SourcesÂ ofÂ ToxicÂ PollutantsÂ FoundÂ inÂ InfluentsÂ to Sewage Treatment Plants : IV, R.M. Clayton Drainage Basin, Atlanta, Georgia


Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents
          to Sewage Treatment Plants
    IV. R.M. Clayton Drainage Basin, Atlanta, Georgia
                                     /tl Arthur D Little, Inc.

-------
            SOURCES OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS FOUND IN INFLUENTS
                   TO SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

       IV.  R.M. CLAYTON DRAINAGE BASIN, ATLANTA, GEORGIA
                       Final Report On
                      Task Order No. 13
                  EPA Contract No. 68-01-3857
                              by
P. Levins, J. Adams, P. Brenner, S. Coons, 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.
                         October, 1979
                     Report No. ADL 81099-26

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
SU?INARY
INTRODUCTION
R. M. CLAYTON POTW TREATMENT AREA
A. Introduction
B. R. M. Clayton POTW
C. General Description of POTW Area
D. Overall Description of Sampling Sites Within
the R. M. Clayton Treatment Area
1. DeKalb
2. Surrey
3. EnsIgn
4. Northside
5. Lenox
6. Warren
7. DeFoors
8. Sixteenth and Peachtree
IV. SAMPLING PROCEDURE
A. Sample Collection
B. Flow Measurements
V. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
A. Chemical Procedures
1.
2.
Introduction
Modified Procedures
a. Acids and Base/Neutrals — Internal Standards
b. Volatiles
c. Pesticides and PCBs
3. Other Comments
B. Quality Assurance/Quality Control
1. Introduction
2. Program
3. Results
I.
II.
III.
Page
iii
V
vii
1
5
9
9
11
12
12
12
19
19
22
22
25
25
28
31
31
31
37
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
39
39
40
40
I

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
C. Chemical Characterization of Influent Composition 41
VI. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 47
A. Frequency of Observation 47
B. Concentration of Priority Pollutants 55
C. Mass Balance Analysis 61
1. Calculations for Scale Up 61
2. Sources of Pollutants 70
3. Tap Water Contribution 73
D. Review of Unusual Occurrences 75
VII. CONCLUSIONS 77
VIII. REFERENCES 81
APPENDIX A: Details on Sampling Procedures A—i
APPENDIX B: Details on Analytical Methods B—l
APPENDIX C; Acid and Base/Neutral Internal Standards C—i
APPENDIX D: Analytical Data by Site Dl
APPENDIX E: Analytical Data by Chemical E—l
ii

-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page
Population and Housing Summary 15
2 Employment by Major Industry Groups 16
3 Sampling Site Locations and Characteristics 17
4 Summary of Final Sample Fractions and Their
Required Volumes 32
5 Total Theoretical Flow Through Each Sampling
Point in Atlanta 34
6 Summary of Atlanta Flow Values 36
7 Summary of Quality Assurance Data For Atlanta 42
8 POTW Influent Chemical Characterization 46
9 Compounds Not Detected 56
10 Flow—Weighted Averages 57
11 Concentrations by Source Type (Arithmetic Averages) 60
12 Summary of Site Characteristics 64
13 Residential Source Per Capita Values 65
14 Commercial Average Concentrations 66
15 Industrial Average Concentrations 67
16 Mass Balance Analysis 69
17 Sources of Pollutants 71
18 Possible Tap Water Contribution to POTW Influent 74
iii

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Page
1 R. M. Clayton Treatment Area 13
2 R. M. Clayton Treatment Area — Land Use 14
3 DeKaib — Land Use and Streets 18
4 Surrey — Land Use and Streets 20
5 Ensign — Land Use and Streets 21
6 Northside — Land Use and Streets 23
7 Lenox — Land Use and Streets 24
8 Warren — Land Use and Streets 26
9 DeFoors — Land Use and Streets 27
10 Peachtree and Sixteenth — Land Use and Streets 29
11 Reconstructed Gas Chromatogram for Acid/Neutral
Extract 43
12 Reconstructed Gas Chromatogram for the Base/
Neutral Extract 44
13 Overall Frequency of Observation 48
14 Frequency of Detection and Overall Concentration
Comparison so
15 Frequency of Observations in Sources and Influent 53
V

-------
vi

-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to acknowledge the considerable efforts and cooperation of
the many people whose contribution helped in the successful completion
of the work described in this report.
This study was sponsored by the Monitoring and Data Support Division
(MDSD) of the Office of Water Planning and Standards; Mr. Donald Ehreth,
Project Officer. The study was directed by Mr. Michael A. Callahan whose
guidance was significant in formulating the approach for this work. The
contributions of Mr. Roderick Frederick, Mr. Philip Taylor, and Mr. Robert
Greenspun, all of the MDSD, are also acknowledged.
The cooperation of the personnel of the City of Atlanta Department
of Environment and Streets and of the DeKalb County Water and Sewer
Department was invaluable in designing the field plan and obtaining the
supporting data for this study. We wish to thank Mr. George Barnes,
Mr. William Burdett, Mr. Robert Hadden, and Mr. Victor McNeil of the
City of Atlanta and Mr. Robert Alford and Mr. B. C. Veal of the DeKaib
County Water and Sewer Department for their assistance. Mr. Thomas
Leslie of the Atlanta Regional Commission was also helpful in providing
background and demographic data for this study.
We wish particularly to thank the large number of Arthur D. Little,
Inc. staff members who participated in the sampling and analysis team
efforts. Their coumiitment to the program and their extra hours effort
helped make the study a success. The willing cooperation of the corporate
facilities staff also helped considerably with the intense start —up effort
required for this study.
vii

-------
I. SUMMARY
This report represents the third in a series of studies of drainage
basins undertaken to determine the relative importance of major sources
of pollutants found at the irifluent of publicly—owned treatment works
(POTWs). The general categories of residential, commercial, and indus-
trial have been identified as appropriate classifications for this
study. This is the fourth report in the series —— the three previous
reports (with the same overall title as this report) have been published
under the subtitles listed below:
3
Part I: Literature Review
Part II: Muddy Creek Drainage Basin, Cincinnati, Ohio 4
Part III: Coidwater Creek Drainage Basin, St. Louis, Missouri 5
This third study was carried out in the drainage basin of the
R. M. Clayton treatment plant, Atlanta, Georgia. This drainage basin
provided the opportunity tb sample a larger fraction of commercial
activity, including an entire downtown area, and had the largest and
most chemically intensive industrial areas studied to date. The relative
flow from the source types in the basin was:
Residential: 61%
Commercial: 21%
Industrial: 18%
The impact of the industrial activity in this area is clearly observed
in the POTW influent mass loading. The Industrial sources dominate most
pollutants in this basin especially chlorinated organic solvents, some
aromatic hydrocarbons and most metals. Samples (48—hour composites)
were collected from two residential, three industrial, four commercial
sites (including two downtown areas), tap water, and POTW influent.
The quality control program used in the previous cities was retained
for this city. A total of 34 samples, including two field blanks, were
collected for analysis. Samples were analyzed for all priority pollutants
(excluding asbestos) plus manganese, the classical parameters of ammonia,
TSS, TOC, BOD, COD, and oil and grease, as well as pH and temperature.
1

-------
A detailed discussion of the results may be found in Section V I of
this report; some of the observations are summarized here. In the
R. M. Clayton drainage basin, 49 priority pollutants were observed:
35 organics, 11 metals plus manganese, total cyanides and total phenols.
The six classical parameters measured in this study — ammonia, TSS, TOC,
COD, BOD, and oil and grease — were also detected. Eight organics,
seven metals, and total phenols were observed more than 50% of the
time (16 samples); five of the metals were observed 100% of the time.
Two organic pollutants — chloroform and l,l,2,2—tetrach].oroethylene —
were detected in 90—100% of the samples, as they were in St. Louis.
There were five volatile priority pollutants (vinyl chloride,
chioroethane, trichlorofluoromethane, acrylonitrile, l,l,2—trichloro—
ethane) observed in Atlanta for the first time in this study. This is
due to the more industrial nature of the sources, as well as to slight
improvements in the analytical procedures for the gases. There were
77 priority pollutants (including all the pesticides) which were not
detected in any of the samples.
The areas sampled in Atlanta included more industrial activity than
the previous studies as well as an entire downtown area. The large and
complex downtown site turned out to have pollutant levels comparable to
the other commercial averages and the residential values.
The concentration levels for the industrial sites are the highest
seen to date in these studies and are clearly reflected in higher
influent mass loads than seen previously. Most priority pollutants are
observed at their highest levels in the industrial sites; trichloroethylene
is highest in the downtown area; chloroform, pentachiorophenol and silver
are at comparable levels in the downtown, commercial, and industrial sites.
Of the 33 priority pollutants for which d mass balance analysis was
carried out, 17 priority pollutants project a total loading which is
equivalent to the measured POTW influent (within a factor of two), including
nine organics, total phenols, and seven metals. Influerit levels of four
of the classical parameters are also accounted for by the sources. Five
pollutants have projected source levels which are less than the influent
2

-------
and these are all organic chlorinated solvents. Five priority pollutants
(two organics, two metals and total cyanides), COD, and oil and grease
have projected source values greater than observed in the influent.
When compared with the sum (Kg/day) of all the scaled—up sources,
29 pollutant loads appear to be due primarily (more than 50% of the mass)
to industrial sources; only trichioroethylene may be attributed mainly
to coniinercial sources. Manganese, ammonia, and COD are dominated by
the residential sources.
The chemical analysis procedures have been improved for some pollutants.
The internal standard procedure for acid and base/neutral analyses was
changed; the d 10 —anthracene was added to the concentrated extracts, and
four additional standards were added to the samples prior to preparation
as a monitor of total method recoveries. The purge and trap method for
analyzing the volatiles was modified by the addition of charcoal to the
sorberit trap; chioromethane, bromomethane, and vinyl chloride were able
to be measured in the QC samples whereas they were not recovered in the
previous surveys. The pesticide procedure was also expanded by using a
third GC column to corroborate the preliminary identifications.
The quality control program continues to be invaluable in providing
daily checks on the chemical analyses and in establishing the reliability
of the data used for subsequent calculations and projections. Most
recovery values for the QC samples are in the 70% to 100% range, and
the precision is about 10% to 30%.
In Atlanta, one sample of the POTW influent was analyzed to deter-
mine what, other than the list of priority pollutants, were present.
The major chemical classes identified include paraffins, phthalates,
alkylated polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, alkylated phenols, fatty
acids and esters. These compounds and approximate concentration levels
are presented in Section V.
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 bears little
3

-------
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.
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
sewage treatment works (POTWs). In order to supply the necessary basis
for formulating guidelines, the Monitoring and Data Support Division
(MDSD) has sponsored this study of cities across the country. In addi-
tion to assessing the extent to which priority pollutants may enter the
environment via the POTWs, this POTW program is concerned with determin-
ing the sources of those pollutants. The objectives of the POTW source
survey include defining the various types of source categories, describ-
ing 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 be estimated
in such a way as to suggest valid routes to limit 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
program encompass the literature study of existing information on waste—
water treatment and pollutant levels, and the initial two studies which
4
were conducted at the Muddy Creek Drainage Basin in Cincinnati, and
the Coidwater Creek Drainage Basin in St. Louis. 5 A 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 with respect to
the established standards. This report documents the survey conducted
at the R. M. Clayton Drainage Basin in Atlanta. The procedures employed
for the sampling and chemical analysis were generally the same as those
used in the previous studies. Any modification in analytical procedures,
5

-------
as well as the results of the QC program, are detailed in Section V.
The area served by the R. M. Clayton POTW is, for the most part,
of a more industrial nature than the Muddy Creek area in Cincinnati or
the Coidwater Creek area in St. Louis. This basin, therefore, provided
the opportunity to sample a large number of industrial sites in addition
to the residential and commercial sites. The three sites chosen as
representative of the industrial activity in the basin include manufac-
turing, construction, transportation and wholesale establishments.
Samples were collected every four hours at a total of eight (8) locations
in addition to the POTW influent and the tap water source. Three 48—hour
flow—composited samples were produced from these samples for each site.
Descriptions of the individual sampling areas, with respect to their
residential, commercial, and industrial components, are given in Section
III.
This report is restricted to a presentation and discussion of the
Atlanta study. Since this is the third drainage basin to be sampled in
the series, there has been a large amount of data generated on the
pollutants and possible sources of contamination. The data from this
survey at the R. M. Clayton 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 results of this study have been
analyzed in various ways and are presented in Section VI.
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 survey, to develop indices by which the mass load resulting from
residential, commercial, or industrial activities could be determined for
each pollutant. These indices were calculated on a mass per capita basis
for the residential sources and on a concentration basis for the commercial
and industrial sources. In this way, the individual measurements could
be scaled up to estimate the total pollutant load at the POTW influent.
6

-------
Each basin surveyed provides an enormous amount of new information.
In addition to supplying data on a third POTW treatment area, this survey
at the R. M. Clayton basin in Atlanta 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. Being more industrial in nature, the sources
sampled in Atlanta shed some light on types of problems encountered in
attempting to predict a typical industrial contribution to the pollutant
load.
7

-------
III. R. M. CLAYTON POTW TREATMENT AREA
A. Introduction
The R. M. Clayton Drainage Basin was chosen for the third source
sampling study on the basis of the following criteria:
1. Cooperation of the Bureau of Pollution Control,
Atlanta, and other local agencies.
2. Identification of highly concentrated zones of
industrial, commercial and residential (both
new and old) activity.
3. Geographical location of the study to be in the
southeast portion of the United States.
4. Determination of safe and accessible sampling
points.
Arthur D. Little staff first visited the Clayton treatment
plant and toured an area extending north and south from the Clayton
plant and within the city limits of Atlanta. Arthur D. Little staff
met with the following personnel to obtain information on logistics,
space, land use and sewer maps, survey crews, water billing accounts,
etc.:
Mr. George Barnes Director of the Bureau of Pollution
Control, City of Atlanta
Mr. William Burdett Director, Division of Inspection &
Monitoring, City of Atlanta (former)
Mr. Robert Hadden Director, Division of Inspection &
Monitoring, City of Atlanta
Mr. Robert Alford Supervisor of Design & Engineering,
Senior Engineer, DeKaib County Water
and Sewer Department
Unlike the two previous sampling efforts in St. Louis and Cincinnati,
the Clayton drainage basin is not under the jurisdiction of a single
metropolitan sewer district. Four authorities each have partial control
over the basin. Therefore, the acquisition of maps and assistance of
9

-------
survey crews were handled individually with each sewer authority. The
following authorities were contacted: the City of Atlanta, DeKalb County
Water and Sewer Department, Fulton County Department of Public Works,
Cwinett County Department of Public Works. A number of planning agencies
in Atlanta and DeKaib County were also visited to gain information on
the characteristics of the areas to be sampled within the R. M. Clayton
Basin.
Most of the demographic data was obtained from the Atlanta Regional
Commission (ARC) in the City of Atlanta. Data files covered all areas
investigated in our POTW program including the City of Atlanta, DeKaib
County and Fulton County. A number of land—use maps, reports on popula-
tion, housing, employment, area—wide wastewater management plan, etc.,
were obtained. However, the four—digit SIC codes for industrial and
commercial establishments were not avoilable due to the confidentiality
of the data files.
In order to establish the land use and planning information available
in DeKaib County, the staff at the DeKaib County Planning Department were
consulted. A great deal of information was obtained from the Division
Chief of the Property and Mapping Division who is responsible for the
industrial and commercial areas in DeKaib County. They provided detailed
maps with lot counts in the area along with sheets indicating SIC codes,
addresses, lot numbers, and brief descriptions of each industry or
commercial area.
Other visits to obtain demographic data included the DeKaib County
Water and Sewer Department; City of Atlanta, Bureau of Planning; Depart-
ment of Environment and Streets, City of Atlanta; City of Atlanta Water
Bureau.
From the above sources, the following demographic data were summarized
for each sampling site location.
Housing——Number of single family units, number of units in structures
of less than 10 units, number of units in structures of more than 10
units from the 1970 census data.
Population——Population data were estimated by the following procedure.
First, for the entire POTW area, census data were used to estimate
on a block by block basis the population in the treatment area. The
10

-------
1970 population was adjusted to a 1978 value on the basis of a popula-
tion survey done by the Atlanta Regional Commission, “1978 Population
and Housing,” October 1978. For each sampling site a similar process
was used. First, we obtained the 1970 census by comparing census
block areas to sampling areas and adjusting for the population in
those blocks not entirely included in a sampling site. Second, 1970
data were adjusted to 1978 by multiplying the 1970 data by the ratio
of 1978 tract based population divided by 1970 tract based population
for that census tract(s) that correspond to the sampling site. Thus
for all of these cases we have estimated to 1978.
Employment——Employment by major industry (SIC codes) groups for 1970
and 1975, total employment for each site and whole P0 1W area, total
percent change, total number of firms (1975) i i i each site and whole
P0114 area.
Industry——For DeKalb County sampling areas only, we have a breakdown
by SIC code (4 digits) of all industry, commerce, services and public
establishments. For all other sampling areas and total P0114 area,
we have the total number of firms for each (1975).
In the following sections we describe the R. N. Clayton POW area,
the Clayton treatment plant, and then each sampling area. Details of the
sampling plan are presented in Section UT.
B. R. H. Clayton P0114
The R. N. Clayton plant is the largest wastewater plant in the
Atlanta metropolitan area. It has a capacity to treat up to 120 million
gallons a day of wastewater and is currently treating 80 million gallons
daily.
Four local authorities have jurisdiction over the plant and/or
drainage basin:
City of Atlanta——plant and about 40 sq. miles of drainage area
Fulton County——approximately 20 sq miles of drainage area
Gwinett County——approximately 10 sq miles of drainage area
DeKalb County——approximately 60 sq miles of drainage area
Slightly more than half of DeKaib County’s sewage——30 to 35 million gallons
a day——is treated at the R. N. Clayton plant. After treatment, effluent
from the Clayton plant flows into the Chattahoochee River.
11

-------
C. General Description of POTW Area
The basin covers approximately 130—140 square miles, extending from
the northwestern corner of the City of Atlanta (where Marietta Boulevard
crosses the Chattahoochee River) northwards to about 1—285. From here it
goes eastward to approximately the boundary of DeKaib and Gwinett Counties,
and southward to the intersection of Rt 10 and 1—285. Going westwards,
the basin follows Rt 10 through the center of downtown Atlanta and then
northwesterly along Marietta Boulevard. Figure 1 outlines the overall
treatment area and shows the location of the sampling areas. Figure 2
displays the land use within the treatment area with respect to the resi-
dential, commercial, industrial and open spaces.
Population for the area for 1978 is estimated to be 385,425. There
are approximately 76,272 single family units, 28,882 units in structures
of 10+ units and 34,136 units in structures of less than 10 units. See
Table 1 for a summary of population and housing estimates for each sampling
area and the POTW area. There are approximately 10,630 firms in the entire
R.M. Clayton basin (1975 data). Table 2 summarizes employment by major
industry groups for each sampling area and the entire basin. The two—
digit codes given in the table encompass all the individual classifications
beginning with those two numbers, e.g., 15—17 includes 1500 through 1799.
D. Overall Description of Sampling Sites Within the R. H. Clayton
Treatment Area
As mentioned above, Figure 1 shows the treatment area and location
of each sampling area. Table 3 lists the locations, sewer characteristics
and general land use designation of sampling areas. Land use maps for
each sampling area have also been included.
1. DeKalb
The DeKaib sampling area is located in the municipality of Doraville
in DeKalb County, northeast of the City of Atlanta and just north of the
DeKaib Peachtree Airport. Figure 3 shows the streets, sampling location,
and land use for the DeKalb sampling area.
The DeKalb sampling area is characterized as a commercial area.
Total number of firms in 1975 was 66 for a total employment of 1,161
compared to 838 in 1970 (for an increase in employment of 38.5%). Total
12

-------
* Sampling Site
R.M. Clayton Treatment Plant
FIGURE 1 R.M. CLAYTON TREATMENT AREA
13
LI Sampling Areas
1. DeKaib
2. Surrey
3. Ensign
4. Northside
5. Lenox
6. Warren
7. DeFoors
8. Peachtree
9. Sixteenth
4
N
Scale in Miles
0 1 2 3 4 5

-------
Scale in Miles
FIGURE 2 R.M. CLAYTON TREATMENT AREA—LAND USE
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
LIIIJ Open Space p 1. --
L.____.1 Public Space
LIIIIIIIIJ Institutional
14

