Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents
to Sewage Treatment Plants
V. Hartford WPCP Drainage Basin, Hartford, Connecticut
/L Arthur D Little, Inc
-------
SOURCES OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS FOUND IN INFLUENTS
TO SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
V. Hartford Water Pollution Control Plant,
Hartford, Connecticut
Final Report On
Task Order No. 13
EPA Contract No. 68-01-3857
by
P. Levins, J. Adams, P. Brenner, S. Coons
C. Freitas, K. Thrun, J. Varone
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Planning and Standards
Monitoring and Data Support Division
Washington, D.C.
November, 1979
Report No. ADL 81099-46
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES iii
LIST OF FIGURES v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vii
I. SUMMARY 1
II. INTRODUCTION 5
III. HARTFORD WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT TREATMENT
AREA g
A. Introduction 9
B. Hartford Water Pollution Control Plant io
C. General Description of the JPCP POTW Treatment Area 11
D. Overall Description of Sampling Sites Within the
Hartford Treatment Area 14
1. Potter 14
2. Franklin and Victoria 19
3. Hillside 19
4. Seneca 22
5. Brentwood 22
6. Tunxis and Maple 22
7. Clover 27
8. Tap 27
IV. SAMPLING PROCEDURES 31
A. Sample Collection 31
B. Flow Measurements 33
V. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 45
A. Chemical Procedures 45
1. Introduction 45
2. Modified Procedures — Volatiles 45
3. Other Comments 45
B. Quality Assurance/Quality Control 46
VI. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 49
A. Frequency of Observation 49
B. Concentration of Priority Pollutants 55
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
Page
C. Mass Balance Analysis 62
1. Calculations for Scale Up 62
2. Sources of Pollutants 70
3. Tap Water Contribution 72
D. Evaluation of Runoff Effect 72
VII. CONCLUSIONS 79
VIII. REFERENCES 83
APPENDIX A — Details of the Sampling Plan A—l
APPENDIX B — Details on Analytical Methods B—i
APPENDIX C — Acid and Base/Neutral Aqueous Internal Standards C—l
APPENDIX D — Analytical Data by Site D—l
APPENDIX E — Analytical Data by Chemical E—l
APPENDIX F — Data for Rain Samples F—i
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Pag
1 Population and Family Units in Communities
Serviced by the Hartford 1PCP 12
2 1978 Population and Housing Estimates 16
3 Sampling Hole Locations and Characteristics 17
4 Commercial Characterization of Seneca 24
5 Commercial Characterization of Clover 29
6 Summary of Final Sample Fractions and Their
Required Volumes 32
7 Total Theoretical Flow Through Each Sampling
Point 34
8 Summary of Flow Data City 4 — Hartford 39
9 Summary of Data Used to Compute Correction
Factor for a St. Louis Site 43
10 Summary of Quality Assurance Data 48
11 Priority Pollutants Never Detected in
Hartford 56
12 Priority Pollutant Chemical Analysis 57
13 Priority Pollutant Chemical Analysis 59
14 Average Concentration by Source Type 61
15 Summary of Site Characteristics 65
16 Residential Sources, Per Capita Values 66
17 Commercial Average Concentrations 67
18 Mass Balance Analysis 69
19 Sources of Pollutants 71
20 Tap Water Contributions 73
iii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Page
1 Hartford Water Pollution Control Plant
Treatment Area 13
2 Hartford Water Pollution Control Plant
Treatment Area — Land Use 15
3 Potter — Land Use and Streets 18
4 Franklin and Victoria — Land Use and Streets 20
5 Hillside — Land Use and Streets 21
6 Seneca — Land Use and Streets 23
7 Brentwood — Land Use and Streets 25
8 Tunxis and Maple — Land Use and Streets 26
9 Clover — Land Use and Streets 28
10 Frequency of Observation 50
11 Frequency of Detection and Overall
Concentration Comparison 51
12 Frequency of Observations in Sources and
Influent 54
13 Runoff Effect - Franklin Avenue 75
14 Runoff Effect — Potter Street 76
15 Runoff Effect — POTW Influent 77
v
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wisl- 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. Don 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,
Mr. Phillip Taylor, and Mr. Robert Greenspun, all of the MDSD, are also
acknowledged.
The cooperation of the personnel at the Metropolitan District was
invaluable in designing the field plan and obtaining the other supporting
data for this study. We particularly wish to thank Mr. Neil Geldof,
Mr. Guy LaBella, Mr. Raymond Markonas, and Mr. Michael Reardon of the
District for their efforts.
We wish particularly to thank the large number of Arthur D. Little,
Inc. staff members who participated in the sampling and analysis team
ef forts. 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 considerable with the intense start—up effort
required for this study.
vii
-------
I. SUMMARY
This report represents the fourth in a series of studies of drainage
basins undertaken to determine the relative importance of major sources
of pollutants found in the influent of publicly—owned treatment works
(POTWs). The general categories of residential, commercial and indus-
trial have been identified as appropriate source classifications. This
is the fifth report in the series——the four previous reports (with the
same overall title as this report) have been published under the sub-
titles listed below:
Part I: Literature Review
Part II: Muddy Creek Drainage Basin, Cincinnati, Ohio
Part III: Coldwater Creek Drainage Basin, St. Louis, Missouri
Part IV: R. M. Clayton Drainage Basin, Atlanta, Georgia
This fourth study was carried out in the drainage basin of the
Hartford Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) in Hartford, Connecticut.
For the most part, this drainage basin provided the opportunity to
sample an area comprised largely of commercial and residential flow,
with minimal industrial interference. The sampling sites did include
a downtown site, similar to the downtown site in Atlanta, which contained
a minor industrial park.
Based on water use records, the following relative flows from the
different source types in the Hartford WPCP basin were determined by
the Hartford WPCP personnel:
Residential: 71.0%
Commercial: 21.5%
Industrial: 7.5%
Thirty—eight (38) percent of the flow to the treatment plant was
monitored during this study; the percentages of the sampled flow attri-
butable to each category were as follows:
Residential: 72.5%
Commercial: 24.0%
Industrial: 3.2%
1
-------
Samples (48—hour composites) were taken from 4 residential sites,
2 commercial sites, 1 downtown area, 2 tap water sources and the POTW
influent. The difference between the Hartford WPCP treatment area and
the previously sampled, more industrial treatment area, is clearly evi-
dent in the frequency and intensity of the pollutant observations. There
were very few pollutants observed in more than 50% of the samples at
concentrations above 10 pg/L.
Three of the samples collected in Hartford were worked up as QC/QA
samples. The QC samples, including the two field blanks totaled 17,
comprising 40% of the analytical samples. Twenty—eight (28) samples,
plus two field blanks, were collected for analysis. Samples were analyzed
for all priority pollutants (excluding asbestos) plus manganese, total
phenols, total cyanides, the classical parameters of ammonia, TSS, TOC,
BOD, COD, and oil and grease, as well as pH and temperature. The quality
control program used in the previous cities was retained for this city.
In the Hartford WPCP drainage basin, 35 pollutants were observed:
22 organlcs, 10 metals plus manganese, total cyanides and total phenols.
The six classical parameters measured in this study——ammonia, TSS, TOC,
COD, and BOD, and oil and grease——were also detected. Four (4) metals
and total phenols were observed more than 50% of the time (14 samples);
copper was observed 100% of the time. Chloroform and 1,1,2,2—tetra—
chloroethylene were the most commonly detected organics, as they were
in Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Atlanta.
There were four organic priority pollutants (4—chloro—3—cresol,
nitrobenzene, l,2,4—trichlorobenzene, fluoranthene) observed in Hartford
samples for the first time in this study. All were detected with low
frequency and at levels near the reporting limits. There were 91 priority
pollutants (including all the pesticides) which were not detected in
any of the samples. A detailed discussion of all these results, including
source type determination for the various chemicals, can be found in
Section VI of this report.
The areas sampled in Hartford included residential and commercial
activities, as well as an entire downtown area representing about 25%
2
-------
of the sanitary flow to the POTW. For the most part, this complex
downtown site turned out to have pollutant concentration levels comparable
to, or slightly higher than, the other commercial averages and the resi-
dential values.
Mass balance analyses were carried out for 18 priority pollutants
plus the six classical parameters; only 17 of those 18 have been included
in the source studies since bromodichloromethane was observed in the tap
water exclusively. Ten (10) of the 17 pollutants and all 6 classicals
project a total loading which is equivalent to the measured POTW influent,
within a factor of two. Six (6) pollutants have projected source sums
less than the mass flow at the influent, and one organic pollutant
exhibits a source sum greater than the influent. These results are
presented in Table 18.
By comparing the scaled Kg/day values for the residential and com-
mercial sources as fractions of the sum, the following assignments may
be made; 3 organics, 6 metals, total phenols, and 5 classicals are pre-
dominantly due to residential sources; 4 organics and 2 metals are attri-
butable to commercial activity; butyl benzyl phthalate and oil and grease
have no predominant source. Details on sources of pollutants are given
in Table 19.
The chemical analysis procedures have been improved substantially
for most pollutants. The purge and trap CC/MS method for analyzing the
volatile pollutants was modified for the Hartford study. The sorbent
trap was altered by completely removing the silica gel and using charcoal
in addition to the Tenax. This procedural change led to the successful
analysis of chloromethane, dichlorodifluoromethane, bromomethane, vinyl
chloride and chloroethane, each of which could not be analyzed by the
original EPA method.
The quality control program continues to be invaluable in terms of
daily checks on the chemical analyses and in terms of establishing the
reliability of the data for subsequent calculations and projections.
Most recovery values for the QC samples are in the 70% to 100% range,
and the variance in the precision is about 10% to 30%. The QC program
3
-------
documents the improvement in the volatile analysis where the recovery
is generally 90% or more, and the precent deviation for all but the
most volatile species is less than 10%.
The selection and isolation of sampling areas containing only one
type of source activity, i.e., residential, commercial or industrial,
continues to be problematic. The collection system often bears only
limited resemblance to the surface zoning and due to the fact that a num-
ber of agencies are involved, the system maps frequently are not complete
relative to direction of flow and location of manholes. A great deal
of site preparation must be put into accurately locating areas whose
land use is satisfactory for source type characterization.
During the Hartford study, a decision was made to experiment with
alternate flow measurement techniques due to suspected inaccuracies of
the periodic depth of flow/Manning equation measurements used previously.
The basis of this suspicion was twofold: a lack of correlation between
the percentage of inhabited land samples and the percentage of the total
flow to the treatment plant that had been accounted for, and a direct
comparison of measured flows in previous cities with the “theoretical
flows” generated from water billing records and population data for
each of the sites. Three alternate experimental techniques were employed,
and it was determined that flow could be most accurately measured by
using a combination of depth of flow and measured velocity. These experi-
ments and calculations are described in detail in Section IV.
In addition to the 28 analytical samples collected in Hartford,
aliquots were taken at the combined sewer sites (Franklin, Potter and
POTW) during a period of rain in order to evaluate the runoff effect
at these sites. The rain samples were analyzed for six metals — chromium,
copper, lead, manganese, nickel and zinc. Mass flow data for the rain
samples were compared with mass flow data for periods before and after
the rain. A rainwater effect was apparent for lead and zinc and slightly
less certain for manganese. The effects are most prominent at the down—
twon site where automibile activity (most likely responsible for these
pollutants) would be expected to be heavy. Further discussion on these
effects can be found in Section VI.
4
-------
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
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 drainage basins 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. The sources of the pollutants measured in the
POTW influent of previously unsampled treatment basins may then be
estimated in such a way as to suggest valid routes for controlling
pollutant loads.
The sampling and analysis procedures employed in the POTW surveys
are those outlined in the EPA Screening Protocol for Priority Pollutants 1
and the EPA Quality Assurance Program. 2 The first three phases of the
sampling and analysis program encompass the studies which were conducted
at the Muddy Creek Drainage Basin in Cincinnati, 3 the Coidwater Creek
Drainage Basin in St. Louis, 4 and the R. M. Clayton Drainage Basin in
Atlanta. 5 An extensive quality control program was established as part
of the initial study, and the data from the following surveys have been
shown to be in control. This report documents the survey conducted at
the Hartford Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) in Hartford. The
procedures employed for the sampling and chemical analysis were generally
the same as those used in the previous studies.
5
-------
The area serviced by the Hartford WPCP is predominantly of a com-
mercial and residential nature. In contrast to St. Louis and Atlanta,
the industrial component in Hartford was not sufficiently confined to
areas segregated from commercial and residential flows to permit the
sampling of an industrial source. The basin does have a total industrial
contribution, based on water use records, of 7%; most of this is metallic
processing and handling. The downtown site in Hartford (Potter St.)
encompasses a minor industrial part; this site is, however, classified
as commercial and for the purposes of mass flow calculations, the indus-
trial flow has been included with the commercial flow. Further analysis
of the Hartford drainage basin is contained in the overall report, 6 where
the average indices of the four drainage basins are used to estimate the
industrial pollutant burden at a POTW.
Samples were collected every four hours from 4 residential sites,
3 commercial sites, the POTW influent, and 2 tap water sources. Three
48—hour flow—compocited samples were produced for the sites; two were
produced for each tap location. Four—hour samples were also taken from
the combined sewer locations during a period of rainfall in order to
evaluate the runoff contribution at these sites.
This report is restricted to a presentation and discussion of the
Hartford study. Since this is the fourth drainage basin in the series
to be sampled, there has been a large amount of data generated on the
pollutants and possible sources of contamination. The data from this
survey at the Hartford drainage basin will be combined with the
data from the other surveys, in a final overall report, in order to be
able to predict the levels and sources of pollutants found at a POTW
serving a “typical” drainage basin.
The frequency of occurrence of a particular priority pollutant at
the individual sampling locations has been established from the concen-
tration data. The concentration data have also been used, as in the St.
Louis and Atlanta surveys, to develop indices by which the mass load
resulting from residential or commercial activities could be determined
for each pollutant. These indices were calculated on a mass per capita
6
-------
basis for the residential sources and a concentration basis for the
commercial sources. In this way, the individual measurements could be
scaled up to estimate the total pollutant load at the POTW influent.
Each basin surveyed provides an enormous amount of new information.
In addition to supplying data on a fourth POTW treatment area, this
survey at the Hartford WPCP has served as a measure against which to
compare and verify the quality control program as well as a means for
testing some of the conclusions that were made based on the previously
available data. Since the Hartford sites contained little or no indus-
trial activity, the data can be used to corroborate some of the source
assignments made in previous studies, as well as contribute further to
the indices to be used in looking at other basins.
7
-------
III. HARTFORD WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT TREATMENT AREA
A. Introduction
The Hartford Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) treatment area——
located in metropolitan Hartford, Connecticut——was selected as the
fourth test facility for review in the study of the sources of toxic
pollutants found in influents to sewage treatment plants for several
reasons:
1. The treatment area represented a large basin which
was principally comprised of residential and commercial
activity. This facilitated the selection of remote
sampling sites that were comprised of totally residen-
tial or commercial activity, thus enabling the assess-
ment of their pollutant burden without the influence
of industrial components.
2. The basin encompassed a major downtown area which
allowed for a comparison of data generated in Atlanta
with another zone of comparable characteristics.
3. The geographical location (northeast) of the basin
represented an area not previously studied in prior
surveys.
4. The selected sampling locations were felt to be
safe and accessible 24 hours a day.
5. During the preliminary meetings, representatives of
the Hartford Metropolitan District Commission staff
had indicated that they would be very willing to
participate in and support this effort.
6. The Hartford WPCP was also being sampled in a related
study conducted by EPA/EGD and Burns and Roe.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. staff visited with the following personnel
at the Metropolitan District in Hartford:
Mr. Neil Geldof, Senior Engineer, Department of
Engineering and Planning
9
-------
Mr. Raymond Markunas, Associate Engineer, Department
of Engineering and Planning
Mr. Guy LaBelj.a, Associate Engineer, Department of
Engineering and Planning
Mr. Michael Reardon, Operations Engineer, Department
of Sewer Operations
The above MDC staff were very cooperative and spent much time and effort
in providing the required information regarding both the demographic
data and data pertaining to the POTW area, sewer systems, etc.
From information available from the MDC, the following demographic
data were obtained for each sampling area:
Housing——number of single family and apartment units for
each site and entire POTW area.
Population——population broken down by single family
population and apartment unit population for each site
and entire POTW area.
Commercial——summary of the number and type of establish-
ments found in these areas. For Clover, the average
number of employees for the year 1978 was also available.
Approximate assignments for municipal/public buildings, schools, churches,
medical buildings and open land areas were made from land—use maps.
In the following sections, the treatment area and each sampling
area are described. Details of the sampling plan are presented in
Section IV.
B. Hartford Water Pollution Control Plant
The Hartford WPCP was completed and went into operation in 1938.
The plant is located in the southeastern corner of the City of Hartford
and is bordered by the Hartford—Wethersfjej.d city line to the south and
the Connecticut River to the east. It serves a 93 square mile area
comprised of all or part of six communities. Approximately 45 million
gallons per day of wastewater are treated within the plant, with an
estimated industrial loading of 7 percent. The average strength of the
10
-------
influent water is listed as 115 mg/L for BOD and 131 mg/L for TSS; during
the sampling period, the average values were 71 mg/L for BOO and 104 mg/L
for TSS.
The plant is designed to provide secondary treatment for an average
daily influent rate of 60 MCD using the activated sludge process. Major
unit operations within the plant include primary and secondary settling,
biological oxidation, and chlorination. Sludge disposal is performed
by incineration at a central facility (on site) where wastes from three
MDC plants are processed. Generally, removal efficiency for BOD is
between 90 and 96% and between 77 and 92% for TSS; removal efficiencies
during the period of sampling activity were 95.6% for BOD and 92.2% for
TSS.
The basin’s collection system is comprised of both sanitary and
combined sewer lines. Wastes enter the plant through one of two major
interceptors, of which the one running northward, parallel to the
Connecticut River, is the largest. Final discharge of the treated
effluent is to the Connecticut River.
C. General Description of the Hartford WPCP Treatment Area
The Hartford WPCP basin encompasses all or part of six communities
including the City of Hartford and the towns of Bloomfield, Windsor,
Wethersfield, Newington, and West Hartford. Of these communities, the
first five are charter members of the Hartford Metropolitan District
Commission, with West Hartford being charged on the basis of flow. The
drainage basin itself covers approximately 93 square miles of area, of
which metropolitan Hartford accounts for 18.4 square miles. The estimated
population of the area is 285,000 (1978 estimate). The major commercial
area contained within the basin is located in “downtown” Hartford, with
smaller commercial zones (shopping malls) isolated within West Hartford
and Bloomfield. The breakdown of the housing units and populations in
the various communities serviced by the Hartford WPCP is given in Table 1.
The industrial component of the area is scattered throughout the
basin, with the highest concentration being on the Hartford—West Hartford
border where Interstate 84 crosses. Figure 1 outlines the main roads
11
-------
Table 1
POPULATION AND FAMILY UNITS IN COMMUNITIES SERVICED BY THE HARTFORD WPCP
Sewered Sewered
Type of Family Popula—
Town/City Occupancy Units tion
BLOOMFIELD Single Family 3794 13,279
Apartments 1248 3,119
Total 5042 16,398
HARTFORD S.F. 7218 23,098
Apt. 51015 127,237
Total 58232 150,335
NEWINGTON S.F. 6466 22,631
Apt. 2035 4,884
Total 8501 27,515
WETHERSFIELD S.F. 3104 10,553
Apt. 464 928
Total 3568 11,481
WINDSOR S.F. 3804 13,693
Apt. 614 1,411
Total 4418 15,104
W. HARTFORD S.F. 16937 55,892
Apt. 3849 8,467
Total 20786 64,359
Totals S.F. 41323 139,146
Apt. 59224 146,046
Total 100547 285,192
12
-------
2 O 0 4 6000
— — — — —I — FIIT
FIGURE 1 HARTFORD WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT TREATMENT AREA
13
Lsg.id:
1. Pott
2 a ’d VicIo,ia
3. HiIIs.de
4. Seneca
5. B r two d
6.T.., isa d Maple
7. Clo ee
* Saewhnq Sites
WPCP
Ii
$00 (0 2000
METtIS
-------
witnin tne basin, an shows the relative location of each of the remote
sampling zones. Figure 2 displays the land use within the treatment
area with respect to residential, commercial and industrial activity.
D. Overall Description of Sa pling Sites Within the Hartford Treatment
Area
As mentioned earlier, Figure 1 shows the Hartford treatment area
and location for each sampling area. Table 2 summarizes the 1978 popu—
lation and housing estimates for each area and the entire basin served
by the Hartford WPCP. Table 3 lists the locations, sewer characteristics,
and general land use designation of the sampling areas. Individual
land use maps for each sampling area are included below.
1. Potter
The Potter sampling area covers an area from downtown Hartford north
to include a portion located in Bloomfield. Figure 3 shows the main
streets, sampling location, and land use of this area.
Potter is characterized as a combined downtown area. Comparable to
the downtown area of Atlanta (Peachtree), Potter includes a large commer-
cial component with many retail establishments, office buildings, banks,
a few large hotels and apartment complexes, and many city/municipal
buildings such as City Hall, State Capitol and Civic Center. There are
two hospitals, a mental health center, an institute for the blind, a
college, and many other schools. Open land includes a few small parks
near downtown, as well as a larger park just north of the downtown area,
and a few cemeteries. There are two minor industrial components within
this area; one is located at the Blue Hills Industrial Park in Bloomfield
and the other is located along Granby Street. The residential areas
surrounding the downtown area are characterized as old urban residential.
There are 3,405 single family homes and 24,014 apartment units, mostly
consisting of multi—family structures, for a total 1978 population estimate
of 70,931. There are many ethnic neighborhoods, large housing projects
and some rundown neighborhoods. There are scattered old commercial
establishments, gas stations, etc.
14
-------
t :: \
h4AL HY
800 0 1000 2000
i __ I •. I Meters
FIGURE 2 HARTFORD WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT TREATMENT AREA — LAND USE
I :
L.g,nd:
Commercial
Residential
Industrial
Lake, River, Brook
Recreational Land
2000 0 2000 4000 6000
L ,.. __ .a ‘‘ I Feet
15
-------
Table 2
1978 POPULATION AND HOUSING ESTIMATES
Type of HOUSING
___________?!PULATIPN Occuoancy
Single—Family Apartment Total and Persons No. Single No. of Total
SAMPLING AREA Population — pylation Po p 4 tion Per Unit* Family Homes Apt. Units Units
Potter 10,895 60,036 70,931 S. 3.2 3,405 24,014 27,419
A. 2.5
Franklin 3,071 16,924 19,995 S. 3.2 960 6,770 7,730
A. 2.5
Victoria 9,839 928 10,767 S. 3.4 2.893 464 3,357
A. 2.0
Hullaide** 1,838 474 2,312 S. 3.2 575 190 765
A. 2.5
0 ’ Maple 595 0 595 S. 3.5 170 0 170
A. 2.5
Tunxis 690 0 690 S. 3.5 197 0 197
A. 2.5
Brentwood 1,397 130 1,527 S. 3.5 399 52 451
A. 2.5
Seneca 53 240 293 S. 3.5 15 96 111
A. 2.5
Clover 14 0 14 S. 3.5 4 0 4
Entire area served 139,146 146,046 285,192 — 41,323 59,224 100,547
by HWPCP *
‘ Distribution of people living in single family units and apartment units is that used in the 1978 MDC
Annual Report, “Estimated Sewered Family Units and Population in the Metropolitan District — By Towns.”
**Bowsing estimated on 25% units in apartments and 75% in single family.
***Data obtained from the 1978 MDC Annual Report.
-------
Table 3
SAMPLING HOLE LOCATIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Location Sewer
Code Name Source type/Sewer type (Longltude:Latitude) Characteristics
Franklin Old residential/combined 72° 40’ 23.8” 72” brick and reinforced
concrete
41° 43’ 46.1” 0.39% slope
Victoria Old residential/combined 72° 40’ 46.2” 30” reinforced concrete
41° 43’ 37.9” 0.08% slope
Hillside Old residential/sanitary 72° 41’ 49.1” 18” tile
410 43’ 54.8” 0.2% slope
Clover CommercIal/sanitary 72° 45’ 38.2” 12” tile
41° 43’ 17.8” 0.3% slope
Potter Commercial/combined 72° 40’ 10.5” 56” brick
41° 45’ 44.2” 0.15% slope
Seneca CommercIal/sanitary 72° 43’ 57.2” 8” asbestos cement
41° 49’ 46.5” 2% slope
Tunxis New residential/sanitary 72° 44 34.3” 24” reinforced concrete*
41° 51’ 43.8” 0.1% slope
Maple New residential/sanitary 72° 45’ 1.7” 12” asbestos cement*
41° 49’ 30.7” 0.4% slope
Brentwood New residential/sanitary 72° 43’ 55.4” 12” asbestos cement
41° 49’ 49.2” 0.5% slope
* All pipes less than 12” diameter are PVC pipes.
