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
------- |