United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water Planning
and Standards, Monitoring
and Support Division
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 00-01 3867
June 1979
Sources of Toxic Pollutants
Found In Influents
To Sewage Treatment Plants

VI. Integrated  Interpresentation

-------
  SOURCES OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS FOUND IN

  INFLUENTS TO SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
      VT.   INTEGRATED INTERPRETATION
                Report On
       EPA Contract No. 68-01-3857

   Mr. Donald Ehreth, Project Officer
                    by
P. Levins, J.  Adams, P.  Brenner, S.  Coons,
G. Harris, C.  Jones, K.  Thrun, A. Wechsler
                December  1979
          Report No.  ADL 81099-63

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                 Page

LIST OF TABLES                                                    iii

LIST OF FIGURES                                                    vi

GLOSSARY                                                          vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS                                                  viii

  I. SUMMARY                                                        1

 II. INTRODUCTION                                                  13

III. METHODOLOGY DATA BASE                                         17

     A.   Drainage Basin Selection Criteria                        17
     B.   Drainage Basins Selected for Study                       21

          1.   Muddy Creek Drainage Basin,
               Cincinnati, Ohio                                    21
          2.   Coldwater Creek Drainage Basin,
               St. Louis, Missouri                                 22
          3.   The R.M. Clayton Drainage Basin,
               Atlanta, Georgia                                    23
          4.   Hartford WPCP Drainage Basin,
               Hartford, Connecticut                               24
          5.   Summary of Source Characteristics                   25

     C.   Demographic and Economic Data                            25

          1.   Sources of Data                                     27
          2.   Use of the Data                                     27

     D.   Sample Collection                                        30
     E.   Flow Measurement                                         30
     F.   Chemical Analysis                                        31

 IV. INTERPRETATION ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES                            35

  V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION                                        37

     A.   Frequency of Detection                                   37
     B.   Observed Pollutant Concentration Levels                  50

          1.   Concentrations                                      50
          2.   Frequency/Concentration Relationships               58

-------
                    ,  TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                  Page

      C.   Mass Flow Analysis                                       60

           1.    Hypothetical Cities                                 63
           2.    Application to Cities Actually Sampled              78

      D.   Examination of Variances and Correlations                92

           1.    Weekday/Weekend Differences                         92
           2.    Old vs. New Residential Comparisons                 93

  VI. CONCLUSIONS                                                   97

 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS                                               99

VIII. REFERENCES                                                   101

 APPENDIX A   Individual Pollutant Reporting Limits,
              Recovery and Precision  Data                         103

 APPENDIX B   Total Number of Pollutant Observations in
              Sources - By City
                                     ii

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES

Table No.                                                        FaSe

   1      Pollutants (67 Total) Never Detected in Four Cities      4

   2      Hypothetical Drainage Basin Calculation                 10

   3      Description of Source Sites Used in Overall Data
          Analysis                                                26

   4      Chemical Analysis Accuracy and Precision Summary        33

   5      Interpretation Analysis Objectives                      36

   6      Total Number of Observations                            38

   7      Percentage Occurrence                                   39

   8      Summary  of Overall Frequency Observations               45

   9      Sixty-Seven  (67)  Pollutants Never  Detected  in
          Four Cities                ,                             47

   10      Priority Pollutants  Never Observed Greater  Than
          Three Times  In Any One City                             48

   11      Pollutants  Selected  for Detailed Analysis - Frequency
          of Detection                                           ^9

   12      Tap Water Concentration Summary (yg/L)                 51

   13      Residential Concentration Summary (yg/L)               52

   14      Commercial Concentration Summary (yg/L)                53

   15      Industrial Concentration Summary (yg/L)                54

   16     POTW Influent Concentration  Summary (yg/L)              55

   17     Residential Per Capita Mass  Discharge Rate
           Summary (mg/person/day)                                 56

   18      Overall Source Average Concentrations                   57

   19      Detection Frequency/Concentration Summary               59

   20      Description of Hypothetical City Source Contribution    65

   21      Hypothetical City - Case A - Mass Flow                  66
                                    iii

-------
                      LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table No.                                                        Page

  22      Hypothetical City - Case B - Mass Flow                  67

  23      Hypothetical City - Case C - Mass Flow                  68

  24      Hypothetical City - Case D - Mass Flow                  69

  25      Hypothetical City - Case E - Mass Flow                  70

  26      Relative Source Strength Comparison - Case A            71

  27      Relative Source Strength Comparison - Case B            72

  28      Relative Source Strength Comparison - Case C            73

  29      Relative Source Strength Comparison - Case D            74

  30      Relative Source Strength Comparison - Case E            75

  31      Total Mass Flow Comparison of Hypothetical Cities       76

  32      Relative Comparison of Hypothetical City Loadings       77

  33      Summary of Discharge Characteristics for Cities
          Studied                                                 79

  34      Cincinnati Mass Balance Using Four City Averages        80

  35      St.  Louis Mass Balance Using Four City Averages         81

  36      Atlanta Mass Balance Using Four City Averages           82

  37      Hartford Mass Balance Using Four City Averages          83

  38      Mass Balance Analysis For All Four Cities               84

  39      Summary of Mass Balance Comparisons                     86

  40      Cincinnati Distribution of Pollutant Loading            88

  41      St.  Louis Distribution of Pollutant Loading             89

  42      Atlanta Distribution of Pollutant Loading               90

  43      Hartford Distribution of Pollutant Loading              91

  44      Old  and New Residential Mass  Discharge Rates            94
                                   iv

-------
                      LIST OF TABLES (Continued)


Table No.                                                         Page

  A-l     Summary of Quality Control Data - Volatiles             106

  A-2     Summary of Quality Control Data - Acids                 107

  A-3     Summary of Quality Control Data - Base/Neutrals         108

  A-4     Summary of Quality Control Data - Pesticides            110

  A-5     Summary of Quality Control Data - Metals, Total
          Cyanides, Total Phenols                                 111

  A-6     Quality Assurance Data - Classical Parameters
          (7XX series) Analysis                                   112

  B-l     Total Number of Observations in Tap Water Samples       114

  B-2     Total Number of Observations in Residential Samples     115

  B-3     Total Number of Observations in Commercial Samples      116

  B-4     Total Number of Observations in Industrial Samples      117

  B-5     Total Number of Observations in Influent  Samples        118

-------
                            LIST OF FIGURES



Figure No.                                                        Page



   1      Concentration/Frequency of Occurrence:  Tap Water        5



   2      Concentration/Frequency of Occurrence:  Residential      6



   3      Concentration/Frequency of Occurrence:  Commercial       7



   4      Concentration/Frequency of Occurrence:  Industrial       8



   5      Concentration/Frequency of Occurrence:  POTW Influent    9



   6      Frequency of Occurrence (%), Tap Water                  40



   7      Frequency of Occurrence (%), Residential                41



   8      Frequency of Occurrence (%), Commercial                 42



   9      Frequency of Occurrence (%), Industrial                 43



  10      Frequency of Occurrence (%), POTW Influent              44
                                   vl

-------
                               GLOSSARY
The following terms and abbreviations are used in this report.
               Publicly owned sewage treatment works.
               POTW influent.
POTW
INF
Influent
Tap Water
RES
COM
IND
SUM

SMSA
Level
Classicals
               Finished drinking water supply.
               Residential source.
               Commercial source.
               Industrial source.
               Calculated sum of contribution for the RES, COM and
               IND sources.
               Standard metropolitan statistical area.
               Refers to concentration level of pollutants.
               The six conventionally measured parameters:
               ammonia, oil and grease,  total suspended solids  (TSS),
               total organic carbon  (TOC),  chemical oxygen demand  (COD)
               and biological oxygen demand (BOD).  The classicals were
               always measured in mg/L units in contrast  to  the  toxic
               pollutant measurements in yg/L units.
Pollutant      A series of reference numbers were assigned to the
Reference      pollutants for convenience in data storage and retrieval
Numbers        as follows:
1XX            Volatiles analysis category.
2XX            Acids analysis category.
3XX            Base/Neutral analysis category.
4XX            Pesticides and PCB analysis category.
5XX            Metals analysis category.
6XX            Total cyanids and total phenols.
7XX            Classicals.
Vi g             Microgram.
mg             Milligram.
Kg             Kilogram.
yg/L           Concentration in micrograms per  liter.
mg/L           Concentration in milligrams per  liter.
Lps            Flow  rate  in  liters  per second.
MGD            Flow  rate  in million gallons per day.
QA             Quality assurance.
QC             Quality control.
                                    vii

-------
                            ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
     We wish to acknowledge the considerable efforts and cooperation
of the many people whose contribution helped in the successful
completion of the work described in this report.

     This study was sponsored by the Monitoring and Data Support
Division (MDSD) of the Office of Water Planning and Standards;
Mr. Donald Ehreth, Project Officer.  The study was directed by
Mr. Michael A. Callahan and Mr. Richard Seraydarian whose guidance
was significant In formulating the approach for this work.  The
contributions of Mr. Rod Frederick of MDSD and Mr. Thomas O'Farrell
of the Office Staff are also acknowledged.

     The cooperation of the personnel at each municipality was
invaluable in designing the field plan and obtaining the other
supporting data for this study.

     We wish particularly to thank the large number of Arthur D. Little,
Inc. staff members who participated in the sampling and analysis team
efforts.  Their commitment to the program and their extra hours effort
helped make the study a success.  The willing cooperation of the
corporate facilities staff also helped considerably with the intense
start-up effort required for this study.
                                 viii

-------
                             I.   SUMMARY

      A study has been carried out to determine the relative significance
of the major source type - residential, commercial, industrial - contri-
butions of priority pollutants to POTW  influents.
      A service area in each of four cities—Cincinnati, St. Louis
Atlanta a^d Hartford—has been studied in detail.  In each city, specific
sampling sites were selected to represent each of the major source cate-
gories.  In total, 11 residential, 10 commercial and 5 industrial sites
have been sample*?, in addition to the tap water and POTW influents.

      This report presents a summary analysis  of  the data made possible
by integrating  the  results obtained from  each  of  the cities and
treating the data by  source category.  The data have been analyzed to
determine the frequency of occurrence  of  toxic pollutants  (specifically
the  list of 129 priority  pollutants),  their  concentration  levels,  the
sources of these pollutants, and  the impact  of the source  contributions
on the POTW influent.  Manganese  and several classical  parameters  (7XX
series) were also measured and included  in  the data base.   The  analysis  has
been carried out within  the constraints  imposed  by the  inherent  characteristics
of each of the  major  source categories -  residential, commercial,
industrial - concerning  the range of discharge levels which was  observed
for  each category.

      The data available for analysis consist primarily of three
 types:
      1. Total  service area source type description and demography and
         similar data for each specific sampling  site.
      2. Entire service area and  site specific flow data.

      3.  Chemical concentration  data.
      The general source descriptions and details of housing, population,
 SIC category industries, etc. was obtained  from  local agencies in each

  Publicly Owned Treatment Works

-------
of the four cities .studied.  Flow information for the commercial and
industrial users in the entire service area was obtained from the water
supply records.
     Field sampling at each site occurred over a period of six days,
resulting in 30-60  24-hour or 48-hour composite samples per city.
     Flows were measured at each site for use in calculating mass
discharge rates.  Each of the samples was returned to the laboratory
for complete chemical analysis according to the EPA protocol.
     A full quality control program was implemented for the chemical
analyses.  The results of this program showed that most pollutants
were analyzed with 80-90% accuracy and with a relative standard
deviation of 10-30%.
     The available data have been grouped according to the major
source categories.  For each category, the frequency of detection
of a given pollutant and its average concentration has been determined.
For residential sources, the per capita discharge rate  (mg/person/day)
has been calculated for each site and each pollutant.  An average
index value has been calculated for each source  category such that,
when the quantity of each source type was known, the POTW influent
mass flow could be calculated from
          POTW  (Kg/day) - V^ + V^ + A^
where V is the  index value for each source type  (R » residential,
C = commercial, I » industrial) and A is the amount of source activity.
For the residential sources, the population was  used as an index base.
For the commercial and industrial soruces, the total source type flow was
used as the base.  The indices calculated using  this approach appear to
be reliable for the residential and commercial sources, but can only
be used as estimates for the industrial sources, because of the highly
specific dependence of this index on industry type.  The industrial
index has been  useful primarily for purposes of  comparison with the other
two source types.  Perhaps the most important observation in this  study
is that relatively few toxic pollutants were found in the sources  and
many of those  found were present at low concentration levels.  A  total

-------
of 56 priority pollutants were observed in this study, grouped as
indicated below by analysis category:
          Volatiles                    24
          Acids                         7
          Base/Neutrals                11
          Pesticides                    2
          Metals                       12 (plus manganese)
          Total Cyanides
          Total Phenols
     The pollutants given in Table 1 were never detected  (within the
limits of the chemical analysis) during the entire study.
     The following 5 box plots  (Figures 1-5) show the frequency of
detection and the average source concentration values for pollutants
which were observed more than 50% of the  time and/or at  source average
concentrations  greater than 10  yg/L.   The data have been grouped
according to those chemicals observed  at  levels  less  than 10  yg/L,
10-100 yg/L.
     The increase in numbers and concentration of  chemicals is clear
as one proceeds from tap water  through residential  and  commercial  to
the  industrial  sources.  The final  result observed  at  the POTW
influent does indeed appear to  be a good  integration  of the individual
source values because  the POTW  influent concentration  levels  are higher
than just residential  values and lower than industrial  values and  the
requency of observation  is  increased at the POTW.
     The data in  Figures 1-5  relate to concentration  only and cannot be
used directly for projection  to other areas.
     In order to  evaluate  the  potential impact of  the individual source
type contributions  on  the  POTW, the average index  values for  each  type
were scaled by  the  flow (or population) for that source to calculate
typical POTW  loadings.   The example in Table 2 shows  the fraction
contributed from each  source  type  resulting in the indicated  POTW
 loading  (in Kg/day)  for a hypothetical city whose  characteristics  were
 as follows:

-------
                                  Table  1

            Pollutants (67 Total)  Never  Detected In Four Cities
*101 Chloromethane
 102 Dichlorodifluoromethane
 103'Bromomethane
 107 Acrolein
 122 Cis-l,3-dichloropropylene
 202 Nitrophenol
 208 2,4-dinitrophenol
 209 4,6-dinitro-2-cresol
 211 4-Nitrophenol
 304 Hexachloroethane
 305 Bis (chloroinethyl) ether
 306 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
 307 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
 308 N-Nitrosodimethylamine
 309 Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
 311 Hexachlorobutadiene
 313 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
 314 Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
 316 Isophorone
 317 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
 318 2-Chloronaphthalene
 319 Acenaphthylene
 320 Acenaphthene
 321 Dimethyl pnthalate
 322 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
 323 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
 324 Fluorene
 325 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
 327 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
 328 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
 329 Hexachlorobenzene
 330 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
 336 Benzidine
340 Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene
342 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidir:e
343 Benzofluoranthenes**
345 Benzo(a)pyrene
346 Indeno  (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
347 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene
348 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
349 TCDD
401 alpha-BHC
402 gamma-BHC
403 beta-BHC
405 delta-BHC
407 Heptachlor epoxide
408 Endosulfan I.
409 DDE
410 Dieldrin
411 Endrin
412 DDD
413 Endosulfan II.
414 DDT
415 Endrin aldehyde
416 Endosulfan sulfate
417 Chlordane
418 Toxaphene
419 PCB-1221
420 ?CB-1232
421 PCB-1242
422 PCB-1248
423 PCB-1254
424 PCB-1260
425 PCB-1016
503 Beryllium
 *The 101, etc., numbers paired with pollutants  are referencing
  numbers for data storage.
 **Two compounds.

-------
               Lets Than 60%
Greater Than 50%
Greater
Than
100/jg/L

Between
10MO/L
••wl
100M9/L
ten
Than
10M9/L



Lead



(All others detected)




Chloroform
Zinc
Copper



Bromodichlorome thane
Dibromochlor one thane
Manganese

Figure  1:   Concentration/Frequency of Occurrence:   Tap Water

-------
                        Uw Then 50%
   GraaMr Than 50%
QrMttr
Thin
 IQOfif/L
              (All  others  detected)
Zinc
Manganese
                                                    Lead
                                                    Copper
                                                    Chromium

                                                    Total Phenols
 Chloroform
 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
 Toluene

 Nickel
 Selenium
       Figure 2:  Concentration/Frequency of Occurrence:  Residential

-------
                        LM* Than 50%
                                          Greater Than 50%
Graatar
Than
100MB/L
Batwaan
 10/ig/L
 and
 100jzg/L
              Trichloroethylene
              Dl-n-butylphthalate
  Than
  10/ig/L
                                                     Manganese
                                                     Zinc
                                       1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
                                       Toluene
                                       Butylbenzylphthalate

                                       Copper
                                       Lead
                                       Chromium
                                       Nickel
                                       Total Phenols
(All others detected)
Chloroform
Bromodlchlorone thane
1,1,1-Trlchloroe thane
Benzene
Ethylbenzene

Sliver
           Figure 3:  Concentration/Frequency of Occurrence:  Commercial

-------
                        Uw Than 50%
                                          Greater Than 50%
Greater
Than
100 Mi/I-
Between
 lOOjig/L
 Lan
 Than
 10/ifl/L
1,1-Dichloroe thylene
Trans-1,2-dlchloroethylene
Carbon Tetrachloride
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

Cadmium
(All others detected)
                                       Ethylbenzene
                                       Phenol
                                       Dichlorobenzenes
                                       Butylbenzylphthalate

                                       Silver
                                       Copper
                                       Nickel
                                       Chromium
                                       Lead
                                       Manganese
                                       Zinc, _    .
                                       Total Phenols
Chloroform
Trichloroe thylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Di-n-butylphthalate

Total Cyanides
Benzene
Bromodichlorome thane
Dibromochloromethane

Antimony
        Figure  4:   Concentration/Frequency of Occurrence:  Industrial
                                       8

-------
                        UM Than 60%
   Greater Than 50%
Greater
Than
Between
 10/ig/L
 100MQ/I-
  Lets
  Than
  10/jfl/L
             Naphthalene
             Butylbenzylphthalate

             Antimony
              (All Others Detected)
                                                     Chromium
                                                     Manganese
                                                     Zinc
Trichloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Dichlorobenzenes

Copper
Lead
Nickel

Total Cyanides
Total Phenols
 Chloroform
 Benzene
 Diethylphthalate
 Di-n-butylphthalate

 Cadmium
 Silver
        Figure 5:  Concentration/Frequency of Occurrence:  POTW  Influent

-------
                              Table 2
             Hypothetical Drainage Basin Calculation
        (Flow 60% Residential, 20" commercial, 20%  Industrial)
 1 10 1 . \-DKHLOROElHXLEaK
 111 1. \-DICBLDROESUAIiE
 112 TnAUS-1 . '2-DICULOROETiniEKE
 113 CHLOKOFOW
 114 1.2-DICULOilOETnA.VS
 115 1.1, \-TFJCHLORCLTUAltE
 116 CARBOli TETRACULCiUDE
 1 17 BKOMDICULOROXEWAtiE
 120 TMCttLOKOEFintLEMS
 121 BENZEUR
 123
 125
 1 27 1.1.2. 2-TETMCtlLDKOESHXLKKS
 128 TOLUEuE
 129 CHLOROBMiZEllE
 130 fiW/JfL  BEMEW
 203 pmtsoi
2 10
301
315
326
333
337
338
501
502
SOU
505
506
507
SOU
509
510
511
512
513
     PEtVACHLOi;opm:>:oi
     DICHLOKOEKmEURS
     KAPHTHALlilR
     DIETHVL PllTHALATE
     DI-li-bVTXL FSTUALATE
     #i/m  ££Wm PHTHALATE
     BI5( 2-t
     ASTFi(W
     A1SEHIC
     CADXIW
     CHiMXIUV
     COPPKK
     .VANGAItBSE
     XEKCUKY
THALLIUM
2I//C
      C1AKIDES
      PHMiOLS
AXXUUA
Oil >I.VP CREASK
 601
 602
 703
 704
 705
 706
 707
 70F«
*                      3
 Classicals (7XX) in 10  kg/day.
RES
.00
.00
.00
.34
.08
.03
.00
.06
.06
.15
.05
.00
.18
.12
.17
.01
.17
.02
.35
.02
.05
.93
.34
.12
.32
.83
.86
.07
.06
.63
.32
.55
.34
.09
.83
.06
.00
.35
.06
.33
.77
.53
.66
.59
.57
.56
COM
.02
.03
.08
.18
.12
.02
.00
.28
.2'*
.50
.28
.00
.14
.11
.02
.02
.02
.00
.18
.01
.03
.07
.07
.04
.07
.02
.05
.02
.05
.08
.06
.18
.Uti
.06
.12
.01
.49
.06
.00
.07
.09
.19
.09
.14
.13
.14
IND
.98
.97
.92
.48
.80
.95
1.00
.67
.70
.35
.67
.00
.68
.77
.HI
.97
.82
.98
.47
.97
.92
.00
.59
.85
.61
.15
.09
.51
.89
.29
.61
.27
.58
.85
.05
.93
.51
.59
.94
.50
.14
.28
.25
.26
.30
.29
sun
Kg /day*
.30
.04
.33
.65
.02
2.32
.74
.06
.CJ4
.09
.04
.00
2.66
1.76
.03
2.69
4.31
1.96
.55
10.05
1.43
1,44
2.95
5.15
l.«4
.29
.94
.59
20.80
11.23
13.66
21.97
.08
3» */o
.16
4.20
.00
37.81
2.51
e.'Ji
2.02
Q.fcl
22.65
12.05
46.05
iy.2i
                                     10

-------
          POTW Influent Flow:               1,000 Lps (Liters per second)
          Residential - Flow:                 600 Lps
            - population                  136,500 People
          Commercial Flow:                    200 Lps
          Industrial Flow:                    200 Lps
     Although this example is just for a hypothetical city, the
relative flow contributions chosen for each source type approximates
the actual average values for 327 larger drainage basins with POTWs
having secondary treatment.
     The relative contributions indicated in the table show clearly
that the industrial sources dominate the loading on the POTW for most
pollutants, but, for an important number of pollutants the residential
and commercial contributions are still important.  In interpreting
these results one should  remember that the industrial component is
quite industry specific and  the industrial contribution could be
higher or lower depending on the particular industries present.  This
example represents one way in which  the data contained in  this report
may be used to evaluate the  importance of source strengths on POTW
influent toxic pollutant  burden.
     Several other factors are evident in examination of the data.
Toxic pollutants are found slightly  more frequently  on weekdays than
weekends.  There is a higher per capita pollutant  load from old
versus new residential areas, especially for lead  and phenol.  There
is a high degree of correlation in the amounts  of  aliphatic and
aromatic hydrocarbons  found  in the samples.  The quantities of aromatic
hydrocarbons show similar trends and frequently follow the quantities
of a number  of  other  pollutants.   The quantities  of  lead and  zinc
trend in the same manner.
     For the limited  rain event data collected  in  this  study,  the
lead, zinc and  manganese  levels were observed to  increase  during  the
rain.
                                    11

-------
                           II.  INTRODUCTION
     It is the concern of the Office of Water Planning and Standards
(OWPS) to develop a comprehensive strategy governing the toxic
substances introduced into, and subsequently passing through, the
publicly-owned sewage treatment works (POTWs).  In order to supply
the necessary basis for formulating guidelines, the Monitoring and
Data Support Division (MDSD) has sponsored this study of cities across
the country.  In addition to assessing the extent to which priority
pollutants may enter the environment via the POTWs, this POTW
program is concerned with determining the sources of those pollutants.
The objectives of the POTW  source survey include defining the various
types of source categories, describing those categories in terms of
priority pollutant contributions, and determining the relationship
of the individual source measurements to the pollutant burden at the
POTW influent.
     By using the data  to  calculate a  set of pollutant  specific
indices corresponding  to the  residential, commercial  and,  to a lesser
extent, industrial  sources for each of  the  cities  sampled, it is hoped
that  a general  characterization of  the  pollutant  load attributable  to
these categories  can be made.   In this way, the sources of the
pollutants  measured in the POTW influent  of previously unsampled
treatment basins  may be estimated in such a way as to suggest valid
routes  to limit pollutant  loads.
      The  details  of the studies carried out in this program have been
published in five proceeding reports*1"  .   The sampling and analysis
procedures  employed in the POTW source survey were those outlined in
 the EPA Screening Protocol for Priority Pollutants6.   A detailed
 quality control program was implemented for this study patterned after
 the EPA recommendations of a QC program for verification studies7.
 The data given in the individual city reports showed the analyses to
 be in control with respect to producing reliable concentration data,
 free from interference.  The QC program also made it possible to
 consistently achieve low detection limits for the toxic pollutants.
                                     13

-------
     A limited attempt had been made in each of the individual city
reports to compare1 the importance of source types on the POTW burden.
This report integrates the data from each of the individual studies,
by source type, for a more comprehensive and reliable analysis of
each of the factors which were goals of the study.
     There were many objectives in this study, but of fundamental
importance was the desire to determine which pollutants were present
in sources (and which were not) at what frequency and the relative
mass contribution of each source type for each pollutant.  If possible,
it was desirable to establish a discharge index for at least the
residential and commercial source types so that their Impact on the
POTW could be compared to that of the industrial sources.
     Other objectives included examining variances within and between
source types:  weekday/weekend effects, chemical to chemical correlations,
etc.  Some of these objectives could be addressed during this study,
many of the other secondary objectives will require further study.
     The overall approach used in the study was to collect specific
mass discharge rate data (calculated from measured concentration  and
flow values) from a number of specific sites representing residential,
commercial and, to a  lesser extent, industrial  sites.  The methdology
involved going to several cities and sampling portions of each source
type in each city (when possible, depending on  the city characteristics)
such that the desired data base would be available after all of the
cities had been sampled.  Because of the high cost and considerable
time associated with  completing the study of a  single city, it has
only been possible to sample  four cities.  The  cities, and drainage
basins within the cities, were selected in an effort to reasonably
reflect each of the major source types.  It is  felt that the residential
and commercial sources are well represented in  the data base in terms
of overall POTW activity.  It Is also recognized  that the industrial
source data base is much more restricted in terms of overall
representatives.  While the conclusions which can be drawn from such
                                   14

-------
a limited data base are tentative, it is believed that the data summarized
in this report provide a reliable base for future evaluations.
     The individual city reports contain a great deal of information
about the site and service area descriptions, the sampling and analysis
procedures and detailed results.  The purpose of this report is to
summarize essential portions of the data in those reports in order to
be able to interpret the total data base in terms of each of the
objectives.
                                    15

-------
                       III.  METHODOLOGY DATA BASE

A.   Drainage Basin Selection Criteria
      Selection of specific service areas (drainage basins) and sampling
sites within the areas that meet all of the program goals turned out to be
a much more difficult problem than had originally been anticipated.  The
criteria used in the selection process and the factors influencing the
final decisions are described briefly in this section.
      At the outset of this study, three constraints were imposed upon
site selection:
      1)  Only those plants employing secondary or better treatment
          technology were to be  considered;
      2)  Only plants with average daily influent flows greater than
          or equal  to 5.0 MGD were to be considered;  and
      3)  Only those treatment facilities located within standard
          metropolitan  statistical areas  (SMSA's) were to be
          considered.
The reasons  for  setting these original  constraints were that
      1)   Secondary treatment technology or  better would be mandated
          by 1983  under the  provisions of the Clean Water Act;
       2)  The impact  of large flow variability is not as great as
          plant  size increases;
       3)   The variety and amount of  industrial activity  frequently
           increases as  plant size increases;
       4)   The sampling process  would not interfere  with  normal operations
           in larger plants;
       5)   Most industrial activity occurs within SMSA's, urban treat-
           ment facilities have a larger variety of  industrial dischargers
           than do rural POTW's.
       In preparation for  this study, EPA had (through its  contractor,
 SRI International) formed a data base of 25,076 POTWs based u;-on informa-
 tion supplied in the 1976 Needs Survey.  From that base,  a subset of
                                     17

-------
324 plants with secondary treatment was selected for consideration.   A
further reduced list of 80 plants was constructed by random selection
from the 324 plant' list.  That list of 80 plants represented the starting
point for site selection for this study.
      Some problems arose, however, in attempting to use only the "80"
list for site selection.  While the concept of multivariate regression
analysis and random selection (used in developing the list of 80 plants)
would have lent statistical credibility to the ultimate site selection
process, such an approach must be founded upon a good data base.  Subsequent
to contacting several of the facilities identified on the list, it was
learned that many plants in fact only had primary treatment.  Similarly it
was learned that many secondary plants that were desirable for this study's
needs had been missed during the analysis because data obtained from the
1976 Needs Survey was incorrect.  Therefore, the 80 and 324 lists were
frequently used only as a first reference.  Additional data was obtained
from other sources (water pollution control federations, state departments
of environmental protection, telephone conversations with sewage treatment
authorities, etc.) to supplement these lists.
      The  process of screening the remaining POTW's was conducted by
placing telephone calls to a number of candidate facilities, and by ob-
taining as much additional information about each as vas  possible.
After completing this series of  calls, all the  additional data was re-
viewed prior to selecting two or three which were then visited.  Once
site visits had been completed the  final  selection  of a test facility
was made.  This process was repeated  for  each city.
      Specific issues examined during the screening selection process
phase included:
      • Geographic  location of  the facility
      • Plant  and drainage  basin size
      •  Identification of proper sampling zones
       • Availability of background information
      • Availability of maps
       • Convenience of  the  city, both with respect  to  internal
                                    18

-------
         congestion and with respect  to sample shipment
       •  Logistics support available  within the area
       •  The  perceived safety and accessibility of  the sampling
         area,  and
       •  The  willingness of the local authorities to  participate and
         assist with the study.