-------
Residential
[ J Commercial
Industrial
Open Space
* m uitg Point
Hartford
2000 4000 1000
Bloomfiald
FIGURE 3 POTTER — LAND USE AND STREETS
18
-------
2. Franklip and Victoria
This sampling area includes two separate sections near the Hartford
and Wethersfjeld border: Franklin is located in Hartford just south of
the Potter—downtown sampling area, and Victoria is located just over
the Hartford—Wethersfield town line in Wethersfield, south of the
Franklin site. Figure 4 shows the land use, sampling locations, and
main streets for these areas.
Franklin and Victoria are both characterized as old residential,
with most of the homes being 50+ years old and consisting mostly of
apartments, “triple—deckers” and other multi-family units. The Franklin
sampling area, a highly ethnic neighborhood, contains 960 single family
residences and 6,770 apartment units with a 1978 total population estimate
of 19,995. There are some sections containing unused, rundown or boarded
up buildings. The old commercial establishments are found mostly along
Maple Avenue and Franklin Avenue and include restaurants, bakeries,
package stores, and drug stores. Also included is the Hartford Hospital,
the Institute for Living, and two schools.
Victoria contains a large, old residential area containing 2,893
single family homes and 464 apartment units for a total 1978 population
estimate of 10,767. Town/municipal buildings include the Highway Depart-
ment, Labor Department, a community center, and a school. Open land
includes a large cemetery area and a recreation area (Wintergreen Woods).
There are scattered commercial establishments.
3. Hillside
The Hillside sampling area is located in Hartford, north of Wethers—
field and adjacent to the Franklin sampling area. Figure 5 shows the
main streets, sampling point, and land use for this area.
Hillside is characterized as old residential, about 40—50 years old.
There are 575 single family residences and 190 apartment units with a
total 1978 population estimate of 2,312. The non—residential activity is
very minor; there are only a few corner stores scattered throughout the
neighborhood, a playground, and no public or minicipal buildings.
19
-------
La .
* 1niphing Pawn
aN aN aN
i2 10
FIGURE 4 FRANKLIN AND VICTORIA — LAND USE AND STREETS
2
aN
20
-------
3
Legend:
______ Residential
* Sampling Point
9 2000
Ô200
4000 6000
Feet
1000 2000
FIGURE 5 HILLSIDE—LAND USE AND STREETS
21
-------
4. Seneca
The Seneca sampling area is located in Bloomfield, north of West
Hartford and adjacent to the Brentwood sampling area. Figure 6 shows the
land use, sampling location, and main streets in the area.
The Seneca sampling area is characterized as commercial. There
are only 15 single family homes and 96 apartment units with a total
1978 population estimate of 293. Most of the commercial establishments
are found in the Wintonbury Mall and the Bloomfield Shopping Plaza along
Park Avenue, with some scattered commercial establishments along Seneca,
Jerome and Park. The area includes most of the town’s municipal buildings,
including a post office, police and fire departments, town hail, board
of education and library. Table 4 characterizes the types of establish-
ments found in the area.
5. Brentwood
The Brentwood sampling area is located in Bloomfield adjacent to
the Seneca sampling area. Figure 7 shows the land use, sampling location
and main streets in the area.
The Brentwood sampling area is characterized as new residential
with no commerce. There are 399 single family homes and 52 apartment
units for a total 1978 population estimate of 1,527.
6. Tunxis and Maple
This sampling area is located in Blooinfield and is comprised of
two section: Tunxis and Maple. Figure 8 shows the land use, sampling
locations and main streets in these areas.
The Tunxis sampling area is characterized as new residential with
197 single family homes, no apartment units, with a 1978 population
estimate of 690. The area includes a large tract of land for town
recreation, the Tunxis reservoir and part of Tunxis Flood Water Retarding
Dam, a small pond, and streams.
The Maple sampling area is new residential with 170 single family
homes, no apartment buildings, and a 1978 population estimate of 595.
22
-------
Legend:
_______ Commercial
IHEi— Residential
Sampling Point
0
2000
U 200 1000
FIGURE 6 SENECA—LAND USE AND STREETS
4
4000 6000
Feet
Meters
2000
23
-------
Table 4
15 single family
96 apartment units
Population: 293
Wintonbury Mall
COMMERCIAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SENECA
2 banks
2 restaurants
1 book shop
1 figure salon
1 barber shop
1 package store
1 photographer/jeweler
1 shoe store
1 pharmacy.
1 copying service
Bloomfield Shopping Plaza
4 clothing stores
1 gift shop
1 tool distributor
1 corporate office
1 optometrIst
1 rating bureau
1 inort/finance co.
1 insurance agency
2 large law offices
2 restaurants
1 insurance agency
1 tour agency
1 pharmacy
1 cleaner/launderer
1 footwear
1 flower shop
1 photographer
1 grocery store
1 dentist
2 clothing stores
1 barber
1 beauty shop
1 bike shop
Shopping area adjacent to Bloomfield
1 grocery store
1 drug store
1 restaurant
Other Scattered Commercial
1 cleaners
1 beauty shop
2 gas stations
1 hardware store
1 farmer’s exchange
2 banks
1 theatre
1 restaurant
1 funeral home
1 jeweler
1 RE/Ins/Law office building
1 medical office building
Municipal Buildings : post office, police depart., town hall, board of
eduction, fire department, town green, library
Religious : Sacred Heart Church and School, Congregational Church
24
-------
Legend:
Residential
Sampling Point
0
Ô 200
2000
4000 6000
Feet
Meters
1000 2000
FIGURE 7 BRENTWOOD—LAND USE AND STREETS
25
-------
Residential
Sampling Point
2000 4000
1000
6
*
/
Sampling Site
on Tunxis Ave.
FIGURE 8 TUNXIS AND MAPLE—LAND USE AND STREETS
Legend:
*
I
0
200
6000
Feet
Meters
2000
26
-------
The area includes the Cold Spring Flood Water Retarding Dam. To the
south, the area borders the MDC Reservoir #6 Water Treatment Plant.
7. Clover
The Clover sampling area consists mostly of the West Farms Mall
which is located on the Farmington/West Hartford town line. Approximately
40% (423,121 sq ft) of the total building square footage is assessed by
the town of West Hartford and 60% (618,833 sq ft) is assessed by the
town of Farmington. Figure 9 shows the main streets, land use, and
sampling point in this area.
There are 122 commercial establishments within 1,041,954 sq ft of
building area. The average number of employees during 1978 was 1,798.
Table 5 lists the numbers and types of establishments and average number
of employees for the year 1978.
8. Tap
Tap water samples were taken from two locations within the Hartford
WPCP treatment area corresponding to two different water supplies. One
(1) sample was obtained at the treatment facility, while the other was
obtained from a tap located in the town green in Bloomfield, Connecticut
(Wintonbury tap).
27
-------
Legend:
Commercial
Sampling Point
2000 4000
200
1000
-o
0
7 ,I’z
I
6000
Feet
Meters
200
FIGURE 9 CLOVER — LAND USE AND STREETS
0
28
-------
Table 5
COMMERCIAL CHARACTERIZATION OF CLOVER
West Farms Mall Average
Number of
Total Employees
No. Type of Establishment for Year 1978
15 Restaurants 300
6 Food stores 26
42 Clothing stores 1075
3 Bookstores 16
12 Shoe stores 64
1 Liquor store 3
6 Gift stores 38
3 Opticians 24
2 Banks 6
7 Jewelers
1 Drug store 12
1 Pet center 9
4 Music stores 19
1 Beauty shop 8
1 Sporting goods 33
1 Theatre 18
1 Home furnishings 4
1 Travel 2
1 Mgmt service 48
13 Misc. retail 40
122 Total of Avg. Number of
Employees During 1978 1798
29
-------
IV. SAMPLING PROCEDURES
A. Sample Collection
For the most part, all aspects of the sampling procedures used in
Hartford were comparable to those which had been used in the previous
three cities. 3 ’ 4 ’ 5 As before, sample collection was performed utilizing
a manual collection technique in which a two—liter stainless steel graduate
(bucket) was repeatedly lowered into the flow of wastewater to fill the
required number of sample bottles.
All of the actual collection procedures were identical to those
previously employed in the other cities. Upon arriving at each sampling
site, the field crew would first measure the temperature, pH and oxidizing
potential of the wastewater (with potassium—iodide starch paper) and
then collect the required amount of wastewater as identified on a chart
within the field sampling procedures manual (see Appendix A). The
necessary volume of each sample increment was calculated to insure that
adequate volume was collected each time to allow for accurate flow com—
positing over a flow variation of up to five to one (5:1). Using this
protocol, the final volume of wastewater collected was sufficient to
produce a final “sample” that was made up of those fractions listed in
Table 6.
There were two significant differences between the Hartford study
and the Cincinnati and St. Louis studies: as had been the case in Atlanta,
a forty—eight (48) hour compositing period was used for each sample; for
each of two of the composited samples (Tunxis and Franklin), wastewater
was obtained from two distince sampling locations. The principal reason
for extending the compositing period from twenty—four to forty—eight
hours was to continue to allow for obtaining samples from a variety of
area types (residential, commercial, etc.) without dramatically increasing
the total analysis costs. Similarly, the decision to combine four sampling
locations into two final samples (Tunxis and Maple = Tunxis, Franklin and
Victoria = Franklin) arose because of the desire to limit the total
number of samples analyzed, while still obtaining wastewater from approx—
imately 15 to 20 percent of the land mass in the basin. Since similar
31
-------
Table 6
SUMMARY OF FINAL SAMPLE FRACTIONS AND THEIR REQUIRED VOLUMES
Priority Pollutants Code Normal Sample QC’d Sample
• Acid/Base Neutral fraction (ABN) 2L 6L
• PCB/Pesticide fraction (PCB) lL 3L
• Total Phenol fraction (Phen) 1L 3L
• Cyanide fraction (CN) 1L 3L
• Metal and Mercury fraction (M+,Hg) lL 3L
• Asbestos fraction (As) 1L 3L
• Volatile Organic fraction (VOA) 45mL 45mL
Classical Parameters
• Ammonia (NH 3 ) 1L 1L
• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 500mL 500mL
• Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 500mL 500mL
• Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) lL 1L
• Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lL 1L
• Oil and Grease (O+G) 1L 1L
32
-------
demographic and plumbing characteristics were present within the Tunxis
and Maple (new residential, sanitary waste only, predominently PVC pipe),
and Franklin and Victoria (old residential, combined sewers, concrete
pipe) areas, the combination of each of these pairs allowed for the
fulfillment of both desires.
Subsequent to the completion of all the sampling steps (including
collection, labeling, preservation, clerical documentation and packing),
the volume of wastewater passing through the sampling site was determined.
As before, the depth of flow was measured and a flow rate was obtained
by use of the Manning equation. All flow compositing of the collected
sample increments was conducted in the laboratory, using the flow rates
obtained in this way.
B. Flow Measurements
In addition to measuring the flow of wastewater through each of the
selected sampling locations by means of the depth of flow/Manning equation
approach, four other flow determination techniques were used during the
Hartford evaluation. In specific, a periodic depth of flow/direct velo-
city determination was used at each of the remote sampling sites, and a
continuous depth of flow/Palmer—Bowles flume technique was employed in
as many locations as was feasible. Wherever it was impractical to install
a flume, particularly in the case of large pipes (i.e. , greater than
61 cm [ 24 inches] which were carrying large volumes of flow), a continuous
depth of flow measurement/Manning equation approach was used instead.
In addition to these three experimental flow measurement options,
a theoretical flow evaluation of the Hartford WPCP basin was also conducted.
As had been the case with both the St. Louis and Atlanta studies, the
basis of this theoretical evaluation assumed that each resident within
the basin or a specific sampling zone used and discharged water at a
rate of approximately 380 liters (100 gallons) per day. Furthermore,
the industrial, commercial, municipal, etc., burden was computed on the
basis of water billing records, assuming that all water entering a facility
was in turn discharged into the collection system. A summary of these
data is presented in Table 7.
33
-------
Table 7
TOTAL THEORETICAL FLOW THROUGH EACH SAMPLING POINT
Location
Theoretical Flow (LPS)
Total
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Franklin including
Victoria
134.8
25.9
0.6
161.3
Hillside
10.1
0.3
—
10.4
Clover
0.1
4.0
—
4.1
Potter
310.7
135.2
22.3
468.2
Tunxis including
Maple
5.6
—
—
5.6
Brentwood
6.7
—
—
6.7
Seneca
1.3
1.5
—
2.8
Basin excluding
above
780.1
212.3
108.4
1100.8
Total Basin
Found
1249.4
379.2
131.3
1760
71%
21.5%
7.5%
34
-------
The decision to experiment with these additional flow measurement
options arose as a result of the suspected inaccuracies of the periodic
depth of flow/Manning equation work which had been used in the previous
three cities. As has been mentioned in the previous reports, flow
measurements for Cincinnati, St. Louis and Atlanta appeared to produce
results which were too high. The basis of this belief was derived from
two sources: (1) a lack of correlation between the percentage of in-
habited land sampled versus the percentage of the total influent flow
to the treatment plant accounted for, and (2) a direct comparison of the
measured flows in St. Louis and Atlanta with “theoretical flows” generated
from water billing records for each of the sampling sites.
Inasmuch as a good assessment of the actual flow passing through
each of the remote sampling sites is paramount to being able to close
a material balance about the basin, and to the development of realis-
tic source category pollution indices, it was hoped that the alterna-
tive flow measurement procedures would shed some light on the validity
of the previously tabulated values. Presuming that the periodic depth
of flow/Manning approach was correct; confirmation of this fact should
be obtained by reproducing flow values by other means. If, on the
other hand, the Manning—derived values were inappropriate, it was
hoped that a calibration or correction factor could be derived to
adjust the previously acquired data.
Before proceeding with the discussion of alternative flow measure-
ment techniques, it is useful to review the Manning equation to high-
light those factors (measurements) which may influence the accuracy of
any given value. The Manning equation used to calculate flow is:
= (R 2 cos 1 (R—h) — (R—h),J 2Rh—h 2 ) 1.6671 so 5
R IN
(2R cos1(R_hf ó 67 ]
\ RI
where:
Q = volumetric flow rate (m 3 /sec)
R = radius of the pipe (rn)
h = measured depth of flow (rn)
S = slope of the pipe (rn/rn)
N = roughness coefficient of the pipe
35
-------
Through a review of this equation, it becomes apparent that the
accurate measurement of flow is dependent upon four variables: pipe
slope, pipe roughness, pipe diameter and the measured depth of flow.
Of these four variables, the accurate measurement of pipe slope and
pipe roughness are perhaps the hardest to experimentally determine.
Therefore, in place of experimentally determined values, tabulated
figures obtained from sewer line construction plans (pipe slope) and
reference books (roughness coefficient) are used. In doing so, however,
it must be realized that some error is immediately introduced into the
final flow rates obtained.
For example, under some conditions a difference in slope of only
one—tenth percent (0.1%) can change the calculated flow rate-by as much
as forty (40) percent. Since the value for pipe slope which appears on
construction plans does not always coincide exactly with what actually
exists (due to improper construction, settling, etc.), the possibility
of poor slope values is very real. Furthermore, since manholes are
frequently installed at a point where a slope change is required (due
to land contour changes), it is difficult to determine whether the slope
of the inlet pipe, the discharge pipe, the manhole’s invert, or some
combination of all three values is the most correct value to use.
Comparably, the estimation of pipe roughness from tabulated values,
which normally recommends the use of an average value of 0.013, can intro-
duce a large error into the flow measurement value. This is true because
pipe roughness coefficients are known to change with the age or condition
of the line, as well as with the amount of flow which is being carried.
In selecting alternative flow measurement options, one of the
principal factors considered related to the possibility of eliminating
the dependence of the final calculation upon the pipe slope or roughness
coefficient. In doing so, it became possible to assess the relative
accuracy of using tabulated values, making it possible to correct or
recalibrate flow rate data tabulated for each of the other cities.
With this in mind, the first alternative approach selected for
review employed a Marsh McBirney Model 201 flow meter to directly measure
36
-------
the average linear velocity of the flowing stream. In operation, this
flow meter induces an electromagnetic field about its sensor, which is
disrupted as the flowing stream impacts or passes by the probe. The
amount of the disturbance is then measured and the difference between
what should exist, and what does exist is transformed directly into a
linear velocity figure. By positioning the sensor at a point that is
approximately 60—66 percent of the actual depth of flow, the average
rate of flow within the stream is obtained (based upon a knowledge of
fluid mechanics) and an average flow rate may then be obtained by directly
multiplying this value by the known (measured) cross—sectional area of
flow.
The second alternative flow measurement option employed during the
Hartford evaluation also eliminated the dependence on calculated values
of pipe slope and roughness factors. Wherever it was possible, appro-
priately—sized Palmer—Bowles flumes and automatic Manning dippers
(F 3000A series) were installed at manhole locations which were either
one hold upstream or one hole downstream of the sampling point. The
installation of these devices away from the sampling points was required
because of the accessibility problems associated with being unable to
sample around the mounted equipment. The flow rate information obtained
was felt to be unaffected, however, because there was a minimum of sewage
connection points between the two locations.
In theory, the installation of a Palmer—Bowles flume allows for the
estimation of flow rate by imposing a condition of critical flow at a
location of known cross—sectional area. By then measuring the depth of
flow at a known point upstream of the flume, it is possible to correlate
the depth of a known (calibrated) veloctly. Similarly, the measurement
of depth at a selected location also sets a cross—sectional area value
which, when numerically combined with the velocity measurement, produces
a flow rate estimate.
In those locations where the installation of Palmer—Bowles flumes
was prohibited (specifically at those sampling points where pipes larger
than 0.61 m [ 24 inches] existed), a Manning dipper was installed to
37
-------
measure the depth of flow on a continuous basis. While this technique
is not independent of pipe slope or roughness coefficients, it was
hoped that the continuous measurement of depth would indicate whether
the inaccuracy of flow measurements occurred due to the fact that the
periodic depth of flow values obtained always represented peak flow
values as opposed to average values.
The results of the flow measurements using all of these alternative
techniques are presented for review in Table 8.
Before proceeding with a detailed review of the experimentally—
derived flow measurements, a few comments should be made relative to the
validity of the theoretical flow evaluation conducted for Hartford. As
may be seen from the review of data presented in Table 8, the theoretical
dry weather flow tributary to the Hartford WPCP is expected to be 1760 Lps,
with the sampled locations representing approximately 35—40 percent (660 Lps)
of that total. When compared to the average influent flow for the period
of the Hartford study (2444 Lps), this indicates that only a 72 percent
closure of the flow balance is attained. However, one fact that is over-
looked in this analysis is that the ten—day period preceding the sampling
activity was extremely wet (17 cm or 6.7 inches of rain) and, therefore,
the water table is presumed to have been high during the sampling period.
Based on data provided to us by representatives of the Hartford MDC, the
collection system of the Hartford plant is known to have an infiltration
rate equivalent to roughly 25 percent of the influent during wet periods,
which indicates that the real theoretical flow tributary to the plant
should be closer to 2200 Lps. This adjusted theoretical flow compares
favorably to the observed influent rate and indicates that a 90 percent
closure of the flow balance was achieved.
Through a review of the data that is presented within Table 8, it
becomes obvious that the flow data derived by use of the depth of f low!
Manning equation approach is once again suspect for the Hartford study.
The basis of this suspicion again lies in the fact that the summed total
of all the independent sites (2150 Lps) represents approximately 88 percent
of the daily influent flow average of 36 readings (2444 Lps), whereas the
38
-------
Table 8
SUNMARY OF FLOW DATA CITY 4 - HARTFORD*
Sample Location
Theore—
tical
Flow
(Lps)
Manning
Equa—
tion
(Lps)
Velocity:
Depth of
Flow
(Lps)
Flume:
Dipper
(Lps)
Dipper:
Manning
Equation
(Lps)
Franklin
Victoria
Hillside
Clover
Potter
Seneca
T unx is
?Iaple
Brentwood
161
10
4
469
3
6
7
755
27
9
1324
6
19
10
259
31
7
603
3
14
10
20
10
5
14
7
880
983
—
Total of Above
660
2150
927
—
—
Influent
1760
2444
2444
2444
2444
* All values are six day averages,
39
-------
the percentage of land represented by the remote sampling sites only
encompasses roughly 15 to 20 percent. The theoretical analysis indicates
that the actual (dry weather flow) percentage of the basin represented
by the remote sites is closer to 37.5 percent. Even though one of the
remote sites (Potter) typifies a highly concentrated area of commerce
(core city area), It Is not believed that this alone Is adequate to
explain the noted disagreement. When compared to the theoretical flow
rates, all depth of flow/Manning equation values are on the order of
1.5 to 4.4 times too high.
Further review of the data in Table 8 suggests that the flow measure-
ments obtained by the velocity/depth of flow approach agree better with
those of the theoretical analysis. As is seen, the sum of all remote
sites (927 Lps) represents approximately 38 percent of the averaged in—
f1ue t, which agrees favorably with the 37.5 percent expected from the
theoretical analysis. Furthermore, while a comparison of these values
to the theoretical flow again indicates that all values are high, the
range (between 1.15 and 2.98) is closer to the theoretically derived
values than are the comparable depth of flow/Manning equation derived
values (1.5 to 4.4). If the effects of infiltration are factored In,
the noted range of these values drops to between 0.92 and 2.38.
Similarly, the flow values obtained using the Palmer—Bowles flume!
Manning dipper approach are seen to be in better agreement with theoreti-
cal values and the velocity based measurements than are the depth of
flow/Manning equation values. Once again, the noted range (1.09 to 2.6)
of the measured to theoretical values is in better agreement with the
theoretical values and the sum total of the five sites where flumes and
dippers were used represents 2.3 percent of the influent flow while
theoretically they should represent 1.7 percent.
On the other hand, values obtained using the dipper/Manning equation
approach (no flume) are no better than those obtained using the depth
of flow/Manning equation approach. As is seen with this measurement
technique, the two remote sites (Potter and Franklin) apparently account
for 78 percent of the flow that is tributary to the plant while theoreti-
cally they should only account for 36 percent.
40
-------
Therefore, as a result of this study, it appears the flows developed
using either the velocity/depth of flow technique or the flume/Manning
dipper approach are more reliable than those produced using the Manning
equation when compared to theoretically derived values. However, due to
the fact that considerably more effort is required to install flumes and
dippers than is needed to measure flow with the velocity/depth of flow
method and that the installation is often prohibited because of physical
limitations (sizes larger than 24 inches must be constructed in situ),
it appears that any calibration or correction of previous measurements
should be performed using the velocity approach. Furthermore, as the
correction factor appears to be site specific (i.e., the ratio of velocity!
depth of flow measurements to depth of flow/Manning equation measurements
is not uniform for all sites), calibration of initially tabulated flows
from the other cities should be performed by revisiting each sampling
location and obtaining new measurements by both the Manning equation and
velocity approaches over a wide range of flows. The correction factor
may then be computed as the ratio of the new values.
To illustrate how the recalibration of previously recorded flow
data was accomplished, the following example is presented for review.
For the sake of brevity, many of the intermediate steps have been elimi-
nated from this example, however, all values can be reproduced using
either the Manning equation or simple geometry. For one site in St. Louis,
the following information was obtained during preliminary visits.
Pipe diameter = 45.7 cm (18 inches)
Pipe slope = 0.11 percent
Roughness coefficient = 0.0135
Based on depth of flow measurements made during the week of sampling,
the following daily and weekly averages had been computed using the
Manning equation:
A B C D E F AVG.
Flow (Lps) 96.6 103.7 99.2 102.8 108.2 121.0 105.4
41
-------
Upon revisiting this location, the values for depth of flow and
linear velocity recorded In Table 9 were obtained. These depth of flow
data were then used directly in the Manning equation resulting in the
determination of those values listed In the column under “Manning Values.”
Concurrently, the linear velocity values were multiplied by wetted area
measurements (derived from depth of flow measurements and geometry) to
produce those values listed under the heading of “Velocity Values.”