-------
Table 1
POPULATION AND HOUSING SUNMARY
*Estimates from “1978 Population and Housing” by Atlanta Regional Commission, Oct. 1978
**l978 data for DeKalb County from Planning Department, Property and Mapping Div., Decatur, Ga.
***Estimate based on 3.2 persons per single family unit and 2.2 for other units; values obtained
from the 1970 census.
U i
Sampling
Location
POPULATION
HOUS INC
—
1970 Census Data
II units in # units in
structures of structures of Single—
10+ units less than 10 units Family
1978 Estimates*
1970 Census
1978 Est.*
Apart—
ment
units
Duplex
units
Ensign
DeKaib
Surrey
Northside
Lenox
Warren
DeFoors
Peachtree
Sixteenth
Entire P0Th!
(R.M. Clayton)
3,399
1,430
423
9,616
1,907
2,631
1.992
60,003
13,189
379,188
3,533
1,868
5OO *
10,280
1,852
2,416
1,951
52,426
12,810
385,427
74
86
81
1,456
52
1
39
11.362
2,239
28,882
0
109
57
568
44
21
171
10,162
1,131
34,136
498
178
35
2,176
293
521
425
6,379
958
76,272
294
205
184
0
0
4

-------
Table 2
1PLOYMENT BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPS
(SIC Code Class.)
01—09 40—49 50—51 60—67 91—97 Total Total Total
Agric/ 10—14 15—1? 20-39 Trans/ Whole— 52—59 Fin, 70—89 Public Employ— 2 Number
l.ocatton Year Fores Mining Construc Manuf Comm Sale Trade Retail Ins,R.E. Services Adam ment Change of Firms
DeKalb 1970 0 0 36 0 0 9 729 28 36 0 838 NA
1975 0 0 4 8 0 10 961 45 133 0 1,161 38.5 66
1978 105
Ensign 1970 8 22 441 1070 404 2262 885 203 532 251 6,078 NA
1975 10 32 634 1225 396 2440 1293 371 982 285 7,698 26.7 387
1978 449
Surrey 1970 0 0 62 3560 204 152 55 11 85 105 4.234 NA
1975 2 0 80 4316 237 1074 194 29 198 131 6,261 47.9 74
1978 116
Northside 1970 33 1 134 10 55 114 686 445 400 205 2,083 NA
1975 42 0 103 100 58 482 1895 1583 1170 192 5,625 170 0% 259
0 ’
lenox 1970 4 2 67 836 31 519 3200 218 465 5 5,34]
1975 4 0 37 343 289 565 2897 320 1016 11 5,482 2.5 79
Waren 1970 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 11 17
1975 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 22 29.4 3
DeFoors 1970 23 0 554 4262 2145 3741 661 58 1872 933 14,049
1975 18 0 939 3865 3339 4222 502 48 1643 864 15,440 9.9 386
Peachtree 1970 119 158 4146 13852 11317 8735 19265 23271 38549 18204 137,616
1975 58 13 3435 10880 7707 9364 15583 22262 38276 27215 134,793 —2.1 2835
Sixteenth 1970 51 94 1366 3973 1692 3732 4589 5484 12750 4816 38,547
1975 11 0 755 3662 1754 2883 2894 2894 11022 7743 35,058 —9.1 637
R.M. Clayton 1970 651 212 12641 42746 18u95 33623 46877 34605 65407 34685 289,342
Basin 1975 820 67 12709 36655 18231 38459 49809 40889 81220 48981 327,840 13.3 10,630
Source: Atlanta Regional Commission

-------
Table 3
SAMPLING SITE LOCATIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Code Name Source Type/Sewer Type Location Sewer
(Longitude :Latitude) Characteristics
Northside New residential/sanitary 84° 25’ 52.2” 24”
330 51’ 15.9” 0.2% slope
Warren Old residential/sanitary 84° 20’ 38.7” 10”
330 53’ 27.1” 0.5% slope
Lenox Commercial/sanitary 84° 21’ 34.4” 10”
330 50’ 31.2” 2.4% slope
DeKaib Commercial/sanItary 84° 16’ 11.0” 10”
33° 54’ 8.1” 3.2% slope
Peachtree Mixed/combined 84° 24’ 20.1” 5’6” x 5’ rectangular
33° 48’ 56.3” 0.13% slope
Sixteenth Commercial/combined 84° 23’ 32.7” 12’ semi—circular
33° 47’ 23.5” 0.34% slope
Ensign Industrial/sanitary 84° 18’ 43.7” 12”
33° 54’ 19.6” 1.83% slope
Sexton Woods Industrial/sanitary 84° 18’ 43.7” 12”
330 53’ 38.8” 1.3% slope
Surrey Industrial/sanitary 84° 17’ 24.4” 15”
33° 53’ 37.8” 15.9% slope
DeFoors Industrial/sanitary 84° 26’ 13.2” 30”
33° 49’ 15.9” 0.2% slope

-------
Commercial
Residential
* Sampling Site
4
Ii
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
I I
Scale in Feet
FIGURE 3 DEKALB-LAND USE AND STREETS
18

-------
number of firms in 1978 was 105. There are approximately 56 commercial!
retail establishments, 14 banking/real estate establishments, 3 office
buildings (37 units), 25 servIce establishments, 3 health services, and
3 religious organizations. Population for this area according to 1970
census data was 1,430 compared to the 1978 estimate of 1,868. Single
family residences total 178 (1970 census) and there are 3 apartment
complexes totaling 205 units (1978 data).
2. Surrey
The Surrey sampling area is located in the municipality of Doraville
in DeKaib County adjacent to the DeKaib and Ensign sampling areas. Figure
4 shows the streets, sampling location, and land use for the Surrey sampling
area.
The Surrey sampling area is characterized as an industrial area. The
total number of firms in the area number 116 in 1978 compared to 74 in
1975. Total employment in 1970 was 4,234 and in 1975 was 6,261 (for an
increase of 47.9%). As shown in Table 2, the highest employment figure
occurs in industry with SIC classification of 20—30 (manufacturing);
categories 50—51 (wholesale trade) also account for a large percentage of
the employment in this area. Population for this area according to 1970
census data was only 423 compared to an estimate of 500 in 1978. There
are only approximately 35 single family homes but there are two large
apartment complexes totaling 184 units, and only two duplex homes.
3. Ensign
The Ensign sampling area is located in the municipalities of Doraville
and Chamblee in DeKalb County adjacent to the Surrey sampling area. Figure 5
shows the streets, sampling location, and land use for the Ensign sampling
area.
The Ensign sampling area Is characterized as an industrial area.
The largest types of industrial activity are manufacturing and wholesale
trade. Peachtree Industrial Boulevard (Rt 141) runs through the middle
of the sampling area and defines a commercial strip including some light
industry, as well as more heavily industrial areas. There is a small
19

-------
_______ Industrial
Sampling Site
1’
I
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
I, _j I
Scale in Feet
FIGURE 4 SURREY-LAND USE AND STREETS
20

-------
Industrial
I/ , ,I
Open Space
________ Residential
Commercial
* Sampling Point
I
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Scale in Feet
FIGURE 5 ENSIGN-LAND USE AND STREETS
21

-------
residential section to the west of the sampling area. Total number of
firms in 1975 was 387 compared to the 1978 estimate of 449. Total
employment for the area was 6,078 according to 1970 census data and
7,698 in 1978 (for an increase in employment of 26.7%). Population
according to 1970 census data was 3,399 compared to an estimated 3,533
for 1978. There are seven apartment buildings totaling 294 units, a
large number of office buildings, medical buildings, and plazas.
4. Northside
The Northside sampling area is located to the northwest of the
City of Atlanta bordering the Chattahoochee River. The lower portion
(about one—fourth) of this area is located within the City of Atlanta,
and the upper portion is located in Fulton County. Figure 6 shows the
streets, sampling location, and land use for the Northside sampling area.
The Northside sampling area is characterized as new residential.
The area is relatively high Income, mostly new homes with some older
areas. There is a small commercial area on Roswell Road at the inter-
state intersection. There are also some medium—density garden apartments.
Total population according to 1970 census data was 9,616 compared to the
1978 estimate of 10,280. Total number of single family residences
according to the 1970 census was 2,176. Total number of firms in this
area in 1975 was 259, mostly falling within SIC major categories 52—59
(retail), 60—67 (insurance, real estate), and 70—80 (services). Total
employment in 1970 was 2,083 compared to 5,625 in 1975 for a 170% increase.
5. Lenox
The Lenox sampling area is located within the City of Atlanta at
the intersection of Piedmont Road and Peachtree Road (Rt 141). Figure 7
shows the streets, sampling location, and land use for the Lenox sampling
area.
The Lenox sampling area is characterized as a commercial area. The
area consists mainly of the Lenox Square shopping center but also includes
some strip commercial activity and a small amount of desirable housing.
There is, however, a residential area that is “under pressure” for
22

-------
r’ 1 Open Space
L
* Sampling Point
Institutional
Commercial
Public and Semi-Public
FIGURE 6 NORTHSIDE—LAND USE AND STREETS
Scale in Feet
Residential
N
iOt O 0 iopo 2000 3000 4000
— II

-------
-o
0
Residential
Open Space
Commercial
Sampling Site
1000 0
I
1000 2000 3000 4000
Scale in Feet
FIGURE 7 LENOX-LAND USE AND STREETS
‘1
24

-------
commercialization. The single family 1970 census data count was 293
for this area with a population of 1,907. The 1978 estimate shows a
decrease in population to 1,852. Total number of firms in 1975 was 79
with an employment figure of 5,482 (1970 estimate was 5,347 for only a
2.5% increase from 1970 to 1975). The largest employment number was in
the SIC code categories 52—59 (retail), with the next highest occurring
in categories 70—89 (services).
6. Warren
The Warren sampling area is located north of the City of Atlanta in
DeKalb County. Figure 8 shows the streets, sampling location, and land
use for the Warren sampling area.
The Warren sampling area is characterized as an old residential
area. The homes are in the higher price range and are approximately
20—25 years old. Total number of single family homes according to
1970 census data was 521 with a population of 2,621. The 1978 estimate
shows a decrease in population to 2,416.
7. DeFoors
The DeFoors sampling area is located in the City of Atlanta to the
northwest of Georgia Tech with Marietta Boulevard and Chattahoochee
Avenue running through the middle of the sampling area. Figure 9 shows
the streets, sampling location, and land use for the DeFoors sampling
area.
The DeFoors sampling area is characterized as an industrial area.
As shown in Table 2, the largest employment in the area is in SIC major
categories 20—39 (manufacturing), 50—51 (wholesale trade), and 40—49
(transportation). It is primarily a warehousing and light industrial
area with very little heavy manufacturing. There is some residential area
on the northeast side; it is relatively low income. There are a number
of railroad yards and commercial areas such as fastfood restaurants,
service stations, etc., along Marietta Boulevard. Total number of firms
in the area is 386 with a total employment figure of 15,440 in 1975
compared to 14,049 in 1970 for a 9.9% increase in employment. According
25

-------
JOhnsoN Ferry Rd
* Sampling Site
Residential
I.-.., — ‘I
Open Space
1
0
I
Peachtree
Country Club
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Scale in Feet
FIGURE 8 WARREN—LAND USE AND STREETS
26

-------
DeFoors Ferry Rd.
] Residential
I 1 Industrial
I ‘ \1
I i Open Space
_______ Public
Sampling Site
I I
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
- J
Scale in Feet
FIGURE 9 DEFOORS-LAND USE AND STREETS
Chattahoochee Ave.
27

-------
to 1970 census data, there were 425 single family homes and a large
number (171) of units in structures of less than 10 units.
8. Sixteenth and Peachtree
The Sixteenth sampling area is a subset of the Peachtree sampling
area. Figure 10 shows the streets, sampling locations, and land use
for the Sixteenth and Peachtree areas.
Both these areas are characterized as commercial having a very .arge
portion of the employment figure attributable to service, commercial, and
retail establishments (SIC categories 70—89, 60—67, and 50—51, respectIvely).
The Sixteenth area encompasses a large portion of the downtown area
including several of the large hotels, the Five Points area which is the
“most intense land use in the city,” the Georgia Institute of Technology.
The area borders the football field of the Georgia State University but
does not include the university itself. Total number of firms for the
Sixteenth subset was 637 in 1975 for a total employment of 35,547 compared
to 38,547 for 1970 (an 8% decrease in employment). Population according
to 1970 census data was 13,189 compared to our 1978 estimate of 12,810.
Single family homes number 958 (1970 census); there are 2,239 units in
structures of more than 10 units and 1,131 units in structures of less
than 10 units.
The Peachtree sampling area includes the Sixteenth sampling area
and covers the majority of the Georgia Tech campus, a number of parks,
a steel mill, a large manufacturing facility which is in the process
of moving, as well as the remainder of the downtown Atlanta area including
a number of large hotels, office buildings, retail stores, some light
manufacturing establishments, several universities, and some residences
such as the high income housing in Ansley Park-—a 1,900 unit subdivision.
The area also includes several hospitals and golf courses. Population
for the Peachtree sampling area according to 1970 census data was 60,003
compared to the 1978 estimate of 52,426. Single family residences number
6,379 (1970 census). Total number of firms in 1975 is estimated at 2,835;
the total employment figure in 1970 was 137,616 compared to 134,793 in
1975 (a 2.1% decrease in employment). These data include the subset of
Sixteenth sampling area.
28

-------
FIGURE 10 PEACHTREE AND SIXTEENTH—LAND USE AND STREETS
1
Ii
*
*
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Open Space
Institutional
Peachtree Sampling Site
Sixteenth Sampling Site
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
II II
Scale in Feet
29

-------
IV. SAMPLING PROCEDURE
A. Sample Collection
For the most part, the sample collection procedure used in Atlanta
was comparable to that used in the Cincinnati and St. Louis studies. 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. Each sampling site was visited every four (4) hours
and twelve individual increments were composited to produce a single
sample representing a 48—hour period. The Increments were combined in
the laboratory on a flow proportioned basis.
All of the field sampling procedures were those employed in
Cincinnati. Upon arriving at each sampling location, the field crew
would first measure the temperature, p1-I, 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 compositing over a daily
variation ratio of three to one. Using this protocol, the total volume
of wastewater collected was sufficient to produce a final “sample” that
was made up of those fractions listed in Table 4.
After all of the sampling steps had been completed (including
collection, labelling, preservation, clerical documentation, and
packaging), the volume of wastewater passing through the sampling loca-
tion was determined. The depth of flow was measured and a flow measure-
ment was obtained by using the Manning equation. All flow coinpositing
of the collected sample increments was done using the flow rate computed
in this way.
B. Flow Measurements
As in Cincinnati and St. Louis, initial flow calculations were made
31

-------
Table 4
SUMMARY OF FINAL SANPLE FRACTIONS AND THEIR REQUIRED VOLUMES
Priority Pollutants Code Normal Sample QC’d Sample
o Acid/Base Neutral fraction (ABN) 2L 6L
• PCB/Pestlcide fraction (PCB) lL 3L
• Total Phenol fraction (Phen) lL 3L
• Cyanide fraction (CN) 1L 3L
• Metal fraction (M+) 1L 3L
• Mercury fraction (Hg) 1L 3L
• Asbestos fraction (As) 1L 3L
• Volatile Organic fraction (VOA) 45mL 45mL
Classical Parameters
O Ammonia (NH 3 ) 1L 1L
o Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 500mL 500mL
• Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 500mL SOOmL
• Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) 1L 1L
• Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 1L 1L
• Oil and Crease (O+G) 1L 1L
32

-------
using the Manning equation approach. After completing all of the field
work, a review of the average flow rates for each of the sampling locations
suggested that the values obtained were higher than could reasonably be
expected; a difference that could not be explained by inflow and infil-
tration alone. The basis of this belief lay in the fact that while the
remote sampling sites accounted for roughly 15 to 20% of the basin’s
land mass, the measured flow apparently accounted for almost 80% of the
wastewater that was tributary to the R. M. Clayton treatment facility.
Even though four of the selected sampling sites included industrial
components and one contained a highly concentrated commercial district,
which presumably use and discharge more water into collection systems
than do comparably—sized residential zones, the possibility that these
areas alone accounted for the disparity seemed remote.
In an attempt to determine whether the recorded values were, in
fact, reasonable, a theoretical flow evaluation of each of the remote
sites and the entire drainage basin was performed, as had been done for
St. Louis. The commercial and industrial flow for each sampling site
and the entire basin was estimated from water use records. The residential
flows for each site and for the basin were estimated based on a 100 gall
day/person effective flow. These data are tabulated in Table 5.
Unfortunately, the results of this theoretical flow evaluation were
not as good as for the St. Louis work; the St. Louis effort resulted
in accounting for the POTW flow within 5%, but the theoretical analysis
of flow in Atlanta only accounted for 75% of the influent flow. Several
factors probably contribute to this noted discrepancy, the foremost
being the complexity of the data base used to extract usage records for
commercial, and Industrial accounts. Nevertheless, this theoretical flow
evaluation did suggest that the indicated flow rates obtained at many of
the field sampling sites were higher than could reasonably be expected.
Therefore, a re—evaluation or calibration of the initial depth of flow
measurements was performed.
The basis of this work originates in experiments conducted during
the Hartford study (the fourth survey in this series) and is explained
33

-------
Table 5
TOTAL THEORETICAL FLOW THROUGH EACH SAMPLING POtNT IN ATLANTA
Residential Coniinercial Industrial Total Flow
Location Flow (ips) Flow (ips) Flow (ips) ( lps )
DeFoors 8.5 9.6 60.6 78.7
Lenox 8.1 30.0 0.0 38.1
Northside 45.0 16.5 0.0 61.5
Peachtree (including
Sixteenth) 229.7 329.8 172.6 732.1
Sixteenth Street
(Subset of Peachtree) 56.1 130.0 126.8 312.9
Ensign 15.5 18.3 8.7 42.5
Surrey 1.8 2.8 64.8 69.4
DeKalb 8.2 3.0 0.2 ‘11.4
Warren 10.6 0.0 0.0 10.6
Basin excluding above 1361.1 163.1 185.2 1709.4
Total basin found 1688.5 573.1 492.1 2753.7
61.3% 20.8% 17.9%
34

-------
in greater detail within that report. 6 Generally, however, the correction
factor evolves from flow measurements obtained using a direct velocity
determination and a depth of flow value versus Manning equation deter-
minations.
Since the calibration process was repeated at least seven times
during a two day period, a wide range of flow values were averaged to
produce the final “correction factor” for each of the specific sites.
These correction factors were site specific and could be applied to all
flow rates derived from the Manning equation in order to correct the
reported values. The correction factors showed no trend dependent on
total flow.
The original average flow rates, correction factors, final
average flow rates, and theoretical flows are presented in Table 6
for review. The corrected values are in much better agreement with the
theoretical values.
35

-------
Table 6
SUMMARY OF ATLANTA FLOW VALUES
MEASURED FLOW CALCULATED CALCULATED VELOCITY TO ESTIMATED THEORETICAL
LOCATION BY MANNING EQUATION MANNING FACTOR CORRECTED FLOW FLOW
Northside 111.3 0.931 103.6 61.5
Warren 8.5 1.057 9.0 10.6
Lenox 38.0 0.531 20.2 38.1
DeKaib 10.6 0.641 6.8 11.4
Peachtree 2749 0.583 1602 732
a’ (Including Sixteenth)
Sixteenth 267.5 0.874 233.8 313
Ensign 117.1 0.369 54.1 42.5
(Including Sexton) (0.555)
Surrey 149.7 0.278 41.6 69.4
DeFoors 118.2 0.696 82.2 78.7

-------
V. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
A. Chemical Procedures
1. IntroductIon
The procedures used to analyze samples collected in Atlanta were
the same as those used for the Cincinnati and St. Louis samples. These
procedures are described in the EPA Screening Protocol, 1 the Quality
Assurance Program, 2 and the Cincinnati and St. Louis POTW reports, 4 ’ 5
which are the second and third in this series of reports on sources of
priority pollutants. 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.
2. Modified Procedures
The internal standard procedure for the acid and base/neutral
analyses has been changed. Also, the procedures used to analyze the
priority pollutants in the volatile and pesticide categories have been
modified. Details on all the analytical procedures are given in Appendix
B and Appendix C.
a. Acids and Base/Neutrals — Internal Standards
The internal standard, d 10 —anthracene, was previously added to the
aqueous sample aliquots for acid and base/neutral priority pollutant
analyses; it has been shown that the d 10 -anthracene was extracted with
95—100% efficiency. 5 However, during the Atlanta study, d 10 —anthracene
was added to the final concentrated methylene chloride extract, thereby
eliminating any question with respect to the effects of sample preparation
on internal standard levels.
In order to assess the impact of this change in procedure and have
a direct measure of accuracy and precision for all samples, four additional
total method internal standards were added to each of the aqueous sample
aliquots (before sample prepration) as monitors of extraction and con-
centration, as well as instrumental analysis. The four compounds chosen
were 2—fluoronaphthalene, octafluorobiphenyl, decafluorobiphenyl, and
37