Prior to final site selection, initial contacts were made both over the
telephone and during  preliminary meetings  to  accumulate as much informa-
tion as was  possible.
      Plant  and basin size were  important  considerations because each
appeared to  have  a bearing  upon the  diversity of  socio-economic activity
that existed within an area.   As was  learned  early in this program,
plants with  small daily influent flows  (5  to  10 MGD) were frequently
located in areas  where only one  type  of activity was present.  For
example, many of  the  basins that exhibited low influent rates (5 -
10 MGD) were comprised of virtually all  (90-95%) residential activity,
with very little  (5-10%) commercial activity and almost no industrial
component (0-1%).  Conversely, one plant with an average daily influent
of 12 MGD had a flow  mix which was nearly  99% industrial.  Any of these
plants would have been acceptable if  the project's goals were only to
assess one source's contributions independent of the others; but inasmuch
as an assessment  of all three was desired  concurrently, these types of
sites were excluded from further consideration.
      A second problem encountered in several of the smaller service
Areas  (with  respect to the  area  served) was that even when a basin
was identified which  contained all three activities  (residential, com-
mercial and  industrial), it was  frequently impossible to isolate these
                                    19

-------
activities in the collection system.  This difficulty usually arose
because the smaller basins were frequently interconnected by single inter-
ceptors, where wastewater from one activity would drain through another,
prior to reaching the POTW.
      The identification of proper sampling zones was also considered to
be Important.  Since the final goal of this study was to enumerate the
pollution burden of at least two socio-economic activities at a minimum
in each basin, areas typifying both of these had to be identified, and
segregated if possible.  It was desirable to locate duplicate areas
within a basin because this allowed for an immediate confirmation of
results tinder conditions that were equivalent.
      Another factor considered important to the selection of a test
facility related to the availability of background or supportive data.
Of particular importance  was the availability of demographic information
which is needed to describe the activity within the particular sampling
zones selected and within the basin as a whole.  However, supplementary
data, such as 201 and 208 studies, facility plans, and inflow/infiltra-
tion assessment were also valuable.
      Similarly, it was essential that the identified facility have
detail or cadastral maps of the collection system.  Without having
access to these maps, it is virtually impossible to select appropriate
sampling locations because the area drained cannot be outlined.
      The geographic location of the facility was also used as a criteria
in the selection process.  Although one reason for Including this issue
pertained to the climate of the area during the analysis period, the
main reason for considering it related to the issues of the variability
of groundwater and soil chemistry across the country.  Initially these
factors were believed to have some possible bearing upon the distribution
or fate of the priority pollutants within the collection system.  For
example, the pH of water (either drinking or groundwater) could influence
the partitioning of organic acids and bases between the sediment, aqueous
or gaseous phase.  Comparably, interactions (particularly adsorption)
between the priority pollutants and soil types could have an affect on
measured concentrations.
                                    20

-------
      To address this issue, the country was divided into seven regions
based upon three factors:
      1)  Water chemistry as defined by the presence of anions such
          as Cl~, SO,", and CO, ,
      2)  The ionic strength of the water as defined by the concen-
          tration of dissolved minerals, and
      3)  A comparison of soil types.
The initial goal was to select at least one test facility from each zone.
Program constraints and the difficulty in locating areas which met all
of the needs of the study resulted in the study of basins in three of
the seven zones.  One zone represented about 50 percent of the area of
the Continental United States and the Cincinnati and St. Louis sites
were in this zone.
       Other factors which also influenced the basin selection related to
 logistical concerns.  Some of the key factors considered at this juncture
 included the congestion of the area, as this related directly to the
 ability to maintain a four-hour rotation between all the remote sites;
 the proximity of a major airport, as this affected the shipment of
 samples back to the laboratory; and the availability of rental vehicles
 (trucks, automobiles, trailers) and supplies.
 B.  Drainage Basins Selected for Study
       Four drainage basins have been sampled for this study.  They are:
       Muddy Creek Drainage Basin, Cincinnati, Ohio
       Coldwater Creek Drainage Basin, St. Louis, Missouri
       R. M. Clayton Drainage Basin, Atlanta, Georgia
       Hartford WPCP Drainage Basin, Hartford, Connecticut
 Detailed descriptions of each basin are given in the individual reports.
 A brief description of each basin is given here in order to help
 provide a perspective on the source character and mix of each of the
 areas.
 1.  Muddy Creek Drainage Basin, Cincinnati, Ohio
       The Muddy Creek drainage basin is located in the western portion of
 of the greater Cincinnati, Ohio  metropolitan area.  It is bounded to
 the south by the Ohio River, to the vest by the Ohio/Indiana state line
 and to the north by 1-74.  The drainage basin is roughly 29 square miles
                                  21

-------
in size and has a population of approximately 88,000.  Contained within
this area are newer housing developments,  older residential communities,
recreational areas, shopping centers and commercial districts,  a small
amount of industrial activity and a fair amount of open space or land
currently undergoing development.  Generally, the area may best be
described as "suburban Cincinnati."
      Major communities included in part or in total within the basin are
Cincinnati, Cheviot, Addyston, Green Township, Miami Township and Delhi
Township.  Of these, the areas of Cincinnati, Cheviot, and Addyston are
older (circa pre-1940).  The three township areas are generally more open,
but have been the location of recent developments.
      Based upon estimates derived from a theoretical flow analysis of
the basin, the blend of activity contained within the area is 90-92%
residential, 7-9% commercial and 0-1% industrial.  The average daily
influent to the treatment plant is 9.5 million gallons.  The collection
system is a combination of both sanitary and combined sewers.
2.  Coldwater Creek Drainage Basin, St. Louis, Missouri
       The Coldwater Creek drainage basin lies to the north and west
of the City of St. Louis, Missouri.  None of the City of St. Louis is
located within the area of the basin; however, all of the basin is lo-
cated within St. Louis County.  The basin is bordered to the north and
west by the Missouri River, open land, and the community of Bridgeton;
to the east by several communities contained within St. Louis County
(Ferguson, Belridge); and to the south by the community of Olivette.
Part or all of fifteen communities are contained within the basin, in-
cluding Florissant, Berkeley and St. Ann.  The total land mass of the
drainage area encompasses approximately 34-36 square miles.  The popula-
tion of this area is estimated to be roughly 200,000.
      Socio-economic activity contained within this area includes older
residential which is concentrated along the southern and eastern borders
and newer residential, predominantly along the northern and northwestern
borders.  Furthermore, high density strip commercial zones are found
running north to south along Lindbergh Boulevard and east to west along
                                   22

-------
St. Charles Rock Road.  The largest shopping center is situated at the
intersection of these two roads.  Industrial activity is concentrated
near the center of the basin, just north of Lambert Airport.   Major in-
dustrial activities include an aircraft manufacturer, two automobile
assembly or part facilities and a diesel engine (railroad) assembly
plant.
      Based upon estimates obtained from the theoretical flow analysis
of the basin, the wastewater tributary to the Coldwater Creek Plant is
comprised of roughly  78% residential, 10% commercial and 12% industrial
flow.  The treatment  plant has an average daily influent flow of roughly
23.5 MGD and uses the activated sludge technology for wastewater clean-
up.  The collection system is sanitary only, with storm water being
channeled directly to the numerous creeks within the basin.
3.  The R. M. Clayton Drainage Basin, Atlanta, Georgia
      The R. M. Clayton drainage basin is  located  in  the metropolitan
Atlanta, Georgia  area.  The overall  size  of the basin is approximately
130-140 square miles  and the estimated population  is  roughly  385,000.
With the exception of being bordered  on  the west by the Chattahcochee
River, no well defined  borders  exist  to  describe the area.  However,
the basin encompasses most of the  northern part of  the City of  Atlanta,
the southern portion  of Fulton  County, a large amount of  the  mid-section
of DeKalb County  and  a  small amount of southwestern Gwinett County.
      A rough breakdown of  the  distribution of land from  each of  these
areas is  listed below:
      City  of Atlanta             45-50  square miles
      Fulton County               20-25  square miles
      DeKalb County               60-65  square miles
      Gwinett County              5-10 square miles
      The breakdown of socio-economic activity within the area indicates
 that there are many industrial parks scattered throughout the basin.
 Two of  these are reasonably large; one situated along the southwestern
 border of the basin near the river,  and  the second located "in
                                    23

-------
DeKalb County near the intersections of 1-285 and the Buford Highway.
Major industrial complexes contained in the basin include an automotive
assembly plant, -a steel mill, paint manufacturers and industrial laundries.
Similarly, commercial activity is scattered throughout the basin.  How-
ever, of these zones, the most extensive is concentrated in "downtown"
Atlanta.  Residential activity includes all strata  of the economic
spectrum.  Typically, the older residential areas are most concentrated
in or near the city limits, while the newer  areas are found near the
northern and eastern edges of the basin in both Fulton and Gwinett
counties.  Also included within the basin is a large amount of institu-
tional  (colleges, universities, hospitals, etc.) and municipal activity,
as well as open space.
      Based upon theoretical flow estimates, the blend of activity
within  the R. M. Clayton basin is roughly 61% residential, 21%
commercial and 18% industrial.  The average daily influent flow  to the
treatment plant is 80 MGD, and the treatment technology used is  activated
sludge.  The collection system contains both combined and sanitary
sections, with all of the combined lines being present within the Atlanta
city limits.
4.  Hartford WPCP Drainage Basin, Hartford, Connecticut
      The hartford Water Pollution Control Plant's drainage basin is
located in the greater Hartford, Connecticut  metropolitan area.  Por-
tions of six communities  (Hartford, Wethersfield, Newington, West Hart-
ford, Bloomfield and Windsor) are served by the plant.  The basin itself
covers  approximately 60-65 square miles of area and the current  population
is estimated to be 285,000.  The basin is bordered on the east by the
Connecticut River, on the west by the communities of Farmington  and  Avon,
to the  south by the community of Rocky Hill and to the north by  East
Granby.
      The major activities present within the basin are principally  resi-
dential and commercial, although a small industrial component is also
Included.  Typically, older residential activity is concentrated  in the
City of Hartford, Wethersfield and Windsor, with newer residential areas
                                    24

-------
located principally in the community of Bloomfield.  The major commercial
district is in downtown Hartford.  This area is comprised of both retail
businesses and office building activity.  The main commercial interest
within this basin  is insurance.  The industrial component contained in
the basin is  scattered  throughout  the  area.  This activity  is principally
light in nature  (warehousing, supply companies) although a number ot tool
and die shops, metal fabricators and platers are also included,  Municipal
activities also  abound as Hartford is  the State Capital of Connecticut.
      Based upon flow estimates derived from a theoretical analysis,
the breakdown by activity of  this basin is  72% residential,  21% commercial,
and 7% industrial.  The average daily  influent to the plant  is 40-44 MGD.
Once again, the  collection system is comprised of both sanitary and com-
bined sewers.
5.  Summary of Source Characteristics
      All of  the data from the  four  cities  was organized by source cate-
gory.  Table  3 lists  the sites in each source category and  their
basic characteristics.  The entire group of residential sources has been
treated as one category for the majority of the analyses.   Both old and
new residential  sites were sampled and some differences were seen between
these subsets, but the  information on  the relative  amounts  of each of
these sub categories was not  available for  the entire service area.
      In addition  to these sites,  four sites were sampled but not used
in the overall analysis because they were of mixed  source character.  They
were Sylved and  St. George (a hospital) in  Cincinnati, Wabash in St. Louis,
and Feachtree in Atlanta.  Of course,  the POTW influent was  sampled in each
city as well as  the tap water.  In St. Louis, both  the influent and the
effluent of the  POTW were sampled and  an analysis of treatment efficiency
is given in the  St. Louis report.
C.  Demographic  and Economic  Data
      An important aspect of  the field sampling program was  to obtain
demographic and  economic data needed to characterize the entire POTW treat-
ment area as well  as the individual sampling sites.  This information was
important in  describing the sites  and  permitting comparisons among sites
in different  cities, as well  as establishing a basis for comparison of
pollutant loading, e.g., mass per  capita, etc.
      An attempt was made to  obtain  the following data for  the POTW
treatment area and each individual sampling site:
                                    25

-------
                                Table 3

      Description of Source Sites Used in Overall Data Analyis

Sources
Residential
Kirkridge, C
Elco, C
Eppingham, S
Avocado, S
Brightwell, S
Northside, A
Warren, A
Franklin, H
Hillside, H
Tunxis, H.
Brentwood, H
Commercial
DelFair, C
West Bourne, C
Cross Keys, S
Northwest, S
Lenox, A
DeKalb, A
Sixteenth, A
Clover, H
Potter, H
Seneca, H
Industrial
Frost, S
Brown, S
Surrey, A
DeFoors, A
Ensign, A

RES

100
-
99
94
96
73
100
85
97
100
100

_
-
82
55
21
72
18
2
66
46

89
0
3
11
36
% Flow
COM

0
-
1
6
4
27
0
15
3
0
0

_
-
18
45
79
26
42
98
29
54

1
2
4
12
43

IND

0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

_
-
C
0
0
2
41
0
5
0

10
98
93
77
20

Population

1,056
600
3,300
6,929
1,545
10,280
2,416
30,762
2,312
1,285
1,527

2,731
3,201
2,124
3,160
1,852
1,868
12,810
14
70,931
293

11,222
0
500
1,951
3,533

Flows (Lps)

12.2
10.8
15.9
31.9
7.8
104.0
9.0
259.0
31.1
13.9
10.6

20.4
19.4
15.2
37.2
20.0
6.8
234.0
7.1
603*0
3.5

119.6
6.1
42.0
82.0
54.0
C - Cincinnati source
S * St. Louis source
A * Atlanta source
H = Hartford source
                                   26

-------
      1)  Population — current or 1978
      2)  Number and ages of residences — single, multiple, apartment
      3)  Land use — residential, commercial, industrial, open,  etc.
      4)  Characteristics of commercial areas — number and types of
          firms including SIC categories where available, size,  employ-
          ment, etc.
      5)  Characteristics of industrial zones — types of industrial
          firms, SIC categories, employment.
The goal in this program was to use published or publicly available data,
extrapolating where necessary and confirming data sources through obser-
vation.  In general, raw data were not collected.
1.  Sources of Data
      Sources of data which were common to most of the cities that were
sampled included:
      1)  Census data, usually 1970, sometimes updated to 1975
      2)  Regional Planning Commissions
      3)  Municipal Planning Departments
      4)  Water or Sewer Departments
      5)  Industrial Councils, Chamber of Commerce, or local
          industry associations
      6)  Municipal housing, real estate, or zoning departments
      7)  208 and 201 planning studies
      8)  Municipal industry directories
In most cases, the POTW's or sewer authority personnel either identified
sources of demographic information or had collected this information for
their own purposes.
2.  Use of the Data
      In general, census data were sufficient to provide both population
and housing (residence) estimates.  However, most of the census data were
from 1970  and had to be updated to the current year, or 1978.  The up-
dating was generally accomplished through local population estimates
made by planning commissions, municipal planning departments,
                                    27

-------
 or water and sewer departments.   Quite often,  these departments  had
 made yearly population estimates or had an estimate in 1975 or 1978 which
 could be used as a basis for extrapolation to  the present.   In many cases,
 population estimates were made and updated. However, the number of
residences were not updated.  In  these situations, estimates of number of
persons per single family residence and per apartment were used to
ascertain the number of residences and apartments from updated population
statistics.  In other cases, planning departments had updated numbers of
residences available but not population data.   In these cases estimates
of number of persons per single family or apartment residences were again
used to obtain population estimates.
       One of the difficulties in using census  data is that  the boundaries
 of the POTW treatment area and the individual  sampling sites do  not often
 correspond to census blocks or census tracts.   As a result, estimation
 was required in determining what fraction of the census block or tract
 was In each sampling area.   Because of the larger size of the POTW treat-
 ment area, extrapolation of census data was usually easier  since the POTW
 treatment area usually contained entire tracts and blocks.   In the
 smaller sampling sites, use of census data became difficult.  However,
 in most cases it was found that  updated population data were avail-
 able through the city regional planning commission.  In some cases, sewer
 department personnel or municipal personnel provided estimates of increase
 in population or residences for selective sampling sites.
       Census data as well as data available within each city were usually
 sufficient to determine the overall age of the sampling site. In general,
 an old residential site was considered to be one where the dwellings
 were constructed prior to World  War II.  A new residential site  was de-
 fined as one whose dwellings were generally constructed after World War
 II.  In some sampling sites, dwellings were still in the process of con-
 struction.  This led to uncertainty in the number of houses and  the pop-
 ulation figures.  In several cities,both population and residence data
 were obtained from several sources;  these were compared and averaged to
 be used In analyzing the pollutant data.
                                     23

-------
      It was generally more difficult to obtain a descriptive character-
ization of the commercial and industrial zones.  This information usually
came from municipal planning  departments or regional commissions or
water and sewer departments.  In some cities, planning departments had
available lists of all commercial and industrial establishments, their
locations, their SIC categories, and employment data.  Addresses and
employment sometimes were considered confidential information and not
provided.  In other cases, city agencies accumulated data across several
SIC categories before providing them to us.  Characterization of the
commercial and institutional aspects of sampling zones was usually more
difficult than defining  the industrial zones.  Most water and sewer depart"
ments had listings of industrial accounts which could form a basis for a
description of the industrial sector.  In some cases, visual observations
were required to determine the degree of commercialization or the types
of establishments.   For most shopping center type commercial zones t
were sampled, it was possible to obtain from the shopping center developer
or planner listings of the types of establishments.
       In many cities, additional detailed data were  available either
from housing and  tax assessment officers  or from surveys which  had been
made using proprietary data,  for example, R. L.  Polk data.   These data
were generally not used  since the  level of  detail  provided  in real estate
or  tax assessment documents was never  actually needed,  and  the  Polk pri-
ority  data were  expected to be more expensive  than was  appropriate in
view of the  limited  amount of information desired.
       If detailed characterizations of the commercial and  industrial
 zones  were required, much more primary data would  have  been required  and
would  have added significantly to the cost of  the program.
       In general, the population data for both individual  sampling sites
 and the POTW treatment area are estimated to be accurate to within i5-10%.
 In general,  the number of residences is estimated to be accurate to with-
 in ±10-15% since both sampling sites and cities vary somewhat  in the
 number of individuals per dwelling.
                                     29

-------
p.  Sample Collection
      Throughout .the performance of this study, all sampling was accom-
plished by means of manual collection methods.  Typically, a field crew
of between 12 and 14 people was deployed in the basin of interest for a
period of eight days to complete all aspects of the required sampling.
The field crew was divided into two alternating shifts, each of which
worked a m^™™ of 12 hours per day.   Each shift was further divided
into 3 teams of either 2 or 3 people.   Two of these crews were
directly involved in completing all collection portions of the field work
at up to five remote locations.  The third crew was responsible for
logistical concerns (i.e., sorting, logging in, repackaging of all col-
lected sample Increments), as well as maintaining the working status
(by providing essential supplies, repairing equipment, etc.) of the re-
mote crews.  To a limited extent, the logistics crew also participated
in sampling activities by being responsible for the collection of in-
fluent, effluent and tap water samples.
      Actual collection was completed using a  two  liter  stainless steel
graduate  (bucket) and a telescopic pole  (extended  length of  9.75 meters).
Normally, the first aliquot obtained was used  to determine pH, tempera-
ture and to determine whether oxidizing species were present  (by means
of a potassium-iodide, starch indicating paper test).  This volume was
then discarded and additional aliquots were obtained to  fill a pre-
determined number of sample bottles.  Prior to leaving a site to move
onto the next site, an instantaneous flow measurement was made and the
results recorded.  These flow measurements were used in  the  laboratory
to flow composite all appropriate increments into  the final  sample for
chemical analysis.
g.  Flow Measurement
      Flow measurements were initially obtained using a  depth of  flow/
Manning equation approach.   In practice,  the measured depth of water con-
tained within a  pipe can be used to determine the rate of water  flow,  if
certain physical parameters of the  pipe  (pipe diameter,  slope, and rough-
ness coefficient) are also  known.   However,  subsequent  to the first  basin
                                     30

-------
studied, the accuracy of this approach, compared to those discussed
below, was questioned because values obtained appeared to be unexplain-
ably high.  Similar observations were also obtained in the next two
cities, but in these instances confirmation that the measured flows were
too high was obtained by the results of theoretical flow balances.

     The theoretical analysis was based on the assumption that the
residential contribution to the basin flow was 100 gallons per day per
person, and that all other activities (commercial, industrial, municipal,
etc.) discharged as much as they consumed.  By obtaining the water billing
records of the area, it was possible to estimate a dry weather flow
throughout a basin or for any individual site.
     As a result of these theoretical analyses, additional flow measure-
ment procedures were evaluated during the fourth city study.  Included
among the alternative procedures were a direct velocity determination/
depth of flow approach, a Palmer-Bowles flume/Manning dipper approach
and a Palmer-Bowles flume/depth of flow Manning equation approach.
     The results of this study indicated that either of the first two
approaches produced more reliable estimates of the actual flow rate than
did the depth of flow/Manning equation technique.  However, the flume/
Manning dipper technique was somewhat more difficult to implement due to
the additional effort required to install both the flumes and the dippers.
Therefore, the velocity/depth of flow method was used to correct or re-
calibrate all depth of flow/Manning equation results that had been
obtained from the first three city studies.  The flow data used for the
analyses in the report are all based on the velocity measured (or cor-
rected) flow for each sampling site.
F.  Chemical Analysis
     The analytical procedures used were those outlined in the EPA
Screening Protocol for Priority Pollutants.   A few of the procedures
were modified during the studies of each of the individual basins.  These
modifications are documented in the reports on the four individual
drainage basins sampled.
                                    31

-------
     A Quality Control  (QC) program was developed for  this study in
order to establish the  reliability of the data.  The program was based
upon the EPA recommendations.   Because the recovery and precision data
were available from the QC program, it was possible to modify the analy-
tical procedures where problems were indicated.  Consequently, consis-
tently low reporting levels were achieved throughout the study, indepen-
dent of sample matrix interferences.
     Included in Appendix A is a listing of reporting  limits, recoveries
and precision of measurement for each individual pollutant in the raw
wastewater samples.  Those data have been summarized by analysis category
in Table 4.  The data in this summary and in Appendix  A demonstrate  that
the chemical concentration data for the samples have a high degree of
reliability.  It would not have been possible to achieve this degree of
reliability or to document it without the QC program.  For a few compounds
the EPA screening protocol methods were problemmatic and these are indi-
cated by footnote in Appendix A.   There were only three priority pollutants
for which it was not possible to obtain data, due to deficiencies in the
analysis protocol.   They were:

                     Bis(chloromethyl) ether
                     Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
                     2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
                                    32

-------
                                          Table 4




                        Chemical Analysis Accuracy  and Precision  Summary
                             METHOD  REFERENCE  STANDARD*
RAW WASTEWATER
Analysis Category
Volatiles
Acids
Base /Neutrals
Pesticides and PCB's
Total Cyanides
Total Phenols
Metals
Classical Parameters
Average
Recovery
92
79
79
77
96
97
100
81
Average
Standard Deviation
18
16
21
14
8
7
26
14
Average
Recovery
88
86
72
75
91
96
94
—
Average
Standard Deviation
23
16
19
15
12
11
18

(7XX Series)
Standards spiked into pure distilled water.