The ratio of the velocity value to the Manning value produces the data
recorded under the heading of “Correction Factor.”
The average of these independent correction factors is computed,
and this value is then multiplied by the initial daily and weekly flow
values to produce the corrected flow rates for this site, as are shown
below.
DAY A B C D E F Avg.
Flow (Lps) 34.1 36.6 35.0 36.3 38.2 42.7 37.2
This approach was used for each of the three previous studies and
Is documented In these reports. 3 ’ 4 ’ 5
42
-------
Table 9
SUMMARY OF DATA USED TO COMPUTE CORRECTION
FACTOR FOR A ST. LOUIS SITE
Measured Measured Manning Velocity
Depth Velocity Value Value Correction
Site ( cm) ( fps) ( Lps) ( Lps) Factor
St. Louis 19.7 2.05 115.9 42.3 0.365
17.9 2.05 97.3 37.2 0.382
17.8 1.7 96.3 30.6 0.318
14.2 1.65 63.0 21.9 0.348
Avg... 0.353
43
-------
V. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
A. Chemical Procedures
1. Introduction
The procedures used to analyze samples collected in Hartford were
the same as those used for the previous studies. These procedures are
described in the EPA Screening Protocol, 1 the EPA Quality Assurance
Program, 2 the Cincinnati POTW report, 3 the St. Louis POTW report, 4 and
the Atlanta POTW report. 5 Chemical analysis of the samples included
producing a flow—composited sample from the individual field samples,
appropriate sample preparation (extraction, acid digestion, etc.), and
subsequent instrumental analysis. D 10 —anthracene and four “total method”
internal standards were added to Hartford samples as described in the
Atlanta POTW report. 5 Details on all the analytical procedures are
given in Appendix B.
2. Modified Procedures — Volatiles
The procedure used to analyze the priority pollutants in the volatile
category has been modified. The purge and trap, gas chromatography/mass
spectroscopy method for analyzing volatile priority pollutants was altered
by adding charcoal to the sorbent trap and by completely removing the
silica gel. This was done to prevent the gases from breaking through
the trap. The procedural change led to the successful analysis of
chloromethane, dichiorodifluoromethane, bromomethane, vinyl chloride and
chioroethane. Each of these species could not be analyzed using the
original EPA procedure.
3. Other Comments
Data on the field blanks can be found in Appendix B. The data
indicate that contamination in both the laboratory and the field are in
control. The compounds listed below were consistently not detected
using the EPA Screening Protocol. 1 These compounds were also not detected
during the previous studies.
45
-------
Standards Not Detected By EPA Method
Base/Neutrals: Bis (chloromethyl)ether
2—Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
It is important to note that four compounds —— chioromethane, dichioro—
difluoromethane, vinyl chloride and bromomethane —— which previously
were not able to be detected using the EPA protocol, were measured in
the spiked samples during the Hartford study due to the modified purge
and trap method.
The reporting limits for the organic and inorganic priority pollu-
tants can be found in Appendix B. Reporting limits are comparable to
those used for the previous studies. Complete data from the chemical
analyses have been tabulated by site and chemical compound in Appendices
D and E.
B. Quality Assurance/Quality Control
A quality assurance program was employed for this study in order
to document the reliability of the data obtained on the priority pollu-
tants found in the samples. The quality control procedures used for this
study are detailed in the Cincinnati report. 3 The specific quality control
(QC) activities for sample analysis were based on the general recommen-
dations published by the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
(EMSL/EPA), Cincinnati, as specifically abstracted for this type of
program in the March 1978 document. 2
Five samples (representing a range of source types) were chosen as
QC samples. Two of these were set aside as contingency QC samples to be
used only if procedural difficulties were encountered. The three QC
samples that were used generated 15 analytical samples. Including the
two field blanks, the total number of samples associated with the QC/QA
program was 17, 40% of the total number of samples analyzed. The specific
samples associated with quality control acitivites, as well as the calcu-
lations used to determine if the analysis is in control, are described
in the Cincinnati and St. Louis reports. 3 ’ 4
46
-------
An additional feature of the quality assurance program for the
Atlanta and Hartford studies was the use of the four “total method”
internal standards that were added to all the acid and base/neutral
samples prior to extraction. En this way, quality control data measuring
the precision and accuracy of the entire method were made available for
all of the samples. Details concerning the internal standards are
discussed in Appendix C.
The quantitative results for each pollutant studied are tabulated
in Appendix B. QC data were not obtained on two of the compounds,
bis(2—chloroisopropyl)ether and 2,3,7,8—TCDD, because it was not possible
to obtain reference supplies for these priority pollutants.
There are a few compounds for which the recommended protocol is
problematic. Due to the detailed quality control program, these problems
could be traced back to specific technical difficulties. One compound
that was generally difficult to analyze during the St. Louis, Atlanta,
and Hartford studies was benzidine. During the Hartford study, problems
were also encountered with the analyses of 2,4—dinitrophenol, 4,6—dinitro—
2—cresol and 4—nitrophenol. It is believed that poor chromatography on
the acid GC column was responsible. Detailed information concerning
these analytical problems can be found in Appendix B.
For convenience in reviewing the data, Table 10 has been prepared
summarizing the overall results achieved within each of the analysis
categories for Hartford QC samples. Most recovery values are in the
75% to 100% range, and the precision ranges from 2% to 20%. Those data,
especially the precision data, show the continued, gradual improvement
in the quality of the data which has been accomplished during these
studies.
For the acid analysis, the average recovery for the “total method”
internal standards —— 2—fluoronaphthalene, octafluorobiphenyl and deca—
fluorobiphenyl from raw wastewater samples (A, B, C) —— was approximately
66% ± 16. For the base/neutral analysis, the average recovery for the
four “total method” internal standards (9—phenylanthracene was also
measured) was 86% ± 11. These data indicate that the “total method,” as
used in Haitford, was in control for all samples analyzed.
47
-------
Table 10
SUMMARY OF QUALITY ASSURANCE DATA
a Average of all mean percentage recovery values for each compound.
b Average of all standard deviations on the mean percentage recovery for each compound.
cx
Category
Average Spiking
Level, iig/L
Method Referencea
Raw Wastewater’
Average
Average Standard
Recovery Deviation
Average
Average Standard
Recovery Deviation -
Volatiles
Acids
Base/Neutrals
Pesticides and PCBs
Total Cyanides
Total Phenols
Metals
20
50
50
10
20
60
10 -- 100
104 ± 8
81 ±10
76 ±11
82 ± 9
92 ± 8
92 ± 2
91 ±12
109 ±14
78 ±15
66 ±12
85 ± 8
89 ± 9
92 ± 7
89 ±14
-------
VI. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This section presents a discussion of results based on analysis of
the Hartford data, by itself. Further interpretation can be found in
the final report which will examine the data from all of the drainage
basins studied. Details of the data presented in these summaries are
given in Appendices A (Sampling) and D (Chemical Results).
It is possible to review the massive amount of data obtained during
this study in myriad ways. For the purposes of this discussion, the
material has been organized into four general categories: the frequency
of detection (grouped by pollutant), the concentration levels observed,
various mass flow analyses, and an estimation of runoff effect on metal
levels in combined sewers.
A. Frequency of Observation
In the Hartford Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) drainage basin,
22 organic priority pollutants and 10 priority pollutant metals plus
manganese were observed. It should be noted that some of these organics
include more than one compound; these are indicated in the tables. Total
phenols and total cyanides were also detected, as were the six classical
parameters measured in this study —— ammonia, oil and grease, TSS, TOC,
COD, and BOD. A total of 28 samples were collected from the sources,
POTW influent and tap water; two field blanks were also collected.
Figure 10 shows the frequency with which each pollutant was observed in
these 28 samples. The average measured concentration is given in the
last column. Only 2 of the 22 organic pollutants and 4 of the 11 metals,
as well as total phenols were observed more than 50% (14 samples) of the
time. Copper was reported in 100% of the samples.
A further perspective on this data is given in Figure 11. In this
figure, the average overall concentration (average concentration across
all 28 samples) is plotted against the frequency (%) with which a pollu-
tant was detected. Only those pollutants observed at least 10% of the
time have been included in these figures.
49
-------
Number of Observations
20 30
10
112. Trans—1,2---dichloroethylene
2
113. Chloroform
8 I
—
114. 1,2—Dichloroethane
!
—
3
115. 1,1,1 —Trichloroethane
1
15
117. Bromodichloromethane
I
5
..
120. Trichloroethylene
—
•
1
7
121. Benzene
127. 1,1,2 ,2--Tetrachloroethylene
128. Toluene
I . ...
—
‘
I
19
14
12
130. Ethyl benzene
203. Phenol
14
207. 4—Chloro—3--Cresol
301. Dichlorobenzenes
1—
11
L
310. Nitrobenzene
16
312. 1 ,2,4—Trichlorobenzene
11
315. Naphthalene
14
326. Diethyl phthalate
20
331. Anthracene/Phenanthrene
1
9
333. Di—n—butyl phthalate
19
334. Fluoranthene
337. Butyl benzyl phthalate
U
,
5
15
338. Bis (2—ethyl hexyl) phthalate **
502. Arsenic
I—
14
4
504. Cadmium
26
505. Chromium
81
506. Copper
72
507. Lead
33
131
6
508. Manganese
509. Mercury
510. Nickel
511. Selenium
—..
.
.
I—
24
2
512. Silver
4
514. Zinc
.
1
]09
601. Total Cyanides
12
602. Total Phenols
39
* Average Concentration when present
** Bis(2—ethyl hexyl)phthalate/di-n—octyl phthalate
FIGURE 10 FREQUENCY OF OBSERVATION
50
-------
ft r
Frequency, %
20
15
27.5
Total l eno1s
0
$ -i
a)
a)
0
0
a)
I-i
a)
‘-I
1 .4
a)
1,1,2, 2—’retrachloroethyl ne
.
Chloroform
1 ,1 ,1—Tric rg
.
fliethylphthalate • Toluene
• Dichlnrobenzenes
Phc no1 Trichioroethylene
Ethyl fBromodlchloromethane
uenzen
I
I
I
10 .ig/L
20 40 60
80
100
FIGURE 11
FREQUENCY OF DETECTION AND OVERALL CONCENTRATION COMPARISON
-------
125
Manganese
Zinc
100 .
00
0
4J 75.
Copper
I ’ , )
0
0
00
‘ -I
w 50
u-•1
) -i
w
25 • Chromium
Lead
Nickel ___________________________________________
1O 4 10 ig/L
4 ’ Silver Arsenic
20 40 60 80 100
Frequency, %
FIGURE 11 (Cont’d) FREQUENCY OF DETECTION AND OVERALL CONCENTRATION COMPARISON
-------
Of the organics, only total phenols occur at an overall average
concentration greater than 10 jig/L. Four (4) of the metals (copper,
lead, manganese, and zinc) have concentrations, averaged across the basin,
greater than 10 pg/L; all of these were reported in over 50% of the
samples. Total cyanides appeared only once —— at the POTW influent;
total phenols occurred in the majority of samples in both source and
influent categories.
Four previously unreported pollutants —— 4—chloro—3—cresol, nitro—
benzene, 1,2,4—trichlorobenzene and fluoranthene —— were reported in
Hartford wastewater samples; all were detected at low frequency and at
levels near their reporting limits.
Because of the mixed nature of the samples included in these fre-
quency analyses, the information should be used only to determine general
trends of behavior among the pollutants. A more valid interpretation
of the frequency data will be carried out on a source by source basis in
the multi—city analysis after a large number of sites within each source
type have been studied. Some additional information can be obtained by
looking at the relative mass contribution by source type, as presented
later in this section.
To provide some further insight as to the frequency with which
priority pollutants occur, the percent frequency of observation in the
sources only and the POTW influent have been summarized in Figure 12.
The solid black line represents the sources while the crosshatched line
represents the POTW influent. A total of 21 source samples and 3 influent
samples were analyzed. As these bar graphs are examined, the reader
should bear in mind that the frequency increments are considerably dif-
ferent for the sources (1/21 = 5%) and influent (1/3 = 33%) due to the
numbers of each type of sample. The variance in the frequency estimation
is higher for the influent since there are fewer samples.
All of the pollutants seen in the POTW except 4—chloro—3—cresol and
total cyanides, are also seen in the sources. Twelve (12) of the pollu-
tants were seen only in the sources and not the influent. Most of the
discrepancies mentioned above can be explained by the fact that the
53
-------
PERCENT OCCUR3ENCE
0 20 40 60 80 100
— —
:—_
—- ——
—
-
—,--
— —
—
I
—
—
—________
— — --- -
I 12 Trans—I ,2-.dichloroethylene
—
——
P
—
--
—
—
—
4
,
—
P
—
113 Cifioroform
II4 I2—Didllofoethane
.
—
—
—
1 IS. 1,1.1 —Tri&loroethane
117 Bromodichloromethin.
120 Trichloroethylene -
121 Benzene
127 1,I,22-Tetrechloroethylen.
128 Toluene
130 Ethyl benzene
203 Phenol
207 4—Chloro—3—Cresol
i
—
---
P
—
a
r
r
301 Dichtorobenoenes
310 Nutrobenrone
3I2 1,2,4—Tridilorobenzene
316 Naphthalene
—
326 DIethyl phthalat.
331 Anthr.cene/Phenanthren.
333 Ou—n-butyl pfltha$ete
—
334. Fluorenthene
—
—
337 Butyl bentyl ghthalate
—
—
—
—
338 Bus 12—ethyl hexyliphthalate
502. Nsen,c
504 Cadmkum
605 Chromium
606. Coçper
507 Lead
508 Manganese
509 Mercury
610. Nickel
511. Selenium
612. Silver
614 ZInc
601. Total Cyanides
602. Total Phenols
— AU sources
—— POTW Influent
FIGURE 12 FREQUENCY OF OBSERVATIONS IN SOURCES AND INFLUENT
54
-------
compounds were discovered at low frequency and at levels very close to
the reporting limits.
Eight (8) metals were observed with high frequency in the thfluent
samples; these metals were also observed often in the source samples.
In addition, cadmium, mercury and selenium were reported at the sources
but not measured at the POTW influent.
Table 11 gives a list of pollutants (91) which were never detected
in any of the samples. Those compounds for which the analytical methods
are still problematic are indicated by an asterisk. Methylene chloride
was not reported for any of the samples since it appeared to be a ubi-
quitous contaminant.
B. Concentration of Priority Pollutants
Flow—weighted averages of the six sampling days were calculated for
all of the pollutants detected; these are presented in Table 12 for the
source samples and in Table 13 for the POTW influent and tap water samples.
For the majority of the pollutants, there are no distinct differences
between the residential and commercial sites on a concentration basis.
The concentration data for the tap water are in agreement with data from
previous studies; i.e., the trihalomethanes are at their highest levels
in tap water, and the more common metals are also detected.
In Table 14, an average pollutant concentration (straight mean of
the flow—weighted averages in Table 12) has been presented for each of
the source types, along with tap water and influent, as an aid to dis-
cover the patterns that may be present in the concentration data. Only
those chemicals which were observed more than three times are included
in this summary. It is recognized that the concentration data by them-
selves do not provide the basis for estimating POTW influent values,
but they are useful in observing the differences in chemical acitivity
among the sites.
The characteristics of the Hartford area (and the Hartford WPCP basin,
in particular) provided the opportunity to sample residential and commercial
sources with a very limited amount of industrial activity, as well as the
55
-------
Table 11
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS NEVER DETECTED IN HARTFORD
101. Chioromethane 325. 2,4—Dinitrotoluene
102. Dlchlorodifiuoromethane 327. 1, 2—Diphenylhydrazine
103. Bromomethane 328. N—Nitrosodiphenylamine
104. Vinyl chloride 329. Hexachlorobenzene
105. Chloroethane 330. 4—Bromophenyl phenyl ether
107. Acrolein 335. Pyrene
108. Trichiorofluoromethane 336. Benzidine**
109. Acrylonitrile 340. Chrysene
110. 1,1—Dichioroethylene 341. Benzo(a)anthracene
111. 1, 1—Dichioroethane 342. 3, 3’—Dichlorobenzidine
116. Carbon tetrachioride 343. Benzo(b)fluoranthene
118. 1,2—Dichioropropane 344. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
119. Trans—i, 3—dichloropropylene 345. Benzo(a)pyrene
122. Cis—l,3—dichloropropylene 346. Indeno(1,2,3—c,d)pyrene
123. Dibromochloromethane 347. Dibenzo (a ,h)anthracene
124. 1, 1,2—Trichioroethane 348. Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
125. Bromoform 349. TCDD
126. 1,1,2,2—Tetrachioroethane 401. alpha—BHC
129. Chlorobenzene 402. ganmia—BHC
201. 2—Chiorophenol 403. Heptachior
202. 2—Nitrophenol 404. beta—BHC
204. 2,4—Dimethyiphenol 405. delta—BEC
205. 2,4—Dichiorophenol 406. Aidrin
206. 2,4,6—Trichiorophenol 407. Heptachior epoxide
208. 2,4_Dinitrophenol** 408. Endosulfan I
209. 4,6 Dinitro_2_cresol** 409. DDE
210. Pentachiorophenol 410. Dieldrin
211. 4_Nitrophenol* 411. Endrin
304. Hexachloroethane 412. DDD
305. Bls(chloromethyl)ether* 413. Endosulf an II
306. Bis(2—chioroethyl) ether 414. DDT
307. Bis(2—chloroisopropyl) ether 415. Endrin aidehyde
308. N_Nitrosodimethylatnine** 416. Endosuif an sulfate
309. Nitrosodi—n—propylamine 417. Chiordane
311. Hexachlorobutadiene 418. Toxaphene
313. 2—Chioroethyl vinyl ether* 419. PCB—i221
314. Bis(2—chioroethoxy)methane 420. PCB—l232
316. Isophorone 421. PCB—i242
317. Hexachlorocyclopentadjene* 422. PCB—1248
318. 2—Chloronaphthalene 423. PCB—l254
319. Acenaphthyiene 424. PCB—1260
320. Acenaphthene 425. PCB—10i6
321. Dimethyl phthalate 501. Antimony
322. 2,6—Dinitrotoluene 503. Beryllium
323. 4—Chiorophenyl phenyl ether 513. Thallium
324. Fluorene
* EPA Screening Protocol procedures are inadequate for detecting
these pollutants.
** Analytical problems encountered for these pollutants.
56
-------
Table 12
P I0RI1Y POLLUTM 1T CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, pg/L
Flow—weighted Averagee
Compound
z
u_ I
- .
a
sa
— •
u a
(n.
u_ e
•
a
.
B
Iu B
.
£4
.
&
112. Trans—I.2-.dudiloroethytena
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
113 C1 Iorof m —
3
5
—
3
9
4
5
114. 12—Dichloroethane
—
—
—
—
—
—
i
116 l I .1—TrlcPdoroethane
—
1
—
24
—
7
—
117 BromoducMoroinethare
120. Truchloroethylerue
—
—
—
—
—
0.3
—
121 Bensene
—
—
—
—
—
—
6 j
127 l l .2 .2—Teuachloroelhylene
4
2
0.3
1
6
25
18
128 Toluene
2
—
—
—
6
8
12
130. Ethyl benzene
—
—
—
—
1
i
1
203 Phenol
—
—
—
—
14
—
—
207 4—Odoro-3-CreiOl
1 DuctuIorobenzen
—
—
—
—
—
7
—
310 Nuflobentene
S
312 I .2,4—Trichlo,obenzene
3
—
—
—
—
4
—
315 Naphth.lene
5
—
- —
—
15
—
—
3
—
—
—
V6 D,ethyl pi th.Iate
—
—
—
331 Anthrsc.ne/Pheflaflthrefll
3
333 0i—n—butylphthalate
—
—
15
3
17
—
—
334 Fluoranthene
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
337 Butyl bensyl phthallle
—
—
—
8
12
5
4
338 Bus (2—ethyl hexyl) phthallte
—
—
—
—
—
4
—
502.Arsenuc
-
—
3
3
—
1
4
b04Cedmium
-
-
-
14
-
1
-
605 Chromium
84
13
—
—
—
84
13
506. Copper
75
41
61
67
95
93
67
507 Lead
45
5
13
29
25
59
6
508. M.npene
79
199
64
120
25
130
333
S09Mercury
—
—
—
i
—
—
3
510N keI
3
—
—
2
6
37
5
611. SelenIum
Sl2SIher
—
1
-
1
-
—
-
—
-
—
NA
1
4
614 ZInc
100
50
54
121
218
183
77
601. Total Cyinidel
. TotaIPlwnots
41
22
25
39
17
61
57
-------
Table 12 (cont’d)
CLASSICAL WASTEWATER PARAMETER ANALYSISI mg/L
Flow—weighted Averages
z
i-
•
u,
L•
H.
(i CI)
G)
H
c’ •
H(
Z
0
0
•
4U)
Z
•
0.)
i-1
0
.
E
E
E O
4Q
0
.
<
OE
x O
c/
pH
6.6
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.3
T(°C)
18.4
17
14.3
19.1
15.9
20.5
20.9
Ammonia
5
2.5
8
12
7.5
8
9
OilandGrease
34
15
20
17
L25
140
20
TSS
45
18
39
191
L73
57
62
TOC
46
30
62
65
L80
56
73
COD
170
112
221
300
920
277
322
BOD
60
16
75
138
351
74
101
58
-------
Table 13
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. g/L
Flow—weighted Averagee
COMPOUND
I
112 Tras—l.2-.duchloroethylen.
113 Chlorofom
4
24.0
29
114 I,2—Oichloroethane
—
—
—
116 1.1,1—Truchloroelhane
117 Bromodichioromethane
120 Trsd Ioroethylen.
10.3
—
— Ii
5.0
5.0 1
8.4
—
—
121 Beniene
—
—
—
127 l,1.2 .2—Tetrachloroeihylene
26.2
—
—
128 Totuene
16
—
—
130. Ethyl benzene
—
—
—
203 Phenol
—
—
—
207 4—Chloro—3—CreaeI
4
—
—
301 Dlchlorobenzenes
13.4
—
—
310 Nptrobsnzena
312 1,2.4—Trtchlorobenzen.
—
315 Naphthatene
—
—
—
326 O.ethyl phthalete
331 Anthrecene/Plienanthrene
333 Di—n—bulyl ptithalate
4
—
—
—
4.2
8
334 Ftuorenthene
—
—
—
337 8ul I benzyl pluhalate
-
-
-
338 Bia 12—ethyl hexyfl phthalate
—
—
—
6O2Are.rnc
2
-
-
604 CadmIum
-
605 Chromium
65.4
-
606. Copper
97
93
21.0
607 Lead
36
-
—
508. Msnpene .e
158
-
13
b OBM e rcwy
-
-
-
510. NiCkel
35.0
—
—
511 SelenIum
—
—
—
512 Sdver
3.3
—
—
514 Zinc
157
20.0
12
601. Total CyanIde.
4.0
602. TotaiPhenola
53
59
-------
Table 13 (cont’d)
CLASSICA1 WASTEWATER PARAMETER ANALYSIS, ing/L
Flow—weighted Averages
oz
-
—
El
C 4
El
pH
6.6
6.4
6.0
T °C)
20.7
20,5
19,4
Ammonia
9
0,5
—
Oil and Grease
37
TSS
77
—
TOC
43
0.5
—
COD
191
—
—
BOD
68
—
.-
60
-------
Table 14
AVERAGE CONCENTRATION BY SOURCE TYPE, pg/L*
0
0
POLLUTANT 8
113 CHLOROFORM 4.3 2.6 7.0 26.3 3.6
115 1 • 1, 1—TRICIILOROETHANE 7 • 1 6 • 3 • 0 2 • 5 10 • 3
117 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE • 0 • 0 • 0 2. 5 • 0
120 TRIC/ILOROETHYLENE .3 • 0 • 0 • 0 8 • 4
127 1,1,2,2—TETRACHLOROETIIYLEN 25.0 1.6 12.2 .0 26.2
128 TOLUEI/E 7.5 .5 9.2 .0 15.6
301 DICIILOROBEWZEIJES 6.6 • 0 • 0 • 0 13.4
333 DI—lI-BLITYL PHI’HALATE .0 4.4 8.6 3.8 4.2
337 BUTYL BE1IZYL PHTHALA TE 4 • 6 2 • 1 8 • 0 • 0 • 0
502 ARSENIC 1.2 1.5 1.8 .0 1.9
505 CHROMIUM 83.5 24.3 6.6 .0 65.1+
506 COPPER 93.3 61.0 81.2 56.8 96.6
507 L1 AD 58.7 23.1 15.1 .0 35.6
508 MANGANESE 130.1 115.5 179.1 6.3 158.0
510 NICKEL 36.7 1.1 5.8 .0 35.0
512 SILVER ** .0 1.7 .0 3.3
514 ZINC 183.0 81.3 147.4 15.8 157.4
602 TOTAL PHENOLS 17.3 22.0 50.8 .0 52.5
703 AMMONIA 7.6 6.8 8.3 .3 9.4
701+ OIL AND GREASE 139.5 21.5 72.3 .0 37.2
705 TSS 56.9 73.0 117.6 .0 76.9
706 TOC 55.9 50.7 126.4 .3 42.5
707 COD 277.3 200.8 621.2 .0 191.0
708 BOD 74.4 72.4 225.8 .0 68.1
* Classicals in mg/L.
