were compiled
from state water resource reports. Average rainfall rates are
also given for use in calculating leaching rates from solid
wastes. Plant sites were then located by state and assigned the
appropriate vr value.
Effluent Data
Effluent data needed to calculate water severities are the volu-
metric flow rate of the effluent (vd) and the pollutant concen-
tration in the effluent (cd). In many cases data of this type
were not available for a source type, and an alternate procedure
had to be employed. The product vd»cd is a mass flow rate (grams
per second), and data were sometimes presented directly in this
manner. At other times effluent factors (gram of pollutant per
kilogram of product) were given, and these were combined with
production data (kilogram of product produced per second) to
yield mass flow rates. In a few instances cd was known together
with the wastewater loading (cubim meter of effluent per kilo-
gram of product), and the product of these factors and the pro-
duction rate gave the required mass flow rate.
In order to minimize manual computations during prioritization,
input data sheets were prepared for each source type (see
Appendix D for sample data sheets). Data were recorded in the
format in which they were available and in English or metric
units, according to common usage. A computer program converted
the data into a uniform base of annual water effluent mass load-
ing (X, g/yr), determined the source severity for each pollutant
at each plant, and calculated the aggregate impact factor. The
relevant conversion equations employed were:
X =
(PC)Epk2 (10)
(L)(C)(PC)k3
where X = annual water effluent mass loading, g/yr
E = effluent rate, tons/yr
JrC
PC = plant capacity, tons/yr
E_ = effluent factor, Ib/ton
L = wastewater loading, gal/ton
C = concentration of species in discharge, mg/liter
kj = conversion factor, g/ton
k2 = conversion factor, g/lb
ka = conversion factor, (g/mg)(liter/gal)
It should be noted that plant capacities were normally used in
place of production rates because capacity data were much more
readily available. Pollutant concentrations are generally
12
-------
reported in milligrams per liter, C, but this is numerically
equal to the concentration in grams per cubic meter, cd. The
computer program converted X from grams per year into grams per
second to make it compatible with the river flow rates which are
reported in cubic meters per second.
For some source types, production or capacity data were only
available on a state-by-state basis. In these cases it was pos-
sible to calculate severities for every state because the denom-
inator in the severity equation (vr«F) is the same for all plants
within a state. It is assumed that a common effluent factor
applies to all plant sites.
Hazard Factors
Hazard factors were developed to correspond to a concentration
in river water that was potentially hazardous to aquatic life or
human health. They were selected first from water quality cri-
teria if they were available. The development of hazard factors
for the prioritization model and a listing of hazard factors for
various organic and inorganic chemical substances is shown in
Appendix E. In the absence of defined criteria, hazard factors
were calculated by one of the following equations:
F! = 0.05 x LC50 (96-hr) (Ref. 1) (11)
F2 = 0.05 x LC50 (48-hr or 24-hr) (12)
F3 = 0.05 x (LCLo, TCLo, IC50) (13)
Fi, = 2.25 x ID'3 x LD50 (oral/rat) (Ref. 2) (14)
F5 = 2.25 x 10~3 x LD50 (other than oral/rat) (15)
F6 = 2.25 x ID'3 x (LDLo, TDLQ) (16)
F7 = 7.76 x 10~3 x TLV® (Ref. 2, 3) (17)
(1) Walden, C. C., and T. E. Howard. Toxicity: Research and
Regulation. In: Proceedings of 1976 Technical Association
of the Pulp and Paper Industry Environmental Conference,
Atlanta, Georgia, April 26-28, 1976. pp. 93-99.
(2) Handy, R. W., and M. Samfield. Estimate of Permissible Con-
centrations of Pollutants for Continuous Exposure; Part II:
Permissible Water Concentrations. Contract 68-02-1325, Task
34, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, September 1975. 36 pp.
(3) TLVs® Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended
Changes for 1975. American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975. 97 pp.
13
-------
where F1...F7 = hazard factors
LC50 = lethal concentration of a substance that will
kill 50% of a group of experimental insects or
animals
LC_ = lowest published lethal concentration
JjO
TCT = lowest published toxic concentration
J-iO
1C 50 = concentration of a substance that will immobil-
ize 50% of a group of experimental insects or
animals
LD50 = calculated dose of a chemical substance which is
expected to cause death of 50% of an entire
population of an experimental animal species
LD_ = lowest published lethal dose
J_iO
TD._ = lowest published toxic dose
J_iO
TLV = threshold limit value
The rank of the above equations was based on evidence from sci-
entific studies on the relative availability of specific toxicity
indicators.
The method for evaluating hazard factors (using Equation 11)
originates from studies directed toward determining the effluent
concentration below which no stress is exerted on aquatic organ-
isms. Considerable evidence now exists that this concentration
is about 0.05 to 0.10 of the 96-hr LC50 value (1).
The ideal data base would consist of information on a large per-
centage of aquatic species and would show the community response
to a range of concentrations during a long time period. Because
this information is not available, test organisms are used to
represent expected results for other associated organisms. Cer-
tain test animals have been selected for intensive research
because of their importance to man, their availability, and
their physiological responses to the laboratory environment. In
this context, Daphn-ia or other associated organisms indicate the
general levels of toxicity to be expected among untested species.
If data for Daphnia are not available, values for fatheat min-
nows, bluegill, and other types of fish, such as trout, are used.
In the absence of 96-hr LCso data, 48-hr LCs0 values may be
utilized bacuase there is often little appreciable difference
between a 96-hr value and a 48-hr value. In some cases data are
presented in terms of 24-hr LC50, LCLo, TCL(? (toxic concentra-
tion low) , or 1C (immobilization concentration) . These values
were multiplied by 0.05 to arrive at a hazard factor in analogy
to Equation 12.
When LCso data are lacking, methods depend on the relative
availability of specific toxicity indicators. The most common
indicator of toxicity is the LD50 (oral/rat) value. The authors
14
-------
of Equation 14 postulate that the result represents the maximum
concentration which has no effect on human health when 0.002 m3
(2 liters) are consumed daily (2). In the absence of LD50 (oral/
rat) data, values for LD50 (other species), LDLO, or TDLo were
employed, using the same coefficient as in Equation 14.
Several cases arise where the only indication of toxicity is a
TLV. As proposed, Equation 17 assumes that the total amount of
contaminant in 10 m3 (average adult respiratory tidal volume in
24 hr) of air may be contained in 0.002 m3 (2 liters) of drinking
water.
Most toxicity information is not intended for use in assessing
industrial effluent. For instance, practically no information
exists for the toxic properties of complex effluents. This
methodology attempts to establish a workable, consistent way to
formulate potential hazard factors using available data.
Water quality criteria provided approximately 10% of the hazard
factors. The remaining 90% were calculated using Equations 11
through 17. A detailed listing of hazard factors is presented
in Appendix E.
Example
In order to further clarify the working of the prioritization
model an impact factor is calculated for a hypothetical source
type. The source type consists of three plants located in two
states, Ohio and New York. Each plant has one discharge stream
containing three pollutants. Relevant input data are given in
Table 5. Severities are calculated as follows:
S (Plant A) = (
/T>1=3r,4. A\ _ (0.01 g/kg) (200 x 103 metric tons/yr)
JLant. l\) — * " *
(416.26 m/s) (0.001 g/m3)
(103 kg/metric ton) 106
(3.15 x 107 s/yr)
where the factor 106 in the numerator is a scaling factor. Then,
Sphenol (Plant A) ' 152'00<>
Severities for other pollutants are computed in a similar way and
are all shown in Table 5. The severity for Plant A is then
15
-------
TABLE 5. EXAMPLE OF INPUT DATA AND RESULTS
FOR CALCULATION OF WATER SEVERITY
Plant Data
Plant
A
B
C
Location
Ohio
New York
New York
vr,
Itl3/S
416.26
526.70
526.70
Plant capacity,
10 3 metric tons/yr
200
100
300
Effluent Data
Hazard factor, Effluent factor,
Pollutant g/m3 g/kg
Phenol 0.001 0.01
Chromium 0.05 0.02
Lead 0.05 0.001
_ Source Severity Values _
Plant Phenol Chromium Lead Total plant
A 152,500 61,000 3,000 164,000
B 60,300 24,100 1,200 65,000
C 180,800 72,300 3,600 195,000
Total NAb NA NA Iw = 424,000
Severities are multiplied by a scaling factor of
106.
Not applicable.
/2
S (Plant A) = (23,256 x 106 + 3,721 x 106 + 9 x 106)
= 164,000
Severities for Plants B and C are calculated in the same way and
are shown in the table. The overall impact factor is:
Iw = 164,000 + 65,000 + 195,000
J\,
= 424,000
16
-------
Appendix C presents a detailed calculation for one of the
organic source types actually prioritized, ethylene dichloride-
ethylene chlorination.
Data Validity
A level of uncertainty is associated with each impact factor.
While the level cannot be quantified, it can be assumed to vary
as a function of the quality of available information on a spe-
cific source type. Using this rationale, priority index uncer-
tainty levels were defined as follows (4, 5):
Level Meaning
A Adequate data of reasonable accuracy
B Partially adequate data of indeterminate
accuracy
C Totally estimated data of indeterminate
accuracy
D Missing data on known emissions of toxic
substances
(4) Eimutis, E. C. , C. M. Moscowitz, J. L. Delaney, R. P. Quill,
and D. L. Zanders. Air, Water, and Solid Residue Prioriti-
zation Models for Conventional Combustion Sources. EPA-600/
2-76-176 (PB 257 103), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July 1976. 57 pp.
(5) Eimutis, E. C. Source Assessment: Prioritization of Sta-
tionary Air Pollution Sources—Model Discription. EPA-600/
2-76-032a (PB 253 479), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, February
1976. 83 pp.
17
-------
SECTION 4
SOURCE PRIORITIZATIONS
PETROCHEMICAL SOURCE TYPES
Source Definition
Refinery-associated chemicals and chemicals currently being
studied by Monsanto Research Corporation comprise the list of
petrochemical source types to be prioritized. Only those.petro-
chemical source types being studied for IERL-RTP were prioritized;
sources being studied for lERL-Cincinnati were not included.
A chemical facility is considered to be refinery associated if
the company or parent company has a refinery at the same site.
Natural gas liquid production plants were considered equivalent
to refineries. Examples of refinery-associated chemicals are
benzene, toluene, and propylene. Acetone from cumene and aceto-
phenone from cumene source types are accounted for by the phenol
from cumene source type. Those chemicals are produced during
the production of phenol from cumene. Similarly, acetonitrile
from acrylonitrile and hydrogen cyanide from acrylonitrile source
types are accounted for by the acrylonitrile source type.
Data Acquisition and Input Format
Water discharges were taken as total effluents from each pro-
duction site. Characterization of water discharged identified
18 pollutants and pollution indicators plus specific organic
species, where identifiable. The 18 parameters are listed in
Table 6. Information required for each species was a hazard
factor and an effluent factor. Raw wastewater loading and an
uncertainty level were also included.
The 18 parameters shown in Table 6 do not represent a compre-
hensive description of the wastewater; rather, they are the
parameters for which quantitative information was available.
As an example, Table 7 lists materials that have been identified
in acrylonitrile plant wastewater, both quantitatively and
18
-------
TABLE 6. LIST OF POLLUTANTS AND
INDICATORS OF POLLUTION
Pollutant or indicator
Abbreviation
Biochemical oxygen demand BOD
Chemical oxygen demand COD
Total organic carbon TOC
Phenols Phenols
Ammonia nitrogen NH3-N
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen TKN
Cyanide—distillation CN
Sulfate Sulfate
Oil (freon extractables) Oil
Total phosphorus T-P
Zinc Zn
Copper Cu
Iron Fe
Chromium—total Cr-total
Cadmium Cd
Total suspended solids TSS
Total dissolved solids TDS
Chlorine—residual C12
TABLE 7. ACRYLONITRILE PLANT WASTEWATER (6)
Materials which have been quantitatively identified include
Amnonia nitrogen (as N2)
Biochemical oxygen demand
Cadmium
Chemical oxygen demand
Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Nitrile nitrogen (as N2)
Oil and grease
Phenol
Phosphate
Raw wastewater
Sulfate
Total dissolved solids
Total nitrogen (as H2)
Total organic carbon
Total solids
Total suspended solids
Zinc
Compounds which have been qualitatively identified include
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde cyanohydrin
Acetic acid
Acetone
Acetone cyanohydrin
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrolein cyanohydrin
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid
Acrylonitrile
Allyl cyanide
Ammonium acetate
Ammonium aerylate
Ammonium formate
Ammonium methacrylate
Benzene
Benzonitrile
oie-Crotonitrile
trans-Crotonitrile
Cyanopyrazine
Fumaronitrile
Furonitrile
Hydrogen cyanide
Lutidine compounds
Maleonitrile
Halononitrile
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl pyrazine
Nicotinonitrile
Organic polymers
Propionitrile
Pyrazine
Pyrazole
Succinonitrile
Ticoline
Toluene
"personal communication with A. W. Busch, Regional Administrator,
Region IV, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, Georgia,
February 1974.
(6) Train, R. E. Development Document for Interim Final Efflu-
ent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Significant Organic Products Segment of
the Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category.
EPA-440/1-75/045, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., November 1975. 391 pp.
19
-------
qualitatively (Reference 6 and personal communication with
A. W. Busch, Regional Administrator, Region IV, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Atlanta, Georgia, February 1974).
Hazard factors were calculated using information and procedures
discussed earlier. Effluent factor information was compiled from
several sources of information (6, 7). Specific effluent factors
were available for some source types, such as hexamethylenedia-
mine and terephthalic acid. Effluent factors for the remaining
source types were estimated using the average water discharge
effluent factors listed in Table 8 (6-8) by category. The cate-
gories are defined on page 21.
TABLE 8. AVERAGE WATER DISCHARGE CHARACTERIZATION
BY CATEGORY TYPE (6-8)
(kg/metric ton)
Pollutant
B0t>5
COO
TOC
Phenol
NH3-N
TKN
CN
Sulfate
Oil
T-P
Zn
Cu
Fe
Cr-total
Cd
TSS
TDS
C12
Raw wastewater load.
10~3 m3/metric
ton3
Category A
0.0223
0.4429
0.1511
0.000334
0.00414
0.0139
0.00004
0.4559
0.1316
0.000192
0.002
0.00123
0.00118
0.00075
0.0000267
0.0286
4.624
2.847
448.09
Category B
9.959
31.93
18.37
0.0173
1.59
2.51
0.093
13.86
1.216
0.076
0.017
0.014
0.0447
0.0029
0.000028
5.855
97.59
64.06
5,774.3
Category C
38.08
117.1
54.55
0.856
3.14
20.42
0.074
28.12
2.983
0.0151
0.064
0.227
0.0956
0.0047
0.00234
21.269
910.8
186.7
92,623.0
Category Dj
65.56
214.7
59.55
0.175
26.8
62.55
0.00196
1,406.2
545.48
0.385
0.108
0.024
0.253
0.0126
0.1621
7,606.75
1,301.1
96.1
62,583
Category
DZ (dyes)
715.6
3,813.4
970.9
10.6
7.76
18.17
0.196
179.16
40.49
3.93
0;251
0.971
3.558
0.70
0.029
11.51
12,260.9
269.2
453,101
1 metric ton equals 106 grains; conversion factors and metric system prefixes are presented at
the end of this report.
(7) Train, R. E. Development Document for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Major Organic Products Segment of the Organic Chemi-
cals Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA-440/1-73/009,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
December 1973. 369 pp.
(8) Hedley, W. H., S. M. Mehta, C. M. Moscowitz, R. B. Reznik,
G. A. Richardson, and D. L. Zanders. Potential Pollutants
from Petrochemical Processes. Technomic Publishing Co.,
Westport, Connecticut, 1975. 362 pp.
20
-------
Category A; Nonaqueous Processes—
Minimal contact occurs between water and reactants or products
within the process. Water is not required as a reactant or
diluent and is not formed as a reaction product. The only water
used stems from periodic washes of working fluids or catalyst
hydration.
Category B; Processes with Process Water Contact versus Steam
Diluent or Absorbent—
Process water is used in the form of dilution steam or direct
contact quench or as an absorbent for reactor effluent gases.
Reactions are all vapor phase and are carried out over solid
catalysts. Most processes have an absorber coupled with steam
stripping of chemicals for purification and recycle. Steam is
also used for decoking of catalyst.
Category C; Continuous Liquid-Phase Reaction Systems—
These are liquid-phase reactions where the catalyst is in an
aqueous medium such as dissolved or emulsified mineral salt or
acid-caustic solution. Continuous regeneration of catalyst
system requires extensive water usage. Substantial removal of
spent inorganic salt byproducts may also be required. Working
aqueous catalyst solution is normally corrosive. Additional
water may be required in the final purification or neutralization
of products.
Category Dt; Batch and Semicontinuous Processes—
Processes are carried out in reaction kettles equipped with agi-
tators, scrapers, reflux condensers, etc., depending on the
nature of the operations. Many reactions are liquid phase with
aqueous catalyst systems. Reactants and products are trans-
ferred from one piece of equipment to another by gravity flow,
pumping, or pressurization with air or inert gas. Much of the
material handling is manual with limited use of automatic proc-
ess control. Filter presses and centrifuges are commonly used
to separate solid products from liquid. When drying is required,
air or vacuum.ovens are used. Cleaning of noncontinuous pro-
duction equipment constitutes a major source of wastewater.
Waste loads from product separation and purification will be at
least 10 to 100 times those from continuous processes.
Category D2; Batch and Semicontinuous Processes, Dyes—
These processes are like those described in Category Dj (7).
Effluent factors for specific organic species were also developed
where possible (8). The effluent limitations of maximum dis-
charge for any 1 day using the best practicable control techno-
logy currently available (BPCTCA) given in Table 9 were used (6).
BPCTCA effluent limitations were selected because approximately
83%, or 3,337 out of 4,000, of the major industrial dischargers
met the 1 July deadline for implementation of control technology
21
-------
guidelines (9). Compliance is 85% in the chemical products in-
dustry and 83% for petroleum refining operations (9). Pollutants
not having BPCTCA limitations were assumed to be uncontrolled.
TABLE 9. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS, MAXIMUM FOR
ANY ONE DAY, FOR THE BPCTCA (6)
Effluent limitations,
kg/metric ton
Process
BOD.
TSS
Cyanide
Acrylonitrile
Adiponitrile
Benzene (fractional Distillation)
s-Butyl alcohol
Carbon tetrachloride (chlorination
of methane)
Chloroform (chlorination
of methane)
Cumene
Hexamethylenediamine-adiponitrile
Hexamethylenediamine-hexanediol
Isobutylene
Isopropanol
Methyl chloride (chlorination
of methane)
Methylene chloride (chlorination)
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene (fractional distillation)
Xylene (fractional distillation)
p-Xylene
1.6
1.1
0.0039
0.55
0.22
0.22
_a
0.16
0.16
2.4
0.27
0.22
0.22
0.16
0.0039
0.0039
0.0035
0.51
1.1
0.0053
0.074
0.33
0.33
_a
0.12
0.13
2.4
0.29
0.33
0.33
0.16
0.0055
0.0055
0.0052
0.0045
0.0098
_a
0.0010
0.0011
Note.—Blanks indicate data not available.
No discharge of process waste pollutants.
Producer, location, and capacity information was compiled for
all sources. Examples of the input data sheets used are given
in Appendix D.
Solid waste information was collected from varied sources (8, 10)
The data sheet given in Appendix D was used to record it.
(9) Chementator. Chemical Engineering, 84(14):63, 1977.
(10) Gruber, G. I. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices: Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and Explosives
Industries. EPA/530/SW-118c (PB 251 307), U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., April 1975.
377 pp.
22
-------
Prioritization Listing
Table 10 alphabetically lists all petrochemical source types that
were prioritized in this study.
TABLE 10. ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF PETROCHEMICAL
SOURCE TYPES PRIORITIZED
Acetone—isopropanol
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylamide—from acrylonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Adipic acid
Adiponitrile
Alkylnaphthalene
Benzene—catalytic refornate
Benzene—coal derived
Benzene—other
Benzene—petrochemical feedstocks
Bisphenoi-A
Butadiene—dehydrogenation of n-butane
Butadiene—ethylene byproduct
Butadiene—n-butene
n-Butyl alcohol
n-Butyl alcohol—Ziegler process
s-Butyl alcohol
t-Butyl alcohol
t-Butyl amine—isobutylene
n-Butyraldehyde
Carbon black—furnace
Carbon black—thermal
Carbon tetrachloride—carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride—chlorination of propane
Carbon tetrachloride—methane
Chlorobenzene—chlorination of benzene
Chloroform
Cresylic acid
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanol—froci cyclohexane
Cyclohexanone
Cyclooctadiene—butadiene
Oecyl alcohol
Diacetone alcohol—condensation
o-Oichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Diethylene glycol
Diisobutylene
Dimethyl terephthalate
Dodecene--nonlinear
Oodecyl alcohol—oxo process
Epichlorotlydrin
Ethyl benzene—nixed xylenes
Ethyl benzene—benzene and mixed xylenes
Ethyl chloride—hydrochlorination of ethylene
Ethyl hexanol—oxo process
Ethylene
Ethylene dichloride—ethylene chlorination
Ethylene dichloride—oxychlorination
Ethylene glycol—ethylene oxide
Ethylene oxide
Glycerin—acrolein
Glycerin—allyl alcohol
Glycerin—epichlorohydrin
Heptane
Bexadecyl alcohol—oxo process
Hexamethylenediamine—adiponitrile
Hexamethylenediamine—amnonolysis of 1,6-hexanediol
Isoamylene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isobutylene—extraction of hydrocarbons
Xsobutyraldehyde
Isodecanol—oxo process
Isooctyl alcohols
Isopentane
Isophorone
Isoprene—dehydrogeneation of isoanylenes
Isoprene—petroleum fractions
Isopropanol—propylene
Mesityl oxide—dehydrogenation
Methyl chloride—chlorination of methane
Methyl chloride—methanol
Methylene chloride—chlorination of nethane
Methyl ethyl ketone—from s-butyl alcohol
Methyl isobutyl carbinol
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Naphthalene
Neopentanoic acid
Nonene
Nonylphenol
n-Pentane
Perchloroethylene—chlorination of propane
Phenol—cunene process
Phosgene
Phthalic anhydride—naphthalene
Phthalic anhydride—o-xylene
Polybutenes—butane
Polyethylene glycols
Propylene—from ethylene and refining—via pyrolysis
Propylene—from ethylene—via pyrolysis
Propylene oxide—chlorohydrin process
Propylene—refining—via pyrolysis
Etyrene
Sulfolane
Terephthalic acid
Toluene—catalytic reforming
Toluene—coal
Toluene—petrochemical feedstocks
1,1,1-Trichloroethane—ethane chlorination
1,1,1-Trichloroethane—vinyl chloride chlorination
1,1,1-Trichloroethane—vinylidene chloride hydrochlorination
Trichloroethylene—chlorination of acetylene
Trichloroethylene—chlorination then dehydrochlorination of EDC
1,2,3-Tr ichloropropane
Triisobutylene
Vinyl chloride—acetylene
Vinyl chloride—ethylene
Xylenes—mixed—coal
Xylenes—mixed—petrochemical
o-Xylene
The petrochemical water prioritization listing was presented
earlier in Table 1 and is repeated in Table 11 for reader
convenience.