-------
9—phenylanthracene. These were chosen because they do not normally
occur in the environment, and they have distinctive mass spectra for
identification and quantification.
These four internal standards were added to the acid and base!
neutral aqueous sample aliquots prior to sample preparation to give a
final concentration level of 5 pg/L. D 10 —anthracene was added to the
final concentrated methylene chloride extracts at a concentration of
5 i.’g/2mL. Detailed information concerning the internal standards is
given in Appendix C. The sample concentrations of the internal standards
were compared with calibration standards to determine recoveries. For
the acid analysis, the average recovery for 2—fluoronaphthalene, octa—
fluorobiphenyl and decafluorobiphenyj. was approximately 85%. For the
base/neutral analysis, the average recovery for the four internal
standards was 92%. By comparison, the average recovery value for
d 10 —anthracerie (added after sample preparation and extraction) was
101% for the acid fraction and 106% for the base/neutral fraction.
b. Volatiles
The purge and trap, gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy method for
analyzing volatile priority pollutants was altered by the addition of
charcoal to the sorbent trap. This was an initial attempt to prevent
the gas from breaking through the trap. The procedure change was
successful for chioromethane, bromomethane, vinyl chloride and chloroethane.
c. Pesticides and PCBs
The method used for analyzing compounds in the pesticide and PCB
category was expanded by using a third CC column to corroborate the
preliminary identifications.
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.
There were some compounds consistently not detected using the EPA
38

-------
Screening Protocol. 1 These compounds are listed below; they were also
not detected during the Cincinnati and St. Louis studies.
Standards Not Detected by EPA Method
Vola tiles: Dichlorodifluoromethane
Base/Neutrals: Bis (chloromethyl)ether
2—Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Hexachiorocyclopentad iene
It is important to note that three compounds — chioromethane, vinyl
chloride, and bromomethane — previously not detected in the QC samples,
were detected during the Atlanta study due to the modified purge and
trap method.
The reporting limits for the organic and inorganic priority pollutants
can be found in Appendix B. Reporting limits are comparable to or better
(lower) than those used for the Cincinnati or St. Louis 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
1. Introduction
A quality assurance program was employed for this study in order to
document the reliability of the data obtained on the priority pollutants
found in the sample. The quality control procedures used for the Atlanta
study are detailed in the Cincinnati report. 4 The specific quality
control (QC) activities for sample analysis were based on the general
recommendations published by EMSL/EPA, Cincinnati, as specifically
abstracted for this type of program in the March 1978 docusnent. 2
The quality control (QC) data obtained from the Atlanta study were
comparable to, or better than, the QC data from the Cincinnati and St.
Louis studies. For the Atlanta study, QC data were also obtained on the
classical parameters. Fhe precision for these analyses was better than
the generally accepted range.
39

-------
2. Program
For the field sampling trip to Atlanta, five samples (representing
a range of source types) were chosen as quality control samples. Two
of these were set aside as contingency QC samples to be used if proce-
dural difficulties were encountered. For some analytical categories,
this was a departure from the original protocol which called for one
QC set to be analyzed per day. The three QC samples generated 15 samples
to be analyzed. Including the two field blanks, the total number of
samples associated with the QC/QA program was 17, 37% of the total number
of samples analyzed. The specific samples associated with quality control
activities, including the calculations used to determine if the analysis
is in control, are described in the Cincinnati and St. Louis reports. 4 ’ 5
An additional feature of the quality assurance program for the
Atlanta survey was the use of the four “total method” internal standards
that were added to all the acid and base/neutral samples prior to
extraction. In this way, quality control data measuring the precision
and accuracy of the entire method were made available for all of these
samples. Details concerning the internal standards are discussed in
Appendix C.
3. Results
The quantitative results for each pollutant studied are detailed
in Appendix B. QC data were not obtained on five of the compounds —
bi (2—chloroisopropyl)ether, 2,3,7,8—TCDD, fndeno(l,2,3—cd)pyrene, endrin
aldehyde, and endosulfan sulfate — because it was not possible to obtain
reference supplies for these priority pollutants.
There are a few compounds for which the reconmiended protocol is
problematic. Due to the detailed quality control program, these problems
could be traced back to specific technical difficulties. Two compounds
that were generally problematic during the St. Louis and Atlanta studies
were N—nitrosodimethylamine and benzidine. During the Atlanta study,
problems were also encountered with the analysis of antimony in the nine
samples from industrial sources. Since these were generally the most
40

-------
complex samples, it is believed that matrix interferences unique to these
nine samples were responsible. Detailed information concerning the
analytical problems can be found in Appendix B.
For convenience in reviewing the data, Table 7 has been prepared
summarizing the overall results achieved within each of the analysis
categories for Atlanta QC samples. In general, these results are very
good. Most recovery values are in the 70% to 100% range, and the pre-
cision is about 10% to 30%.
C. Chemical Characterization of Influent Composition
In order to gain some perspective on how many of the chemicals and
pollutants present in the samples are actually included in the Priority
Pollutant Protocol, one sample of the Atlanta POTW influent was studied
in detail. The study was confined to those species present in the acid
(/neutral) and base/neutral extracts and which are measurable by CC/MS.
Other organic species which may have been present in the water but not
extracted and species which do not chromatograph under the test conditions
would obviously not be observed in this analysis.
The major components found that were not among those classified as
priority pollutants include paraff ins, phthalates, alkylated polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons and phenols, fatty acids and esters. Other compounds
identified include alpha—terpineol, caffeine, tributyl phosphate, diphenyl
methane, 2—butoxy ethanol (butyl cellusolve), camphor, coumarin, and
acetylsalicylic acid.
Figures 11 and 12 are the reconstructed gas chromatograms for the
acid/neutral and base/neutral extracts, respectively. Each of the peaks
is labeled for its primary constitutent. The elution position of priority
pollutants which are visible in these traces are indicated by an underline;
the internal standards are identified by “I.S.” on the chromatogram. It
can be seen that the peaks for priority pollutants do not entirely reflect
that pollutant in most cases.
41

-------
Table 7
SUNMARY OF QUALITY ASSURANCE DATA FOR ATLANTA
Category
Average Spiking
Level, ig/L
Method Ref erencea
Raw Wastewatera
Average
Average Standard
Recovery Deviation
Average
Average Standard
Recovery Deviation
Volatiles
Acids
Base/Neutrals
Pesticides and PCBs
Total Cyanides
Total Phenols
Metals
Classical Parameters
20
50
50
10
20
60
10 - 100
931) ±231)
72 ±11
59 ±23
74 ±16
87 ±12
102 ± 3
102 ±11
81 ±14
83 b ±271)
77 ± 7
62 ±15
74 ±18
77 ±13
97 ± 6
90 ±17
a Average of all mean percentage recovery values for each compound and average of all mean
percentage recovery standard deviations for each compound.
b
Gas (compound No. s 101 - 105) data has been excluded.

-------
A212C1
R2i2L—2UL.4/24. 1 4 1Lr:85. j1_18j/1Q.I901Tv
S
C
I
I
I
I .
I
R 1F.: 01547040
— —— ..1———.——.-—.— .—.-- I—
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3t
I
400 150 500 550 600 650 700 750 600 650 900 950
RGC
100
3
0
2
i2
S
0
C
C
C
I
ii
FIGURE 11. Reconstructed Gas Chromatogram for Acid/Neutral Extract

-------
6212C3 B212C—:IL,5/22.1 F2/: 1.4M—2 /b.17t iV
RGC RMP.: 00389052
100 1
51
5
2
2
4
0
50 100
150
200
1000
FIGURE 12.
Reconstructed Gas Chromatogram for the Base/Neutral Extract

-------
Where possible, the concentration of each of the major species was
estimated by rough approximation of calibration curves based on similar
compounds for which calibration data were available. In total, the
priority pollutant acids (phenols) account for only about 1% of the
chromatographable acid species. The base/neutral priority pollutants
account for about 15% of the species observed in the total base/neutral
chromatograni. Table 8 gives a list of species observed and their approx-
imate concentration levels.
45

-------
Table 8
POTW INFLUENT CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION
Approximate Priority Pollutant
Compound(s) Concentration (ug/L) Concentrations ( ig/L )
Paraff ins (Hydrocarbons) 700
Alkyl Benzenes (Co_C 5 )* 90 49
Naphthalenes (Co—Cu) 130 85
Anthracenes (Co—C 2 ) 10 3
Biphenyls (Co—C 2 ) 7
Indans (C 1 —C 3 ) 10
Fatty Acids — Cp +C 7000
Phenols (C 0 — Cs) 400 78
Phthalates 200 160
Other Species
Alpha terpineol 100
Caffeine 50
Tri—butyl phosphate 20
Butyl cellusolve 600
Camphor 5
Couinarin 0.5
Dimethyl succinate 30
Dimethyl glutarate 100
Dimethyl adipate 20
Methyl salicylate 5
Butyl salicylate 0.5
Acetylsalicylic acid 5
2-Ethoxy ethyl acetate 300
*
indicates number of side chain carbons
46

-------
VI. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This section presents a discussion of results based on an analysis
of the Atlanta data, by itself. Further interpretation of the data will
be done in the final report which will examine the data from all of the
cities studied. The detailed data used to prepare the summaries In this
discussion 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 section,
the material has been organized into three general categories: the
frequency of detection (grouped by pollutant), the concentration levels
observed and various mass flow analyses.
A. Frequency of Observation
In the R. M. Clayton drainage basin, 35 organic priority pollutants
(or pollutant categories) and 11 priority pollutant metals plus manganese
were observed. 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 32 samples were collected:
6 from residential sources, 12 from commercja1/downto sources, 9 from
industrial sources, 3 from the POTW influent, and 2 tap water samples.
In addition, two field blanks were prepared. Figure 13 shows the frequency
with which each pollutant was observed in the 32 actual samples. The
average concentration measured when present is given in the last column.
Eight (8) of the organic pollutants, 7 of the metals and total phenols
were observed more than 50% (16 samples) of the time. Five (5) of the
metals were observed 100% of the time.
A further perspective on this data is given in Figure 14. In this
figure, the average overall concentration (average concentration over
all 32 samples as opposed to the average measured concentration In Figure 13)
Is plotted against the frequency with which a pollutant was detected.
Fifteen (15) organic priority pollutants are seen to occur with an average
overall concentration greater than 10 ig/L; only seven of these occur
more than 50% of the time. Two organic pollutants —— chloroform and
l l, 2 , 2 —tetrach1oroethylene —— occur in 90—100% of the samples, as they
47

-------
Compound
Number of Observations
10 20
30 pg/La
FIGURE 13. Overall
Frequency of Observation
48
104. Vinyl chloride
I_________
3
105. Chloroethane
L.. ...
22
108. Trichlorofluoromethane
4
109. Acrylonitrilè
2
110. 1,1-Dichloroethylene
111. 1,1-Dichloroethane
•___
25
4
112. Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
113. Chloroform
17
114. 1,2-Dichloroethane
9
115. 1.1,1 -Trichloroethane
3
116. Carbon tetrachloride
101
73
117. Bromodichloromethane
______
118. 1,2-Dichloropropane
4
120. Trichloroethylene
3
83
121. Benzene
123. Dibromochloromethane
2
124. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1_____.
1
126. 1,1,2 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
2
1
127. 1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
—
128. Toluene
70
129. Chlorobenzene
130. Ethyl benzene
4
201. 2-Chlorophenol
._._
98
203. Phenol
20
—
204. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
170
116
205. 2,4-Dichlorophenol
206. 2,4 ,6-Trichlorophenol
17
210. Pentachlorophenol
——
17
301. Dichlorobenzenes
315. Naphthalene
.
88S
326. Diethyl phthalate
I_____
331. Anthracene/Phenanthrene
.
17
333. Di-n-butyl phthalate
54
337. Butyl benzyl phthalate
258
338. Bis (2-ethylhexy ) phthalate

-------
Compound
Number of Observations
in
a
Average concentration when detected (32 samples)
b 23 samples analyzed
FIGURE 13. (Continued) Overall Frequency of Observation
Metals, Cyanides, and Phenols
n
a
ii IT
-
501. Antimonyb
2
502. Arsenic
7
504. Cadmium
40
505. Chromium
,
417
506. Copper
•__
93
507. Lead
—•
212
508. Manganese
246
509. Mercury
4
510. Nickel
• 56
511. Selenium
4
512. Silver
—_
13
514. Zinc
—
—
537
601.
Total
Cyanides
I
I
I
I I
1
1116
602.
Total
Phenols
I
I
I
I I I
1143
49

-------
ATLANTA
502
I 11 4
Dichlorobenzenes auty Benzyl
Phtha [ ate
80
- )
‘-S
Phenol 1,1.2,2—Tetrachioroethylene •
C
0
I. 1, 1—Trach loroethane
60 • S • Trichloroethylene
C
Ithyl Benzcne
a
C
0
U
u 4 )
S 2 ,4-D methy1 Pheno:
40.
I -
a)
-i . Bts(2—ethy lhexyl)phthalate
a)
• toIu ’ne
3’ .
4)
• Naphthalene Pentn h1orophcno1
Carbon Tetrach1ortde
Trans-I ,2-dichloroethylene ugfL
Di-n-butyl Phthalate • Chloroform •
• l.1 —Dichloroethylene
1. 1—Dichloroethane
Benzene ___________________________________________________________
2 b 40 60 80
(‘4 times)
FRtQUENCY. 2 (>152)
FIGURE 14. Frequency of Detection arid Overall Concentration Comparison, Organics

-------
ATLANTA
502
C
0
. 1
4I
C
N
a
C
C
U
U
C
C
N
C
-l
- I
C
I a
I fl
0
20 40 60 80 100
FREQUENCY, 2
10 ugh
FIGURE 14 (cont’d). Frequency of Detection and Overall Concentration Comparison, Metals

-------
did in St. Louis. Six (6) of the metals are observed at an average
concentration greater than 10 jig/L and all of these occur 90—100% of the
time.
Because of the mixed nature of the samples (sources, influent and
tap) included in these frequency 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 15.
The solid black bar represents the sources (excluding tap) while the
cross—hatched bar represents the POTW influent. A total of 27 source
samples and 3 influent samples were analyzed. As these bar graphs are
examined, the reader should bear in mind that the resolution element
is considerably different for the sources (1/27 4%) and influent
(1/3 = 33%) because of the numbers of each type of sample. The variance
of the estimate of frequency is higher for the influent which has fewer
samples.
Of the 19 organic pollutants detected at the POTW, 17 are also
present in the source samples. Only 2 pollutants (acrylonitrile and
diethyl phthalate) observed in the influent were not seen in the sources;
each of these was observed in only one influent sample and at a concen-
tration level near the reporting limit. Fourteen (14) organic pollutants
were seen only in the sources and not the influent, but again these
were all at concentration levels near the reporting limit and were observed
with low frequency.
There were no metals seen at the POTW which were not seen in the
sources; total cyanides and total phenols were also measured in both
the sources and the influent. Arsenic and selenium were seen in the
52

-------
Percentage Occurrence
COMPOUND 0 20 40 % 60 80 l0J)
104.
Vinyl chloride
—
105
Chloroethane
—
108
Trichlorofluoromethane
## F
-
##
J’ #
d
109.
Acrylonitrile
# # 4
if if if
# if
if
110
1,1.Dichloroethylene
if’.,
if’.’.
F#d
if’.’.
F ’ . ’
#1
111
11-Dichloroethane
—
L
112
Trans• 1 ,2•dichloroethylene
‘‘.4
‘if’.
7’..
#74
‘.77
‘.77
if
‘.
‘ . ‘ .
‘ .
113.
114
Chloroform
1 ,2•Dichloroethane
‘if’.
i fif
i f 7-.
if F if
if’.#
## if
r ’ . ’ .
- -
‘if’.,
if ‘.4
if’.’.
‘#7
II P7I#
115.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
FF,
F ’ .’.
‘7 ’ .
‘ . ‘ .:
‘ .‘.
“
“ . ‘ .
‘ ‘ ‘
‘ .‘ ‘ . ‘ .“
I
116
Carbon tetrachioride
-
117.
Bromodichloromethane
-
-
118
1 ,2•Dichloropropane
—
-. -
.
120
Trichloroethylene
#7,
V# ’ . .
7 ’ .
77’.
‘.77
‘#7
‘77
‘if’.
‘d ’d44ifif
121
Benzene
—
123
Dibromochloromethane
-
124
1,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
—
126.
127.
1.1 ,2 ,2.Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2 ,2-Tetrachloroethylene
—
‘77
“.77
#7’
‘77
if7d
777
77’.
F’.’.
128
Toluene
- ‘ .J
7’.’
‘.7,
P”
‘
V ’ . ’ .
‘ .7
‘.74
‘ .
129.
Chlorobenzene
—
130
Ethyl benzene
‘.7’.
‘. i f7a
771
777
F’.’.
‘ .7
1.74
# ‘ .i
F#d # #.
201.
2-Chlorophenol
—
-
203
Phenol
7’.4
F’.’.
777
‘ . ‘ .
7
‘.‘. ‘ .
,,
204.
2,4-Dimethylphenol
‘if ‘ .
7’.#
F’.’.
I ’.
l’F
if F if
if if
205.
2,4.Dichlorophenol
—
206.
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
—
210.
Pentachlorophenol
‘if’.
F’.’..
‘.7
‘.74
774
1
‘ .‘.
F’.’.
“ . 4 PJ
,.J7
301.
Dichlorobenzenes
# ‘ .
‘.77
#
# 4
if #1’
F if’.
‘if
315.
Naphthalene
‘F’.
‘‘.7 .
ifif 4
if’. 4
.7’.’.
‘if’..
‘. ,#
326.
Diethyl ohthalate
if’.’.
if’.’.
‘.‘.A
331.
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
I
333.
Di-n-butyl phthalate
‘.‘.,
‘. ‘..
‘
337.
Butyl benzyl phthalate
#74
#7’.
‘. 7
r
1’ ‘ .‘
‘‘
#
if’..
FF4
##1
#7’.
338.
Bis_(2ethylhexyl)_phthalate
All Sources (27 samples)
‘‘“if POT Influent (3 samples)
FIGURE 15. Frequency of Observations in Sources and Influent
53

-------
Percentage Occurrence
40 % 60
1601.
Total Cyanides r — r r i I. I I I I
I -
TotaiPhenols 1
602.
All Sources (27 samples)
‘‘F’ POTW Influent (3 samples)
a
18 source samples analyzed
FIGURE 15. (Continued) Frequency of Observations in Sources
and Influent
COMPOUND 0
20
80 100
501. Antimonya
.
!
502. Arsenic
—
504. Cadmium
#
F F
.
‘#‘
,,
505. Chromium
J J
-
506. Cop r
,
607. Lead
F -
4
FF
.
508. Manganese
,,
509. Mercury
F
510. Nickel
y J
511. Selenium
I
512. Silver
F
I
F
514. Zinc
j ,
54

-------
sources only, but at low frequency and a concentration level near their
reporting limits.
Table 9 gives a list of pollutants (77) which were never detected
in any of the samples. Those compounds for which the analytical methods
are still problematic are indicated by an asterisk.
B. Concentration of Priority Pollutants
Flow—weighted averages of the six sampling days were calculated
for all of the pollutants detected and are tabulated in Table 10.
In Table 11, the simple arithmetic average of the pollutant concen-
trations for each of the source types has been presented along with the
tap water and influent, as an aid to discover 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 themselves do not provide the
basis for estimating POTW influent values, but they are useful in observing
the differences in chemical activity among the sites.
The characteristics of the Atlanta area and the R. M. Clayton basin,
in particular, provided the opportunity to sample a large fraction of
chemically intensive industrial areas, as well as the chance to sample
an entire downtown commercial area for the first time in this series of
studies. The primary industrial activities sampled include manufacturing,
transportation, and wholesale trade.
The overall pollutant concentration values in the downtown (Peachtree)
site are surprisingly low in view of the large area and amount of activity
represented in that area. The downtown site represents about 25% of the
total influent flow. Nevertheless, the downtown levels are comparable
to the other commercial averages and the residential values. Trichioro—
ethylene is present at a high level in this area (general cleaning
activities) as are lead and zinc (probably associated with the old
residential area or the large amount of automobile traffic).
The pollutant concentration levels for the industrial sites are the
highest seen to date in these studies and are clearly reflected in higher
55