-------
                IV.  INTERPRETATION ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES
    The entire POTW program has a large number of objectives ranging
from an understanding of the sources, types and quantities of pollutants
to knowledge of their treatment efficiency and the impact of plant
design on that efficiency.  This study has focused on those objectives
which could be met by a study of the sources of pollutants.  Table 5
lists briefly some of the objectives which were developed prior to the
initiation of, and during the course of, this study.
    The objectives have been grouped into three general categories to
reflect the relative importance of each to the overall program goals.
During this study it has been possible to directly address and supply
information on each of the primary objectives.  The characteristics
of the source sites and schedule constraints allowed the examination of
many, but not all, of the secondary objectives.  The data reliability
or QA/QC tertiary objective was addressed in detail for flow and concen-
tration measurement and source descriptions.  It will be necessary to
conduct a study modified in several ways compared with the present study
to address the remaining tertiary objectives.  The next section  (V)
presents a detailed analysis of the data organized to address each of
the objectives.
                                    35

-------
                         Table 5
             Interpretation Analysis Objectives*

Primary
   Frequency of detection
   Presence or absence
   Quantity of pollutant (concentration and mass)
   Sources of pollutants
   Index values for each pollutant—to allow projections
   Mass Balances and examination of relative source concentrations

Secondary
   Examination of weekday/weekend differences
   Determination of site variance within source  type
   Source variance between sources—are source types different
   City/City variance
   Correlations between chemicals or parameters
   Measurement and analysis  (QA/QC) problems

Tertiary
   Steady state versus slug  flow
   Separate/Combined sewers
   Type of housing
   Time of year
   Runoff
   Ultimate Source/SIC correlation  for Industrial  sources
 *For  each of  the toxic  pollutants
                             36

-------
                      V.  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

      The Information from this study has been grouped into several
categories for analysis, organized primarily by:
      Frequency of detection
      Concentration levels
      Mass flows and balances
      Examination of variances and correlations.
      The frequency and concentration reviews are straight forward
presentations of the basic data.  In order to carry out the mass
balance, indices of mass contribution have been calculated for each
source category.  These index values for each major category -
residential, commercial, industrial - have been calculated from the
sources for all four cities.  These average values have been used
both to compare with the actual POTW influent values for each of
the cities studied and also  to calculate some hypothetical mass flows
for several different types  of hypothetical cities varying in degree of
flow from each source type.
      The data from these studies are complex.  The most accurate
interpretations are carried  out on a pollutant by pollutant basis.
Some overall generalizations are possible, but with caution and with
various exceptions.
      The data have been grouped and reorganized in a variety of
presentations in an effort to reveal the patterns implicit in the
data.
A.    Frequency of Detection
      The number of times any pollutant was detected in each source
type—residential  (RES), commercial  (COM), industrial  (IND), tap water
and influent—was  tabulated  and is summarized in Table 6 for each
category.  That data, coverted  to percentages are presented in
Table 7.  Those percentages  are also shown graphically in Figures  6-10.
      Table 8 summarizes the frequencies of occurrence for the
two major categories — organics and metals.
                                    37

-------
                                                                         Table  6

                                                         Total  Number of Observations
                                        ToMl Number of Snpl«i    47  I
                                                                            42  I
                                                                                       21
                                                                                                  1
                                                                                                  12
                                                                                                            18
                                        108.

W
                                        110.   1.1
                                        111.   1.1-
                                        112*
                                                                             18
                                        113.
                                                                  42*
                       42
                                                                                       21
                                                                                                  12
                                                                                                            18
                                        114.
                                        111   l.l.l.TrMferaMtam
                                                                  14
                                                                             22
                                                                                       15
                                                                                                            14
                                        lit.
                                        117.
                                                 idtaMo
                                                                             21
                                                                                       12
                                        11*.
                                        130.
                                                                                       21
                                                                                                             12
                                        131.
            10 •
                                                                             21
                                                                                       16
                                                                                                             12

                                                                             18
                                                                                       12
                                        134.   1.1>TrteMoiM«iiM
                                        127.   UAS-TMraoMoroMlwItnt
                                                                  J6
                                                                             41
                                                                                       21
                                                                                                             IS
                                                                  29 «
                                                                             38
                                                                                       21
                                                                                                             U
                                        129.
                                        lift.
                                                                             21
                                                                                        16
                                                                                                             12
                                        201.
                                                                  18
                                                                             17
                                                                                       11
m
                                              2.44M
pkm
                                        307.
                                        310;
                                        301.
                                                                             .3
                                                                                        12
                                                                                                             10
                                        310.
                                        »r
                                                                                       13
                                        330.
                                                                  23
                                                                             IS
                                        331.
                                                                  16
                                                                             18
                                                                                        12
                                                                                                             12
                                        337.
                                                                  22
                                                                             23
                                                                                        11
                                                                  11
                                                                             It
                                        801.
                                                                             16
                                                                                                             10
                                                                             24>
                                  21
                                                                                                             16
                                                                             42
                                                                                        21
                                                                                                  11
                                                                                                             18
                                                                   38*
                                                                                        21
                                                                                                             16
                                                                  45
                                                                             42
                                                                                        21
                                                                                                             18
                                        810.   NhW
                                                                  28
                                                                             33
                                                                                        21
                                                                                                             is
                                        ftit
                                                                             16
                                        na.
                                                                   10
                                                                             20C
                                                                                        18
                                                                                                             17
                                        •M.
                                                                             42
                                                                                        a
                                                                                                             18
                                                                                        16
                                                                                                             11
                                                                   43
                                                                             4
                                                                                        21
                                                                                                             18
                                       •.  Out of 46
                                       b.  Out of 41
                                       c.  Out of 39
                                       d.  Oat of 12
                        38

-------
       Table 7
Percentage Occurrence

Total Nuabn of Saaplci
1TikM«nwMnal
207. pO*xo-m-CT«ol



331. HmhiaH»ffl«MM»» n
WFM • fc.ifc J^J»*fc^^6»
»•*•! 1 - IU^»^»


331, (It OmihyNwuyll/DNMOiyl
	 ptuMlm




604. admkHn
MM Chfwnluin
606. COPBW
607. iMd
606, flkii»iiiii
606. Mmwv
610. NtaW
611. fclimum
811 •«»
611. 1M6DMI
614. Zlne
601. ToMlOyMMB

•. Out of A6 MBplu
b. Oat of 41 M>pl*«
e. Out of 39 BMplM
d. Out of 12 caplM
tesidcntlal
47






?!•
2«
30«

4^

11*
2«
4


2*
78*
«"
-^

38
6



i?
L-2—
9
4
?4
J
7
A7
23

4
IS*
35*
IS*
«?•
ip^1
w
LOO*
17*
M*
?7*
72*

00*
4
93























































U
I
42




S
2
in
5
32
5
30

14
59
43



98
90
5

*9




31

Ji_
1*
2
43


H
38
*

7
38
12
59»
100
•a
100
10
79
?•
aic
u
100
2
95






















































39
a
1
M
21 1
^ '
^
s

38
33
,99
14
71
33
37
i
LOO
7«
#7
s

10
00
14
10
52
38
19
10

J7

62,.
l*
>7 	


}2_
24


*F
43
3»
LOO
100
W9
LOO
33
100
41
M-
J
IVL
n
JDO























































&
41
Jt
12






LOO



M...



38

33

9









. A_
?f



17


17
25
•
8
n..
H.,
30

25
«L
ft-

ift

17























































i Influent
18


4 , ,
6
17
6
.00
11
78

11

67
V .
22


6
78
6

33
11


V.
5*

44,-
_Sfl_
67


44-.
22
6

39
44
56
89
W
8|>
100
17
83
.M.
.n.

100
61
100
























































-------
                    PERCENT OCCURRENCE, 12 SAMPLES
                           20
                                          60
                                                  80
                                                          100
104. Vinyl Chloride
109. Chloroethene
106. Trichlorofluoromethane
lOt. Acrylon.tnle
110. 1,1-Dichloro«thylene
111, I,1-Dichloroelh«ne
112. Trinl.1,2-dichtoroethylene
114. 1.2-Dichloroethina
116. 1.1.1 Trichloroetriane
116. Carbon tetrachloride
118. 1.2-Oichloropropane
119. Trin«-l,3-Dichloropropylene
120. Tnchloroethylene
121. Benzene
124. 1,1,2-Trichloroeihane
126. 1.1.2.2'Tetrachloroethane
128. Toluene
129. Chlorobenzene
130. Ethyltxnienc
201. 2-Chlorophenol
203. Phenol
204. 2.4-Dimethylphenol
206. 2.4 Oichlorophenol
206. 2.4.6-Tiichlorophenol
207. p-Chtoro m-cre»ol
210. P»ntKhlorophenol
XI. Dichlorobenzenej
310. Nitrobenzene
312, 1,2,4.TricNorobenKne
315. Naphthalene
331. Anthraoene/Ptwnanthrene
333. Di-n-burylphtnilite
334. Fluorinthene
335. Pyrene
337. Bi/lylbeniylphthalate
phthalate
404. Hipuchlor
406. Aldrm
601. Antimony
502. Arunic
504. Cadmium
506. Chromium
606. Copper
509. Mercury
610. Nickel
511. Selenium
613. Thallium

601. Toul Cyanide)



















SOB












mm






mm
tarn

•BM





































mm






ms
ma







































••







•
























































































































































































































































































































































Figure  6:   Frequency  of Occurrence  (%),  Tap Water
                            40

-------
                     PERCENT OCCURRENCED, 47 SAMPLES
                           20
                                                          100
Figure  7:  Frequency  of Occurrence  (%),  Residential
                            41

-------
                       PERCENT OCCURRENCE.  42 SAMPLES
 Bit U-elhylhexvU'di-n-octyl
   phthilate
                                                             100
Figure  8:   Frequency of Occurrence  (%),  Commercial
                                42

-------
                       PERCENT OCCURRENCE. 21 SAMPLES



                         20       40       60
                                                  80
100
Figure 9:   Frequency of Occurrence  (%),  Industrial
                             43

-------
                     PERCENT OCCURRED,  18 sAMPLFS
                            20
                                            60
                                                          100.
104. Vinyl Chlwide
106. Chloroethane
108. Tr.chlorofluoromethane
109. Ar.rylonitrile
110. 1,1-Dichloroethylene
111. 1,1-Dichloroethane
112. TrarH.1.2-
-------
                                Table 8

               Summary of Overall Frequency Observations
                      Organics (42)1
Metals (13)2

Tap Water
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Influent
Total*
10
26
27
33
28
_>90%
25
1
3
4
1
>50%
3
3
8
5
10
<10%
2
14
9
13
7
Total1*
11
12
13
6
11
^90%
0
3
3
8
4
>50%
2
7
7
1
8
<10%
3
0
1
0
0
    organic pollutants (volatiles, acids, base/neutrals).

213 metals (12 priority pollutants + manganese).

3Number of organic pollutants observed in each source category.

^Number of metals observed in each source category.

5Values are number of pollutants, out of the total in each analysis category,
 which were observed equal or greater than 90% of the time, equal or
 greater than 50% of the time or less than 10% of the time.
                                   45

-------
A total of  42, organic pollutants were observed at some time in
             *
one or another  of  the sources, but a maximum of  46  could be present
—four of the organics are not resolved in the analysis scheme
and are reported as groups.*  The following list Is a summary of the
number of priority pollutants seen at some time in  these sources.
                    Volatile*            24
                    Acids                 7             *
                    Base/Neutrals        11 (could  be  15 )
                    Pesticides            2
                    Metals               12 plus manganese
                    Total Cyanides
                    Total Phenols
      The list  of  67 priority pollutants given  in Table 9 along
with  their  reporting limits, were never detected in any of  the  samples
in any city.  In general the reporting limits refer to the concentration
level which the analysis protocol was designed to measure reliably.  Such
is the case for instance for the pesticides at 1 yg/L and most  of  the
other pollutants at 10 yg/L, and most of the other  pollutants at 10 yg/L.
Values higher than 10 yg/L represent detection limits.
      Table 10  gives a list of pollutants (20) which were observed
0-3 tines in  at least one of the cities.  Because the mass data for
these chemicals was so sparse, they were excluded from the subsequent
concentration and mass flow Interpretations.  The data for methylene
chloride was  excluded from these analyses because it is such a
ubiquitous  contaminant.
      Table 11 gives a  list of the 40 toxic pollutants which have been
examined in detail in the subsequent sections of this report.   The six
classical parameters (7XX series) of ammonia,  oil and grease,  TSS, TOG,
COD and BOD were also included in the detailed analysis.   The data in
Table 11 are given in terms of the number of times a pollutant was de-
tected in a city.  Only pollutants detected greater than three  times in
at least one city are included.
*The unresolved groups are:
 Dlchlorobenzenes - 3 isoaers
 Anthracene and Phenanthrene
 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate
                                  46

-------
      Table  9
            Sixty-Seven (67) Pollutants Never Derected in Four Cities
                         Reporting Limit
Compound                 	yg/L	          Compound

                                          340 Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene
                                          342 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
                                          343 Benzofluoranthenes
                                          345 Benzo(a)pyrene
                                          346 Indeno  (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
                                          347 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene
                                          348 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
                                          349 TCDD
                                          401 alpha-BHC
                                          402 gamma-BHC
                                          403 beta-BHC
                                          405 delta-BHC
                                          407 Heptachlor  epoxide
                                          408 Endosulfan  I
                                          409 DDE
                                          410 Dieldrin
                                          411 Endrin
                                          412 DDD
                                          413 Endosulfan  II
                                          414 DDT
                                          415 Endrin  aldehyde
                                          416 Endosulfan  sulfate
                                          417 Chlordane
                                          418 Toxaphene
                                          419 PCB-1221
                                          420 PCB-1232
                                          421 PCB-1242
                                          422 PCB-1248
                                          423 PCB-1254
                                          424 PCB-1260
                                          425 PCB-1016
                                          503 Beryllium
                                                 Reporting Limit
101 Chloromethane          fl
102 Dichlorodifluoromethane
103 Bromomethanea
107 Acrolein
122 Cis-l,3-dichloropropylene
202 Nitrophenol
208 2,4-dinitrophenolb
209 4,6-dinitro-2-cresolb
211 4-Nitrophenolb
304 Hexachloroethane
305 Bis(chloromethyl)ethera
306 Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
307 Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
308 N-Nitrosodimethylamine b
309 Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
311 Hexachlorobutadiene
313 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether*
314 Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
316 Isophorone
317 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene3
318 2-Chloronaphthalene
319 Acenaphthylene
320 Acenaphthene
321 Dimethyl phthalate
322 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
323 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
324 Fluorene
325 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
327 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
328 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
329 Hexachlorobenzene
330 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
336 Benzidineb

aThese compounds were not detected by the EPA method.
t>Chromatographlc problems encountered with these compounds.
  5
  5
  5
 1-7
  1
10-15
20-40
20-40
10-25
10-20

10-20
 10
10-70
10-20
 10

 10
 10

 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
10-20
5-10
10
1-5
5-10
 5
5-10
5-10

 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
1-3

-------
                                Table 10
Priority Pollutants Never Observed Greater Than Three Times  In Any  One City*
                                          Number of Times Detected
  104.   Vinyl chloride
  105.   Chloroethane
  108.   Trichlorofluoromethane
  109.   Acrylonitrile
  118.   1,2-Dichloropropane
  119.   Trans-l,3-dichloropropylene
  124.   1,1,2-Trlchloroethane
  126.   1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
  201.   2-Chlorophenol
  205.   2,4-Dichlorophenol
  206.   2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
  207.   4-Chloro-3-cresol
  310.   Nitrobenzene
  312.   1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
  331.   Anthracene/Phenanthrene
  334.   Fluoranthene
  335.   Pyrene
  404.   Heptachlor
  406.   Aldrin
!in.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
_
St.L.
-
-
-
-
2
2
-
-.
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
_
Atl.
1
1
2
1
1
-
1
2
1
1
1
-
-
-
3
_
Htf(
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
2
1
1
 *Including  influent,  tap,  and source samples.   Dash means not detected.
                                      48

-------
                                  Table  11
Pollutants  Selected  for Detailed  Analysis  - Frequency  of Detection

         Compounds detected greater than 3 times  in at least one city''

                                                Number of  Times Detected
                                                                      H(28)
       110.  1,1-Dichloroethylene
       111.  1,1-Dichloroethane
       112.  Trans-l,2-dichloroethylene
       113.  Chloroform
       114.  1,2-Dichloroethane
       115.  1,1,1-Trichloroethane
       116.  Carbon tetrachloride
       117.  Bromodichloromethane
       120.  Trichloroethylene
       121.  Benzene
       123.  Dibromochloromethane
       125.  Bromoform
       127.  1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene
       128.  Toluene
       129.  Chlorobenzene
       130.  Ethylbenzene
       203.  Phenol
       204.   2,4-Dimethylphenol
       210.   Pentachlorophenol
       301.  Dichlorobenzenes
       315.  Naphthalene
       326.   Diethylphthalate
       333.   Di-n-butylphthalate
       337.   Butylbenzylphthalate
       338.   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)/di-n-octyl
                phthalate
       501.   Antimony
       502.   Arsenic
       504.   Cadmium
       505.   Chromium
       506.   Copper
       507.   Lead
       508.   Manganese
       509.   Mercury
       510.   Nickel
       511.   Selenium
       512.   Silver
       513.   Thallium
       514.   Zinc
       601.  Total Cyanides
       602.  Total Phenols
38)
1
_
_
37
2
10
_
16
_
16
13
4
24
21
1
16
13
1
2
2
7
27
25
11
24
4
36
11
8
37
20
36
3
13
22
20
4
35
4
35
S(561
3
2
11
55
1
35
2
34
21
41
37
1
55
54
6
24
28
1
_
34
15
21
29
43
10
26
5
15
53
56
56
54
9
55
38
25
2
55
20
57
A(32)
10
7
19
31
4
9
7
2
22
10
1
-
31
27
4
19
14
8
18
7
8
1
8
11
6
5
4
7
30
32
32
32
8
32
3
23
-
32
12
30
 1
25
 1
 9
18
11

 3
 3
 5
 2
 3
 7
 6
 11
  2
  9
 27
 18
 25
  2
 11
  3
 26
  1
 20
       *C - Cincinnati:  38 24-hr composite samples
         S - St. Louis:   56 24-hr composite samples
         A - Atlanta:  32 48-hr composite samples
         H " Hartford:   28 48-hr composite samples
         Sources,  influent and tap water samples included;  field blanks not
         included.

       bMethylene Chloride (106) was observed as a contaminant in almost all of
         the samples.
                                       49

-------
 B.   Observed Pollutant Concentration Levels
 1.   Concentrations
     The original concentration data for the 24 or 48 hour composite
samples were averaged on a flow-weighted basis to produce a single number
for the six-day sampling period at each site.  These concentration values
are summarized in Tables 12-16 along with the grand average value and,
where appropriate the standard deviation, for the tap water, residential,
commercial, industrial, and POTW influent samples.  The per capita (mg/
person/day) discharge for residential sources is given in Table 17.
     For many of the pollutants in the residential and commercial
categories, the standard deviation is about the same value as the average.
Although an average industrial concentration value has been calculated
for the purposes of testing mass balances, there may not be real
significance to the concept of an average industrial value.
     For the purposes of developing  a projection model, each source  type
was considered to be part of the same overall population.  Average
concentration data were calculated for each category by averaging similar
source sites within a city and then  averaging between the cities.  For the
residential per capita values, the per capita rate was calculated for
each site and then averaged on a population weighted basis, within the
city, followed by a straight average of  the cities.
      The average concentration values for each of the source categories
 are shown in Table 18.  From this table, it is clear that the industrial
 sources are the most intense for most of the chemicals, but the resi-
 dential sources are important contributors of some pollutants such as
 diethyl phthalate and copper.  Some of  the pollutants which show
 residences as the most intense source (antimony, arsenic) are present
 at very low levels.  A number of pollutants show equivalent intensity
 levels across source types, such as  chloroform, manganese, and the
 classical parameters.  The source comparisons are best done on a mass
 basis, as are presented in Part C of this section.
                                    50

-------
                                Table 12
              Tap  Water Concentration Summary  (ug/L)


POLLUTANT
ilO l.l*l>lCuLGh(jll'aXLaltE
111 1,1-UCtiLOKOLj'tiAti/t.
1 i } 'j'flAttiJ ^ 1 1 / fis^CflLUtfVtt + 'rt* bfatt &
1.1. 3 udi/0 iiOf x/4*V5
11* 1 , 7-l>lC(iLQkUCi:l'nA!i t
115 1.1, l^ltilCttLOkGe.'! aAnE
I'o CAhbub 'ic.'1'KtiCnLGkll/c.
117 bnGiiGbl CtiLGhOt-.tTnAi* c.
1?C IklCaLGkGzi'aiLtiKL
, , . . • • . •
!?•} CIh"uvOC LOkG'" " */»£,
125 'bhGfotGkl.
127 1, l,?t?-'i't,'fl\&iiLOkObltiJLc,NE
l?e 1'GLLie.nt.
129 CttLUtiOBe,it^t,fȣ
130 LiniL bttieiLfiL
203 ftiEtiOL

210 t-ttVACttLGtiGt-itiNOL
315 uAftiTaALLKi.
32o LlblaiL fufaALATe.
333 bi*S*duitL WdALATti
337 bUTXL BLAtlL rtiTbALATb,
501 Aa'iIhGuX
505 CtikGi-ililk
50t> COfftft
c (,7 LEAD
SOo KAnGAtt&i>ki

510 tilCAtL
511 btLeiNUH
512 ^ILViii
513 I'aALLlJM
bCl TOl'AL ClAttlbtiD
602 TOTtdi fdLnGL6
703 Aht-iGuIA
70S Ji>6
70 b 2'OC
70 7 COC
(0
c
c
u
B
b
.0
.0
.0
39.5
.0
.0
.0
lo. o
.0
.0
15.0
l.b
.0
.0
.0
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
3.3
.0
16.5
.0
6.3
2.0
10.0
2d.O
.0
7.5
.0
13.0
3.5
1.0
.0
27.5
.C
8.0
•i
. .1
.0
• V
1.3
U.3
.0
.0
•H

U
.0
.0
.0
21.0
.0
.0
.0
12.5
.C
.0
e.O
1.5
1.5
l.C
.0
•iO
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
12.0
.0
.0
.0
6.5
.0
.0
.0
8.0
.0
.0
'.0
.0
.0
.c
8.0
.0
a
G
rt
r-"(
tJ
.0
.0
.c
21.5
.0
.0
.0
3.5
.C
.0
c
'.G
1.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.c
.0
.c
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
22.5
13.0
6.5
.0
<*.o
.0
.0
.0
210.C
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
!o
.0
0
•"-1
3 Average
, 0
, L
.C
','<:> . '>
.0
2.5
.0
7. 5
.C
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.c
.c
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
So. 6
,0
6,3
.0
.0
,0
,c
.0
15.8
.0
.0
.0
.0
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
?7.1
.0
.6
.0
d.B
•£'
.0
5.9
.8
.8
.3
. C
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.8
1.5
.0
3.0
1.6
.5
2.5
28. «*
10. t
5.1
.0
",.H
.3
.0
66.9
.0
2.0
.2
.0
to> 3
.0
.0
Standard**
Devia-
tion
.0
.0

b.S
.C
1.3
.C
6.9
.0
.0
7.1
.9
.9


.1
.C

.0
.0
.G
l.b
b.7

6.3
6.0
3.1
l.C
5.0
21.0
13.5
3.u
.0
6.1
^ ^
.0
95.6
.0
.2
.0
3.2
.0
.0
* Classicals in mg/L.
**Standard Deviation •
                                   51

-------
                                                           Table  13

                                    Residential Concentration Summary  (yg/L)
                                                     St.
                                                                         Atlatt*
                                                                                              Carcford
                                                                                                                          Standard
                                                                                                                           tavia-
                                                                                                                  **•!•••,•   tloo
S10UCTO
su
sisimun*
si4 use
tttHMCCMUHB
TOS nv
706 m
707 COP
70S •»
   .0
   .0
   .0
  1.S
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .4
   .1
   .0
   .2
  l.S
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
 16. S
 19.6
  7.S
  7.*
   .0
 19.6
   .0
  9.5
1M.C
   .0
 94.6
   .0
   .0
  3.9
   .7
   .0
130.7
   .0
 29. •
 24.4
 S3. 7
151.1
 90.3
277.0
117.8
                                        2.
                                         1.
                                         ».
                                        23.
   .0
  1.2
 3S.S
 13.1
  9.S
 13.9
  3.2
 1S.9
   .S
 23.2
 9S.S
 49.0
131.2
   .3
  4.0
  S.3
   .2
   .0
1M.2
   .0
 56.1
 21.7
 69.0
330.6
110.1
356.4
176.0
   .0
   .0
   .0
  2.S
   .0
  4.6
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .7
   .0
   .0
 21.3
  2.1
   .0
   .0
  2.1
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
 13.3
  S.S
 13.2
  2.9
 12.S
   .0
  1.4
 10.5
 30.9
 SS.3
199.0
   .S
  9.3
  7.9
  4.6
   .0
102.1
   .0
 3S.7
 16.2
 41.5
101.9
 90.0
194. S
115.9
   .0
   .0
   .9
  3.4
   .0
   .S
   .0
   .0
  1.6
   .2
   .0
   .0
 16.0
  S.4
   .0
   .0
 IS. 4
  2.1
   .0
 12.3
   .0
 11.3
 2S.S
 11.9
   .0
 12.4
   .0
  1.0
  7.6
 3S.5
 S4.6
219.6
  2.1
  9.1
 13.7
 11.4
   .0
 97.2
   .9
 40.9
 21.2
 S4.1
13X9
124.6
292. S
193.6
                                                                A
                                                                .0
   1.S
    .a
    .0
  1S.9
  11.9
    .3
   3.4
   6.2
    .0
    .0
  20.3
  19.2
   3.4
   7.1
  24.7
  46.3
    .0
    .0
   6.2
  10.3
 139.3
 792.1
 107.3
    .9
  10.1
   S.S
    •T
    .0
1215.3
   2.0
  37.1
  16.6
 499.9
 147.7
 110.0
 310.2
 159.9
   .0
   .0
   .0
  3.7
   .0
  l.S
   .0
   .0
  X.1
   .0
   .0
   .0
  •.6
  t.a
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
  9.7
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
 24.2
 39.6
 41.7
190.5
   .0
  3.0
   .0
  S.S
   .0
133.6
  7.5
 20.4
  9.1
 29.3
 77.0
 59.1
361.9
 75. •
   .0
   .0
   .0
  4.7
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
  2.0
   .S
   .0
   .3
  5.1
  3.7
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
  5.0
   .0
   .0
  1.9
   .0
  1.6
  7.0
 44.2
 41.5
245.9
   .0
  5.6
   .0
   .0
   .0
207..2
   .0
 20.7
  9.0
 33.9
294.0
 71.2
112.3
 90. 2
                                                .0
                                                .0
                                                .0
                                               3.3
                                                .0
                                                .0
                                                .0
                                                .0
                                                .0
                                                .0
  3.9
  1.1
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
  5.3
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
 94.0
 74.3
 44.3
 79.9
   .0
  2.3
   .0
   .0
   .0
100.2
   .0
 40.9
  4.7
 33.1
 44.9
 »6.2
170.3
 60.0
   .0
   .0
   .0
  4.6
   .0
   .9
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
  1.6
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
 13.3
 41.1
  5.2
199.1
   .0
   .0
   .7
   .0
   .0
 49.6
   .0
 22.1
  2.5
 15.2
 11.5
 29.7
112.4
 16.1
                                                                                                      .
 14.5
   .0
   .0
   .0
  2.5
   .0
   .0
 61.0
 13.2
 64.0
   .0
   .0
   .6
   .0
   .0
 54.3
   .0
   .0
  7.7
 19.3
 38.5
 62.1
221.0
 75.1
   .0
   .0
   .0
  2.7
   .0
 24.2
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .7
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
   .0
 15.0
  3.2
  3.3
   .0
   .0
  3.4
 13.9
   .0
 67.0
 29.2
120.0
   .7
  1.7
   .0
   .0
   .0
121.0
   .0
 24.9
 12.4
 17.1
190.5
 64. «
299.7
136.0
   .0
   .0
   .0
  3.0
   .1
  2.3
   .0
   .0
   .4
   .2
   .0
   .0
  6.3
  2.6
   .1
   .4
  5.3
   .7
  1.2
  2.9
  2.1
  9.9
  9.0
  6.9
  6.8
  2.7
  4.3
  1.3
 16.3
 72.1
 97.3
153.0
   .*
  4.2
  3.8
  2.2
   .0
214.0
  1.1
 30.8
 14.2
 77.4
156.8
 81.5
263.8
113.3
                                                                                                                            S.
 3.6
  .6
 a.«
 s.s
 2.9
 11.6
 6.5
 7.5
 6.1
 3.9
 S.7
 1.6
 6.1
 32.4
135.8
 50.2
   .6
  3.7
  4.7
  2.5
   .0
175.7
  1.3
 11.3
  7.6
 90.3
 72.5
 27.3
 47.7
 42.1
           cali la