**Not Analyzed.
61
-------
chance to sample an entire downtown commercial area to be compared with
the downtown area sampled in the Atlanta study.
For the purposes of Table 14, the Potter St. site has been pulled
out of the commercial source category and has been tabulated as a down—
town site. This site represents about 25% of the total influent flow.
For most compounds, the concentration levels at the downtown site were
comparable to those at the commercial and residential sites. However,
there are a few compounds that exhibit substantial differences: trichioro—
ethylene and the dichlorobenzenes were reported only at the downtown site;
in addition, tetrachloroethylene, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and
zinc were reported at levels higher than the average residential or
commercial concentration. Of the classicals, only oil and grease were
exceptionally high at the downtown site; TSS, TOC, COD, and BOD were
found at the commercial sites in very high concentrations.
As mentioned, the concentration data only provide certain clues as
to possible particular sources of pollutants. They also provide a per-
spective on the matter of whether pollutants observed at the POTW are
also observed in the sources and vi e versa. The most complete analysis
of this data is performed when the flow and concentration data are com-
bined to project a total mass flow.
C. Mass Balance Analysis
1. Calculations for Scale Up
One of the objectives of this study is to predict the relative mass
contribution of residential and commercial sources, In particular, to
POTW influents. One reason for doing this is to be able to determine
the industrial contribution at any given POTW by measurement of the
influent. The total mass flow to the POTW for any pollutant may be
expressed as:
POTW = RES + COM + IND
representing the total mass flow (e.g., in Kg/day) to the POTW from each
of the three major source categories. Thus, for any new city, Q, if the
62
-------
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 + COMQ)
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 (x)
being studied by adding the relative contributions from each source
type for comparison with the POTW:
POTW = RES ÷ COM ÷ IND
x x x
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
POTW = VRAR + VcAc + V 1 A 1
indicating the quantities of each source type (R = RES, C = COM, I = IND).
The basic data available from each sampling site to use in develop-
ing this approach is concentration, flow and population. For the POTW
drainage basin 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 dis-
charge rate can be calculated as follows:
concentration x flow
mass/person/day =
population
For reporting convenience, the residential values have been developed
In units of mg/person/day. The total basin residential contribution may
63
-------
thus be estimated as:
RES (Kg/day) = Res.Avg. (mg/person/day) x Basin Population x 10 6
For the commercial and industrial sites, the only Index reliably
available for all 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 avaerage value is multiplied by the total
basin source type flow, the total source contribution is obtained.
COM (Kg/day) = [ Avg.Com.Conc. (iig/L)] x [ Com.Flow (Lps)] x 8.64 x 10
IND (Kg/day) = [ Avg.Ind.Conc. (pg/L)] x [ Ind.Flow (Lps)] x 8.64 x 10
The data obtained from the commercial sites do not show a very wide
range in type or quantity of pollutant between sites, suggesting that
an average commercial concentration is a valid concept. To the contrary,
past experience shows that the industrial site data show a wide range of
both type and concentration of pollutant, 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 the quantitative and qualitative nature of the whole
of that source type within the basin.
Table 15 summarizes the basin characteristics of each of the sampling
sites, giving the relative flow contribution from residential, commercial,
and industrial source types, the estimated population, and the average
measured flow. The Potter St. site is the only site with any industrial
flow, and this site does seem to have a somewhat more varied pollutant
load.
Table 16 shows the per capita mass discharge rates calculated for
each of the residential sources and the population weighted average value.
The average concentration values, calculated on a straight average basis,
for the commercial sources are given in Table 17.
64
-------
Table 15
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Name
Designation
Sources
Relative Flow %
Population
Measured
Flow (Lps)
Combined
Separate
RES
CON
IND
Franklin
(including Residential X 85 15 0 30,762 258.6
Victoria)
Hillside Residential X 97 3 0 2,312 31.1
Clover Commercial X 2 98 0 14 7.1
Potter Commercial X 66 29 5 70,931 602.9
Seneca Commercial X 46 54 0 293 3.5
Tunxis
(including Residential X 100 0 0 1,285 13.9
Maple)
Brentwood Residential X 100 0 0 1,527 10.6
POTW BASIN 72 21 7 285,192 2444.0
-------
Table 16
RESIDENTIAL SOURCES, PER CAPITA VALUES
mg/person/day*
z
z
POLLUTANT
113 Ci/LOi ’OEOi?. i 2.3 5.35 .00 1.60 2.46
115 1,1.1—TdICHT OJ:Og ’llAIll .00 i.Otj .00 14.50 .69
117 &iO 4 4 fODICllLOj?O.W 1 ”j’/j,1t/L • 00 • 00 .00 .00 .00
120 nfCi1LQilOb1 f/IILEj/E .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
127 1,1,2,2—T1 ’dACiILOi?QC /ILgi ’ 2.82 1.. J3 .32 .40 2.57
128 TOLu ,iJg 1.37 .00 .00 .00 1.17
301 DZCIILOz?OIjL4 J I/t,S .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
333 1)1—11—RufiL L’.’!1 r1ALA1’k,’ • 00 • 00 13. 56 1 • 91 .57
337 oL/T.YL BbiIZ.a’L L1TI1iltATi .00 .OJ .00 5.00 .21
502 ARSg,uc .00 .00 2.31 2.03 .17
505 C?Ith. !IiA .1 61.00 15.45 .00 .00 53.29
506 COPPER 54.31 47.84 56.91 40.21 53.39
507 LEAD 32.51 5.99 12.28 17.50 29.44
508 iV/i ,’Ai/L’SC 57.33 231.68 59.69 71.97 69.27
510 !/ICKCL 2.01 .00 .00 1.04 1.77
b12 SIt VtR .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
514 ZLIC 72.78 57.7b 50.63 72.58 71.01
602 !O M1 P/Thi Ot5 29.71 25.66 .00 14.95 27.76
703 A.4MOWI,1 3.42 2.91 7.22 7.45 3.70
704 OIL .4t/D G 4 ’?gASE 24.53 17.64 18.43 10.26 23.26
705 TSS 32.62 21.34 35.86 114.24 35.48
706 TOC 33.54 34.53 57.91 38.89 34.70
707 COil 123.o&s 130.73 206.02 179.70 129.47
708 80)) 43.59 19.02 70.02 02.79 44.62
*Cla8sicals in g/pereon/day.
66
-------
Table 17
COMMERCIAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS, ig/L’
0
F -i
0 =
F -i
0 F-i Z
POLLUTANT - o
113 CHLOROFORM 9. 0 4. 3 5 • 1 6 • 1
115 1,1,1—TRICHLOROETIIAWE .0 7.1 .0 2.4
117 BROMODICHLOROMETIIANE .0 • 0 • 0 • 0
120 TRICRLOROETRYLPd/E .0 • 3 .0 • 1
127 1, 1, 2, 2—TETRACHLOROETHYLEII 6, 3 25 • 0 18, 0 16, 5
128 TOLUEWE 6.0 7.5 12.4 8.6
301 DICHLOROBENZEWES • 0 6.6 .0 2.2
333 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 17.3 .0 .0 5.8
337 BUTYL BENZYL PH TRALATE 12 • 3 4. 6 3 • 6 6.8
502 ARSENIC .0 1.2 3.7 1.6
505 CHROMIUM .0 83.5 13.1 32.2
506 COPPER 95.1 93.3 67.3 85.2
507 LEAD 24.7 58.7 5.6 29.6
508 MAIIGAWESE 25.0 130.1 333.3 162.8
510 NICKEL 6.3 36.7 5.2 16.1
512 SILVER • C) ** 3 • 5 • 8
514 ZINC 218.2 183.0 76.5 159.3
602 TOTAL PHE/dOLS 38.6 17, 3 62.9 39.6
703 AMMONIA 7.5 7.6 9.2 8.1
704 OIL AND GREASE 125.2 139.5 19.5 94.7
705 TSS 173.1 56.9 62.1 97.4
706 TOC 179.9 55.9 73.0 102.9
707 COD 920.0 277. 3 322.3 506.5
708 BOD 350.9 74.4 100.8 175.3
*Classicals in mg/L.
**Not Analyzed.
67
-------
The average index values may be used to calculate, on the basis of
the approach discussed above, the total mass flow from each of the source
types within the Hartford WPCP basin according to the equation below:
SUN = RES x Population + COM x (Flowc + Flow 1 )
where RES and COM indicate the average index value either on a per capita
or concentration basis, population refers to the total drainage basin
population, and Flowc and Flow 1 are, respectively, the total commercial
and industrial flows in the basin. In this particular basin, the indus-
trial flow has been added to the commercial flow and scaled up on the
basis of the commercial index.
The mass flow values thus calculated for the sources may be summed
and compared to the mass flow at the POTW influent. This analysis has
been carried Out for those pollutants observed more than three times in
the Hartford WPCP basin and are presented in Table 18. The data are
grouped according to those pollutants whose SUM matches the POTW influent
(INF), those that are higher in the influent than projected from the sum
of the sources, and those that are higher in the sources than observed in
the influent. For convenience, the mass values are expressed in Kg/day,
except for the classicals, which are in 10 Kg/day.
It has been estimated that the combined uncertainty In each of the
source concentration and flow measurements, as well as in the pair of
influent measurements, amounts to about a factor of two. That Is, in
making comparisons between SUN and INF, within the error limits of the
analysis, pollutants for which the SUM/INF ratios fall in the range of
0.5 — 2.0 are considered to have agreement between their projected source
total (SUM) and the POTW Influent (INF). The lack of pure replications
precludes a formal error analysis to support this.
The usefulness of this mass balance analysis is primarily in evalua-
ting how well the sources sampled represent the total source distribution
in the basin and in providing a measure of the reliability in using the
individual index values in the overall multi—city evaluation.
68
-------
Table 18
MASS BALANCE ANALYSIS
*
Kg/day
**
RES — COM SUM INF SUM/INF
Pollutants whose projected source values account for influent, 0.5 < SUN/INF < 2.0
113 Chloroform .67 .37 1.04 .77 1.35
115 1,1,1—Trichioroethane 1.11 .14 1.26 2.16 .58
333 Di—n—butyl phthalate 1.11 .35 1.46 .89 1.64
502 Arsenic .31 .10 .41 .41 1.00
505 Chromium 5.46 1.97 7.44 13.81 .54
506 Copper 14.24 5.22 19.46 20.40 .95
507 Lead 4.88 1.81 6.69 7.51 .89
508 Manganese 30.07 9.96 40.03 33.37 1.20
514 Zinc 18.14 9.75 27.89 33.23 .84
602 Total phenols 5.03 2.43 7.45 11.08 .67
703 Ammonia 1.50 .50 2.00 1.99 1.00
704 Oil and Grease 5.07 5.80 10.86 7.85 1.38
705 TSS 14.59 5.96 20.55 16.23 1.27
706 TOC 11.79 6.30 18.08 8.98 2.01
707 COD 45.76 31.01 76.77 40.34 1.90
708 BOD 15.40 10.73 26.13 14.37 1.82
Pollutants whose projected source values are less than influent, SIJN/INF <0.5
120 Trichioroethylene .00 .01 .01 1.78 .00
127 l,l,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene .38 1.01 1.39 5.54 .25
128 Toluene .10 .53 .63 3.29 .19
301 Dichlorobenzenes .00 .13 .13 2.83 .05
510 Nickel .22 .98 1.20 7.39 .16
512 Silver .00 .05 .05 .69 .07
Pollutants whose projected source values are greater than influent, SIJM/INF >2.0
337 Butyl benzyl phthalate .36 .42 .78 .00 (776)
* Classicals in Kg/day
** For 2444 Lps influent flow: 1 pg/L = 0.21 Kg/day, 10 jig/L = 2.1 Kg/day
-------
Some of the SUM/INF ratios in Table 18 are shown in parentheses ( )
to indicate that the ENF value is probably too low to allow for a mean-
ingful comparison. A value of 0.21 Kg/day at the influerit flow of 2444 Lps
corresponds to a concentration of 1 jig/L; 10 pg/L equals 2.1 Kg/day.
Of the 17 pollutants for which this data analysis was carried out,
10 project a total loading which is equivalent (within the error limits)
to the measured POTW influent: three organics, six metals, and total
phenols. In addition, all six of the classical parameters are accounted
for at the influent by the sources.
Six of the pollutants have projected source levels which are less
than the influent (SUM/INF < 0.5): three chlorinated solvents, toluene,
nickel and silver. The indication is that these levels are due to activ-
ities not included in the sites sampled in this survey. These chemicals
were observed at significant concentrations at the downtown site, further
suggesting that they may be due to industrial activity that was not
measured. Only one priority pollutant, butyl benzyl phthalate, has a
projected source value greater than that observed at the influent; the
concentration in the influent is negligible, whereas there is a substan-
tial contribution from both residential and commercial sources.
2. Sources of Pollutants
The relative contribution of pollutants from the different source
types may be examined by calculating, from the scaled mass data presented
above, the fraction contributed by each source type. For this analysis,
the individual scaled RES and COM Kg/day values were divided by the SUM
as shown in Table 19. The reader is cautioned that such an analysis
assumes that the entire basin is as represented by the sources, an obser-
vation we know from the previous discussion to be not entirely true. It
would perhaps be better to view the data in Table 19 as representative
of a hypothetical drainage basin whose composition was as represented in
the Hartford sites, but scaled up based upon the relative source type
flows for this basin (these are Residential = 71%, Commercial = 29% [ i.e.,
commercial = 21.5, industrial = 7.5]).
70
-------
Table 19
SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS
Fraction of Scaled Sum Mass
Commercial SUM Kg/d y*
Residential Sources contribute more than 50% of the mass
113 Chloroform .64 .36 1.04
115 1,1,1—Trichioroethane .89 .11 1.26
333 Di—n- .butyl phthalate .76 .24 1.46
502 Arsenic .76 .24 .41
505 Chromium .73 .27 7.44
506 Copper .73 .27 19.46
507 Lead .73 .27 6.69
508 Manganese .75 .25 40.03
514 Zinc .65 .35 27.89
602 Total phenols .67 .33 7.45
703 Ammonia .75 .25 2.00
705 TSS .71 .29 20.55
706 TOC .65 .35 18.08
707 COD .60 .40 76.77
708 BOD .59 .41 26.13
Commercial Sources contribute more than 50% of the mass
120 Trichioroethylene .00 1.00 .01
127 l,1,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene .28 .72 1.39
128 Toluene .16 .84 .63
301 Dichlorobenzenes .00 1.00 .13
510 Nickel .18 .82 1.20
512 Silver .00 1.00 .05
Pollutants with no dominant source
337 Butyl benzyl phthalate .46 .54 .78
704 Oil and grease .47 .53 10.86
* 3
Classicals in 10 Kg/day
71
-------
Of the 17 priority pollutants and 6 classical parameters presented
in this table, 3 organics, 6 metals, total phenols, and 5 classicals
are dominated (more than 50% of the mass) by the residential sources.
Four (4) organics (including the chlorinated solvents) and two (2)
metals are attributable to commercial sources. Butyl benzyl phthalate
and oil and grease are contributed by both source types in almost equal
quantities.
These data are in agreement with the St. Louis data where the resi-
dential sources also dominated the projected influent values, due to the
small industrial component in that study.
It should be emphasized that an analysis of this type is only mean-
ingful within the ability to obtain closure of the mass blanace. As
seen from Table 18, several pollutants are higher and/or lower in their
projected sums than was actually observed at the influent. An analysis
of this type will be more meaningful when the data from the source type
in all of the cities are compared.
3. Tap Water Contribution
The potential contribution of tap water to the pollutant load at
the POTW may be calculated from the measured tap water concentrations
with the assumption that the tap water flow is equal to the influent
flow. Such a flow estimate will be in error by the amount of inflow
and Infiltration in the system. Table 20 shows the calculated mass
flows for the tap water, compared with values for influent and sum of
the sources. This analysis shows that the tap water could be a signi-
ficant source of chloroform, bromodichloromethane and copper. All
other pollutants observed in the tap water constitute only a small
fraction of the measured influent mass.
D. Evaluation of Runoff Effect
In addition to the increments collected for the 48—hour composited
samples, aliquots were taken at the combined sewer sites during a period
of rain. These samples were collected during the weekend, toward the
end of the sampling period. Procedures for documenting flow, pH, and
72
-------
Table 20
*
TAP W ATER CONTRIBUTIONS, Kg/day
SUM of
Pollutant Sources Influent Tap Water
113 Chloroform 1.04 .77 5.54
115 1,1,1—Trichioroethane 1.26 2.16 .53
117 Bromodichlorometharie .00 .00 .53
333 Di—n—butyl phthalate 1.46 .89 .79
506 Copper 19.46 20.40 11.98
508 Manganese 40.03 33.37 1.32
514 Zinc 27.89 33.23 3.32
703 Ammonia 2.00 1.99 .06
706 TOC 18.08 8.98 .05
* 3
Classicals in 10 Kg/day
73
-------
other sampling parameters were also followed for these samples. The
purpose of this exercise was to evaluate the extent of the rainwater
effect at sites with combined sewers, i.e., Franklin, Potter, and the
POTW. One of the major difficulties in measuring the typical runoff
contribution at the sites in Hartford during this period arises from
the fact that the sampling interval followed a particularly wet period
where there had been two recent storms, accounting for approximately
three inches of rain each; the rainfall during the period in which
samples were taken was measured at less than one inch.
The separated, rain event samples were prepared and analyzed for
the six priority pollutant metals having significant concentration levels
in the 48—hour composites. Mass flows were calculated from the concen-
tration data and flow data. Any increase in mass flow coincident with,
or slightly after, the increase in flow (due to rainfall) could be
interpreted as a runoff effect. The typical observation would be a
sharp increase in mass flow, followed by a gradual dilution—flush effect.
When the mass flow data for the rain samples are compared with the
mass flow data f or the composite samples (average concentration x average
flow) for a period before and after the rain, the runoff effect can be
assessed. The mass flows for these samples, collected during the weekend,
would normally be expected to be lower than the weekday levels; this
should be particularly evident at the Potter St. site since there is an
industrial component (albeit minor) and that site is a substantial source
of some of the metal pollutants.
The rain samples were analyzed for chromium, copper, lead, manganese,
nickel, and zinc. Figures 13 through 15 present, by site, the average
mass rates before and after the rainfall, as well as flow and precipitation
data for each four—hour interval. There was no clear evidence of a
runoff effect for chromium or nickel; either the mass flows were lower
than those observed in the previous day, or there was no discernible
peak. For the other four metals, a rainwater contribution is suggested;
the rainwater effect is quite apparent for zinc and lead and slightly
less apparent for manganese. The mass flows for these two metals are
74
-------
2000 0800 2000 0800
Military Time
FIGURE 13 RUNOFF EFFECT—FRANKLIN AVENUE
500
.5
0.10
C
C l )
-J
0
U.
.075
— .05
E
0
U.
CD
.025
2000
75
-------
1000
(I )
-J
0
U
E
0
U-
U,
U I
0.10
C
C5
075
0.5
0.25
Military Time
FIGURE 14 RUNOFF EFFECT—POTTER STREET
76
-------
3000
-J
0
LL 1000
0.75 —
I - /
Mn
— —
Cu
Zn
Cr
Ni
— — — —
Pb
2000
\
±
/
— — _. —
2000
U,
U
o.io
CD
I-
C
CD
U
E
Q
0
U-
CD
0.5
0.25
/
— — — — —
I I I
0800 2000 0800
Military Time
FIGURE 15 RUNOFF EFFECT—POTW INFLUENT
77
-------
clearly higher than seen in the previous day’s samples, and the charac-
teristic flush effect (sharp increase followed by gradual dilution) is
also exhibited.
These data are only indicative of runoff effects due to the limited
number of samples and the single period during which they were collected.
The question of rain/runoff warrants further study in follow—up programs.
However, the trends demonstrated in these samples are consistent with
those found In the literature. For instance, runoff contributions to
lead, manganese, and zinc levels could be traced to automotive activity;
lead and manganese are due primarily to auto emissions while zinc is
attributable to tire erosion and decay of galvanized metals (guardrails).
The fact that the effects are more prominent at the downtown site than
at the residential site further support these conclusions. Further data
are presented in Appendix F. The reader is cautioned in making any firm
conclusions since the data base is extremely limited and due to the
previous heavy rainstorms, the actual mass measured due to runoff may
be low.
78
-------
VII. CONCLUSIONS
This study of the fourth drainage basin has contributed a substan-
tial amount of insight into the sources of toxic pollutants found at
POTW influents. The survey of the Hartford Water Pollution Control
Plant (WPCP) treatment area has been especially valuable in providing
an increased data base with which to compare the data obtained in the
previous basins. The sampling sites chosen within the Hartford basin
have been primarily characterized as residential and commercial. The
industrial activity in Hartford is not sufficiently confined to one
particular area of the Hartford WPCP basin to have permitted sampling
a separate industrial site. The Potter St. site is comparable to the
Peachtree site in Atlanta in that the majority of the flow is from the
downtown area including hotels, business establishments, and government
buildings.
Based on the concentration and frequency data for the 28 samples
collected from the source, influent, and tap, the following observations
may be made:
• 35 pollutants — 22 organics, 10 metals plus manganese,
total cyanides and total phenols — were observed; the
six classical parameters measured in this study —
ammonia, TSS, TOC, COD, BOD, and oil and grease — were
also detected. There were 91 pollutants never detected
in Hartford above their reporting limits.
• Only total phenols, copper, lead, manganese and zinc
were present in more than 50% of the samples at an
overall average concentration greater than 10 pg/L
(when averaged across all the 28 samples).
• When the frequency of occurrence at the POTW influent
is compared to the frequency in the source samples,
it is observed that most of the pollutants seen at the
influent were also measured in the sources, and vice
versa. The occasional discrepancies are due to pollu-
tants found at low frequency and near the reporting
limits.
79
-------
The flow-weighted concentration data and frequency data only address
the question of whether or not the pollutants are to be found at the
sources sampled. A more complete insight into which sources are respon-
sible for the pollutant load at the PON may be gained by scaling the
source contributions up to represent the total basin distribution of
residential, commercial, and industrial flows. This has been done in
terms of Kg/day for all pollutants detected more than three times and the
major conclusions are summarized below:
• Data indicate that, for 10 of the 17 commonly—observed
priority pollutants, the mass flow at the influent is
accounted for by the mass flow at the sources, the six
classical parameters are also accounted for by the
sources.
• Six of the 17 compounds (trichioroethylene, tetrachioro—
ethylene, toluene, the dichlorobenzenes, nickel and
zinc) have a projected source sum that is less than the
mass flow at the influent; all these had contributions
from the downtown site (where there is minor industrial
flow), and all have shown in previous surveys to be
due, at least in part, to industrial activities.
• Only butyl beozyl phthalate exhibited a projected sum
of the sources which was greater than the mass flow
at the influent.
• By comparing the scaled Kg/day values for the residen-
tial and commercial sources as fractions of the sum,
the following assignments may be made: 3 organics, 6
metals, total phenols, and 5 classicals are predominantly
due to residential sources; 4 organics and 2 metals are
attributable to commercial activity; butyl benzyl phthalate
and oil and grease have no predominant source.
Additional samples, collected at four—hour intervals from the com-
bined sewer sites, were analyzed for chromium, copper, lead, manganese,
nickel, and zinc. A rain effect, manifested as a sharp increase in mass
80
-------
flow followed by a gradual decrease, was indicated for lead, zinc, and
manganese. This trend is consistent with data in the literature and can
be traced to automotive sources.