-------
Table 9
COMPOUNDS NOT DETECTED
101 Chioromethane 334 Flyoranthene
**
102 Dichlorodifluoroinethane 335 Pyrene
103 Bromomethane **336 Benzidine
107 Acrolein 340 Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene
119 Trans—l,2—dichloropropylene 342 3,3’—Dichlorobenzidine
122 Cis—l , 3—dichloropropylene 343 Benzofluoranthenes
125 Bromoform 345 Benzo(a)pyrene
202 4—Nitrophenol 346 Indeno (l2,3—c,d)pyrene
207 4—Chloro—3—creso]. 347 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene
**208 2,4—dinitrophenol 348 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
**209 4,6—dinitro—2—cresol 349 TCDD
211 4—Nitrophenol 401 alpha—BHC
304 Hexachioroethane 402 gainma—BHC
*305 Bis(chloromethyl)ether 403 Heptachlor
306 Bls(2—chloroethyl)ether 404 beta—BHC
307 Bis(2—chloroisop pyl)ether 405 delta—BHC
**308 N—Nitrosodimethylamine 406 Aldrin
309 Nitrosodi—n—propylamine 407 Heptachior epoxide
310 Nitrobenzene 408 Endosulfan I.
311 Hexachlorobutadiene 409 DDE
312 1,2,4—Trichlorobenzene 410 Dieldrin
*313 2—Chioroethyl vinyl ether 411 Endrin
314 Bis(2—chloroethoxy)methane 412 DDD
316 Isophorone 413 Endosulfan II.
*317 Hexachiorocyclopentadiene 414 DDT
318 2—Chloronaphthalene 415 Endrin aldehyde
319 Acenaphthylene 416 Endosuif art sulfate
320 Acenaphthene 417 Chlordane
321 Dimethyl phthalate 418 Toxaphene
322 2, 6—Dinitrotoluene 419 PCB—1221
323 4—Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 420 PCB—1232
324 Fluorene 421 PCB—l242
325 2 , 4 —Dinitrotoluene 422 PCB-1248
327 l,2—Diphenylhydrazine 423 PCB—1254
328 N—Nitrosodiphenylamine 424 PCB—l260
329 Hexachlorobenzene 425 PCB—1016
330 4—Bromophenyl phenyl ether 503 Beryllium
513 Thallium
**
Analytical procedures are inadequate for these pollutants at 10 ig/L.
They may have been detected if present at greater than 100 pg/L.
*EPA Screening Protocol Procedures are inadequate to detect these pollutants.
56

-------
Table 10
FLOW-WEIGHTED AVCL’GE,S
— Organics (i .glL)
0 0 . — ‘ —
L .l .4 i - 0 -
-. . — —
4-ic U U — i_ ‘ - 5—
0 J ZW i 5-i. Ji. Z— ) ii
o e / i 1 3
5 - O E -i C
C — 54E rM
o i 
-------
Table 10 (Cont ’d)
FLOI)—WEIGHTED AVERAGES
Metals, Cyanides and Phenols (ug/L)
—
o 0 — — —
‘ o
0
—c c -
oa zci m i ..
Z U0 X C ) —OZCJ . C)
— 05
ir ZO ZE
00 
-------
Table 10 (Cont’d)
FLOW—WEIGHTED AVERAGES
Classical Wastewater Parameter Analysis (mg/L)
H
.-l
C
-1
1-I
i-1
U)

E-4,-
C C l )
0 U)
z
CU
,-l


Z a)
C -
r-l
C l )
< (11

r1
c
r-1
C)

w
OE
Z
C 0
- c_)
, .-I
CU
,-i
C)

.-1 i
-------
Table 11
CONCENTRATIONS BY SOURCE TYPE* (ARITHMETIC AVERAGES)
u g / L* *
Downtown Residentlul Commercial Industriol 1 p Water Influent
110 l,1—Dlchloroethylene 0 0 0 25 0 B
111 1,l—Dichloroethane 0 0 0 3 0 0
112 Trans—1,2—dichloroethylene 1 0 6 25 0 20
113 Chloroform 5 4 12 11 22 7
114 1,2—Dichioroethane 0 0 0 1 0 0
115 1,1, 1—Trichioroethane 1 1 2 168 0 95
116 Carbon tetrachloride 0 0 0 57 0 0
120 Trichloroethylene 140 1 31 30 0 176
121 Benzene 1 0 0 1 0 0
12? 1,1,2,2—Tetrachioroethylene 6 5 47 122 2 240
128 Toluene 2 1 3 81 0 25
129 Chlorobenzene 0 0 0 2 0 0
130 Ethyl benzene 2 0 3 188 0 47
203 Phenol 0 3 6 252 0 19
206 2 ,4—Dimethylphenol 0 2 0 137 0 9
210 Pentachiorophenol 23 5 19 fl 0 19
301 Dichlorobenzenes 0 0 4 657 0 87
315 Naphthalene 0 0 0 75 0 34
333 Di—n—butyl phthalate 3 2 3 36 0 4
337 Butyl benzyl phthalate 0 0 19 276 0 78
338 Bix(2—ethylhexy)phthalate 0 0 11 88 0 0
501 Antimony 0 1 0 NA 0 1
502 Arsenic 0 0 0 3 0 0
504 Cadmium 0 1 0 30 0 3
505 Chromium 86 16 167 1187 0 71
506 Copper 59 38 54 207 23 50
507 Lead 227 39 44 501 13 137
508 Manganese 255 213 177 351 7 280
509 Mercury 0 0 0 3 0 1
510 Nickel 19 4 12 170 4 18
512 Silver 14 3 4 15 0 12
514 Zinc 485 158 152 1213 210 353
601 Total Cyanides 6 4 0 146 0 5
602 Total Phenols 38 20 52 377 0 98
703 Aonia 5 9 17 5 0 8
704 Oil and Crease 66 32 93 151 0 28
705 TSS 213 158 147 323 0 140
706 TOC 60 65 190 183 5 68
707 COD 246 263 535 804 0 190
708 800 82 82 249 334 0 103
Number of Sites 2 2 2 3 — -
Number of Samples 6 6 6 9 2 3
*Relative flows for the R. H. Clayton basin: Residential, 61%, Commercial/Downtown, 21%; Industrial, 18%
**Classical in mg/L
60
-------
influent concentrations than seen previously. Most pollutants are observed
at their highest levels in the industrial sites, except for trichloroethylene,
which is high downtown and pentachiorophenol, which is at comparable levels
in the downtown, commercial, and industrial sites.
The tap water source has a higher level of zinc (210 iig/L) than seen
previously (Cincinnati = 27 iig/L, St. Louis = 14 j.igIL), but otherwise is
similar to taps from the previous cities. The highest levels of chloroform
were observed in the tap water samples.
As mentioned, the concentration data only provide certain clues as
to possible particular sources of pollutants. They also provide a perspec-
tive on the matter of whether pollutants observed at the POTW are also
observed in the sources and vice versa.
The most complete analysis of this data is performed when the flow
and concentration data are combined to project a total mass flow.
C. Mass Balance Analysis
1. Calculations for Scale Up
The objectives of this study include being able to predict the
relative mass contribution of residential and commerical sources to POTW
influents. One reason for doing this is 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 city, Q, if the
total contribution from the residential and commercial sources can be
estimated, then the industrial contribution can be calculated after
measuring the POTW as follows:
INDQ = POTWQ — (RESQ + COMQ)
61
-------
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 + CON + IND
x 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= VR • AR+VC • AC+VI • A 1
indicating the quantitites of each source type (R = RES, C = CON, I = IND).
The basic data available from each sampling site to use in developing
this approach are 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 • 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 thus be estimated as:
RES(Kg/day) = Res. Avg. (mg/person/day) • Basin Population • 10—6
62
-------
For the commercial and industrial sites, the only parameter reliably
available for all of the sites studied (and the basin) is the total flow.
Thus, for these source types, an average concentration value has been
calculated so that, when the average value is multiplied by the total
basin source type flow, the total source contribution is obtained:
COM(Kg/day) = [ Avg. Corn. Conc.(pg/L)] • [ Corn. Flow(L/S)] • 8.64 x lO
IND(Kg/day) = [ Avg. md. Conc.(pgIL)] • [ md. Flow(L/S)] • 8.64 x 1O
The data obtained from the commercial sites do not show a wide
range in type or quantity of pollutants between sites and suggest that
an average commercial concentration is a valid concept. To the contrary,
the industrial site data show a wide variance in both type and concen-
tration of pollutants, indicating that an average industrial concentration
is not a valid concept to 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 can be made. Such a comparison provides
a test of how well the sites sampled represent the quantity and quali-
tative nature of the whole of that source type within the basin.
Table 12 summarizes the basic characteristics of each of the sampling
sites, giving the relative flow contribution from the three main source
types, population, and average measured flow.
In Table 13 are shown the per capita mass discharge rates calculated
for each of the residential sources and the population weighted average
value. The average concentration values for the commercial and industrial
sources are given in Tables 14 and 15, respectively. The values for the
individual sites are flow—weighted averages; the last column on the right
represents a straight mean of the individual site averages. These values
may differ slightly from those presented in Table 11 since those values
were all straight arithmetic averages rather than flow—weighted averages.
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
63
-------
0 ’
Table 12
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
-
Designation
Sources
Combined Separate
Relative Flow %
RES COM IND
Population
Measured
Flow (Lps)
Residential
X
100
0
0
2,416
9.0
Residential
X
73
27
0
10,280
103.6
Commercial
X
21
79
0
1,852
20.2
Commercial
X
72
26
2
1,868
6.8
Commercial!
Downtown
X
18
42
41
12,810
234.0
Commercial!
Mixed
X
31
45
24
52,546
1602.0
Industrial
X
3
4
93
400
41.6
Industrial
X
11
12
77
1,951
82.2
Industrial
X
36
43
20
3,533
54.1
BASIN
385,425
4072.0
-------
Table 13
RESIDENTIAL SOURCE PER CAPITA VALUES
mgLperson/ day
*
1i
z
C
-l
I—
(l
Z
m
-l
11.0
Pollutant
1,1—Dichloroethylene
C
z
<