-------
                                                              Table  14
                                           Commercial Concentration Summary  ()ig/L,)
                                                   Cinn.
                                                             FC. Loui«
                                                                           Allan-a
                                                                                            Hartford
Ui
U)

POLLUTANT
110 1,1-DICBLOgOEIStLBIE
in 11 ""ftmyMMBfflffldiffr
112 TRMS-\,2-DiaU)BOSTBJ[LSIiE
its anameomi
11* 1.2-DICaLomBIHAHE
1161 1 1 -^THHIIUJMJKTKAMK
lit CASBOt TtTfUCtilOBIDE
117 MKMMUCWttMMMHWJMr
120 rxrcuemawruir
121 Bsntn
123 DIBRCNOCHUHKJMeTHAIIt:
125 BODHOfOIH
127 l»l«2»2-!TETjKriC>ff£(WCIHn!ff£Ef
128 WUKHE
12* csumoBSHzom
130 mU BENZEHB
203 ;'H£*Oi

710 PfOfTM*fff^OHtJPSIVftf
«M nw*vr /iaMB»ftt9»BtB*e
ais tueunuxn
326 DOTttfL PBtVALATf
333 ni-H-ami eenAuae
337 «m aom entAun
33* ai5<2-iTmran)HmMMn
501 AHIOIOrt
S02 ASSOUC
so* cmaon
sos amoHzai
sos oraw
507 t£VU>
508 MAHCANCSE
509 MSKOIKl
$10 «rm
511 SELSHIIM
512 SltVKB
513 THALLIUM
51* 2/«C
601 i"4STXi CiAHIDSS
602 r«Vli fUESOLS
703 AHMOHIA
70* 0/£ 4M) WffASt
705 TSS
706 IW
707 C0C
708 SOP
•H
«*«
tH
2
.0
.0
.*
6.0
.0
1.7
.0
2.3
.0
.*
1.6
.0
6-J
• r
7.*
.0
3.6
5.2
.0
.0
2 fa
. ^
1.6
13.0
38.2
13.6
' 22.3
1.7
9.6
2.0
.0
35.3
.9
**9.3
.0
12.1
i4.2
1.*
.*
1*2.5
.0
38,0
H».2
300.7
133.3
8*. 3
256. 9
108.6
•»t Bourne
W
.1
.1
.0
*.2
.*
3.2
.0
1.1
.0
10.3
.7
.0
3 ft
• U
27.6
.0
11.5
*.7
.0
.0
n
.w
13.0
15.6
17.6
5.7
1*.3
.0
7.9
1.8
.0
57.0
31.*
318.0
.2
18.*
1.3
1.0
.',
133.7
.0
35.7
1*.8
121.5
129.3
71. i
2*6.9
98.*
at'
00
Id
O
(J
1.3
.0
2.7
6.3
.0
ft
.0
2.5
.0
1.0
2.0
.0
U C «J
Ha. f
6.0
.0
.2
6.1
.0
.0
25.9
.0
12.1
*.8
16.3
*. S
.0
.0
.0
6.8
*1.7
87.1
91.5
_ 7
'. D
XS.l
1.1
.0
ll!*.'?
.0
32.0
S.7
•18.7
113.6
31.0
233.4
tu.1.1
irthwest
u
z
.8
.S
.0
5.6
.0
10.3
.0
2.0
.0
*.6
1.5
.0

.3
3.6
*.3
.0
.0
Mb
. 9
1.5
5.3
15.7
13. S
*. 1
.0
.0
.0
20.8
32.2
88.3
269.2
.5
7.5
.7
":. >.
, J
75. i
1.7
SO. 7
5.9
*!.*
a*. *
110, /
ilij.2
:.:7.8
I
*
.0
.0
2.0
6.6
.0
2.*
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
2.1
.0
S.9
3.S
.0
*1 5
.0
.0
.0
*.6
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
*23.8
51.3
*9.3
178.2
.0
5.5
1.8
S.J
.0
171.9
.0
*3.5
22.6
123.8
121.3
140.3
*C1.*
2ii5.il
A
&
.0
.0
9.2
16.2
.0
1.7
.0
.0
73.0
• 0
.0
.0
*.3
.0
.0
6.6
.0
.0
7.0
.0
.0
.0
33.0
20.5
.0
.0
.0
6.6
52.2
38.7
IS*. 9
.0
18.3
.3
.0
,ii
134.5
.0
00.5
5.6
69.6
163.6
181.0
SOb.S
2t«'.f.
JC
K
VI
.0
.0
2.2
6.*
.0
.0
1.1
.0
80.9
1.3
.0
.0
1.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
27.8
,0
.0
.0
*.5
.0
.0
.6
.0
.0
113.1
»5.2
108.6
JS3.7
.0
d.7
l.C
12. B
.!>
:7V. '•
.0
3f..C
't.j
b?.0
201.2
SO. 6
1J1.0
•Js.e
1
o
.0
.0
.0
9.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
• 0
.0
.0
6.0
.0
.7
13.7
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
17.3
12.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
95.1
2*. 7
25.0
.0
6.3
.u
.C
.0
21S.2
.0
38.%
7.5
12*. 2
17-4.1
179.9
S20.0
M0.5
£
1
Standard
Devla-
£ S> Average tlon
.0
.0
.0
*.3
.0
7.1
.0
.0
.3
.0
.0
«l\
*v
7.5
.0
.6
.0
.0
.0
6.6
3.1
.0
.0
1.6
*.3
.0
1.2
J..2
83.5
93.3
58.7
130.1
.0
36.7
.C
"1.0
.0
383.0
.0
17.3
7.6
133.5
56. S
55.3
277.3
7»."*
.0
.0
.7
S.1
1.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Wn
• w
12.*
.0
1.0
.0 '
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
3.6
.0
.0
3.7
.0
13.1
67.3
5.6
333.3
2.7
5.2
.6
3,5
.u
70.5
. C.
62. S
9,1
19.5
62.1
73.0
;22. j
ICC. ,
.3
.1
1.5
6.7
.1
2.9
.1
1.0
12.8
.7
.0
91 b
£ £• "*
11.0
.0
3.0
*.S
.0
5.8
7.5
2.6
5.7
11.7
10.6
7.7
.3
2.6
.6
56.8
5*. 5
*9.8
22*. »
.*
12. »
3.3
2.S
.1
138.1
.2
C7.0
10.''
10°. 0
122.*
1C6.2
3'.&..J
itii'J. 0
.5
.1
2.0
2.0
.2
1.8
.2
1.2
25.6
.9
.0
13.3
6^8
.1
3.1
.8
.0
11.5
11.3
3.2
7.0
11.2
3.3
7.*
.*
1.2
.9
8*.0
21.2
32.8
106.i
.it
3.9
t.J
3.0
.'t
JO. 3
.*
•i.O
i.C
'l."»
30.7
•;s.o
131. £
'."i."1
                        Clasaicala la og/L.

-------
                                 Table  15
               Industrial Concentration Summary  (ug/L)
                                    St. Louia
                                                       Atlanta
           POLLUTAET
                                   S
                                  £
Surre
                                                         1
                                (3
                             Average
110 l.l-DKBLOlMXTHyiBIK
111 l.l-DICBLOROSTBJUn
112 TRAgS-l.l-DICBLOROeTBILSMt
113 CBlOIIOrom
114
115 l.l.l-H^WaOBBUW
116 cutm nauatoxn*
117 KUMODiaUHMtllMg
120 mcBtausBnusn

123 DUUKMOCSWBOmilUn
125
     »•*•
 126 ItiUBfff
 129
 130
 203 mWi
 204
 210
 301
 315  V4FR1MUK
 326
 333  DI-i-BUTTL tOMOMt
 337
 338
 501
 502
 504C40MIW
 S060WM
 507
 508
 $09 KSKUXr
 510 JUTXBL
 SllSHOUZir
 512
 911 U1C
 Ml mvtt CIMOSiS
 602 rOT4£, WWOI5
 703 4M0KI4
  .0
  .0
  .2
19.8
  .0
 8.1
  .5
 2.3
22.5
 2.0
 1.7
  .0
17.1
 5.4
  .0
  .5
 7.3
  .0
  .0
27.6
 9.2
  .0
81.1
17.6
  .0
  8.8
  .0
 10.8
  70S
  706 tOC
  767 COO
  766 BOO
 70.6
 •5.9
205.0
   .0
 10.3
  3.0
  2.6
   .8
662.3
 S6.9
 26.6
 16.7
 21.6
 67.%
 60.1
 192.6
 69.6
  .0
  .0
  .0
 6.7
  .0
  .0
  .0
 4.0
19.2
  .6
 3.0
  .0
14.4
29.6
  .0
  1.9
  .0
  .0
  .0
 16.6
 11.4
  .0
 •6.5
  1.1
  .0
  .0
  5.8
  4.0
 18.3
 41.6
 76.3
 60.3
   .0
  5.8
   .4
S67.2
   .0
122.4
  1.7
  26.2
  21.1
  5.6
  •7.6
  66.1
 144.3
  47.4
  3.0
  1.0
   .1
  5.0
   .0
 73.2
 14.8
   .0
  4.0
   .8
   .0
   .0
123.9
123.8
   .0
256.3
551.6
301.3
   •.2
   .0
194.9
   .0
  42.7
604.0
 173.7

   2.0
  17.1
1660.6
  75.4
1224.5
 166.5
   1.6
 666.7
    .0
   6.8
    .0
8866.0
 286.4
 446.1
   3.6
 430.7
 484.1
  166.6
1360.8
  868.8
 49.2
  7.9
 56.6
 19.6
  1.9
252.0
151.7
   .0
 67.6
  1.8
   .0
   .0
204.8
 63.3
   5.6
 228.9
 232.5
 130.9
  51.3
2167.7
  78.6
    .0
  90.4
    .0
  64.1

   8.5
   1.7
2136.9
 163.0
 365.2
 386.1
   5.9
  22.1
    .0
  25.7
    .0
 493.4
  48.6
 514.7
   8.4
 103.4
 660.9
 273.4
 1068.0
  524.9
 17.3
   .6
 13.0
  7.5
  1.6
173.4
  3.2
   .0
 18.2
  1.0
   .0
   .0
 43.5
 74.2
   .0
 111.9
  19.6
  11.6
   .0
   6.2
   .0
   .0
   .0
 377.3
   .0

   .0
  83.5
  33.0
 342.5
  91.4
 441.2
   3.4
   8.8
    .0
  13.6
    .0
 148.7
 172.4
 181.5
   4.1
  62.0
  •1.5
  133.9
  316.2
  207.1
11.6
 1.5
11.7
12.0
  .6
85.1
28.»
 1.6
25.4
 1.2
 1.2
   .0
69.9
 52.3
   .•
100.4
135.8
 74.0
 10.1
376. &
 50.7
   .0
 67.1
168.2
 43.0
  1.7
  3.2
 20.7
713.2
124.6
323.7
232.1
  1.9
108.7
    .9
ISO. 4

•60*. 0
 90.7
204.1
  10.6
 106.1
 215.8
 180.1
 540.3
 216.1
     CLM«ical« la
                                         54

-------
                                  Table 16
                POTW Influent Concentration  Summary (yg/L)


POLLUTANT
11C l.l-WefcL&Awii-a/Ia**
111 1,1 -UCnLi>kGk.ttiME
112 j fl/i.Vo»l, 'i-ulCaLunut.iitlLt.fiL.
113 CuLunC/itOrd-i
114 l,2"£/JCnLi5flC/^i'a>lAa
115 l,l,ir/A^C.iiuA(5aJ:a/«/»i
lib CAhbuh WhAL'aLUhlDt
11? bkOt'iuDlCtiLGhOKb'liiAltb
12C 'J'hICiiLOhOt,'IttlLeJf>L
121 bc.nt.dnt,
1?3 t^itiJiUt^CaLOhOMt'l'aAidii,
125 oAt/rtl/ftfM
127 l,lt?tV"Ue,:lk^tiLOhGiJ'ii^LbtiE
12d i(jLuL.t»t,
l^s CaLQhQbt.uue.uc,
130 WaJfL £&*<&*£,
203 eattiiOL
204 ?t*rblKtiliiLt'ti&li6L
/10 etufACtiLOhGfabNOL
301 DlCuLOi\Goi.fnjbnc,o
315 uAruJnALLue.
32o lie. 1 nil rn'luALATb
'ji3 W»«*fioiiL f'tiTaALAfb
337 fcy/jiL bt.bt.iL t-a'i'aALA'1'L
33d i)Io(2ft,'l'niLttKXiL)t'UrlUALAib
501 hu'i'UiObl
••(jj AiiStkIC
j* Cht/(iliJ:-i
'05 (,ttliOi:liJti
50o C«f**'A
507 LZX//
50d itJtfidftHe^e.
509 kLaCUfii
5 1C ttlCii&L
511 MLbfrlitts
51? blLV&A
513 InALLlJh
514 i.//VC"
601 rtuvii C/M«I&ad
60? W'i'ttL knbhOLlj
7o3 AftitGalA
704 O^i AiVii ijf.e,Mt,
705 i'i»S
70 o /UC
707 CwO
70 d i02>
•H
g
•H
O
.0
.0
.0
2.6
."
.3
.0
.0
.0
3.7
.0
.0
1.1
l.s
.0
.9
.0
.0
3.b
.0
3.d
11.0
12.6
.0
4.5
.0
21.6
2.4
151.6
62.1
15. S
347.4
.4
34. b
5.3
3.7
.0
372.0
39.7
?4.d
13.9
4d.b
104.9
43.0
157.9
47.6
•H
.
u
M
.y
.3
^K
o.2
.0
d.3
.G
.7
?o.o
7.0
1.0
.0
45.0
60.2
• 4*
15.6
10.5
.0
.0
26.1
9.9
7.0
15. b
11. tt
4.3
52.8
.0
2.9
135.4
46.6
210.2
701.o
.5
4f.8
4.3
lb.0
.0
790.6
14.0
60.8
17.0
31.0
174. d
97.2
305.7
154.0
2
5
4J
b.b
.0
Id. fa
7.1
.14
95.9
.0
.C
16". 9
.0
.0
.0
739.4
V5.5
.0
4d.7
18. b
9.9
19.2
92.7
32.9
5.0
4.4
77.3
.0
.6
.0
3.1
72.1
50.4
135.6
277.5
.8
Id. 3
.0
12.4
.0
353.2
4.9
99.8
7.4
78.5
137.9
67.9
ldta.8
100.9
•o
0

-------
                                              Table  17

        Residential  Per Capita Mass Discharge Rate  Summary (mg/person/day)
                           Cincinnati
                                          St. U>ul«
                                                           Atlanta
                                                                          Hartford
        KUDTMT
no
111 1.1
112
11* 1.2-WCMOMOTMJK
us i.i.i4«mafUBnM«r
117
120
121
121 ttitsancgiMOHEiauie
12S
127
12* numt
IM mn

to*
210 nmnuaueimm
Ml MCHLOKmntHSS
in
120 wmrt anuun
MI Di-t-mirtL faauuMt
in wire Man amuMt
soi venom
so2 ueaac
SMcanwr
S07 CMC
sot mam
sio
412
SI! TUOJJOM
si* tnr
toi rowt cn/uiiDfs
•02 «BVtt FtllltOLS
701 JWMWM
70* wt MP anus*
7os rss
706 2W
707 COD
701 OOP
1
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.It
.s
.0
.2
l.S
.0
.0
.0
.0
10.1
U.6
7.S
7.4
.0
19. 6
.0
8.5
139. S
.0
81.6
.0
.0
3.9
.7
.0
130.7
.0
29.0
24.4
S3. 7
151.3
93.3
276.';
117.8

1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.3
.0
.2
.0
.4
.1
.0
2.7
7.0
.3
1.2
36.9
1.1
.0
.0
1.9
SS.7
20. S
IS. 3
21.8
s.a
21.9
.8
36.3
149.2
74.9
20S.1
.11
6.3
8.3
.1
t(t
20S.11
»t>
d?.6
33.*
107.9
516. b
172.5
556,9
J75.C
1
I
•

•

1.
.
.0
.0
.3
.0
.0
d.O
.»
.0
.0
.9
.0
.0
.0
.0
5.5
3.S
s.s
1.2
5.2
.0
.6
4.4
12.8
23.0
82.7
.2
4.1
3.Z
'..9
.3
12.7
• 0
14.8
',.7
1.7.2
4*. 3
37.4
50.11
43.1
.
!
.0
.0
.0
.0
.3
.0
.0
.6
.1
.a
.0
5.9
2.1
.0
.0
6.1
.8
.0
S.I
.0
4.S
9.S
4.7
.0
4.9
.0
.4
3.0
14.1
21.7
87.3
.8
3.2
5.4
U.S
.0
38. 6
.0
16.3
8.4
21. S
53.2
49. S
116.3
73.0
1
f
.0
.0
.0
.3
.S
.0
.1
.1
.7
.1
.0
6.9
$.2
.1
l.S
2.7
.0
.0
(.9
S.4
l.S
3.1
to. e
20.2
.0
.0
2.7
4.5
60.9
346.2
46.9
.4
4.4
3.8
.3
.0
531.2
.9
16.2
7.3
214.1
64.6
xe.i
13S.6
61.9
|
4J
£
.0
.0
.0
.0
.t
.0
.0
1.3
.0
.0
.0
s.s
.8
.0
.0
.0
.0
6.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
15.5
24.7
26.7
US. 6
.0
1.9
.0
3.S
.0
8S.S
4.8
13.1
S.S
18.7
49.3
37.8
231.6
48.6
8
M
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.6
.1
.0
.1
1.7
1.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.6
.0
.0
.6
.0
.S
2.3
14.3
13.4
79.4
.0
1.8
.0
.0
.0
6b.9
.0
6.7
2.9
11.0
95.0
24.0
S8.9
29.1
&
I
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
2.8
1.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
3.8
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
61.0
S4.3
32. S
S7.3
.0
2.0
.0
.0
.0
72.8
.0
29.7
3.4
24. S
32.6
33. S
123.7
4i.S
|
•H
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
l.H
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
IS. 4
47.8
6.0
231.7
.0
.0
.8
.0
.0
57.8
.0
25.7
2.9
17.6
21.3
34. S
130.7
19.0

i
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
13.6
.0
.0
.0
2.3
.0
.0
S6.9
12.3
59.7
.0
.0
.s
.0
.0
50.6
.0
.0
7.2
18.4
35.9
57.9
206. 0
70. 0
|
I
.0
.0
.0
.0
14. S
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
9.0
1.9
s.o
.0
.0
2.0
8.3
.0
40.2
17.5
72.0
,M
1.0
.0
.<:
.0
72. 6
.0
14.9
7.4
10.3
114.2
38.9
179.8
82.8

Av«rag<
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.3
.0
.0
.2
.1
.0
.0
3.J
1.
.
.
S.
.
.
.2
.2
1 .6
.4
.9
.4
.6
.8
1.0
13.6
60.7
51.2
1C4.9
.2
2.4
<.7
1.1
.0
128. S
.7
25.5
11.6
49.4
127.6
C2.1
208.3
.•».1
Standard
Devia-
tion
.0
.0
.0
.6
.0
1.7
.0
.0
.3
.2
.0
.0
2.7
1.7
.1
.4
9.0
.3
1.6
2.3
1.2
17.2
8.3
S.3
7.0
1.7
10.9
.8
8.E
57.2
53.5
•JO. 1
.2
1.4
3.0
1.0
.u
b9.<4
1.2
22.4
11. ft
38.3
137. a
46.6
140.6
72.9
  *Cla*wlcala in g/paraoa/da>

-------
                   Table 18

       Overall Source Average Concentrations
                                          Ug/L*
            Pollutant               RES       COM     IND

110 1,1-DICHLOROETHXLENE             «°        -3      n«
111 l.l-DICHLOROETHAM!               .0        -1       l'
112      --                       .0       1.5
           t
113 CHLOROFORM                      3.0       6.7      12. 0
114 1.2-DICHLOROEWANB                •*        «l        •*
115 1,1,1-TRICHLQMETHAtlE           2.3       2.9      85.1
116 OUffiCW 1'ETRACULORIDE              »°        -1      2°*^
117 BROMODICHLOROMETHAUE              -0       1-0       *-J
12QZKICHLOROETKUENE                 •*»      "•«      25'*
121 BENZEUK                           '2       2'7       J,
123 DIBHCMOCHLORWLTHANE              .0        .7       1.2

127 1.1,2, 2-TETRACHlOROETHXLEt&      6.3      21. «*      69.9
128 2WWHW?                         2'6      11'J      52<
129 CHLOROBFMEm                     -J        -J
130 HW/£ fi&W2fftff                     •*        f-0
203 pwwi;                           5-8        •»••;
2 OH  2.4-W.VFSWyLWBWL                '7         -°
 210 PENTACHLOROPHENOL               1-2       5.8
 301 DICHLOROBENZENBS                2.8       7.5
 315 UAPHTHALEUB                     2.1       2.6      so./
 326  CJEST/yz; PUTHALATE               S-8       5'^        '"
 333  DI-K-BUVfL PHTHALATK            9.0      11.7      67.1
 337  W/iTZ. BW^yi. fKTKALAZE          6.8      10.6      168.2
                                     6.8       7.7      43.0
  'dassicals in ««g/L.

                                  57
 338      -
 501 ANT&WX                         2.7        .3       i.
                                      *•»       2'|      -2J'*
                                      J-J        •!     7^2
     CHROMIUM                        I*'*      J6.8     713.2
                                     72.1      54.5
                                     97.3      49.8     323.7
                                                       23?-j
 509 MS«Ti/«r                           -       12\
 SIQ NICKEL                           *-J      «•*
 SSSST                         5:         -
                                                         o
                                       -J        -2     90.
      TOTAL HIBIOU                            JJ-J    2JJ
                                        '
                                    263.8     346.0     540.3
                                    113.9     160.0     216.1

-------
2.   Frequency/Concentration Relationships
     For each pollutant, the frequency of detection data (in percent)
have been paired with the average category concentration data by source
category and is summarized in Table 19.  For simplification in attempting
to interpret this data, they have been grouped into general categories;
pollutants detected greater than or less than 50 percent of the time, in
concentration level groups of <10 yg/L, 10-100 yg/L and >100 yg/L.
These results were shown in Figure 1-5 of the Summary.
     These displays clearly show the low levels of pollutants associated
with tap water and the increase in contribution from residential to com-
mercial to industrial sources.  The POTW influent data do reflect  the
integration of these results as indicated by presence of most of the
detected pollutants, but at lower levels than the industrial sources
and with greater overall frequency.
                                    58

-------
                               Table 19
             Detection  Frequency/Concentration  Summary

110. 1,1-Dichloroethylene
111. 1,1-Cichloroe thane
112. Trans-l,2-dichloro-
ettiylene
113. Chloroform
114. 1,2-Dichloroe thane
115. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
116. Carbon tetrachloride
117. Bromodichloronethane
120. Trichloroethylene
121. Benzene
123. Dibromochlorone thane
125. Bromoform
127. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro-
athylene
128. Toluene
129 . Chlorobenzene
130 . Ethy Ibenzene
203. Phenol
204. 2,4-Dlmethylphenol
210. Pentachlorophenol
301. Dichlorobenzenes
315. Naphthalene
326. Diethylphthalate
333. Di-n-butylphthalat«
337. • Butylbenzylphthalate
338 . Bis (2-ethy IhexylJ /dl-n
octyl phthalate
501. Antimony
502. Arsenic
504. Cadmium
505. Chromium
506. Copper
507. Lead
508. Manganese
509. Mercury
510. Nickel
511. Selenium
512. Silver
513. Thallium
514. Zinc
601. Total Cyanides
602. Total Phenols
TAP
i
b 0)
3 30
0 V tt •
Z'i S g
M8 53
0 0
0 0
0 0
100 27.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
100 8.8
0 0
0 0
58 5.9
33 0.8
25 0.8
8 0.3
0 0
8 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
8 0.8
25 4.5
0 0
17 4.1
17 3.0
25 1.6
8 0.5
8 2.5
92 28.4
33 10.4
50 5.1
0 0
25 4.3
33 2.9
8 0.3
0 0
58 66.9
0 0
17 2.0
RES
b 41
3 00
u v a •
O O b O
a a v e
9t > O
Mb 5 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
91 3.0
2 0.1
30 2.3
0 0
4 0
11 0.4
22 0.2
4 0
0 0
78 6.3
63 2.6
7 0.1
17 0.4
38 5.8
6 0.7
4 1.2
13 2.8
9 2.1
49 9.8
34 9.0
47 6.8
23 6.8
35 2.7
35 4.8
15 1.8
63 16.3
100 72.1
83 97.3
100 153.0
17 0.4
61 4.2
57 3.8
22 2.2
0 0
100 214.0
4 1.1
93 30.8
COM
i
S 00
O « <0 •
U U UO
o c v e
V > O
Mb < <->
5 0.3
2 0.1
43 1.5
100 6.7
5 0.1
52 2.9
5 0.1
50 1.0
14 12.8
50 2.7
43 0.7
0 0
98 21.4
90 11.0
5 0
50 3.0
40 4.5
0 0
14 5.8
31 7.5
17 2.6
36 5.7
43 11.7
55 10.6
38 7.7
7 0.3
38 2.6
12 0.6
59 56.8
100 54.5
83 49.8
100 224.8
10 0.4
79 12.4
38 3.3
51 2.9
10 0.1
100 138.1
2 0.2
95 37.0
1ND
L „
3 W
U «l fl •
U U 14 O
o fl u ts
U > 0
Mb < U
38 11.6
33 1.6
38 11.7
100 12.0
14 0.6
71 85.1
33 28.4
57 1.6
100 25.4
76 1.2
57 1.2
0 0
100 69.9
100 52.3
14 0.9
76 TOO. 4
52 135.8
38 74.0
19 10.1
57 376.5
62 50.7
0 0
57 67.1
52 168.2
24 43.0
50 1.7
43 3.2
38 20.7
100 713.2
100 124.8
100 323.7
100 232.1
33 1.9
100 108.7
14 0.9
86 150.4
5 0.1
100 860.0
76 90.7
100 204.1
INF
I
b W
3 00
o « a •
u u h u
£ c. o c
a > o
Mb < CJ
17 2.4
6 0.1
28 4.8
100 4.9
11 0.2
78 28.9
0 0
11 0.2
67 50.5
67 2.7
22 0.2
0 0
83 77.9
78 25.8
6 0
67 16.3
33 7.3
11 2.5
22 5.7
56 33.1
44 11.6
50 6.8
67 9.3
44 22.2
22 2.2
39 13.3
44 5.9
56 2.1
89 106.1
100 63.9
89 99.3
100 244.9
17 0.4
83 33.5
28 2.4
94 8.8
0 0
100 293.3
61 ,-15.8
100 59.5
yg/U
                                    59

-------
C.  Mass Flow Analysis
     One of the objectives of this study is to be able to predict the
relative mass contribution of residential and commercial sources, in
particular, to POTW influents.  One reason for doing this is to esti-
mate the industrial contribution at any given POTW  by measurement of
its influent.  The total mass flow to the POTW for any pollutant may
be expressed as:
                      POTW - RES + COM + IND + OTHER
representing the total mass flow  (e.g., in Kg/day) to the POTW from
each of the three major source  categories and inflow/infiltration, run-
off, etc.  Because it was not possible to measure the "other" values
during this study, it has deliberately not been  included.  The impact
of  the "other" sources is, of course, implicitly included in unknown
proportions in the  data from each of the categories.  Therefore, for,
the purposes of this study the  total POTW mass flow has  been represented
by:
                     POTW - RES + COM + IND
     For any new city, Q, if the  total contribution from the residential
and commercial sources can be estimated, then the industrial contribution
can be calculated after measuring the POTW as follows:
                     INDQ - POTWQ  - (RESQ + CO^j).