23
-------
TABLE 11. PRIORITIZATION OF PETROCHEMICAL
SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
SOURCE TYPC
PROPYLENE OXIDE - CHLOROHYDRIN PROCESS
AOIPONITRILE
N-BUTYRALDEHYDE
PHENOL - CUMENE PROCESS
CHLOROBENZENE - CHLORINATION OF BENZENE
GLYCERIN - ALLYL ALCOHOL
GLYCERIN - EPICHLOROHYORIN
P-OICHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLENE DICHLORIOE - ETHYLENE CHLORINATION
ETHYLENE DICHLORIOE - OXYCHLORINATlON
CYCLONE XANONE
ADIPIC ACIO
VINYL CHLORIDE - ETHYLENE
CYCLOHEXANOL - FROM CYCLOHEXANE
BUTADIENE - N-BUTENE
ISOPROPANOL - PROPYLENE
PERCHLOROETHYLENE - CHLORINATION Of PROPANE
1SOOCTYL ALCOHOLS
ETHYL HEXANOL - 0X0 PROCESS
N-BUTYL ALCOHOL
ETHYLENE
EPICHLOROHYDRIN
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE - METHANE
ACETONE - FROM ISOPROPANOL
S-BUTYL ALCOHOL
ETHYL BENZENE - BENZENE AND MIXED XYLENES
BISPHENOL-A
CRESYLIC ACID
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
0-DICHLOROBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE - CHLORINATION OF METHANE
POLYBUTENES - BUTANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE - VINYL CHLORIDE CHLORINATION
PROPYLENE - REFINING - VIA PYROLYSIS
DIISOBUTYLENE
T-BUTVL ALCOHOL
BENZENE - CATALYTIC REFORMATS
DOOECYL ALCOHOL - 0X0 PROCESS
TOLUENE - CATALYTIC REFORMING
NAPHTHALENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE - CHLORINATION OF PROPANE
HEXADECYL ALCOHOL - 0X0 PROCESS
ISOBUTYLENE - EXTRACTION OF HYDROCARBONS
ISOBUTYRALOEHYDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE - CARBON OISULFIDE
ACRYLONITRILE
ISODECANOL • OXOPROCESS
METHYL ISOBUTYL CARBINOL
TRICHLOROETHYLENE - CHLORINATN THEN DEHYDROCHLORINATN OF EDC
OeCYL ALCOHOL
XYLENES - MIXED - PETROCHEMICAL
ISOPRENE - DEHYDROGENEATION OF ISOAMYLENES
NONENE
PROPYLENE - FROM ETHYLENE - VIA PYROLYSIS
NONYLPHENOL
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE - NAPTHALENE
PROPYLENE • FROM ETHYLENE AND REFINING - VIA PYROLYSIS
ISOPENTANE
CYCLOHEXANE
BUTADIENE • ETHYLENE BY-PRODUCT
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
0-XYLENE
BENZENE - PETROCHEMICAL FEEDSTOCKS
IMPACT FACTOR"
10,000,000,000
5*000*000*000
5tOOO.000.000
•». 000. 000. 000
4.000.000.000
4,000*000*000
4.000.000.000
3.000.000.000
3.000.000.000
3.000.000.000
3.000.000.000
3.000.000.000
3.000.000.000
2.000.000.000
• 2.000,000.000
2.000.000.000
2.000.000.000
2.000.000.000
2.000.000.000
l.OOOtOOO.OOO
1.000.000.000
1.000.000.000
1.000.000,000
800.000.000
800,000,000
700.000.000
700,000,000
700,000.000
700.000,000
500,000.000
500,000,000
500,000,000
400,000,000
400,000,000
400,000,000
300,000,000
300,000.000
300.000.000
300*000,000
300*000,000
200,000,000
200,000,000
200,000,000
200*000,000
200,000,000
200*000*000
200*000*000
200*000*000
100.000*000
100*000*000
100*000,000
100*000*000
100*000*000
100*000*000
90*000*000
90*000*000
80*000*000
80*000*000
70*000*000
70,000*000
60*000*000
50*000*000
50*000*000
nt>
B
B
' C
c
C
c
c
c
B
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
B
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
B
B
B
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
B
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0
c
B
c
c
c
CALCC
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
(continued)
24
-------
TABLE 11 (continued)
SOURCE TYPE
"CARBON BLACK - FURNACE"
N-PENTANE
ACRYLAMIDE » FROM ACRrLONITRILE
TOLUENE • PETROCHEMICAL FEEDSTOCKS
ETHYL CHLORIDE - HYDROCHLORINATION OF ETHYLENE
PHOSGENE
DIMETHYL TEREPHTHALATE
HEPTANE
TRIISOBUTYLENE
BUTADIENE - DEHYOROGENATION OF N-BUTANE
HEXAMETHYLENEDIAMINE • ADIPONITRILE
T-BUTYL AMINE - ISOBUTYLENE
DIACETONE ALCOHOL - CONDENSATION
1,2, 3-TR ICHLOROPROPANE
GLYCERIN • ACROLEIN
BENZENE - COAL DERIVED
ETHYL BENZENE - MIXED XYLENES
METHYL CHLORIDE - CHLORINATION OF METHANE
HEXAMETHYLENEOIAMINE - AMNONOLYSIS OF 1.6-HEXANEDIOL
TEREPHTHALIC ACID
STYRENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE - CHLORINATION OF ACETYLENE
CHLOROFORM
MESITYL OXIDE - DEHYOR06ENATION
VINYL CHLORIDE - ACETYLENE
CARBON BLACK - THERMAL
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE - VINYlIOENE CHLORIDE HYOROCHLORINATN
ACROLEIN
TOLUENE - COAL
DODECENE - NON-LINEAR
ETHYLENE GLYCOL - ETHYLENE OXIDE
ETHYLENE OXIDE
ISOAMYLENE
XYLENES • MIXED - COAL
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE - 0-XYLENE
NEOPENTANOIC ACID
CYCLOOCTADIENE - BUTADIENE
N-BUTYL ALCOHOL - ZIEGLER PROCESS
METHYL ETHYL KETONE • FROM S-BUTYL ALCOHOL
P-XYLENE
ISOPHORONE
METHYL CHLORIDE - METHANOL
DIETHYLENC GLYCOL
ISOPRENE - PETROLEUM FRACTIONS
SULFOLANE
Idd-TRICHLOROETHANE - ETHANE CHLORINATION
BENZENE - OTHER
ALKYLNAPHTHALENE
POLYETHYLENE GLYCOLS
CUMENE
IMPACT FACTOR3
HO, 000, 000
40,000,000
40,000,000
40(000(000
30,000,000
30,000,000
30,000,000
30,000,000
30«000,000
30(000*000
30(000(000
20(000(000
20(000(000
20(000,000
10(000(000
9(000(000
9(000(000
8(000(000
7(000(000
6(000(000
6(000(000
6(000.000
6(000(000
6(000(000
9(000*000
3(000(000
3(000(000
3(000(000
2(000(000
2(000(000
900(000
600(000
600(000
900(000
900(000
100(000
300(000
300(000
300,000
200(000
100(000
100(000
100(000
100(000
90(000
50(000
40(000
30(000
10(000
CLb
c
D
C
C
C
C
B
C
D
D
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
c
B
B
C
C
D
C
C
c
c
c
c
B
D
D
C
B
C
D
C
B
B
D
B
B
D
0
C
C
C
c
B
CALCC
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
Impact factors have been multiplied by a scaling factor of 106
to avoid dealing with numbers much less than 1.0.
Uncertainty level (see page 17).
'Type of calculation (degree of data aggregation):
1 = aggregated according to population;
2 = aggregated on a state basis;
3 = detailed plant data.
25
-------
PESTICIDE MANUFACTURING SOURCE TYPES
Source Definition
The pesticide manufacturing industry produces a variety of chemi-
cal compounds used as pesticides. In some instances, as many as
eight different processes are used to manufacture a specific
pesticide, none of these being identified by plant or producer
(11). Many of the production operations as well as actual pro-
duction statistics in the industry are proprietary, making
descriptive process data either quite limited or not available.
For many pesticides with similar chemical structures, production
processes are similar. For other pesticides derived from a com-
mon raw material, processes are also similar. For prioritization
purposes, the pesticide industry was divided into the following
11 categories (12). Similarities between chemical structures and
common raw input materials provide the basis for these divisions.
Anilides • Organophosphorus
Carbamates • Other nitrogenous compounds
Chlorinated hydrocarbons • Triazines
Diene-based compounds • Ureas and uracils
Nitrated hydrocarbons • All others
Organoarsenicals and organometallics
Data Acquisition and Input Format
Available data concerning raw wastewater characteristics for
organic pesticide manufacturers, as shown in Table 12 (12), were
used as a starting point. These data were then complemented with
data extracted from the development Document for Interim Final
Effluent Limitations, Guidelines, and Proposed New Source Per-
formance Standards for the Pesticide Industry (draft report) (13).
(11) Honea, F. I. Industrial Process Profiles for Environmental
Use: Chapter 8, Pesticides Industry, T. B. Parsons, ed.
EPA-600/2-77-023h (PB 266 225), U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
January 1977. 240 pp.
(12) Kelso, G. L. , R. R. Wilkinson, and T. L. Ferguson. The
Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing—1976. Con-
tract 68-02-1324, Task 43, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. (Draft
final report submitted to the EPA by Midwest Research
Institute, 16 April 1976). 236 pp.
(13) Train, R. E., A. W. Breidenbach, E. C. Beck,
R. B. Schaffer, J. S. Vitalis, and G. M. Jett. Development
Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations, Guidelines,
and Proposed New Source Performance Standards for the Pesti-
cide Industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., August 1976 draft. 207 pp.
26
-------
TABLE 12. RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS OF ORGANIC PESTICIDE MANUFACTURERS (12)
SJ
Pesticides pH
Chlorinated pesticides 0.5
Carbamates 7 to 10
Parathion and methyl 2
parathion
Diolef in-based chlorinated 2
hydrocarbons
2,4,5-T; 2,4-D; MCPA 0.5
Carbaryl
Chlordane
MSHA
Creosote
Maneb
Endrin 3 to 4
Toxaphene 3 to 5
Hastewater
flow.
mVmetric
Pesticides8 ton product
Halogenated:
A 24.3
B 11.6
B 11.6
C 465.7
D 100.9
E 465.7
F 167.8
G 366.7
Wastewater characteristics, g/m3
Total Suspended Organic
COD BOD5 solids solids chlorides Sulfates Phosphates nitrogen Pesticides and other wastes
3,600 2,000 62,000 10 50,000 8,000 phenol and cresol, 10 ppm;
chlorophenols and chloro-
cresols, 100 ppm; chloro-
phenoxyacetic acids, 100 ppm;
alcohols, 1,000 ppm.
10,000 Nil 40,000 Nil 100 20,000 Nil 500 Sodium, 8,000 ppm; carbamates.
nil.
3,000 700 27,000 7,000 3,000 250 20 Sodium, 6,000 ppm; parathion.
20 ppm.
500 50 1,000 100 High Endrin, 100 ppb to 300 ppb.
8,300 6,300 104,000 2,500 52,000 Low low 2,4-T, up to 3,000 ppmi 2,4-D,
130 ppm is typical.
Carbaryl, 0.1 ppm to 1.0 ppm.
Chlordane, 400 ppm; sodium
hydroxide, 20,000 ppm.
Arsenic, 0.7 ppm to 0.8 ppm.
Phenolic materials, 8OO ppm
to 900 ppm.
Sodium sulfate, manganese
sulfate, and sodium
trithiocarbamates com-
bined, 9 lb/13 Ib maneb
product.
500 to 800 Endrin, 100 ppb to 1,500 ppb
(700 ppb average); carbon
tetrachloride, 400 ppmf
hexachloronorbornadiene ,
30 ppb to SO ppb; hepta-
chloronobornene, 30 ppb
to 50 ppb.
Toxaphene,
<6 ppb to 2,200 ppb.
Nastemter characteristics, a/m3
Total
Total solids • Total Kjeldahl
COD BODj TOC Oil Suspended Dissolved Phenol phosphorus chloride NH3-H nitrogen Metal
810 120 550 3 48 1,550 0.5
16,000 8,500 3,580 0.5
14,400 3,300 8,000 4,300 100 115,000 200.0
10
400 450
198
2,490 1,800 603 6 10 733 0.03
(continued)
See footnotes at end of table, page 29.
-------
TABLE 12 (continued)
NJ
00
Pesticides'
Organophoiphoruit
H
I
3
K
L
M
N
0
t
Q
R
8
T
D
V
*
X
Y
Z
M
BB
S
Organonitrogen >
cc
00
EE
TT
QG
HB
II
JJ
KK
LI-
NK
DM
00
PP
00
KB
SS
TT
GG
UU
W
Metallo-organic i
MW
XX
YY
Wastewater
flow,
m'/netric
ton product
US. 2
9.6
69.8
64.8
13.9
72.2
8.7
63.4
57.7
49.9
50.0
3.2
14.8
36.5
6.2
1.7
24.5
81.3
17.3
23.3
53.5
3.2
90.0
50.3
52.4
55.3
11.6
6.5
41.7
58.2
11.7
4.9
23.3
60.2
38.8
80.0
50.9
135.8
121.3
52.4
11.6
112.5
104.8
73.6
77.6
319.2
Maitewater characteristic!, g/m3
COD
3,110
40,200
3,150
8,910
3,850
3,100
42,000
3,150
2,160
3,600
4,100
19,700
6,100
335
15,600
4,240
12,500
4,740
1,480
800
6,030
3,900
14,300
7,150
2,650
770
1,800
1,680
15,100
8,000
15.000
14,000
8,100
2,300
2,300
2,200
1,500
450
To^al
BOD 5 TOC Oil Suspended
1,700
540
135 108 10 73
1,350 3,850 20 55
955 934 59 15
6,830 7,200 36
820
840
300
350
750
495
11,400
5,600
11.500
2,400 5,200 0.5 1,845
2,500 4,200 9.0 200
1,155 420 10
1,160 420 81 11
790 3,170
670 1,645
22 77 16 3,300
•olid*
Dieeolved
7,130
210,000
9,420
49,800
58,500
16,600
125,000
19,250
19,000
86,000
41,500
54,000
14,800
79,000
44,300
6,400
19,900
36,700
20,000
57,300
38,800
2,000
2,000
29,700
Total
Phenol phoiphorui
51
6,900
304
770
1,170
115
4,260
1,930
340
255
0.3 210
19,000
0.6 2
0.5 250
11 610
36 2,150
178
190
1,640
250
Chloride
2,260
147,000
6,500
33,000
44,000
5,700
75,000
700
6,900
74,000
13,700
4,400
18,800
25,300
450
6,600
2,500
23,000
3,900
2,600
Total
Kjeldahl
NH3-H nitrogen Metal
5,300
20,200
2,200
2
850 13
630 9,400
250
318
13
2,100
288
1,500
80
67
250
1,020
910
715
(Mn)
450
737 843 1,350
(Mn)
-------
TABLE 12 (continued)
Note.— Blanks indicate data unavailable or undetermined.
8Pe«ticide identification:
A--2,4-D> dalaponi or 2,4,5-T.
B—PCP or eodium PCP.
C, D, E--H«ptachlor, endrin, or ieodrin.
P, G--Heptachlor or endrin
H, I, 3, K, L, M, N, O—Coumaphoi, dioulfoton, uinphoanethyl, methaaidophoa, feniulfothion, fenthion, daaeton, or Methyl deneton.
P. Q, R—Parathion, methyl parathloo, or Hiren 6-3.
8--Compoeite of chlorpyriloe, crufornate, and ronnel.
T--Co»poeite at •ethyl paxathion and Aepon.
U, V, W, X—Sterofoa, Bevlpbo*, naled, or dichloroe.
V--Caite of aterofoe, dichlorvDi, naled, and mevlpho*.
AA--Dia«inon
BB—-Composite of oouaapho*, dieulfoton, asinphoemethyl.
CC, DD—-Hetribuiin or ben«aiiiiide.
EK, FF—Atrasine, •iaasine, propaiine, ametryne, pronetryne, aiaetryne, eotitol. terbatryn*, prometone, or oynanarine.
GG--Dino*eb
HB--Burylate, EPIC, vernolate, cyoloate, molinate, or pebulate.
XI, 33, KK, LL, MM—Machlor, COM, propaohlor, bntachloz.
MM, OO, PP, QQ, RR, SS—Diuron, bromacil, thlram, methomyl. linuron, or terbacil.
TT—Mraxine
uu, W—Alchlor or propachlor.
MM—Manganew dithiocarbamate.
XX—Zinc dithiocarbaaate.
Ti—Manganeee dithiooarbamate. ... —.-
-------
Based on similarities between raw input materials, pesticides
could be grouped and given the same effluent characterisitcs.
For example, alachlor, butachlor, and propachlor were given
similar prioritization input based on the following production
chemistry:
chloroacetic acid-
-chloroacetylchloride
( 2,6-diethyl-N-methyleneaniline-
ialachlor
*butachlor
\ isopropylaniline
(18)
-». propachlor
Similarly, several organophosphorus insecticides may be grouped
based on the following similarity in production chemistry:
phosphorus
pentasulfide
dimethyl phosphoro
dithioic acid or salt
•O,O-dimethyl phosphoro--
chloridethioate
diethyl phosphoro
dithioic acid or salt
-O,O-diethyl phosphoro--
chloridothioate
jdimethoate
'malathion
Abate®
fenthion
methyl parathion
ronnel
fenithothion
dioxathion
disulfoton
ethion
azinophos-methyl
phorate
carbofenthion
coumaphos
fensulfothion
diazinon
dichlorofenthion
parathion
(19)
Where wastewater characteristics could not be estimated from the
preceding methodology, average values were used from pesticides
in the same category, or the compound was assumed to have the
same wastewater characteristics as a pesticide with a similar
chemical structure. Information regarding production, plant
location, wastewater flow, and pollutant concentrations was
derived from several sources (14-20).
(14) Lawless, E. W., R. von Rumker, and T. L. Ferguson. Pesti-
cide Study Series—5: The Pollution Potential in Pesticide
Manufacturing (PB 213 782). Contract 69-01-0142, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, June
1972. 249 pp.
(15) Ifeadi, C. N. Screening Study to Develop Background Infor-
mation and Determine the Significance of Air Contaminant
30
-------
Prioritlzation Listing
Table 13 alphabetically lists all pesticide source types that
were prioritized in this study.
The pesticide water pollution listing was presented earlier in
Table 2 and is repeated in Table 14. Several organophosphate
pesticides ranked high due in part to their potentially high
chloride concentrations and characteristic high toxicity. Atra-
zine was ranked towards the top of the list primarily due to a
combination of high COD, TSS, TDS, and large annual production.
DDT was excluded from the prioritization because all of its pro-
cess wastewater is recycled.
FERTILIZER MANUFACTURING SOURCE TYPES
Source Definition
Sixteen effluent sources were designated for prioritization in
the fertilizer manufacturing source category. These sources were
categorized into four general groups: 1) phosphorus-based fertil-
izers, including sulfuric acid production, 2) nitrogen-based fer-
tilizers, 3) fertilizer mixing plants, and 4) other fertilizers.
Emissions from Pesticide Plants. EPA-540/9-75-026 (PB 244
734), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., March 1975. 85 pp.
(16) Meiners, A. F., C. E. Mumma, T. L. Ferguson, and G. L. Kelso.
Wastewater Treatment Technology Documentation for Toxaphene
Manufacture. EPA-440/9-76-013, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D.C., February 1976. 123 pp.
(17) von Riimker, R., E. W. Lawless, and A. F. Meiners. Produc-
tion, Distribution, Use, and Environmental Impact Potential
of Selected Pesticides (PB 238 795). Contract EQC-311,
Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C., March
1974. 439 pp.
(18) Ouellette, R. P., and J. A. King. Chemical Week Pesticides
Register. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York,
1977. 346 pp.
(19) 1976 Farm Chemicals Handbook. Meister Publishing Co.,
Willoughby, Ohio, 1976. 577 pp.
(20) Patterson, J. W. State-of-the-Art for the Inorganic Chemi-
cals Industry: Inorganic Pesticides. EPA-600/2-74-009a,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
March 1975. 39 pp.
31
-------
TABLE 13. ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF PESTICIDE
SOURCE TYPES PRIORITIZED
Abate
Alachlor
Aldicarb
Amitrole
Aspon
Atrazine
Azinphos — methyl
Azodrin
Benefin
Benonyl
Bensulide
Bromacil
Butachlor
Butylate
Cacodylic acid
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Carbophenothion
CDAA
CDEC
Chloranben
Chlorobenzilate
Chlordane
Chloroneb
Chlorpropham
Chlorpyr if os
Copper sulfate
Coumaphos
Crufomate
Cycloate
2,4-D
Dalapon
DDT
Deet
DBF
Diazinon
Oicanba
Dichlorofenthion
Dichlorvos
Dicofol
Dicrotophos
Dimethoate
Disulfoton
Dioxathion
Diuron
Endoaulfan
Endrin
EPTC
Ethion
Fenac
Feni troth ion
Fensulfothion
Fenthion
Ferbam
Fluoraetron
Fonophos
Beptachlor
Lead arsenate
Lindane
Linuron
Malathion
Maneb
Metalkanate
Methooyl
Hethoxychlor
Methyl demeton
Methyl parathion
Metribuzin
Mevinphos
Mocap
Molinate
Monuron
Naban
Naled
Neburon
Nitralin
Parathion
PCNB
PCP
Pebulate
Phorate
Phosphamidon
Polyram
Prometone
Propachlor
Propanil
Propazine
Pyrethrins
Ronnen
Silvex
Simazine
Sodium chlorate
2,4,5-T
2,4,5-T salts
Tebuthiuron
TEPP
Terbacil
Terrazole
Thionazin
Toxaphene
Triallate
Trifluralin
Vernolate
Zineb
TABLE 14. PRIORITIZATION OF PESTICIDE
SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
SOURCE Tiff.
PHOfUTE
CNOOSULFAN
DIHETHOATE
CHLORAMBEN
HALATHION
AZOORIN
OIAZINON
PARATHION
CHLOMOBENZILATE
LINOANC
OICAMA
PROPACHLOA
BUTACHLOR
ALACHLOR
BANEB
PCP
DISULFOTON
COAA
BCNSULIDE
CHLOROANC
ATRAZINC
CARBOPHCNOTHION
ARITROLE
FONOPHOS
NETHOXTCHLOR
SODIUM CHLORATE
DICOFOL
SILVER
SINA2IME
COPPER SULFATE
CHLORONEB
RCTHTL PARATHION
FENSULFOTHION
PROPAZINE
ETHION
IMPACT FACTOR*
too. ooo. ooo
300.0(0.000
MO. (to. ooo
200 > 000. 000
100,000.000
*0. 000, 000
ss.ooo.gio
40.000.000
50. 000. 000
30.000.000
50.000,000
to. ooo. ooo
20.000,000
to. ooo, ooo
z«.*(o.o(o
10,000.000
15,000. 000
10,000.000
10.000.000
10.000.000
10.000.000
.000.000
,«00. 000
.(00.000
,000.000
.000.000
.••0.000
.••0.000
.000.000
.000.000
•ago. ooo
.000.000
.000.000
3.000.000
3.000.000
CLb CALC*
0 S
0 3
0 3
0 S
0 5
0 3
B »
B 3
c s
0
0
c
0
c
B
B
B
c
D
c
0
0
0
0
0
B
D
D
c
B
D
B
B 3
0 5
D S
(continued)
32
-------
TABLE 14 (continued)
SOURCE Tirf
2.^6 ~~
OEF
PRORCTOHE
THIONAZIN
ABATE
AZINPHOS - HETHTL
FENAC
DEET
2,*,S-TRICHLOROPHENOL
MOCAP
HEPTACHLOR
CAPTAN
NITRALIN
HETHOHYL
PCNB
FERBAH
KETRIBUZIN
2.H.5-T
BENOHYL
FENTHION
CARBARYL
2.1.5-T SALTS
RONNEL
OINO3EB
METALKAHATE
ALDICARB
DEMETON
DIOXATHION
LINURON
VERNOLATE
FENITROTNION
CARBOFURAN
TEPP
ENORIN
CHLORPYRIFOS
EPTC
TERRAZOLE
OICHLOFENTHION
COUHAPHOS
TRIFLURALIN
BROftACIL
POLYRAB
HOLINATE
LEAD ARSENATE
OIURON
CYCLOATE
PEBULATE
TOXAPHENE
CHLORPROPHAH
TRIALLATE
PROP ANIL
NABAfl
METHYL OEHETON
ZINEB
COEC
OIALLATE
CRUFONATE
NALED
TERBACIL
DICROTOPHOS
TE8UTHIURON
DALAPON
BENEFIN
nONURON
PHOSPHANIOON
FLUOHETRON
NEBURON
MEVINPHOS
DICHLORVOS
ASPON
BUTYLATE
PYRETHRINS
CACODTLIC ACID
IMPACT FACTOR9
3,000.000
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,000.000
2,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
1.000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000.900
900,000
600,000
800,000
800,000
600.000
600.000
500,000
500.000
»00,000
300.000
300.000
300.000
200.000
200.000
100.000
100.000
100,000
100.000
60,000
80.000
TO, 000
60,000
60,000
90,000
90,000
90,000
50,000
50.000
30.000 '
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10.000
10.000
9.000
9.000
7.000
9,000
5,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
3,000
2,000
2,000
2.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
900
600
500
100
90
ao
TO
60
c
0
0
D
D
C
0
D
D
O
C
D
D
0
B
D
B
C
0
B
C
C
C
B
0
D
C
D
C
D
0
0
D
B
C
D
C
O
c
D
C
D
D
D
C
0
D
C
D
D
D
D
C
B
D
0
D
C
0
0
c
c
c
D
D
D
D
C
0
D
0
D
D
CALCC
-8-
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Impact factors have been multiplied by a scaling factor of 106
to avoid dealing with numbers much less than 1.0.