C >
<
.00
.00
.00
111
1,1—Dichioroethane
.00
.00
.00
112
Trans—l,2—Dichloroethylene
.00
.00
.00
113
Chloroform
2.36
1.51
2.20
114
1,2—Dichloroethane
.00
.00
.00
115
1,1,1—Trichioroethane
.82
.00
.66
116
Carbon tetrachioride
.00
.00
.00
120
Trichloroethylene
1.32
.00
1.07
121
Benzene
.00
.00
.00
127
l,l,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
5.52
.63
4.59
128
Toluene
.86
.15
.72
129
Chlorobenzene
.00
.00
.00
130
Ethyl benzene
.00
.09
.02
203
Phenol
.00
1.65
.31
204
2,4—Dimethyiphenol
.00
1.19
.23
210
Pentachiorophenol
6.20
.00
5.02
301
Dichlorobenzenes
.00
.00
.00
315
Naphthalene
.00
.00
.00
333
Di—n—butyl phthalate
.00
1.61
.31
337
Butyl benzyl phthalate
.00
.00
.00
338
Bis(2—ethylhexyl)phthalate
.00
.00
.00
501
Antimony
.00
.61
.12
502
Arsenic
.00
.00
.00
504
Cadmium
.00
.51
.10
505
Chromium
15.51
2.26
12.99
506
Copper
24.68
14.29
22.71
507
Lead
26.68
13.42
24.16
508
Manganese
115.55
79.44
108.68
509
Mercury
.00
.00
.00
510
Nickel
1.90
1.79
1.88
512
Silver
3.52
.00
2.85
514
Zinc
85.55
66.94
82.01
601
Total cyanides
4.81
.00
3.89
602
Total phenols
13.08
6.69
11.87
703’
Ammonia
5.84
2.90
5.28
704
Oil and Crease
18.73
10.96
17.25
705
TSS
49.30
94.98
58.00
706
TOC
37.83
23.99
35.19
707
COD
231.63
58.90
198.76
708
BOD
48.55
29.13
44.86
Classicals in g/person/day
65
-------
Table 14
COMMERCIAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS
*
pg/ L
z
00
0 E-i
Z >
—
Pollutant -
110 1,1—Dichioroethylene .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
111 1,1—Dichioroethane .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
112 Trans—1,2—dichloroethylefle 2.0 9.2 .0 2.2 3.3
113 Chloroform 6.6 16.2 3.5 6.4 8.2
114 1,2—Dichioroethane .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
115 1,1,1—Trichioroethane 2.4 1.7 2.1 .0 1.6
116 Carbon tetrachloride .0 .0 .0 1.1 .3
120 Trichloroethylene .0 73.0 163.3 80.9 79.3
121 Benzene .0 .0 .7 1.3 .5
127 1,1,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene 9.5 81.6 10.1 2.6 26.0
128 Toluene 2.1 4.3 3.9 1.1 2.8
129 Chlorobenzene .0 .0 .6 .0 .1
130 Ethyl benzene 5.9 .0 4.1 .0 2.5
203 Phenol 3.5 6.6 .0 .0 2.5
204 2,4—Dirnethyiphenol .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
210 Pentachiorophenol 41.5 .0 14.4 27.8 20.9
301 Dichlorobenzenes .0 7.0 .0 .0 1.8
315 Naphthalene .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
333 Di—n—butyl phthalate 4.6 .0 .0 4.5 2.3
337 Butyl benzyl phthalate .0 33.0 .0 .0 8.2
338 Bis(2—ethylhexyl)phthalate .0 20.5 .0 .0 5.1
401 Antimony .5 .0 .0 .6 .3
502 Arsenic .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
504 Cadmium .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
505 Chromium 423.8 6.6 59.5 113.1 150.7
506 Copper 51.3 52.2 71.0 45.2 54.9
507 Lead 49.3 38.7 352.7 108.6 137.3
508 Manganese 178.2 154.9 324.4 183.7 210.3
509 Mercury .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
510 Nickel 5.5 18.3 28.8 8.7 15.3
512 Silver 9.1 .0 13.1 12.8 8.8
514 Zinc 171.9 134.5 785.9 172.7 316.3
601 Total cyanides .0 .0 11.1 .0 2.8
602 Total phenols 43.5 40.5 38.2 36.0 39.5
703 Ammonia 22.6 5.6 5.7 4.3 9.5
704 Oil and Grease 123.8 69.6 60.3 62.0 78.9
705 TSS 121.3 163.6 222.9 201.2 177.2
706 TOC 180.3 184.0 55.3 60.6 120.1
707 COD 401.4 666.6 358.9 131.0 389.4
708 BOD 245.4 262.6 79.1 78.8 166.5
*
Classicals in mg/L
66
-------
Table 15
INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (iig/L)
Pollutant u
110 l,l-Dichloroethylene 3.0 49.2 17.3 23.2
ill l,l—Dichloroethane 1.0 7.9 .6 3.1
112 Trans—1,2—dichloroethylene .1 56.8 13.0 23.3
113 Chloroform 5.0 19.6 7.5 10.7
114 1,2—Dichloroethane .0 1.9 1.6 1.2
115 1,1,1—Trichioroethane 73.2 252.0 173.4 166.2
116 Carbon tetrachloride 14.8 151.7 3.2 56.6
120 Trichioroethylene 4.0 67.6 18.2 29.9
121 Benzene .8 1.8 1.0 1.2
127 1,l,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene 123.9 204.8 43.5 124.1
128 Toluene 123.8 63.3 74.2 87.1
129 Chlorobenzene .0 5.6 .0 1.9
130 Ethyl benzene 258.3 228.9 111.9 199.7
203 Phenol 551.8 232.5 19.8 268.0
204 2,4—Dirnethylphenol 301.3 130.9 11.6 147.9
210 Pentachlorophenol 9.2 51.3 .0 20.1
301 Dichlorobenzenes .0 2187.7 5.2 731.0
315 Naphthalene 194.9 78.6 .0 91.2
333 Di—n—butyl phthalate 42.7 90.4 .0 44.4
337 Butyl benzyl phthalate 604.0 .0 377.3 327.1
338 Bix(2—ethylhexyl)phthalate 173.7 84.1 .0 85.9
501 Antimony - — —
502 Arsenic 2.0 8.5 .0 3.5
504 Cadmium 17.1 1.7 83.5 34.1
505 Chromium 1880.6 2136.9 33.0 1350.1
506 Copper 75.4 163.0 342.5 193.6
507 Lead 1224.5 365.2 91.4 560.3
508 Manganese 165.5 388.1 441.2 331.6
509 Mercury 1.8 5.9 3.4 3.7
510 Nickel 596.7 22.1 8.8 209.2
512 Silver 8.3 25.7 13.6 15.9
514 Zinc 3356.0 493.4 148.7 1332.7
601 Total cyanides 236.4 48.8 172.4 152.5
602 Total phenols 446.1 514.7 181.5 380.8
703 Ammonia 3.6 8.4 4.1 5.4
704 Oil and Grease 430.7 103.4 62.0 198.7
705 TSS 434.1 550.9 91.5 358.8
706 TOC 196.3 273.4 133.9 201.2
707 COD 1350.3 1068.0 318.2 912.2
708 BOD 388.8 524.9 207.1 373.6
*Classicals in mg/L
67
-------
source types within the drainage basin according to the equation below:
SUN = RES . Population + COM • Flowc + IND . Flow 1
where RES, COM and IND indicate the average value either on a per capita
or concentration basis, population refers to the total drainage basin
population, and Flowc and Flow 1 are, respectively, the total commercial
and industrial flows in the basin. The values thus calculated may be
compared with the POTW influent as shown in Table 16.
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 INF/SUN ratios fall in the range of
0.5—2.0 areconsideredto have agreement between their projected source
total (SUN) and the POTW influent (INF). The usefulness of this mass
balance analysis is primarily in evaluating 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.
The data in Table 16 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 1O 3 Kg/day. Some of the INF/SUN ratios in Table 16 are shown
in parentheses ( ) to indicate that the INF value is probably too low
to allow for a meaningful comparison. The significance of the influent
measurement has been determined with respect to the reporting limit of
the pollutant in question. A value of 0.35 Kg/day at the influent flow
of 4072 LpS corresponds to a concentration of 1 pg/L; 3.5 Kg/day equals
10 pg/L.
68
-------
Table 16
MASS BALANCE ANALYSIS
*
Kg/day INF
**
RES COM IND SUN INF SUN
Pollutants whose source values at-count for influent, 0.5 < INF/SUN < 2.0
113. Chloroform 0.85 0.71 0.68 2.23 2.51 1.1
114. l,2—Dichloroethane 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.14 (2.0)
128. Toluene 0.28 0.18 5.49 5.95 8.97 1,5
130. Ethyl Benzene 0.01 0.14 12.58 12.73 17.15 1.4
210. Pentachiorophenol 1.94 1.69 1.27 4.89 6.75 1.4
301. Dichlorobenzenes 0.00 0.17 46.03 46.20 32.62 0.7
315. Naphthalene 0.00 0.00 5.74 5.74 11.56 2.0
333. Di—n—butyl Phthalate 0.12 0.22 2.79 3.13 1.55 (0.5)
337. Butyl Benzyl Phthalate -0.00 0.80 20.60 21.40 27.18 1.3
504. Cadmium 0.04 0.00 2.15 2.19 1.10 0.5
506. Copper 8.75 3.63 12.19 24.57 17.71 0.7
507. Lead 9.31 4.79 35.29 49.39 47.72 1.0
508. Manganese 41.89 12.61 20.89 75.38 97.63 1.3
509. Mercury 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.28 (1.2)
512. Silver 1.10 0.53 1.00 2.63 4.37 1.7
514. Zinc 31.61 11.69 83.93 127.22 124.26 1,0
602. Total Phenols 4.57 2.93 23.98 31.48 35.13 1,1
703. Ammonia 2.03 0.79 0.34 3.17 2.61 0.8
705. TSS 22.35 11.86 22.60 56.81 48.51 0.8
706. TOC 13.56 10.37 12.67 36.60 23.88 0.6
708. BOD 17.29 14.31 23.53 55.13 35.49 0.6
Pollutants whose Influent values are greater than sources, INF/SUM >2.0
110. l,1—Dichloroethylene 0.00 0.00 1,46 1.46 3.02 2.1
112. Trans—1,2—dichloroethylene 0.00 0.33 1.47 1.79 6.54 3.6
115. 1,1,1—Trichioroethane 0.26 0.10 10.47 10.82 33.73 3.1
120. Trichioroethylene 0.41 3.75 1.89 6.05 58.02 9.6
127. l,l,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene 1.77 2.29 7.81 11.87 84.21 7.1
Pollutants whose source values are greater than influent, INF/SUN <0.5
203. Phenol 0.12 0.25 16.88 17.25 6.63 0.4
204. 2,4—Dimethyiphenol 0.09 0.00 9.31 9.40 3.48 0.4
505. Chromium 5.01 13.26 85.03 103.29 25.37 0.2
510. Nickel 0.73 0.79 13.18 14.69 6.45 0.4
601. Total Cyanides 1.50 0.00 9.60 11.10 1.73 0.2
704. Oil and Grease 6.65 6.23 12.52 25.39 10.04 0.4
707. COD 76.61 29.24 57.44 163.30 65.03 0.4
* 3
** Classicals in 10 Kg/day
For 4072 Lps influent flow 1 ig/L = 0.35 Kg/day, 10 pg/L = 3.5 Kg/day
69
-------
Of the 27 priority pollutants and 6 classical parameters for which
this data analysis was carried out, 21 project a total loading which is
equivalent to the measured POTW influent within the error limits, including
9 organics, 7 metals, 4 classical parameters, and total phenols.
Five pollutants have projected source levels which are less than
the influent. These are all organic chlorinated solvents and may have
significant sources in areas not included in the sampling plan. Five
priority pollutants (2 organics, 2 metals, and total cyanides), COD,
and oil and grease have projected source values greater than observed
in the influent, suggesting that the rest of the basin is not proportionally
as high in these chemicals as the sampled areas.
The six pollutants listed below have projected source levels, but
not influent levels, greater than 0.01 Kg/day. Only carbon tetrachioride
and bis(2—ethylhexylphthalate) are at high enough levels in any of the
sources to be considered significant.
Kg/day
Pollutant RES COM IND SUM
ill. l,l—Dichloroethane 0.00 0.00 0.20 (0.20)
116. Carbon Tetrachioride 0.00 0.03 3.56 3.59
121. Benzene 0.00 0.03 0.08 (0.11)
129. Chlorobenzene 0.00 0.00 0.12 (0.12)
338. Bis(2—ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.00 0.50 5.41 5.91
502. Arsenic 0.00 0.00 0.22 (0.22)
2. Sources of Pollutants
The relative pollutant contribution of the different source types
may be examined by calculating, from the scaled mass data, the fraction
contributed by each source type. For this analysis, the individual scaled
RES, COM and IND Kg/day values were divided by the SUM as shown in
Table 17. The reader is cautioned that such an analysis assumes that
the entire basin is as represented by the sources, an observation we
know from the previous discussion to be not entirely true. It would
perhaps be better to view the data in Table 17 as representative of a
70
-------
Table 17
SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS
Fraction of Scaled Sum Mass
Pollutant RES COM IND
Residential sources contribute more than 50% of mass
508. Manganese 0.56 0.17 0.28
703. Ammonia 0.64 0.25 0.11
707. COD 0.47 0.18 0.35
Commercial sources contribute more than 50% of mass
120. Trichioroethylene 0.07 0.62 0.31
Industrial sources contribute ni re than 50% of mass
110. l,1—Dichloroethylene 0.00 0.00 1.00
111. 1,1—Dichioroethane 0.00 0.00 (1.00)
112. Trans—l,2—dichloroethylene 0.00 0.18 0.82
114. 1,2—Dichioroethane 0.00 0.00 (1.00)
115. l,l,1—Trlchloroethane 0.02 0.01 0.97
116. Carbon Tetrachioride 0.00 0.01 0.99
121. Benzene 0.00 0.29 (0.71)
127. l,1,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene 0.15 0.19 0.66
128. Toluene 0.05 0.03 0.92
129. Chlorobenzene 0.00 0.00 (1.00)
130. Ethyl Benzene 0.00 0.01 0.99
203. Phenol 0.01 0.01 0.98
204. 2,4—Dimethyl Phenol 0.01 0.00 0.99
301. Dichlorobenzenes 0.00 0.00 1.00
315. Naphthalene 0.00 0.00 1.00
333. Di—n—butyl Phthalate 0.04 0.07 0.89
337. Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 0.00 0.04 0.96
338. Bis(2—ethylhexyl)Phthalate 0.00 0.08 0.92
502. Arsenic 0.00 0.00 (1.00)
504. Cadmium 0.02 0.00 0.98
505. Chromium 0.05 0.13 0.82
506. Copper 0.36 0.15 0.50
507. Lead 0.19 0.10 0.71
509. Mercury 0.00 0.00 (1.00)
510. Nickel 0.05 0.05 0.90
504. Zinc 0.25 0.09 0.66
601. Total Cyanides 0.14 0.00 0.86
602. Total Phenols 0.15 0.09 0.76
704. Oil and Grease 0.26 0.25 0.49
71
-------
Table 17 (Cont’d)
SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS
Fraction of Scaled Sum Mass
Pollutant RES COM IND
Pollutants with no dominant source
113. Chloroform 0.38 0.32 0.30
210. Pentachlorophenol 0.40 0.35 0.26
512. Silver 0.42 0.20 0.38
705. TSS 0.39 0.21 0.40
706. TOC 0.37 0.28 0.35
708. BOD 0.31 0.26 0.43
72
-------
hypothetical drainage basin whose pollutant load was as represented in the
R. M. Clayton sites, but scaled up based upon the relative source type
flows for the basin (these are RES = 61.3%, COM = 20.8%, IND = 17.9%).
Of the 33 pollutants in this table, 29 are dominated (more than 50%
of the mass) by the industrial sources, including 18 organics, 8 metals,
total cyanides, total phenols, and oil and grease. Only manganese,
ammonia and COD are dominated by the residential sources. Commercial
sources are the dominant source of trichloroethylene. Three priority
pollutants (chloroform, pentachiorophenol, silver) and three classical
parameters (TSS, TOG, BOD) do not appear to have a single dominant source.
These data are a clear contrast to the St. Louis study where the residen-
tial sources dominated the projected influent values because of the small
industrial component in that study.
It should be emphasized that an analysis of this type is only
meaningful within the ability to obtain closure with respect to the mass
balance. As seen from Table 17, several pollutants are higher and/or
lower in their projected sums than what was actually observed at the
influent due to the fact that the R. M. Clayton drainage basin is not
identical in source composition to the scale-up of the individual sites.
An analysis of this type will be more meaningful when the data from the
source types 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 estimated 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, data for which were unavailable for
this study. Table 18 shows the calculated mass flows for the tap water,
compared with influent values. This analysis shows that the tap water
could be a significant source of chloroform. All other pollutants
observed in the tap water constitute only a small fraction of the
measured influent mass.
73
-------
Table 18
POSSIBLE TAP WATER CONTRIBUTION TO POTW INFLUENT
*
Kg/day TAP
Pollutant INF TAP INF
113. Chloroform 2.51 7.56 3.0
127. 1,1,2,2—Tetrachioroethylene 84.2 0.53 0.01
506. Copper 17.7 7.92 0.4
507. Lead 47.7 4.57 0.1
508. Manganese 97.6 2.29 0.02
510. Nickel 6.45 1.41 0.2
514. Zinc 124.3 73.9 0.6
706. TOC 23.9 1.58 0.07
* 3
Classicals in 10 Kg/day
74
-------
D. Review of Unusual Occurrences
The data for the individual samples have been reviewed to determine
whether there were any particular patterns evident in the pollutants
which showed up at low frequency, i.e., less than three times. Most of
the infrequently observed pollutants seem to appear without pattern.
Three of the chlorophenols, which appeared only once, did occur together
at the DeFoors industrial site. They were:
conc. ( ig/L )
2—chlorophenol 15
2,4—dichloropheno l 15
2,4, 6—trichiorophenol 12
A similar observation had been made in St. Louis, where a sample
had been observed to have an excess of free chlorine. This DeFoors
sample did not give a positive chlorine test but as slightly basic.
75
-------
VII. CONCLUSIONS
Completion of this study of the third, and most diverse, drainage
basin has introduced a substantial amount of data. The third city
provides an extended data base with which to compare the data obtained
in the previous basins. In addition, since the sampling areas in Atlanta
were so much more complex, in terms of their chemical activity, they
provided a more complete basis for estimating the typical pollutant
load from commercial and industrial sources. The Peachtree site in
Atlanta was largely composed of the downtown commercial area, including
many of the hotels. This area showed surprisingly low pollutant concen-
trations in view of the demographic data. In fact, this area did not
differ greatly from the other commercial and residential areas sampled
to date. The industrial sites generally exhibited higher pollutant
concentrations; there were also five new chemicals detected In these
industrial samples.
In the R. M. Clayton drainage basin, 49 priority pollutants (or pollu—
tant groups) were observed: 35 organics, 11 metals plus manganese, total
cyanides and total phenols. The six classical parameters measured in
this study — ammonia, TSS, TOC, COD, BOD, and oil and grease — were also
detected. Eight (8) organics, 7 metals, and total phenols were observed
more than 50% of the time (16 samples); 5 of the metals were observed
100% of the time. Two organic pollutants — chloroform and 1,1,2,2—tetra—
chioroethylene — were detected in 90—100% of the samples, as they were
in St. Louis. There were 77 individual priority pollutants (including
all the pesticides) which were not detected in any of the samples.
The concentration data and frequency data only address the question
of whether or not the pollutants were found at the sources sampled. A
more complete insight into which sources are responsible for the pollutant
load at the POTW 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:
77
-------
• 17 pollutants — 9 organics, 7 metals and total phenols —
project a total pollutant load equivalent to the
measured influent; 4 classical parameters are also
accounted for by the sources.
• Five (5) pollutants (all chlorinated solvents) have
projected source levels less than the influent
indicating that an unsampled source of these
pollutants is likely; 5 pollutants (2 organics,
2 metals, and total cyanides), COD and oil and
grease have total source values greater than the
influent. These observations are summarized in
Table 16.
• By comparing the scaled Kg/day values for the
three source categories as fractions of the sum,
the following assignments can be made: trichloro—
ethylene was contributed predominantly by commercial
sources; 28 priority pollutants and oil and grease
by industrial sources; manganese, ammonia and COD
by residential sources; and 3 priority pollutants
and 3 classical parameters by no source category
in particular (although chloroform was primarily
due to the tap water). These results are summarized
in Table 17.
• All the pollutants whose influent values are greater
than the projected source levels, except trichloro—
ethylene, are contained in the list of chemicals
attributed to industrial sources; 31% of the tn—
chloroethylene is due to Industrial sources but
the major source is commercial activity.
The chemical analysis procedures have been Improved for some
pollutants. The quality control program continues to be Invaluable
in terms of daily checks on the chemical analyses and in terms of
78
-------
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 bears little re-
semblance 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.
79
-------
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,” I. Literature Review, EPA, MDSD, Final Report on Task
Order No. 6, Contract No. 68—01—3857, Report No. ADL 81099—50,
June 1979.
4. “Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to Sewage Treatment
Plants,” II. Muddy Creek Drainage Basin, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA, MDSD,
Final Report on Task Order No. 6, Contract No. 68—01—3857, Report
No. ADL 81099—51, June 1979.
5. “Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found In Influents to Sewage Treatment
Plants,” III. Coldwater Creek Drainage Basin, St. Louis, Missouri,
EPA, MDSD, Final Report on Task Order No. 10, Contract No. 68—01—3857,
Report No. ADL 81099—16, October 1979.
6. “Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to Sewage Treatment
Plants,” V. Hartford Water Pollution Control Plant, Hartford, Connec-
ticut, EPA, MDSD, Final Report on Task Order No. 13, Contract No.
68—01—3857, Report No. ADL 81099—46, November 1979.
81
-------
APPENDIX A
DETAILS ON SAMPLING PROCEDURES
On April 1, 1979, 14 employees of Arthur D. Little went to Atlanta
to obtain wastewater samples from sewers within the R. M. Clayton sewage
district. These employees were under the imtnediate supervision of
Jeffrey Adams and Marie Chung.
Actual sampling activities began on Tuesday, April 3, at approx-
imately 8:00 a.m., and continued until Monday, April 10, at 8:00 a.m.
Throughout this period of time, six teams of Arthur D. Little 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
K. M. Clayton 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
Atlanta Northside New residential
North Atlanta Warren Old residential
Atlanta Lenox Commercial
Doraville DeKalb Commercial
Atlanta Peachtree Mixed
Atlanta Sixteenth Commercial
Chamblee Ensign Industrial
Chamblee Sexton Industrial
Doraville Surrey Industrial
Atlanta DeFoors Industrial
To accomplish this, the two field teams drove through the drainage area
in rented 12—foot trucks containing all the supplies necessary
to accomplish the job. As each team finished its shift, the truck
A-i
-------
returned to the POTW for supplies and sample drop—off. From this point,
the logistics crew was responsible for the logging in and packaging of
all collected samples prior to their shipment to our laboratory. In
addition, the logistics teams collected samples of the POTW influent and
a tap water sample.
A summary of the 48—hour composite samples collected in Atlanta
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 the average daily flows measured at each
of the sampling locations in Atlanta, corrected as discussed in Section IV
of this report.
A- 2
-------
SUMMARY OF
Table A—i
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
Northside: New Residential
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
Lenox: Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
Peachtree: Mixed
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
Sixteenth: Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
DeFoors: Industrial
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
Field Blank
X
X
12
Increments
DeKaib: Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
Surrey: Industrial
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
Ensign*: Industrial
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
Sexton*: Industrial
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
Warren: Old Residential
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Increments
Field Blank
X
X
12
Increments
*
Increments from Ensign and Sexton were combined to produce one sample.
-------
Table A-2
SAMPLING SCHEDULE IN ATLANTA (Loaistics)
SAMPLE
LOCATION
TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, SATURDAY,
SUNDAY
Influent (11W)
Tap Water (TAP)
f
I I
0900 1300 1700
0930 1330 1730
2100
2130
I
0100
0130 j
0500
0530
____________________
- THURSDAY, FRIDAY
Influent (INF)
0900
1300 1700
2100
0100
0500
t
-------
Table A- (contd)
SAMPLING SCHEDULE IN ATLANTA (north)
TEAM 2 in 0700; out 2000: TEAM 4 in 1900: out 0800 : _______
SAMPLE LOCATiON
______________________ ___________ TUESDAY , WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY
DeKalb (NDD) 0800 ‘ 1200 1600 2000 0000 0400
Surrey (SC) 0900 1300 1700 2100 0100 0500
Ensign (END) and 1000 1400 1800 2200 0200 0600
Sexton (SWX)
Warren (WIlL) 1100 1500 1900 2300 0300 0700
________________________ ____________ ___________ SATURDAY, SUNDAY ___________- ________________
DeKaib (NOD) 0800 1200 1600 2000 0000 0400
Surrey (SC) 0900 1300 1700 2100 0100 0500
Field Blank (10-1) 0930 1330 1730 2130 0130 0530
Ensign (END) and 1000 1400 1800 2200 0200 0600
Sexton (SWX)
Warren (WIlL) 1100 1500 1900 2300 0300 0700
-------
Table A—2 (cont’d)
SAMPLING SCHEDULE IN ATLANTA(SOUTH)
SAMPLE LOCATION
TEAM 1 IN: 0700 OUT: 2000 Team 3 IN: 1900 OUT: 0800
TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY
0800 1200 1600 2000 2400 0400
0845 1245 1645 2045 0045 0445
0930 1330 1730 2130 0130 0530
1015 1415 1815 2215 0215 0615
1100 1500 1900 2300 0300 0700
SATURDAY, SUNDAY
Northside (NSP)
Lenox (LS)
Sixteenth (SIX)
Peachtree (PEA)
DeFoors (DFR)
Northside (NSP)
Lenox (LS)
Sixteenth (SIX)
Field Blank (FB-2)
Peachtree (PEA)
DeFoors (DFR)
0800
0845
0930
0945
1015
1100
1200
1245
1330
1345
1415
1500
1600
1645
1730
1745
1815
1900
2000
2045
2130
2145
2215
2300
2400
0045
0130
0145
0215
0300
0400
0445
0530
0545
0615
0700
-------
Table A—3
MINIMUM NUMBER AND SIZE OF BOTTLES REOUIRED BY LOGISTICS AT EACH SITE
SAMPLING SITE
DAY
1
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
1
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
I
SUNDAY
Influent (INF)
5 x lL
1 x 500niL
1 x 25OmL
1 x 45niL
5 x lL
1 x 500mL
1 x 25OmL
1 x 45mL
8 x 1L*
1 x 45mL
(QC)
8 x 1L*
1 x 45mL
(QC)
5 X 1L
1 x 500mL
1 x 25OmL
1 x 45tnL
5 X 1L*
1 x 500tnL
1 x 25OmL
1 x 45mL
Tap (TAP)
4 x 1L*
1 x 500niL
1 x 25OniL
lx45mL
4 x 1L*
1 x 500mL
1 x 25OmL
lx45mL
not
collected
not
collected
4 x 1L*
1 x 500mL
1 x 25OmL
lx45mL
4 x 1L*
1 x 500mL
1 x 25OniL
lx45mL
-------
Table A-3 (cont d;
MINIMUM NUMBER AND SIZE OF BOTTLES REQUIRED BY TEAMS 1 & 3 . T EACH SITE DURING EACH VISIT
SAMPLING S E
DAY J
TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY
-I
Northside (NSP) 5 x lL 5 X 1L
1 x 500nil SAME AS TUESDAY & SU 1DAY - 1 X 5001111
1 x 250m1 1 x 25Onil
1 x45m1 1x45m1
5 x 1L 5 x 1L
Lenox (LS) 1 x 5OOm1 -SAME AS TUESDAY & SUNDAY 1 X SOOnil
Sixteenth (SIX) 1 x 250m1 1 x 250m1
1 x 45m1 1 x 45m1 — —-
Peachtree (PEA) 8 x 1L 8 x 1L* 5 x 1L same as Thurs. 5 x 1L
I 1 x 45m1 1 x 45m1 1 x 500m1 4 and 1 x 500m1
Sunday 1 x 250m1
1 x 250m1