     One means of checking the validity of the data, as it is being
developed, is to carry out a mass balance calculation for the city (z)
being studied by adding the relative contributions from each source
type for comparison with the POTW:
                     POTWz - RESZ + CC*^ + INDZ.
     These goals could be attained if it were possible to determine an
average index value (V) for each source category which could be scaled
up for each POTW basin according to the relative amount of each type of
source activity in the basin (A).  In the general case, the equation
would take the form
                           ' VR + Vc + Vi
indicating the quantities of each source type (R * RES, C - COM, I - IND).
                                   60

-------
     The basic data available from each sampling site to use in developing
this approach is concentration, flow, and population.  For the POTW service
area as a whole, it is usually possible to obtain reliable estimates of
total population (from the land planning agency) and total commercial and
industrial flow (from the water use records).
     For the residential sites, it is reasonable to use the population as
an index basis.  Thus, for the residential sites, a per capita discharge
rate can be calculated as follows:
                     ,       ,,      concentration x flow
                mass /person/day -  	;—t	
                     v        J          population
     For reporting convenience, the residential values have been developed
in units of mg/person/day.  The total basin  residential contribution may
thus be estimated as:
  RES(Kg/day) = Res. Ave. (mg/person/day) x  Basin Population x 10
                (1Q6 is the yg to Kg conversion factor)
     For the commercial and industrial sites,  the only index reliably
available for all of the sites studied (and  the basin) is the total flow.
Thus, for these source types, an average concentration value has been
calculated so that, when the average value is  multiplied by the total
basin source type flow, the total source contribution is obtained:
COM  (Kg/day) =  [Avg. Com. Cone.  (yg/L)] x  [Com. Flow(Lps)] x 8.64 x 10~
IND(Kg/day)  =  [Avg. Ind. Cone.  (yg/L)] x  [Ind. Flow(Lps)] x 8.64 x 10~5
                (8.64 x 10~  is the yg/sec to Kg/day  conversion factor)
     The data obtained from the commercial sites do  not show a wide range
in type or quantity of pollutant between sites and suggest that an average
commercial concentration is a valid concept.  To the contrary, the indus-
trial site data show a wide range of both types and  concentration of pollu-
tant indicating that an average industrial concentration is not a valid
concept which can be applied generally.  It  is useful, however, within a
basin to calculate  this value so that a mass balance comparison between the
sources and POTW may be made.  Such a comparison provides a test of how well
the  sites sampled represent, quantitatively  and qualitatively, the total of
that source type within the basin.
                                    61

-------
     The average  index values  (Tables  14,15,17) may be used  to calculate
 the  total mass  flow from each  of  the source  types within  the drainage basic
 according to  the  equation:
          SUM - RES x Population + COM x Flowc + IND x
where RES, COM, and IND indicate the average value either on a per capita
or concentration basis; population refers to the total drainage basin
population; and Flowc and Flowj. are, respectively, the total commercial
and industrial flows in the basin.  The values thus calculated may be
compared with the POTW influent.
     Two sets of analyses have been carried out using this approach.
The first  involved using the average values to calculate the relative
significance of each source type  for several hypothetical cities varying
in degree  of industrialization and  residential/commercial mix.  The
second  involved using  the four city average values to calculate a  total
influent flow  (SUM) to compare with the actual measured value  for  each
of the  cities  studied.
     Residential source averaging was  done assuming that sites  within a
city were  all  part of  the same overall statistical population and, there-:
fore, the  average residential value for each  city was calculated on  a
per capita weighted basis.  The  assumption of homogeneity within a
city's  population implies  that each site's population is a  proper  measure
of that site's ability to represent the residences in the basin as a
whole,  allowing population weighted averages  within a city.
     For  commercial and industrial  sources, average concentration  values
were calculated as  straight averages  of sites to form city  averages  and as
 straight  averages  of  city means to form an  overall average.   The  assump-
 tion is that  for  commercial and industrial  sources, different sites
 represent different aspects of the source type and, therefore, different
 sites  are not from a single statistical population.  Average residential
 values across cities were straight averaged on the assumption that the
 individual cities represent samples from different statistical populations.
                                      62

-------
1.  Hypothetical Cities
     One means of obtaining a perspective on the significance of relative
source type contributions to POTW  influents is to use the average data
obtained in this study to calculate mass flows for several hypothetical
cities.  Such an analysis has been carried out for five cases (A, B, C,
D, E) using the distribution of flow and population described in Table
20.  These cases represent a range of  industrialization of 0-50% (in
terms of flow) and a  residential flow  of 90-30%  (200,000-68,000 popula-
tion) with varying levels of commercial  activity (10-20%).  The Case B
distribution  is about the same as was observed in St. Louis.
     A review of  influent  flow for 324 POTWs  having secondary treatment
showed an overall average  flow of  about  1,000 Lps and this value was used
for  these Case calculations.   Those same plants  also  had  an  average  in-
dustrial flow of  about  20%.  The Case  E  example  was calculated  to repre-
sent this "typical"  basin.
     The calculations for these prototype cities are  given in Tables
21-25.  The relative  impact of  the sources changes between these Cases
is perhaps seen most  easily by comparing the  ratios of  the source
categories to that with the highest value.  Those ratios  are given in
Tables 26-30 for  Cases  A,  B, C, D, and E, respectively.
     The dominance of the  residential  category in Case A  is  obvious,
with commercial  sources dominant  for only eight  toxic pollutants.   Com-
mercial sources  still play a  small role  in Case B, but the impact of
even a small degree  of  industrialization is clear.  This  trend  continues
for  Cases C, D,  and  E where the industrial category is dominant for most
pollutants.
     The overall impact of these source distribution  changes can be seen
further  in  Table 31, where the total mass  flow (SUM)  for  each case  is
compared.  Much higher mass flows are  observed for most pollutants  in
Case D than in Case  A.   However,  some  pollutants, whose concentrations
are  not  strongly source dependent, such as manganese, do  not change  much
across the  cases.  Once again, the trends in  these data for  each pollutant
can  be seen in the  ratios  given in Table 32.
                                     63

-------
     Some pollutants still have the highest mass flows in the most
residential cases—diethyl phthalate, copper, and manganese, for
instance.  The reader is reminded to use these analyses with caution
because they are limited in terms of estimating the industrial impact,
based on the data from the industrial sources sampled during the
study.
     For each of these hypothetical cases with an influent flow of
1,000 Lps, a 1 yg/L influent concentration would correspond to a mass
flow of 0.08 Kg/day.

-------
                      Table 20




Description of Hypothetical City Source Contribution
CITY

Case A


Case B


Case C


Case D


Case E


TOTAL FLOW
(Lps)
1,000


1,000


1,000


1,000


1,000




%
flow
pop.
%
flow
pop.
%
flow
pop.
%
flow
pop.
%
flow
pop.
RES

90
900
200,000
80
800
182,000
50
500
114,000
30
300
68,000
60
600
136,500
COM

10
100
™
10
100
—
20
200
—
20
200
—
20
200
—
IND

0
0
—
10
100
—
30
300
-
50
500
—
20
200
—
                           65

-------
                             Table 21

            Hypothetical City - Case A - Mass Flow
         RES = 200,000 people, COM -. 100 Lps, IND * 0 Lps
                                                  Kg/day

          Pollutant                 RES       COM       IND       SUM

110 1.1-DICHLOROETHYLEUE             .00        .00        .00       .00
111 l.l-DICHLOROETHAKE               .00        .00        .00       .uu
112 TRAUS-1.2-DICHLOROETHYL1ME       .00        .01        .00       .01
113 CHLOXOFOXM                       .33        -06        .00       .^>
114 1,2-DICHLOBOETKAUE               .00        .00        .00       .00
115 1,1.1-TBZCaUQROETHABE            .10        .03        .00       .Id
116 CARBON TE'MACHLOEIDt;             .00        .00        .00       .00
117 BROHODICKLQRWETUANE             .01        .01        .00       .01
120 TKICHLQROE'mLVUE                .10        .11        -00       .21
121 ABBOT                          «02        -02       -°°        '!?
123 DIBKOHOCHLQRWVTHAKE             .00        .01       .00        .01
IKOUKOFOBt                        -00        .00       .00        .00
127 1.1.2.2-TETRACHLOfiOETHYLKNE      .85        .18       .00       1.03
129 CHLOROBL11ZEUE                    -01       .00       ,00       .01
130 ETHYL BENZENE                    .05       .03       .00       .08
203 PHENOL                          1-26       •<*       -°9      ^J?
20^ 2^-DJKETHyLPUENOL               .08       .00       .00       .08
210 PF.HTACULOROPHEUOL                .33       .05       .00       .J«
301 DICHLOKOBEHZBIES                 • 28       '°7       '°°       ',*
315 NAPHTHALENE                      >™       -J2       .00       .W
326 W£Tfflr£ PHTUALATE               2.35       .05       .00      2.^0
333 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE            1.77       .10       .00      1.8/
337 /?i/ry£ BKWZJfL, PHTHALATt:          1.07       .09       .00      1.16
338 BIS{2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE      1.0*       .07       .00      l.ll
 502 ^mC                         1-W        -O2       -JO      i'JJ
 SMCAMTW                          .08        -00       '^        -Jf
 505C2UKMTW                        2.3U        .J9       .00      2.83
 SO* COPPER                         12.38        .17       .00     12.85
 507 LEW                            7-73        «43       '??     ,!'"
                                    21-17       ^*       -       ^'2.
 $10 NICKEL                           -52       .11       -JO
                                      -68       •          -
 S13SVJIUIW                         .00       .00       .00       .00
 511 UKT                           23.05      1.19       .00     21.21
 601 TOTAL CYANIDES                   -27       .00       .00       .2/
 602 TOTAL PHENOLS                   5.23       .32       .00      5.55
 703AVKO//I>!                         2.73       .09       .00      2.82
 704 OJ£ AND CREASE                  9.08       .94       .00     10.02
 70S TSS                            26.21      1.06       .00     ^7.27
 706 TOC                            W.11       .92       -°°     1H*33
                                    W.73      2.99       .00     48.72
                                    19.02      1.38       .00     20.40
                                    66
  *Classicals  in  10  kg/day.

-------
                                 Table 22

               Hypothetical  City - Case B - Mass Flow
              RES = 182,000 people, COM = 100 Lps, IND = 100 Lps
                                                     Kg/day*
           Pollutant                    RES       COM
    110  1,1-DICULOROLTHXLENE             .00       .00       .10       .10
    111  1,1-DICHLOROETHANE               .00       .00       .01       .01
    112  TIiANS-lt2-DICULOROETHYLEt/K       .00       .01       .10       .11
    113  CHLOROFORM                        .36       .06       .10       .52
    114  1,2-DICULOROETUAiJE               .00       .00       .01       .01
    115  1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHAUE            .09       .03       .74       .85
    116  CARBON TETRACHLORIDE             .00       .00       .25       .25
    117  BROMODICHLOROUETHAliE             .01       .01       .01       .03
    120  TRICHLOROETHYLEUE                .09       .11       .22       .42
    121  BENZENE                           .02       .02       .01       .06
    123  DIBiiOyOCHLOROKETHAUF             .00       .01       .01       .02
    125  BROMFOXK                        .00       .00       .00       .00
    127  ltl,2t2-TETJiACHLOROETHYLEt,'E      .77       .18       .60      1.56
    128  TOLUENE                           .35       .09       .45       .90
    129  CHLOKOBENZENE                    .01       .00       .01       .02
    130  ETHYL BENZENE                    .05       .03       .87       .94
    203  PHKuOL                           l.W       -04      1-17      2.36
    204  2.H-DIKETHXLPKEIIOL               .07       .00       .64       .71
    210  PEllTACHLQROPHENOL                .30       .05       .09       .44
    301  DIC1ILQKOBENZENES                 .25       .07      3.25      3.57
    315  NAPHTHALENE                      .11       .02       .44       .57
    326  DIETHYL  PHTBALAZD               2.14       .05       .00      2.19
    333  DI-h'-BUTXL  PHTHALATE            1.61       .10       .58      2.29
    337  BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE           .97       .09      1.45      2.52
    338  BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PUTHALATE       .95       .07       .37      1.38
    501  ANTINOMY                         .38       .00       .01       .40
    502  ARSENIC                         1.30       .02       .03      1.35
    504  CADMIUM                          .07       .00       .18       .25
    505  CHROMIUM                        2.13       .49      6.16      8.79
    506  COPPER                         11.26       .47      1.08     12.81
    507  LEAD                            7.03       .43      2.80     10.26
    508  NAVGAUESE                      19.27       1.94      2.01     23.22
    509  MERCURY                          .OS        -00       .02       .07
    510  I.ICKEL                           .**7        .11       .94      1.52
    511  SELENIUM                         »61        '°3       <01       '65
    512  SILVER                           -1*1        -03      i-30      i'73
    513  THALLIUM                         .00        .00       .00       .00
    514  ZLJC                           20.97       1.19      7.43     29.60
    601  TOTAL CYANIDES                   .24        .00       .78      1.03
    602 TOTAL PHENOLS                   «».76        .32      1.76      6.84
    703  MMOUIA                         2.48        .09       .09      2.67
    704 OIL AIM CREASE                  8.26        .94       .92     10.12
    705 3.55                            23.85       1.06      1.86     26.77
    706 TQC                            12.21        .92      1.12     14.25
    707 cop                            41.62       2.99      4.67     49.27
    708 BOD                            17.31       1.38      1.87     20.56
                 A

*Classicals in 10  kg/day.                   67

-------
                               Table 23

             Hypothetical  City - Case C - Mass Flow
            RES - 114,000 people, COM -  200 Lps, IND - 300 Lps
                                                     Kg/day*

           Pollutant                    RES       COM       IND       SUM

    110  l.l-UICULOROE'J.'HXIEKE              .00        .00        .30        .30
    111  1,1-DICl/LOROBTHANE                .00        .00        .01        .OH
    112 TRAt*S-lt'2-DICKLOROETUYLEUE        .00        .03        .30        .33
    113 CHLOROFORM                        .22        .12        .31        .65
    11*  1,2-DlCHLOROETHAim                .00        .00        .02        .02
    115  1,1,1-TKICULOiiOETHATif:             .06        .05       2.21       2.32
    116 CARBOit TETRACHLVRIDF              .00        .00        .71        .71
    117 EiiOi-lODICHLOROVETHAUE              .00        .02        .OH        .06
    120 ZiaCBLOkOEimLf:tiE                 .06        .22        .66        .94
    121 UriiZEUE                           .01        .05        .03        .09
    123 PIBEOyOCKLOXONCSHAtlE              .00        .01        .03        .0*
    125 BROMOFORN                         .00        .00        .00        .00
    127  \..lt2t'2-iKTRACHLOROETHYllME      .18        .37       1.81       2.66
    128 TOLUENE                           .22        .15       1.36       1.76
    129 CHLOROBENZENE                     .01        .00        .02        .03
    130 ETHYL BEb'ZEKE                     .03        .05       2.60       2.69
    203 PHENOL                            .72        .08       3.52       1.31
    201  2,1-DjBeETaXLPHEliOL                .01        .00       1.92       1.96
    210 PENTACHLOROPHElnOL                 .19        .10        .26        .55
    301 DICULOROBEtiZEMS                  .16        .13       9.76      10.05
    315 UAPHTBALEtlE                       .07        .05       1.32       1.13
    326 PISTHXL PHTHALATE                1.31        .10        .00       1.11
    333 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE             1.01        .20       1.71       2.95
    337 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATb            .61        .16       t.36       5.15
    338 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE        .59        .13       1.11       1.81
    501 AltriVONY                          .21        .01        .01        .29
    502 ARSENIC                           .82        .01        .08        .91
    501 CADKim                           .01        .01        .51        .59
    505 CHROMIUM                         1.31        .98      18.19      20.80
    506 COPPER                           7.05        .91       3.21      11.23
    507 LEAD                             1.11        .86       8.39      13.66
    508 XAKGAttESE                      12.07       3.88       6.02      21.97
    509 mSCUKX                           .03        .01        .05        .08
    510 HICKEL                            .29        .21       2.82       3.33
    511 SELENIUy                          .38        .06        .02        .16
    512 SILVER                            .25        .05       3.90       1.20
    513 THALLIUM                          .00        .00        .00        .00
    511 ZINC                           13.11       2.39      22.29      37.81
    601 TOTAL CYANIDES                    .15        .00       2.35       2.51
    602 TOTAL PHENOLS                    2.98        .61       5.29       8.91
    703 APHONIA                          1.55        .18        .28       2.02
    701 OIL AND GREASE                   5.17       1.88       2.75       9.81
    705 TSS                           11.91       2.12       5.59      22.65
    706 TOO                             7.65       1.83       3.37      12.85
    707 COD                           26.07       5.98      11.00      16.05
    708  BOD                           10.81       2.76       5.60      19.21
                3
Classlcals in 10  kg/day.                68

-------
                              Table 24

              Hypothetical City - Case D - Mass  Flow
           RES = 68,000 people, COM - 200 Lps, IND = 500 Lps

                                                  Kg /day
                                     RES       COM       IND       SUM

  110  1.1-DICIiLOROKTHX'LFHE             .00       .00       .SO       .50
  111  1.1-niCHLOROETHANE               .00       .00       .07       .07
  112  7KAMS-lt2-DICHLOXOEWyLENE       .00       .03       .51       .53
  113  CUWROFORV,                       .13       .12       .52       .77
  114  1,2-DICHLOROETHAHE               .00       .00       .03       .03
  115  ltlml-UiICHLQ80KTHANK            .03       .05       3.68      3.76
  116  CARBON TETRACHLOKIDE             .00       .00       1.23      1.23
  117  KROMODICllLOKOynTHANE             .00       .02       .07       .09
  120  TRICHLOROETHYLKrlE                .03       .22       1.10      1.3b
  121  BEKZEHE                          .01       .05       .05       .11
  123  DIBHOXOCHLOKOMETHAiW             .00       .01       .05       .06
  125  RROKOFOHV                        .00       .00       .00       .00
  127  1.1.2.2-TLI'JtACHLOROKTHXLEUE      .29       .37       3.02      3.68
  128  TOLWUE                          .13       .19      2.26      2.58
  12S  CniOKOBEHZLtiF                    .00       .00       .04       .OJ
  130  ETHYL EMZEUE                    «02       '°5      4'3H        ,*
  W3PHEHOL                          •«       -OB      5.87      6.37
  204 2,H~DIMETHXLPHENOL              .03       .00      3.19      3.
-------
    RES
               Table 25

 Hypothetical city - Case E - Mass Flow
136,500 people, COM - 200 Lps, IND - 200 Lps
            Pollutant

110 l.l'DICHLOMETHXLKM:
Ill 1,1-DlCHLOROETHANE
112
113 CHLOWFOM
111 1. 2-DICHLOROETUME
115 l.l.l-TRICHLOXOETHME
116 CARHOti TKTRACaLOiUDE
117 BROHODICHLOROMETUAtiE
120 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
121 BENZENE
123 DIBROHOCHLOROHBTnAiiE
125 BltOHOFOM
127 1,1.2, 2-TETRACHLOROETHYLME
128 TOLUBUE
129 CHLOSOBEtiZENE
130 firm BENZENE
203 PflEW/1
204 2^-DIMETHYLPHEHOL
210 PEUTACllLOROPHEUOL
301 DICHLOROBEi.'ZENES
315 NAPHTHALENE
326 DIBTHYL PHTUALATE
333 DI-U-BUTYL PHTHALATB
337 SUm fift/Z/L PHTUALATE
338 BIS(2-ETtiYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
501 ANTIMONY
502 ARSENIC
50<» CADMIUM
505 CHRONIUM
506
507
508 HANCMESE
509 MKSCVRI
510 WC/ffil
511 SELENIUM
512 mPVfl
513 THALLIUM
                           RES
                                              Kg/day
COM
IND
SUM
601 rOT/lL CYANIDES
602 ?0m PHEffOLS
703 AMttOHIA
704 0I£ AND GREASE
705 7.SS
706 2WC
707 COD
708 £027
.00
.00
.00
.27
.00
.07
.00
.00
.07
.02
.00
.00
.58
.26
.01
.04
.86
.05
.23
.19
.08
1.60
1.21
.73
.71
.29
.98
.05
1.60
8.45
5.28
14.45
.03
.35
.46
.30
.00
15.73
.18
3.57
1.86
6.20
17.89
9.16
31.21
12.98
.00
.00
.03
.12
.00
.05
.00
.02
.22
.05
.01
.00
.37
.19
.00
.05
.08
.00
.10
.13
.05
.10
.20
.18
.13
.01
.04
.01
.98
.94
.86
3.88
.01
.21
.06
.05
.00
2.39
.00
.64
.18
1.88
2.12
1.83
5.98
2.76
.20
.03
.20
.21
.01
1.47
.49
.03
.44
.02
.02
.00
1.21
.90
.02
1.74
2.35
1.28
.17
6.51
.88
.00
1.16
2.91
.74
.03
.06
.36
12.32
2.16
5.59
4.01
.03
1.88
.01
2.60
.00
14.86
1.57
3.53
.18
1.83
3.73
2.25
9.34
3.73
.20
.03
.23
.59
.01
1.59
.49
.05
.73
.08
.04
.00
2.16
1.36
.02
1.82
3.28
1.33
.50
6.83
1.00
1.70
2.57
3.82
1.59
.32
1.08
.42
14.91
11.55
11.73
22.35
.07
2.44
.53
2.95
.00
32.98
1.75
7.73
2.23
9.91
23.73
13.24
46.53
19.48
 Classicals in 103 kg/day.
                                      70

-------
                               Table 26

            Relative  Source  Strength  Comparison  - Case A
110 1. 1-DICHLOIiOETHYLENF
111 1.1-DICHLOHOETHANE
1 12 TRAUS-1 . 2-DICHLOROKTHYLF.UL
113 CHLORDMBK
114 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
115 1.1.1 -VSICaiDROETHAUE
116 CARBON TETRACHLCRIPE
117 BRCVODICHLORWETHANE
120 THICHLOXOETHYLME
121 BENZENE
123 DIBRQMOCHLOROMETHANE
125 BROMOFORM
127 1.1.2. 2-TtXRACHLQKOETHXLFtiE
128 TOLUENE
129 CHLOROBENZEUE
130 FmL BENZENE
203 tfNW0£
204 2t*-PIMETHYLPHENOL
210 PEifl'ACULOROPHEUOL
301 DICHLOROBEliZENES
315 tlAPHTHALCUE
326 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
333 DI-ti-BUTXL PHTHALATE
                 PHTHALATE
337
338
501 ANTIVOM
502 ARSENIC
504 CADMIUM
505 CHROMIUM
506 C0PP£7f
507 £fiU>
508 MAt.'GAfiESE
509 KRHCURT
510 UICKEL
511 SELENIUM
512 SI£FFtf
513 THALLIM
51M 2J//C
601 ror/iL CYANIDES
602 r02V«£ PHEKOLS
703 AMWNIA
704 OIL /!//£ GREASE
705 TSS
706 roc
707 COD
708 BOZ?
Fraction
RES
.00
.00
.00
.87
.69
.80
.00
.42
.47
.51
.37
.00
.82
.80
.96
.67
.97
1.00
.87
.81
.84
.98
.95
.92
.94
.99
.98
.94
.83
.96
.95
.92
.94
.83
.96
.95
.00
.95
.99
.94
.97
.91
.96
.94
.94
.93
COM
1.00
1.00
1.00
.13
.31
.20
1.00
.58
.53
.49
.63
.00
.18
.20
.04
.33
.03
.00
.13
.19
.16
.02
.05
.08
.06
.01
.02
.06
.17
.04
.05
.08
.06
.17
.04
.05
1.00
.05
.01
.06
.03
.09
.04
.06
.06
.07
IND
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
  SUM    ,
  Kg/day

  .00
  .00
  .01
  .45
  .00
  .13
  .00
  .01
  .21
  .05
  .01
  .00
 1.03
  .48
  .01
  .08
 1.30
  .08
  .38
  .34
  .14
 2.40
 1.87
 1.16
 1.11
  .42
 1.45
  .08
 2.83
12.85
 8.16
23.12
  .05
  .62
  .70
  .47
  .00
24.24
  .27
 5.55
 2.82
10.02
27.27
14.33
48.72
20.40
*Classicals  in  103 kg/day.
                                       71

-------
                             Table  27
           Relative Source Strength Comparison - Case B
110
111
1 12
113
114
115
116
117
120
121
123
125
127
128
129
130
203
204
210
3C1
315
326
333
337
338
501
502
SOU
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
 ltl-DICHLOROETltfLEUE
 1,1-DICHLOROETKANE
 TRAUS-1 . 2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
 CHLOROFORM
 1.2-DICULOtiOETHANB
 1.1. \-TRICHLQROETUAKE
 CARBOII TETRACULORIDE
 BROMODICHLOROKETHAUE
 TRICHLOROETHXLENE
 BENZENE
 DIBROVOCHLOROXETHAilF,
 BKOWFORN
 1.1.2, 2-TETRACHLOrtOETHYLENE
 TOLUENE
 CHLOKOBENZEtiE
       BEUZEUE
 2t**-DIKETHXLPHEUOL
 PEUTACHLOROPHENOL
 PTCHLOROBPHZENES
 NAPHTHALENE
 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
 DI-U-BUML PHTHALATE
 tf/TYL flEA'm PHTHALATE
 BIS(2-ETHXLHEXYL)PHTHALA?E
 AtiTLWNY
 ARSENIC
 CADVIUV
 CHRWIVK
 ££40
 MANGANESE
 MEHCUfiX
 SELENIUM
601
602
703
704
705
706
707
708
 THALLIUM
 zi/w:
       CYANIDES
       PHEUOLS
 AWONIA
 OIL /I/,'/?
Fraction
RES
.00
.00
.00
.69
.27
.11
.00
.20
.21
.39
.17
.00
.49
.39
.49
.05
.49
.10
.69
.07
.19
.98
.70
.39
.68
.96
.96
.27
.24
.88
.69
.83
.70
.31
.94
.23
.00
.71
.24
.70
.93
.82
.89
.86
.84
.84
COM
.02
.04
.12
.11
.14
.03
.00
.31
.27
.42
.32
.00
.12
.11
.02
.03
.02
.00
.11
,02
.04
.02
.04
.04
.05
.01
.02
.02
.06
.04
.04
.08
.05
.07
.04
.01
.59
.04
.00
.05
.03
.09
.04
.06
.06
.07
IND
.98
.96
.88
.20
.59
.86
1.00
.49
.52
.19
.51
.00
.39
.50
.49
.92
.50
.90
.20
.91
.77
.00
.25
.58
.27
.04
.02
.71
.70
.08
.27
.09
.25
.62
.01
.75
.41
.25
.76
.26
.03
.09
.07
.08
.09
.09
  SUM    ^
   Kg/day