The chemical analysis procedures have been improved substantially
for most pollutants. The quality control program continues to be inval-
uable in terms of daily checks on the chemical analyses and in terms of
establishing the reliability of the data for subsequent calculations and
projections.
The selection and isolation of sampling areas containing only one
type of source activity, i.e., residential, commercial or industrial,
continues to be problematic. The collection system often bears little
resemblance to the surface zoning and the system maps frequently are not
complete relative to direction of flow and location of manholes. A
great deal of site preparation must be put into accurately locating
areas whose land use is satisfactory for source type characterization.
81
-------
VIII. REFERENCES
1. “Sampling and Analysis Procedures for Screening of Industrial
Effluents for Priority Pollutants,” U.S. EPA, EMSL, Cincinnati,
Ohio, March, 1977, revised April, 1977.
2. “Quality Assurance Program for the Analyses of Chemical Constituents
in Environmental Samples,” U.S. EPA, EMSL, Cincinnati, Ohio,
March, 1978.
3. “Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to Sewage Treatment
Plants,” II. Muddy Creek Drainage Basin, Cincinnati, Ohio,
U.S. EPA, MDSD, Final Report on Task Order No. 6, Contract No.
68—01—3857, Report No. ADL 81099—51, June, 1979.
4. “Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to Sewage Treatment
Plants,” III. Coldwater Creek Drainage Basin, St. Louis,’
Missouri, U.S. EPA, MDSD, Final Report on Task Order No. 10,
Contract No. 68—01—3857, Report No. ADL 81099—16, October 1979.
5. “Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to Sewage Treatment
Plants,” IV. R. M. Clayton Drainage Basin, Atlanta, Georgia,
U.S. EPA, MDSD, Final Report on Task Order No. 13, Contract
No. 68—01—3857, Report No. ADL 81099—26, October, 1979.
6. “Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to Sewage Treatment
Plants,” VI. Integrate .i Interpretation, Part 1, U.S. EPA, MDSD,
Contract No. 68—01—3857, Report No. ADL 31099—63, October, 1979.
83
-------
APPENDIX A
DETAILS OF THE SAMPLING PLAN
On August 12, 1979, thirteen employees of ADL went to Hartford to
obtain wastewater samples from sewers within the drainage basin serviced
by the Metropolitan District Commission’s Hartford 1PCP. These employees
were under the immediate supervision of Jeffrey Adams.
Actual sampling activities began on Tuesday, August 14, at approxi-
mately 8:00 a.m., and continued until Monday, August 21, at 8:00 a.m.
Throughout this period of time, six teams of ADL employees were on duty
at all hours of the day and night. Four of these teams were actively
engaged in sample collection at each of the ten sampling sites that we
identified, while two teams provided logistical backup and, to a limited
extent, participated in the collection of samples, i.e., at the POTW.
At any given time, three teams were on duty: one stationed at the
treatment plant, with the remaining two teams rotating between field
sites. After twelve hours, each of the three teams were replaced by a
fresh team as work continued.
The two rotating field teams were responsible for collecting samples
at four—hour intervals from each of the following locations:
Town/City Site Description
Hartford Franklin Old residential
Hartford Victoria Old residential
Hartford Hillside Old residential
West Hartford Clover Commercial
Hartford Potter Commercial
Bloomfield Seneca Commercial
Bloomfield Wintonbury Mall Tap water
Bloomfield Maple New residential
Bloomfield Tunxis New residential
Bloomfield Brentwood New residential
A- 1
-------
To accomplish this, the two field teams drove through the drainage
area in rented Econoline vans containing all the supplies necessary to
accomplish the job. As each team finished its shift, the truck returned
to the POTW for supplies and sample drop—off. From this point, the logis-
tics crew was responsible for the logging In and packaging of all collected
samples prior to their shipment to the laboratory. In addition, the lo-
gistics teams collected samples of the POTW influent and a tap water
sample.
A summary of the 48—hour composite samples collected in Hartford is
given in Table A—i. Sampling schedules, as well as the minimum number
and size of collection bottles required by each team, have been summarized
in Tables A—2 and A—3. In addition, the sampling plans utilized for QC
samples, regular samples, and blanks have been outlined in Table A—4
through A—6. All samples were taken by the Manual Sampling Collection
method in Table A—7 and preserved according to the requirements in Table
A—8. Table A—9 is a summary of average daily measured flow values.
A— 2
-------
x
*
Sample increments from Franklin and Victoria were combined to produce a single 48—hour sample;
sample increments from Maple and Tunxis were similarly combined.
SUMMARY
Table A—i
OF 48-HOUR COMPOSITES COLLECTED
Site and Description
DAYA
DAYB
DAYC
Tues.
Wed.
Thurs.
Fri.
Sat.
Sun.
Tap Water
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
poTw
Influent
K
X
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
FRANKLIN
Old Residential
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
VICTORIA*
Old Residential
K
X
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
HILLSIDE
Old Residential
X
X
-
K
X
—_____
X
X
12
Increments
CLOVER
Coerc Ia 1
K
X
.
“
X
X
X
—
12
Increments
POTTER
Commercial
-
X
-
X
X
K
K K
X
X —
Field Blank
x
12 Increments
-------
Table A—2
SAMPLING SCHEDULE IN HARTFORD (Logistics)
Influent (INF)
Tap Water (TAP)
TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, SATURDAY, SUNDAY
0800
1200
1600
2000
0000
0400
0830
1230
1630
2030
0030
0430
THURSDAY, FRIDAY
Influent (INF) 0800
1200 1600 2000
0000 0400
-------
Table A-2 (continued)
SAMPLING SCHEDULE IN HARTFORD (South)
TEAM 1 in 0700; out 2000: TEAM 3 In 1900; out 0800:
TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY
Franklin (FAP) 0815 1215 1615 2015 0015 0415
Victoria (VIC) 0900 1300 1700 2100 0100 0500
Hillside (HSA) 0945 1345 1745 2145 0145 0545
Clover (CLD) 1030 1430 1830 2230 0230 0630
Potter (POT) 1115 1515 1915 2315 0315 0715
LFI
SATURDAY, SUNDAY
Field Blank (FB—l) 0800 1200 1600 2000 0000 0400
Franklin (FAP) 0815 1215 1615 2015 0015 0415
Victoria (VIC) 0900 1300 1700 2100 0100 0500
Hillside (HSA) 0945 1345 1745 2145 0145 0545
Clover (CLD) 1030 1430 1830 2230 0230 0630
Potter (POT) 1115 1515 1915 2315 0315 0715
-------
Table A—2 (continued)
SAMPLING SCHEDULE IN HARTFORD (North)
TEM1 2 In: 0700 Out: 2000 TEAM 4 In: 1900 Out: 0800
TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, SATURDAY, SUNDAY
Seneca (SEN) 0800 1200 1600 2000 0000 0400
Wintonbury Tap (WBT) 0845 1245 1645 2045 0045 0445
Tunxjs (TUN) 0930 1330 1730 2130 0130 0530
Maple (HAP) 1015 1415 1815 2215 0215 0615
a’ Brentwood (BWD) 1100 1500 1900 2300 0300 0700
THURSDAY, FRIDAY
Seneca (SEN) 0800 1200 1600 2000 0000 0400
Field Blank (FB—2) 0845 1245 1645 2045 0045 0445
Tunxis (TUN) 0930 1330 1730 2130 0130 0530
Maple (MAP) 1015 1415 1815 2215 0215 0615
Brentwood (BWD) 1100 1500 1900 2300 0300 0700
-------
Table A—3
MINIMUM NUMBER AND SIZE OF BOTTLES REQUIRED BY LOGISTICS AT EACH SITE
SAMPLING SITE DAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
Influent (INF)
4 x lL
3 x 500tnL
1 x 45mL
4 x 1L*
3 x 500mL
1 x 45mL
4 x 1L*
3 x 500mL
1 x 45mL
4 x 1L*
3 x 500mL
1 x 45mL
10 x 1L*
1 x 45uiL
(QC)
10 x 1L*
1 x 45mL
(QC)
Tap (TAP)
1 x 1L*
1 x 500mL
4 x 250mL
1 x 45mL
1 x 1L
1 x 500mL
4 x 25OmL
1 x 45mL
not
collected
not
collected
1 x 1L*
1 x 500mL
4 x 250mL
1 x 45tnL
1 x 1L*
1 x 500m1
4 x 250m1
1 x 45mL
*
This includes the 1L bottle for Oil & Grease that only has to be collected twice each day
(one by each team)
-------
Table A—3 (cout nued)
NIMUM NUMBER AND SIZE OF BOTTLES REQUIRED BY TEM4S 1 & 3 AT EACH SITE DURING EACH VISIT
SM LIWC SITE DAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY
SUNDAY
Franklin (FAP)
4 x I1.
3 x 500mL
lx45 mL
same as Tuesday and Sunday 1
4 x lL
3 x 5OO L
lx45mL
Victoria (VIC)
4 x lL
3 a 500mL
lz4S mL
Same an Tuesday and Sunday
4 z 1L*
3 a 5O sL
lx4 S mL
Hillside (HSA)
4 a lL
3 a 500mL
1 a 4SmL
4 a 1L 10 a IL*
i- Same as Tues & Fri.-. 3 a SOOnL l x 45mL
1 a 4SnL (QC)
10 a IL*
1 a 4SmL
(QC)
Clover (CLD)
4 a 1L*
3 a SOOmL
lz45mL
Same as Tuesday and Sunday
4 a 1*
3 a 5OI nL
lx4SmL
Potter (POT)
10 a 1L*
1 a 4SmL
(QC)
10 a lL
1 a 45mL
(QC)
4 a 1L
3 a SOOnL • Same as Thurs. 6 Sun.
lx4 inL
4 a lL
3 a 500mL
lx45 mL
FIELD BLANK (FB—1)
not
collected
not
collected
1 a 1L* 1 a 1L not
1 a 500nL 1 a 500tnL collected
6 a 25 L 4 a 25 L
5 a 45 ** 5 a 45 **
not
collected
aThia includes the 1L bottle for Oil 6 Grease that only has to be collected twice each day (one by each
**Ajl 5 a 45mL bottles are collected by Team 1 during their first field blank increment
team)
-------
Table A—3 (continued)
MINIMUM NUMBER AND SIZE OF BOTTLES REQUIRED BY TEAMS 2 6 4 AT EACH SITE DURING EACH VISIT
SAMPLING SITE DAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
TIIURS DAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
Seneca (SEN)
4 x lL
3xSOOmL
1 a 45mL
4 x 1L*
3x500mL
1 a 45mL
10 x 1L*
lx4SoL
(QC)
10 a lL*
lx45mL
(QC)
4 a 1L
3xSOOmL
1 a 45mL
4 a 1L
3xSDOmL
1 a 4SniL
Wintonbury Tap (WBT)
1 a 1L*
1 a SOOmL
4a2SOmL
la4SmL
1 a 1L*
1 a SOOmL
4x250mL
lx45mL
not
collected
not
collected
1 a lL*
1 a 500mL
4x250mL
lx45mL
1 a 1L
1 a SOOmL
4a250mL
la45mL
Tunxis (rUN)
4 a 1L*
3 x 50Dm !.
la45 mL.
• Same as Tuesday and Sunday
4 a lL
3 a 500mL
1a45mL
Maple (HAP)
4 a 1L*
3 a SOOmL
lx45mL
Same as Tuesday and Sunday •
4 a 1L
3 a 500mL
la45 mL
Brentvood (BWD)
10 a lL
lz45mL
(QC)
10 a 1L*
lx4SmL
(QC)
4 a 1L*
3x500mL
1 a 45mL
4 a IL*
3x500mL
1 a 45mL
4 a 1L
3x500mL
1 a 45mL
4 a lL
3a500mL
1 a 45m1.
FIELD BLANK (P8—2)
not
collected
not
collected
1 a 1L*
1 a 50Dm!.
4x2SOmL
5 x 45mL**
1 a 1L*
1 x SOOn!.
4a250mL
5 a 45mL*
not
collected
not
collected
* This includes the 1!. bottles for Oil and Crease fraction that only has to be collected twice each day (one by
each team)
** All 45mL bottles are collected by Team 2 during their first field blank increment
-------
Table A—4
PLAN A-l. Each time a non-QC’d sample is withdrawn from a manhole at
one of the following field sampling locations, the following
number and size of bottles are to be filled:
Franklin (FAP)
Victoria (VIC)
Hillside (HSA) EXCEPT : Sat., Sun.
Clover (CLD)
Potter (POT) EXCEPT : Tues., Wed.
Seneca (SEN) EXCEPT : Thurs., Fri.
Tunxis (TUN)
Maple (MAP)
Brentwood (BWD) EXCEPT : Tues., Wed.
Influent (INF) EXCEPT : Sat., Sun.
Fraction Collect Code
For Acid/Base Neutral and
Asbestos Fraction 1 x 1L ABN/AS
For PCB/Pestlcjde and BOD/TSS
Fraction 1 x 1L PCB/Cj.ass BOD
For Volatile Fraction* 1 x 45 mL. Screwcap VOA
vial does not leave
any bubbles in bottles.
Note: These five fractions will
be freighted to Boston
daily. Be sure to pack all
these freight samples sep-
arately from the other bottles.
For Metal and Mercury* 1 x 500 mL or M+, Hg
equivalent
For Cyanide Fraction* 1 x 500 mL or CN
equivalent
For Phenol Fraction* 1 x 500 mL or Phen.
equivalent
For TOC, COD and NH 3 Fraction* 1 x 1L NH 3
For Oil and Crease Fraction* 1 x lL Class, O+G
Note: The oil and grease fraction is only to be collected twice each day
at each site. I would strongly suggest that this be done during
each teams’ first rotation between sites.
*
These fractions require preservation; see attached sample preservation
sheet.
A- 10
-------
Table A-S
PLAN A—2. ach time a QC’d sample is withdrawn from a manhole at one
of the following field locations, the following number and
size of bottles are to be filled:
‘OTW INF (-C only)
Hillside (—C only)
Potter (—A only)
Seneca (—B only)
Brentwood (—A only)
Fraction Collect Code
For Acid/Base Neutral, PCB/
Pesticide, Asbestos and BOD/
TSS Fraction 5 x 1L ABN, PCB, AS,
Class BOD
For Volatile Fraction* 1 x 45 mL, screw—cap VOA
vial does not leave
any bubbles in bottle
Note: These five fractions are
freighted to Boston daily.
Be sure to segregate
during field packaging.
For Metal and Mercury Fraction* 1 x 1L M+, Hg
For Cyanide Fraction* 1 x 1L CN
For Total Phenol Fraction* 1 x 1L Phen.
For NH 3 , TOC, and COD Fraction* 1 x 1L NH 3
For Oil and Grease Fraction* 1 x 1L O+C
Note: The Oil and Grease fraction is only to be collected twice each
day at each site. I would strongly recommend that this be done
during each teams’ first rotation between sites.
*
These samples require preservation; see attached sample preservation
sheet.
A-il
-------
Table A-6
PLAN A—3. Each time a tap water or field blank sample is collected,
the following number and size of bottles should be filled:
Fraction Collect Code
For Acid/Base Neutral, PCB/ 1 x 500 mL or ABN, PCB, As,
Pesticide, BOD/TSS and equivalent Class BOD
Asbestos Fraction
For Volatile Fraction* 5 x 45 niL screw—cap VOA
vials during first
collection sequence
only on field blanks
1 x 45 mLs on tap water VOA
Note: These five fractions are
freighted to Boston daily.
Be sure to segregate during
field packaging.
For Metal and Mercury Fraction* 1 x 250 mL or M, Hg
equivalent
For Cyanide Fraction* 1 x 250 niL or CN
equivalent
For Total Phenol Fraction* 1 x 250 niL or Phen.
equivalent
For NH 3 , TOC and COD Fraction* 1 x 250 niL or NH 3
equivalent
For Oil and Grease Fraction* 1 x lL
Note: The Oil and Grease fraction is only to be collected twice each
day at each site. I would strongly recommend that this be done
during each teams’ first rotation between sites.
*
These samples require preservation; see attached sample preservation
sheet.
A- 12
-------
Table A—7
What to do During Manual Sample Collection
1) Gain access to the sampling location.
2) Set up page in field log notebook as per example. Use one per sample
location and visit. Example: since Victoria is visited three times
per work shift, three separate notebook pages should be used. In
addition, one or two pages should be reserved for comments about each
site per shift.
3) Fill in all preliminary data in field notebook: location, collectors
(initials are sufficient), time and date.
4) Using the telescoping pole and bucket, obtain a wastewater sample.
5) While keeping the contents of the bucket well mixed, measure and
record the pH and temperature of the wastewater. Also test sample
with potassium iodide test paper. If test is positive (paper turns
blue), indicate such in field notebook. (See Attachment C).
6) Attach the sample labels to the appropriate number and size of
bottles. Number and size information is given in plans A—l through
A- 3.
7) Fill in all the information required on labels.
8) After labeling requirements are completed, seal the label with 2”
wide scotch tape.
9) Fill all lL bottles to the neck with sample. Preserve appropriate
bottles as below. Fill VOA bottles to overflowing (except ,if pre-
servative is added as per Attachment C).
10) Add preservative to each bottle that requires it (see Attachment C)
i.e.:
Phenols 2mL/L H 2 S0 4 plus 1 gm/L CuSO 1 .5H 2 0
Cyanides Ascorbic acid til 1(1 paper shows no color,
plus 0.6 gm excess per liter plus 2mL/L lON
sodium hydroxide.
Metals, Mercury 5mL/L concentrated nitric acid
Total Organic)
Carbon ( 2mL/L concentrated sulfuric acid
COD
Nil 3
Oil and Grease 2mL/L concentrated sulfuric acid
Volatilea 2 drops sodium thiosulfate solution
A- 13
-------
Table A—7 (Continued)
What to do During Manual Sample Collection (Continued )
11) Cover all bottle mouths (except VOAs)with Teflon film and seal with
screw caps.
12) Cover all VOAs bottles with Teflon silicon septum (Teflon side towards
sample). These bottles should not have any air bubbles in them!!!
13) Transcribe sample bottle number from label onto cap of bottle with
yellow marker.
14) Transcribe sample bottle number and fraction identification code into
field notebook.
15) Pack all bottles into ice chests. Segregate all Acid/Base Neutral,
PCB/Pesticide and VOA fractions into one chest, i.e., all these frac-
tions from all sites are stored in one chest. All other samples are
stored in other chests as required.
16) Measure and record depth (cm) using dip rule and grease.
17) Determine linear velocity of water, at a point corresponding to 60% of
measured depth, with the Marsh McBirney flow sensor. Record value
obtained in field notebook.
18) Secure manhole and police the area for debris.
19) Move on to next sampling site.
A- 14
-------
Table A—8
SANPLE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS
Total Phenols: For each sample bottle collected for total phenol
analysis, acidify with concentrated sulfuric acid
H 2 SO (‘v . 2tnL) to pH 4. Add 1 gin CuSOy5H 2 O per
liter of sample.
Procedure:
Check pH of raw sample with pH test paper. If
needed, add lmL cone H 2 SO and then check pH with
test paper. Repeat until pH reaches 4. Record
amount of H 2 SO added. Then add 1 gm/L CuSO 4 5H 2 0.
Cyanides: Test each bottle collected with potassium iodide
starch test paper. If color is blue, add ascorbic
acid until test paper shows no color. Add 0.6 gin
excess of ascorbic acid to each liter bottle col-
lected . Then add 2tnLs of 10 N sodium hydroxide.
Metals and Mercury: Add 5mLs of concentrated nitric acid (HNO 3 ) to
each liter bottle collected for metals. Check final
pH wIth pH test paper. If pH < 2 stop, if pH > 2
add lmL until pH < 2. Record extra amount of HNO 3
added.
Volatiles: Check sample collected with potassium iodide (KI)
starch indicator paper. Add two drops of sodium
thiosulfate solution to each VOA bottle collected.
If KI paper originally indicated positive (paper
turns blue), check preserved sample again. If paper
still positive, add two more drops sodium thiosulfate
solution and recheck with KI paper. Record total
number of drops of sodium thiosulfate solution used (if
other than 2) to preserve sample. Seal bottle without
any air bubbles.
Total Organic Carbon, Check pH of sample with pH test paper. Add concentrated
Chemical Oxygen sulfuric acid (H 2 SOi ) until pH 2 (‘ 2mL). Record
Demand, NH 3 : volume of H 2 S0 added.
Oil and Grease: Check pH of sample with pH test paper. Add concentrated
sulfuric acid (H 2 SOL) until pH < 2 (4. 2mL). Record
volume of 11 2 S0& 4 added.
A-is
-------
Table A—9
*
HARTFORD FLOW RATES USING DEPTH x VELOCITY
(LPS)
Some of the nighttime velocity measurements not taken due to
inability to immerse probe.
Average computed without this data.
Location
Day
A
Day
B
Day
C
Avg.
Franklin
Victoria
260.0
228.0
287.9
258.6
Hillside
34.1
28.3
31.0
31.1
Clover
7.0*
7.1*
7.1*
7.1*
Potter
552.5
530.0
726.3
602.9
Seneca
3.1*
34*
39*
3 5
Tunxis
Maple
14.4
12.0
15.2
13.9
Brentwood
10.5
9.2
12.1*
10.6
Wintonbury Tap
——
-—
Tap
--
--
-—
--
Influent
2418
2335
2579
2444
A-16
-------
APPENDIX B
DETAILS ON ANALYTICAL METHODS
The analytical methods for each priority pollutant category have
been detailed in the Cincinnati report. 3 The basic procedures used in
this program were as described in the “Sampling and Analysis Procedures
for Screening of Industrial Effluents for Priority Pollutants,” 1 and the
“Quality Assurance Program for the Analyses of Chemical Constituents in
Environmental Samples,” 2 U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. Where the methods
differed from those used in the Cincinnati, St. Louis and Atlanta surveys,
brief descriptions follow. The sections include descriptions of problems
encountered, analytical information, quality control (QC) data, and com-
ments on the method.
Volatiles
The analytical method used for the priority pollutants in the vola-
tile category was modified by adding charcoal to the sorbent trap and
eliminating the silica gel in order to prevent the most volatile compounds
from breaking through the trap. Further, the interface between the sorbent
trap and gas chromatography column was improved.
An initial attempt was made during the Atlanta study to modify the
volatile analytical method. Charcoal was added to the sorbent trap and
four of the priority pollutants previously not detected (chloromethane,
bromoniethane, vinyl chloride and chloroethane) were detected during the
Atlanta study. However, recovery and precision data were high, ranging
from 161% ± 40 to 330% ± 126. Therefore, this procedure was investigated
further during the Hartford study.
One source of difficulty was the interface between the purge and
trap apparatus and the GC; this was remedied by using a longer needle
through the CC septum into the cooled CC packing. In this way, the sample
was injected on the GC packing more reproducibly. It was found that the
shorter needle was leading to losses due to carrier gas backflushing.
Three different modified sorbent traps were studied at various purging
times. For these experiments, the aqueous sample was always kept at about
B- 1
-------
49°C during purging, and the sample was always desorbed from the sorbent
trap at 180°C for four minutes. The sorbent traps studied were:
1. 6 inches Tenax CC, 1 5/8 inches silica gel,
1 5/8 inches charcoal (as used in the
Atlanta study)
2. 5 1/2 inches Tenax CC, 2 inches Florisil,
1 Inch charcoal
3. 5 3/4 inches Tenax CC, 2 1/8 inches charcoal
Dlchlorodifluoromethane consistently broke through when the first and
second sorbent traps were used, regardless of purging times (1 minute to
8 minutes). Further, the other four compounds that were being lost
(chloromethane, bromoniethane, vinyl chloride and chloroethane) had true
recoveries (purged aqueous samples compared to directly injected cali-
bration standards) ranging from 2% to 30%.
The third sorbent trap, consisting of only Tenax CC and charcoal,
effectively trapped all the volatile priority pollutants. It was experi-
mentally determined that a four—minute purge at 49°C and a four—minute
desorb at 180°C was acceptable for recovering all the volatile priority
pollutants. Acrylonitrjle was recovered more efficiently with an eight—
minute purge rather than four minutes (95% true recovery at eight minutes,
compared to 54% at four minutes), however, chloromethane was not detected
at purging times greater than four minutes due to trap breakthrough.
Table B—l lists the true recoveries (calculated by comparing with
directly injected calibration standards, rather than purged standards)
for volatile priority pollutants at two—minute and four—minute purging
times. Recoveries were reasonable for both times. Data for l,l—dichloro—
ethylene were not collected during the sorbent trap study. It was pre-
viously determined that the acrolein in the calibration standard was
degraded, therefore, there are no recovery data for this compound. A
four—minute purging time was used in order to ensure that acrylonitrile
would be detected and to keep the total analysis time acceptable.