(QC) (QC) - 1 x45rn1 - - 1x45m 1
5xlL* SxlL* 8x lL* 8x lL* 5xlL* 5x lL*
DeFoors (DFR)
1 x 500m1 1 x 500nil 1 x 45m1 1 x 45m1 1 x 500m1 1 x 500ml
1 x 250ml 1 x 250m1 1 x 250m1 1 x 250m1
1 x 45m1 1 x 45m1 (QC) (QC) 1 x 45ml 1 x 45m1
FIELD BLANK (Fts-1)
not not not not 4 x 1L* 4 x 1L
collected collected collected collected
1 x 500m1 1 x 500m1
1 x 250m1 1 x 250m1
5 x 45m1 ’ —
*This includes the 1L bottles for Oil & Grease fraction that only has to be collected twice each day (one by each team)
** All 45 ml bottles are collected by team 1 during their first field blank increment
-------
lable A-3 (cont’d)
MINIMUM NUMBER AND SIZE OF BOTTLES REQUIRED BY TEAMS 2 & 4 AT EACH SITE DURING EACH VISIT
SAMPLING SITE
DeKaib (NOD)
TUESDAY
DAY
x IL*
I x 45m1
(QC)
WEDNESDAY
x lL
1 x 45mL
(QC)
FR I DAY
Surrey (SC)
THURSDAY
5 x 1L
1 x 500m1
1 x 5Om1
1 x 45m1
5 x 1L
1 x 500inl
1 x 250rn1
1 x 45m1
SATURDAY SUNDAY
5xiL* 5xiL*
1 x 500m1 1 x 500m1
1 x25Oml 1 x250m1
1 x45m1 1 x45m
Ensign (END)
and
Sexton (SWX)
5 x lL
1 x 500ml
1 x 25Oml
5 x 1L
1 x 500ml
1 x 250m1
same
as
Wed.
and
Sat.
5 x lL
1 500m1
1 x 25Om1
1 x 45m1
1 x 45m1
1 x 45m1
-a
Warren (WHL)
5 x 1L
1 x 500iiil
1 x 25Onil
1 x 45m1
5 x lL
1 x 500nii
1 x 250m1
1 x 45m1
5 x lL
1 x 500m1
1 x 250m1
1 x 45m1
5 x lL*
1 x 500m1
lx25Oml
1 x 45m1
same as Tuesday & sunday
same as Tuesday & Fri.
-4
Not
Collected
Not
Collected
S x 1L
8
x 1L*
8
x 1L*
1 x 500m1
1
x 45m1
1
x 45m1
1 x 250m1
(QC)
(QC)
1 x 45m1
Not
Coil ected
Not
Collected
FIELD
BLANK (FB-2)
4 x iL* 4 x
1L
1 x 500m1 1 x
500nii
j
--
- - -. .-
1 x 250m1 1 x
5 x 45rn1
250m1
*This
includes
the iL bottle for
Oil & Grease that
only
has
to
be
collected
twice
each day (one by
each
team)
**Ali
5 x 45 ml
bottles are collected by Team 1 during
their first
field blank increment
-------
Table A—4
PLAN A—].. Each time a non—QC’d sampis is withdrawn from a manhole at
one of the field sampling locations, the following number
and size of bottles are to be filled:
Northside (NSP)
Lenox (LS)
Sixteenth (SIX)
DeKaib (NDD)
Sexton (SWX)
Ensign (END)
Fraction Collect Code
For Acid/Base eutral and
Asbestos Fraction 1 x 1L ABN/AS
For PCB/Pesticide and BOD/TSS
Fraction 1 x 1L PCB/Class BOD
For Volatile Fraction* 1 x 45 mL. Screw—
cap vial. Do not VOA
leave any bubbles
in bottles.
Note: These five fractions
will be air—freighted to Boston
daily. Be sure to pack all air
freight samples separately from
the other bottles.
For Metal and Mercury* 1 x lL M+, Hg
For Cyanide Fraction* 1 x 250 mL or
equivalent CN
For Phenol Fraction* 1 xSOcJ mL or
equivalent Pheri.
For TOC, COD and N H 3 Fraction* 1 x 1L
N H 3
For Oil and Grease Fraction* 1 x lL Class, O+G
Note: The oil and grease fraccion 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 —5
PLAN A—2. Each 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:
POTW—INF (INF)
DeFoors (DFR)
Peachtree (PEA)
DeKalb (NDD)
Warren (WHL)
Fraction Collect Code
For Acid/Base Neutral and
Asbestos’Fraction 2 x 1L ABN/AS
For PCB/Pesticjde and BOD/TSS
Fraction 1 x lL PCB/Class BOD
For Volatile Fraction* 1 x 45 tnL, screw—cap
vial. Do not leave VOA
any bubbles in bottle
Note: These five fractions
are air freighted to Boston
daily. Be fure to segretate
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 N i l 3 , TOC, and COD Fraction* 1 x lL NH 3
For Oil and Grease Fraction* 1 x 1L o+c
Note: The Oil and Crease fraction is only to be collected twice each
day at each site. I would strongly recommend that this be
one during each teams’ first rotation between sites.
*
These samples require preservation; see attached sample preservation
sheet.
A-li
-------
Table A—6
PLA1 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/Pesticide, BOD/TSS and AEN, PCB, As,
Asbestos Fraction 1 x lL Class BOD
For Volatile Fraction* 5 x 45 mL screw—cap
vials during first
collection sequence only VOA
on field blanks
1 x 45 mLs on tap water VOA
Note: These five fractions
are air freighted to Boston
daily.
For Metal and Mercury Fraction* 1 x 1L
M, Hg
For Cyanide Fraction* 1 x 250 triL or
equivalent CN
For TotaiPhenol Fraction* 1 x5 00 mL or
equivalent Phen.
For N H 3 , TOC and COD Fraction* 1 1L
NH 3
For Oil and Grease Fraction* 1 x 1L O+G
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
location and visit. Example: since
times per work shift, three separate
In addition, one or two pages should
each site ner shift.
per example. Use one per sample
Ensign Drive is visited three
notebook pages should be used.
be reserved for comments about
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 —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 1L 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
i.e.:
each bottle that requires it (see Attachment C)
Phenols
Cyanides
2mL/L H 2 S0 4 plus 1 gm/L CuSfl ,.5H 2 O
Ascorbic acid til KI paper shows no color,
plus 0.6 gm excess per liter plus 2mL/L iON
sodium hydroxide.
Metals, Mercury
Total Organic
Carbon
COD
NH 3
Oil and Grease
Volatiles
5mL/L concentrated nitric acid
2mL/L concentrated sulfuric acid
2 drops sodium thiosulfate solution
2inL/L concentrated sulfuric acid
A-13
-------
Table A—7 (Ôont’d)
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/Pestjcide 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
Sample Preservation Requirements
Total Phenols: For each sample bottle collected for total phenol
analysis, acidify with concentrated sulfuric acid
H 2 SO (‘ 2mL) to pH 4. Add 1 gm CuSO 5H 2 0 per
liter of sample.
Procedure:
Check pH of raw sample with pH test paper. If
needed, add lmL conc H 2 SO and then check pH with
test paper. Repeat until pH reaches 4. Record
amount of H 2 S0 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 (RI)
starch indicator paper. Add two drops of sodium
thiosulfate solution to each VOA bottle collected.
If RI 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 RI 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 SOz 4 ) until pH < 2 (‘ 2mL). Record
Demand, NH 3 : volume of H 2 S0 added.
Oil and Crease: Check pH of sample with pH test paper. Add concentrated
sulfuric acid (H 2 SOz ) until pH < 2 (‘k’ 2mL). Record
volume of H 2 SOt added.
A- 15
-------
Table A—9
ATLANTA CORRECTED FLOW VALUES
LOCATION DAY A DAY B DAY C AVG.
*
Northside (0.931) 153.9 77.3 79.7 103.6
Warren (1.057) 12.3 7.7 7.1 9.0
Lenox (0.531) 27.9 17.9 14.8 20.2
DeKaib (0.641) 8.7 6.2 5.4 6.8
Peachtree (0.583) 1931 1478 1398 1602
Sixteenth (0.874) 297.6 184.0 219.9 233.8
Ensign (0.369) 70 8 43 0 48 5 59
[ Including Sexton(0.555)] .1
Surrey (0.278) 64.2 49.8 10.9 41.6
DeFoors (0.696) 106.8 84.9 55.0 82.2
Influent 4878 3747 3591 4072
*Velocity to manning flow correction factors
A- 16
-------
APPENDIX B
DETAILS ON ANALYTICAL METHODS
The analytical methods for each priority pollutant category have
been described in the Cincinnati report. 4 The basic procedures used in
this program were those 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 and St. Louis surveys, brief
descriptions follow. The following sections include descriptions of
problems encountered, analytical information, quality control (QC) data,
and comments on the method.
VOLATI LES
The analytical method used for the priority pollutants in the volatiles
category was modified by adding charcoal to the sorbent trap in an attempt
to prevent the most volatile compounds from breaking through the trap.
During the Cincinnati and St. Louis studies, it was observed that
chioromethane, dichiorodifluoromethane, bromomethane, vinyl chloride,
and chioroethane were not retained by the Tenax/Silica Gel trap. EMSL—
EPA suggested that adding charcoal to the trap would prevent this
breakthrough. The samples were purged onto a trap consisting of 6 inches
Tenax GC, 1—5/8 inch Silica Gel (35/60 mesh, Grade 15), and 1—5/8 inch
charcoal desorbed at various times and temperatures. It was determined
experimentally that purging for 6 minutes at 43°C and desorbing for 4
minutes at 180°C were acceptable conditions for recovering all the
volatile priority pollutants, except dichiorodifluoromethane.
The relative retention times and calibration values used for
volatile priority pollutant calculations are listed in Table B—i.
Table B—2 presents the volatile quality control data from the
Atlanta study. Overall, the quality control (QC) data determined for
the Atlanta study were comparable to the Cincinnati and St. Louis QC data.
B—i
-------
Table B—i
CALIBRATION VALUES FOR CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
Volatiles
COMPOUND
a
RRTs
b
slope
b
mt.
Rep. Limit
area
jiglL
101. Chloromethane
0.136
204.08
.0049
1
102. Dichlorodifluoromethane
103 Bromomethane
0.152
232.56
0
.0093
1
104. Vinyl chloride
0.000
144.93
0
.0069
1
105. Chloroethane
0.182
243.90
0
.0041
1
106. Methylenechloride
0.268
91.74
0
.0109
1
107 Acrolein
0.000
5000
0
.0002
1
108 Trichlorotluoromethane
0.360
48.78
0
.0205
1
109 Acrylonitrile
0.385
51.55
0
.0194
1
110. 1,1—Dichloroethylene
0.412
56.50
0
.0177
1
111. 1 ,1—Dichloroethane
0.487
13.24
0
.0755
1
112. Trans—12—dichloroethylene
0.527
28.09
0
.0356
1
113. Chloroform
0.576
11.68
0
.0856
1
114 1,2—Dichloroethane
0.617
212.76
0
.0047
1
115. 1,1,1—Trichloroethane
0.671
20.88
0
.0479
1
116. Carbontetrachloride
0.693
24.75
0
.0404
1
117. Bromodichloromethane
0.757
212.76
0
.0047
1
118. 1,2—Dichloropropane
0.821
500
0
.0020
1
119. Trans—1,3—dichloropropylene
0.851
20.53
0
.0487
1
120. Trichloroethylene
0.876
30.40
0
.0329
2
121. Benzene
0.876
7.03
0
.1423
1
122. Cis—1,3—dichloropropylene
0.931
29.15
0
.0343
1
123. Dibromochloromethane
0.934
52.36
0
.0191
2
124. 1,1,2—Trichloroethane
0.934
29.94
0
.0334
1
125. Brornoform
1.108
69.44
0
.0144
1
126. 1,1,2,2—Tetrachloroethane
1.204
26.95
0
.0371
1
127. 1,1,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
1.253
35.46
0
.0202
1
128. Toluene
1.305
10.88
0
.0919
1
129. Chlorobenzene
1.404
14.14
0
.0707
1
130. Ethylbenzene
1.564
33.11
0
.0302
1
a
b
Retention time, relative to 2—bromo—1—chloropropane (13.95 minutes).
x = concentration, y = CC/Ms response
B—2
-------
Table B—2
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Volatiles
coMPouI’n
Method Ref erencea
Raw Wastewaterb
Sp
%Sp
C
Rc
P
Sp
%Sp
101. Chloromethane
330
126
38
20
10
278
83
30
102. Dichlorodifluoromethane
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
103. Broniomethane
170
98
58
20
17
149
82
55
104. Vinyl chloride
243
88
36
20
9
212
57
27
105. Chloroethane
185
73
39
20
9
161
40
25
106 Methylene chloride
125
26
21
20
9
73
58
80
107 Acrolein
64
60
94
100
121
53
66
125
108 Trichlorofluoromethane
143
36
25
20
2
138
41
29
109. Acryloriitrile
107
29
27
100
17
102
24
24
110 1,1—Dichloroethylene
133
15
11
20
3
101
61
61
111. 1,1—Dichloroethane
105
28
27
20
4
93
13
14
112 Trans—1,2--dichloroethylene
93
28
30
20
5
59
43
73
113 Chloroform
102
31
30
20
7
87
19
22
114. 1,2—Dichloroethane
78
14
18
20
4
86
13
15
115. 1,1,1—Trichloroetharie
90
9
10
20
4
62
48
78
116. Carbon tetrachloride
103
10
10
20
4
107
6
6
117 Broniodichlorometharie
78
16
21
20
4
79
16
20
118 1,2—Dichloropropane
78
29
37
20
2
92
8
8
119. Trans—1,3—dichloropropylene
80
5
6
20
3
75
3
4
120 Trichloroethylene
108
24
22
20
7
63
49
78
121 Benzene
92
18
19
20
4
81
14
17
122. Cis—1,3--dichloropropylene
83
6
7
20
1
76
4
5
123. Dibromochloromethane
102
24
23
20
5
108
26
24
124. 1,1,2—Trichloroethane
95
15
16
20
3
94
12
13
125. Bromoform
58
20
35
20
7
60
22
37
126. 1,1,2,2—Tetrachtoroethane
77
10
14
20
1
81
9
11
127. 1,1,2,2—Tetrachloroethylene
95
9
9
20
13
67
53
79
128. Toluene
75
10
13
20
9
72
22
31
129. Chlorobenzene
85
17
20
20
5
87
20
23
130. Ethyl benzene
70
13
19
20
41
70
33
47
a Calculated from 3 data points b Calculated from 6 data points
B—3
-------
Four of the compounds that were not detected during the Cincinnati
and St. Louis studies (chloromethane, bromomethane, vinyl chloride and
chloroethane) were detected during the Atlanta study. However, recovery
and precision data were high, ranging from 161% ± 40 to 330% ± 126. The
cause of this problem has not yet been determined. Method blanks did
not indicate any contamination.
Dichlorodifluorotnethane was not detected and was apparently break-
ing through the trap, in spite of the added charcoal. Acrolein data
were also poor. Since there was no response for acrolein when the stan-
dard was injected directly onto the CC column, it can be presumed that
the acrolein standard had degraded.
The QC data for methylene chloride improved substantially during
the Atlanta study. It is believed that the sporadic contamination pro-
blem present in the Cincinnati and St. Louis studies was not as serious
in the Atlanta study.
When the new trap (with charcoal added) was being evaluated, true
recoveries for the volatile priority pollutants were determined. The
EPA Screening Protocol 1 recommends that volatile priority pollutant con-
centrations be calculated by using calibration standards that have been
purged and trapped. In order to evaluate the new trap, recovery data
were approximated by using calibration standards directly injected onto
the GC column.
The poorest recoveries, less than 20%, occurred with the most
volatile compounds — chloromethane, dichiorodifluoromethane, and bromo—
methane. Otherwise, the average recovery obtained for the volatile priority
pollutants and the internal standards was 60% (range 40% to 100%).
ACIDS
The relative retention times and calibration data for the acid priority
pollutants are given in Table B—3. Table B—4 presents the acid QC data from
the Atlanta study. In general, these data are comparable to the data obtained
previously. The precision improved substantially (factor of three) for the
following five acid priority pollutants: 2—chiorophenol, 2—nitrophenol,
2,4—dimethyiphenol, 2,4—dichlorophenol, and 2 ,4 ,6—trichlorophenol.
B— 4
-------
Table B—3
CALIBRATION VALUES FOR CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
Acids
COMPOUND
.
RRTSa
siopeb
b
mt.
Rep. Limit
area
u /L
201. 2—Chlorophenol
0.340
13.6852
7.4329
.1871
10
202. - 2—Nitrophenol
0.388
30.2558
5.8283
.1380
10
203. Phenol
0.470
14.0186
2.3864
.5480
10
204. 2 ,4—Dimethylphenol
0.555
18.0665
6.4790
.1949
10
205. ,4—Dichlorophenol
0.577
17.9196
4.9780
.2800
10
208. 2,4,6—Trichlorophenol
0.720
23.5207
5.6063
.1870
10
207. 4—chloro—3--creso,
0.815
19.9290
0.7696
.4630
10
208. 2.4—Dinitrophenol
0.000
73.4759
19.4594
.0750
25
209. 4,6—Dinitro—2—cresol
1.054
46.9461
13.7729
.2390
25
210. Pentachlorophenol
1.205
51.9267
3.7533
.1203
10
211. 4—Nitrophenol
2.024
41.8218
11.6772
.0795
15
a Relative Retention Times — relative to D 10 —anthracene
x = CC/MS response
y = concentration
B—5
-------
Table B—4
SUMMARY OF QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Acids
COMPOUND
Method Ref. Std.’
Raw Wastewater_Spike ’
Sp
%Sp
C
Rc
P
Sp
7 Sp
201. 2—Chlorophenol
80
11
14
50
11
69
4
6
202. 2—Nitrophenol
79
16
20
50
16
70
5
8
203. Phenol
65
10
15
50
12
46
9
20
204. 2,4—Dimethylphenol
83
10
12
50
13
74
4
5
205. 2,4—Dichlorophenol
91
13
15
50
11
88
8
9
206. 2,4.6—Trichlorophenol
72
12
17
50
16
72
5
7
207. 4—chloro—3--cresol
87
12
14
50
17
81
10
13
208. 2 4—Dinitrophenol
—
50
20
31
155
209. 4 6—Dinitro—2—cresol
50
33
37
112
210. Pentachlorophenol
43
6
14
50
16
123
14
11
211. 4—Nitrophenol
52
5
10
50
12
70
8
11
a Calculated from 3 data points.
b
Calculated from 6 data points.
B—6
-------
2,4—Dinitrophenol and 4,6—dinitro--2—cresol chromatographed very
poorly on the CC column (1% SP 1240DA) during both the Atlanta and St. Louis
studies. Consequently, the QC data for these two compounds were poor.
As before, the QC data for the raw wastewater spikes were better than
those for the method reference standards. One explanation for this
phenomenon could be that the more acidic sample matrix deactivates the
1% SP124ODA GC packing in a manner similar to phosphoric acid.
BASE/NEUTRALS
During the Atlanta study, two gas chromatography columns - 3% SP
2250DB and 1% SP2250 —were employed in the GC/MS analysis of the base!
neutral priority pollutants. Poor chromatographic results were obtained
with the 3% SP225ODB column used initially,and new columns with the same
packing did not substantially improve the chromatography. Therefore,
columns packed with 1% SP2250 were employed for the remainder of the
analyses.
Relative retention times and calibration data for the base/neutral
priority pollutants chroinatographed with the 3% SP225ODB and 1% SP2250
CC packings are given in Tables B—S and B—6 , respectively. The set of
calibration values used to calculate concentration levels in the samples
was determined by the CC column on which the particular sample was
analyzed.
Table —7 presents the base/neutral quality control data from the
Atlanta study. The recoveries were somewhat lower than those determined
for the Cincinnati and St. Louis studies, whereas the precision improved.
The lower recoveries may be attributed in part to the more complex
sample matrix found in the Atlanta samples.
B— 7
-------
Table B—5
CALIBRATION VALUES FOR CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
Base/Neutrals — 3% SP 2250DB
COMPOUND f
RRTSa
Area I u /L i
siope Jintercept’ J Reporting Limit
301. 1,3 Dichlorobenzene
. 320
.1132
.6135
.5188
10
302. 1,4 Duchlorobenzene
303. 1,2 Dichlorobenzene -
304. Hexachloroethane
.351
.0539
.0488
.5879
10
305. Bis(chloromethyl)ether
—
—
306. Bis(2—chloroethyl) ether
. 364
.0849
.1082
. 7406
10
307, Bis(2—chloroisopropyl) ether
.000
.1495
1.4817
2.9767
10
308. N—Nitrosodimethylamine
.503
.0381
.9997
.1430
3C
309. Nitrosodi•n•propylamine
.516
.0152
.1137
.0387
10
310. Nitrobenzene
.485
.0542
.6739
.1384
15
311. Hexachlorobutadiene
.492
.0768
.6325
.1354
10
312. 1,2 .4—Trichlorobenzene
.502
.1183
.8897
.2933
10
313. 2—Chloroethyl vinyl ether
—
—
—
—
—
314. Bis(2—c.hloroethoxy) methane
.529
.0792
.0019
.7897
10
315. Naphthalene
.527
.2343
.8346
1.5088
10
316. Isophorone
.612
.0945
.4100
1.3545
10
317 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
318. 2—Chloronaphthalene
.689
.1469
.3718
1.8406
10
319. Acenaphthylene
.756
.1759
.1975
1.9561
10
320. Acenaphthene
.775
.1440
.0021
1.4378
10
321. Dimethylphthalate —
.798
.1957
.1730
2.1295
10
322. 2,6—Dinitrototuene
.815
.0340
.0544
.2855
10
323. 4—Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
844
.1308
.3849
1 .6930
10
324. Fluorene
.848
.1733
.1233
1.8561
10
325. 2,4—Dinutrotoluene
.868
.0372
.1132
.2591
10
326. Diethyl phthalate
.877
.1912
1.5725
3.4346
10
327. 1,2—Duphenylhydrazine
.872
.2400
.0744
2.4740
10
328. N—Nitrosodiphenylamine
.905
.0884
.2105
.6738
10
329. Hexachlorobenzene
.914
.0499
.1076
.6061
10
330. 4—Bromophenyl phenyl ether
.918
.0461
.0771
.5381
10
B—8
-------
TableB—5 (Cont’d)
CALIBRATION VALUES FOR CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
Base/Neutral — 3% SP 2250DB
COMPOUND RRTSa
Slopeb InterceptbJ rtfn mit
331. Anthracene
1.000
.2045
.9444
2.9898
10
1
332. Phenanthrene
333. Di-n-butyl phthalate
1.083
.2979
2.558
5.537
10
334. Fluoranthene
1.177
.2195
.0538
1.0435
5
335. Pyrene
1.214
.2670
.1478
1.4827
5
336. Benzidine
1.293
.0189
.0279
.1609
10
337. Butyl benzyl phthalate
1.323
.1158
.1680
1.3265
10
338. Bis(2—ethylhexyl) phthalate
1 355