  .10
  .01
  .11
  .52
  .01
  .85
  .25
  .03
  .42
  .06
  .02
  .00
 1.56
  .90
  .02
  .94
 2.36
  .71
  .44
 3.57
  .57
 2.19
 2.29
 2.52
 1.38
  .40
 1.35
  .25
 8.79
12.81
10.26
23.22
  .07
 1.52
  .65
 1.73
  .00
29.60
 1.03
 6.84
 2.67
10.12
26.77
14.25
49.27
20.56
*Classical8 in 103 kg/day.
                                      72

-------
                           Table 28

           Relative Source Strength Comparison - Case C
1 10
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
120
121
123
125
127
128
129
130
203
204
 210
 301
 31!>
 326
 333
 337
 338
 501
 502
 504
 505
 506
 507
 508
 509
 510
 511
 512
 513
  1 . 1 -DICK LOROETHXLENE
  1.1-DICHLOKOETHA11E
  TiiAUE-1 . •2-DICHLOKOETHYLEVE
  CHLOKOFOW
  1 , 1 . l-r
  CARBOti TETRACHLORIDE
  BROXODICULOR&WTHAIIE
  TKICHLOXOETHYLEbK
  BENZEUE
  DIBROMOCULORWETHAKE
   1,1.2. 2-TETMCHLOROETHXLM E
   TOLUEKE
   CHLOROBENZEUE
   E2V/YL BEtiZENE
   PHRNOL
   2 . H-
   PENyACHLOKOPBEHOL
   DICULOROBENZEHES
   KAt'U'fHALENR
   PIETHXL fllTHALATK
   DI-N-WTXL PHTHALflTE
   «/m BENZYL PHTHALATE
   AKSE11IC
   CADXIUH
   CHROMIW
   IE40
   MANGAUESE
   MEKCURT
   SELES IUN
 601
 602
 703
 704
 705
 706
 707
 708
   THALLIUM
   ZJ/VC
   T02ML CYANIDES
   T0SMI PHENOLS
   AMMONIA
    roc
    COP
    £00
Fraction
RES
.00
.00
.00
.34
.08
.03
.00
.06
.06
.15
.05
.00
.18
.12
.17
.01
.17
.02
.35
.02
.05
.93
.34
.12
.32
.83
.86
.07
.06
.63
.32
.55
.34
.09
.83
.06
.00
.35
.06
.33
.77
.53
.66
.59
.57
.56
COM
.02
.03
.08
.18
.12
.02
.00
.28
.24
.50
.28
.00
.14
.11
.02
.02
,02
.00
.18
.01
.03
.07
.07
.04
.07
.02
.05
.02
.05
.08
.06
.18
.08
.06
.12
.01
.49
.06
.00
.07
.09
.19
.09
.14
.13
.14
IND
.98
.97
.92
.48
.80
.95
1.00
.(>7
.70
.35
.67
.00
.68
.77
.81
.97
.82
.98
.47
*97
.92
.00
.59
.85
.fcl
.15
.09
.91
.89
.29
.61
.27
.58
.85
.05
.93
.51
.59
.94
.59
.14
.28
.25
.26
.30
.29
 SUM   t
 Kg/day

 .30
 .04
 .33
 .65
 .02
2.32
 .74
 .06
 .94
 .09
 .04
 .00
 2.66
 1.76
 .03
 2.69
 4.31
 1.96
  .55
10.05
 1.43
 1.44
 2.95
 5.15
 1.84
  .29
  .94
  .59
20.80
11.23
13.66
21.97
  .08
 3.33
   .46
 4.20
   .00
 37.81
 2.51
 8.91
 2.02
 9.81
 22.65
 12.85
 46.05
 19.21
*Classicals in 103 kg/day.
                                          73

-------
                            Table 29

           Relative Source Strength Comparison - Case D
1101. 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
111 1,1-DICHLOROKTHANE
112 TRAUS-1, 2-tHCKLOBOKfSXLEaE
113 CKLOROMWl
114 1,2-DICHLOKOETHAb'E
115 1,1.1-TRICHLOROETHAUE
116 CARBON VETRACHLORIDE
117 BROVODICHLOROMETHAar.
120 TRICHLOROETHXLIWF:
121 BENZENE
123 DIBRONOCULORWETUAlil'
125 BROWFORV
127 1.1.2. 2~TETHACt!LOROEMXLENE
128 TOLUENE
129 CHLOROBEHZCNE
130 m'JTL BENZEUE
203 #ff£//0£
204 2**-DIXETttXLJ?UEEOL
210 PEMi'ACHLOROPHEliGL
301 DICUWROBEKZEUES
315 1,'APKTHALEHE
326 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
333 Dl-R-BUTXL PHTHALATE
337 £i/m fifWZYL PUTHALATE
338 BIS(2-ETH1'LHEXYL)PHTHALATE
501 Afjyjff-'OHy
502 ARSEKIC
SOU CADVIUK
505 CHRWIW
506 COflftR
507 Z;£VU>
508 MANGANESE
509 MEECVXX
510 //IT/ffL
511 SELENIUM
512 SHI'S/?
513 THALLUM
51«* 2JATC
601 TOJ1^ CYANIDES
602 rOT/l£ PHENOLS
703 AVMOUIA
 705
 706 roc
 707 C0Z?
 708
Fraction
RES
.00
.00
.00
.17
.03
.01
.00
.02
.02
.08
.02
.00
.08
.05
.07
.00
.07
.01
.18
.01
.02
.89
.16
.05
.15
.GU
.73
.03
.02
.10
.15
.34
.16
.03
.71
.02
.00
.17
.02
.16
.59
.32
.«m
.38
.35
.35
COM
.01
.02
.05
.15
.08
.01
.00
.20
.16
.43
.20
.00
.10
.07
.02
.01
.01
.00
.IS
.01
.02
.11
.05
.02
.06
.02
.07
.01
.03
.09
.05
.18
.06
.04
.18
.01
.36
.05
.00
.06
.12
.20
.10
.15
.13
.15
IND
.99
.98
.95
.67
.89
.98
1.00
.78
.81
.50
.78
.00
.82
.88
.92
.98
.92
.99
.67
.99
.96
.00
.78
.93
.79
.33
.21
.96
.95
.51
.80
.48
.77
.92
.11
.97
.64
.78
.98
.78
.29
.48
.46
.47
.52
.50
 SUM   ^
 Kg/day

  .50
  .07
  .53
  .77
  .03
 3.76
 1.23
  .09
 1.35
  .11
  .06
  .00
 3.68
 2.58
  .04
 4.41
 6.37
 3.22
  .65
16.49
 2.28
  .90
 3.70
 7.81
 2.34
  .22
  .67
  .93
32.59
10.54
17.47
21.11
  .10
 5.08
  .32
 6.70
  .01
47.37
 4.01
11.23
 1.57
 9.56
20.35
12.02
44.87
18.57
 Classicals  in 10  kg/day.

-------
                        Table 30

         Relative  Source  Strength Comparison - Case E
           Pollutant

110 1.1-DICHLCROETHYLEUK
111 1.1 -DICHLOROETHAUE
112 TKANS-l. 2-DICHLOROETHYLENC
113 CHLOROFORM
114 1.2 -DICHLOROETUAtlE
115 1.1,1 -TRICHLOROETiiAUE
116 CARBON TETRAC11LORIDE
117 BROMODICHLOROMETHAUE
120 TRICHLOROETHYLEUR
121 BEUZEilE
123 DIBftOMOCHLOROMETHAUE
125 BROMOFOIM
127 1.1,2. 2-TETRACilLOROETHYLEHE
128 TOLUENE
129 CHLOROBEUZENE
130 £2WJTZ, BENZENE
203 P//L'A'0L
2042,H-DIMETHYLPHENOL
210 PEUTACHLOROPHEUOL
301 DICHLOROBENZENES
315 NAPHTHALENE
326 DIETHYL PHTIIALATE
333 DI-H-BlfHL PHTHALATE
337 Si/TYL flaY2y£ PtlTHALATE
338 SIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTKALATE
501 ANTIMONY
502 ARSENIC
501 CADMIUM
505 CHROMIW
506 COPPER
507 ££>!/;
508 MANGANESE
509 MERCURY
510 UICKEL
511 SELENIUM
512 SILVER
513 THALLIUM
514 ZI//C
601 rom  CYANIDES
602 SYtfVIL  PHENOLS
703 AMMONIA
704 OIL  /I//0 GREASE
705 TSS
706 TOC
707
708
Fraction
RES
.00
.00
.00
.45
.12
.04
.00
.09
.09
.19
.07
.00
.27
.19
.26
.02
.26
.04
.45
.03
.08
.94
.47
.19
.45
.89
.91
.12
.11
.73
.45
.65
.47
.14
.86
.10
.00
.48
.10
.46
.83
.63
.75
.69
.67
.67
COM
.02
.04
.12
.20
.16
.03
.00
.35
.31
.55
.36
.00
.17
.14
.03
.03
.02
.00
.20
.02
.05
.06
.08
.05
.08
.02
.04
.02
.07
.08
.07
.17
.09
.09
.11
.02
.59
.07
.00
.08
.08
.19
.09
.14
.13
.14
IND
.98
.96
.88
.35
.71
.92
1.00
.56
.60
.26
.57
.00
.56
.67
.70
.95
.72
.96
.35
.95
.87
.00
.45
.76
.47
.09
.05
.85
.83
.19
.48
.18
.44
.77
.03
.88
.41
.45
.89
.46
.08
.19
.16
.17
.20
.19
   SUM 4
Kg/day

 .20
 .03
 .23
 .59
 .01
1.59
 .49
 .05
 .73
 .08
 .04
 .00
2.16
1.36
 .02
1.82
3.28
1.33
 .50
   83
  ,00
  ,70
2.57
3.82
1.59
 .32
1.08
  .42
14.91
11.55
11.73
22.35
  .07
2.44
  .53
 2.95
  .00
32.98
 1.75
 7.73
 2.23
 9.91
23.73
13.24
46.53
19.48
6.
1.
1.
                   *j
 *Classicals  in  10  kg/day.
                                     75

-------
                                Table 31
                                                             4
           Total Mass Flow Comparison of Hypothetical Cities

                               (kg/day)**
110 1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
111 l.l-DICHLOROETHANE
112 TRAUS-1.2-DICHLOHOETHYLENE
113 CHLOROFORM
114 1,2-DICHLOKOETHANE
115 1.1,l-TRICHLOROETUANE
116 CAtiBON TETRACHLORIDE
117 BmiOQICHLOROmTUAiiE
120 TRICHLOROETHYLEW
121 BENZENE
123 DIBSOMOCHLOROMETHAUE
125 BROMOFOiW
127 1.1.2.2-TETRACHLOROETHYLElfE
128 TOLUENE
129 CHLOROBEtlZENE
130 £Tm BENZENE
203 Ptf£«0L
204 2,*-DIMETHYLPHENOL
210 PENTACHLOROPHEHOL
301 DICHLOROBENZEIJES
315 NAPHTHALENE
326 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
333 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
337 BW/£ F/?//m PHTHALATE
338 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
501 ASTIKOtn
502 ARSENIC
504 CADVIUM
505 CHROMIUM
506 C0PREA
507 L&«Z?
508 MANGANESE
509 MEBCURY
510 ATC/ftY.
511 SELENIUV
512 SILKS*
513 THALLIUM
514 ZI#C
601 r02V!L CYANIDES
602 T0T4L PHENOLS
703 AMMONIA
704 OZ£
705 T5S
706
707
708
    A flow of 0.08 kg/day would be
  **                3
    Classicals in 10  kg/day.
CASE
A
.00
.00
.01
.45
.00
.13
.00
.01
.21
.05
.01
.00
1.03
.48
.01
.08
1.30
.08
.38
.34
.14
2.40
1.87
1.16
1.11
.42
1.45
.08
2.83
12.85
8.16
23.12
.05
.62
.70
.47
.00
24.24
.27
5.55
2.82
10.02
27.27
14.33
48.72
20.40
equivalent
CASE
B
.10
.01
.11
.52
.01
.85
.25
.03
.42
.06
.02
.00
1.56
.90
.02
.94
2.36
.71
.44
3.57
.57
2.19
2.29
2.52
1.38
.40
1.35
.25
8.79
12.81
10.26
23.22
.07
1.52
.65
1.73
.00
29.60
1.03
6.84
2.67
10.12
26.77
14.25
49.27
20.56
to a
CASE
C
.30
.04
.33
.65
.02
2.32
.74
.06
.94
.09
.04
.00
2.66
1.76
.03
2.69
4.31
1.96
.55
10.05
1.43
1.44
2.95
5.15
1.84
.29
.94
.59
20.80
11.23
13.66
21.97
.08
3.33
.46
4.20
.00
37.81
2.51
8.91
2.02
9.81
22.65
12.85
46.05
19.21
concentration
CASE
D
.50
.07
.53
.77
.03
3.76
1.23
.09
1.35
.11
.06
.00
3.68
2.58
.04
4.41
6.37
3.22
.65
16.49
2.28
.90
3.70
7.81
2.34
.22
.67
.93
32.59
10.54
17.47
21.11
.10
5.08
.32
6.70
.01
47.37
4.01
11.23
1.57
9.56
20.35
12.02
44. 87
18.57
of 1 yg/L.
CASE
E
.20
.03
.2U
.^3
.01
l.i>3
1.00
1.70
2.S7
3.82
1. b-J
.32
l.-'.B
.'•2
1-'».S1
11. 5b
11.73
L'2. 35
.07
2.«»4
.5?
2..9ii
.00
32.93
1.75
7. 73
2.23
9.91
23.73
13.?'»
UG.53
19. US

                                     76

-------
                              Table 32
         Relative Comparison  of  Hypothetical City Loadings
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
120
121
123
125
127
128
129
130
203
204
210
301
315
326
333
337
338
501
502
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
51«*
601
602
703
 70H
705
 706
 707
 703
 1.1 -DICHLQROE'miLEUB
 1.1 -DICtlLUdOETtiAUE
 TKAiJS-l.l-DICHLOKOETlULME
 1,2-VlCHLOROETUAflE
 1.1.1 -ThlCHLOHOETHAlM
 CAHBM TEfliACHLMIDE
 BHOHOFOfN
 1.1.2. 2-'JETR/CULOROKTUXLEtiE
 TOLUtME
 CULOttOBKti2EHE
 tfjfl/Xt  BEU2£UE
 MEllOL
 DKHLOROBEtHEtllSS
 HAPHTHALKUE
 DIETdll  PHTHALATE
 DI-tf-tiUML fnTHALATE
 fli/m  BEHZXL MTHALATK
 flISC 2-EfaXLHSXXL ) PtiTHALAXE
  CADMIUM
  CHRCMIM
  CUPtEJti
  etICKEL
  SELEUIM
  SILVER
  THALLIUM
        CXAlMMS
        PHKiiOLS
          GtiEASE
  2W
CASE
A
.00
.01
.03
.59
.13
.03
.00
.17
.15
,U4
.16
C
.28
.19
.21
.02
.20
.02
.59
.02
.06
1.00
.51
.15
.47
1.00
1.00
.09
.09
1.00
.47
1.00
.52
.12
1.00
.07
.18
.51
.07
.49
1.00
.99
1.00
1.00
.99
.99
CASE
B
.20
.21
.22
.68
.30
.23
.20
.32
.31
.52
.31
0
.42
.35
.37
.21
.37
.22
.68
.22
.25
.91
.62
.32
.59
.95
.93
.27
.27
1.00
.59
1.00
.63
.30
.92
.26
.31
.62
.26
.61
.95
1.00
.98
.99
1.00
1.00
CASE
C
.60
.61
.62
.85
.67
.62
.60
.70
.69
.85
.70
0
.72
.68
.68
.61
.68
.61
.85
.61
.63
.60
.80
.66
.79
.68
.65
.63
.64
.87
.78
.95
.80
.65
.66
.63
.75
.80
.62
.79
.71
.97
.83
.90
.93
.93
CASE
	 D_
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
.37
1.00
1.00
1.00
.52
.46
1.00
1.00
.82
1.00
.91
1.00
1.00
.46
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
.56
.94
.75
.84
.91
.90 ,.
CASE
	 E_
.41
.41
.43
.77
.50
.42
.40
.56
.54
.78
.55
0
.59
.53
.52
.41
.52
.41
.77
.41
.44
.71
.69
.49
.68
.76
.74
.45
.46
.90
.67
.96
.70
.48
.76
.44
.62
.70
.44
.69
.79
.98
.87
.92
.94
.95
Ratio of  source SDMs to largest  SUM.
                                          77

-------
2.  Application to Cities Actually Sampled
     In the detailed reports on the individual cities, attempts were
made to conduct a mass balance analysis comparing sources and POTW
influent.  These comparisons were limited, however,  due  to  having sampled
only a relatively small fraction of a given source type from which to
project or,  as in the Hartford case,  not  having any industrial sites to
represent  the  industrial component.  One  other means of carrying  out
the mass balance analysis is to use the average  index values developed
in this report to scale the basins sampled.   This approach  also provides
an opportunity to compare the  values projected  from  these source  indices
to actual  influent  values and  thus  serve  as  a test  of  the validity of
the  indices  and the value in general  of this  type of approach.

     Table 33  gives a  summary  of the basic characteristics  of each of
the cities which have  been studied.  These population and flow values
have been  used to scale the index values  presented  in part  A of this
section to give the mass contribution from each source type.   From these
values, an influent SUM was calculated and compared  to the  values actually
observed at  the POTW influent  (INF).  It  must be borne in mind  that  these
analyses are done using an "averaged" industrial value and  are  limited
by the fact  that the industrial contribution  is a major component of the
total and  is industry  specific.
     The mass balance data for the cities  using this approach involving
the average data base values are given in Tables 34-37.  The SUM/INF
unlues for each have been summarized in Table 38 for convenience  in
analyzing  the  degree of "balance."  SUM/INF values have been included
only for those cases where the INF mass flow  rate was at least 0.01 Kg/day.
This value corresponds to an influent concentration  of 0.1-0.35 yg/L,
dependent  on the city  (see Table 33).  Further,  those SUM/INF values
whose average  influent concentrations were less  than 1 ug/L, indicated
by ( ), were excluded  from interpretation because their values were
too small  to be reliable for the mass balance analysis.  It is seen
that some  pollutants have higher source (SUM) levels than the  influent
 (INF), while others are lower  and some are about the same.  Because
of the uncertainties in each of the concentration and  flow  values used
                                    78

-------
                                                       Table 33




                                Summary of Discharge Characteristics for Cities Studied
Cincinnati
St. Louis
Atlanta
Hartford
POTW
Influent
Flow (Lps)
427
1,022
4,072
2,444
Mass Flow for
1 vig/L Influent
Concentration
0.04
0.08
0.35
0.21


Population
87,900
200,000
385,000
285,000
Population
RES
Flow (Lps)
385
876
1,687
1,248
and Flow
COM
32
100
847
538

IND
Lps
4.3
122
729
171
VO

-------
                                  Table 34
              Cincinnati Haas Balance Using Four City Averages

                                                      Kg/day*
Pollutant
RES
.00
.00
.00
.17
.00
.05
.00
.00
.04
.01
.00
.00
.37
.17
.00
.02
.55
.03
.15
.12
.05
1.03
.78
.47
.46
.49
.63
.03
1.03
5.44
3.40
9.30
.02
.23
.30
.20
.00
10.13
.12
2.30
1.20
3.99
11.52
5.89
20.09
8.36
•&J 1 /_•___,
COM
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.01
.00
.00
.04
.01
.00
.00
.06
.03
.00
.01
.01
.00
.02
.02
.01
.02
.03
.03
.02
.00
.01
.00
.16
.15
.14
.62
.00
.03
.01
.01
.00
.38
.00
.10
.03
.30
.34
.29
.96
.44

IND
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.01
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.03
.02
.00
.04
.05
.03
.00
.14
.02
.00
.02
.06
.02
.00
.00
.01
.26
.05
.12
.09
.00
.04
.00
.06
.00
.32
.03
.08
.00
.04
.08
.05
.20
.08

SUM
.01
.CO
.01
.20
.00
.08
.01
.01
.09
.02
.00
.00
.46
.22
.00
.07
.61
.06
.17
.28
.08
1.05
.84
.56
.49
.19
.64
.04
1.45
5.64
3.65
10.01
.02
.30
.31
.26
.00
10.83
.15
2.48
1.23
4.33
11.93
6.24
21.25
8.88

INF
.00
.00
.00
*"p
. \J?
.01
.oC
, 00
.Ou
..!•*
.CO
.Ov
.Ou
.07
.00
.05
.00
.00
.14
.CO
.lu
.*3
*±Q
'* f*
• wv
.15
.00
.80
.09
5,53
2.'/u
.5^
1?.6^
.0?
l.?d
.20
.I1*
.00
13.71
1.^6
.91
.51
i.oG
3.tt7
1.58
5.6?
1.75

110
Ill l,l*DICULOROBTitAulS
112 TRAAS*lt2*bICaLOlcQ!!Za?LEUK
113 ChLOROt'OhH
114 lt2«0lCuL3KOKrhAiiF
US ltl.l*TaICaLdhOK'aAM
116 CAkbOii TFThfCuLOhllK
117 BkOKODICaLOkOiaF.TitAtl^
120 TRICttLOhOhTtiYLfHE
121 mKUStit
123 IdohOHOCtiLlltOMtTaAuR
125 bhOHOtOhH
127 ltlt2,2mfKTKACaLQhOeiaYlKiiE
128 TOLUENE
129 CaLZROofiMME
130 ETHYL *£**#*£
203 PM0-9L
204 2t**i)IbETtf!Lt'tiEi!iOL
210 IftiTACaLCROrttBKOL
301 DICaLOKObEh^hSS
315 H/PuTtiALKtiK
326 fXETtfL raTdALAT*
333 DlmNwBLTYL PXTttALAT*
337 »'?/£ flF^rZr fttTttALATS
338 BlS(2*FIiKUlE)tJL)PtiXllALAIS
501 AiiZlHOky
502 ARSSHIC
504 CADMIUM
505 CUhOHJl'M
506 COftfR
507 Lf/4^
50« HAttGAnKf
509 HfSCVkJ
510 JSTCAfL
511 SELEHll'M
512 StU/ER
513 TuALLR'f*
514 ZliiC
601 TOTAL WAHIVES
602 TOTAL foEfiOLS
703 At&OtilA
704 OIL MID GhSASK
705 T5S1
706 TOC
707 COD
708 bOD
         *
           Class Icals in units of 10
         **Calculated for pollutants with INF >0.01 kg/day; values in  ()  for INF
           less than 0.04 kg/day.
                                             80
                                                                                        SUM
                                                                                        INF
                                                                                     **
                                                                                  (-10)
                                                                                 (7.60)
                                                                                  *lu
                                                                                10. So
                                                                                (?.15)
                                                                                 1.19

                                                                                  .56
                                                                                 2.* 5
                                                                                  .60
                                                                                  ."3
                                                                                  .20
                                                                                 ?.uv>
                                                                                 b.9u
                                                                                  .7b
                                                                                 (1.5&)
                                                                                  ,?u
                                                                                 1.56
                                                                                  .79
                                                                                  .10
                                                                                 2.71
                                                                                 3.0S
                                                                                 S.au
                                                                                 3.65
                                                                                 5.06

-------
                                         Table 35

                     St. Louis  Mass Balance Using Four City Averages

                                                               Kg/day*
               Pollutant

110 l,l~DICtiL')I(3K2'aYL!''uS
111 ltl*DICaLO*OETnA.W
112 7AM?.
113 CbLOhWOKM
115
116
117
120
121
123
125
127
128
129
130
203
20 4
210
301
315
326
333
337
33«
501
502
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
601
602
703
704
705
706
707
708
    1,1. M!kICnLOh3KTtiAi»E
    CAhbOti TE
    BhOMOFOhM
    1.1.2. 2mTETkACnLOROEThYLEt, E
    PaEHOL
    2 . HmDIhETaYLPtiVti OL
    DISThYL PtilaALATE
    AhSEHlC
    CWlIUK
    CtthOMIl'b
    MAHGMKSK
    HEkCL'hY
    SKLKNIl't*
    SlUtttt
    TUALU.Uk
          CYAuIWS
       ^L PaEhOLS
    OIL AVi/ tf
    cap
                                      O
          * Classicals in units of 10  kg/day.