The relative retention times and calibration values used for volatile
priority pollutant calculations are listed in Table B—2. Table B—3 presents
the volatile quality control data from the Hartford study. Overall, the
B—2
-------
Table B—i
TRUE RECOVER TESa
Sorbent Trap: TENAX/CRARCOAL
Purging Time:
rnin.
4mm.
101. Chloromethane
39
27
102 Dichlorodifluoromethane
44
34
103 Bromomethane
43
34
104 Vinyl chloride
45
41
105. Chloroethane
130
108
106 Methylene chloride
253
231
107 Acrolein b
108 Trichlorofluoromethane
317
140
109 Acrylonitrile
35
54
110 1 ,1—Dichloroethylene C
111 1,1 —Dichloroethane
105
90
112 Trans—1,2—dichloroethylene
106
90
113 Chloroform
97
83
114. 1,2—Dichloroethane
102
89
115 1,1,1 —Trichloroethane
99
74
116. Carbon tetrachloride
97
68
117 Bromodichloromethane
105
92
118. 1,2—Dichloropropane
19
16
119. Trans—1,3—dichloropropylene
104
92
120. Trichloroethylene
88
74
121 Benzene
105
90
122 C’s—i ,3—dichloropropylene
86
75
123 Dibromochloromethane
102
91
124 1,1 ,2—Trichloroethane
96
86
125. Bromoform
94
94
126. 1,1 ,2,2—Tetrachloroethane
97
103
127. 1.1 ,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
96
79
128. Toluene
96
81
129 Chlorobenzene
97
83
130 Ethyl benzene
96
82
a Recoveries calculated by comparing with directly injected
calibration standard.
b Acrolein standard was degraded.
C This compound was n t measured.
B- 3
-------
Table B—2
CALIBRATION VALUES FOR CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
Volatiles
COMPOUND
a
RRTs
b
slope
b
mt.
Rep. Limit
area
j .ig/L
101, Chloromethane
.153
.0021
—.0089
.0017
5
102 Dichlorodifluoromethane
. 151
.0011
. 0047
. 0102
5
103. Bromorriethane
.145
.0017
—.0038
.0047
5
104. Vinyichloride
.155
.0023
.0002
.0117
5
105 Chloroethane
.191
.0018
—.0057
.0035
5
106. Methylenechloride
.285
.0076
.0487
.0563
1
107 Acrolein
.357
.0016
.0213
.0230
1
108 Trichlorofluoromethane
. 381
.0118
. 0128
.0246
1
109 AcryIonitri e
.402
.0119
.1254
.1373
1
110 1 ,1—Dichloroethylene
.420
.0135
.0234
.0369
1
111. 1,1—Dichloroethane
.496
.0414
.0617
.1031
1
112 Trans—1,2—dichloroethylene
.531
.0167
.0190
.0357
1
113 Chloroform
.581
.0389
.0618
.1008
1
114. 1,2—Dichloroethane
.617
.0022
.0004
.0026
1
115 1,1,1—Trichloroethane
.679
.0217
.0329
.0546
1
116. Carbon tetrachloride
.699
.0174
.0130
.0303
1
117. Bromodichloromethane
.757
.0022
.0014
.0036
1
118 1,2—Dichloropropane
.822
.0010
—.0006
.0004
1
119. Trans—1,3—dichloropropylene
.851
.0270
.0240
.0510
1
120. Trichloroethylene
.875
.0176
.0447
.0623
1
121 Benzene
.875
.0609
.1535
.2144
1
122. Cis—1,3—dichloropropylene
.931
.0183
.0113
•0296
1
123. Dibromochloromethane
.933
.0168
.0224
.0392
1
124. 1,1,2—Trichloroethane
.933
.0192
.0401
.0593
1
125. Bromoform
1.109
.0175
.0043
.0218
1
126. 1,1,2,2—Tetrachloroethane
1.264
.0320
.0773
.1093
1
127. 1,1,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
1.250
.0144
.0385
.0529
1
128. Toluene
1.300
.0432
.1288
.1721
1
129. Chlorobenzene
1.400
.0476
.1276
.1752
1
130. Ethylbenzene
1.564
.0263
.0709
.0972
1
a. Retention time, relative to 2—Bromo—l—Chloropropane
b. x = concentration
y = GC/MS relative response
B— 4
-------
Table B—3
SU 1ARY OF QUALITY ASSURANCE DATAa
‘Jolatiles
COMPOUND
METHOD REF. ST 1 REPLICATE WASTEWATER SPIKt
P Sp I %Sp
C Rc I P I Sp I %Sp
101. Chloromethane
103
13
12
20
16
118
25
21
102. Dichlorothfluoromethane
147
54
38
20
23
194
94
48
103 Bromomethane
112
19
17
20
12
113
25
22
104. Vinyl chloride
112
18
16
20
10
123
24
19
105. Chloroetharie
102
8
8
20
5
108
16
15
106 Methylene chloride
103
10
10
20
7
127
15
12
107 Acrolein
144
12
9
L0O
150
97
34
35
108 Trichlorofluoromethane
97
8
8
20
4
105
11
11
109 Acrylonitrule
115
12
11
L0O
44
119
9
8
110 1 ,1—Dichloroethytene
98
3
3
20
2
103
4
4
111. 1 ,1—Duchloroethane
98
3
3
20
1
101
2
2
112. Trans—1,2—dichloroethylene
95
0
0
20
0
102
3
3
113 Chloroform
100
5
5
20
1
109
5
5
114 1 ,2—Dichloroethane
97
3
3
20
3
101
4
4
115 1,1,1—Trichloroethane
98
6
6
20
2
105
10
10
116 Carbon tetrachlorude
102
8
7
20
3
101
8
8
117 Bromodichloromethane
97
3
3
20
2
103
5
5
118. 1,2—Duchloropropane
103
3
3
20
1
105
3
3
119. Trans—1,3—dichloropropylene
97
3
3
20
5
95
6
7
120. Truchloroethylene
102
3
3
20
1
106
2
2
121 Benzene
98
3
3
20
0
103
5
5
122 Cus—1,3—duchloropropylene
98
6
6
20
3
99
5
5
-
123 Dibromochloromethane
107
3
3
20
2
107
4
4
124. 1.1.2—Truchloroethane
102
3
3
20
0
103
3
2
125. Bromoform
97
6
6
20
2
93
7
7
126. 1.1,2.2—Tetrachloroethane
102
8
8
20
1
104
4
4
127. 1,1,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
102
8
8
20
5
104
9
8
128. Toluene
103
3
3
20
2
110
3
3
129. Chlorobenzene
107
3
3
20
2
108
3
2
130. Ethyl benzene
103
3
3
20
1
113
3
2
aBased on purged calibration standards.
b
Three data points.
data points.
B-S
-------
quality control (QC) data determined for the samples during the Hartford
study were much better than the Cincinnati, St. Louis and Atlanta QC
data. This improvement can be attributed to the improved sorbent trap!
gas chromatography column interface and the modified sorbent trap.
Dichiorodifluoromethane, which was previously not detected due to
the fact that it was breaking through the sorbent trap, was detected in
the QC samples during the Hartford study. However, another factor in
the ability to detect dichiorodifluoromethane was that the analytical
ion used for its measurement was changed from m!e 101 to m!e 85. The
m/e 101 ion is only 13% of the MS base peak, while the m/e 85 ion is the
base peak (100%). Therefore, the m/e 85 ion is the better choice for
analyzing and quantifying dichiorodifluoromethane; in addition, there
are no other m/e 85 fragment ion interferences in this part of the
chromatogram.
The QC data for acrolein also improved during the Hartford study.
It was observed during the Atlanta study that the acrolein standard was
unstable, as evidenced by the lack of response when an acrolein standard
was injected directly onto the GC column. Fresh standards from a different
vendor were prepared for the Hartford QC samples, and the acrolein QC
data improved, 96% ± 34. These data indicate that sample data obtained
for acrolein during the Cincinnati, St. Louis and Atlanta studies were
valid; acrolein was never detected In the samples although the procedure
has apparently always been valid for this compound.
Acids
The relative retention times and calibration data for the acid fraction
priority pollutants are given in Table B—4, and the QC data are given in
Table B—5. In general, these results are comparable to those obtained
previously.
2, 4—Dinitrophenol, 4, 6—dinitro—2—cresol, and 4—nitrophenol chromato—
graphed very poorly on the 1% SP 1240 DA CC column during the Hartford
study. Consequently, these three compounds were not detected in the
spiked QC samples. These three phenols were never detected in the samples
from the three previous basins.
B-6
-------
Table B—4
CALIBRATION VALUES FOR CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
ACIDS
COMPOUND
a
RTTs
b
slope
b
mt.
Rep. Limit
area
iigIL
201. 2—Chlorophenol -
.321
.0669
—.1864
.4825
10
202. 2—Nitrophenol -
.369
.0121
—.1558
. 0257
15
203. Phenol
.449
.0690
—.0798
.6099
10
204. 2,4—Dimethylphenol
.535
.0522
—.1762
.3457
10
205. 2,4—Duchlorophenol
.555
.0541
—.2101
.3313
10
206. 2,4,6—Trichlorophenol
. 703
. 0411
—. 1802
. 2305
10
207. 4—Chloro—3--cresol
.806
.0455
.0403
.4951
10
208. 2,4—Dinitrophenol
.0T07
—.1347
.0792
20
209. 4,6—Dinitro—2—cresol
—
.0188
—.1894
. 1865
20
210. Pentachlorophenol
1.206
.0172
.0119
.1842
10
211. 4—Nitrophenol
1.996
.0116
—.1068
.0093
10
a. Retention time, relative to D 10 —anthracene
b, x = concentration
y = CC/MS relative response
B— 7
-------
Table B—S
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Acids
COMPOUND
Method Referenci
Standard a
Raw Wastewater
Spike b
P Sp %Sp
C Re
P Sp Sp
201. 2—Chlorophenol
85
6
7
50
22
76
13
17
202. 2—Nitrophenol
83
19
23
50
31
78
21
26
203. Phenol
67
7
10
50
29
61
14
23
204. 2.4—Dumethylphenol
97
5
5
50
39
92
19
20
205. 2,4—Dichlorophenol
91
6
7
50
19
91
14
15
206. 2,4,6—Truchlorophenol
87
11
13
50
25
77
11
14
207. 4— hloro—3—cresol
97
9
9
50
27
85
13
16
208. 2,4—Dinitrophenol
50
209. 4,6—Dinitro—2--cresol
—
50
—
210. Pentachlorophenol
70
4
5
50
42
70
20
28
211. 4—Nitrophenol
56
20
36
50
—
aBased on three data points.
bBased on six data points.
B-8
-------
Base/Neutrals
During the Hartford study, the 3% SP 2250 DB CC column was used in
the GC/MS analysis of the base/neutral priority pollutants. Relative
retention times and calibration data for the base/neutral fraction priority
pollutants are given in Table B—6, and the QC data are given in Table B—?.
Overall, the QC data are somewhat better than the Atlanta QC data. The
improved recoveries and precision could be attributed to the simpler
sample matrix (fewer interferences) in the Hartford samples.
The base/neutral priority pollutants that were not able to be detected
in Hartford using the EPA protocol are listed below along with their respec-
tive problems.
Bis(chloromethyl)ether — very short half—life in water.
2—Chloroethyl vinyl ether — volatile (b.p. 109°C) causing
erratic recoveries during Kuderna
Danish evaporation.
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene — high CC/MS reporting limit or
possible degradation in the CC
injector.
The QC data for indeno(1,2,3—c,d)pyrene have been included for the Hartford
study. QC data were not obtained for this compound during the other studies
because the standards were not available. While the recovery was low, the
precision was quite good at 29% ± 5. Therefore, this compound should have
been detected in samples from the other studies it if had been present in
sufficient quantities. The detection limit during the Hartford study was
5 ng injected on column. Indeno(l,2,3—c,d)pyrene would have to be present
in the water at a minimum concentration of 15 jig/L in order to be detected.
N—nitrosodlmethylamine was successfully analyzed in the QC samples
during the Hartford study; it has not been seen during the St. Louis and
Atlanta studies. N—nitrosodimethylamine was added to the Hartford QC
samples at a concentration level of 150 pg/L, rather than 50 jig/L used
in the previous studies. It was suggested in the St. Louis 3 and Atlanta 4
reports that N—nitrosodimethylamjne was not being detected due to a low
recovery from water and a high CC/MS limit. This was verified by the
55% recovery and the CC/MS reporting limit of 70 pg/L, which were obtained
during this study.
B— 9
-------
Table B—6
CALIBRATION VALUES FOR CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
Base/Neutrals
COMPOUND
a
RRTs
b
slope
b
mt.
Rep. Limit
area
pg/L
301. 1,3 Dichlorobenzene
.286
.1132
—.6135
.5188
10
302, 1,4 Dichlorobenzene
303 1,2 Dichlorobenzene
304 Hexachloroethane
.323
.0539
.0488
.5879
10
305 Bis(chloromethyl)ether
—
—
—
306 Bis(2—chloroethyl) ether
.360
.0849
—.1082
.7406
10
307 Bis(2—chIoroisopropy ) ether
——
.1495
1.4817
2.9767
10
308 N—Nitrosodimethylamine
.454
.0500
—3.1558
.3465
70
309 Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
.521
.0152
—.1137
.0387
10
310 Nitrobenzene
.481
.0542
—.6739
.1384
15
311 Hexachlorobutadiene
.483
.0429
—.0504
.3786
10
312 1,2,4—Trichlorobenzene
.494
.0836
—.1679
.6683
10
313 2—Chloroethyl vinyl ether
—
—
—
—
—
314 Bis(2—chloroethoxy) methane
.539
1 .0792
—. 0019
.7898
10
315, Naphthalene
.521
.2393
—.8346
1.5088
10
316 Isophorone
.618
.0945
.4100
1.3545
10
317 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
—
318 2—Chloronaphthalene
.691
.1469
.3718
1.8406
10
319 Acenaphthylene
.757
.1759
.1975
1.9561
10
320 Acenaphthene
.775
.1440
—.0021
1.4378
10
321 Dimethyl phthalate
.807
.1600
—.1900
1.4100
10
322. 2,6—Dinitrotoluene
. 818
.0340
— .0544
. 2855
10
323 4—Chlorophenyiphenyl ether
.848
.2567
.5508
3.1183
10
324 Fluorene
.848
.1733
.1233
1.8561
10
325. 2,4—Dinitrotoluene
.868
.0483
—.2288
.2542
10
326. Diethyl phthalate
. 883
. 1655
—.0937
1. 5609
10
327 1,2—Diphenylhydrazine
.876
.2400
.0744
2.4740
10
328. N—Nitrosodiphenylamine
- .904
.0884
—.2105
.6738
10
329. Hexachlorobenzene -
.915
.0499
.1076
.6061
10
330. 4—Bromophenyl phenyl ether
.920
.0461
.0771
. 5381
10
B- 10
-------
Table B—6 (cont’d)
CAJ. IBRATION VALUES FOR CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
Base/Neutrals
CONPOUND
RRTSa
siopeb
i b
Rep. Limit
area
iigJL
331. Anthracene
1.000
.2586
.7058
1.9990
5
1
332. Phenanthrene
333. D -n butyI phthalate
1.091
.2979
2.5580
5.5370
10
334. Fluoranthene
1.178
.2716
.0092
1.3671
5
335. Pyrene
1.215
.3141
.2033
1.7738
5
336. Benzidine
1.289
.0189
—.0279
.1609
10
337. Butyl benzyl phthalate
1.335
.1597
—.3096
1.2875
10
338. Bis{2—ethylhexyl) phthalate
1.369
.2082
1.4242
3.5062
10
339. Di-n-octyl phthalate
340. Chrysene
1.410
.2487
__________
—.1204
1.1230
5
341. Benzo(a)anthracene
342. 3,3’—Dichlorobenz,dine
1.454
.0633
—.5560
.0774
10
343. Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1.582
.3093
—.1208
.1885
1
344. Benzo(kjfluoranthene
346. Benzo(a)pyrene
1.659
.2614
—.5017
.8054
5
346. Indeno (1,2,3—c,d) pyrene
2.050
.1738
.3143
1.1831
5
347. Dibenzo (a,h) Anthracene
2.060
. 1604
—. 7805
.0213
5
348. Benzo(gh,9pery ene
2.193
.1774
.4209
1.3078
5
a. Retention time, relative to D 10 —anthracene
b. x concentration
y = CC/MS relative response
B—li
-------
Table B—7
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Base ‘Neutrals
COMPOUND
Method ReferencE
Standard a
Raw Wastewater
Spike b
Sp %Sp
C Rc
Sp %Sp
301 1 ,3 Dichlorobenzene
72
5
7
153
12
74
8
11
302 1,4Dichlorobenzene
303 1 .2 Dichlorobenzene
304 Hexachloroethane
57
7
12
50
24
63
16
26
305 B s(chloromethyl)ether
306. Bis(2—chloroethyl) ether
84
7
9
50
5
81
8
10
307. Bis(2—chloroisopropyl) ether
C
60
308. N—Nitrosodimethylamine
50
4
8
150
37
29
73
309 Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
97
5
5
50
7
109
9
9
310 Nitrobenzene
77
3
4
50
23
72
7
10
311 Hexachlorobutacliene
74
7
9
50
22
67
9
13
312 1,2.4—Trichlorobenzene
80
2
3
50
4
75
12
- 16
313. 2—Chloroethyl vinyl ether
314. Bus(2—chloroethoxy) methane
95
12
13
50
9
102
11
10
315 Naphthalene
85
6
7
50
9
84
12
14
316 Isophorone
110
11
10
50
6
113
9
8
317. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
318 2—Chloronaphthalene
73
6
9
50
17
72
11
15
319 Acenaphthylene
79
6
8
50
14
78
9
1Z
320 Acenaphthene
75
8
10
50
25
70
12
17
321 Dimethyl phthalate
41
8
20
50
17
58
5
9
322. 2,6—Dunitrotoluene
84
9
10
50
11
70
15
22
323 4—Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
83_
8
10
50
23
71
13
18
324. Fluorene
77
10
13
50
24
68
17
24
325 2,4—Dinitrotoluene
92
7
8
50
15
43
10
23
326. Diethyl phthalate
70
12
17
50
12
85
16
19
327 1,2—Diphenylhydrazine
79
17
22
50
17
69
19
27
328. N—Nitrosodiphenylamine
87
10
11
50
10
88
12
13
329. Hexachlorobenzene
75
10
14
50
33
58
13
22
330. 4—Bromophenyl phenyl ether
93
8
8
50
40
73
14
20
B- 12
-------
Table B-7 (cont’d)
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Base/Neutrals
COMPOUND
Method Referenc
Standard a
Raw Wastewater
Spike b
P Sp %Sp
C Rc
P Sp %Sp
331. Anthracene
81
9
11
100
63
71
16
23
332. Phenanthrene
333. Di-n-butyl phthalate
94
24
25
50
51
84
23
28
334. Fluoranthene
83
8
10
50
42
63
15
24
335. Pyrene
83
10
12
50
50
61
14
23
336. Benzidine
.16
68
58
150
‘347
17
16
95
337. Butyl benzyl phthalate
55
15
27
50
40
49
27
55
338. Bus(2—ethylhexyl) phthalate 1
60
25
41
100
60
47
16
34
j
339. Di-n-octyl_phthalate
340. Chrysene
68
14
21
100
66
54
9
17
341. Benzo(a)anthracene
342. 3,3’—Dichlorobenzidine
84
10
12
50
15
67
18
27
343. Benzo(b)fluoranthene
59
13
22
9
5
44
7
16
344, Benzo(k)fluoranthene
345. Benzo(a)pyrene
57
8
15
50
43
42
8
18
346. Indeno (1,2,3—c,d) pyrene
43
8
19
50
38
29
5
19
347. Dibenzo (a,h) Anthracene
65
10
16
41
50
50
9
17
348. Benzo (g,h,t) perylene
49
8
17
50
48
34
7
20
a Based on three data points.
b Based on six data points.
C Standard not available to spike into QC sample.
B— 13
-------
The benzidine QC data were still poor. This compound is problematic
due to heat lability, instability in CH 2 C1 2 and poor chromatography.
The QC data for benzo(g,h,i)perylene were improved as compared to the
data from Atlanta. Overall, the CC/MS sensitivity for the polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbon priority pollutants improved. This was due in
part to improved chromatography on the 3% SP 2250 DB CC column.
Pesticides and PCBs
Typical calibration values used to calculate pesticide and PCB con-
centration levels are given in Table B—8, and the QC data are given in
Table B—9. Overall, the Hartford quality control data were substantially
better than that from the previous cities.
QC data for endrin aldehyde and endosulfan sulfate have been
included for the Hartford study. QC data were not obtained for these
two compounds during the other studies because the standards were not
available. The recovery and precision data are good and provide a
basis for concluding that the data obtained on these two compounds
during the other studies were valid; specifically, endrin aldehyde and
endosulfan sulfate were never observed in the samples but would have
been observed if they were present since the procedures are valid.
Total Cyanides and Total Phenols
The QC data for total cyanides and total phenols are given in
Table B—b. These data are comparable to those obtained previously.
Metals
A newly acquired Instrumentation Laboratories Model 551 Atomic
Absorption Spectrophotometer was used for all atomic absorption analyses
including flame atomic absorption analyses of certain elements for which
plasma emission spectroscopy had been used for samples from St. Louis
and Atlanta. The precision obtained with the Model 551 was in all
cases comparable or superior to that obtained with the atomic absorption
and plasma emission spectroscopic instrumentation used for St. Louis
and Atlanta samples. The techniques used and the reporting limits for
the metal priority pollutants are listed in Table B—il.
B— 14
-------
Table B—8
CALIBRATION VALUES FOR CONCENTRATION CALCIJLATIONS
Pesticides
Reporting
COMPOUND Slope Intercept Limit (pg/L)
401 aIpha BHC
6.899
0.0142
1
402 gamma-BHC
6.521
0.0100
1
4C3. Heptachlor
6.6164
0.0167
1
404 beta-BHC
2.8095
.0243
1
405. delta•BHC
5. 7378
.0069
1
406 Aldrin
6. 7108
.0046
1
407. Heptachlorepoxide
6.1146
.0199
1
408, Endosulfan I
7.4834
.0324
1
409. DDE
7.8487
.0348
1
410 Dieldrin
10.1393
.0464
1
411 Endrin
4.2436
.0105
1
412 DOD
5.1678
.0058
1
1
413 Endosulfan II J
414. DOT
3.5515
.0224
1
415 Endrin aldehyde
5.2609
.0514
1
416 Endosu fansuIfate
3.7071
.0734
1
417 - Chiordane
418 Toxaphene
419 PCB—1221
420 PCB—1232
421. PCB—1242
422 PCB—12 8
423. PCB—1254
.8851
.0172
1
424 PCB—1 260
426, PCB—1016
B— 15
-------
Table B—9
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pesticides
COMPOUND
Method Reference
Standard (a)
Raw Wastewater (b)
P Sp %Sp C
Rc F Sp %Sp
401 alpha-BHC
82
4
1 10
3
84
7
J 8
402 gamma-BHC 79
::: :::; 1::
4
I
12
2
83
6
7
:
11
2
::
6 7
405 delta-BHC
94
6
6
9
2
110
8
7
406 Aldrin
82
7
8
11
1
85
4
5
407 Heptachlor epoxide
84
8
10
11
2
84
4
5
408 Endosulfan I
85
11
13
10
4
90
10
11
410 D drin
:
II
12
::
411 Endriri
73
17
24
11
2
96
9
9
412 DDD
86
5
6
20
6
89
9
10
413 Endosulfan II
414 DOT
97
16
17
9
2
92
7
8
415 Endrin aldehyde
85
17
20
5
3
60
17
29
416 Endosulfan suI a e
85
17
20
16
4
84
15
18
417 Chlordane (c)
418 Toxaphene (c)
419 PCB—1221__(c)
420 PCB—1232 (c)
_____
421 PCB—1242_(c)
422 PCB—12 8_(c)
423 PCB—1254
78
5
6
90
15
81
6
7
424 PCB—1260 (c)
425 PCB-1016 (c)
a Calculated from 3 data points.
b Calculated from 6 data points.
c Not added into QC samples (A,B,D).