.1341
1.1847
2.5254
10
339. Du-n-octyl phthalate
—
340. hrysene
1.404
.2187
1.3421
.8445
10
-
341. Benzo(a)anthracene
342. 3.3’—Dichlorobenzidine
1.453
.0633
.5560
.0774
10
343. Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1.595
.1824
.1130
.7990
5
344. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
345. Benzo(a}pyrene
1.693
.1617
.3110
1.1196
5
346. Indeno (1,2,3—c,d) pyrene
2.184
.1738
.3143
1.1831
5
347. Dibenzo (a,h) Anthracene
2 . 200
.1604
. 7805
.0213
5
348. Benzo (g,h .i) perylene
2.367
.1774
.4209
1q3078
5
2—Fluoronaphtha lene
. 520
Octafluorobiphenyl
.502
Decafluorobiphenyl
.389
9—Phenylanthracene
1.368
a Retention time, relative to D 10 —anthracene (21.55 minutes).
b
x = concentration
y = GC/MS response
B_9
-------
Table B—6
CALIBRATION VALUES FOR CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
Base/Neutrals — 1% SP 2250
a b 1 Reporting Limit
C0MPOuN1 RRTs Slope Intercept Area I vigIL
301.
1,3 Dichlorobenzene
0.354
.0715
5.0197
5.7343
10
302.
1,4Dichlorobenzene
303.
1.2 Dichlorobenzene
304.
Hexachloroethane
0.359
.0327
.4987
.8259
10
305.
Bis(chloromethyl)ether
306.
Bis(2—chloroethyl)ether
0.408
.0780
.9289
1.7089
10
307.
Bus(2—chloroisopropyl)_ether
308.
N—Nitrosodimethylamine
0.490
.0026
.0228
.0032
10
309.
N trosodi-n-propyIamine
0.502
.0175
.1155
.2902
10
310.
Nitrobenzene
0.504
.0370
.1668
.5364
10
311.
Hexachlorobutadiene
0.502
.0323
.9503
1.2729
10
312.
1,2,4—Trichlorobenzene
0.520
.0637
1.3866
2.0236
10
313.
2—Chloroethyl vinyl ether
314.
Bus(2—chloroethoxy)methane
0.547
.0924
.8540
1.7777
10
315.
Naphthalene
0.542
.2219
3.0661
5.2850
10
316.
Isophorone
0.577
.0901
2.0048
2.9055
10
317.
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
318.
2—Chloronaphthalene
0.701
.1253
2.0201
3.2731
10
319.
Acenaphthylene
0.766
.1852
1.6749
3.5271
10
320.
Acenaphthene
0.780
.1326
1.2468
2.5723
10
321.
Dimethylphthalate
0.799
.1373
2.1842
3.5567
10
322.
2,6—Dinutroto uene
0.819
.0307
.2555
.5623
10
323.
4— hIorophenyIphenyl ether
0.847
.2377
2.8939
5.2711
10
324.
Fluorene
0.853
.1281
2.1051
3.3865
10
325.
2,4—Dinitrotoluene
0.870
.0448
.4097
.8582
10
326.
Diethyl phihalate
0.874
.1511
2.4250
3.9358
10
327.
1,2—Diphenylhydrazine
0.876
.2211
2.2982
4.5088
10
328.
N—Nitrosodiphenylamine
0.900
.0805
.4574
1.2619
10
329.
Hexachlorobenzene
0.916
.0463
.8358
1.2984
10
330.
4—Bromophenylpheriylether
0.918
.0551
.5328
1.0838
10
B—b
-------
Table B_6(COflt.)
CALIBRATION VALUES FOR CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
Base/Neutrals — 1% SF 2250
COMPOUND
RRTSa
SloDeb LnterceDtl
hL Reporting Limit
I no/T. 1
aRetention time, relative to D 10 —anthracene (22.54 minutes).
bx=concentration y=GC/MS response.
Area
331. Anthracene
1.001
.2283
2.5189
4.8017
10
332. Phenanthrene
333. Di-n-butyl phthalate
1.073
.3254
4.7456
7.9993
10
334. FIuoran hene
1.170
.2056
.9806
2.0088
5
335. Pyrene
1.206
.2478
1.2936
2.5328
5
336. Benzidine
1.264
.0002
.4356
.4376
10
337. Butyl benzyl phthalate
1.303
.1021
2.5142
3.5349
10
338. Bis(2—ethylhexyl) phthalate 1
1 333

.1787
5.1072
6.8942
10
1
339. Di•n-octyl phthalate
340. Chrysene
1 387

.1477
1.6034
2.3417
5
341. Benzo(a)anthracene
342. 3,3’—Dichlorobenzucline
1.420
.0309
.1151
.4241
10
343. Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1 608

.1944
.1437
1.1157
5
344. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
345. Benzo(a)pyrene
0.000
.1904
.1947
1.1468
5
346. Indeno (1,2.3—c.d) pyrene
2.304
.1719
.2588
1.1181
5
347. Dibenzo (a.h) Anthracene
2.315
.1350
.2205
.8955
5
348. Benzo(g,h,i) perylene
2.528
.1493
.4467
1.1933
5
349. 2—FluononaphthalenelS
.537
350. Octafluorobiphenyl IS
.512
351. Decafluorobiphenyl, IS
.401
352. 9—Phenylanthracene, IS
1.351
B—li
-------
Table B—7
SUMMARY OF QUALITY CONTROL DATA
BASE/NEUTRALS
COMPOUND
Method Ref erencea I Raw Wastewater Spikeb
Sp
%Sp
C
Rc
P
Sp
%Sp
301. 1.3 Dichlorobenzene
50
28
55
150
138
70
21
30
302. 1,4 Dichlorobenzene
303. 1,2Dpchlorobenzene
304. Hexachloroethane
61
21
34
• Q
28
J . .
31
42
305 Bis(chloromethyl)ether
—
—
—
50
—
—
—
—
—
306. Bis(2—chloroethyl) ether
48
19 —
40
50, 26
c
83
26
-- —
—
32
—
307. Bis(2—chloroisopropyl) ether
308. N—Nitrosodirnethylamine
—
—
—
50
—
—
309. Nttrosodi-n-propylamine
64
15
23 51
19
74
20
27
310 Nitrobenzene
52
10
19 50
18
66
8
12
311 Hexachlorobutadiene
31
30
96
51
22
35
6
18
20
312 1,2,4—Trichtorobenzene
49
17
35
50 24
58
12
313 2—Chloroethyl vinyl ether
—
—
—
50 —
—
—
—
314. Bis(2—chloroethoxy) methane
53
20
37
50 26
80 I
21
26
315. Naphthalene
65
22
33
50
48
69
30
43
316. Isophorone
— 47
16
33 50
40 d
6±
d
35 d
317. Hexachlorocyclopentaduene
—
—
— 50
—
— —
—
318. 2—Chloronaphthalene
61
24
39 50 31
66
73
18
13
27
17
319. Acenaphthylene
63
16
25 50
21
320. Acenaphthene
321. Dimethyl phthalate
322. 2,6—Dunutrotoluene
72
54 e
65
25
19
34
29
50

50
22

21
74117
48 7
61j12
23
14
20
323. 4—Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
106
56
53
50
19
87
25
28
324. Fluorene
66
19
29
50
14
68
11
16
325. 2,4—Dunutrotoluene
57
16
29
l2
52 d
19 d
326. Diethyl phthalate
327. 1,2—Diphenylhydrazine
42
64
27
21
63
33
50
50
16
15
77
71
26
16
34
23
328. N—Nutrosodiphenylamine 77 22 29 50 15 95 15 16
B—i 2
-------
Table B—7 (cont’d.)
SUMMARY OF QUALITY CONTROL DATA
BASE/NEUTRALS
a
Method Reference
Raw_Wastewater Spikeb
COMPOUND
329. Hexachlorobenzene
P j
57
Sp 1 %Sp
29 51
C
50
Rc P
34 44
Sp
10
%Sp
23
330 4—Bromophenyl phenyl eth°
74
24
32
51
19
58
7
12
331 Anthracene
332 Phenanthrene
333 Di-n-buty phth&ate
83
26 32
100
39
76
11
14
59
14
24
50
34
74
22
29
334 Fluoranthene
72
22
31
25
9
59
6
11
335. Pyrene
72
21
29
25
15
56
8
14
336. Benzidsne
—
—
—
i s o
—
—
—
—
337. Butyl benzyl phthalate
33
34
104
50
104
38
22
57
338 Bis(2—ethy hexyI) phthalate
339. Di-n-octyl phthalate
340. Chrysene
341 Benzo(a)anthracene
342. 3,3—D,chlorobenzidine
343. Benzo(b)fluoranthene
35
59
65
53
33 92
20 34
13 20