          """calculated for  pollutants with INF >0.01 kg/day; values in  ()  for  INF
            less than 0.08  kg/ day.
                                              81
                                                                                          **
ST1M
RES
.00
.00
.00
.35
.00
.10
.00
.01
.10
.02
.00
.00
.85
.39
.01
.05
1.26
.08
.33

.12
2.35
1.77
1.07
1.04
.42
1.43
.08
2.34
12.38
7.73
21.17
.05
.52
.68
.45
.00
23.05
.27
5.23
2.73
9.08
26.21
13.41
45.73
19.02
COM
.00
.00
.01
.06
.00
.03
.00
.01
.11
.02
.01
.00
.18
.09
.00
.03
.04
.00
.05
.07
.02
.05
.10
.09
.07
.00
.02
.00
.49
.47
.43
1.94
.00
.11
.03
.03
.00
1.19
.00
.32
.09
.94
1.06
.92
2.99
1.38
IND
.12
.02
.12
.13
.01
.90
.30
.02
.27
.01
.01
.00
.74
.55
.01
1.06
1.43
.78
.11
3.97
.53
.00
.71
1.77
.45
.02
.03
.22
7.52
1.32
3.41
2.45
.02
1.15
.01
1.59
.00
9.07
.96
2.15
.11
1.12
2.27
1.37
5.70
2.28
SUM
.12
.02
.14
.58
.01
1.03
.30
.03
.48
.06
.02
.00
1.77
1.03
.02
1.14
2.73
.85
.49
4.31
.68
2.40
2.58
2.93
1.56
.44
1.49
.30
10.35
14.16
11.57
25.56
.07
1.77
.71
2.06
.00
33.31
1.22
7.70
2.93
11.14
29.54
15.70
54.42
22.68
INF
.Ge
.03
.54
.00
.62
,t\f-
2.52
*~?
• *•'•*
.00
3.07
E.3/
.01
i. 3ti
.S3
.CO
.00
2. 30
.t!7
.6?
l.tu
l.GG
.38
4.1", 6
.CO
.2i>
11.95
4.11
lb.56
17.79
.04
4.05
.3d
1.41
.CO
25.o'4
l.?'i
5.37
1.5G
2.74
11.02
b.58
?G.S*8
13.oo
INF
f.56)
(3.C6)
I.Ob
1.25
5
.1-3
•1 /"•
.1C
25
• * w

.45
.19
(1.31 )
.B?
?.S*3


1.87
.77
3.90
I.d5
?.'J3
4.1?
.05*

1.15
.87
H.^5
.62
l.uu
(1.66)
.uu
l.tib
1.^5

1.30
.95
1.43
1.96
4.07
2.68
1.B3
2.0?
1.66

-------
                                       Table 36
                    Atlanta Mass Balance Using Four  City Averages

                                                           Kg/day*
        Pollutant
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
120
121
123
125
127
128
129
130
203
204
210
301
315
326
333
337
33«
501
502
SOU
505
506
507
50«
505
510
511
512
513
    1 ,
    1,1 ^LlC
    1,1,1 ^
    CAhBOu IE?RACtiL3RIUE
    1,1,2,2 .J&Z'A ACflL 5A OETtiYLEfi E
    lOU'htiE
    £T/iYi, bKuZEfiE
    2 , '4mDIMETnYLPaEfiOL
    PENTACaLORDt-nENOL
    hAPitTaALEUE
    DIETttYL P
    #TYL &*'/V
. *
.r. G
C j •"'•">
. J. u<
.00
. i. 0
•^ }
a^.2^
3. v?
.00
17.15
6. b3
"H.^o
c.75
3 ;>.<>/
ll.Sr'b
»1'7'1
i . 1 ~
1>7. Id
.?C
,22
.00
1. 1G
25.37
17.71
47. 7?
97. 6'i
,2«
U.H5
.00
4.37
.GC
li-^.^c
1 . 73
:<5.i3
'f. . U i
io.cn
u;i.51
23.ab
bt.C3
35.49
        *                           3
          Classicals in units of 10  kg/day.
        **                *
          Calculated for pollutants with INF  >0.01  kg/day; values in  ()
          less  than 0.35 kg/day.
                                             82
                                                                          for INF
                                                                                           **
                                                                                        SUM
                                                                                        INF
                                                                                         .13
                                                                                         .80
                                                                                        (.37)
                                                                                         .17
                                                                                         .39
 .76
 .31
2.t»2
5.50
                                                                                          36
                                                                                          11
                                                                                         .tiii
                                                                                         .74
                                                                                        (.00 )
                                                                                        1.36
3.o2
 .73
2.57
3.^0

l!75
2.?7
1.7S

-------
                                Table  37
            Hartford Mass  Balance Using Four City Averages

                                                  Kg/day*
Pollutant
110 1.1'DICHLOROETHYLENB
111 1.1-DICHLOROETHANE
112 TRANS-1.2-DICHLOROETHYLENS
113 CHLOROFORM
114 1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
115 1.1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
116 CdflBOtf TETRACHLORIDE
117 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
120 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
121 BENZENE
123 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
125 BROMOFORM
127 1.1,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
128 TOLUENE
129 CHLOROBEKZENE
130 £2WYL BENZENE
203 PHENOL
204 2.H-DIMETHYLPHENOL
210 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
301 DICHLOROBENZENES
315 NAPHTHALENE
326 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
333 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
337 fliOTL BENZYL PHTHALATE
338 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL}PHTHALATE
501 ANTIMONY
502 ARSENIC
504 CADMIUM
505 CHROMIUM
506
507
508 MANGANESE
509 MERCURY
510 NICKEL
511 SELENIUM
C1 1 C TT I/fO
31& &J.LjwCtt\
513 THALLIUM
514 ZI//C
601 T02V1L CYANIDES
602 T02V1L PHLuOf-S
703 AMMONIA
704 OIL
705
706
707 COO
708 B00

        * Classicals in units of 10
        **Calculated for pollutants with INF  >0.01
          less than 0.21 kg/day.
                                            83
RES
.00
.00
.00
.56
.00
.15
.00
.01
.14
.03
.01
.00
1.21
.55
.01
.08
1.79
.11
.48
.40
.17
3.35
2.53
1.52
1.48
.60
2.04
.11
3.34
17.64
11.01
30.17
.07
.74
.96
.64
.00
32.84
.38
7.45
3.89
12.94
37.35
19.12
65.17
27.10-

COM
.01
.00
.07
.31
.01
.14
.00
.05
.60
.12
.03
.00
1.00
.51
.00
.14
.21
.00
.27
.35
.12
.27
.55
.49
.36
.01
.12
.03
2.64
2.53
2.31
10.45
.02
.58
.15
.13
.01
6.42
.01
1.72
.50
5.07
5. 69
4.93
16.08
7.44

IND
.17
.02
.17
.18
.01
1.26
.42
.02
.38
.02
.02
.00
1.03
.77
.01
1.48
2.01
1.09
.lb
5.56
.75
.00
.99
2.49
.63
.03
.05
.31
10.54
1.84
4.78
3.43
.03
1.61
.01
2.22
.00
12.71
1.34
3.01
.16
1.57
3.19
1.92
7.98
3.19

SUM
.18
.03
.24
1.05
.02
1.54
.42
.08
1.11
.18
.06
.00
3.23
1.83
.03
1.70
4.01
1.20
.89
6.31
1.04
3.62
4.06
4.50
2.47
.64
2.21
.44
16.52
22.01
18.11
44.05
.12
2.92
1.13
2.99
.01
51.97
1.73
12.19
4.54
19.57
46.23
25.97
8§.23
37.73

INF
. OC
.00
.00
.77
.00
?..
* V »-•
. 0 0
1.7b
.CO
.GO
.00
6.c"
3.? 9
.00
.GC
.CO
.GO
.','j
?.'>3
.00
.77
.6'j
.00
.00
.CO
.i'-l
.GO
13.61
20.40
7.51
33.37
.OC
7.39
.GC
.ri9
.00
'13.^3
,i II
• J *~*
11.03
l.^j
7.b5
lb.73
8. yd
*o. 3U
It. 37

SUM
INF




 1.36

  .71


  .62
                                                                               .58
                                                                               .56
                                                                              2.23

                                                                              M.72




                                                                              S.38

                                                                              1.20
                                                                              1.08

                                                                              1.32

                                                                               .to
                                                                              1.56
                                                                              2.07
                                                                              1.10
                                                                              2.28
                                                                              2.4^
                                                                              2.85
                                                                              2.89
                                                                              2.21
                                                                              2.62
                                            kg/day;  values  in  () for INF

-------
                 Table 38
Mass Balance Analysis For All Four Cities
                                 SUM/INF
              Cincinnati    St. Louis   Atlanta
Hartford
.11.. l.i.^LO^W*
ii? I^-;??-wcl"-. * , , -7 ~>Ji:.-l.'"itj:i,^:lL,»OL
'•"' ii'- r _,<> J>;6'rt LGhUc'ii&hOC
3C 1 LICuLGi^ob.itEaLii
3 1 c. ,v .- if /z :/ YT A .C rfc ;Vi,
•i/u 'UlulalL L-.i'J.'iiALAl'&
"Vi> -;"-: -L\':i'\I' i'li'fhALA'i 6
ii7 Mi'lL ^i.iili >-a'J Hf>LA*'t
3 '3(i i."i^» i / • i,'i\j.lLli±.
512 olLifaS
5H i nALLIUti
n* oi/iC
tOl 'i'ui'AL CYJi.lD&£i
7(.l /;.'.^Oi,I,l
70^ OIL .-ifti; GliSAH£>
/•-•5 i.>6*
70o ic^C
707 COf
70'J f«C'C'


2.01
(.10)
(7.80)


.14


10.6fa
3.07

(2.15)


1.19

.56
2.15
1.80

3.00

.?0
.Ha
.2o
2.^46
6.2f
.79
(1.56)
1.56
1.92

.79
.10
2.71
?.Hl
2. HI
3.09
3.9H
3.55
5.06
1.62
(3. 06)
1.06

l.?5
(.SH)
\ » •* i /
.19
.10
.2F

.H^
.li
(1.31)
.62
2. »3


I.ti7
.77
3.90
1.85
?.93
H.I?
.09

1.15
.o7
3 u *^
.62
1.V4
(1.66)
1.88
1.H5

1.30
.95
1.96
H.C7
2.68
1.83
2.02
1.66
.25
.13
,8C
(.37)
.17

.05



,09
. $H

.'•:9
1.71
1.35
.25
.7b
.31
2.82
S.SG
.40

(^.36)

1.36
2.11
2.02
.52
.?'»
(.86)
1.36

2. Hi

.87
3.62
.73
2. 57
3.20
1.51
1.75
2.27
1.7S


1.36

.71

.62



.58
.56





2.23

H.72
H.56



5.38

1.20
1.08
2.H 1
1.32
.HO

H.3H

1.56
2.07
1.10
2.28
2. MS
2.85
2.89
2.21
2.62

-------
to obtain these data, in addition to scaling errors, it is estimated through
an accumulation of errors analysis  that pollutants whose SUM/INF value falls
in the 0.5-2.0 range are in balance.
      In Table 39, various comparisons of the degree of balance  between
 cities  have been made (part A). Additional comparisons were made by
analysis category (part B)  to  see if  some  types balanced better than
others, and by examining  those which  balance in a  given percentage of
the cities  (part  C) .  On  the whole, the  priority pollutants balance
one-half to two-thirds of  the  time, for  the cases  where the influent
mass  flow was high enough  to conduct  the comparison.   A much larger
number  of pollutants  "balance" if the error range  is opened to  a factor
of 4, i.e., 0.25x - 4x.  This  range would  appear to be suggested by the
magnitude of  the  variance  in the average index values, which is about
equal to the  value in most  cases.
      More  than 50% of the volatiles data at the influent  were  too  low
 to  be treated in this manner,although many of these pollutants
 were  observed in the sources.   For cases where the INF volatiles  levels
 are measurable,  they balance 12 out of 26 times.  They project  high
 2 out of 26 times and low 12 out of 26 times.
      The acids and base/neutrals balance 10 out of 23 times and project
 high  11 out of 23 times.   This pattern is reinforced by the classicals
 measurements which balance 7 out of 24 times and project  high  17  out
 of 24 times.  The classicals never project low.
      These observations on the volatiles, acids, base/neutrals, and
 the classicals support the general considerations of  raw wastewater col-
 lection systems which indicate  that a large fraction  of the "treatment"
 occurs in the collection system, in addition  to that which occurs in  the
 POTW.  The data  indicate that  all  of these groups are initially high
 at their source  and undergo some degradation  in the collection system
 before reaching  the POTW.  In many cases, the levels  are low enough at
 the POTW not to  be detected.
      This hypothesis is supported  by the  data for the metals,  which are
  always analyzed only as  the element.  These elements, therefore, should
                                      85

-------
                                                         Table 39
                                           Summary of Mass Balance Comparisons
00
             A.  BY CITY
                 Number of Pollutants (40 total)
Cincinnati
St. Louis
Atlanta
Hartford
Balance-priority pollutants
-classicals
Sources Greater-priority pollutants
-classicals
Influent Greater-priority pollutants
-classicals
Too Small at Influent to Balance
Less Than 0.01 Kg/day at Influent
B. BALANCE BY ANALYSIS CATEGORY
Volatiles (26 values)
Acids, Base/Neutrals (5+18-23 values)
Metals (36 values)
Total Cyanides /Total Phenols (8 values)
Classicals (24 values)
C. NUMBER OF POLLUTANTS WHICH BALANCE IN A GIVEN
Priority
Organics
% of Cities
100 2
75 0
66 3
50 7
33 2
25 1
0 5
10
0
7
6
4
0
4
15
Balance
12
10
24
4
7
% OF CITIES
Pollutants
Metals TCN/TP
4
1 1
5 1
4
1
16 13 10
430
557
236
781
000
530
7 11 22
Sources Influent
Greater Greater
2 12
11 2
7 5
3 1
17 0
Classicals
2
3
1

-------
be  present  in the influent at about the same level as the sources,  even
though  their molecular association may be different.   The metals  balance
24  out  of 36 observations and are about evenly  projected high (7/36)  and low
(5/36)  a small fraction of the time.   On the average, the high projections
are 3.7 times the influent and the low projections are 0.26  times the
influent.   All but 2 of the total of  these 12 out-of-balance values fall
within  a factor of 4 range of the influent value.
     A  further comparison of this data can be made,  within the uncertain-
ties imposed by the mass balance by comparing the  relative contribution
of  each source type for each pollutant (similar to what was  done for the
hypothetical cases).   These ratios for the sources within the cities
are given in Tables  40-43,  along with the SUM value in Kg/day (103 Kg/day
for the classicals).   This type of comparison could be viewed as the
analysis of  basins whose mix of source types was actually as  represented
by  the  average character of the source sites sampled for each category
and scaled by  the actual source flows for these cities.
     For "Cincinnati"  (Table 40) , the  residential sources dominate the pollutant
mass flow, but  the area  is predominantly residential.   For ''St.  Louis"
(Table  41),  residential  sources are still important,  but  many toxic
pollutants are dominated by the industrial category,  even though it
only has about 12% of  the flow.  The  industrial category dominance of
"Atlanta"  (Table  42),  is  clear  from this  presentation.   "Hartford"
(Table 43),  with  a small  (7%) industrial  component,  shows a balance in
the importance  of  each qf the source  types.
                                   87

-------
                                Table 40

             Cincinnati Distribution of Pollutant Loading
        (91% Residential, 8%  Commercial, 1% Industrial Flow)
                                          Fraction of SUM
           Pollutant
110 1,
111 1,
112 rAA/.f-l,l^DZCaLOtiORIa?
113
115
116
117
120
121
123
125
127
128
123
130
203
204
210
301
315
32r>
333
337
338
501
502
504
505
5 OH
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
601
602
703
704
705
706
707
708
1,1,1 r-IaZCn L Ox?!-. Ti
Chhbl* TETRfiCnLOhlL
ah Oil iLlCnL 9/i?tf ATa/t.V
bh tibRbF
DIbt\ 1-jOCaL OtiOhFI
HTML
raEliOL
2 , 4rLItok TtXLt-nEtiOL
DZ&'xYL
AhSS&IC
COi-rKh
LFAD
SILV.W
THALLIl'k
•&ZKC
TOTAL CY ABIDES
TOTAL PaEHOLS
AbMCuIA
OIL AND &/
rss
TOC
COL
BQb
RES
.00
.00
.00
.88
.66
.53
.00
.45
.49
.57
.40
.00
.«!
.77
.«3
.34
.20
.55
.*«
.43
.67
.3«
.93
.84
.92
.99
.99
.70
.71
.97
.93
.93
.93
.75
.97
.75
.00
.94
.77
.93
.97
.92
.96
.95
.95
.94
COM
.15
.25
.50
.10
.22
.10
.02
.45
.41
.40
.49
.00
.13
.14
.03
.12
.02
.00
.10
.07
.39
.02
.04
.05
.04
.DO
.01
.04
.11
.03
.04
.06
.05
.11
.03
.03
.91
.04
.00
.04
.02
.07
.03
.05
.05
.05
IND
.Q5
.75
.50
.02
.13
.37
.So
.10
.11
.03
.11
.00
.06
.03
.0«
.54
.08
.45
.02
.49
.24
.00
.03
.11
.03
.00
.00
.10
.19
.01
.03
.01
.03
.13
.00
.22
.09
.03
.22
.03
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
  SUM (Kg/day)

  .01
  .00
  .01
  .20
  .00
  .0«
  .01
  .01
  .C9
  .02
  .00
  .00
  .46
  .22
  .00
  .07
  .61
  .06
  .17
  .28
  .OR
 1.05
  .84
  .56
  .49
  .19
  .64
  .04
 1.45
 5.64
 3.65
10.01
  .02
  .30
  .31
  .26
  .00
10.83
  .15
 2.48
 1.23
 4.33
11.93
 6.24
21.25
 8.88
*                3
 Classicals in 10  kg/day.
                                        88

-------
                            Table  41

           St. Louis Distribution  of Pollutant Loading
       (80% Residential,  9% Commercial,  11%  Industrial Flow)
                                     	 Fraction of SUM
              Pollutant
111
112
113
114
US
    ThAaSv 1 , 2^i
    CaLOkOfOhti
    1.2 mDICuL 3A OKTuA&K
    1.1. l*TiiICuL3h3i?S!tiAHE
    CAhbOk ZETkATuLOklbE
117
120
121
123
125
127
128
129
130
203
204
210
301
315
326
333
337
    1, 1. 2, 2*r*:rAAC
    TOWEKE
    2 ,
    LlETnYL rufaALAZk
501
502
505
506 COPf-ER
507
SOB
509
510 ftJC/i£L
511 SKIS all 'M
512 flL/rA
51
602
703
704 m
705 T55
706
707
70R
RES
.00
.00
.00
.68
.26
.10
.00
.20
.20
.40
.17
.00
.4«
.37
.46
.05
.46
.09
.6«
.06
.!«
,3H
.6S
.3b
.67
.95
.96
.25
.23
.87
.67
.«3
.69
.29
.95
.22
.00
.69
.22
.60
.93
,«2
.89
.85
.84
.84
COM
.02
.03
.10
.10
.12
.02
.00
.27
.23
.38
.28
.00
.10
.09
.02
.02
.01
.00
.10
.02
.03
.02
.04
.03
.04
.01
.02
.02
.05
.03
.04
.08
.05
.06
.04
.01
.54
.04
.00
.04
.03
.08
.04
.06
.05
.06
IND
.98
.97
.90
.22
.62
.««
1.00
.53
.56
.22
.55
.00
.^2
.53
.52
.93
.53
.91
.22
.92
.79
.00
.27
.60
.29
.04
.02
.73
.73
.09
.29
.10
.27
.65
.01
.77
.46
.27
.78
.28
.04
.10
.08
.09
.10
.10
  SUM (Kg/day)

  .12
  .02
  .14
  .58
  .01
 1.C3
  .30
  .03
  .48
  .06
  .02
  .00
 1.77
 1.03
  .02
 1.14
 2.73
  .85
  .49
 4.31
  .68
 2.40
 2.5«
 2.93
 1.56
  .44
 1.49
  .30
10.35
14.16
11.57
25.56
  .07
 1.77
  .71
 2.06
  .00
33.31
 1.22
 7.70
 2.93
11.14
29.54
15.70
54.42
22.68
Classicals in 10  kg/day.
                                    89

-------
  1.1, l*IhIC
  CAhbOH TKThACaLOklDf--
  Lh ?k OHICtiL Oh Oi-lh TnAbh
  1,1,2. 2*l'W
                            Table 42

           Atlanta Distribution of Pollutant Loading
      (52% Residential,  26% Commercial, 22% Industrial Flow)
                                     _ Fraction of SUM

         Pollutant
110 1.1 vLZCnL Ot.OKTa YLEuh
ill
112
113 CnLOhOfOhM
115
lib
117
120
121
123
125
127
129
129
130
203
204
210
301
315
326
333
337
339
501
5C2
504
505
50-3
507
50«
503
510
511
512
513
514
601
602
703
704
705
706
707
709
0 P*ul
  bl^YL BJ-.Ht.fL r
  bl f ( 2 -f.!tiYLaF.X YL ) PaTaALAlh
  Au?Ja?&y
  AhSk'nIC
  COfrhR
  LKAD
  hhhCi'hY
  SILVEh
  THALLIUM
  101'AL
   OIL AuD GREASE
   TSS
   IOC
   COD
   BOD
RES
.00
.00
.CO
.39
.1C
.03
.00
.Ob
.07
.14
.05
.00
.21
.15
.22
.02
.21
.03
.39
.02
.06
.92
.40
.15
.3*
.9b
.99
.10
.03
.67
.39
.57
.40
.11
.91
.09
.00
.41
,o«
.33
.79
.54
.69
.62
.60
.59
COM
.03
.05
.13
.25
.IS
.04
.00
.39
.34
.61
.40
.00
.21
.17
.04
.03
.03
.00
.25
.02
.05
.09
.10
.06
.11
.02
.06
.03
.C*
.11
.OS
.23
.12
.10
.15
.02
.62
.03
.00
.11
.12
.25
.12
.19
.17
.19
IND
.57
.95
.°7
.3"
.71
.S3
1.00
.54
.59
.24
9 O *j
.00
.59
.69
,7H
.95
.76
.37
.37
.96
.99
.00
.50
.78
.51
.11
.06
.«7
.«4
.22
.52
.20
.49
.79
.03
.90
.3«
.50
.92
.50
.10
.21
.19
.20
.23
.22
SUM (
.75
.10
.95
2.01
.05
5.79
1.90
.!«
2.73
.32
.13
.00
7.60
4.94
.09
6.65
11.31
4.«0
1.70
24.90
3.62
4.95
9.50
13.43
5.27
.94
3.15
1.50
53.60
35.70
39.93
71.97
.24
9.75
1.60
10.55
.01
109.69
6.24
25.64
6.71
32.16
73.06
41.82
147.48
61.97
*                 3
 Classicals  in 10  kg/day.
                                      90

-------
                             Table 43
             Hartford Distribution of Pollutant Loading
        (64% Residential, 27% Commercial, 9% Industrial Flow)
                                    _ Fraction of SUM

        Pollutant

110 1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
111 \tl-DICHLOROETHANE
112 TRANS-1.2-DICHLOROETHYLENg
113 CHLOROFORM
Ilk lt2-DICHLOROETHANE
115 1.1.\-TRICHLOROETHANE
116 CARBON TETRACHLORIDS
117 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
120 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
121 BENZENE
123 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
125 BRONOFORM
127 1,1.2.2-TETRACHLOROETHYLBNE
128 TOLUENE
129 CHLOROBENZENE
130 £Tm BENZENE
203 Ptf£00£
204 2.H-DIMETHYLPHBNOL
210 PENIACHLOROPHENOL
301 DICHLOROBENZENES
315 NAPHTHALENE
326 DIETHYL  PHTHALATE
333 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
337 B[/m flCTZyL PHTHALATE
338 5J5(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
501 ANTIMONY
502 ARSENIC
504 CADMIUM
505 CHROMIUM
 506 COPPER
 507 ££40
 508 MANGANESE
 509 MERCURY
 510 NICKEL
 511 SELENIUM
 512 SILVER
 513 THALLIUM
 514 ZIAK7
 601 T02V1L CYANIDES
 602 r02V«L PHENOLS
 703 AMMONIA
 704 OIL A«? GREASE
 705 TSS
 706 IOC"
 707
 708
RES
.00
.00
.00
.53
.20
.09
.00
.11
.12
.19
.09
.00
.37
.30
.44
.04
.45
.09
.53
.06
.16
.93
.62
.34
.60
.94
.92
.25
.20
.80
.61
.68
.61
.25
.85
-.21
.00
.63
.22
.61
.86
.66
.81
.74
.73
.72
COM
.07
.12
.29
.30
.34
.09
.01
.59
.54
.70
.60
.00
.31
.28
.07
.08
.05
.00
.30
.06
.12
.07
.13
.11
.14
.02
.05
.06
.16
.12
.13
.24
.16
.20
.14
.05
.82
.12
.01
.14
.11
.26
.12
.19
.18
.20
IND
.93
.88
.71
.17
.46
.82
.99
.30
.34
.10
.31
.00
.32
.42
.49
.87
.50
.91
.17
.88
.72
.00
.24
.55
.26
.04
.02
.69
.64
.08
.26
.08
.23
.55
.01
.74
.18
.24
.77
.25
.03
.08
.07
.07
.09
.08
SUM (Kg/day)

  .18
  .OS
  .24
 1.05
  .02
 1.54
  .42
  .08
 1.11
  .18
  .06
  .00
 3.23
 1.83
  .03
 1.70
 4.01
 1.20
  .89
 6.31
 1.04
 3.62
 4.06
 4.50
 2.47
   .64
 2.21
   .44
 16.52
 22.01
 18.11
 44.05
   .12
  2.92
  1.13
  2.99
   .01
 51.97
  1.73
 12.19
  4.54
 19.57
 46.23
 25.97
 89.23
 37.71
                  O
 *Classicals in 10  kg/day.
                                        91

-------
D.  Examination of Variances and Correlations
     The design of the sampling plan has provided an opportunity to
examine some of the secondary objectives, while the restrictions im-
posed by the site characteristics or other factors, such as weather,
limited the ability to examine other objectives.  Some of the differences
between weekday and weekend effects and old and new residential sources
are summarized in this section.  Some limited runoff results obtained
during the Hartford study are discussed.