Uncertainty level (see page 17).
"Type of calculation (degree of data aggregation):
1 = aggregated according to population;
2 = aggregated on a state basis;
3 = detailed plant data.
33
-------
Data Acquisition and Input Format
Effluent data for fertilizer manufacturing processes were ob-
tained from the following sources:
• Development Document for Effluent Limitations and New
Source Performance Standards for the Basic Fertilizer
Chemicals Segment of the Fertilizer Manufacturing Point
Source Category (21).
• Original data supplied to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by industry, dated 1975-1976, to
aid in updating effluent limitations.
• Inorganic Fertilizer and Phosphate Mining Industries—
Water Pollution and Control (22).
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and Florida Department of Environmental Regu-
lation (DER) discharge permits.
• State of the Art: Military Explosives and Propellants
Production Industry; Volume II, Wastewater Characteri-
zation (23) .
• Study by the U.S. Department of the Interior addressing
the characterization of a nitric acid plant effluent (24)
• Personal communications with industry.
(21) Martin, E. E. Development Document for Effluent Limitations
and New Source Performance Standards for the Basic Fertil-
izer Chemicals Segment of the Fertilizer Manufacturing
Point Source Category. EPA-440/l-74-011a (PB 238 652), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., March
1974. 168 pp.
(22) Fullah, H. T., and B. P. Faulkner. Inorganic Fertilizer
and Phosphate Mining Industries—Water Pollution and Con-
trol (PB 206 154). Grant No. 12020 FPD, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., September 1971. 225 pp.
(23) Patterson, J. W., J. Brown, W. Duckert, J. Poison, and
N. I. Shapira. State of the Art: Military Explosives and
Propellants Production Industry; Volume II, Wastewater
Characterization. EPA-600/2-76/213b, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 1976. 273 pp.
(24) Fairall, J. M. Tennessee Valley Authority, Wilson Dam,
Alabama - Nos. 1 and 2 Nitric Acid Units, Tennessee River.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Tennessee Valley Authority
and Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1966. 12 pp.
34
-------
Water usage for process in this source category varied from
minor quantities used to clean up spills and equipment in fertil-
izer mixing plants to extensive usage as process water, cooling
water, scrubber fluid, and boiler water for some manufacturing
processes. Available data showed that most fertilizer plants
make more than one product and that wastewater streams are
generally combined before treatment and/or discharge.
Waste streams from phosphate fertilizer plants are usually ponded
in evaporation basins and are often reused as cooling water or
scrubber water. Discharges occur only during periods of intense
rainfall, if at all. An extensive telephone survey of the phos-
phate fertilizer industry revealed that only about 8% of these
plants discharge any of their wastewaters. Therefore, a dis-
charge quantity of zero was assigned to these plants for
prioritization.
Prioritization input data for the ammonium nitrate and urea
categories were calculated by analyzing original data submitted
to EPA by industry, dated 1975-76, to aid in updating effluent
limitations. EPA requested separate data for ammonium nitrate
production and urea production. However, much of the data sub-
mitted was from a discharge common to ammonium nitrate and urea
processes as well as from associated nitric acid and ammonia
production. Assumptions were made to distribute the pollutants
to prioritization categories of ammonium nitrate production,
including associated nitric acid and ammonia production, and
urea production, including associated ammonia production.
Prioritization input data for the nitric acid category were
obtained by analysis of data characterizing effluent from a
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) nitric acid plant and a nitric
acid plant located at an Army munitions plant. Pollutant levels
were very small. Therefore, the contribution of a nitric acid
plant to effluent from an ammonium nitrate complex would be
small.
Prioritization input data for the ammonia category were obtained
from tables included in Reference 22. Data on recirculated
cooling water at ammonia plants were not included in the input
data.
As in the case of nitric acid, pollutant levels were not signi-
ficant when compared to those from ammonium nitrate and urea
production. Approximately 75% of the U.S. production of ammonia,
84% of the U.S. production of ammonium nitrate, and 76% of the
U.S. production of urea are used as nitrogen fertilizers or as
feedstock for other fertilizers. Approximately 79% of the U.S.
production of nitric acid is used as feedstock for ammonium
nitrate production. Effluents generated at nitrogen fertilizer
complexes are not expected to vary from effluents generated by
35
-------
the same process where the product is used for purposes other
than nitrogen fertilizers.
No data were found for effluents from other fertilizers and
fertilizer mixing plants. The major sources of effluent water
are believed to be rainwater runoff and plant cleanup, rather
than the actual manufacturing process. Consequently, in this
report these materials were assigned a discharge value of zero.
Prioritization Listing
Table 15 alphabetically lists all fertilizer source types that
were prioritized in this study.
TABLE 15. ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF FERTILIZER
SOURCE TYPES PRIORITIZED
Ammonia Phosphate rock—drying.
Ammonium nitrate grinding, calcining
Ammonium phosphate Phosphoric acid—wet
Ammonium sulfate process
Fertilizer mixing—ammoniation- Potash—potassium salts
granulation plants Sulfuric acid
Fertilizer mixing—bulk blending plants Superphosphate—normal
Fertilizer mixing—liquid mix plants Triple superphosphate
Manganese sulfate Urea
Nitric acid
Ther fertilizer water pollution listing was presented earlier in
Table 3 and is repeated in Table 16. The priority listing was
established on the basis of total annual production of each
category in the United States, average quantities of wastewater
discharged per ton of product, concentrations of the principal
pollutant species, and hazard factors which were assigned to
each pollutant. Hazard factors were based on drinking water
standards, freshwater quality standards, and toxicity data which
were adjusted to compensate for differences across these
parameters.
TEXTILE SOURCE TYPES
Source Definition
For the purpose of prioritization, the textile industry was
divided into 17 major categories corresponding to Major Group 22
of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. Each major
category was then categorized by process operation in order to
determine the wastewater characteristics for the subcategory.
36
-------
TABLE 16. PRIORITIZATION OF FERTILIZER
SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
SOURCE TYPE
AMMONIUM NITRATE
AMMONIA
UREA
NITRIC ACID
FERTILIZER MIXING - AMMONIATION - GRANULATION PLANTS
PHOSPHORIC ACID - UET PROCESS
FERTILIZER MIXING - LIQUID MIX PLANTS
SUPERPHOSPHATE - NORMAL
SULFURIC ACIO
PHOSPHATE ROCK • DRYING, GRINDING, CALCINING
AMMONIUM PHOSPHATES
FERTILIZER MIXING - BULK BLENDING PLANTS
AMMONIUM SULFATE
TRIPLE SUPERPHOSPHATES
POTASH - POTASSIUM SALTS
MANGANESE SULFATE
IMPACT FACTOR*
eOiOOOtOOO
60,000,000
50,000,000
2,000,000
CLb
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
CALCC
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
w
Impact factors have been multiplied by a scaling factor of 106
to avoid dealing with numbers much less than 1.0.
Uncertainty level (see page 17).
Type of calculation (degree of data aggregation):
1 = aggregated according to population;
2 = aggregated, on a state basis;
3 = detailed plant data.
For example, the major category "Cotton Weaving Mills" was sub-
categorized using the following process operations:
• Slashing cotton yarn.
• Dyeing cotton yarn.
• Bleaching cotton yarn.
• Desizing woven cotton fabric.
• Scouring woven cotton fabric.
• Mercerizing woven cotton fabric.
• Dyeing woven cotton fabric.
• Printing woven cotton fabric.
• Bleaching woven cotton fabric.
• Special chemical finishing of woven cotton fabric.
Asbestos textile sources were not included in this prioritiza-
tion since they are not part of SIC Major Group 22.
Data Acquisition and Input Format
The desired information for water prioritization, including
total production from each operation, pollutant concentration in
37
-------
the wastewater, volume of wastewater, and number and location of
plants, was determined from a variety of sources. The major
sources include:
• 1972 Census of Manufactures (SIC Industry Groups 221
through 229) (25-30).
• 1972 Census of Manufactures (Water Use in Manufacturing)
(31) .
• Upgrading Textile Operations to Reduce Pollution; 1.
In-Plant Control of Pollution (32).
(25) 1972 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series (SIC Industry
Groups 221, 222, 223, and 224), Weaving Mills. MC72(2)-
22A, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, D.C., January 1975. 35 pp.
(26) 1972 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series (SIC Industry
Group 225), Knitting Mills. MC72(2)-22B, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., April
1975. 42 pp.
(27) 1972 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series (SIC Industry
Group 226), Dyeing and Finishing Textiles, Except Wool
Fabrics and Knit Goods. MC72(2)-22C, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., January
1975, 25 pp.
(28) 1972 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series (SIC Industry
Group 227), Floor Covering Mills. MC72(2)-22D, U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.,
October 1974. 17 pp.
(29) 1972 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series (SIC Industry
Group 228), Yarn and Thread Mills. MC72(2)-22E, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington,
D.C., January 1975. 27 pp.
(30) 1972 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series (SIC Industry
Group 229), Miscellaneous Textile Goods. MC72(2)-22F, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington,
D.C., December 1974. 34 pp.
(31) 1972 Census of Manufactures, Special Report Series, Water
Use in Manufacturing. MC72(SR)-4, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., September
1975. 199 pp.
(32) Upgrading Textile Operations to Reduce Pollution; 1. In-
Plant Control of Pollution. EPA-625/3-74-004, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October 1974.
118 pp.
38
-------
• The Cost of Clean Water and Its Economic Impact (33).
• An Industrial Waste Guide to the Cotton Textile Industry
(34).
• Chemical Use and Discharge in Carpet Piece Dyeing (35).
• The Textile Industry and the Environment-1973 (36).
• Chemical/Physical and Biological Treatment of Wool
Processing Wastes (37).
• Upgrading Textile Operations to Reduce Pollution; 2. Waste-
water Treatment Systems (38).
In developing discharge factors, several assumptions were made.
Dyeing woven cotton fabric, for example, was assumed to have the
same wastewater characteristics as dyeing woven wool fabric.
Similar assumptions were made for operations such as bleaching,
printing, and scouring, in order to generate discharge factors
for cotton, wool, and manmade textile production. Data were
derived for each subcategory and then summed on a production-
weighted basis in order to obtain prioritization data for each
of the 17 major categories.
(33) The Cost of Clean Water and Its Economic Impact, Volume III.
FWPCA Publication No. I.W.P.-4 (PB 217 585), U.S. Department
of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion, Washington, D.C., 30 June 1967. 133 pp.
(34) An Industrial Waste Guide to the Cotton Textile Industry
(PB 218 291). U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C., 1959.
23 pp.
(35) Tincher, W. C. Chemical Use and Discharge in Carpet Piece
Dyeing. Contract E-27-626, Department of Natural Resources,
Environmental Protection Division, State of Georgia,
Atlanta, Georgia, September 1975. 84 pp.
(36) The Textile Industry and the Environment-1973. American
Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1973. 184 pp.
(37) Hatch, L. T., R. E. Sharpin, and W. T. Wirtanen. Chemical/
Physical and Biological Treatment of Wool Processing Wastes.
EPA-660/2-73-036 (PB 233 137), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., January 1974. 57 pp.
(38) Upgrading Textile Operations to Reduce Pollution; 2. Waste-
water Treatment Systems. EPA-625/3-74-004, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October 1974.
45 pp.
39
-------
Prioritization Listing
Table 17 alphabetically lists textile source types that were
prioritized in this study.
The textile water pollution listing was presented earlier in
Table 4 and is repeated in Table 18.
TABLE 17. ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF TEXTILE
SOURCE TYPES PRIORITIZED
Coated fabrics not rubberized
Cordage and twine
Cotton finishing mills
Cotton weaving mills
Felt goods except woven fills and hats
Finishing mills—N.E.C.
Floor covering mills
Knitting mills
Lace goods
Manmade fiber and silk finishing mills
Manmade fiber and silk weaving mills
Narrow fabric mills
Nonwoven fabrics
Paddings and upholstery filling
Processed textile waste
Textile goods—N.E.C.
Thread mills
Throwing and winding mills
Tire cord and fabric
Wool weaving and finishing mills
Wool yarn mills
Yarn mills except wool
TABLE 18. PRIORITIZATION OF TEXTILE
SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
SOURCE TYPE
KNITTING HILLS
MAN-HADE FIBER AND SILK FINISHING HILLS
THROWING AND WINDING HILLS
COTTON WEAVING HILLS
FELT GOODS EXCEPT WOVEN FELTS AND HATS
COTTON FINISHING HILLS
HAN-HADE FIBER AND SILK WEAVING HILLS
WOOL TARN HILLS
NONWOVEN FABRICS
FINISHING HILLS -NEC
FLOOR COVERING HILLS
YARN HILLS EXCEPT WOOL
WOOL WEAVING AND FINISHING HILLS
COATED FABRICS NOT RUBBERIZED
NARROW FABRIC HILLS
TIRE CORD AND FABRIC
PROCESSED TEXTILE WASTE
PADDINGS AND UPHOLSTERY FILLING
CORDAGE AND TWINE
TEXTILE GOODS -NEC
THREAD HILLS
LACE GOODS
IHPACT FACTOR*
1,000.000.000
1,000.000.000
It 000>000,000
800,000.000
700.000.000
700.000,000
600.000,000
300.000.000
200.000.000
70.000,000
30>000,000
30,000,000
30<000.000
10,000,000
8(000,000
3(000.000
2(000.000
2(000.000
1(000,000
900,000
200.000
200,000
CLb
0
D
D
0
D
D
0
0
0
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
CALCC
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Impact factors have been multiplied by a scaling factor of 106
to avoid dealing with numbers much less than 1.0.
Uncertainty level (see page 17).
c
Type of calculation (degree of data aggregation):
1 = aggregated according to population;
2 = aggregated on a state basis;
3 = detailed plant data.
40
-------
REFERENCES
1. Walden, C. C., and T. E. Howard. Toxicity: Research and
Regulation. In: Proceedings of 1976 Technical Association
of the Pulp and Paper Industry Environmental Conference,
Atlanta, Georgia, April 26-28, 1976. pp. 93-99.
2. Handy, R. W., and M. Samfield. Estimate of Permissible Con-
centrations of Pollutants for Continuous Exposure; Part II:
Permissible Water Concentrations. Contract 68-02-1325, Task
34, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, September 1975. 36 pp.
3. TLVs® Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended
Changes for 1975. American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975. 97 pp.
4. Eimutis, E. C., C. M. Moscowitz, J. L. Delaney, R. P. Quill,
and D. L. Zanders. Air, Water, and Solid Residue Prioriti-
zation Models for Conventional Combustion Sources. EPA-600/
2-76-176 (PB 257 103), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July 1976. 57 pp.
5. Eimutis, E. C. Source Assessment: Prioritization of Sta-
tionary Air Pollution Sources—Model Description. EPA-600/
2-76-032a (PB 253 479), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, February
1976. 83 pp.
6. Train, R. E. Development Document for Interim Final Efflu-
ent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Significant Organic Products Segment of
the Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category.
EPA-440/1-75/045, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., November 1975. 391 pp.
7. Train, R. E. Development Document for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Major Organic Products Segment of the Organic Chemi-
cals Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA-440/1-73/009,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
December 1973. 369 pp.
41
-------
8. Hedley, W. H. , S. M. Mehta, C. M. Moscowitz, R. B. Reznik,
G. A. Richardson, and D. L. Zanders. Potential Pollutants
from Petrochemical Processes. Technomic Publishing Co.,
Westport, Connecticut, 1975. 362 pp.
9. Chementator. Chemical Engineering, 84(14):63, 1977.
10. Gruber, G. I. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices: Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and Explosives
Industries. EPA/530/SW-118c (PB 251 307), U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Washington, B.C., April 1975.
377 pp.
11. Honea, F. I. Industrial Process Profiles for Environmental
Use: Chapter 8, Pesticides Industry, T. B. Parsons, ed.
EPA-600/2-77-023h (PB 266 225), U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
January 1977. 240 pp.
12. Kelso, G. L. , R. R. Wilkinson, and T. L. Ferguson. The
Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing—1976. Con-
tract 68-02-1324, Task 43, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. (Draft
final report submitted to the EPA by Midwest Research
Institute, 16 April 1976). 236 pp.
13. Train, R. E., A. W. Breidenbach, E. C. Beck,
R. B. Schaffer, J. S. Vitalis, and G. M. Jett. Development
Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations, Guidelines,
and Proposed New Source Performance Standards for the Pesti*
cide Industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., August 1976 draft. 207 pp.
14. Lawless, E. W. , R. von R'umker, and T. L. Ferguson. Pesti-
cide Study Series—5: The Pollution Potential in Pesticide
Manufacturing (PB 213 782). Contract 69-01-0142, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, June
1972. 249 pp.
15. Ifeadi, C. N. Screening Study to Develop Background Infor-
mation and Determine the Significance of Air Contaminant
Emissions from Pesticide Plants. EPA-540/9-75-026 (PB 244
734), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., March 1975. 85 pp.
16. Meiners, A. F., C. E. Mumma, T. L. Ferguson, and G. L. Kelso.
Wastewater Treatment Technology Documentation for Toxaphene
Manufacture. EPA-440/9-76-013, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D.C.,February 1976. 123 pp.
42
-------
17. von Rumker, R., E. W. Lawless, and A. F. Meiners. Produc-
tion, Distribution, Use, and Environmental Impact Potential
of Selected Pesticides (PB 238 795). Contract EQC-311,
Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C., March
1974. 439 pp.
18. Ouellette, R. P., and J. A. King. Chemical Week Pesticides
Register. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York,
1977. 346 pp.
19. 1976 Farm Chemicals Handbook. Meister Publishing Co.,
Willoughby, Ohio, 1976. 577 pp.
20. Patterson, J. W. State-of-the-Art for the Inorganic Chem-
icals Industry: Inorganic Pesticides. EPA-600/2-74-009a,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
March 1975. 39 pp.
21. Martin, E. E. Development Document for Effluent Limitations
and New Source Performance Standards for the Basic Fertil-
izer Chemicals Segment of the Fertilizer Manufacturing
Point Source Category. EPA-440/l-74-011a (PB 238 652), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., March
1974. 168 pp.
22. Fullah, H. T., and B. P. Faulkner. Inorganic Fertilizer
and Phosphate Mining Industries—Water Pollution and Con-
trol (PB 206 154). Grant No. 12020 FPD, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., September 1971. 225 pp.
23. Patterson, J. W., J. Brown, W. Duckert, J. Poison, and
N. I. Shapira. State of the Art: Military Explosives and
Propellants Production Industry; Volume II, Wastewater
Characterization. EPA-600/2-76/213b, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 1976. 273 pp.
24. Fairall, J. M. Tennessee Valley Authority, Wilson Dam,
Alabama - Nos. 1 and 2 Nitric Acid Units, Tennessee River.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Tennessee Valley Authority
and Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1966. 12 pp.
25. 1972 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series (SIC Industry
Groups 221, 222, 223, and 224), Weaving Mills. MC72(2)-
22A, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, D.C., January 1975. 35 pp.
26. 1972 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series (SIC Industry
Group 225), Knitting Mills. MC72(2)-22B, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., April
1975. 42 pp.
43
-------
27. 1972 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series (SIC Industry
Group 226), Dyeing and Finishing Textiles, Except Wool
Fabrics and Knit Goods. MC72(2)-22C, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., January
1975, 25 pp.
28. 1972 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series (SIC Industry
Group 227), Floor Covering Mills. MC72(2)-22D, U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.,
October 1974. 17 pp.
29. 1972 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series (SIC Industry
Group 228), Yarn and Thread Mills. MC72(2)-22E, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington,
D.C., January 1975. 27 pp.
30. 1972 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series (SIC Industry
Group 229), Miscellaneous Textile Goods. MC72(2)-22F, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington,
D.C., December 1974. 34 pp.
31. 1972 Census of Manufactures, Special Report Series, Water
Use in Manufacturing. MC72(SR)-4, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., September
1975. 199 pp.
32. Upgrading Textile Operations to Reduce Pollution; 1. In-
Plant Control of Pollution. EPA-625/3-74-004, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October 1974.
118 pp.
33. The Cost of Clean Water and Its Economic Impact, Volume III.
FWPCA Publication No. I.W.P.-4 (PB 217 585), U.S. Department
of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion, Washington, D.C., 30 June 1967. 133 pp.
34. An Industrial Waste Guide to the Cotton Textile Industry
(PB 218 291). U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C., 1959.
23 pp.
35. Tincher, W. C. Chemical Use and Discharge in Carpet Piece
Dyeing. Contract E-27-626, Department of Natural Resources,
Environmental Protection Division, State of Georgia,
Atlanta, Georgia, September 1975. 84 pp.
36. The Textile Industry and the Environment-1973. American
Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1973. 184 pp.
44
-------
37. Hatch, L. T., R. E. Sharpin, and W. T. Wirtanen. Chemical/
Physical and Biological Treatment of Wool Processing Wastes.
EPA-660/2-73-036 (PB 233 137), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, B.C., January 1974. 57 pp.
38. Upgrading Textile Operations to Reduce Pollution; 2. Waste-
water Treatment Systems. EPA-625/3-74-004, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October 1974.
45 pp.
39. Metcalf, R. L., P. Lu, and I. P. Kapoor. Environmental
Distribution and Metabolic Fate of Key Industrial Pollutants
and Pesticides in a Model Ecosystem (PB 225 479). Illinois
Water Resources Center, Urbana, Illinois, June 1973. 80 pp.
40. Clifford, D. A. Automatic Measurement of Total Oxygen
Demand. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Industrial
Waste Conference, Part II, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana, 1968. pp. 772-785.
41. The World Almanac & Book of Facts, 1976. Newspaper Enter-
prise Association, Inc., New York, New York, 1975. p. 790.
42. Water Resources Data for Alabama, Water Year 19^75. USGS/
WRD/HD-76/003 (PB 251 854), U.S. Geological Survey, Water
Resources Division, University, Alabama, 1976. 391 pp.
43. Water Resources Data for Alaska, 1975. USGS/WRD/AK-75/1
(PB 264 228), U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Anchorage, Alaska, 1976. 424 pp.
44. Water Resources Data for Arizona, 1975. USGS/WRD/HD-76/036
(PB 259 326), U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Tucson, Arizona, 1976. 452 pp.
45. Water Resources Data for Arkansas, 1975. USGS/WRD/HD-76/022
(PB 256 671), U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1976. 696 pp.
46. Water Resources Data for California, 1975, Volumes 1 to 4.
USGS/WRD/HD-76/059, 058, 043, and 044 (PB 264 474, PB 264
475, PB 264 476, PB 264 477), U.S. Geological Survey, Water
Resources Division, Menlo Park, California, 1976. 1916 pp.
47. Water Resources Investigations in Colorado, 1977. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
48. Water Resources Investigations in Connecticut, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
45
-------
49. Water Resources Investigations in Delaware, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
50. Water Resources Investigations in Florida, 1974. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
51. Water Resources Investigations in Georgia, 1974. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
52. Water Resources Investigations in Idaho, 1973. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
53. Water Resources Investigations in Illinois, 1977. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
54. Water Resources Investigations in Indiana, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
55. Water Resources Investigations in Iowa, 1972. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
56. Water Resources Investigations in Kansas, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
57. Water Resources Investigations in Kentucky, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
58. Water Resources Investigations in Louisiana, 1973. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
59. Water Resources Investigations in Maine, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
60. Water Resources Investigations in Maryland, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
61. Water Resources Data for Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
Water Year 1975. USGS/WRD/HD-76/056 (PB 262 801), U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Boston,
Massachusetts, 1976. 296 pp.