B— 16
-------
Table B—lO
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Total Cyanides/Total Phenols
Method Reference
Standard (a) Raw Wastewater Spikes (b)
Sp %Sp C Rc Sp %Sp
Total Cyanides 92 8 9 20 1 89 9 10
Total Phenols 92 2 3 60 1 92 7 8
a Based on 3 data points.
b Based on 6 data points.
B- 17
-------
Table B—li
Analytical Method and Reporting Limits
METALS
Method of Instru—
mental Analysis
Reporting
Limit, ig/L
501 Antimony
Flameless AAS
1
502. Arsenic
AA—Hydride Evolution
2
503 Beryllium
Flameless MS
1
504. Cadmium
Flameless AAS
1
505. Chromium
PES
16
506. Copper
Flame MS
4
507. Lead
Flame AAS
5
508. Manganese
Flame MS
8
509 Mercury
Flame].ess MS
Cold Vapor
1
510 Nickel
Flameless MS
4
511 Selenium
A.A—Hydride Evolution
1
512. Silver
Flameless MS
1
513. Thallium
Flameless MS
1
514 Zinc
Flame AAS
6
B- 18
-------
The metals QC data are given in Table B—12. Overall, the data
are comparable to the QC data from St. Louis and Atlanta. The recovery
values obtained for selenium (28% ± 8) from raw wastewater were low.
Field Blanks
Two field blank samples were collected and analyzed for all the
priority pollutants in order to determine the extent of possible con-
tamination. The concentration data for these samples are presented
in Table B—13.
B— 19
-------
Table B - l2
QUALITY CONTROL DATA a
Metals
COMPOUND
ethod Referenc
Standard
Raw Wastewater
Spike
P Sp %Sp
C Rc
Sp %Sp
501. Antimony
62
29
46
10
5
40
15
37
502. Arsenic b
88
3
4
25
2
98
11
12
503 Beryllium
88
5
5
10
0
94
5
6
504. Cadmium
80
45
57
10
6
103
16
15
505. Chromium
128
15
12
100
0
101
48
48
506. Copper
98
17
17
50
9
97
11
12
507. Lead
94
6
6
50
30
93
15
16
508. Manganese b
94
4
5
100
16
100
9
9
509. Mercury
92
5
5
10
4
81
15
19
510. Nickel
109
7
7
50
13
110
12
11
511. Selenium
62
26
42
10
0
28
8
28
512. Silver b
92
5
5
10
1
91
14
15
513 Thallium
94
6
6
10
2
1.05
5
5
514 Zinc b
96
3
4
100
20
102
5
5
a Based on five quality control sets.
b Based on four quality control sets.
B—20
-------
L
Table B—13
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS, ugiL
FIELD BLANKS
SAMPLE NUMBER ‘ 1 1420 I I I I s•
112
Trans—i 2—dithioroethytene
—
—
113
Chloroform
—
—
—
114
1,2—Dichtoroethane
115
i,I.1—Tr,ctiloroethane
.
117
Bromodichloromethane
-
120
Trichtoroethylene
121
Benzene
—
—
—
127
i,1.22—Teuact toroethylene
-
—
-
128
Toluene
—
—
—
130
Ethyl benzarie
203
Phenol
207
4-Chloro—3 .-C,esol
-
301
D,chtorobenzenes
310
Nitrobenzene
—
—
—
312
1 .2 .4—Trichlorobenzene
—
—
—
315
Naphthalene
326
Diethyl phthalate
331
Anthracene/Ptienanthrene
—
333
Ds—n--butyl phthalate
—
,
334
Fluoranthene
—
337
Butyl benzyl phthalate
-
338
Bi, 2—ethyl hexyl) phthalate
602
Arsenic
504
Cadmium
505
Chromium
508
Copper
25
—
8.3
507
Lead
—
—
508
Man aneee
-
509
Mercwy
510
Nickel
Sit
Selenium
612
Silver
614
ZInC
23
—
7.7
601.
TotalCyanidea
602
TotaiPhenols
B— 21
-------
Table B—13 (cont’d)
CLASSICAL PARAMETERS, mg/L
FIELD BLANKS
SAMPLE NUMBER
419
420
Avg.
pH
T( 0 C)
Ammonia
.05
Oil and Grease
TSS
—
TOC
COD
-
-
-
BOD
-
-
-
B— 22
-------
APPENDIX C
ACID AND BASE/NEUTRAL AQUEOUS INTERNAL STANDARDS
The proceudre used to add internal standards to the Hartford
samples has been detailed in the Atlanta report. 5 D 10 —anthracene was
added to the final concentrated methylene chloride extract and four
“total method” internal standards were added to the aqueous sample
(prior to extraction and concentration) for acid and base/neutral
analyses.
For the acid analysis, only three of the four total method internal
standards were analyzed. The fourth internal standard, 9—phenylanthra—
cene, did not elute from the acid GC column within a reasonable period
of time. The percentage recoveries for the other three total method
internal standards (relative to d 10 —anthracene) were:
from raw wastewater (A, B, C) ——
2—Fluoronaphthalene 77% ± 15
Octafluorobiphenyl 68% ± 14
Decafluorobiphenyl 55% ± 20
n = 37
and from clean water (D, F) ——
2—Fluoronaphthalene 70% ± 8
Octafluorobiphenyl 65% ± 8
Decafluorobiphenyl 55% ± 20
n= 8
Overall, the Hartford “total method” internal standard QC data for acids
were comparable to the data from Atlanta, with improvement in the pre-
cision.
C-i
-------
The percentage recoveries for these internal standards in the base!
neutral analysis (relative to d 10 —anthracene) were:
from raw wastewater (A, B,
2—Fluoronaphthalene
Oc taf luorobiphenyl
Dec afluorobiphenyl
9—Phenylanthracene
n = 36
C) ——
101% ± 9
88% ± 13
75% ± 15
80%± 8
and from clean water (D, F) ——
2—Fluoronaphthalene 101% ±
Octafluorobiphenyl 88% ± 16
Decafluorobiphenyl ± 12
9—Phenylanthracene 101% ± 0.1
n= 7
Again, the Hartford “total method”
neutrals were better than the data
probably reflects the less complex
indicate that the total method, as
all samples analyzed.
internal standard QC data for base!
from Atlanta. This improvement
Hartford sample matrix. These data
used in Hartford, was in control for
C— 2
-------
APPENDIX D
ANALYTICAL DATA BY SITE
This appendix contains the results of the
chemical analyses for all the samples obtained in
Hartford. The data have been organized by site.
Each sample represents a 48—hour collection period;
the increments were flow composited to produce the
final sample. In addition, the average presented
for each chemical is a flow—weighted average of
the individual samples collected at each location.
The data for the organics, metals, total
cyanides, and total phenols (100—300, 500, and
600 series) are given in g/L; the data on the
classical parameters (700 series) are presented
in mg/L. Only those compounds detected at least
once in the Hartford samples have been included
in these tables.
D— 1
-------
HARTFORD SAMPLES
Sampling Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Sites Abbr. 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19
Influent INF 401 411 42l—QC Influent
Tap TAP 402 422 Tap
Franklin FAP 403 412 423 Old Residential,
Victoria VIC Combined Sewers
Hillside HSA 404 413 424—QC Old Residential,
Sanitary Sewers
Clover CLD 405 414 425 Commercial,
Potter POT 406—QC 415 426 Downtown, Combined
Sewers
Seneca SEN 407 416—QC 427 Commercial, Sanitary
Sewers
Wintonbury Tap WBT 408 428 Tap
Tunxis TUN 409 417 429 New Residential, Sanitary
Maple MAP Sewers with PVC pipe
Brentwood BWD 410—QC 418 430 New Residential, Sanitary
Sewers, Asbestos—cement
pipe
Field Blank 13 FB 13 419 Field Blank
Field Blank 24 F824 420 Field Blank
Total Lab Samples 18 14 18 = 50
QC—Contingency Samples 4 4
Lab Samples less
Contingency Samples 14 14 14 = 42
-------
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
POTW INFLUENT
SAMPLE NUMBER 401 411 j 421 IAv iI1
112.
Trans—1,2--dichloroethylene
V
1
113.
Chloroform
4
4
3
3.6
114.
1 ,2—Dichloroethane
—
—
—
—
115,
1,1,1—Trichloroethane —
10
13
8
10.3
117.
Bromodithloromethane
—
—
—
120.
Tnchloroethylene
8
16
2
8.4
121.
Benzene
—
—
—
—
127.
1 ,1,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
42
30
8
26.2
128.
Toluene
7
34
7
15.6
130.
Ethyl benzene -
—
—
—
—
203.
Phenol
—
—
—
207.
4—Chloro—3—Cresol
11
3.7
301
Dichlorobenzenes
15
10
15
13.4
310.
Nitrobenzene
—
—
—
312.
1,2,4—Trichlorobenzene
—
—
—
—
315.
Naphthalene
326.
D ethy phthaIate
11
—
—
3.6
331.
Arithracene/Phenanthrene
333.
Di—n—butyl phthalate
—
12
4. 2
334.
Fluoranthene
—
337.
Butyl benzyl phthalate
338.
Bis (2—ethyl hexyl) phthalate
—
—
—
—
502.
Arsenic
3
3
—
1.9
504.
Cadmium
—
—
-
—
505.
Chromium
64
86
48
65.4
506.
Copper
96
130
67
96.6
507.
Lead
30
32
44
35.6
508.
Manganese
170
160
145
158
509.
Mercury
510.
Nickel
52
35
19
35.0
511.
Selenium
612.
Silver
7
3
—
3.3
514,
Zinc
180
120
170
157
601.
Total Cyanides
12
—
—
4.0
602.
TotalPhenols
52
49
56
52.5
D—3
-------
CLASSICAL PARAMETERS ANALYSIS
POTW INFLIJENT
SAMPLE NUMBER
401
411
421
Avg.
pH
6.5
6.8
6.6
6.6
T(°C)
20.8
20.7
20.5
20.7
Ammonia
9.0
11
8.4
9.4
Oil and Grease
50
65
37
TSS
85
65
80
77
TOC
50
32
45
43
COD
280
100
190
191
800
70
75
60
68
D-4
-------
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
TAP 1
SAMF LE NUMBER 402 422 I Avg.
112. Trans—i ,2—dichloroethylene
113 Chloroform
114. 1 .2—Dichloroethane
115. 1.1,1 —Truchloroethane
117. Bromodichloromethane
120. Truchloroethylene
121 Beniene
127. 1 ,1.2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
128. Toluene
130. Ethyl benzene
203. Phenol
207. 4—Ch loro--3—Cresol
301 Dichlorobenzenes
310 Nitrobenzene
312. 1 ,2 ,4—Trichlorobenzene
315. Naphthalene
326. Duethyl phthalate
331. Anthracene/Phenanthrene
333. Du—n—butyl phthalate
334. Fluoranthene
337. Butyl benzyl phthatate
338. Bus (2—ethyl hexyl) phthalate
502. Arsenic
504. Cadmium
505. Chromium
506. Copper
507 Lead
508. Manganese
509. Mercury
510. Nickel
51 1. Selenium
512. Silver
514. Zinc
601. Total Cyanides
602. Total Phenols
D- 5
-------
CLASSICAL PARMIETERS ANALYSIS
TAP 1
SAMPLE NUMBER
402
422
Avg.
pH
6.3
6.6
6.4
T(°Cj
20.8
20.2
20.5
Ammonia
1.0
.05
0.5
Oil and Grease
TSS
-
—
-
TOC
—
1
0.5
COD
-
-
-
BOD
-
-
D- 6
-------
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
FRANKLIN
SAMPLE NUMBER 403 412 423 Avg.
112 Trans—i ,2—dichloroethylene
—
—
—
[
—
113 Chloroform
3
4
3
33
114. 1 ,2—Dichloroethane
115 1,1,1 —Trichloroethane
—
I
—
117. Bromodichloromethane
—
120. Trichloroethylene
—
—
—
121 Benzene
—
—
—
—
127. 1 1,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
5
5
2
3.9
128 Toluene
3
3
1.9
130. Ethyl benzene
—
—
—
—
203 Phenol
—
—
—
—
207 4—Chloro—3—Cresol
—
—
—
301 D,chlorobenzenes
310 Nitrobenzene
—
—
312. 1 2,4—Trichlorobenzene
—
10
—
3.3
315 Naphthalene
18
—
5.3
326, Dsethyl phthalate
—
—
—
—
331 Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
—
333 Di—n—butyl phthalate
—
—
—
334 Fluoranthene
337 Butyl benzyl phthalate
338 Bis (2—ethyl hexyl) phthalate
—
—
—
—
502 Arsenic
—
—
—
504 Cadmium
I
—
—
505 Chromium
I
190
—
84.0
506 Copper
54
91
74.8
507 Lead
p
i-1
29
57
44.8
508. Manganese
80
78
78.9
509 Mercury
. 1.
510 Nickel
r
6
2.8
511. Selenium
i
—
—
—
512. Silver
I
514 Zinc
‘
88
110
100
601. Total Cyanides
602. TotaiPhenols
45
50
30
40.9
D— 7
-------
CLASSICAL PARANETER ANALYSIS
FRANKLIN
SAMPLE NUMBER
403
412
423
Avg.
pH
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.6
T(°C)
17.6
17.8
19.7
18.4
Ammonia
3.5
7.0
4.0
4.7
Oil and Grease
50*
20*
30*
34
TSS
35
75
30
45
TOC
49
52
39
46
coo
180
210
130
170
BOO
45
115
30
60
*
Based on average of Franklin and Victoria samples.
D—8
-------
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
HILLSIDE
[
SAMPLE NUMBER 404 413 424 j Avg
112.
Trans—1,2—dichloroethylene
—
—
—
—
113
Ch’oroform
3
5
•
6
4.6
114.
1 ,2—Dichloroethane
—
115.
1 ,1 ,1—Trichloroethane
3
—
0.9
117.
Bromodichloromethane
—
—
120.
Trichloroethylene
121.
Benzene
—
—
—
—
127.
1,1 ,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
3
2
1.6
128
Toluene
—
130
Ethyl benzene
203.
Phenol
207.
4—Chloro—3—Cresol
301
Dichlorobenzenes
—
310
N,trobenzene
—
—
—
—
312.
1,2 ,4—Trichlorobenzene
—
315.
Naphthalene
—
—
—
—
326.
Diethyl phthalate
—
—
331.
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
—
333
Di—n—butyl phthalate
—
—
—
—
334.
Fluoranthene
337.
Butyl benzyl phthalate
338.
Bis (2—ethyl hexyl) phthalate
—
—
502.
Arsenic
—
—
—
—
504.
Cadmium
505.
Chromium
—
—
40
13.3
506.
Copper
22
38
65
41.1
507
Lead
—
17
—
5.2
508.
Manganese
215
190
190
199
509.
Mercury
—
—
—
—
510.
Nickel
—
—
—
—
511.
Selenium
2
—
—
0.7
512
Silver
—
—
—
514.
Zinc
37
59
55
49.6
601.
Total Cyanides
—
—
—
—
602.
Total Phenols
31
19
15
22.1
D—9
-------
CLASSICAL WASTEWATER PARANETER ANALYSIS
HILLSIDE
SAMPLE NUMBER
404
413
424
Avg.
pH
6.5
6.6
6.0
6.4
T(°C)
16.3
16.4
18.3
17
Ammonia
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Oil and Grease
20
15
10
15
TSS
20
20
15
18
TOC
23
33
34
30
COD
90
120
130
112
BOO
10
20
20
16
D—10
-------
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
CLOVER
SAMPLE NUMBER
j 405 j j 414 425 I I I Av
112.
Trans—1,2--dichloroethylene
—
—
—
—
113.
Chloroform
12
8
9.0
114.
1 ,2—Dichloroethane
115.
1,1,1 —Trichloroethane
117.
Bromodichloromethane
120.
Trichloroethylene
—
—
121
Benzene
—
—
—
—
127.
1 ,1 .2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
10
9
—
6.3
128
Toluene
14
4
—
6.0
130.
Ethyl benzene
—
2
—
0.7
203.
Phenol
14
16
11
13.7
207
4.—Chloro—3—Cresol
301.
Dgchlorobenienes
310.
Nitrobenzene
312.
1,2 ,4—Trichlorobenzene
—
—
—
—
315.
Naphthalene
—
—
—
—
326.
Diethyl phthalate
—
—
—
331.
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
333.
Di—n—butyl phthalate
28
13
11
17.3
334.
Fluoranthene
—
—
—
—
337.
Butyl benzyl phthalate
11
26
12 . 3
338.
Bis (2—ethyl hexyl) phthalate
—
—
—
—
502.
Arsenic
504.
Cadmium
—
—
—
—
505.
Chromium
—
—
—
—
506.
Copper
80
105
100
95.1
507.
Lead
24
29
21
24.7
508.
Manganese
33
24
18
25.0
509.
Mercury
—
510.
Nickel
19
—
—
6.3
511.
Selenium
512.
Silver
—
—
—
514.
Zinc
240
320
95
218
601.
Total Cyanides
602.
Total Phenols
45
32
39
38 .6
D— 11
-------
CLASSICAL WASTEWATER PARAMETER ANALYSIS
CLOVER
SAMPLE NUMBER
405
414
425
Avg.
pH
6.6
6.3
6.3
6.4
T( 0 C)
22.9
23.0
20.0
15.9
Ammonia
7.7
7.8
7.1
7.5
Oil and Grease
80
240
55
125
TSS
215
95
210
173
TOC
200
170
170
180
COD
920
960
880
920
BOO
515
85
455
351
D— 12
-------
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
POTTER
SAMPLE NUMBER
406 I 4151 I Avg.
112
Trans—i .2—dichioroethylene
—
—
—
113.
Chloroform
5
4
4
4•3
114.
1,2—Dichloroethane
115.
1,1 ,1—Trichloroethane
12
5
7.1
117
Bromodichloromethane
120
Trichloroethylene
1
—
0.3
121
Benzene
—
127.
1,1,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
53
22
6
25.0
128
Toluene
1
11
10
7.5
130.
Ethyl benzene
—
2
—
0.6
203.
Phenol
207
4—Chloro—3—Cresol
—
—
—
301
Dichlorobenzenes
11
11
—
6.6
310
Nitrobenzene
—
312
1,2,4—Trichlorobenzene
11
—
—
3.7
315
Naphthalene
10
—
—
—
3. 1
—
326.
Diethyl phthalate
—
—
331.
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
—
333.
Di—n—butyl phthalate
—
—
—
—
334
Fluoranthene
—
—
—
—
337.
Butyl benzyl phthalate
15
—
—
4.6
338
Bis (2—ethyl hexyl) phthalate
14
—
—
4.3
502.
Arsenic
—
—
3
—
1.2
504.
Cadmium
—
4
—
1.2
505.
Chromium
150
78
37
83.5
506.
Copper
69
82
120
93.3
507
Lead
30
32
100
58.7
508.
Manganese
140
120
130
130
509.
Mercury
—
—
—
—
510.
Nickel
40
52
23
36.7
511.
Selenium
—
—
—
—
512.
Silver
NA
NA
NA
514
Zinc
160
170
210
183
601
Total Cyanides
—
—
—
—
602.
Total Phenols
26
32
—
17. 3
D—13
-------
CLASSICAL WASTEWATER PARAMETER ANALYSIS
POTTER
SAMPLE NUMBER
406
415
426
Avg.
pH
6.6
6.2
6.4
6.4
T(°C)
19.8
20.3
21.3
20.5
Ammonia
7.8
10
5.8
7.6
Oil and Grease
40
400
25
140
TSS
60
70
45
57
TOC
49
67
53
56
coo
240
340
260
277
BOO
80
95
55
74
D— 14
-------
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
SENECA
[
SAMPLE NUMBER 1 407 416 427 Avg. 1
112
Trans—1,2—dichloroethylene
2
——
—
1
0.7
113
Chloroform
3
7
5
5.1
114
1,2—Dichloroethane
3
1.0
115
1,1,1 —Trichloroethane
117.
Bromodichloromethane
—
—
—
—
120.
Trichloroethylene
121
Benzene
—
19
—
6.2
127.
1,1,2 ,2—Tetrachloroethylene
8
33
13
18.0
128
Toluene
38
—
12.4
130
Ethylbenzene
—
3
—
1.0
203
Phenol
207
4—Chloro—3--Cresol
—
—
—
—
301
Dichlorobenzenes
—
—
—
—
310
N,trobenzene
—
—
—
312
1,2 ,4—Trichlorobenzene
—
—
—
—
315
Naphthalene
—
—
326
Diethyl phthalate
—
—
—
—
331
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
—
333,
D,—n—butyl phthalate
—
—
—
—
334
Fluoranthene
—
—
337.
Butyl benzyl phthalate
—
11
—
3.6
338
Bis (2—ethyl hexyl) phthalate
—
—
—
—
37
502
Arsenic
4
3
4
504
Cadmium
505
Chromium
—
—
35
13.1
506.
Copper
69
49
82
67.3
507
Lead
—
17
—
5.6
508.
Manganese
410
290
310
333
509
Mercury
9
2. 7
510
Nickel
io
—
6
5.2
511
Selenium
2
—
0.6
512.
Silver
7
2
2
3.5
514
Zinc
80
51
96
76.5
601.
Total Cyanides
602.
Total Phenols
36
38
106
62. 9
D— 15
-------
CLASSICAL WASTEWATER PARAMETER ANALYSIS
SENECA
SAMPLE NUMBER
407
416
427
Avg.
pH
6.2
6.1
6.5
6.3
T(°C)
19.8
21.5
21.4
20.9
Ammonia
10
9.5
8.2
9.2
Oil and Grease
30
15
15
20
TSS
115
45
35
62
TOC
84
64
72
73
COD
480
250
260
322
BOD
145
90
75
101
D—16
-------
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
TAP 2
SAMF’LE NUMBER 408 428 1 I IAv 1
112 Trans—1,2--dichloroethylene
—
—
113 Chloroform
28
29
28.5
114. 1,2—Dichloroetharie
—
115 1,1,1 —Trichloroethane
—
—
—
117. Bromodichloromethane
5
5
5• 0
120. Tnchloroethylene
—
—
—
121 Berizene
—
—
—
127. 1,1,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
—
—
—
128 Toluene
— 1
130 Ethyl benzene
—
—
203. Phenol
207 4—Chloro—3—Cresol
—
—
301 Dichlorobenzenes
—
—
—
310 Nitrobenzene
—
—
—
312 1,2,4—Trichlorobenzene
—
—
315. Naphthalene
—
—
—
326 Diethyl phthalate
—
—
—
331 Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
333 Di—n—butyl phthalate
15
—
7. 5
334 Fluoranthene
337 Butyl benzyl phthalate
—
—
338 Bis (2—ethyl hexyl) phthalate
—
—
—
502. Arsenic
—
—
—
504 Cadmium
—
—
—
505. Chromium
—
—
—
506. Copper
18
24
21.0
507 Lead
—
—
—
508. Manganese
12
13
12.5
509 Mercury
510. Nickel
—
—
—
511 Selenium
—
—
—
512 Silver
—
—
—
11.5
514 Zinc
—
23
601 Total Cyanides
—
—
602. Total Phenols
—
—
—
D- 17
1
-------
CLASSICAL WASTEWATER PARAMETER ANALYSIS
TAP 2
SAMPLE NUMBER
408
428
Avg.
pH
5.7
6.3
6.0
T(°C)
18.8
20.0
19.4
Ammonia
—
—
Oil and Grease
—
TSS
—
—
—
TOC
-
-
-
COD
-
-
-
BOD
-
-
-
D—18
-------
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
TUNXIS
SAMPLE NUMBER I 409 j 417 429 1 Avg.