 1.  Weekday/Weekend Differences
      An exploratory test of differences between weekday and weekend
 samples suggests that, in the aggregate, priority pollutants are found
 more  frequently in weekday than weekend samples.  This result is indi-
 cated for all source types and for the influent.  A contingency table
 was formed separately for each source type over all cities and over
 all pollutants.  These tables display the number of pollutants detected
 vs. the number of pollutants not detected, summed over all samples and
 all pollutants separately for weekday samples and weekend samples.
                weekdays

                weekends

      Under the null hypothesis that the day of the week does not affect
 the likelihood of any particular pollutant being present, the fraction
                       I   ^1   \
 of weekday detections I	r	1  would be approximately equal to the
non-
detections detections
nl
n3
"2
°4
 fraction of weekend detections

      For each source type, weekday samples slightly exceeded weekend
 samples in the frequency of detections as follows:
                                    92

-------
weekday
fraction of detections
weekend
fraction of detections
Residential
14%
12%
Commercial
15%
13%
Industrial
24%
21%
All Source
Sites
16%
14%
Influent
19%
17%
This small but consistent difference  is statistically significant at the
95% level  (given the simplifying  assumption  of independence of all pollu-
tants and all samples) when considering all aggregated source sites.  This
procedure only considers the relationship of  day of the week with the
absence or presence of pollutants  and does not address the concentrations
of pollutants.
2.  Old vs.  New  Residential Comparisons
     The  sampled residential areas have  been  separated by  the  approximate
age of housing  into old and new residential  areas.   This initial  comparison
was performed on an average mass per capita  basis  separately for  each
pollutant, and  on the basis of frequency of  detection across all  pollutants.
     Table 44 shows the average mass per capita in mg/person/day  for the
6  new  residential sites and the 5 old residential  sites sampled over the
four cities. Also displayed is the ratio of the averages  to the  greater
of the two averages for each pollutant.   The majority of pollutants show
higher per capita mass contributions from old residential  areas.
     A contingency table was formed to display the number  of detections
of pollutants at old residential vs. new residential sites.
                               detections
non-
detections
                  new
                  residential
                  old
                  residential
      If the age of housing were independent of the number of detections
 found at the sampling site, then the ratio of detections to total samples
                                    93

-------
                             Table 44

           Old and New Residential Mass Discharge Rates




                                     Mg/perscm/day*

                                     New       Old
HO \.\-DICHLOROBTUnEtiK             .00       .00
111 \.\-DICHLOROLTUAiiK               .00       .00
112 TRAHS-1.2-DICHLOROETHXLENE       .00       .00
113 CHLOROFOm                      L48      2.38         •«      LOO
11* 1.2-DICHLOROETUAUE               .00       .07         •»«      LOO
115 1.1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE           2.36       .23        *'uu       •"»
116 C/K'SOW TKTR/CHLORIDE             .00       .00
117 BROMODICHLORCNETHANE             .00       .09         •««>      !•»»
120 TRICHLOROETHXLENE                .43       .03        LOO       .08
121 WVZftW                          .03       .27         •"      1.00
123 DIBRCNOCHLOROMETHANE             .00       .06         -*"1      LUU
125 BKOMOfORH                        »°°       '°°
127 1.1.2.2-TBffMCHLOKOSHULEIIE     3.19      3.25         -JJ      J'OO
128 TOLUME                          .75      3.«*2         •»      l-°°
129 CHLOKQ8BHZEUIS                    .00       .12         '°0      1.00
130 «WXt BENZENE                    .06       .70         -08      1.00
203 PHENOL                          l.W      "».31         •!*      1>00
20H 2^'DmETH^LPBEUOL               .1U       .58         •W      1-JJ
210 PEHTACHLOROfHENOL               1.55       .00        1.00       .00
301 DICULOROBEN2EHES                 .82      2.22         -37      1.00
315 UATHTHALME                      .00      3.46         -00      1.00
326 DIHTHXL WTUALATE               6.56      1^.29         .**6      l.oo
333 DI-H-BUTXL PBTHALATB            8.2«*      6.32        1-00       .77
337 flWJTL BEtiZIL PHTHALATE          3.72      6.52         •"      1.00
338 BIS(2-ETHXLHEXYL)PHTHALA'fE      1.94      10.50         .18      1.00
 SQ2ARSBHIC                         5.43       6.22        -8        .
 SOU C&MIUH                         1.24       1.01       LOO       .82
 SOS CHROMIUM                        6.82      25.22        .27      1.00
 SOS COPPER                         56.25      69.57        .81      1.00
 507L£«?                            15.67     116.31        .13      J.OO
 508 MANGANESE                      86.88     100.23        -87      1.00
 S09MOCURX                          -20        .21        •»      J-JO
 M NICKEL                          1.V*       3-58        .40      1.00
 511 SELENIUM                        2.16       3.04        .71      1.00
 S12 SILVER                          1.9»        .15       LOO       .08
 513 THALLIUM                         .°°        '^
 514 ZJ/lfC                           79.13     219.89        .36      1.00
 601 Wfltt CYANIDES                  1.20        .22       1-00       .18
 B02 TOTAL PHENOLS                  16.48      34.99        .47      LOO
 703A«MW£I                        "-21*      U-87        'S      i'Sn
 704 OIL Atf> C^A'                 26.37      89.24        -30      LOO
 705  2-55                            81.43     176.99        .46      1.00
 706 TOO                            54.70      69.54        .79      1.00
 707 COD                           199.84    218.88        .91      L°°
 708 BOD                            76.18    103.99        .73      LOO

  *Classicals in kg/ day.

                                       94

-------
          311 ^ n—j. „  I  should be approximately equal for new and old
residential areas, i.e., the presence of pollutants would be about the
same.  For all four cities and  all pollutants aggregated, 12% of pollu-
tants tested were detected in new residential areas versus 13% in old
residential.  This small difference  is not  consistent among the cities
taken separately and is not statistically significant in the aggregate.
Age of housing appears to affect the level  of mass contribution from
residential, but has little effect on the frequency of presence of
pollutants.

3.  Runoff
    During the Hartford study,  a limited amount  of information was
obtained on the effect of rain  on the mass  flow  rate of certain metals
in the collection system.  The  data  base was very limited and thus
the conclusions are tentative.
    The mass flow rates for lead, zinc, and manganese were observed
to increase during the rain event.   Lead and zinc, and perhaps
manganese, are known automotive sources and it is therefore not a
surprise that they were found to increase.
                                   95

-------
                           VI.  CONCLUSIONS

      Perhaps the most  important  conclusion from this study is that
relatively few toxic pollutants were found in the sources and many
were at low concentration  levels.  Only fifty-six priority pollutants
were observed.  Sixty-seven  pollutants were never detected and an
additional twenty were  detected less than ten percent of the time.
      Tap water contributed  only  trihalomethanes and copper.
Residential sources had high zinc and manganese levels, plus some
other metals.  Commercial  sources were quite similar to residential
sources, but did have some additional pollutants and a few more metals.
The industrial sources  had high concentrations of many of the detected
organic pollutants and  all of  the observed metals were present in this
source category.
      The data have been used  to  develop indices for each source category
which could be used to  compare the impact of different proportions of
source types on POTW influents.   The indices appear reliable for the
residential and commercial sources, but are only approximate indicators
for the industrial sources,  because of the extremely variable and specific
nature of industrial source  types.
      The indices have  been  used  to calculate relative source strengths
and loadings on POTW's  for a number of hypothetical drainage basins.
These calculations clearly reflect the impact of industrialization of a
basin, but also show the dominant role played by residential and com-
mercial sources for some pollutants.  Reasonable success was achieved
in applying the source  indices to the four cities studied, to make a mass
balance comparison with the  measured POTW  influent values.
      The frequency of  observation of pollutants is consistently lower
on weekends than  on weekdays.   Old residential sources contribute higher
levels of pollutants than  new residential  sources.
                                   97

-------
                        VII.  RECOMMENDATIONS

      Further analyses should be  carried out on the data base which has
been developed to search for other effects and correlations.
      The indices and approaches  developed in this study should be
used to examine available data  for industrialized cities.
      This source data should be  integrated with the POTW plant data
to enable a complete analysis of  the POTW situation.
      Further sampling efforts  should be designed to test the findings
summarized in this  report.  Any future  studies should also attempt to
develop a more complete understanding of industrial sources and their
impact on POTW loading.
                                     99

-------
                            VIII.  REFERENCES

1.  "Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to Sewage Treatment
    Plants" I.  Literature  Review, EPA, MDSD, Final Report on Task Order
    No. 6, Contract No. 68-01-3857, Report No. ADL 81099-50, June, 1979.
2.  "Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to Sewage Treatment
    Plants" II.  Muddy Creek Drainage Basin, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA,
    MDSD, Final Report on Task Order No. 6, Contract No. 68-01-3857,
    Report No. ADL 81099-51, June, 1979.
3.  "Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to Sewage Treatment
    Plants" III.  Coldwater Creek Drainage Basin, St. Louis, MO., EPA,
    MDSD, Final Report on Task Order No. 10 Contract No. 68-01-3857,
    Report No. ADL 81099-16, October, 1979.
4.  "Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to Sewage Treatment
    Plants" IV. R.M. Clayton Drainage Basin, Atlanta, Georgia, EPA,
    MDSD, Final Report on Task Order No. 13, Contract No. 68-01-3857,
    Report No. ADL 81099-26, October, 1979.
5.  "Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to Sewage Treatment
    Plants" V. Hartford  WPCP  Drainage  Basin, Hartford,  Connecticut,  EPA,
    MDSD, Final Report on Task Order No. 13, Contract No. 68-01-3857,
    Report No. ADL 81099-46, November, 1979.
6.  "Sampling and Analysis  Procedures  for  Screening of  Industrial
    Effluents for Priority  Pollutants",  U.S. EPA, EMSL,  Cincinnati,
    Ohio, March, 1977, revised April,  1977.
7.  "Quality Assurance Program  for  the Analyses  of Chemical Constituents
    in Environmental  Samples",  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
    Environmental Monitoring  and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio,
    March, 1978.
                                   101

-------
                             APPENDIX A
 Individual Pollutant Reporting Limits. Recovery and Precision Data

      The data in these tables summarize the results that were obtained
for each pollutant reviewed over all four cities, for which reference
compounds were available.  These data are the results obtained in
the raw wastewater samples.  The reporting limits were the same for
each city where a single value is  indicated, otherwise the range
reported over the four  cities  is given.  The average recovery values
reported are the means  over all four cities.  The precision (relative
standard deviation)  is  given as the range of values observed in all of
the cities.  In general,  the precision of the data improved throughout
the program; the recovery  values stayed consistently high for all four
cities and low reporting  limits were consistently achieved.

      The quality control  data  are very good  for the majority of the
priority pollutants.  The  priority pollutants for which the EPA
Screening Protocol was  problematic are listed below along with their
respective problems.  These priority  pollutants are indicated by
footnote, in the tables.   The  footnote definitions are:
      (a)  These priority  pollutants were never  detected using the
EPA Screening Protocol.  Therefore, if these compounds were present
in the samples from  the four surveys they would  not have been
detected.
      Bis(chloromethyl)ether - very short half life in water.
      2-Chloroethyl  vinyl  ether -  volatile  (bp 109°C) causing
          erratic recoveries during Kuderna Danish concentration.
      Hexachlorocyclopentadiene -  Possible high  GC/MS reporting limit
          or degradation  in the heated GC injector.
      (b)  These priority  pollutants were sporadically not detected
using the EPA Screening Protocol.  Consequently, accuracy and pre-
cision data are poor.   The analytical results for these compounds
in the four surveys  may not be reliable.  The problem for most of these
                                   103

-------
compounds  is related to poor chromatography.  The compounds for
which this was particularly problematic are:
      Benzidine - poor chromatography, heat labile,  unstable in
          methylene chloride (problematic in Cincinnati, St. Louis,
          Atlanta and Hartford).
      N-nitrosodimethylamine - poor chromatography,  high GC/MS
          reporting limit, poor extraction efficiency from water
          into methylene chloride (problematic in Cincinnati,
          St. Louis, Atlanta).
      2,4-Dinitrophenol - poor chromatography.
      A,6-Dinitro-2-cresol -  poor chromatography (problematic in
          Atlanta, Hartford).
      4-Nitrophenol - poor chromatography (problematic in Cincinnati
          and Hartford).
      (c)  These volatile priority pollutants were not detected until
the PAT/GC/MS procedure was modified during the Atlanta study.
Therefore if these compounds were present in samples from Cincinnati
or St. Louis they would not have been detected.  Also during the
Atlanta study precision and accuracy were poor.  Therefore the
quantitative analytical results are not reliable.
      Dichlorodifluoromethane - broke through sorbent trap (also
          occurred in Atlanta study).
      Bromomethane - broke through sorbent trap.
      Vinyl chloride - broke through sorbent trap.
      Chloroethane - broke through sorbent trap.
      The analytical method for those compounds just listed was
improved for the last city and reliable data are available from the
Hartford samples for these pollutants.
      (d)  The analytical results for methylene chloride are erratic
due to sporadic contamination from the field and laboratory.  This
problem was finally brought under control during the Hartford study.
      (e)  Reference standards were never available for these priority
pollutants.  It may be implied from QC data or similar compounds
that these priority pollutants would have been defected if they
were present in the samples.
      2,3,7,8-TCDD
      Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether.
                                104

-------
      The reference standards  that were not available for all  four
cities surveyed but available  for some, are so indicated in the following
Tables.
                                    105

-------
                                 Table  A-l
                     SUMMARY  OF  QUALITY CONTROL  DATA
                                Volatiles
Compound
101. Chloromethane c*
102. Dichlorodifluoromethane
103. Bromomethane c
104. Vinyl chloride c
105. Chloroethane C
106. Methylene chloride "
107. Acrolein
108. Trichlorofluoromethane
109. Acrylonitrile
110. 1,1-Dichloroethylene
111. 1,1-Dichloroethane
112. Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
113. Chloroform
114. 1,2-Dichloroethane
115. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
116. Carbon tetrachloride
117. Bromodichloromethane
118. 1,2-Dichloropropane
1 1 9. Trans-1 ,3-dichloropropy lene
120. Trichloroethylene
121. Benzene
122. Cis-1,3-dichloropropylene
123. Dibromochloromethane
124. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1 25. Bromoform
126. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
127. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
128. Toluene
129. Chlorobenzene
130. Ethyl benzene
Reporting
Limit
Ug/L
5*
5*
5*
5*
5*
1
1-7
1-6
1
1-5
1-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-2
1
1
1-2
1
1-3
1
1
1
1
1
Average
Recovery
118*
194*
113*
123*
108*
138
58
78
94
72
83
73
82
96
82
87
88
82
82
98
89
85
95
99
74
78
94
102
106
113
Range of
Relative Standard
Deviations
21*
48*
22*
19*
15*
12-259
35-149
11-83
8-24
4-134
2-43
3-73
5-38
4-35
10-78
6-44
5-24
3-37
4-11
2-78
5-17
3-20
4-24
2-13
7-37
4-75
8-79
3-32
2-29
2-47
Hartford data only
                                   106

-------
            Table  A-2
SUMMARY OF QUALITY CONTROL DATA
            Acids
Compound
201 . 2-Chlorophenol
202. 2-Nitrophenol
203. Phenol
204. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
205. 2,4-Dichlorophenol
206. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
207. 4-Chloro-3-cresol
208. 2,4-Dinitrophenol
209. 4,6-Dinitro-2-cresolb
210. Pentachlorophenol
211. 4-Nitrophenol
Reporting
Limit
Pg/L
10
10-15
10
10
10
10
10
20-40
20-40
10-25
10-25
Average
Recovery
86
93
60
90
103
92
98
41
57
105
54
Range of
Relative Standard
Deviations
6-29
8-26
20-26
5-20
9-15
7-18
12-17
26-155
23-112
11-28
11-42
              107

-------
                          Table  A-3
              SUMMARY OF QUALITY CONTROL DATA
                      Base/Neutrals
Compound
301 . 1 ,3 Dichlorobenzene \
302. 1,4 Dichlorobenzene )>
303. 1,2 Dichlorobenzene *
304. Hexachloroethane
305. Bis(chloromethyl)ether a
306. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
307. Bis{2— chloroisopropyl) ether6
308. N— Nitrosodimethy lamina c
309. Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
310. Nitrobenzene
31 1 . Hexachlorobutadiene
312. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
313. 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ethera
314. Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
315. Naphthalene
316. Isophorone
a
317. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
318. 2— Chloronaphthalene
319. Acenaphthylene
320. Acenaphthene
321. Dimethyl phthalate
322. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
• 323. 4— Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
324. Fluorene
325. 2,4— Dinitrotoluene
326. Diethyl phthalate
327. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
328. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
329. Hexachlorobenzene
330. 4— Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Reporting
Limit
yg/L
10-30
10-20
-
10-20
10
70*
10-20
10-20
10
10-20
-
10
10
10
-
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Average
Recovery
71
70
-
78
-
37*
89
78
57
74
-
92
81
82
-
81
85
82
67
86
74
79
62
91
75
113
64
64
Range of
elative Standarc
Deviations
11-30
26-42
-
10-39
-
78*
9-27
10-28
13-23
16-20
-
10-44
14-43
8-35
-
15-27
12-21
17-24
9-40
20-25
18-29
16-24
19-43
19-34
23-28
13-22
22-43
12-29
Hartford data only
                             108

-------
                            Table  A-3 (Continued)
                 SUMMARY OF QUALITY CONTROL DATA
                         Base/Neutrals
Compound
331 . Anthracene
332. Phenanthrene
333. Di-n-butyl phthalate
334. Fluoranthene
335. Pyrene
336. Benzidine b
337. Butyl benzyl phthalate
338. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
339. Di-n-octyl phthalate
340. Chrysene
341. Benzo(a)anthracene
342. 3,3'— Dichlorobenzidine
343. Benzo(b)fluoranthene
344. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
345. Benzo(a)pyrene
346. Indeno (1,2,3-c,d) pyrene
347. Dibenzo (a,h) Anthracene
348. Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
Reporting
Limit
Wg/L
51 n
— J.U
10
5-10
5-10
10-20
10
i f\
ID
5-10

10
1C
— J
5-10
5 *
5-10
5-10
Average
Recovery
00

74
66
67
18
45
/.•)
m
59

80
L.f\

51
29*
50
40
Range of
Relative Standard
Deviations
U-2^

28-81
11-35
14-35
95-111
33-57
OQ_OA

13-30

15-27
16-93

18-34
19*
17-60
20-245
Hartford data only
                                109

-------
                             Table  A-4
                 SUMMARY OF QUALITY CONTROL DATA
                           Pesticides
Compound
401. alpha-BHC
402. gamma-BHC
403. Heptachlor
404. beta-BHC
405. delta-BHC
406. Aldrin
407. Heptachlor epoxide
408. Endosulfan 1.
409. DDE
410. Dieldrin
411. Endrin
412. ODD
413. Endosulfan II
414. DDT
415. Endrin aldehyde
416. Endosulfan sulfate
417. Chlordane
418. Toxaphene
419. PCB-1221
420. PCB-1232
421. PCB-1242
422 PCB-1248
423. PCB-1254
424. PCB-1260
425. PCB-1016
Reporting
Limit
Mg/L
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1*
1*






1


Average
Recovery
77
78
67
80
89
76
80
64
84
48
77
78
76
60*
84*






86


Range of
Relative Standard
Deviations
8-28
7-43
7-70
5-42
7-31
5-20
5-18
11-51
5-26
6-39
9-26
10-31
8-21
*
29
*
18






7-18


Hartford data only
                               110

-------
            Table  A-5
 SUMMARY OF QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Metals, Total Cyanides, Total Phenols
Compound
501. Antimony
502. Arsenic
503. Beryllium
504. Cadmium
505. Chromium
506. Copper
507. Lead
508. Manganese
509. Mercury
510. Nickel
511. Selenium
512. Silver
513. Thallium
514. Zinc
601 . Total Cyanides
602. Total Phenols
Reporting
Limit
yg/L
1-3
2-4
1-3
1-3
1-67
4-9
3-15
3-11
1-2
1-30
1-5
1-3
1
6-50
10-20
10-20
Average
Recovery
73
101
69
85
99
103
90
100
73
105
87
103
96
104
91
96
Range of
Relative Standard
Deviations
25-48
11-36
6-13
15-63
2-48
9-12
10-47
4-9
7-34
3-60
13-47
6-30
5-14
5-45
10-17
6-16
               111

-------
                           Table   A-6
                   QUALITY ASSURANCE DATA
          Classical Parameters (7XX Series) Analysis*
Compound
703. Ammonia
704. Oil and Grease
705. TSS
706. TOC
707. COD
708. BOD
Spike
Concentration
mg/L
4.1
230
70
75
190
105
Mean %
Recovery
94
79
42
102
75
117
Relative
Standard
Deviation, %
2
30
75
2
16
17
Data from Atlanta study - method reference standards only.
                               112

-------
                              APPENDIX B
     Total Number of Pollutant Observations in Sources - by City
      The tables in this Appendix report the number of times a
pollutant was observed in each city, organized by source category.
Data for all of the pollutants ever detected are included, except
for methylene chloride, which was excluded because of its probable
presence due to contamination.  A blank indicates that it was not
detected in that city, or at all.
                                   113

-------
                    Table B-l
TOTAL NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS IN TAP WATER SAMPLES

Nunber of Sanples
104. Vinyl Chloridf


1M. Acrylonittih
110. 1.1-0>chloroMIvltm
113. Chloreler-n 	
114 1.2-OtcMn«
11$ 11 VTricMorotthOW
118. Cji boo tcinch>nt**l*m**na<
•ji
:










^



2

1

~1



















2



2
2





1
























































i
rj
<
1














-_


1
























2
2
2

2
2

2
























































-n
u
5
X
•4










4




















1










4






~ T~























i












!-



















i
'••t


— 1-


















































*t«l
2






12



12



7


3
1

1





	



1
3



2



3
1
1
LI
i,
6

3

1
~

2
                         114

-------
                       Table B-2

TOTAL  NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL SAMPLES

NynbCT of Samples
104. Vinyl Chloridt
105. ChlorotthKM
106. Trich)orofluorom«thcnt
109. AerylonitriX
110. 1.1 Oichloro«hyl«n«
111. 1.1-OfeNorotthsni
112. Tr«n>-1,2-dichlofO«thyl«»
113. Chtorofofm
114. 1.2-OicWofoettwn«
115. 1,1.1-TricMon>Mhin*
116. Ctrbon tttrKhlorid*
117. BronxxKchloromethint
118. 1 .2-Oichlotoprepir*
119. Tr*ns-1,3-D4chloroproPvl«nt
1 20. Trichloroithyltnt
121. Btnitnt
123. Oitxomochtwomtthsr*
124. 1,1.2TrlcMoroetnKn
1 2S. Bromof orm
126 1.1.2.2-T«r«chloro«h»ne
127 1 .1 ,2.2 TtlrtcMoroethyUnt
128. Toluene
129. CWorobtnzene
130. Ethvltxnun*
201. 2-Chlofophtnol
203. Phtnot
20*. 2.4-Dtimtbylph*nol
2OS. 2.4-Dichloroptnool
208. 2,4.6-Trichtorop'wnol
207 p^hloro-nvcr«ol
210. Pentaehiofophenol
301 . DicNorobmztnrl
310. Nilrabmztnt
312. 1,J,4-TiichlOfobtnz«n«
316. Niphthslm
336. DMhylPhttubu
331. Antnractnt/Ph«n

1

1
1



2






i






2

1
6
6
6
6

6

2
~^

6
!



























































Hartford
12







9

3










7
2










1
1
1
2
i
2
1






5°
I*1
2""
UU
— =Jr
8°
ll"
JT
— i-
T


ll1

9
r






















































































































otal
47







42
1
14

2


5
10
2


1
36
29
3
8

18
3



2
6
1
1
4
23
2
16
1

22
11


16
16
7

46
38
46
8

26
10
46

43
      10 ««aples
      11 staples
                             115

-------
                      Table B-3
TOTAL NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS IN COMMERCIAL SAMPLES

Number of Sanples
104. Vinyl CNari4»
IOC. Cntonxthm
108, TrtcMoronuoromtthant
108. Acivlonitr-fe
110. 1.1-OicMwontivim
111. t.VOicMarafthtn*
112. Tram-U-dichioronhylm
113. Chlorofwm
114. 1.2-O4cMorMthm
lit. 1.1.1-TricMoronhww
11«. CvbMi tttracNondt
117. •romixkchkxom.th**
IIS. 1 ,2-DicHoroorapm
118. Trm-I.J-DicMarocrafvlM
120. TricMoromhylm
121. fcfum


124. 1.1.2-TrichloraMhm
126. Bromoform
12*. 1 V3.J-Tttr.oMoro.ttwn.
127. >.).2.2-TetricMaraMftyi«n»
12i. Tahim
12t. CMorotenitM
130. EtMfcniM
201. 2O*oroi*«K
203. Hun*


301. 2.4-OKM«ra*k«iei
201. 2.4,6-TricMcmnh.nol
207. p£Mo>D4n«mal
2ia Hnmhl.iiuph.riul
301. DicNec«bi«nn«
310. NlUCt»ill»H«


31S. Niphitnnm
33*. OiMhyl«M«ln>
331. Antt»t»»mitn«nth™n.
333. Oi-n«utvl»MlMl*M
314. fkiocmhw.
331. fynw
337. (MvlbiMlvlphihflMi
33(. 6% (2««ivlhnv4l/«-
-------
                      Table B-4
TOTAL NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS  IN  INDUSTRIAL SAMPLES

Number of Samples
KM. Vinyl CMoiisto
105. Chloroethane
108. Trichforoftuoromethana
109. Acfylooilnle
110. 1.1-Oichloioethvline
111. 1.1 Dichloroetharw
112. Irani- 1,2-dichtoroethvt«n«
113. Chloroform
114 1 .2-Dichloroet>iana
115. 1.1,1-Triehloroettune
116. Carbon tauichlorida
117. BromodJchlororrwthane
118. 1.2-DichlotopropuK
US. Trim 1.3-O.chlofor»op>-l«n«
120. Tnchloroethvtvn*
121. B*nnne
123. DiDromochlorofTWthanc
124. 1.1.2TricNoroelrtan«
125. Bromoform
126. 1.1.2.2-T«rach!oro>than<
127. ),1.2.2-Ttlrachlofo«thvlw«
128. Totutio
129. CMorotMniem
IX. etMbMione
201. 2-CNoroptanol
203. Ptanol
204. 2.4-Oin>«Mph««ol
208. 2.4-OicMoroptwnol
20S. 2.4.6-TrichloropH«ro)l
207. pO*o»o-nvCf»tol
210. Ptinachloroph.no!
301 OicMorobannnM
310. Nitrotenztru
312. 1 2.4-Trichlototaenurw
31 S. Naphthatane
326. DMthylphtrUltu
331. Anthractnt/dwiMnthrant
333. Di.=«v1
pMhalaw
404. HtptacNor
406. AMrtn
SOt. Antimanv
502. Anank
504. Cadnwim
60S. dvomium
SO*. Coppat
607. LMd
60S. MHlfaMM
6M. Mmuiy
510. Metal
511. Satanlun!
812. tttMT 	 	
613. TKIIium 	 __
514. ane 	 ....
601. Tool CyanUM

n
1
C/5
i:






i
12

6 1
2
12


12
9
12



12
12

7
1
3

1
1


8


7


8


5



6
5

12
12
12
12

12
3
9
12
7
12




















































































































Atlanta I
	 	
9
1
;
i

8
7
7
9
3
9
5

1

9
7

1

2
9
9
3
9
1
8
8
1
1

It
4


6

3
4


6
5


NA
4
4
»
9
9
9
7
»

9
*
»
9
]












































































































































































total
21
1
. 1
1

8
7
8
21
3
15
;
12
1

21
-1ft..
12
1

2
21
21
3
16
2
H
8
2
2

4
12


13

3
12 1


11
5


6*
9
8
.n
21
21
21
7
21
4
W
1
2.J- ...
Ife
U
      1 out of 12 tuple*.
                          117

-------
                                                Table  B-5




                         TOTAL  NUMBER  OF OBSERVATIONS IN  INFLUENT SAMPLES
[

104. Vinyl ChlorMt

108. TricNorofluorormthvo
109. Acrv'omtriH
110. 1.1 DichlmmlhyHn.
111. 1.1 Otchtorotthvn
112. . Tr«-1.2-di«hloro«hyl«m

114. 1.2-DicMoroMnini
11S. I.I.ITrtaMomtfim
1 1 6. Cvbon ntnchlorxk
IK. U-OlcMoroenemi
lit. Tr«l|.1.3-OicNaroi»op«l«nt
120. TricMaraMhylm
121 Bfiutnt
124. 1.1.2-TrieMoro«th«n»

12*. 1.1.2>T«r«cMoraMhm
127. 1.1.2.2-T«tr«cMaraMliyl»
12*. Tohim
1» CNerabMim
130. EtMlMMni
201. 2-CNwoph.nol
203. tonal
204. 2.44MfflMhyl«tanol
20S. Z4-OMMonwtanol
201. 2.4.6-TricMonxitanol
207. pCMora-ntamal
301. OM*»flHn»n»
310. NMratanno
311 U.4-TricMarabMim
318. NiuliUnliiii
326. WlthylpMMMl
333. Di-«-lu
-------