46
-------
62. Water Resources Investigations in Michigan, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
63. Water Resources Data for Minnesota, Water Year 1975. USGS/
WRD/HD-76/039 (PB 259 952), U.S. Geological Survey, Water
Resources Division, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1976. 523 pp.
64. Water Resources Investigations in Mississippi, 1973. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
65. Water Resources Investigations in Missouri, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
66. Water Resources Investigations in Montana, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
67. Water Resources Investigations in Nebraska, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
68. Water Resources Investigations in Nevada, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
69. Water Resources Data for New Hampshire and Vermont, 1975.
USGS/WRD/HD-76/057 (PB 262 800), U.S. Geological Survey,
Water Resources Division, Boston, Massachusetts, 1976.
193 pp.
70. Water Resources Investigations in New Jersey, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
71. Water Resources Data for New Mexico, 1975. USGS/WRD/NM-75/1
(PB 263 548), U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1976. 616 pp.
72. Water Resources Investigations in New York, 1973. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
73. Water Resources Data for North Carolina, 1975. USGS/WRD/
HD-76/011 (PB 251 869), U.S. Geological Survey, Water
Resources Division, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1976. 441 pp.
74. Water Resources Data for North Dakota, Water Year 1975.
USGS/WRD/HD-76/046 (PB 259 277), U.S. Geological Survey,
Water Resources Division, Bismarck, North Dakota, 1976.
442 pp.
47
-------
75. Water Resources Investigations in Ohio, 1972. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
76. Water Resources Investigations in Oklahoma, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
77. Water Resources Investigations in Oregon, 1977. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
78. Water Resources Investigations in Pennsylvania, 1974. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
79. Water Resources Investigations in South Carolina, 1972.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey,
Washington, D.C.
80. Water Resources Investigations in South Dakota, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
81. Water Resources Investigations in Tennessee, 1974. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
82. Water Resources Investigations in Texas, 1972. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
83. Water Resources Investigations in Utah, 1974. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
84. Water Resources Investigations in Virginia, 1973. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
85. Water Resources Data for Washington, 1975. USGS/WRD/HD-76/
033 (PB 259 197), U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Tacoma, Washington, 1976. 700 pp.
86. Water Resources Investigations in West Virginia, 1973. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
87. Water Resources Investigations in Wisconsin, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
88. Water Resources Investigations in Wyoming, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
48
-------
89. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
13th Edition. American Public Health Association, American
Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Feder-
ation, Washington, D.C., 1971. 874 pp.
90. Cleland, J. G., and G. L. Kingsbury, Multimedia Environ-
mental Goals for Environmental Assessment. Contract 68-02-
1325, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. (Draft submitted to the EPA by
Battelle, January 1977). pp. 1-34.
91. Water Quality Criteria Data Book—Volume 3. EPA-18050 GWV,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., May
1971. 526 pp.
92. The Toxic Substances List—1974. HSM 99-73-45, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Rockville,
Maryland, June 1974. 904 pp.
93. Supplement to Development Document: Hazardous Substances
Regulations, Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act as Amended 1972. EPA-440/9-75-009 (PB 258 514),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
November 1975. 783 pp.
94. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, 1975
Edition. Publication No. CDC 99-74-92, National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, Rockville, Maryland,
June 1975. 1296 pp.
95. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA-440/9-76-023, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., July 1976.
501 pp.
96. The Merck Index, Ninth Edition, M. Windholz, ed. Merck &
Company, Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, 1976. 1313 pp.
97. Gosselin, R. E., et al. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial
Products, Fourth Edition.. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore,
Maryland, 1976. 1794 pp.
98. Water Quality Criteria Data Book—Volume 5. EPA-18050 HLA,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
September 1973. 537 pp.
99. Sax, N. I. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials,
Third Edition. Reinhold Book Corporation, New York, New
York, 1968. 1251 pp.
100. Standard for Metric Practice. ANSI/ASTM Designation:
E 380-76e, IEEE Std 268-1976, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 1976.
37 pp.
49
-------
APPENDIX A
DERIVATION OF A WATER POLLUTION SEVERITY MODEL
DIRECT WATER DISCHARGES
If a plant is discharging through multiple outfalls (and neglec-
ting outfall or diffuser geometries), then the severity for a
specific pollutant can be summed. Figure A-l shows an example
situation. Outfall 1 has a pollutant concentration, cdlf and
discharge flow rate, vd:. Outfall 2 concentration and flow are
cd2 and vd2, respectively.
OUTFALL 1
OUTFALL 2
m
t - (cdjMvdj) m. • (<
1 1
c . ., ,,
Jl F(vr)
RIVER FLOW(vr)
aytwy
( cd- l
-------
Pollutant mass discharge rates are
ml = (cdj)(vd!) (A-3)
and
m2 = (cd2)(vd2) (A-4)
These mass discharge rates are additive. Fully diluted, the
resulting concentration, c, is
m, + nu
c = (A-5)
vr
and the total severity, S , is
r*
s,
tot
m + m
(A-7)
. f(cd )(vd ) (cd2)(vd2)l
= F [ K + ^ j (A'8)
(cd^tvd^ (cd2)(vd2)
(A-9)
F(vr) F(vr)
or
Stot = Sl + S2
Multiple, leachable, solid waste piles may also exist. These are
treated as analogous to outfalls, and the solid waste contribu-
tion is added to the direct water discharges. Figure A-2 shows a
sample configuration.
As in the previous example, SJ and S^ represent the aftermixing
zone severity for Outfalls 1 and 2, respectively, Si and SJ
represent the aftermixing zone severity for leachable, solid
waste Piles 1 and 2, respectively, or
m3
S3 =
(A-12
51
-------
OUTFALL 1
OUTFALL 2
I
I
c
sl
m -(cdjMvdJ O>|LEn [PILE 2 \ m- • (cd-Mvd^
1 >3V >4V I
' \ \ ' \ (
\ \ \ \ 1) FULLY DILUTED
(cdjHvdj) m3 m4 Icd2)(vd> / / CONDITION
F(vr) J3 F(vr) J4 F(vr) "2 F(vr) A \ m + m0 + m, + m.
1 \ c - 1 2 3 4
'tot
Flvr)
RIVERFLOW(vr)
Figure A-2. Sample outfall and solid waste leaching model.
where m3 and m4 represent the pollutant mass discharge rate from
Piles 1 and 2, respectively. Total severity due to both outfalls
and both piles is thus
(A-13)
where s'tot = total severity resulting from various outfalls
and leachable, solid waste piles after full
dilution
S|....S^ = aftermixing zone severity for specific outfall
or leachable, solid waste pile
Generalizing this approach for any pollutant discharged from any
plant with multiple outfalls and leachable solid waste piles
gives
mw. . + ms . .
Fi(vrj}
(A-14)
where S... = severity for the ith pollutant at the jth plant
and
mw
F
. . = } f vd . „ 1 ( cd . . „ 1
ID / * \ j£/\ I}*/
1=1
(A-15)
where mw. .
1-'
cd. ..
3
P =
direct water mass discharge rate for the ith
species at the jth plant
discharge flow rate of the Jlth outfall at jth plant
concentration of the ith species in the £th outfall
at the jth plant
number of discharging outfalls
52
-------
Solid waste contribution due to solid leaching is defined as
Q
where
msi-i
-1
SW.,
11
f , .
k=l
water mass discharge rate due to solid residue
leaching for the ith species at the jth plant
solid waste generation rate in the kth pile at
the jth plant
number of leachable piles
BR
j(th); leachable residue fraction
= ae
(A-17)
a and 3 = dimensionless constants (intended to maintain
total solids under 50 x 103 g/m3 or 50 g/liter)d
rainfall rate at the jth plant, m/yr
R.
f9- -v
= (1 -
fraction of the ith
wf ., =
cf. .,
D
constituent on a wet basis in the kth
pile at the jth plant
fraction of water in the kth pile at the jth
plant
fraction of the ith constituent -on a dry basis
in the kth pile at the jth plant
(A-18)
.^ .
combined mass discharge rate for the ith species
at the jth plant
Combining the direct water discharge and the solid residue con-
tribution results in
where md..
and
S. . =
md . .
- ;1J
F vr
;
± (
(A-20)
where vr. = river flow rate at the jth plant
Above 50 g/m3, the resulting solution would not flow readily
(personal communication with G. Nelson, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975). Assuming a maximum annual rainfall of
1.7 m, a was set equal to 1.723 x lO"1* and 6 to 1.48. The
choice of a and 3 as constants implies that all materials in a
solid waste are equally soluble. In reality a and 3 are vari-
ables that depend on the solubility of each species in the solid
waste, and further refinements of the prioritization model
should take this into consideration.
53
-------
If a final af termixing zone concentration, c . . , is defined as
md . .
then the severity for the ith pollutant at the jth plant is
simply
S = !ii (A-22)
J i
OXYGEN DEMAND MODEL
The oxygen demand model is also composed of two streams, the
direct water discharge oxygen demand and the solid residue por-
tion of the oxygen demand. The water discharge oxygen demand is
calculated as
mowj = TODW (A~23)
where mow. = oxygen deficit rate of direct water discharges
11 at the jth plant
TODw . 9 = total oxygen demand of the direct water discharge
1 in the Ath outfall at the jth plant. (See
Appendix B for a further description. )
The solid residue portion of the oxygen demand is calculated as
TODsjk) (f lj
where mos . = oxygen deficit rate of the solid residue leach-
-1 ate at the jth plant
TODs., = total oxygen demand of the leachable solid
-1 residue in the kth pile at the jth plant
f . . = leachable residue fraction
ID
The total is simply the sum of the mass dicharge rates.
mod. = mow. + mos. (A-25)
where mod. = total oxygen deficit rate at the jth plant
The oxygen deficit severity, So., is defined by
54
-------
_/modjV i
Soj ^vr, ACS. - DO,
(A-26)
where cs . = saturated dissolved oxygen concentration at the jth
1 plant receiving stream
DO = dissolved oxygen freshwater quality criterion
subject to
(cs. - DO) =
/cs. - DO) if (cs. - DO) £1.
1.0 if (cs. - DO) <1.0
(A-27)
If coj is defined as the final aftermixing zone oxygen demand
concentration at the jth plant.
mod.
co . = -
D vr..
(A-28)
and if FOJ is defined as the hazard factor of the oxygen demand
at the jth plant,
F . = cs . - DO
OD D
(A-29)
then the oxygen demand severity at the jth plant, So., is
co .
So. =
(A-30)
WATER IMPACT MODEL
As mentioned in the main body of the report, a water impact
factor was defined by first aggregating individual pollutant
severities for each plant:
S . =
(A-31)
The water impact factor, Iwx, was then defined as the sum of the
plant severities for Z plants in source type x.
Iwx -
(A-32)
55
-------
or
(so
(A-33)
USE OF WEIGHTING FACTORS
Two weighting factors were developed, but they were not used due
to insufficient data. The first weighting factor took into
account the ambient concentration of a discharged species in the
receiving body of water.
wi.. =
ca. .
-=±1
Fi
(A-34)
where ca.. = ambient concentration of the ith species at the
J jth plant
The second weighting factor took into account biodegradability
and ecological magnification (39).
EM.
W2i=
(A-35)
where EM. = ecological magnification factor for the ith
BI . = biodegradability index for the ith species
discharged species
biodegradability i
The weighted impact factor I'w , was defined as follows:
+ 2_!(SwijF(W1ij W2i'
(Sof
(A-36)
subject to
/Wl.. W2.}=
\ ID i/
Wl. .
Wl. . W2
i)*
1.0
1.0 if (wl. . W2.)<1.0
\ IT i/
(A-37)
(39) Metcalf, R. L., P. Lu, and I. P. Kapoor. Environmental
Distribution and Metabolic Fate of Key Industrial Pollutants
and Pesticides in a Model Ecosystem (PB 225 479). Illinois
Water Resources Center, Urbana, Illinois, June 1973. 80 pp.
56
-------
AVERAGING TIME CONSIDERATIONS
Except for the hazard factor, F, the terms in the severity equa-
tions for a discharged pollutant at a specific site are functions
of time; i.e.,
s(t, -
where S(t) = severity as a function of time
vd(t) = discharge flow rate as a function of time, m3/s
cd(t) = discharge concentration as a function of time, g/m3
vr(t) = river flow rate as a function of time, m3/s
For any averaging time, T, the average severity, ST, is then
where T = t2 - tj
Equation A-39 can be rewritten in terms of a mass discharge rate
as
S = ^ f md(t) dt
bT T J [vr(t)] [F] at
where md(t) = [vd (t) ] [cd(t) ] (A-41)
= mass discharge rate as a function of time,
g/s
In practice these parameters were not known as a function of
time, and average values were used for computation. Thus
ST - (A_42)
(vr) (F)
or
ST = -=^- (A-43)
1 (vr) (F)
where vd = average discharge flow rate, m3/s
cd = average discharge concentration, g/m3
ind = average mass discharge rate, g/s
vF = average river flow rate, m3/s
57
-------
Similar considerations apply to the equations for solid leachate
and oxygen demand.
EXCESS DOSE CONCEPT
If severity is expressed as a function of time as in Equation
A-38, it can be used to define the ratio of actual exposure to a
pollutant, ¥ , relative to a potentially hazardous exposure, V ,
ST = ~ (A-44)
H
The aftermixing zone concentration as a function of time, c(t),
can be written as
c(t) = „: r cd(t) A-45)
The integral of this concentration gives the actual exposure, 1* ,
from
¥A = /" c(t) dt (A-46)
The potentially hazardous exposure is given by
¥„ = /" F dt (A-47)
H J
or
¥„ = TF (A-48)
rl
2
/ c(t) at
tr
T ¥„ t2
r
7
F dt
If a skin and gill absorption-retention coefficient, arg/ that is
independent of c(t) was assumed to exist for a given aquatic
species, s, then severity is an indicator of excess dose.
58
-------
(A-50)
where D = actual delivered dose, g
£\.
ar = absorption-retention coefficient, m3/s
o
In addition,
where D = potentially hazardous dose, g
Severity can then be expressed as
and is a measure of excess dose.
59
ST = DA/DH (A-52)
-------
APPENDIX B
OXYGEN DEFICIT RELATIONSHIPS
RELATIONSHIP OF TOD, COD, AND BOD5
The oxygen required by a stream is an indicator of the quantity
of pollutants present. Several parameters are currently used to
measure oxygen demand:
• Total oxygen demand (TOD).
• Chemical oxygen demand (COD).
• Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).
• Total organic carbon (TOC).
Correlations between TOD, COD, BOD5, and TOC for an industrial
waste and a municipal waste were developed as listed below.
For an industrial waste,
TOD = (1.064 ± 0.030DCOD (B-l)
For a municipal waste,
TOD = (1.271 ± 0.094)COD (B-2)
or
= (2.885 ± 0.265)BOD5 (B-3)
or
= (3.831 ± 0.604)TOC (B-4)
where BOD5 = amount of dissolved oxygen consumed in 5 days by
biological processes breaking down organic matter
in an effluent
Supporting data are given in Tables B-l and B-2. Figures B-l
and B-2 show the relationships of measurements reported by
Clifford (40).
(40) Clifford, D. A. Automatic Measurement of Total Oxygen
Demand. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Industrial
Waste Conference, Part II, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana, 1968. pp. 772-785.
60
-------
TABLE B-l. ANALYSIS OF DOW CHEMICAL CO.
PRIMARY EFFLUENT (40)
a
TOD
490
380
480
380
330
320
440
430
530
410
490
370
370
440
450
570
520
COD
430
360
450
370
330
330
430
430
400
400
450
360
350
410
430
470
770
TOD/COD
1.14
1.06
1.07
1.03
1.00
0.97
1.02
1.00
1.33
1.03
1.09
1.03
1.06
1.07
1.05
1.21
1.11
TOD
440
460
430
450
500
420
410
480
470
460
430
340
460
490
330
410
400
COD
380
390
390
430
460
400
400
430
440
410
370
370
470
460
370
430
410
TOD/COD
1.16
1.18
1.10
1.05
1.09
1.05
1.03
1.12
1.07
1.12
1.16
0.92
0.98
1.07
0.89
0.95
0.98
Units for TOD and COD are mg/liter.
TABLE B-2. ANALYSIS OF MIDLAND, MICHIGAN PRIMARY EFFLUENT (40)a
TOD
230
195
190
220
155
200
190
215
175
200
230
195
220
COD
225
160
135
170
105
165
150
165
110
160
215
170
175
BOD
80
75
70
75
50
65
75
75
50
65
80
75
80
TOC
55
45
45
65
40
55
55
55
40
55
65
60
55
TOD
COD
1.02
1.22
1.41
1.29
1.48
1.21
1.27
1.30
1.59
1.25
1.07
1.15
1.26
TOD
BOD 5
2.88
2.60
2.71
2.93
3.10
3.08
2.53
2.87
3.50
3.08
2.88
2.60
2.75
TOD
TOC
4.18
4.33
4.22
3.38
3.88
3.64
3.45
3.91
4.38
3.64
3.54
3.25
4.00
COD
TOC
4.09
3.56
3.00
2.62
2.63
3.00
2.73
3.00
2.75
2.91
3.31
2.83
3.18
BOD 5
TOC
1.45
1.67
1.56
1.15
1.25
1.18
1.36
1.36
1.25
1.18
1.23
1.25
1.45
Units for TOD and COD are mg/liter.
61
-------
=p 400
200 ,i
100
TOTAL OXGEN DEMAND •
CHWI CAl OXYGEN DEMAND O
MAJOR ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
SANITARY SEWAGE
GENERAL ORGANIC PRODUCTION
PlANt WASTES
SAMPLE PREPARATION
ALL SAMPLES FILTERED
« DILUTION I TOO )
(UCI Q.lttoQ.5*
9/22 26 28 2910/45 6 10 11 12 13 17 1819 20 24 2512/1 56 7 8 12 13 14 15 21 23 27 28 1/3 4 5 9 10 11 12 16 17 18
DATE* 1966- 67)
Figure B-l. Dow Chemical Co., primary effluent (40).
200
150
u 100
50
TOD!
TOTAL OXYGEN DEMAND
( CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
| TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
I BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
! MAJOR ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
SANITARY SEWAGE
; NaCI 100 ppm to 200 ppm
i SAMPLE PREPARATION
BLENDED 5 min.
NO DILUTION
6 7 8 9 12 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23
DATE (JUNE 1966 )
Figure B-2. Midland, Michigan, primary effluent (40).
aUnits in Figures B-l and B-2 are not metric SI but they do
represent those units reported in the reference shown.
62
-------
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOD5, TOD, AND BOD
A review of available literature revealed that a first order
reaction relationship exists between BOD5 and BOD (ultimate
BOD); namely,
BOD
BOD = -k't (B-5)
1 - e
where BODL = ultimate BOD, mg/liter
e = natural base logarithm (2.72)
k1 = BODs rate constant, days"1
t = time; for BOD5/ t = 5 days
The BOD rate constant, k', varies from 0.08 day"1 to 0.30 day"1
and is strictly dependent on the type of waste. For the two
extreme cases, we have the equations developed below.
Case 1
If k1 equals 0.30, then
BOD 5
BOD =
L _ e-(0.3)(5)
BOD
0.777
BODL =1.29 BOD5
Case 2
If k1 equals 0.08, then
BODT =
BOD5
L _ e-(0.08)(5)
BOD,
0.330
BODT =3.03 BOD5
Ll
TOD FOR OXYGEN-CONSUMING DISCHARGES
Based on the information above, the following options for TOD
were used
63
-------
TOD =1.3 COD (B-8)
TOD = 2.9 BOD5 (B-9)
TOD =3.8 TOC (B-10)
The above factors were derived from data for a specific waste;
i.e., Midland, Michigan, primary effluent. The relationship
between TOD, BOD5, COD, and TOC will not be valid for all types
of wastes, but for this prioritization these factors were used.
Using a worst case basis, if more than one value is available,
the oxygen demand-weighted equation producing the largest theo-
retical oxygen demand potential is used.
64
-------
APPENDIX C
IMPACT FACTOR SAMPLE CALCULATION
This appendix provides an example of the detailed calculations
used to compute the impact factor for the production of ethylene
dichloride via the direct chlorination of ethylene (abbreviated
as "ethylene dichloride-ethylene chlorination" in this report).
The following steps are used to compute the impact factor:
1) Compute outfall effluent factors.
• Species outfall effluent factors.
• TOD outfall effluent factors.
• Solid waste effluent factors.
2) Compute total annual effluent mass loading.
3) Compute source severity for each species at each plant.
4) Compute impact factor.
Data in Tables C-l, C-2, C-3, and E-l (in Appendix E) contain the
input necessary to compute the impact factor. The computation
methodologies used in this sample calculation are described in
Section 3, Appendix A, and Appendix B of this report.3 The steps
involved in computing impact factors are presented in Figure C-l
and described below.
Compute Outfall Factors
Outfall effluent factors (OF) and the information needed to cal-
culate solid waste factors (SWF) are presented in Table C-l.
Section 4 of this report gives the rationale used to generate
the outfall effluent factors.
TOD is treated as a discharged species but Table C-l shows no
(outfall) effluent factor for it, which indicates the value is
unknown. Utilizing the methods developed in Appendix B, the TOD
outfall effluent factor can be computed from the outfall efflu-
ent factors for COD, BOD, and TOC as follows:
English engineering units are used in the example for expediency,
Units are converted to metric for comparison with values pre-
sented in other sections of this report.
65
-------
TABLE C-l.
DISCHARGE DATA FOR SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE-ETHYLENE CHLORINATION
Material discharged
Hazard
factor,
g/m3
Outfall effluent
factor, Ib/ton
Fraction of
solid waste
on a dry basis
TOD 00 0
COD 0 9.86 0
BOD 0 19.9 0
TOC 0 1.78 0
Phenol 0.001 0.00006 0
Ammonia nitrogen (as N2) 0.02 0.00473 0
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (as N2) 0.02 0.01143 0
Cyanide 0.005 0.00034 0
Sulfate 250 192 0
Oil and grease 0.7 0.0557 0
Total phosphates 0.001 0.00022 0
Zinc 5 0.0001 0
Copper 1 0.0004 0
Iron 0.3 0.0096 0
Chromium 0.05 0.0011 0
Cadmium 0.01 0.00016 0
Total suspended solids 25 11.7 0
Total dissolved solids 250 195 0
Ethylene dichloride 1.53 5.8 0.228
Hydrogen chloride 0.543 7.6 0
Vinyl chloride 39.6 1.2 0
Methyl chloride 0.068 0.1 0
Ethyl chloride 202 0.1 0
Sodium hydroxide 250 120 0
Sodium chloride 250 0.4 0
Chloride 0.01 128 0
Mercuric hydroxide 0.004 0 0.00055
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1.3 0 0.386
Tetrachloroethane 0.45 0 0.386
Solid waste discharge data:
Fraction of water in solid waste = 0.0
Solid waste generation rate for total industry = 200,000 tons/yr
66
-------
TABLE C-2.
Total
PLANT DATA FOR SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE-ETHYLENE CHLORINATION
Plant No,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Specific plant
Allied Chemical, Baton Rouge, LA
Conoco Chemical, Westlake, LA
Diamond Shamrock, Deer Park, TX
Dow Chemical, Freeport, TX
Dow Chemical, Plaquemine, LA
Dow Chemical, Oyster Creek, TX
Ethyl Corp., Baton Rouge, LA
Ethyl Corp., Pasadena, TX
Goodrich, Calvert City, KY
PPG Industries, Lake Charles, LA
Shell Chemical, Deer Park, TX
Shell Chemical, Norco, LA
Stauffer Chemical, Carson, CA
Texaco, Port Neches, TX
Union Carbide, Taft, LA
Union Carbide, Texas City, TX
Capacity,
tons/yr State No.