112. Trans—1,2--dichloroethylene
—
—
—
113 Chloroform
—
—
—
—
114. 1,2—Dichloroethane
—
—
115 1,1 ,1—Trichloroethane
117. Bromodichloromethafle
120. Trichloroethylene
—
—
—
—
121. Benzene
127. 1,1 ,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
1
—
—
0. 3
128 Toluene
130. Ethyl benzene
—
—
—
— 1
203. Phenol
—
—
—
207 4—Chloro—3—CresOl
—
—
301 Dichlorobenzenes
—
—
—
—
310 Nitrobenzene
—
—
—
312. 1,2,4—Trichlorobenzene
—
—
—
—
315. Naphthalene
—
—
—
—
326 Diethyl phthalate
331 Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
9
—
3.0
333. Di—n—butylphthalate
42
—
—
14.5
334. Fluoranthene
—
337. Butyl benzyl phthalate
—
—
—
—
338. Bis 2—ethyl hexyl) phthalate -
—
2.5
502. Arsenic
3
5
504. Cadmium
505. Chromium
506. Copper
54
67
63
61.0
507. Lead
18
—
19
13.2
508. Manganese
65
73
56
64.0
509. Mercury
510. Nickel
—
—
—
511. Selenium
—
2
—
0.6
512. Silver
—
—
—
514. Zinc
40
63
61
54.3
601. Total Cyanides
602. Total Phenols
—
—
—
—
D—19
-------
CLASSICAL WASTEWATER PARANETER ANALYSIS
TUNXIS
SAMPLE NUMBER
409
417
429
Avg.
pH
G.4
6.4
6.5
6.4
T(°C)
13.2
14.2
15.4
14.3
Ammonia
6.1
7.6
9.4
7.7
Oil and Grease
45*
12*
2*
20
TSS
25
40
50
39
TOC
79
61
47
62
COD
240
250
180
221
BOO
90
70
65
75
*Based on average of Tunxis and Maple samples.
D- 20
-------
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
BRENTWOOD
SAMPLE NUMBER 410 1418 1 1430 1 1 Avg.
112
Trans—1,2-—dichloroethylene
—
—
—
1
—
113.
Chloroform
2
3
3
2. 7
114
1 ,2—Dichloroethane
I —
115
1,1,1 —Trichloroethane
77
5
I
124. 2
117
Bromodichloromethane
—
—
—
—
120.
Trichloroethylene
—
1
—
121
Benzene
—
—
—
127.
1,1 .2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
2
—
—
0.7
128
Toluene
—
—
—
—
130
Ethyl benzene
203
Phenol
207
4—Chloro—3—Cresol
301
Dichlorobenzenes
—
310
Nitrobenzene
16
—
—
t____
5._3
312
1 ,2,4—Trichlorobenzene
—
I
315.
Naphthalene
—
326.
Diethyl phthalate
14
36
15.0
331
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
—
333.
Di—n—butyl phthalate
—
11
—
3.2
334.
Fluoranthene
5
—
—
1. 7
337
Butyl benzyl phthalate
13
14
—
8. 3
338
Bis (2—ethyl hexyl) phthalate
3.4
13.9
—
67.0
502.
Arsenic
3
3
4
504
Cadmium
48
—
505.
506.
Chromium
Copper
—
81
63
58
507
Lead
22
31
34
1
29.2
508.
Manganese
120
120
120
120
509
Mercury
2
—
—
0. 7
510.
Nickel
—
6
—
1.7
511.
Selenium
512.
Silver
—
—
514.
Zinc
190
87
87
121
601.
Total Cyanides
—
—
602.
Total Phenols
23
27
25
24.9
D- 21
-------
CLASSICAL PARAMETERS ANALYSIS
BRENTWOOD
SAMPLE NUMBER
410
418
430
Avg.
pH
6.5
6.3
6.6
6.5
T(°C)
17.3
19.7
20.2
19.1
Ammonia
13
11
13
12
Oil and Grease
20
10
20
17
TSS
80
475
70
191
TOC
71
55
67
65
COD
320
250
320
300
BOO
90
210
125
138
D— 22
-------
APPENDIX E
ANALYTICAL DATA BY CHEMICAL
This appendix contains the analytical data
for all chemicals that were detected above the
reporting limits. The data are tabulated by
chemical and include source information,
measured concentrations, average concentrations
and percent of samples in which each was observed.
E— 1
-------
112 TRANS—1.2—DICHLOROETHYLENE
SITES
FRANKLIN
o HILLSIDE
U TUNXIS
R BRENTVOOD
C CLOVER
E POTTER
S SENECA
— TAPIATERI
TAP WATER2
INFLUENT
TUE S—WED
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
THUR—FRI
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
AVERAGE
WHEN
SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE
o .o .0
o .o .0
o .o .0
0 .0 .0
o .0 .0
0 .0 .0
o 2.0 .7
o .o .0
o .o .0
0 .0 .0
FRACTION
PRE SENT
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
• 33
.00
.00
.00
113 CHLOROFORM
S
0
Li
R
C
E
S
FRANKL IN
HILLSIDE
TUN XIS
BRENT WOOD
CLOVER
POTTER
SENECA
TAP WATER 1
TAP WATER2
INFLUENT
114 1,2—DICHLOROETHANE
SITES
FRANKLIN
O HILLSIDE
U TUNXIS
R ORENTWOOD
C CLOVER
E POTTER
S SENECA
— TAPIATERI
TAP WATER2
I NFLUENT
THUR—FRI
4
5
0
3
12
4
7
TUES—WED THUR—FRI
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
AVERAGE
WHEN
SAT—SUN PRESENT
3 3.3
6 4.7
0 .0
3 2.7
8 9.0
4 4.3
5 5.0
24 24.0
29 28.5
3 3.7
AVERAGE
WHEN
SAT—SUN PRESENT
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
0 3.0
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
SITES
TUE S—WED
3
3
0
2
7
5
3
24
28
4
4
AVERAGE
3.3
4.7
.0
2.7
9.0
4.3
5.0
24.0
28.5
3.7
AVERAGE
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
.0
.0
.0
FRACTION
PRE SENT
1.00
1 • 00
.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FRACTION
PRE SENT
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.33
.00
.00
.00
-------
115 1.1.1—TRICHLORQETHAPIE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES— WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRA KLLN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .30
o HILLSIDE 0 3 0 3.0 1.0 .33
U TUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R RENTWOOD 0 77 5 41.0 27.3 .67
CCLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E POTTER 5 12 5 7.3 7.3 1.00
S SENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAPWATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 10 13 8 10.3 10.3 1.00
1 17 8ROMOOICHLOROMETHANE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN. FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRAP4KLIN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
O HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U TUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R URENTWOOD 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
CCLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E POTTER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
SSENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAPWATER1 7 3 5.0 5.0 1.00
TAPWATER2 5 5 5.0 5.0 1.00
INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
120 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
A VERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRAI KL1 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
O HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U TUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DRENTW000 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
CCLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
EPOTTER 0 1 0 1.0 .3 .33
S SENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAPWATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWAIER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INELUENT 8 16 2 8.7 8.7 1.00
-------
121 BENZENE AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRAPiKLIN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
O HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
UTUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R BRENTWOOD 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
CCLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E POTTER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S SENECA - 0 19 0 19.0 6.3 .33
— TAP ATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPIATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
127 1 .1.2.2—TETRACHLOROETHYLEN
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
— TUES— WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
S FRANKLIN 5 5 2 4.0 4.0 1.00
0 HILLSIDE 0 3 2 2.5 1.7 .67
UTUNXIS 1 0 0 1.0 .3 .33
R BRENTWOOD 2 0 0 2.0 .7 .33
C CLOVER 10 9 0 9.5 6.3 .67
E POTTER 53 22 6 27.0 27.0 1.00
S SENECA 8 33 13 18.0 18.0 1.00
— TAP ATER1 0- 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 42 30 8 26.7 26.7 1.00
128 TOLUENE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
— TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
S FRANKLIN 3 3 0 3.0 2.0 .67
o HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
UTUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R RENTWOOD 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
C CLOVER 14 4 0 9.0 6.0 .67
E POTTER 1 11 10 7.3 7.3 1.00
S SENECA 0 38 0 38.0 12.7 .33
— TAPWATERI 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 7 34 7 16.0 16.0 1.00
-------
130 ETHYL eENZENE
SITES
S FRANKLIN
O HILLSIDE
U TUNXIS
R BRENTW000
C CLOVER
E POTTER
S SENECA
— TAPWATERL
TAP WATER2
INFLUENT
TUE S—WED
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
THUR—FR I
0
0
0
0
2
2
3
0
AVERAGE
WHEN
SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE
o .o .0
0 .0 .0
0 .0 .0
0 .0 .0
0 2.0 .7
0 2.0 .7
0 3.0 1.0
0 .0 .0
0 .0 .0
0 .0 .0
FRACT ION
PRE SENT
.00
.00
.00
.00
.33
.33
.33
.00
.00
.00
-------
203 PHENOL
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES— WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
O HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U TUNAIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R 6RENTW000 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
C CLOVER 14 16 11 13.7 13.7 1.00
EPOTIER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S SENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAP ATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP ATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
207 4—CHLORO—3—CRESOL
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
t OHILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
a’ UTUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R 6RENTW000 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
CCLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E POTTER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
SSENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAP ATER 1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 11 0 0 11.0 3.7 .33
-------
301 DICHLOR0 ENZENES
A VERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
O HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U TUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R BRENTI000 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
C CLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E POTTER 11 11 0 11.0 7.3 •67
S SENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAPIATERI 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPUATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 15 10 15 13.3 13.3 1.00
310 NITRO8ENZENE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
O HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
UTUNXLS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R 8RENTW000 16 0 0 16.0 5.3 .33
CCLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E POTTER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S SENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAPWATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
312 1,2,4—TRICHLOROBENZENE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 0 10 0 10.0 3.3 .33
O HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U TUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
H BRENTW000 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
CCLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E POTTER 11 0 0 11.0 3.7 .33
S SENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAPWATERI 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPIATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
-------
315 NAPHTHALENE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 0 18 0 18.0 6.0 .33
O HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U TUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R BRENTW000 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
CCLO ER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E POTTER 10 0 0 10.0 3.3 .33
S SENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAPIAJER 1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPIATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
326 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES— WEO THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
O HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
UTUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R 8RENTW000 14 36 0 25.0 16.7 .67
CCLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E POTTER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S SENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAP ATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
,IIIFLUENT 11 0 0 11.0 3.7 .33
331 ANTHRACENE/PHENANTHRENE
A VERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR-FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
O HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U TUNXIS 0 9 0 9.0 3.0 .33
R 8RENTW000 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
C CLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
EPOTTER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S SENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAPWATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
-------
333 DL—N—BUTYL PHTHAL.ATE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
o HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U TUNXIS 42 0 0 42.0 14.0 .33
R aRENTW000 0 11 0 11.0 3.7 .33
C CLOVER 28 13 11 17.3 17.3 1.00
E POTTER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S SENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAPIATERI 0 0 .0 .0 300
TAP ATER2 15 0 15.0 7.5 .50
INFLUENT 0 0 12 12.0 4.0 .33
334 FLUORANTHENE
A VERA GE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLiN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
o HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U TUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R BRENTI000 5 0 0 5.0 1.7 .33
CCLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
EPOTTER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
SSENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAP.ATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
337 BUTYL 8ENZYL PHTHALATE
SITES AVERAGE
WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLI ,g 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
o HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U TUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R 8RENTW 000 13 14 0 13.5 9.0 .67
C CLOVER 11 26 0 18.5 12.3 .67
E POTTER 15 0 0 15.0 5.0 .33
S SENECA 0 ii 0 11.0 3.7 .33
— TAPWATER 1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
-------
0
338 8 15(2-ETHVLI€XYL)PHTHALATE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
0 HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
UTUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R URENTWOUO 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
CCLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E POTTER 14 0 0 14.0 4.7 .33
S SENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAPWATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP ATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
-------
502 ARSENIC
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
O HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U ruNxls 3 5 0 4.0 2.7 .67
R 8RENTWOCD 3 3 4 3.3 3.3 1.00
CCLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E POTTER 0 0 3 3.0 1.0 .33
S SENECA 4 3 4 37 37 1.00
— TAPWATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP ATER2 0 0 .0 .0 00
INFLUENT 3 3 0 3.0 2.0 .67
504 CADMIUM
AVER AGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
o HILLSIDE 0 0 0 ‘.0 .0 .00
UTUNXLS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R URENTWOOD 0 48 0 48.0 16.0 .33
C CLO.VER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E POTTER 0 4 0 4.0 1.3 .33
S SENECA 0 0 0 .0 ’ .0 .00
— TAPWATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
505 CHROMIUM
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 84 190 0 137.0 91.3 .67
O HILLSIDE 0 0 40 40.0 13.3 .33
U TUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R ORENTWOCD 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
CCLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E PUTTER 150 78 37 88.3 88.3 1.00
S SENECA 0 0 35 35.0 11.7 .33
— TAPWATERI 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 64 86 48 66.0 66.0 1.00
-------
506 COPPER
SITES
FRANKLIN
o HILLSIDE
U TUNX IS
R BRENIW000
C CLOVER
E POTTER
S SENECA
— TAPIATERI
TAP WATER2
I NFLUENT
507 LEAD
FRANKLIN
o HILLSIDE
U TUNXIS
R BRENIWOOD
C CLOVER
E POTTER
S SENECA
— TAPWATER I
TAP WATER2
INFLUENT
TUE S— WED
75
22
54
81
80
69
69
75
18
96
THUR—FRI
54
38
67
63
105
82
49
TUES—WED THUR—FRI
45 29
0 17
18 0
22 31
24 29
30 32
0 17
0
0
30 32
A VERAGE
WHEN
SAT—SUN PRESENT
91 73.3
65 41.7
63 61.3
58 67.3
100 95.0
120 90.3
82 66.7
110 92.5
24 21.0
67 97.7
A VERAGE
WHEN
SAT—SUN PRESENT
57 43.7
0 17.0
19 18.5
34 29.0
21 24.7
100 54.0
0 17.0
0 .0
0 .0
44 35.3
SITES
130
t;i
I - .
AVERAGE
73.3
41.7
61.3
67.3
95.0
90.3
66.7
92.5
21.0
97.7
AVERAGE
43.7
5.7
12.3
29.0
24.7
54.0
5.7
.0
.0
35.3
AVERAGE
79 • 0
198.3
64.7
120.0
25.0
130.0
336.7
.0
12.5
158.3
FRACTION
PRE SENT
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
I • 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FRACTION
PRESENT
1.00
.33
.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
.33
.00
.00
1.00
FRACTION
PRESENT
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
.00
1.00
1.00
508 MANGANESE
SITES
FRANKLIN
O HILLSIDE
U TUNXIS
R BRENTW000
C CLOVER
E POTTER
S SENECA
— TAPWATERI
TAPWATER2
I NFL UENT
TUES—WED
79
215
65
120
33
140
410
0
12
170
THUR-FRI
80
190
73
120
24
120
290
160
SAT—SUN
78
190
56
120
18
130
310
0
13
145
A VERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
79 • 0
198.3
64.7
120.0
25.0
130.0
336.7
.0
12.5
158.3
-------
509 MERCURY
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
O HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U TUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R URENTWOOD 2 0 0 2.0 .7 .33
CCLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E POTTER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S SENECA 9 0 0 9.0 3.0 .33
— TAPWATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
510 NICKEL
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 3 6 0 4.5 3.0 .67
O HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
UTUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R BRENTW000 0 6 0 6.0 2.0 .33
C CLOVER 19 0 0 19.0 6.3 .33
E POTTER 40 52 23 38.3 38.3 1.00
$ SENECA 10 0 6 8.0 .5.3 .67
— TAPWATERI 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 52 35 19 35.3 35.3 1.00
511 SELENIUM
AVER AGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
O HILLSIDE 2 0 0 2.0 .7 .33
UTUNXIS 0 2 0 2.0 .7 .33
R BRENTWOOD 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
CCLOVER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E POTTER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S SENECA 2 0 0 2.0 .7 .33
— TAP ATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
-------
512 SILVER
SI TES
FRANKLIN
O HILLSIDE
U TUNXIS
R BRENTW000
C CLOVER
E POTTER
S SENECA
— TAPWATERI
TAP WATER2
I NFLUENT
TUES— WED
0
0
0
0
0
—L
7
0
0
7
THUR—FRI
0
0
0
0
0
—L
2
AVERAGE
WHEN
SAT—SUN PRESENT
o .0
o .0
o .0
o .0
o .0
—1 —3.0
2 3.7
0 .0
0 .0
0 5.0
514 ZINC
SITES
FRANKLIN
o HILLSIDE
U TUNXIS
R 8RENT OQD
C CLOVER
E POTTER
S SENECA
— TAPWATER1
TAP WATER2
INFLUENT
3
THUR—FRI
88
59
63
87
320
170
51
120
rUES—WED
100
37
40
190
240
160
80
11
0
180
AVERAGE
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
—1.0
3.7
.0
.0
3.3
AVERAGE
99.3
50.3
54.7
121.3
218.3
180.0
75.7
20.0
1 1 .5
156.7
FRACTION
PRE SENT
000
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1 .00
.00
.00
.67
FRACT ION
PRESENT
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
.50
1 • 00
SAT—SUN
110
55
61
87
95
210
96
29
23
170
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRE SENT
99.3
50.3
54.7
121.3
218.3
180.0
75 • 7
20.0
23 • 0
156.7
-------
601 TOTAL CYANIDES
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKL.LN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
O HILLSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
UTUNXIS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DRENT W000 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
CCLO ER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
EPOTTER 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S SENECA 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— TAPWATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 12 0 0 12.0 4.0 .33
602 TOTAL PHENOLS
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES— WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 45 50 30 41.7 41.7 1.00
O HILLSIDE 31 19 15 21.7 21.7 1.00
U TUNX’IS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R BRENTWOOD 23 27 25 25.0 25.0 1.00
C CLOVER 45 32 39 38.7 38.7 1.00
E POTTER 26 32 0 29.0 19.3 .67
S SENECA 36 38 106 60.0 60.0 1.00
— TAP*ATER1 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
LIFLUENT 52 49 56 52.3 52.3 1.00
-------
701 PH
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 7 7 7 6.6 6.6 1.00
0 HILLSIDE 7 7 6 6.4 6.4 1.00
U TUNXLS 6 6 7 6.4 6.4 1.00
R 8RENTWOOD 7 6 7 6.5 6.5 1.00
C CLOVER 7 6 6 6.4 6.4 1.00
E POTTER 7 6 6 6.4 6.4 1.00
S SENECA 6 6 7 6.3 6.3 1.00
— TAPWATER1 6 7 6.4 6.4 1.00
TAPWATER2 6 6 6.0 6.0 1.00
INFLUENT 7 7 7 6.6 6.6 1.00
702 T( C)
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES— WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 18 18 20 18.4 18.4 1.00
-0 HILLSIDE 16 16 18 17.0 17.0 1.00
t n U TUNXIS 13 14 15 14.3 14.3 1.00
R 8RENTWOCO 11 20 20 19.1 19.1 1.00
0 ’ C CLOVER 23 23 20 22.0 22.0 1.00
E POTTER 20 20 21 20.5 20.5 1.00
S SENECA 20 22 21 20.9 20.9 1.00
— TAPWATER1 21 20 20.5 20.5 1.00
TAPWATER2 19 20 19.4 19.4 1.00
INFLUENT 21 21 21 20.7 20.7 1.00
703 ANMONIA
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES— WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 4 7 4 4.8 4.8 1.00
0 HILLSIDE 3 3 3 2.5 2.5 1.00
U TUNXIS 6 8 9 7.7 7.7 1.00
R BRENIW000 13 11 13 12.3 12.3 1.00
C CLOVER 8 8 7 7.5 7.5 1.00
E POTTER 8 10 6 7.9 7.9 1.00
S SENECA 10 10 8 9.2 9.2 1.00
— TAPWATERI 1 0 •5 5 1.00
TAPIATER2 0 0 •t •0 •50
INFLUENT 9 11 8 9.5 9.5 1.00
-------
704 OIL AND GREASE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES-WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLII 50 20 30 33.3 33.3 1.00
C HILLSIDE 20 15 10 15.0 15.0 1.00
U TUNXIS 45 12 2 19.7 19.7 1.00
R 8RENTW000 20 10 20 16.7 16.7 1.00
C CLOVER 80 240 55 125.0 125.0 1.00
E POTTER 40 400 25 155.0 155.0 1.00
S SENECA 30 15 15 20.0 20.0 1.00
— TAPWATERI 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPIATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 50 65 0 57.5 38.3 .67
705 TSS
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 35 75 30 46.7 46.7 1.00
O HILLSIDE 20 20 15 18.3 18.3 1.00
U TUNXIS 25 40 50 38.3 38.3 1.00
R ORENTW000 80 475 70 208.3 208.3 1.00
C CLOVER 215 95 210 173.3 173.3 1.00
E POTTER 60 70 45 58.3 58.3 1.00
S SENECA 115 45 35 65.0 65.0 1.00
— TAPWATERI 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 85 65 80 76.7 76.7 1.00
706 ICC
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 49 52 39 46.7 46.7 1.00
O HILLSIDE 23 33 34 30.0 30.0 1.00
U TUNAIS 79 61 47 62.3 62.3 1.00
R 8RENTW000 71 55 67 64.3 64.3 1.00
C CLOVER 200 170 170 180.0 180.0 1.00
E POTTER 49 67 53 56.3 56.3 1.00
S SENECA 84 64 72 73.3 73.3 1.00
— TAPIATERI 0 1 1.0 .5 .50
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 50 32 45 42.3 42.3 1.00
-------
707 COD
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES-aED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 180 210 130 173.3 113.3 1.00
0 HILLSIDE 90 120 130 113.3 113.3 1.00
U TUNXIS 240 250 180 223.3 223.3 1.00
R aI ENTW0OO 320 250 320 296.7 296.7 1.00
C CLOVER 920 960 880 920.0 920.0 1.00
E POTTER 240 340 260 280.0 280.0 1.00
S SENECA 480 250 260 330.0 330.0 1.00
— TAPWATERI 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAPWATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 280 100 190 190.0 190.0 1.00
706 600
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TUES—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
FRANKLIN 45 115 30 63.3 63.3 1.00
0 HILLSIDE 10 20 20 16.7 16.7 1.00
U TUNXIS 90 70 65 75.0 75.0 1.00
R BRENTW000 90 210 125 141.7 141.7 1.00
C CLOVER 515 85 455 351.7 351.7 1.00
E POTTER 80 95 55 76.7 76.7 1.00
S SENECA 145 90 75 103.3 103.3 1.00
— TAPWATERI 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER2 0 0 .0 .0 .00
INFLUENT 70 75 60 68.3 68.3 1.00
-------
APPENDIX F
DATA FOR RAIN SAMPLES
This appendix contains the results of the
chemical analysis of samples collected during
periods of rain at Franklin and Potter (combined
sewers) and at the POTW influent.
F—i
-------
Table F—i
DATA FOR RAIN SAMPLES
Franklin
Sampling Time (8/18—19/79) 1300 1700 2100 0100 0500
Measured Flow Rate, Lps 288 619 574 252 229
Precipitation,* inches .04 .36 .12 .10 .05
Concentration Data, pg/L
Chromium 12 6 5 5 5
Copper 110 68 56 63 140
Lead 49 45 54 94 30
Manganese 140 95 56 81 110
Nickel 14 8 8 10 9
Zinc 220 145 110 120 130
*
Measurements taken at Bradley International Airport.
F-2
-------
Table F—2
DATA FOR RAIN SAMPLES
Potter
Sampling Time (8/18—19/79) 1115 1515 1915 2315 0315 0715
Measured Flow Rate, Lps 665 1405 1414 875 850 460
*
Precipitation, Inches <.01 .22 .30 .05 .10 <.01
Concentration Data, itgIL
Chromium 45 69 25 24 23 5
Copper 70 170 75 110 140 88
Lead 41 320 49 45 76 8
Manganese 115 160 110 120 120 210
Nickel 13 26 13 9 7 5
Zinc 142 510 160 110 120 110
*
Measurements taken at Bradley International Airport.
F—3
-------
Table F—3
DATA FOR RAIN SMIPLES
POTW Influent
Sampling Time (8/18—19/79) 1200 1600 2000 0000 0400 0800
Measured Flow Rate, Lps 2672 3329 3198 2803 2672 2124
*
Precipitation, Inches .02 .30 .20 .06 .09 <.01
Concentration Data, pg/L
Chromium 50 43 30 39 36 29
Copper 86 100 73 53 43 31
Lead 87 80 10 50 45 31
Manganese 190 130 100 150 170 200
Nickel 13 110 17 11 12 9
Zinc 210 250 110 79 71 45
*
Measurements taken at Bradley International Airport.
1—4
-------
A
Arthur D Little, Inc
CAMBRIDGE,
MASSACHUSEUS
SAN FRANCISCO
WASHINGTON
ATHENS
BRUSSELS
LONDON
MADRID
PARIS
RIO DE JANEIRO
SÃO PAULO
TOKYO
TORONTO
WIIESBADEN
------- |