173,750
288,750
110,000
400,000
331,250
275,000
175,000
130,000
250,000
300,000
300,000
219,250
85,000
17,500
37,500
37,500
18
18
43
43
18
43
18
43
17
18
43
18
5
43
18
43
3,130,500
TABLE C-3. STATE RIVER FLOW RATES AND RAINFALL DATA
Flow rate, m3/s
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
State
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
No. of
points
82
88
107
70
515
13
28
16
14
32
35
23
22
23
Average
130.82
160.13
43.64
295.91
26.25
48.42
127.99
1.70
283.17
155.18
2.83
254.85
458.74
577.95
141.58
Standard
deviation
288.61
587.86
119.84
1,601.60
74.08
65.98
219.17
3.11
218.04
101.94
2.83
269.01
991.09
1,030.73
373.78
Reference Rainfall,
No. . m/yr (41)
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
(arbitrarily
assigned)
52
53
54
55
1.495
1.389
0.179
1.232
0.426
0.394
1.169
1.022
1.306
1.228
0.582
0.292
0.875
0.984
0.845
(continued)
67
-------
TABLE C-3 (continued)
State
State
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
No.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
No. of
Flow
Standard
rate, n\3/s
Reference
points Average deviation No.
32
37.66
16 1,285.59 2,
7 5,
20
11
85
11 1,
115
21 1,
24 1,
24
23
15
51
10
116
28
130
91
30
57
26 2,
37
85
38
35
24 2,
53
23
37
15
195
26
14
18
022.02 6,
127.43
209.55
17.56
022.24 1,
35.00
557.43 3,
206.30 1,
167.07
189.72
50.97
24.38
218.04
8.04
526.70 1,
20.95
28.88
416.26
79.29
613.66 4,
467.23
17.56
135.92
135.92
143.60 4,
96.28
111.57
19.43
73.62
237.32
354.53
461.57
43.33
64.56
831.68
565.26
144.42
351.13
67.51
707.51
95.43
709.51
812.28
198.22
237.86
105.34
51.62
254.85
13.68
625.39
42.19
113.27
906.14
150.93
080.46
404.93
67.51
113.27
237.86
239.03
60.31
150.36
38.43
99.11
821.19
622.97
347.45
35.11
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
61
79
80
81
82
83
69
84
85
86
87
88
Rainfall,
m/yr (41)
0.722
1.095
1.442
1.036
1.028
1.080
0.796
0.659
1.257
0.912
0.289
0.767
0.219
0.919
1.076
0.246
0.952
1.091
0.410
0.953
0.757
0.955
0.985
1.027
1.324
0.464
1.168
0.932
0.385
0.827
1.135
0.714
0.976
0.752
0.383
(41) The World
Almanac & Book
prise Association, Inc.,
(42) Water Resources
Data for
Of Facts
New York
Alabama,
, 1976
, New
Water
Newspaper
York, 1975.
Year 1975.
Enter-
p. 790.
uses/
WRD/HD-76/003 (PB 251 854), U.S. Geological Survey, Water
Resources Division, University, Alabama, 1976. 391 pp.
(continued)
68
-------
(continued)
(43) Water Resources Data for Alaska, 1975. USGS/WRD/AK-75/1
(PB 264 228), U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Anchorage, Alaska, 1976. 424 pp.
(44) Water Resources Data for Arizona, 1975. USGS/WRD/HD-76/036
(PB 259 326) , U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Tucson, Arizona, 1976. 452 pp.
(45) Water Resources Data for Arkansas, 1975. USGS/WRD/HD-76/022
(PB 256 671), U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1976. 696 pp.
(46) Water Resources Data for California, 1975, Volumes 1 to 4.
USGS/WRD/HD-76/059, 058, 043, and 044 (PB 264 474, PB 264
475, PB 264 476, PB 264 477), U.S. Geological Survey, Water
Resources Division, Menlo Park, California, 1976. 1916 pp.
(47) Water Resources Investigations in Colorado, 1977. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(48) Water Resources Investigations in Connecticut, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(49) Water Resources Investigations in Delaware, 1976.. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(50) Water Resources Investigations in Florida, 1974. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(51) Water Resources Investigations in Georgia, 1974. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(52) Water Resources Investigations in Idaho, 1973. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
(53) Water Resources Investigations in Illinois, 1977. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(54) Water Resources Investigations in Indiana, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(55) Water Resources Investigations in Iowa, 1972. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
(56) Water Resources Investigations in Kansas, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(57) Water Resources Investigations in Kentucky, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
69
-------
(58) Water Resources Investigations in Louisiana, 1973. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(59) Water Resources Investigations in Maine, 1972. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
(60) Water Resources Investigations in Maryland, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(61) Water Resources Data for Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
Water Year 1975. USGS/WRD/HD-76/056 (PB 262 801), U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Boston,
Massachusetts, 1976. 296 pp.
(62) Water Resources Investigations in Michigan, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(63) Water Resources Data for Minnesota, Water Year 1975. USGS/
WRD/HD-76/039 (PB 259 952), U.S. Geological Survey, Water
Resources Division, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1976. 523 pp.
(64) Water Resources Investigations in Mississippi, 1973. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(65) Water Resources Investigations in Missouri, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(66) Water Resources Investigations in Montana, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(67) Water Resources Investigations in Nebraska, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(68) Water Resources Investigations in Nevada, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(69) Water Resources Data for New Hampshire and Vermont, 1975.
USGS/WRD/HD-76/057 (PB 262 800), U.S. Geological Survey,
Water Resources Division, Boston, Massachusetts, 1976.
193 pp.
(70) Water Resources Investigations in New Jersey, 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(71) Water Resources Data for New Mexico, 1975. USGS/WRD/NM-75/1
(PB 263 548), U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1976. 616 pp.
(continued)
70
-------
(continued)
(72) Water Resources Investigations in New York, 1973. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(73) Water Resources Data for North Carolina, 1975. USGS/WRD/
HD-76/011 (PB 251 869) , U.S. Geological Survey, Water
Resources Division, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1976. 441 pp.
(74) Water Resources Data for North Dakota, Water Year 1975.
USGS/WRD/HD-76/046 (PB 259 277), U.S. Geological Survey,
Water Resources Division, Bismarck, North Dakota, 1976.
442 pp.
(75) Water Resources Investigations in Ohio, 1972. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
(76) Water Resources Investigations in Oklahoma, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(77) Water Resources Investigations in Oregon, 1977. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(78) Water Resources Investigations in Pennsylvania, 1974. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(79) Water Resources Investigations in South Carolina, 1972.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey,
Washington, D.C.
(80) Water Resources Investigations in South Dakota, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(81) Water Resources Investigations in Tennessee, 1974. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(82) Water Resources Investigations in Texas, 1972. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
(83) Water Resources Investigations in Utah, 1974. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
(84) Water Resources Investigations in Virginia, 1973. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(85) Water Resources Data for Washington, 1975. USGS/WRD/HD-76/
033 (PB 259 197), U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Tacoma, Washington, 1976. 700 pp.
(86) Water Resources Investigations in West Virginia, 1973. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
71
-------
COMPUTATION
METHODOLOGY
LOGIC
DATA
INPUT
(APPENDIX B)
/"SECTION 3
( AND
VAPPENDIX A
Figure C-l. Steps involved in computing impact
factor for a source type.
(87) Water Resources Investigations in Wisconsin, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
(88) Water Resources Investigations in Wyoming, 1976. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
72
-------
(TOD) E max
1.3 COD
2.9 BOD, Ib/ton
3.8 TOC
(C-l)
From Table C-l, we have:
COD = 9.68 Ib/ton
BOD =19.9 Ib/ton
TOC = 1.78 Ib/ton
Using Equation C-l we have
0 (TOD) = max
1.3(9.68) = 12.6 Ib/ton
2.9(19.9) = 57.7 Ib/ton
3.8(1.78) = 6.76 Ib/ton
(C-2)
Therefore, the TOD outfall effluent factor for this computation
is 57.7 Ib O2/ton ethylene dichloride. The outfall effluent fac-
tors for COD, BOD, and TOC are only used to compute TOD; they are
not used in any subsequent computations.
Solid waste composition is shown in Table C-l under the column
heading "fraction solid waste on a dry basis." Table C-l also
shows the total industry solid waste generation rate. . The solid
waste effluent factors are calculated as follows:
where SW.
SW.
Fij
(C-3)
Fij
TC
. .
tot
wf .
a
8
R.
= solid waste effluent factor for the ith species
at the jth plant, Ib/ton
= total industry capacity, tons/yr
= total annual solid waste generation rate, tons/yr
= fraction of water in solid waste at the jth plant
= fraction of the ith constituent on a dry basis in
the solid waste at the jth plant
= dimensionless constant = 1.723 x 10"1*
= constant = 1.49 yr/m
= rainfall rate at the jth plant, m/yr
= conversion factor = 2,000 Ib/ton
The factor (SWtot/TC) is the average solid waste generation fac-
tor for the industry. Unlike the outfall effluent factors in
Table C-l, the solid waste effluent factors vary from plant to
plant because Rj is different in each state. To illustrate the
use of Equation C-3, SWp-^j is calculated for Plant 1 in Table
C-2. Relevant input data are:
73
-------
TC = 3.1305 x 106 tons/yr
SWtot = 2 x 1Q5 tons/yr
wf. = 0
cf.. = 0.228
R. = 1.442 m (state of Louisiana)
Species discharged = ethylene dichloride
Substituting these values into Equation C-3 gives
SW . . = [ i ) (2 x 105) (1 - 0) (0.228)
3 \3.13 x 1Q6/
(1.723 x W~k) (2,000)e1-'+9 f1-1*42) (C-4)
= 4.24 x 10" "• Ib/ton
The total effluent factor for each species is the sum of the out-
fall effluent factor and the solid waste effluent factor; i.e.,
E_. . = CL,. + SW..,. . (C-5)
Fij Fi Fij
where E .. = total effluent factor for the ith species at the
J jth plant, Ib/ton
0 . = outfall effluent factor for the ith species, Ib/ton
Thus, for the total ethylene dichloride discharge at Plant 1,
EFi . = 5.8 + 0.000424 (C-6)
=5.8 Ib/ton
Compute Total Annual Effluent Mass Loading for Each Species
The total annual effluent mass loading for each species from each
plant is computed by multiplying the total effluent factor by the
plant capacity, or:
= EFijVPC,)(k2) (C-7)
74
-------
where X.. = annual effluent mass loading for the ith species at
the jth plant, g/yr
PC. = plant capacity for the jth plant, tons/yr
k£ = conversion factor = 454 g/lb
The total annual effluent mass loadings for TOD and ethylene
dichloride from Plant 1 are as follows:
X(TOD) = (57.7) (173,750) (454) (C-8)
= 4.55 x 109 g/yr
X(ethylene dichloride) = (5.8)(173,750)(454) (C-9)
= 4.57 x 108 g/yr
Table C-4 shows the total annual effluent mass loadings for all
species from all ethylene dichloride-ethylene chlorination plants
as computed by the above methodology.
Compute Source Severity for Each Species at Each Plant
The source severity for each species from each plant is computed
according to the methodology given in Section 3 of this report:
X.
s. . = J;3 , (c-io)
ID vr.. F± k5
where S. . = water severity for ith pollutant at jth plant
vr. = river flow rate at jth plant
F. = hazard factor for ith species
k5 = conversion factor, 3.154 x 107 s/yr
For TOD, the relationship is:
X . = vr.(cs. - D0)k3 (C-ll)
where X . = total annual effluent mass loading for dissolved
°-1 oxygen at the jth plant, g/yr
cs. = saturated dissolved oxygen concentration at the
-1 jth plant = 11.3 g/m3 = 11.3 mg/liter (assumed
for river water at 10°C)
DO = dissolved oxygen freshwater quality criterion
= 5 g/m3 = 5 mg/liter
Tables C-3 and E-l provide the annual average river flow rate
for plant j and hazard factor for species i, respectively.
75
-------
TABLE C-4.
ANNUAL EFFLUENT MASS LOADINGS FOR MATERIALS DISCHARGED
FROM ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE-ETHYLENE CHLORINATION PLANTS
(106 g/yr)
OS
Plant number3
Material discharged
TOD
Phenol
Ammonia nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Cyanide
Sulfate
Oil and grease
Total phosphate
Zinc
Copper
Iron
Chromium
Cadmium
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Ethylene dichloride
Hydrogen chloride
Vinyl chloride
Methyl chloride
Ethyl chloride
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium chloride
Chlorine
Mercuric oxide
1,1, 2-Trichloroe thane
Tetrachloroethane
1
4,550
0.00473
0.373
0.902
0.0268
15.1
4.39
0.0173
0.00788
0.0315
0.757
0.0857
0.0126
922
15,400
457
599
94.6
7.88
7.88
94.6
31.5
10,100
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
2
7,560
0.00786
0.620
1.50
0.0445
25.1
7.3
0.0288
0.0131
0.0524
1.26
0.144
0.0210
1,530
25,500
760
995
157
13.1
13.1
157
52.4
16,800
< 0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
3
2,880
0.00299
0.236
0.571
0.017
9.58
2.78
0.0110
0.00499
0.0200
0.479
0.0549
0.00798
584
9,730
289
379
59.9
4.99
4.99
59.9
20.0
6,390
< 0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
4
10,500
0.0109
0.858
2.08
0.0617
34.8
10.1
0.0399
0.0181
0.0726
1.74
0.20
0.029
2,120
35,400
1,050
1,380
218
18.1
18.1
218
72.6
23,200
< 0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
5
8,670
0.00902
0.711
1.72
0.0511
28.8
8.37
0.0331
0.0150
0.0601
1.44
0.165
0.024
1,760
29,300
871
1,140
180
15.0
15.0
180
60.1
19,200
< 0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
6
7,200
0.00748
0.590
1.43
0.0424
23.9
6.95
0.0274
0.0125
0.0499
1.20
0.137
0.020
1,460
24,300
723
948
150
12.5
12.5
150
49.9
16,000
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
7
4,580
0.00476
0.375
0.909
0.0270
15.2
4.42
0.0175
0.00794
0.0318
0.762
0.0873
0.0127
929
15,500
460
603
95.3
7.94
7.94
95.3
31.8
10,200
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
8
3,400
0.00354
0.279
0.675
0.0200
11.3
3.28
0.0130
0.0059
0.0236
0.566
0.0649
0.00943
690
11,500
342
448
70.8
5.90
5.90
70.8
23.6
7,550
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
(continued)
Plant numbers correspond to those shown in Table C-2.
''values shown in table were determined using the methodologies contained in this report and do not represent actual plant data.
Values calculated for specific plants may or may not coincide with actual values at each plant.
-------
TABLE C-4 (continued)
Plant number3
Material discharged
TOD
Phenol
Ammonia nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Cyanide
Sulfate
Oil and grease
Total phosphate
Zinc
Copper
Iron
Chromium
Cadmium
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Ethylene dichloride
Hydrogen chloride
Vinyl chloride
Methyl chloride
Ethyl chloride
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium chloride
Chlorine
Mercuric oxide
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroe thane
9
6,540
0.00680
0.536
1.30
0.0386
21.8
6.32
0.0249
0.0113
0.0454
1.09
0.125
0.0181
1,330
22,100
658
862
136
11.3
11.3
136
45.4
14,500
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
10
7,850
0.00816
0.644
1.56
0.0463
26.1
7.58
0.0299
0.0136
0.0544
1.31
0.150
0.0218
1,590
26,500
789
1,030
163
13.6
13.6
163
54.4
17,400
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
11
7,850
0.00816
0.644
1.56
0.0463
26.1
7.58
0.0299
0.0136
0.0544
1.31
0.150
0.0218
1,590
26,500
789
1,030
163
13.6
13.6
163
54.4
17,400
<0.0001
<0.0001
< 0.0001
12
5,740
0.00597
0.470
1.14
0.0338
19.1
5.54
0.0219
0.00995
0.0398
0.955
0.109
0.0459
1,160
19,400
577
756
119
9.95
9.95
119
39.8
12,700
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
13
2,230
0.00231
0.182
0.441
0.0131
7.4
2.15
0.00824
0.00386
0.0154
0.370
0.0424
0.617
451
7,520
224
293
46.3
3.86
3.86
46.3
15.4
4,940
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
14
458
0.00476
0.0375
0.0909
0.00270
1.52
0.442
0.00175
0.0794
0.0318
0.0762
0.00873
0.00127
92.9
1,550
46
60.3
9.53
0.794
0.794
9.53
3.18
1,020
<0.0001
< 0.0001
<0.0001
15
982
0.00102
0.0805
0.195
0.00578
3.26
0.947
0.00374
0.0017
0.0068
0.163
0.0187
0.00272
199
3,320
98.7
129
20.4
1.70
1.70
20.4
6.8
2,180
<0.0001
<0.0001
< 0.0001
16
982
0.00102
0.0805
0.195
0.00578
3.26
0.947
0.00374
0.0017
0.0068
0.163
0.0187
0.00272
199
3,320
98.7
129
20.4
1.70
1.70
20.4
6.8
2,180
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
Plant numbers correspond to those shown in Table C-2.
Values shown in table were determined using the methodologies contained in this report and do not represent actual plant data.
Values calculated for specific plants may or-may not coincide with actual values at each plant.
-------
For TOD and ethylene dichloride discharges at Plant 1 the fol-
lowing input data from step 2, Table C-3, and Table E-l are
needed to calculate severities:
Parameter TOD Ethylene dichloride
X±., g/yr 4.55 x 109 4.57 x 108
vr., m3/s 5,022.02 5,022.02
F±, g/m3 NA3 1.53
cs., g/m3 11.3 NA
DO, g/m3 5.0 (89) NA
Not applicable.
The resulting source severities for TOD and ethylene dichloride
at Plant 1 are as follows:
So=
(5,022.02) (11.3 - 5) (3. 15 x 107)
= 0.00456
4 R7 v in8
S (ethylene dichloride) = - D/ x •*•" - (C-13)
(5,022.02) (1.53) (3.154 x 107)
= 0.00189
The above procedure is iteratively performed for all species from
all plants. The results of these computations are shown in
Table C-5.
Compute Impact Factor
The impact factor is computed using the following equation:
Z
Iw = 106 • S. (C-14)
where Iw = overall water impact factor for entire industry
106 = constant3
The constant term, 106 is a scaling factor used to avoid dealing
with numbers much less than 1.0.
(89) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
13th Edition. American Public Health Association, American
Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Feder-
ation, Washington, D.C., 1971. 874 pp.
78
-------
TABLE C-5. POLLUTANT SOURCE SEVERITIES FOR EACH PLANT
a.b
Plant number
Material discharged
TOD
Phenol
Ammonia nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Cyanide
Sulfate
Oil and grease
Total phosphate
Zinc
Copper
Iron
Chromium
Cadmium
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Ethylene dichloride
Hydrogen chloride
Vinyl chloride
Methyl chloride
Ethyl chloride
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium chloride
Chlorine
Mercuric oxide
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
0
0
0
0
0
<0
0
0
<0
<0
0
0
<0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0
<0
<0
6
<0
<0
<0
1
.00456
.00003
.00012
.0003
.00003
.00001
.00004
.00011
.00001
.00001
.00002
.00001
.00001
.00023
.00039
.00189
.00696
.00002
.00073
.00001
.00001
.00001
.37
.00001
.00001
.00001
2
0.00757
0.00005
0.00020
0.0005
0.00006
<0. 00001
0.00006
0.00018
<0. 00001
<0. 00001
0.00003
0.00002
0.00001
0.00039
0.00065
0.00314
0.0116
0.00003
0.00122
<0. 00001
<0. 00001
<0. 00001
10.6
<0. 00001
<0. 00001
0.00001
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.
<0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.
0.
0.
210
0.
0.
0.
3
15
00099
0039
0094
0011
00001
0013
0036
00001
00001
00053
00036
00026
00769
0128
0623
230
00050
0242
00001
00008
00003
00002
00004
00012
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4
547
0036
0141
0342
0041
00004
0048
0131
00001
00002
0019
00131
00096
0279
0466
226
836
00181
0878
00003
00029
0.00010
764
0.
0.
0.
00007
00015
00044
5
0.00868
0.00006
0.0002
0.0005
0.00006
<0. 00001
0.00008
0.0002
<0. 00001
< 0.00001
0.00003
0.00002
0.00002
0.00044
0.00074
0.0036
0.0133
0.00003
0.00139
<0. 00001
<0. 00001
<0. 00001
12.1
-------
TABLE C-5 (continued)
oo
o
a
Plant number
Material discharged
TOD
Phenol
Ammonia Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Cyanide
Sulfate
Oil. and grease
Total phosphate
Zinc
Copper
Iron
Chromium
Cadmium
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Ethylene dichloride
Hydrogen chloride
Vinyl chloride
Methyl chloride
Ethyl chloride
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium chloride
Chlorine
Mercuric oxide
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroe thane
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.
0.
0.
<0.
-------
Z = number of plants
S. = total water severity at the jth plant
Sj is the root mean sum of source severities for each species
discharged from a plant. It is computed as follows:
S . =
D
N
(SO
(C-15)
So. and S.. are computed as described in step 2.
The Sj values for each plant producing ethylene dichloride via
the direct chlorination of ethylene are tabulated in Table C-6
TABLE C-6. S. FOR ALL PLANTS
The impact factor is
Plant No. S .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
y s -
^ j
6.37
10.6
210
764
12.1
525
6.41
245
38.8
11
573
8.03
596
33.4
1.37
71.7
3,112.78
Iw
= 106 • £s. (C-16)
J
= 106 • 3,122.78
= 3,112,780,000
= 3,000,000,000 (rounded to one
significant figure)
81
-------
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLES OF INPUT DATA SHEETS
Examples of input data sheets are presented in Figures D-l and
D-2.
82
-------
WATER PRIORITIZATION DATA SHEET
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
LOG NUMBER
RAW WASTEWATER LOADING
00
U)
DPT*
Pollutant
discharged
Hazard
factor,
mg/liter
Effluent
rate,
ton/yr
Effluent
factor ,
Ib/ton
Concen-
tration,
mg/liter
Ecological
magnifica-
tion
Biodegrad-
ability
index
Remarks
Figure D-l. Water prioritization data sheet,
-------
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
LOG NUMBER
WASTE GENERATION RATE
AREA OF WASTE PILE
(Units/Year)
FRACTION OF WATER IN WASTE
03
Material
Fraction of
waste material
on dry basis
Hazard
factor
(mg/liter)
Remarks
Figure D-2. Solid waste to water prioritization sheet.
-------
APPENDIX E
HAZARD FACTORS DEVELOPED FOR USE IN WATER PRIORITIZATION
The model used in prioritizing stationary water pollution sources
was described in Section 3. This appendix describes the develop-
ment of hazard factors for use in the prioritization model and
presents hazard factors for various organic and inorganic chemi-
cal substances. A hazard factor, F, may be a water criterion
or a calculated value.
Values were calculated by inserting toxicity values into a selec-
ted equation for F. Since specific toxicity indicators were not
always available, several equations were required. The equations
used are listed below in descending order of preference.
Fl = 0.05 x LC50 (96-hr) (Ref. 1) (E-l)
F2 = 0.05 x LC50 (48-hr or 24-hr) (E-2)
F3 = 0.05 x (LCLQ, TCLo, IC50) (E-3)
Fk = 2.25 x 10" 3 x LD50 (oral/rat) (Ref. 2) (E-4)
F5 = 2.25 x 10"3 x LD50 (other than oral/rat) (E-5)
F6 = 2.25 x 10"3 x (LDLo, TDLo) (E-6)
F7 = 7.76 x 10~2 x TLV (Ref. 2, 3) , (E-7)
where Fi...F7 = hazard factors
LC50 = lethal concentration of a substance that will
kill 50% of a group of experimental insects
or animals
LCT = lowest published lethal concentration
J_iO
TCT = lowest published toxic concentration
1C50 = concentration of a substance that will immobil-
ize 50% of a group of experimental insects or
animals
LDso = lethal dose of a substance that will kill 50%
of a group of experimental insects or animals
LD_ = lowest published lethal dose
LO
TD = lowest published toxic dose
TLV = threshold limit value
85
-------
The equations were ranked according to evidence from scientific
studies and the relative availability of specific toxicity
indicators.
Equation E-l stems from studies of the effluent concentration
below which no stress is exerted on aquatic organisms. Consider-
able evidence now indicates that this concentration is about
0.05 to 0.10 of the 96-hr LC50 value (1).
The ideal data base, consisting of information on a large percen-
tage of aquatic species, would show the community response to a
range of concentrations during a long time period. Because this
information is not available, test organisms are used to repre-
sent expected results for other associated organisms. Certain
test animals have been investigated intensively because of their
importance to man, their availability for research, and their
physiological responses to the laboratory environment. In this
context, Daphnia or other associated organisms indicate the gen-
eral levels of toxicity to be expected among untested species.
If data for Daphnia are not available, values for fathead minnows,
bluegill, and other types of fish, such as trout, are used.
In the absence of 96-hr LC50 data, a 48-hr LC50 value may be
utilized. This is proposed to be a valid substitution (Equation
E-2) since there is often little difference between a 96-hr and
48-hr value. When LCsg data are lacking, the method depends on
the relative availability of specific toxicity indicators. For
this reason other toxicity data (e.g., TCL , LC- , ICso) were
used on occasion. °
The most common indicator of toxicity is the LDso (oral/rat)
value. The authors of Equation E-4 postulate that the result
represents the maximum concentration which has no effect on
human health at a consumption rate of 0.002 m3/day (2 liters/day).
Equations E-5 and E-6 were also used in the absence of LD50
(oral/rat) data.
In several cases, the only toxicity indicator is a threshold
limit value. As proposed, Equation E-7 assumes that the total
amount of contaminant in 10 m3 (average adult respiratory tidal
volume in 24 hr) of air may be contained in 0.002 m3 of drinking
water.
Other equations, which were not used, are:
F8 = 4.0 x lQ~k x LD50 (oral/rat) (Ref. 90) (E-8)
(90) Cleland, J. G., and G. L. Kingsbury, Multimedia Environ-
mental Goals for Environmental Assessment. Contract 68-02-
1325, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. (Draft submitted to the EPA by
Battelle, January 1977). pp. 1-34.
86
-------
Fg = 1.38 x 10~z x TLV (Ref. 90)
(E-9)
They do not radically deviate from Equations E-4 or E-7 because
the LD50 and TLV data are significant to only one figure, and
Equations E-4 and E-7 were derived from a regression analysis.
The development of Equations E-8 and E-9 is not explained (90),
so they were not included as calculation methods.
Most toxicity information is not intended for use in industrial
effluent assessment. For instance, practically no information
exists for the toxic properties of complex effluents. This
methodology attempts to establish a workable, consistent way to
formulate potential hazard factors using available data.
Table E-l is an alphabetic listing by substance name of the fol-
lowing data for each pollutant tested:
• Available toxicological data, test species (when
applicable) and references.
• Hazard factors (derived from toxicological data by
using Equations E-l to E-7) and references.
• Hazard factors used in prioritization (F).
• Any necessary comments or clarifications.
Toxicological data are given in milligrams per kilogram unless
otherwise stated. LC and LD in the tables refer to LCso an(^ LD50
for the hours indicated in parentheses; LC(96), for example.
Test species and routes are abbreviated as shown in the list
below.
AQTX — aquatic toxicity ivg
BG — bluegill ivn
BT — brook trout MF
D — Daphnia mus
FM — fathead minnow N
G — Gammarus lacutris
(amphipod)
gpg — guinea pig orl
HF — harlequin fish rbt
hmn — human RT
ihl — inhalation scu
imp — implant skn
ipr — intraperitoneal wmh
— intravaginal
— intravenous
— mosquito fish
— mouse
— naids (aquatic
young of dragon-
fly, stonefly)
— oral
— rabbit
— rainbow trout
— subcutaneous
— skin
— woman
87
-------
TABLE E-l.
oo
oo
HAZARD FACTORS DEVELOPED FOR USE IN PRIORITIZATION
OF STATIONARY WATER POLLUTION SOURCES
Pollutant
Abate
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde
Acetic acid
Acetic anhydride
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acetophenone
Acety 1 aceton e
J.cetyl chloride
Acidity
Toxicological data
mg/kg
LC(96) : 0.01 N
LC(48) ; 1.5 BT
LD(orl/rat): 2,000
TDLo ( skn/inus ) : 600,000
LC(96): 53.0 BG
LD(orl/rat): 1,930
LC(96) : 75.0 BG
LC(48) : 251 MF
LD(orl/rat): 3,310
LD(orl/rat): 1,780
LC(96): 8,300
LD(ipr/mus): 1,297
LC(96): 1,850
LD(orl/rat): 200
LD(orl/rat): 900
ID (or I/rat): 1,000
LC(96): 10 AQTX
None
Ref.
91
91
19
92
91
92
91
93
92
92
91
92
91
92
94
92
94
Hazard
q/m*
0.0005
0.075
4.5
1,350
2.7
4.34
3.8
13
7.45
4.01
415
2.92
92.5
0.450
2.03
2.25
0.50
20.0 (CaCO3)
factor
Eqn. Ref.
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-6
E-l
E-4
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-5
E-l
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-l
95
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
0.0005
1,350
2.7
3.8
4.01
415
92.5
2.03
2.25
0.50
20.0 (CaC03)
(continued)
(91) Water Quality Criteria Data Book - Volume 3. EPA-18050 GWV, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
May 1971. 526 pp.
(92) The Toxic Substances List—1974. Publication No. HSM 99-73-45, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Rockville, Maryland, June 1974. 904 pp.
(93) Supplement to Development Document: Hazardous Substances Regulations, Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act as Amended 1972. EPA-440/9-75-009, (PB 258 514), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
November 1975. 783 pp.
(94) Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, 1975 Edition. Publication No. CDC 99-74-92, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, Rockville, Maryland, June 1975. 1296 pp.
(95) Quality Criteria for Water. EPA-440/9-76-023, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., July 1976. 501 pp.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
oo
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acryl amide
Acrylic acid
Acrylonitrile
Adipic acid
Adiponitrile
Alachor
Aldicarb
Aldrin
Alkalinity
Alkylnaphthalenes (methyl)
3 1 , 6-Dimethy Inapthalene
Toxicological data
mg/kg
LC(48) : 0.08 S
LD(orl/rat): 46
Partial kill: 0.75 FM
LD(orl/rat): 170
LD(orl/rat): 340
LC(96) : 14.3 FM
LC(96) : 11.8 BG
LC(48): 16.7 FM
LD(orl/rat): 93
LD(orl/mus) : 1,900
LC(96) : 820 FM
LC(96) : 720 BG
LC(48): 835 FM
LD(orl/rat): 105
LDLo(ipr/mus) : 40
LD(orl/rat): 1,800
LD (or I/rat): 0.9
LC(96) : 0.033 FM
LC(48) : 0.028 D
LD (or I/rat): 55
None.
None.
LDLo(orl/rat) : 'v-SjOOO3
LDLo (orl/rat) mg/kg
Ref.
91
92
91
92
92
93
93
93
92
94
93
93
93
92
92
19
19
91
91
19
94
Hazard
g/m3
0.004
0.104
0.038
0.383
0.765
0.72
0.59
0.84
0.209
4.28
41
36
42
0.236
0.09
4.05
0.002
0.0017
0.0014
0.012
0.000003
20.0 (CaC03)
11.3
factors
Eqn. Ref.
E-2
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-5
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-6
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-2
E-4
95
95
E-5
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
0.004
0.383
0.765
0.72
4.28
41
4.05
0.002
0.000003
20.0 (CaC03)
11.3
(continued)
1-MethyInapthalene
2-MethyInapthalene
MethyInapthalene
5,000
5,000
5,000
4,360 - LD50
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Allyl alcohol
Allyl chloride
Alpha-pinene (CjgHig)
Aluminum chloride
Aminocarb
Amitrole
Ammonia
Ammonia-nitrogen (NH3~N)
Ammonium acetate
Toxicological data
mgAg
LC(72): 0.75 FM
LD(orl/mus) : 96
LC(96): 24 FM
LC(96): 42 BG
TLV: 3.0 mg/m3
LD(orl/rat): 2,570
LD(orl/rat): 3,700
LD (or I/rat): 30
LC(24): 0.039 G, ppm
LD(orl/rat): 1,100
IC50: 23 D, ppm
LC(96): 8.2 FM
LC(48): 0.41 RT
TLV: 18 mg/m3
None
None
LC(96) : 238 MF
LC(48): 238 MF
LD (orl/rat) : ^100
LD(ivn/mus): 98
Ref.
93
94
93
93
3
96
92
92
91
92
91
91
93
3
93
93
94
94
Hazard
g/m3
0.04
0.22
1.2
2.1
0.23
5.78
8.33
0.068
0.0020
2.48
1.2
0.410
0.02
1.4
0.02
0.020b
12
12
0.225
0.201
factor
Eqn. Ref.
E-l
E-6
E-l
E-l
E-7
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-3
E-4
E-3
E-l
E-2
E-7
95
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-5
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
0.04
1.2
5.78
8.33
0.068
2.48
0.02
0.020
12
(continued)
°MRC personnel.
(96) The Merck Index, Ninth Edition, M. Windholz, ed. Merck & Company, Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, 1976. 1313 pp.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Ammonium benzoatec
Ammonium citrateC
Ammonium formate c
Ammonium gluteunate"
Ammonium oxalatec
Ammonium tartratec
Ammonium thiocyanate
Amyl acetate
Aniline
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Toxicological data
mgAg
LC(48) : 17.5 FM
LD (orl/rat) : ^-100
LC(48): 17.5 FM
LD (orl/rat): ^100
LC(48) : 17.5 FM
LD (or I/rat): M.OO
LD(orl/mus): 2,250
LC(48): 17.5
LD (orl/rat): ^100
LD(ipr/rat): 1,000
LC(48) : 17.5 FM
LD (orl/rat) : -v-100
LC(48): 17.5
LD (orl/rat) : -vlOO
LC(96): 114 MF
LD (orl/rat) : VLOO
LDLo ( ipr/mus ) : 500
LC(96) : 65 MF
LC(48): 120 D
LD(orl/rbt): 7,400
LC(96): 1,000 BG
LC(48) : 0.4 D
LD (or I/rat): 440
LDi o (animals) : 500
LD (or I/rat): 100
TLV: 0.5 mg/m3
None.
Ref.
93
94
93
94
93
94
94
93
94
94
93
94
93
94
93
94
94
93
93
94
93
93
92
96
92
3
Hazard
g/ms
0.88
0.225
0.88
0.225
0.88
0.225
5.06
0.88
0.225
2.25
0.88
0.225
0.88
0.225
5.7
0.225
1.13
3.3
6.0
16.7
50
0.02
0.990
1.13
0.225
0.039
0.050
factor
Eqn. Ref.
E-2
E-4
E-2
E-4
E-2
E-4
E-5
E-2
E-4
E-5
E-2
E-4
E-2
E-4
E-l
E-4
E-6
E-l
E-2
E-5
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-6
E-4
E-7
95
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
5.7
3.3
50
1.13
0.225
0.050
(continued)
cToxicity depends on ammonium.
"Used value for the monoammonium salt.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Asbestos
Ascorbic acid
Aspirin
Aspon
Atrazine
Azodrin
Barium
Benefin (Balan)
Benomyl (Benlate)
U3 Bensulide
tv)
Benz (a) anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo (ghi ) pery lene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzoic acid
•BenzonitrileG
Toxicological data
mg/kg
TDLo(ipr/rat): 280
LD(ivn/mus): 518
LD (orl/rat): 558
LD(orl/rat): 450
LD (or I/rat): 1,750
LD (orl/rat) : 21
TLV: 0.5 mg/m3
None.
LD (orl/rat) : 790
LD (or I/rat): 10,000
LD (orl/rat): 770
TDLo (or 1/raus ) : 4,000
LC(96) .- 31.0 FM
LC(48) : 395 MF
LD (or I/rat): 3,400
LD (or I/rat): 309
TDLo: 24
TDLo (or I/rat ): 13
LC(96) : 180 MF
LC(48): 225 MF
LD(orl/mus): 2,370
LC(96) : 78 FM
LC(48) : 78 FM
LD(skn/rbt): 1,200
Ref.
92
94
94
92
92
92
3
92
19
92
92
91
93
92
92
92
92
93
93
92
93
93
94
Hazard
g/m3
0.630
1.17
1.26
1.01
3.94
0.047
0.039
1.0
1.78
22.5
1.73
9.00
1.6
20
7.65
0.695
0.054
0.029
9.0
11
5.33
3.9
3.9
2.7
factors
Eqn. Ref.
E-6
E-6
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-7
95
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-6
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-4
E-6
E-6
E-l
E-2
E-5
E-l
E-2
ID- 5
F (hazard factor) ,
q/m3
0.630
1.17
1.26
1.01
3.94
0.047
1.0
1.78
22.5
1.73
9.00
1.6
0.695
0.054
0.029
9.0
3.9
Benzoyl chloride
eHard water conditions.
LC(96) : 100 AQTX
94
5.0
E-l
5.0
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
vo
U)
Pollutant *
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Biacetyl
Bicarbonate
Biphenyl
Bis(2-chloromethyl ethyl) ether
Bismuth salts
Bisphenol A
Boron
Bromacil
Bromide, sodium
Bromine
Brucine alkaloid
Butachlor (machete)
Butadiene
Butane
n-Butanol
3-Butene nitrile
2-Butoxyethanol
Butyl acetate
Butyl acrylate
lexicological data
mg/kg
LD(orl/rat) : 1,231
TLV: 0.002 mg/m3
None.
LD (or I/rat): 1,580
None.
LD(orl/rat): 2,180
LD(orl/rat): 240
LD (or I/rat): 3,000
LD(orl/rat): 450
LD(orl/mus): 2,000
None.
LD (or I/rat): 3,400
LD (or I/rat): 3,500
TLV: 0.7 mg/m3
LD(orl/rat): 1
LD(orl/rat): 3,120
TLV: 2,200 mg/m3
TLV: 1,450 mg/m3
LD (or I/rat) : 2 , 510
LD(orl/rat): 115
LD (or I/rat): 1,480
LC(48) : 44 D
TLV: 710 mg/m3
LD(orl/rat): 3,730
Ref.
92
3
92
92
92
97
92
92
92
96
3
94
19
3
3
92
92
94
93
3 '
94
Hazard
g/m3
2.77
0.00016
0.011
3.56
250
4.905
0.540
6.75
1.01
4.5
0.750
7.65
7.88
0.054
0.002
7.02
171
112.520
5.648
0.259
3.33
2.2
55.096
8.39
factor
Eqn . Ref .
E-4
E-7
95
E-4
95
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-5
95
E-4
E-4
E-7
E-4
E-4
E-7
E-7
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-2
E-7
E-4
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
2.77
0.011
3.56
250
4.905
0.540
6.75
1.01
0.750
7.65
7.88
0.054
0.002
7.02
171
112.520
5.648
0.259
3.33
2.2
8.39
(continued)
(97) Gosselin, R. E., et al. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, Fourth Edition. Williams and Wilkins,
Baltimore, Maryland, 1976. 1794 pp.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Butylamine
Butylate
Butyraldehyde
Butyric acid
Cacodylic acid
Cadmium
Calcium hydroxide
Calcium oxide
Caprolactam
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Carbon black
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbophenothion
Toxicological data
mg/kg
LD (or I/rat) : 500
LD (or I/rat): 4,659
LD (or I/rat): 2,490
LC(48) : 61.0 D
LD (or I/rat): 2,940
LD(orl/rat): 1,350
TLV: 0.2 mg/m3
None.
LC(96) : 160 MF
LC(48): 220 MF
TLV: 2.0 mg/m3
LD(96) : 160 MF
LC(48): 220 MF
TLV: 5.0 mg/m3
LD(orl/rat): 2,140
LD (or I/rat) : 480
LC(96): 14.6 FM
LC(48) : 0.006 D
LD (or I/rat): 500
LD(orl/rat): 11
TLV: 3.5 mg/m3
LC(48): 135
TLV: 60 mg/m3
LD(ipr/mus): 4,620
LCLo ( ihl/mus ) : 2,900 ppm
LC(48): 0.225
Ref.
94
19
92
91
92
92
3
93
93
3
93
93
3
92
92
91
91
92
92
3
93
3
92
92
91
Hazard
g/m3
1.13
10.5
5.603
3.1
6.615
3.04
0.016
0.010
8.0
11.0
0.155
8.0
11.0
0.388
4.815
1.08
0.73
0.0003
1.13
0.025
0.272
6.75
4.7
10.395
145.0
0.01
factor
Eqn . Ref .
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-2
E-4
E-4
E-7
95
E-l
E-2
E-7
E-l
E-2
E-7
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-4
E-7
E-2
E-7
E-5
E-3
E-2
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
1.13
10.5
5.603
3.1
3.04
0.010
8.0
8.0
4.815
1.08
0.73
0.025
0.272
6.75
10.395
145.0
0.01
(continued!
Refer to calcium hydroxide.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Catechol
CDAA
CDEC
Chloral hydrate
Chloramben
Chlordane
Chlorides
vo
Ui Chlorine
Chloroacetic acid
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chloroethers
Chloroform
2-Chloronaphthalene
Chloroneb
Toxicological data
mg/kg
LD(orl/rat): 3,890
LD (or I/rat) : 700
LD(orl/rat): 850
LD(orl/rat): 285
LD (or I/rat): 3,500
LC(96) : 0.052 FM
LC(96): 0.022 BG
LC(48) : 0.010 RT
LD(orl/rat): 570
LC(24) : 0:168 G
None.
None.
LC(96) : 0.1 FM
TLV: 3.0 mg/m3
None.
LD(orl/rat): 76
LC(96) : 29.0 FM
LD (or I/rat): 2,910
LC(48) : 0.710 RT
LD (or I/rat): ^200^
LD (or I/rat): 300
Partial kill: 100 FM, ppm
LD(orl/rat): 2,078
LD (or I/rat): 11,000
Ref.
94
92
92
92
92
91
91
93
92
91
93
3
92
91
92
91
92
92
91
92
19
Hazard
g/m3
8.75
1.58
1.91
0.641
7.88
0.0026
0.0011
0.0005
1.28
0.0084
0.00001
250.0
0.005
0.233
0.010
0.171
1.45
6.55
0.036
0.450
0.675
5.0
4.68
24.8
factor
Eqn. Ref.
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-2
95
95
E-l
E-7
95
E-4
E-l
E-4
E-2
E-4
E-4
E-3
E-4
E-4
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
8.75
1.58
1.91
0.641
7.88
0.00001
250.0
0.010
0.171
1.45
0.036
0.450
0.675
4.68
24.8
(continued)
9fiis(chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloro-l-methylethyl)ether
(orl/rat)
210 mg/kg
240 mg/kg
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
2-chlorophenol
Chloropicrin
Chloroprene
Chlorosulfonic acid
Chloropropham
Choline chloride
Chromium
cie-9-Octadecanol
ei8-2-Pentene1 (CsHjo)
Citric acid
Cobalt
Copper
Copper sulfate
Coumaphos
m-Cresol
Cresylic acid
Crotonaldehyde
^Skin.
^sed the value for 1-pentene.
Toxicological data
mg/kg
LD(orl/rat): 670
TLV: 0.7 n\g/m3
TLV: 90 mg/m3h
LC(96): 10 AQTX
LD(orl/rat): 1,200
LD (or I/rat): 3,400
None.
LC(96): 1,000
LCsg : 40,000 ppm
LD(ipr/mus): 975
TLV: 0.1 mg/m3
None.
LC(96) : 0.084 FM
LC(96) : 18 FM
LC(48): 1.0 D
LC(96) : 10 BG
LC(48): 24 MF
LD(orl/rat) : 242
LD(orl/rat): 1,454
LD(orl/rat): 300
Ref.
92
3
3
94
92
94
94
96
92
3
98
93
93
93
93
94
94
94
Hazard
g/m3
1.508
0.05
6.984
0.50
2.70
7.65
0.050
50.0
2,000.0
2.194
0.008
1.0
0.0042
0.90
0.05
0.50
1.2
0.545
3.27
0.675
_
factor
Eqn. Ref.
E-4
E-7
E-7
E-l
E-4
E-4
95
E-l
E-3
E-5
E-7
95
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-4
E-4
I' (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
1.508
0.05
6.984
0.50
2.70
7.65
0.050
50.0
2,000.0
2.194
0.008
1.0
0.0042
0.90
0.50
3.27
0.675
(continued)
(98) Water Quality Criteria Data Book—Volume 5. EPA-18050 HLA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
September 1973. 537 pp.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Crufomate
Cumene
Cyanide
Cycloate
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
Cyclohexylamine
Cyclopentene
vo 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
-O
Dalapon
DDT
Decyl alcohol
Deet
DBF
Demeton
n-i a*-i^*-/"i«o ;i1r»nhn1
Toxicological data
mg/kg
LD(orl/rat): 770
LD (or I/rat): 1,400
None.
LD (or I/rat): 3,160
LC(96) : 30 FM
TLV: 1,050 mg/m3
LD (or I/rat): 2,060
LD (or I/rat): 1,620
LD(orl/rat): 710
LD (or I/rat): 2,140
LC(96): 0.015 N
LC(48) : 3.7 BG
LC(48): 1.1 RT
LD (or I/rat) : 1,200
None.
LC(96) : 105 BG
LC(48): 115 BG
LC(96) : 0.016 BG
LC(96) : 0.032 FM
LC(48) : 0.00036 D
LD(orl/rat): 113
None.
LD(orl/rat): 4,720
LD(orl/rat): 200
LC(96): 0.0021 N
LD(orl/rat): 9.0
None.
LD(orl/rat): 4,000
Ref .
92
92
19
93
3
92
94
94
92
91
91
91
92
91
91
91
91
91
92
94
92
91 '
92
94
Hazard
g/m3
1.73
3.150
0.005
7.11
1.500
81.5
4.635
3.65
1.60
4.815
0.00075
0.19
0.055
2.70
0.1000
5.3
5.8
0.0008
0.0016
0.000018
0.254
0.000001
10.6
0.450
0.00011
0.020
0.0001
9.00
factor
Bqn. Ref.
E-4
E-4
95
E-4
E-l
E-7
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-2
E-2
E-4
95
E-l
E-2
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-4
95
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-4
95
E-4
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
1.73
3.150
0.005
7.11
1.500
4.635
3.65
1.60
4.815
0.1000
5.3
0.000001
10.6
0.450
0.00011
0.0001
9.00
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
00
Pollutant
Diallate
Diazinon
Di-n-butyl phthlate
Dicamba
Dichlofenthion
o-Dichlorobenzene or
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
2 , 6-Dichlorobenzonitr ile
l-4-Dichloro-2-butene
Dichlorodifluorome thane
D.rchloroe thane
Dichloroethylene
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloronaphthoquinone
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
1,2-Dichloropropane > mixture
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
2 , 3-Dichloropropanol
2,2-Dichloropropionic acid
Toxicological data
mg/kg
LD (or I/rat): 395
LC(96) : 0.022 BG
LC(48) : 0.030 BG
LD (or I/rat): 134
TDLo(orl/hmn) : 140
LC(48) : 130 BG
LD (or I/rat): 250
LC(24): 2.2 HF
LD (or I/rat) s 500
LD (or I/rat): 500
LD (or I/rat) : 2,710
LD(orl/rat): 89
TLV: 4,950 mg/m3
TDLo (orl/hmn) : 0. 428
LD% (or I/rat) : 680
LDLo(orl/rat) : 400
LD (or I/rat): 770
LD (or I/ rat): 1,300
LD(orl/rat): 580
LD(orl/rat).- 375
LD(orl/rat): 140
LD(orl/rat): 90
LD (or I/rat): 1,120
Ref.
92
91
91
92
94
91
92
91
92
92
94
92
3
92
92
92
92
92
92
94
92
92
92
Hazard
g/m3
0.889
0.0011
0.0015
0.302
0.315
6.5
0.563
0.11
1.125
1.125
6.10
0.200
384.120
0.001
1.530
0.900
1.733
2.925
1.305
0.844
0.315
0.20
2.520
factor
Eqn. Ref.
E-4
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-6
E-2
E-4
E-2
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-7
E-6
E-4
E-6
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
F (hazard factor) ,
q/m3
0.889
0.0011
0.315
6.5
0.563
1.125
1.125
6.10
0.200
384.120
0.001
1.530
0.900
1.733
2.925
1.305
0.844
0.315
0.20
2.520
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate
Dichlorvos
Dicrotophos (Bidrin)
Dieldrin
Diethylamine
Diethylene glycol
Diethyl ether
Di-2-ethylhexyl adipate
Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate
Diisobutylene
Diisopropyl ether
Dimerin
Dimethoate
2,4-D,dimethylamine salt
Toxicological data
mg/kg
1,000 ppm
LD(orl/rat): 56
LC(96) : 0.001 N
LC(48): 0.00007 D
LC(96): 0.43 N
LC(48) : 0.600 D
LD (or I/rat): 22
LC(96): 0.016 FM
LC(96) : 0.0079 BG
LC(48) : 0.0034 BG
LC(48): 0.240 D
LD (or I/rat): 60
None.
LD(orl/rat): 540
LD (orl/hmn) : 1,000
LD (or I/rat): 2,200
LD(ivn/rat): 900
TDLo (orl/man) : 143
LC(96)r 1,000 AQTX
500 ppm
LD(orl/rat): 860
LC(96) : 0.043 N
LC(96) : 6.0 BG
LC(48): 2.5 D
r£(48): 9.6 BG
LD(orl/rat): 185
TDLo (orl/rat) : 300
Ref.
94
92
91
91
91
91
92
91
91
91
91
92
94
94
92
94
94
94
93
93
91
91
91
91
92
94
Hazard
g/m3
50J
0.126
0.00005
0.000004
0.022
0.030
0.050
0.00080
0.00040
0.00017
0.012
0.014
0.000003
1.22
2.25
4.95
2.03
0.322
50
25J
1.94
0.0022
0.30
0.13
0.48
0.416
0.675
factor
Eqn. Ref.
E-4
E-l
E-2
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-2
E-4
95
E-4
E-5
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-l
E-4
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-2
E-4
E-6
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
50
0.126
0.00005
0.022
0.000003
1.22
2.25
4.95
2.03
0.322
50
25
1.94
0.30
0.675
(continued)
JToxicological value x 0.05.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
2 , 3-Dimethylbutane
Dimethyl disulfides
N , N-Dimethyl f ormamide
Dimethylfurane
2 , 5-Dimethylf urane
Dime thy Ihydrazine
2 , 3-Dimethylpentane
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl terephthalate
m-Dinitrobenzene
Dinitrophenol
2 , 3-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 5-Dinitrotoluene
2 ,6-Dinitro toluene
3 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
Dinoseb
Dioxathion
Diphenyl oxide
Toxicological data
mg/kg
TLV: 360 mg/m3*
LD (or I/rat): 2,030?
LD (or I/rat): 1,500
LD (or I/rat): 300
LD (or I/rat): 300
LD(orl/rat): 122
LC(48) : 4,924 MFm
LD(ipr/mus): 150
LD(orl/rbt): 4,400
LD (or I/rat): 3,300
LD(orl/rbt): 4,400
LDLo (orl/rat) : 27
LDLo (or I/rat) : 30
LD (or I/rat) : 1,122
LD (orl/rat): 268
LD (orl/rat) : 707
LD (orl/rat): 177
LD (or I/rat): 177
LD (or I/rat): 25
LC(48) : 0.014 BG
LD (orl/rat) : 110
LDLo (orl/rat ) : 4 , 000
Ref.
3
92
92
92
92
94
91
92
94
92
94
94
94
92
92
92
92
92
92
91
92
92
Hazard
g/m3
27.9
4.57
3.38
0.675
0.675
0.275
246
0.338
9.90
7.43
9.90
0.061
0.068
2.53
0.603
1.59
0.398
0.398
0.056
0.0007
0.248
9.00
factor
Eqn. Ref.
E-7
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-2
E-5
E-5
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-6
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-2
E.-4
E-6
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
27.9
4.57
3.38
0.675
0.675
0.275
246
0.338
9.90
7.43
9.90
0.061
0.068
2.53
0.603
1.59
0.398
0.398
0.056
0.0007
9.00
(continued)
the value for hexane.
the value for diethyl disulfide.
mUsed the value for heptane.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Diquat
Dissolved oxygen
Disulfoton (Di-Systox)
Di-syston
Diuron
Dodecene (nonlinear)
Dodecyl alcohol
Dodecylbenzene-hard
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid/
calcium salt
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid,
isopropylamine salt
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid,
sodium salt
Toxicological data
ing/kg
LC(96>: 130 PM"
LC(96) : 72 BG
LC(48) : 12.3 RT
LD (or I/rat) : 231
None.
LC(96) : 0.005 N
LC(96): 3.7 FM
LC(48): 0.04 BG
LD(orl/rat): 10
LDLo(orl/rat) : 2
LC(96) : 4.0 BG
LC(96) : 0.0012 N
LC(48) : 7.4 BG
LC(96): 1,000 AQTX
LD(ipr/rat): 800
LC (96) : 10 AQTX
LC(96) : 12 D
LD (or I/rat): 1,260
LC(96): 12 D
LC(96): 12 D
LC(96): 12 D
LD (or I/rat): 1,260
Hazard factor
Ref.
91
91
93
92
91
91
93
92
94
91
91
93
94
94
94
93
94
93
93
93
94
g/m3
6.5
3.6
0.62
0.520
5.0 (minimum)0
0.00025
0.19
0.002
0.02
0.005
0.20
0.00006
0.37
50
1.80
0.50
0.60
2.84
0.60
0.60
0.60
2.84
Eqn. Ref.
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-4
95
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-6
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-l
E-5
E-l
E-l
E-4
E-l
E-l
E-l
E-4
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
6.5
5.0 (minimum)
0.19
0.005
0.20
50
1.80
0.50
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid,
triethylamine salt LD(96)s 12 D
nLCso's obtained in hard water.
°The minimum concentration to maintain good fish population.
93
0.60
E-l
0.60
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
o
N)
Pollutant
Dodecyl mercaptan
Dodecylmercapto polyethylene
ether glycol
Dursban (chlorpyrifos)
EDTA
Endosulfan
Endrin
Epichlorohydr in
EPTC
Ethanol
f5-Ethanolamine
Ethion
2 -Ethoxyethanol
2-Ethoxyethyl acetate
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Ethoxylated ootylphenol
Ethyl acetate
Toxicological data
mgAg
LD(orl/rat): 309
LDLo (or I/rat ) : 3 , 360
LC(48) : 0.020 RT
LD (or I/rat): 145
LD (or I/rat): 2,000
LC(96) : 0.0033 FM
LC(48) : 0.240 D
None.
LC(96) : 0.0013 FM
LC(96) : 0.0007 BG
LC(48) : 0.0016 BG
LD (or I/rat): 5
None.
LD (or I/rat): 90
LD(orl/rat): 1,630
LD(orl/gpg): 5,560
LD (or I/rat): 2,100
LC(96); 2.4 FM
LC(48) : 0.23 BG
LD(orl/rat): 3,000
LD(orl/gpg): 1,910
LD (or I/rat) : 1,620P
LD (or I/rat): 4,900^
TLV: 1,400 mg/m3
LD(scu/rat): 5,000
Ref.
92
92
93
92
92
93
93
93
93
93
92
92
92
92
94
91
93
92
94
94
94
3
94
Hazard
g/m3
0.695
7.56
0.001
0.326
4.50
0.00017
0.012
0.000003
0.000065
0.000035
0.00008
0.01
0.000
0.20
3.67
12.5
4.73
0.12
0.012
6.75
4.30
3.65
11.0
108
11.3
factor
Eqn. Ref.
E-4
E-6
E-2
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-2
95
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-4
95
E-4
E-4
E-5
E-4
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-5
E-4
E-4
E-7
E-5
F (hazard factor) ,
g/»3
0.695
7.56
0.001
4.50
0.000003
0.0002
0.20
3.67
12.5
4.73
0.12
6.75
4.30
3.65
11.0
11.3
Pused nonylphenol.
%sed octylphenol etoxylate sulfonate.
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Ethyl acrylate
Ethylbenzene
Ethyl butyrate
Ethyl chloride
Ethylene chloride
Ethylenediamine
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dichloride
Ethylene glycol
M Ethylene oxide
0
u> Ethyl ether
2-Ethyl-l-hexanol
2-Ethylhexyl alcohol
Ethyl mercaptan
Fenac
Fenitrothion
Fensulfothion
Fenthion
Ferbam
Fluometuron
Fluoranthene
Fluorene-2
Toxicological data
mg/kg
LD(orl/rat): 830
LC(96): 29 BG
LD (or I/rat): 3,500
LD (or I/rat): 3,500*"
TLV: 2,600 mg/m3
LD (orl/rat) : 680
LD(orl/rat): 760
LD (or I/rat): 140
LD (or I/rat): 680
LD (orl/hmn) : 1 , 500
LD (orl/rat): 330
LD (or I/rat): 1,700
LD (orl/rat): 3,200
LD (orl/rat) : 800
LD (or I/rat): 1,960
LC(96): 0.06 N
LC(48): 22.5 BG (liquid)
LD (orl/rat): 250
LD (orl/rat) : 2
LC(96): 0.0045 N
LD (orl/rat) : 4,000
LD (or I/rat): 89
LD (orl/rat): 2,000
TDLo (orl/rat ): 15,000
Hazard factor
Ref.
92
93
92
94
3
92
94
92
94
94
92
94
94
92
92
91
91
92
92
91
92
92
92 '
92
g/m3
1.87
1.5
7.88
175
202
1.53
1.71
0.315
1.53
3.38
0.743
3.83
7.20
1.800
4.41
0.0030
1.1
0.563
0.005
0.00023
9.00
0.20
4.50
33.75
Eqn. Ref.
E-4
E-l
E-4
E-4
E-7
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-5
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-6
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
1.87
1.5
175
202
1.53
1.71
0.315
1.53
3.38
0.743
3.83
7.20
1.800
4.41
0.0030
0.563
0.005
0.00023
9.00
0.20
4.50
33.75
(continued)
Used value for ethyl propionate.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Fluoride
Fluorine
Folex
Fonofos
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Freon 21
Fumaric acid
Fumaronitrile
Fur an
Gallic acid
Glycerin-acrolein
Glycerin-allyl alcohol
Toxicological data
rag/kg
TLV: 2.5 mg/m3
TLV: 2.0 mg/m3
LD(orl/rat): 910
LD (or I/rat): 8
LC(48): 2 D
LC(48) : 140 BG
LD (or I/rat): 800
LDLo (orl/wmh) : 36
LC(48): 120 D
LD (or I/rat): 1,210
LC(24) : 175 BG
1,000 ppm
LC(96) : 230 MF
LC(48) : 138 BG
LD(ipr/mus): 200
LCLo(ihl/rat): 800 mg/m35
30,400 ppm
LD(orl/rat): 5,000
LDLo (or I/rat) : 5,000
LD(orl/gpg): 7,750U
Ref.
3
3
92
19
93
91
92
92
93
92
91
92
93
93
92
94
96
92
94
94
Hazard
g/m3
0.19
0.16
2.05
0.02
0.1
7.0
1.80
0.08
6.0
2.72
8.8
50
12
6.9
0.450
40
1,520^
11.3
11.3
17.4
factor
Egn. Ref.
E-7
E-7
E-4
E-4
E-2
E-2
E-4
E-6
E-2
E-4
E-3
E-l
E-2
E-5
E-3
E-4
E-6
E-5
F (hazard factor),
9/m3
0.19
0.16
2.05
0.02
0.1
6.0
50
12
40
1,520
11.3
11.3
17.4
(continued)
^•
•Toxicological value x 0.05.
value for 1-chlorofumaronitrile.
the value for glyceraldehyde.
uUsed the value for glycerol.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Glycerin-epichlorohydrin
Glycerin-tripolyoxypropylene ether
Glycerol
Guthion (azinphos-methyl)
Hardness
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
h-1
° Heptane
Ul
4 -Heptane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloronorbornadiene/
hexachloronorbornene
Hexadecyl alcohol
Hexamethylenediamine
Hexamethylenetetramine
Hexane
Toxicological data
rag/kg
LD (or I/rat): 150U
LD(orl/mus): 690
LD(orl/gpg): 7,750
LC(96): 0.235 FM
LC(48): 0.0002 D
None.
None.
LC(96) : 0.094 FM
LC(96) : 0.019 BG
LC(48) : 0.009 RT
LD (or I/rat): 40
None.
LD (or I/rat): 62
None.
LC(48) : 4,924 MF
TLV: 1,600 fflg/m3
15,900 ppm
LC(96)s 1,000
LD (or I/rat): 3,500
w
LD(orl/rat): 28W
LD(skn/rbt): 2,600
LC(96): 10
LDLo ( ipr /mus ) : 512
TLV: 360 mg/m3
(|
Ref.
94
94
94
91
91
91
91
93
92
92
91
3
96
94
92
94
94
94
94
3
Hazard
g/m3
0.338
1.55
17.4
0.012
0.00001
0.00001
75 to 150V
0.0047
0.00095
0.00045
0.09
0.000001
0.14
0.00001
250
124
795J
50
7.88
0.063
5.85
0.50
1.15
27.9
factor
Eqn . Ref .
B-4
E-5
E-5
E-l
E-2
95
95
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-4
95
E-4
95
E-2
E-7
E-l
E-4
E-4
E-5
E-l
E-6
E-7
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
0.338
1.55
17.4
0.00001
75 to 150
0.000001
0.00001
250
50
7.88
0.063
5.85
0.50
1.15
27.9
(continued)
JToxicological value x 0.05.
V0sed the value for a-monochlorhydrin.
"Moderately hard.
X0sed value for hexachloronorbornene dimethanol.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Hexene
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrogen bromide
Hydrogen chloride
Hydrogen cyanide
Hydrogen fluoride
Hydrogen sulfide
1— i Hydrazine
o
cri Hydroquinone
Hydroxylamine
Hydroxylamine-sulfate
Iodine
Iron oxide
Iron salts
Isoamylene (isopentene)
Isobutanol
Isobutylaldehyde
Isobutylene
Toxicological data
rog/kg
LCLo(ihl/rat) : 4,000 ppm
LC(96) : 3.5 BG
LD(ipr/mus) : 40
TLV: 10 mg/m3
TLV: 7 mg/m3
LC(48) : 0.07 RT
LD(orl/mus): 3.7
TLV: 2 mg/m3
TLV: 15 mg/m3
LD (or I/rat): 60
LD (or I/rat): 370
Kill (48): 0.278 D
LD(scu/mus): 29
LOLo ( ipr/mus ) : 102
TLV: 1 mg/m3
TLV: 5 mg/m3
None.
LC(96): 100
LD (or I/rat): 2,460
LD (or I/rat): 2,810
LCso: 40,000 ppmV
Ref.
91
92
3
3
91
92
3
3
92
92
91
94
94
3
3
94
94
94
96
Hazard
g/m3
200
0.18
0.09
0.78
0.5
0.004
0.0083
0.2
1.2
0.14
0.833
0.01J
0.065
0.230
0.1
0.4
0.30
5.0
5.54
6.32
2 ,000
factor
Eqn. Ref.
E-3
E-l
E-5
E-7
E-7
E-2
E-5
E-7
E-7
E-4
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
E-7
95
E-l
E-4
E-4
E-3
F (hazard factor),
g/m3
200
0.18
0.78
0.5
0.004
0.2
1.2
0.14
0.833
0.065
0.230
0.1
0.4
0.30
5.0
5.54
6.32
2,000
(continued)
Jlexicological value x 0.05.
value for 2-ethyl-l-hexene.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
H
o
Pollutant
Isodecyl alcohol
Isooctyl alcohol
Isopentane
Isophorone
I soph thai ic acid
Isoprene
Isopropanol
Isopropyl acetate
Isovaleraldehyde
Kelthane (dicofol)
Lactic acid
Lead
Lead arsenate
Lindane
Linear alkyl-benzene
Linuron
Toxicological data
rog/kg
LD (or I/rat): 4,720Z
LD (or I/rat): 1,480
LC50: 15,900 ppm
LD (or I/rat): 2,330
LD ( ipr/mus ) : 4,200
LC(96): 10
LC(96): 75 FM
LDLo(orl/mus): 192
LD (or I/rat): 3,000
LDLo (orl/rat) t 50
LC(48): 390 D
LD (or I/rat) : 575
LC(24): 110 RT
LD (orl/rat): 3,730
Immobilization: 243 D,
None.
LC(96)s 75 FM
LC(48): 1.4 BG
LD (or I/rat) > 100
LC(96)s 0.087 FM
LC(96)s 0.077 BG
LC(48): 0.075 BG
None.
LD (orl/rat) i 650aa
LDLo (orl/rat ) : 1 , 000
Ref.
92
92
96
94
94
94
92
92
92
92
91
92
91
92
ppm 91
93
92
92
91
91
93
94
92 •
Hazard
g/m3
10.6
3.33
795
5.24
9.45
0.50
3.8
0.432
6.75
0.11
20
1.29
5.5
8.39
12J
0.05
3.8
0.07
0.225
0.0044
0.0039
0.0038
0.004
1.46
2.25
factor
Eqn . Ref .
E-4
E-4
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-l
E-l
E-6
E-4
E-6
E-2
E-4
E-3
E-4
E-3
95
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-l
E-l
E-2
95
E-4
E-6
F (hazard factor) ,
10.6
3.33
795
5.24
9.45
3.8
0.432
6.75
0.11
20
8.39
0.05
3.8
0.004
1.46
2.25
(continued)
JToxicological value x 0.05.
*Used value for decyl alcohol.
aaUsed linear alkylbenzenesulfonate
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Lithium carbonate
Lithium chloride
Lithium fluoride
Lithium perchlorate
Magnesium
Malathion
Maleic acid
Maleic anhydride
Malic acid
Maneb
Manganese
Melamine
Mercury
Mercury hydroxide
Mesityl oxide
Metalkamate (Bux)
Methanear sonic acid, calcium salt
Methanearsonic acid, disodium salt
lexicological data
mg/kg
LD(orl/dog): 500
LD (orl/rat): 757
LDLo(orl/gpg) : 200
LD(orl/mus): 1,150
LDLo (or I/dog ): 230
LC(96) : 16.0 FM
LC(48) : 0.0009 D
LD (or I/rat): 1,375
None-.
LC(96): 5.0 FM
LC(48): 138 BG
LD (orl/rat): 708
LC(48): 240 MF
LDLo (orl/rat) : 850
LDLo (orl/rat) : 1 , 600
LD (or I/rat): 6,750
TDLo (orl/rat) : 64
None.
LDLo (orl/mus ) : 1 , 600
None-
LD(ipr/mus): l^*5
LD (or I/rat): 1,120
LD (orl/rat): 87
LDLo (orl/hmn) : 15
LD (or I/rat): 1,800
Hazard factors :
Ref.
92
92
92
92
92
91
93
92
91
93
92
91
92
92
19
92
94
92
94
92
94
92
g/m3
1.13
1.70
0.450
2.59
0.518
0.80
0.00005
3.09
0.0001
0.25
6.9
1.59
12
1.91
3.60
15.2
0.14
0.05
3.60
0.002
0.038
2.52
0.20
0.034
4.05
Egn. Ref.
E-5
E-4
E-6
E-5
E-6
E-l
E-2
E-4
95
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-2
E-6
E-6
E-4
E-6
95
E-6
95
E-5
E-4
E-4
E-6
E-4
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
1.13
1.70
0.450
2.59
0.518
0.0001
0.25
12
3.60
15.2
0.05
3.60
0.002
0.038
2.52
0.20
0.034
4.05
(continued)
bb
Used the value for methylmercury hydroxide.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Me thanear sonic acid, dodecyl octyl
ammonium salf*
Methanearsonic acid, monosodium salt
Methanol
Methomyl
Methoxychlor
2 -Me thoxye thanol
Methyl acetate
Methylal
Methyl bromide
2-Methyl-l-butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
Methyl chloride
Methylcyclopentane
Methyl-deneton
Methylene chloride
4,4' -Methylenedianiline
Methyl ethyl acrolein
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl sulfide
Toxicological data
mg/kg
LD (or I/rat): 750
LD (or I/rat) : 700
LDLo (orl/hmn) : 340
LD (or I/rat) : 20
LC(96) : 0.035 FM
LD (or I/rat): 5,000
None.
LD (or I/rat): 2,460
TLV: 610 mg/m3
LDLo (or I/rat) : 4 , 800
TLV i 3,100 ng/m3
LD (or I/rat): 60
LCso: 40,000 ppm'
LC50: 40,000 ppm1
LD (or I/rat): 1,800
LC50: 38,000 ppm
LD(orl/rat): 40
LDLo (or I/dog) : 3 , 000
LD(orl/rat): 347
LD (or I/rat): 26
LD (or I/rat): 3,100
LD (or I/rat): 3,300CC
Ref.
94
92
92
92
91
92
94
3
92
3
92
96
96
94
97
92
92
92
96
92
92
Hazard
g/m3
1.69
1.58
0.765
0.045
0.0018
11.3 '
0.10
5.54
47.3
10.8
241
4.66
2,000
2,000
4.05
1,900
0.090
6.75
0.781
0.06
6.98
7.43
factor
Eqn. Ref.
E-4
E-4
E-6
E-4
E-l
E-4
95
E-4
E-7
E-6
E-7
E-4
E-3
E-3
E-4
E-3
E-4
E-6
E-4
• E-4
E-4
E-4
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
1.69
1.58
0.765
0.045
0.10
5.54
47.3
241
4.66
2,000
2,000
4.05
1,900
0.090
6.75
0.781
0.06
6.98
7.43
(continued)
Used value for the monoairanonium salt.
1Used the value for 1-pentene.
ccUsed value for dimethyl sulfide.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Methyl formate
Methyl iaobutyl carbinol
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
2-Methyl pentane
3-Methyl pentane
Methyl styrene
Methyl vinyl ketone
Metribuzin
Mevinphos
Mir ex
Mocap
Molinate
Molybdenum trioxide
Monoethylamine
Monosodium glutamate
Toxicological data
rag/kg
TLV: 250 mg/m3
LD (or I/rat): 1,410
LD (or I/rat): 2,080
LD(scu/mus): 2.4
LC(96): 150 FM
LD (orl/rat) : 770
LC(96): 7.5 FM
LC(96) : 8.9 FM
LD (orl/rat): 9
TLV: 360 ing/m3^
TLV: 360 mg/m3k
LD(orl/mus) : 3,160
LDLo(ipr/mus) : 16
LD (or I/rat): 1,936
LC(96) : 0.023 BG
LC(48): 0.037 BG
LD (orl/rat) : 4
LD (or I/rat): 306
None.
LD (or I/rat): 80
LC(96): 0.00034 N
LC(48) : 0.60 D
LC(48): 0.48 BG
LD (orl/rat): 125
LDLo (orl/rat) : 400
TDLo(orl/hmn): 43
Hazard factors :
Ref.
3
94
94
94
93
92
93
98
94
3
3
92
92
19
93
93
92
19
92
91
91
91
92
94
94
g/m3
19.4
3.17
4.68
0.0054
7.5
1.73
0.38
0.45
0.020
27.9
27.9
7.11
0.04
4.36
0.0012
0.0019
0.009
0.689
0.000001
0.18
0.000017
0.030
0.024
0.281
0.90
0.097
Eqn. Ref.
E-7
E-4
E-4
E-5
E-l
E-4
E-l
E-l
E-4
E-7
E-7
E-5
E-6
E-4
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-4
95
E-4
E-l
E-2
E-2
E-4
E-6
E-6
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
19.4
3.17
4.68
0.0054
7.5
0.38
27.9
27.9
7.11
0.04
4.36
0.0012
0.000001
0.18
0.000017
0.281
0.90
0.097
(continued)
^Used the value for hexane.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Monuron
Morpholine
Nabam
Naled
Naphtha, coal tar
Naphthalene
Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate
Neburon
Neopentane
Neopentanoic acid
Nickel
Nitralin
Nitrate
Toxicological data
ng/kg
LC(96): 40 BG (25% pellet)
LC(48) : 16.3 SM
LD (or I/rat): 1,050
LD (or I/rat): 395
LC(96): 0.008 N
LC(96) : 0.18 BG
LC(48)> 0.0035
(ihl/rat): 1,600 ppm
LC(96): 150 MF
LC{48) : 165 MF
LD (or I/rat): 1,780
LDLo(orl/mus): 140
LD(orl/rat): 89
LC(96): 0.7 BG
(4% granular)
LC50: 15,900 pp«dd
LDLo (or I/rat) : 5 , 000
LC(96): 13gfix 10'3 g/m3
LDLo (orl/gpg) > 5
None.
LD (or I/rat ) : 6 , 000
None.
Ref.
91
91
92
92
91
93
93
92
93
93
93
92
92
91
97
94
95
91
19
Hazard
g/m3
2.0
0.82
2.36
0.889
0.0004
0.0090
0.00018
80^
7.5
8.3
4.01
0.315
0.20
0.04
795
11.3
0.007
0.011
0.0013
13.5
10
factor
Eqn . Ref .
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-6
E-4
E-l
E-3
E-6
E-l
E-6
95
E-4
95
F (hazard factor) ,
2.0
2.36
0.889
0.0090
80
7.5
0.315
0.20
0.04
795
11.3
0.0013
13.5
10
(continued)
J
dd
Toxicological value x 0.05.
Used the value for isopentane.
ee0.01 of the 96-hr LC50 for freshwater and marine aquatic life.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Nitrite
m-Nitroaniline
0-Nitroaniline
p-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
o-Nitrochlorobenzene
p-Nitrochlorobenzene
Nitroglycerine
3-Nitrophenol
m-Nitrophenol
o-Nitrophenol
p-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
Nonene (mixed isomers)
Nonylphenol
NTA
Nylon
Octyl alcohol
Octyl phenol
Octyl phenol ethoxylate sulfonate
Oil and grease
Oleic acid
Toxicological data
rag/kg
LD (or I/rat): 180ff
None.
LD (orl/rat): 535
LD(orl/rat): 535
LD (or I/rat): 3,249
LD (orl/rat): 640
LD(orl/rat): 288
LD (or I/rat): 420
LDLo (orl/rat) : 80
LD (orl/rat) : 447
LD (orl/rat): 447
LD (or I/rat): 2,828
LD (orl/rat) : 350
TDLo (orl/rat) : 30
LC(96) : 1,000 AQTX
LD (or I/rat): 1,620
LD (or I/rat): 1,470
TDLo ( imp/rat) : 123
LD(orl/mus): 1,790
LDLo(ipr/mus): 25
LD (orl/rat): 4,900
None.
LD(ivn/mus) : 230
Ref.
96
94
94
94
92
92
92
94
92
92
92
92
92
94
92
92
94
94
94
94
92
Hazard
g/m3
0.405
10
1.20
1.20
7.31
1.44
0.648
0.945
0.18
1.01
1.01
6.36
0.788
0.07
50
3.65
3.31
0.27?
4.03
0.056
11.0
0.01
0.518
factor
Eqn. Ref.
E-4
95
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-6
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-6
E-l
E-4
E-4
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-4
95
E-6
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
10
1.20
1.20
7.31
1.44
0.648
0.945
0.18
1.01
1.01
6.36
0.788
0.07
50
3.65
3.31
0.277
4.03
0.056
11.0
0.01
0.518
(continued)
ffSod
ium salt.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Organic nitrogen
Orthophosphate
Oxalic acid
Paraffins
Paraforiualdehyde
Parathion
PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls)
PCKB
PCP
Pebulate
Penicillin G-potassium
Penicillin G-procaine
Pentaerythritol
Pentane
1-Pentene
Perchloroethylene
Toxicological data
mgA9
None.
None.
TLV: 1.0 mg/m3
TLV: 2.0 mg/m3
LD (orl/rat) : 800
LC(96): 1.4 FM
LC(96): 0.0054 N
LC(50): 0.0008 D
LD (orl/rat): 15
None.
LC(96): 0.278 BG
TLV: 1.0 mg/m3
None.
LD (or I/rat): 1,650
LD (orl/rat): 180
LDLo (orl/hmn) : 29
LD (or I/rat): 1,020
LD(ivn/mus): 448
LD(ivn/mus): 70
LD (or I/rat): 2,460hh
LD (orl/rat): 1,800
LCsg: 128,200 ppm
LC50: 40,000 ppm
TLV: 670 mg/m3
Ref.
3
3
94
91
91
91
92
93
3
91
96
92
92
94
94
94
92
96
96
3
Hazard
g/m3
0.02013
o.ioo"
0.08
0.16
1.80
0.070
0.00027
0.00004
0.034
0.00004
0.014
0.08
0.000001
3.71
0.405
0.065
2.30
1.01
0.16
5.54
140
6,410
2,000
52.0
factor
Eqn. Ref.
95
E-7
E-7
E-4
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-4
95
E-l
E-7
95
E-4
E-4
E-6
E-4
E-5
E-5
E-4
E-4
E-3
E-3
E-7
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
0.020
0.100
0.08
0.16
1.80
0.00004
0.000001
3.71
0.405
2.30
1.01
0.16
5.54
140
2,000
52.0
"MRC personnel.
99u6ed value for phosphate phosphorus.
(continued)
hh,
Used pentaerythritol triacrylate.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
pH
Phenol
Phenyl mercury acetate.
Phorate
Phosgene
Phosphamidon
Phosphate phosphorus
Phosphorus (elemental)
Phthalate esters
Phthalic anhydride
Polyethylene glycol
Polypropylene glycol
Polyram-Combi
Polystyrene
Poly sul fide rubber
Polyvinyl alcohol
Polyvinyl chloride
POM
Potassium salts
Prometone
Decomposes in water to
Toxicological data
mg/kg
None.
LC(96) : 11.5 to 20 BG
LD(orl/rat): 414
None.
LD (or I/rat): 30
LD (or I/rat): 1
TLV: 0.2 mg/m3
LC(96) : 0.15 N
None.
LC(48) : 0.105 BG
LDLo (orl/hmn) : 1.4
None.
None.
LD (or I/rat) : 4,020
TDLo ( ivg/mus ) : 420
LD(orl/rat): 419
LD (or I/rat): 10,000
TDLo (imp/rat) : 19
LDLo (or I/rat ): 3,160
TDLo (scu/rat) : 2 , 500
TDLo(imp/rat) : 100
TLV : 0.2 mg/m3
LD (orl/rat) : 3 , 000
LD (or I/rat): 1,750
carbon dioxide and hydrochloric acid;
Ref.
93
92
94
92
3
91
93
92
92
94
92
19
94
94
94
94
3
97
92
the hazard
Hazard
g/n>3
5 to 9
0.58
0.932
0.001
0.068
0.002
0.02
0.0075
0.10
0.005
0.003
0.001
0.003
9.05
0.945
0.943
22.5
0.043
7.11
5.63
0.225
0.02
6.75
3.94
factor (F) for
factor
Eqn . Ref .
95
E-l
E-4
95
E-4
E-4
E-7
E-l
95
E-2
E-6
95
95
E-4
E-6
E-4
E-4
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-7
E-4
E-4
hydrochloric acid
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
5 to 9
0.001
0.068
0.002
0.1811
0.0075
0.10
0.001
0.003
9.05
0.945
0.943
22.5
0.043
7.11
5.63
0.225
0.02
6.75
3.94
(continued)
is used.
jj
Used polysulfide, bis(2-hydroxyphenol).
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Propachlor (ramrod)
Propane nitrite
Propanil
Propazine
Propionaldehyde
Propionic acid
Propyl alcohol
Propylene glycol
Propylene oxide
Pyrene
Pyrethrins
Pyridine
Pyrogallic acid
Pyrrole
Quinoline
Quinone
Resorcinol
loused value for amyl nitrite.
Toxicological data
mg/kg
LD (orl/rat): 710
kk
LD (orl/rat): 3,000
LD (orl/rat) : 560
LD (orl/rat): 5,000
LDLo (or I/rat) : 800
LC(48) : 50 D
LD (or I/rat): 4,290
LD (or I/rat): 1,870
LC(96): 1,000
LD (or I/rat): 1,140
LDj o (animals) : 500
LC(96) : 74 BG
LC(48) : 0.070 BG
LC(48): 0.025 D
LC(48) : 944 D
LD (orl/rat) : 891
LD (orl/rat)! 789
LD(scu/mus) : 61
LD (orl/rat) : 460
LD (orl/rat) : 130
LC(48): 56.4 D
LD (or I/rat): 301
Ref.
19
99
92
91
92
93
92
92
94
92
96
93
91
91
91
92
94
92
94
92
91
93
Hazard
g/m3
1.60
6.75
1.26
11.3
1.80
2.5
9.65
4.21
50
2.57
1.13
3.7
0.0035
0.0013
47
2.01
1.78
0.14
1.04
0.293
2.8
0.677
factor
Eqn. Ref.
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-6
E-2
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-4
E-6
E-l
E-2
E-2
E-2
E-4
E-4
E-5
E-4
E-4
E-2
E-4
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
1.60
6.75
1.26
11.3
1.80
2.5
4.21
50
2.57
1.13
3.7
47
1.78
0.14
1.04
0.293
2.8
(continued)
(99) Sax, N. I. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Third Edition. Reinhold Book Corporation, New York,
New York, 1968. 1251 pp.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
a\
Pollutant
Ronnel
Saccharin
Salicylic acid
Selenium
Silver
Silvex :
Simazine
Sodium
Sodium chlorate
Sodium chloride
Sodium hydroxide
Sorbitol
Styrene
Sulfate
Sulfide
Sulf ite , sodium
Sulfolane
Suspended solids
aj/m-Trimethylene-trinitramine
Toxicological data
mg/kg
LD (or I/rat): 1,740
TDLo (or I/rat) : 1 , 820
LD (or I/rat) : 891
LC(96) : 90 E. Coli
None .
None •
LC(48): 2.1 D
LC(48): 16.6 BG
LC(48) : 118 BG
LC(48) : 56 RT
None.
LD(orl/rat): 1,200
LD (or I/rat): 3,000
LC(48): 99 BG
TLV: 2.0 mg/m3
LC(96) : 1,000 AQTX
LC(96): 51 FM
LD (or I/rat): 4,920
LDLo(ivn/rbt) : 4,470
None.
None.
LD(ipr/rat): 650
LD (or I/rat): 1,540
None.
LD(orl/rat): 200
Ref.
92
94
94
93
98
98
91
91
19
92
93
3
94
91
92
92
92
94
94
Hazard
g/m3
3.92
4.10
2.01
4.5
0.01
0.05
0.11
0.83
5.9
2.8
250
2.70
6.75
5.0
0.16
50
2.6
11.1
10.1
250
0.002
1.46
3.47
2511
0.450
factor
Eqn. Ref.
E-4
E-6
E-4
E-l
95
95
E-2
E-2
E-l
E-l
95
E-4
E-4
E-2
E-7
E-l
E-l
E-4
E-6
95
95
E-5
E-4
95
E-4
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
3.92
4.10
2.01
0.01
0.05
0.11
5.9
250
2.70
6.75
5.0
50
2.6
250
0.002
1.46
3.47
25
0.450
(continued)
11
For excellent fisheries.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
2,4,5-T
Talc
2,3,6-TBA
TCA
TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) I
Tebuthiuron
Tellurium
TEPP
H
I-1 Terbacil
Terrazole
Tetrachlorobutane
Tetrachloroe thane
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetracycline
Tetraethyl/tetramethyl lead
Tetraethyl pyrophosphate
Thallium
Toxicological data
mgAg
LC(96): 7.2 FM
LC(48): 144 BG
LD (or I/rat): 500
LC(24) : 11 BG
LD (orl/rat): 15,000
LC(48): 1,750
LD (or I/rat): 3,320
None.
LD (orl/rat) : 644
TLV: 0.1 mg/m3
LC(96) : 1.0 FM
LD (or I/rat): 1.2
LD (or I/rat): 6,000
LD (orl/hmn) t 2,000
LD (orl/rat): 200""
LD (orl/rat) : 200
TLV: 670 mg/m3
LD (orl/rat) : 807
00
LD (or I/rat): 109
LC(96): 1.7 FM
LD (or I/rat): 0.5
TLV: 0.1 mg/m3
Ref.
93
91
92
91
97
91
92
19
3
91
92
20
92
92
92
3
94
94
91
92
3
Hazard
g/m3
0.36
7.2
i.ii
0.55
33.8
88
7.47
250™
1.45
0.01
0.05
0.003
13.5
4.50
0.450
0.450
52.0
1.82
0.245
0.09
0.001
0.01
factor
Eqn . Ref .
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-3
E-4
E-2
E-4
95
E-4
E-7
E-l
E-4
E-4
E-5
E-4
E-4
E-7
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-4
E-7
F (hazard factor) ,
3/m3
0.36
33.8
88
7.47
250
1.45
0.01
0.05
13.5
4.50
0.450
0.450
52.0
1.82
0.24
0.09
0.01
(continued)
chlorides and sulfates in domestic water supplies.
nnUsed the value for tetrachloroethane.
00
Used tetramethyl lead value.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
oo
Pollutant
Thionazin
Tinpp
Titanium oxide
TKN (total Kjeldahl nitrogen)
Toluene
Toluene-2 , 4-diamine
Toluene-2 ,4-diisocyanate
o-Toluene sulfonamide
p-Toluenesulfonic acid>
Toxaphene
2,4,5-TP
trona- 2-Pentene
Triallate
Trichlorfon
1,1, 1-Trichloroe thane
1,1, 2-Trichloroe thane
Toxicological data
mg/kg
LD (or I/rat): 12
TLV: 0.1 mg/m3
15 mg/m3
None.
LC(96) : 44 FM
LC(48) : 1,260 MF
LD (or I/rat): 3,000
LDLo (orl/rat) s 500
LD (or I/rat): 10,000
LD (or I/rat): 4,870
LD (orl/rat) : 400
LC(96) : 0.0051 FM
LC(96) : 0.0035 BG
LD (orl/rat) : 69
None.
LD (orl/rat): 650
None.
LCSQ: 40,000 ppm
LD (or I/rat): 800
LC(96) : 0.51 FM
LC(48): 0.0081 D
LD (orl/rat) : 400
LD(orl/rbt): 5,660
LD (orl/rat): 580
Ref.
19
3
94
91
93
92
94
97
92
92
91
91
92
92
96
92
93
93
92
92
92
Hazard
g/m3
0.027
0.01
0.75j
b
0.020
2.2
63
6.75
1.13
22.5
11.0
0.900
0.00026
0.00018
0.16
0.005
1.46
0.01
2,000
1.80
0.003
0.0004
0.900
12.7
1.31
factor
Eqn . Ref .
E-4
E-7
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-6
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-l
E-4
95
E-4
95
E-3
E-4
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-5
E-4
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
0.027
0.01
0.75
0.020
2.2
1.13
22.5
11.0
0.900
0.005
0.01
2,000
1.80
0.003
12.7
1.31
(continued)
"MRC personnel.
j
pp
Toxicological value x 0.05.
i
Organic.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluorome thane
1,2, 3-Trichloropropane
2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol
Triethylamine
Trifluralin
Trimethylamine
TS (total solids)
TSS (total suspended solids)
Turbidity units
Uranium
Urea
Vanadium
Vernolate
Vinyl acetate
Toxicological data
mg/kg
LD (or I/rat): 4,920
QQ
1,000 ppmMH
LD (or I/rat): 320
LD(orl/rat): 820
LD(orl/rat): 460
LC(96) : 0.0084 BG
LDLo(ipr/mus) : 75
None.
None.
None.
None.
LC(96): 3.7 FM
TLV i 0.2 mg/m3
LDLo (scu/rbt) : 3 , 000
LC(96) : 55 FM
TLV: 0.5 mg/m3
LC(48): 1.1 D
LD(orl/rat): 1,630
LC (96) : 22 FM
LD(orl/rat): 2,920
Ref.
92
92
94
92
92
91
92
93
3
94
93
3
91
92
93
92
Hazard factor
g/n.3
11.1
50j
0.720
1.85
1.04
0.0004
0.17
275
25
1 turbidity unit
5b
0.19
0.02
6.75
2.8
0.04
0.055
3.67
1.1
6.57
Eqn. Ref.
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-l
E-6
95
95
95
E-l
E-7
E-6
E-l
E-7
E-2
E-4
E-l
E-4
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
11.1
50
0.720
1.85
1.04
0.0004
0.17
275
25
1 turbidity unit
5
0.19
6.75
2.8
0.055
1.1
(continued)
j
qq,
rr
ss
i
MRC personnel.
Toxicological value x 0.05.
Used value for Freon 21.
Used the value of uranyl acetate.
"used the value of vanadium pentoxidc.
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Pollutant
Vinyl acetylene
Vinyl bromide
Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
Vinylidene chloride
Vitamin A
Vitamin B
Xylene
o-Xylene
Xylenesulfonic acid
Zinc
Zineb
Zirconium
Toxi co-logical data
mgAg
LD (or I/rat): 10,000
LD (orl/rat): 500
TLV: 510 mg/m3
TLV: 40 mg/m3
TDLo (orl/rat) : 55
LD( sou/rat): 5,000
LC(96) : 21 FM
LD (orl/rat): 4,300
LC(96): 21 FM
LDLo(ipr/rat) : 1,500
LD(ipr/mus): 500
LC(96) : 7.6 FM
None.
LD (orl/rat): 5,200
LD (or I/rat): 55
LC(96): 115 FM"
LC(96) : 240 FM
TLV: 5 mg/ta3
Ref .
97
92
3
3
94
94
91
92
93
92
97
93
19
92
93
93
3
Hazard
g/m3
22.5
1.13
39.576
3.1
0.12
11.3
1.1
9.68
1.1
3.38
1.13
0.38
5.0
11.7
0.12
5.8
12
0.4
factor
Eqn . Re f .
E-4
E-4
E-7
E-7
E-6
E-5
E-l
E-4
E-l
E-6
E-5
E-l
95
E-4
E-5
E-l
E-l
E-7
F (hazard factor) ,
g/m3
22.5
1.13
39.576
3.1
0.12
11.3
1.1
1.1
1.13
5.0
11.7
5.8
for zirconium sulfate in hard water.
uuValue for zirconium oxychloride in hard water.
-------
GLOSSARY
biodegradability index (BI): Quantitative parameter measuring
the ratio of the concentration of polar products and non-
polar products in an organism. Pesticides, for example,
are generally nonpolar and will not readily dissolve in a
polar solvent (water). Water solubility generally means
the compound can be readily metabolized and excreted rather
than stored in nonpolar lipids (fats) of organisms and not
quickly metabolized.
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD): Measure of the amount of oxygen
consumed in the biological processes that break down organic
matter in water. Large amounts of organic wastes use up
large amounts of dissolved oxygen; thus the greater the
degree of pollution, the greater the BOD.
chemical oxygen demand (COD): Measure of the amount of oxygen
required to oxidize organic and oxidizable inorganic com-
pounds in water. The COD test, like the BOD test, is used
to determine the degree of pollution in an effluent.
dissolved oxygen (DO): Oxygen dissolved in water or wastewater.
Adequately dissolved oxygen is necessary to sustain the life
of fish and other aquatic organisms and to prevent offensive
odors. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations generally are
due to discharge of excessive organic solids having high
BOD, the result of inadequate waste treatment.
ecological magnification (EM): Quantitative parameter measuring
the ratio of the pollutant chemical concentration in the
organism and the concentration in water. EM determines the
magnification through food chains of the chemical.
immobilization concentration 50 (IC5o): Calculated concentration
of a substance which is expected to immobilize 50% of an en-
tire population of an experimental animal species.
lethal concentration 50 (LC5o): Calculated concentration of a
substance in water, exposure to which for 24 hr or less
would cause death of 50% of an entire population of an ex-
perimental animal species, as determined from the exposure
to the substance of a significant number of that population.
121
-------
lethal concentration low (LCLO) : Lowest concentration of a sub-
stance, other than LCso/ in water which has been reported
to have caused death in animals when they have been exposed
for 24 hr or less.
lethal dose 10 (LD^o): Calculated dose of a chemical substance
which is expected to cause the death of 10% of an entire
population of an experimental animal species, as determined
from the exposure to the substance by any route other than
inhalation of a significant number from that population.
lethal dose 50 (LD5o): Calculated dose of a chemical substance
which is expected to cause the death of 50% of an entire
population of an experimental animal species, as determined
from the exposure to the substance by any route other than
inhalation of a significant number from that population.
lethal dose low (LDLO) : Lowest dose of a substance, other than
LDso, introduced by any route other than inhalation over any
given period of time and reported to have caused death in
man, or the lowest single dose introduced in one or more
divided portions and reported to have caused death in
animals.
toxic concentration low (TCLO) : Any concentration of a substance
in water to which man or animals have been exposed for any
given period of time and for which such exposure has been
reported to produce any toxic effect in animals or humans.
toxic dose low (TDLo) : Lowest dose of a substance, as published
or made available to publish, introduced by any route other
than inhalation over any given period of time and reported
to produce any toxic effect in man or to produce carcino-
genic, teratogenic, mutagenic, or neoplastic effects in
humans or animal.
ultimate biochemical oxygen demand (BODL) : Total or ultimate
first-stage BOD initially present in water at time, t,
equals 0. (BOD5 is approximately 68% of the ultimate BOD.)
122
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS AND METRIC PREFIXES (100)
To convert from
CONVERSION FACTORS
TO
Multiply by
Degree Celsius (°C) Degree Fahrenheit
= 1.8 t,
Gram/second (g/s)
Kilogram (kg)
Kilogram (kg)
Kilogram (kg)
Meter3 (m3)
Meter3 (m3)
Meter3 (m3)
Second (s)
Pound/hr
Pound-mass (avoirdupois)
Ton (short, 2,000
Ib mass)
Metric ton
Foot3
Gallon
Liters
Year
. + 32
7.937
2.205
1.102 x 10~3
1.000 x 10"3
3.531 x 101
2.642 x 102
1.000 x 103
3.168 x 10~8
Prefix
Kilo
Mi Hi
Symbol
k
m
METRIC PREFIXES
Multiplication factor
103
10-3
Example
1 kg = 1
1 mg = 1
103 grams
10~"3 gram
(100) Standard for Metric Practice. ANSI/ASTM Designation:
E 380-76e, IEEE Std 268-1976, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 1976.
37 pp.
123
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-004q
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4.TiTLEANDsuBT,TLESource Assessment: Prioritization of
Stationary Water Pollution Sources
5. REPORT DATE
July 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHORSR B ReZnik,E.C.Eimutis,J. L.Delaney,S.R.
Archer,J.C.Ochsner,W.R.McCurley, and T.W.
Hughes
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
MRC-DA-710
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB015; ROAP 21AXM-071
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1874
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final: 8/76-11/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
task officer is Dale A. Denny, Mail Drop 62, 919/541-
2547. Similar previous reports are in EPA-600/2-76-032 and -77-107 series.
16. ABSTRACT
The report gives priority lists to aid in selecting specific sources of
water effluents for detailed assessment. It describes the general water prioritization
model, explains its implementation, and gives a detailed example of its use. It des-
cribes hazard factors that were developed to prioritize specific sources. Various
industries (source types) were rank-ordered (prioritized) on the basis of their water
discharges. Solid residues were assumed to contribute to water discharges as
leachates or water runoff. The prioritization index for water, termed the impact
factor, is based on a ratio of actual to hazardous effluent mass. The water discharge
prioritization model was applied to 262 stationary organic and inorganic sources.
The source types were also divided into four subcategories (petrochemicals, tex-
tiles , pesticides, and fertilizers) and prioritized.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Pollution
Water Pollution
Ranking
Toxicity
Solids
Residues
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
Petrochemistry
Textile Industry
Pesticides
Fertilizers
b.lDENTIFI£RS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Source Assessment
Hazard Factors
Impact Factors
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B 08G
11E
12B 06F
20T 02A
07D
21. NO. OF PAGES
135
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
124
------- |