30 56
100

50
29
108
30
22
15
35

70
41
10
6
10
7
29
13
15
17
344 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
345 Benzo(a)pyrene
49
30
61
25
19
38
9
24
346. Indeno (1,2,3—c,d) pyrene
C
347 D,benzo (a.h) Anthracene
37
36
97
25
39
28
14
50
348. Benzo (g,h i) perylene
9
16
173
50
.-
4
10
245
aBased on three data points
bBased on six data points
CStandard not available for spiking solution
dBased on four data points
eBd on one data point
B —13
-------
The base/neutral priority pollutants that were still not detected
in Atlanta are listed below along with their respective problems.
Bis(chloromethyl)ether — very short half—life in water.
N—nitrosodimethylamine — low recovery, high CC/MS reporting
limit.
2—Chioroethylvinylether — volatile (b.p. 109°C), causing
erratic recoveries during Kuderna
Danish concentration.
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene — high CC/MS reporting limit.
Benzldine — high GC/MS reporting limit, heat
labile, unstable in methylene
chloride.
In addition to these compounds, benzo(g,h,i)perylene gave poor GC data.
The source of problems with this compound is not yet known.
PESTICIDES AND PCBs
The method for analyzing priority pollutants in the pesticide and
PCB category was again modified for the Atlanta study. In addition to
the second GC column added in the St. Louis study, 5 a third CC column
was used to further corroborate the identification of the pesticides and
PCBs on the other two GC columns, thereby decreasing the number of samples
that required further analysis by GC/MS.
The third GC column was packed with a dimethylsilicone/trifluoropropy].
silicone (Supelco’s 6% SE3O/4% QF—l) CC packing in a 180 cm x 4 mm I.D.
glass column. The CC column temperature was maintained at 225°C (isothermal),
the injector temperature was 300°C, and the 95% Argon/5% methane flow rate
was 75 mL/minute. The retention times of the pesticides on the 6% SE3O/4%
QF—l GC column were substantially longer than the retention times on the
other two CC columns and are tabulated in Table B—8. Any pesticides and
PCBs identified on the three CC columns were confirmed using CC/MS techniques.
Typical calibration values used to calculate pesticide and PCB concen-
tration levels are given in Table B—9. Table B—b presents the pesticide
and PCB quality control data from the Atlanta study. Overall, the Atlanta
quality control data were comparable to the data from Cincinnati and
St. Louis with some improvement in the precision. The priority pollutant
pesticides and PCBs that are not listed in this table were not available
to spike into the QC samples.
B— 14
-------
Table B—8
RELATIVE RETENTION TIMES
a b c
4mm 4mm 2mm
1.5% SP 2250 4% SE- .30 1.5% SP 2250
1.95% SP 2401 6% QF—1 1.95% SP 2401
alpha—BHC .478 .525 0.402
gamma—BHC .593 .645 0.525
beta—BHC .675 .681 0.630
Heptachior .714 .885 0.664
delta—BHC .778 .738 0.741
Aidrin .853 1.074 0.819
Heptachior Epoxide 1.264 1.542 1.308
Endosulfan I 1.575 1.943 1.665
DDE 1.803 1.805 2.081
Die ldrin 1.932 2.310 2.248
Endrin 2.253 2.632 2.601
DDD 2.850 2.779 3.137
Endosulfan II 2.850 2.788 3.137
DDT 2.850 2.991 3.338
Endrin Aldehyde 3.771 3.634 3.660
Endosulfan Sulfate 4.661 4.757 4.442
PCB 1254 — Peak 1 1.489
Peak 2 2.2590
Peak 3 2.5324
Peak 4 3.2626
Peak 5 4.125
a,b,c — Relative to internal standard tetrachlorotetrahydronaphthalene
aR I Time = 3.00 minutes
b
Retention Time = 8.6 minutes
CRi Time = 6.30 minutes
B—15
-------
Table B—9
CALIBRATION VALUES FOR CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
P STTCTnPq
Compound
Slope
Intercept
Limit (ug/L)
401. alpha-BHC
10.3434
.0551
1
402. gamma-BHC
8.7253
—.1193
1
403. beta-BHC
9.6276
—.2423
1
404. Heptachlor
3.2679
—.0161
1
405. delta-BHC
6.7294
— .1753
1
406. Aldrun
6.8552
—.1611
1
407. Heptachlorepoxide
7.9061
—.1854
1
408. Endosulfan I.
6.032 1
— .1607
1
409. DDE
9.7662
—.2644
1
410. Dieldrin
13.6615
—.3600
1
411. Endrin
3.6592
—.0793
1
412. ODD
6.8075
—.1678
1
413 Endosulfan II
1
414. DOT
3.1368
—.0512
1
415. Endrinaldehyde
6.8588
.0266
1
416. Endosulfan sulfate
4.2673
—.0763
1
423. PCB—1254
.6417
—.0464
1
B— 16
-------
Table B—l0
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
PESTICIDES
Compound
Method Reference
Standard (a)
Raw Wastewater (b)
P
%SP
C
Rc
P
Sp I
401 aIpha BHC
73
32
44
10
3
63
18 28
402 gamnia-BHC
403. beta-BHC
- 73
70
32
10
44
14
10
10
5
2
68
72
29
12
43
16
404. Heptachlor
70
10
14
10
2
72
12
16
405 delta-BHC
80
10
12
10
2
87
20
23
406 Aldrin
407. Heptachlorepoxide
70
87
10
12
14
13
10
10
3
1
75
88
15
10
20
11
408 Endosulfan I
50
10
20
10
5
47
8
18
409. DDE
83
6
7
10
4
85
14
16
410 Dieldrin
40
10
25
10
3
35
8
24
411 Endrin
83
15
18
10
0
87
19
22
412 DDD — 83
414 DDT 73
21
25
34
10
10
4
3
92
67
22
10
24
16
(a) Calculated from 3 data points.
(b) Calculated from 6 data points.
B— 17
-------
TOTAL CYANIDES and TOTAL PHENOLS
The Atlanta QC data for total cyanides and total phenols are given
in Table B—ll.The data are comparable to the QC data obtained in the
Cincinnati and St. Louis studies, and are good.
The meaning of the total phenol values was discussed in the Cin-
cinnati report. 4 During the Cincinnati study, it was observed that the
only phenol found in the GC/MS analysis was phenol itself and there was
no strong correlation be tween the total phenols and phenol values. It was
suggested that the apparent total phenol value was partially due to some in-
terfering species present only in the raw wastewater. Prior to collect-
ing samples in Atlanta, a few experiments were run to gain some insight
into the total phenol values. It was determined that non—priority pollu-
tant phenols, such as resorcinol (a dihydroxybenzene), will react with
4—aminoantipyrine (4—AAP) and subsequently produce a positive color
response. Compounds which could potentially react with 4—AAP, e.g.,
aniline and vanillin, did not react at concentration levels of 100 pg/L.
Therefore, it is suggested that the total phenol values are due to
phenols other than those on the priority pollutant list.
Other non—priority pollutant compounds that Emerson (1943) has
reported* to react with 4—AAP include o—cresol, m—cresol, 2,5 diniethyl
phenol, methyl salicylate, and salicylic acid: compounds that were
identified in the Atlanta P011.1 influent, as discussed In Section V.
Some of the acid priority pollutants (2—nitrophenol, 2,4—dimethyl—
phenol, 4—nitrophenol, 2,4—dinitrophenol and 4,6—dlnitro—2—cresol) would
not be expected to react with 4—AAP based on the following of Emerson’s
observations:
• “Substituents in position para to the hydroxyl group prevent the
reaction except as follows: halogen, carboxyl, sulfonic acid,
hydroxyl, and methoxyl. These groups are probably expelled.
• A nitro group in the ortho position prevents reaction and a
nitro group inhibits the test but not completely.”
*Emerson, E. (1943) J. Org. Chem. 8, 226.
B— 18
-------
Table B—li
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
TOTAL CYANIDES/TOTAL PHENOLS
Method Ref. S d.a Raw Wastewater Spikesb
P SP %Sp C RC P Sp %Sp
Total Cyanides 87 11.5 13.3 20 17.4 77 13.3 17.3
Total Phenols 101.6 2.9 2.8 60 6 97 6 6
abased on 3 data points
bbased on 6 data points
B—19
-------
METALS
The methods used for instrumental analysis, as well as the reporting
limits for the metallic priority pollutants, are given in TableB—]2.
Antimony could not be analyzed in nine of the samples from indus-
trial sources. Specifically, samples selected for analysis by the method
of standard additions did not show increases in apparent concentration
corresponding to the amounts of antimony standard solution added. Simi-
larly, spiked raw wastewater samples among the nine samples were found
to have an apparent concentration close to or equal to the corresponding
unspiked raw wastewater samples. All sample preparation and analysis
procedures used for these nine samples were identical to those used for
all other samples, which were analyzed with no apparent difficulty. This,
along with the fact that all nine samples were from a single source type
(industrial), suggests that matrix interferences unique to these nine
samples were responsible for the observed difficulties. The diagnostic
capability of the instrumentation used for these analyses was not adequate
to permit further identification of the exact source of these lroblems
within the allowed time.
The metals QC data are given in TableB-13. Overall, the data are
good, with recoveries in the range of 75% to 100%. The poor precision
in the analysis of lead can be attributed to high concentration levels
of lead in the raw wastewater samples. The 100 pg/L spike was added to
samples that already contained as much as 680 pg/L of lead.
CLASSICAL PARAMETERS
QC data were obtained for the classical parameters——ammonia, oil
and grease, total organic carbon (TOC), chemical oxygen demand (COD),
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS).
B— 20
-------
Table B—12
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND REPORTING LIMITS
Metals
FAAS
AA
Hydride evolution
FAAS
FAAS
PES
PES
PES
PES
FAAS
Cold vapor
PES
AA
Hydride evolution
PES
FAAS
PES
pg / L
FAAS — Flameless Atomic Adsorption Spectroscopy — Graphite Furnace
PES — Plasma Emission Spectroscopy
AA — Atomic Adsorption
501.
502.
Antimony
Arsenic
503.
504.
505.
506.
507.
508.
509.
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
510.
511.
Nickel
Selenium
512.
513.
514.
Silver
Tha 11 ium
Z Inc
B— 21
-------
Table B—13
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
METALS
SAMPLE NUMBER
ethod Referenc
arcI _
Metal
F
Sp
%Sp
C
Rc
F
Sp
%Sp
501. Antimony
L2O
33
28
10
12
73
19
502. Arsenic
L13
18
16
25
6
95
11
25
11
503. Berylium
110
10
9
10
1
102
10
10
504. Cadmium
70
26
38
10
4
72
45
63
505. Chromium
97 (c
3
ioo
0
97
2
2
506. Copper
85
6
7
16
107
10
507. Lead
97
1
1
. . . Q .
129
75
35
9
508. Manganese
99
1
1
] QQ
0
103
5
509. Mercury
6
-
510. Nickel
.00
4
4
511. Selenium
152 (c
13
8
.... ..
]0
8
6
1.00
72
3
34
3
512. Silver
122
10
8
7
117
35
47
513. Thallium
87
21
24
82
10
30
12
514. Zinc
98
2
2
26
83
18
21
(a) Based on 3 data points.
(b) Based on 6 data points.
(c) Based on 4 data points.
B—22
-------
Four method reference standards were prepared by adding the
classical parameter standards (purchased from Environmental Research
Associates) to clean water to obtain known concentration levels. There
was a shipping delay of at least one week before the samples were analyzed.
The QC data are given below:
(a) (b) Sp
703. Ammonia 4.1 94 ± 2
704. Oil and Grease 230 79 ± 24
705. TSS 70 42 ± 33
706. TOC 75 102 ± 2
707. COD 190 75 ± 12
708. BOD 105 117 ± 8
(a) concentration level (mg/L) to which the classical
parameters were spiked.
(b) = average recovery based on four data points.
(c)s = standard deviation.
The average recoveries obtained for all the classical parameters,
except total suspended solids (TSS), ranged from 75% to 100% of the true
value. The average recovery for TSS was low (42%) while the precision
was high (±33). The cause for this has not yet been determined.
B—23
-------
APPENDIX C
ACID AND BASE/NEUTRAL INTERNAL STANDARDS
When analyzing for acid and base/neutral priority pollutants using
gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) techniques, the use of an
internal standard is required in order to minimize the inherent varia-
bility in the mass spectrometer system. The internal standard specified
in the EPA Screening Protocol’ is d 10 —anthracene.
During the Cincinnati 4 and St. Louis 5 studies, d 10 —anthracene was
added to the raw wastewater sample aliquots for acid and base/neutral
analysis, prior to sample preparation, to give a concentration level of
5 i.ig/L sample. The recovery of d 10 —anthracene for the overall method
(extraction, concentration and CC/MS analysis) was found to be 90.4% for
the Acid method and 93.0% for the Base/Neutral method, as given in the
St. Louis report.
During the Atlanta study, d 10 —anthracene was added to the final ,
concentrated methylene chloride extract to give a concentration level
of 5 pg/2 nil (equivalent to 5 pg added to 1 L aqueous sample aliquot,
according to the EPA protocol). By adding d 10 —anthracene to the extract
rather than to the aqueous sample aliquot, ny effects of extracting
and concentrating d 10 —anthracene from the aqueous samples were eliminated.
The d 10 —anthracene peak areas from sample extracts were compared to the
d 10 —anthracene areas from calibration standards. These d 10 —anthracene
values (expressed as a percentage of the calibration standards) were
101% for the Acid samples and 106% for the Base/Neutrals. This change
in procedure does not allow compensation for the effects of sample
preparation on recovery as the analysis of the previous sample did.
Since d 10 —anthracene was no longer being added to the sample aliquots
prior to extraction for acid and base/neutral analyses as was done for
the Cincinnati and St. Louis surveys, it was decided to add four other
compounds to the aqueous aliquots in order to monitor the total method,
i.e., extraction, concentration and CC/MS analysis, and provide a basis
for comparison with the d 10 —anthracene values. These four total method
internal standards were added to the Acid and Base/Neutral aqueous
samples. In this way, a measure of the quality of the data for all
samples was obtained.
C—i
-------
The four compounds chosen to act as total method internal standards
were 2—fluoronaphthalene, octafluorobiphenyl, decafluorobiphenyl and
9—phenylanthracene. These were chosen because they do not normally occur
in the environment, and they do not interfere with the priority pollutant
analysis by CC/MS. The four compounds were added into the Acid and Base/
Neutral aqueous samples to give a concentration level of 5 1 g/L each.
For the acid analysis, only three of the four total method internal
standards were analyzed. The fourth internal standard, 9—phenylanthracene,
did not elute from the Acid CC column (Supelco’s 1% SP124O DA) within a
reasonable period of time. Areas for the internal standard peaks were
not obtained for all the acid samples. The percentage recoveries for
the three total method internal standards (relative to d 10 —anthracene)
were:
2—Fluoronaphthalene — 84% ± 42 n 28
Octafluorobiphenyl — 92% ± 38 = 12
Decafluorobipheny]. — 78% ± 36
The percentage recoveries for these internal standards in the Base/
Neutral analysis (relative to d 10 —anthracene) were:
2—Fluoronaphthalene — 122% ± 61
Octafluorobiphenyl — 80% ± 22 = 32
Decafluorobiphenyl — 78% ± 21
9—Phenylanthracene — 88% ± 35
These data indicate that the total method, as used in Atlanta, was
in control. Further, the data confirm the validity of the Cincinnati
and St. Louis results and deomonstrate that equivalent data are obtained
with either internal standard method.
C— 2
-------
APPENDIX D
ANALYTICAL DATA BY SITE
This appendix contains the results of the chemical analyses for
all the samples obtained in Atlanta. 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 Atlanta samples have been included in these
tables.
D—l
-------
Atlanta Samples
Sampling Analytical 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7 4/8
Site Code Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Comments
POTW Influent INF 201 2l2—QC 222
Tap Water TAP 202 223
Northside NSC 203 213 224 Residential
Lenox LS 204 214 225 Commercial
Sixteenth CAT 205 215 226 Commercial—Downtown
Peachtree BJG 206-QC 216 227 Downtown
DeFoors DFR 207 217—QC 228 Industrial
DeKaib NDD 208 218 229 Commercial
Surrey SC/PL 209—QC 219 230 Industrial
Ensign 210 220 231 Industrial
Warren WILL 211 221 232—QC Residential
Field Blank (Teams l&3) FB 233
Field Blank (Teams 2&4) FB 234
Total Lab Samples 19 18 17 = 54
QC—Contingency Samples 4 4
Lab Samples Less 15 14 17 = 46
Contingency Samples
-------
NORTHSIDE
SAMPLE NUMBER I 203 213 I I 224 I I Avg. I
Organics__(pg/L)
104.
Vinyl chloride
—
. .
—
105.
Chloroethane
—
—
—
—
108.
Trichlorofluoromethane
—
—
—
—
109.
Acrylonitrile
—
—
—
—
110.
1,i-Dichloroethylene
—
—
—
—
111.
1,1-Dichloroethane
—
—
—
—
112.
Trans-i ,2-dichloroethylene
—
—
113.
Chloroform
3
4
4
3.7
114.
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
—
—
—
—
115.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
3
1
1.3
116.
Carbon tetrachloride
117.
Bromodichloromethane
—
—
—
—
118.
1,2-Dichloropropane
—
—
—
—
120.
Trichloroethylene
—
3
3
2.1
121.
Benzene
—
—
—
—
123.
Dibromochloromethane
124.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
—
—
—
—
126.
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
—
—
127.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
10
9
7
8.6
128.
Toluene
1
2
1
1.3
129.
Chlorobenzene
—
—
—
—
130.
Ethyl benzene
—
—
—
—
201.
2-Chtorophenol
—
—
—
—
203.
Phenol
—
—
—
204.
2,4-Dimethylphenol
—
—
—
—
205.
2,4-Dichlorophenol
—
—
—
206
2,4 ,6-Trichiorophenol
—
—
—
—
210.
Pentachlorophenol
18
12
—
9.7
301.
Dichlorobenzenes
—
—
—
—
315.
Naphthalene
—
326.
Diethyl phthalate
—
—
—
—
331.
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
—
333.
Di-n-butyl phthalate
—
337.
Butyl benzyl phthalate
—
—
—
—
338.
Bis_(2-ethylhexyl)_phthalate
D- 3
-------
NORTHSIDE
SAMPLE NUMBER
203 I 213 I 224 I I Avg. I
Metals (iig/L)
501.
Antimony
—
—
502.
Arsenic
—
504.
Cadmium
.
-
-
505.
Chromium
49
16
10
24.2
506.
Copper
28
52
35
38.6
507.
Lead
35
63
27
41.7
508.
Manganese
160
200
180
180.5
509.
Mercury
—
—
—
510.
Nickel
4
2
3
3. 0
511.
Selenium
—
—
—
512.
Silver
10
7
—
5.5
514.
Zinc
.20
150
.30
133.6
I .••••I . I
601. Total Cyanides 24 — I I — I 7 I
602. Total Phenols 17 22 22 I 120.4 I
Classical Parameters (mg/L)
[ 701. pH
6.6
6.6
6.6
•
702. T (°C)
16. 8
16. 8
16. 3
703. Ammonia
7. 5
9. 2
10. 5
9. 1
704. Oil and Grease
20
35
32
9. 3
705. TSS
60
100
70
77.0
706. TOC
33
73
69
59.1
707. coo
80
180
180
361.8
708. BOD
50
80
95
75.8
D— 4
-------
WARREN
L
SAM
PLE NUMBER J 211 I 221 I I 232 I I I
Organics__(ug/L)
104.
Vinyl chloride
—
—
—
—
105.
Chloroethane
—
—
—
—
108.
Trichlorofluoromethane
—
—
—
—
109.
Acrylonitrile
—
—
—
—
110.
1,1-Dichloroethylene
—
—
—
—
111.
1,1-Dich
loroethane
—
—
—
—
112.
Trans-i ,2-dichloroethylene
—.
—
—
—
113.
Chlorof
orm
3
8
4
4.7
114.
1 ,2 -Dichloi -oethane
—
—
—
—
115.
1,1,i-Trichloroethane
—
—
—
—
116.
Carbon
tetrachioride
—
—
—
—
117.
Bromodichloromethane
—
—
—
—
118.
1,2-Dichloropropane
—
—
120.
Trichloroethylene
—
—
—
—
121.
Benzene
123.
Dibromochloromethane
—
—
—
—
124.
i,1,2-Trichloroethane
—
126.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
—
—
—
127.
1 ,i,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
2
1
3
2.0
128.
Toluene
1
—
0.5
129.
Chlorobenzene
—
130.
Ethyl benzene
1
—
0.3
201.
2-Chlorophenol
—
—
—
203.
Phenol
18
—
5.1
204.
2,4-Dimethylphenol
13
—
3. 7
205.
2,4-Dichlorophenol
—
—
206.
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
210.
Pentachlorophenol
301.
Dichlorobenzenes
315.
Naphthalene
—
—
—
326.
Diethyl phthalate
—
—
—
—
331.
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
—
333.
Di-n-buty
I phthalate
11
5.0
337.
Butyl be
nzyl phthalate
—
—
—
—
338.
Bis (2-eth
ylhexyl) phthalate
—
—
—
—
D- 5
-------
WARREN
SAMPLE NUMBER 1 2111 I 221 I 2321 I Avg. 1 I
Metals (i.ig/L)
501.
Antimony
3
—
2
1.9
502.
Arsenic
—
—
—
—
504.
Cadmium
—
—
6
1.6
505.
Chromium
10
4
5
7.0
506.
Copper
71
22
22
44.2
507.
Lead
67
17
24
41.5
508.
Manganese
240
270
230
‘.45.9
509.
Mercury
—
510.
Nickel
8
4
3
5. 6
511.
Selenium
—
—
—
512.
Silver
—
—
514.
Zinc
320
89
140
07.2
601. Total Cyanides I — I I — I I — I I — I
I 602. Total Phenols 24 18 18 20. 7
Classical Parameters (rng/L)
701. pH
7.3
6.8
6.6
702. T(°C)
15.8
15.8
16.6
703. Ammonia
7.0
9.8
11.5
9.0
704. Oil and Grease
30
30
45
33. 9
705. TSS
540
80
100
294.0
706. TOC
90
53
70
74.2
707. COD
240
•
120
150
182.3
708. BOD
100
70
95
90.2
D- 6
-------
LENOX
SAMPLE NUMBER I 2O4 I I 1 4. :I 225 I Avg. I I
104. Vinyl chloride
—
—
—
—
105. Chloroethane
108. Trichlorofluoromethane
—
—
—
—
109. Acrylonitrile
—
—
—
—
110. l,1-Dichloroethylene
—
111. 1,1-Dichloroethane
•
112. Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
2
2
2
2.0
113. Chloroform
5
8
8
6.6
114. 1,2-Dichloroethane
—
—
—
—
115. 11,1-Trichloroethane
8
2.4
116. Carbon tetrachioride
—
.
—
—
—
117. Bromodichloromethane
—
—
—
—
118. 12-Dichloropropane
—
—
—
—
120. Trichloroethylene
—
—
—
—
121. Benzene
—
—
—
123. Dibromochloromethane
—
—
—
—
124. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
—
—
—
126. 11,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
— -
—
127. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
13
7
6
9.5
128. Toluene
2
3
1
2.1
129. Chlorobenzene
—
—
—
—
130. Ethyl benzene
2
16
1
5.9
201. 2-Chlorophenol
—
—
—
—
203. Phenol
—
12
—
3.5
204. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
—
—
—
—
205. 2,4-Dichlorophenol
—
—
. —
206. 2,4.6-Trichlorophenol -
—
—
—
—
210. Pentachlorophenol
52
47
15
41.5
301. Dichlorobenzenes
—
—
—
—
315. Naphthalene
—
—
—
326. Diethyl ohthalate
—
—
—
—
331. Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
—
333. Di-n-butyl phthalate
—
—
19
4. 6
337. Butyl benzyl phthalate
338. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
—
D- 7
-------
LENOX
[
SAMPLE NUMBER I 204 1214 1 I 2251 1 Avg. 1
Metals (ug/L)
501.
Antimony
—
—
2
0. 5
502.
Arsenic
—
—
—
—
504.
Cadmium
-
-
-
-
505.
Chromium
830
85
68
423.8
506.
Copper
45
73
37
507.
Lead
55
34
57
51.3
508.
Manganese
120
160
310
49.3
178.2
509.
Mercur ,
510.
Nickel
8
3
4
511.
Selenium
4
—
—
5.5
1.8
512.
Silver
10
12
4
9.1
514.
Zinc
190
170
140
601.
Total Cyanides — I I — I I I — I I
. I
[ 602. Total Phenols I 44 I I 5
I I 31 I 143.5 I
Classical Parameters
(mg/L)
701.
pH
6.7
6.7
6.7
702.
T(°C)
18.9
18.8
18.8
703.
Ammonia
6.2
8.5
•
5.5
22.6
704.
Oil and Grease
70
155
95
123.8
705.
TSS
100
:80
200
1213
706.
TOC
104
154
172
180.3
707.
COD
240
450
550
4014
708.
BOD
130
260
420
245.4
D- 8
-------
DEKALB
SAMPLE NUMBER I 208 I I 218.1 I 229 I I Avg.
Orgarilcs_( g/L)
104. Vinyl chloride
—
—
—
—
105. Chloroethane
—
—
—
108. Trichlorofluoromethane
—
109. Acrylonitrile
—
—
—
—
110. 1,1•Dichoroethylene
—
—
—
—
111. 1,1•Dich oroethane
112. Trans- 1,2-dichloroethylene
8
12
8
9. 2
113. Chloroform
8
33
10
16.2
114. 1,2-Dichloroethane
—
—
—
—
115. 1 1 1 -Trichloroethane
4
—
—
1. 7
116. Carbon tetrachioride
—
—
—
—
117. Bromodichloromethane
—
—
—
118. 1 ,2-DichLoropropane
—
—
—
—
120. Trichloroethylene
144
30
8
73.0
121. Benzene
—
—
—
—
123. Dibromochloromethane
124. 1,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
126. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
127. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
64
93
97
81.6
128. Toluene
8
2
1
4.3
129. Chlorobenzene
—
—
—
—
130. Ethyl benzene
—
—
—
—
201. 2-Chlorophenol
—
—
—
203. Phenol
—
11
12
6.6
204. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
205. 2,4-Dichlorophenol
—
—
206. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
—
—
—
—
210. Pentachlorophenol
—
—
—
301. Dichlorobenzenes
—
23
—
7.0
315. Naphthalene
—
326. Diethyl phthalate
—
—
—
331. Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
—
333. Di-n-butyl phthalate
—
—
—
—
337. Butyl benzyl phthalate
—
47
70
33.0
338. Bis (2-ethyihexyl) phthalate
—
67
—
20.5
D-9
-------
DEKALB
SAMPLE NUMBER I 208 I 218 I 229 I I Avg. I
Metals__(pg/L)
501.
Antimony
—
—
502.
Arsenic
—
—
—
—
504.
Cadmium
-
-
-
-
505.
Chromium
6
7
7
6.6
506.
Copper
29
85
52
52.2
507.
Lead
34
38
47
38.7
508.
Manganese
150
140
180
L54.9
509.
Mercury
510.
Nickel
6
47
5
18.3
511.
Selenium
—
—
—
—
512.
Silver
—
—
—
—
514.
Zinc
120
150
140
34.5
1601. .. 1
Total Cyanides I — I I — I I — I I — I
602. Total Phenols 31 38 40.5
Classical Parameters (mg/L)
701.
pH
7.5
7.1
6.7
5.6
702.
T(°C)
19.2
L9.8
20.1
703.
Ammonia
4.4
7.0
5.8
704.
Oil and Grease
60
100
50
69.6
705.
TSS
140
200
160
163.6
706.
TOC
112
320
144
184.(
707.
COD
430
L100
550
666.(
708.
BOD
205
385
215
262.(
D-10
-------
PEACHTREE
I SAMPLE NUMBER f 6 I 12161 1227 I IAvg. I I
104. Vinyl chloride
105. Chloroethane
108. Trichlorofluoromethane
109. Acrylonitrile
110. 1,1-Dichloroethylene
111. 1,1 -Dichloroethane
112. Trans-i ,2-dichloroethylene
113. Chloroform
114. 1,2-Dichloroethane
115. 1,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
116. Carbon tetrachioride
117. Bromodichlorornethane
118. 1 .2-Dichloropropane
120. Trichloroethylene
121. Benzene
123. Dibromochloromethane
124. 1 ,1,2-Trichloroethañe
126. 1.1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
127. 1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
128. Toluene
129. Chlorobenzene
130. Ethyl benzene
201. 2-Chlorophenol
203. Phenol
204. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
205. 2,4-Dichlorophenol
206. 2,4,6-Trichlorophénol
210. Pentachlorophenol
301. Dichlorobenzenes
315. Naphthalerie
326. Diethyl ohthalate
331. Anthracene/Phenánthréne
333 Di-ñ-butyl phtha!áte
337. Butyl benzylphthalate
338 Bis (2-ethyihexyl) phthalate
D— 11
-------
PEACHTREE
F
SAMPLE NUMBER 206 I I 216 I I 227 I Avg. I I
Metals (pg/L)
501.
Antimony
502.
Arsenic
—
—
—
—
504.
Cadmium
505.
Chromium
54
68
58
59.5
506.
Copper
68
71
75
71.0
507.
Lead
420
220
400
352.7
508.
Manganese
310
300
370
324.4
509.
Mercury
—
510.
Nickel
18
39
33
28.8
511.
Selenium
—
4
—
1.2
512.
Silver
13
20
6
13.1
514.
Zinc
680
930
780
785.9
601. Total Cyanides I — I I 36 I I — I I 11. 1
I 602. Total Phenols 31 64 21 38.2
Classical Parameters (mgIL)
701. pH
6.7
6.4
6.3
702. T(°C)
17.8
8.7
18.1
703. Ammonia
5.1
6.8
5. 3
5. 7
704. Oil and Grease
75
65
35
0.3
705. TSS
240
260
160
29.9
706. TOC
55
76
34
55.3
707. coo
400
550
100
358.9
708. BOD
80
115
40
79.1
D—12
-------
SIXTEENTH
[
SAMPLE NUMBER
J 2Q5 I
IZ 5 :1 226 Avg.
Organics__(pg/L)
.
104.
Vinyl chloride .
—
—
—
105.
Chloroethane
—
108.
Trichlorofluoromethane
.
—
—
—
—
109.
Acrylonitrile
—
—
—
—
110.
1,1-Dichloroethylene
—
—
—
—
111.
1,1-Dichloroethane
— .
—
112.
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1
3
3
2. 2
113.
Chloroform
9
5
4
6.4
114.
1,2-Dichloroethane
—
—
115.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
116.
. Carbon tetrachloride
2
1
—
1. 1
117.
Bromodichloromethane
.
—
—
118.
1,2-Dichloropropane
—
—
—
—
120.
Trichloroethylene
—
300
7
80.9
121.
Benzene
3
—
—
1.3
123.
Dibromochloromethane
— .
—
—
—
124.
1 ,1,2-Trichloroethane
— ..
—
—
—
126.
1,1,2 ,2 -Tetraçhloroethane
127.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
2
3
3
2.6
128.
Toluene
2
1
—
1.1
129.
Chlorobenzene .
.
—
130.
Ethyl benzene
—
—
—
—
201.
2-Chlorophenol
203.
Phenol
204.
2,4-Dimethylphenol
—
—
—
—
205.
2,4-Dichlorophenol
206.
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
210.
Pentachlorophenol
14
63
17
27.8
301.
Dichlorobenzenes
.
315.
Naphthaiene .
326.
Diethyl phthalate .
.
—
331.
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
.
—
.
333•
Di-n-butyFphthaiate
17
—
4.5
337.
Butyl benzyl phthalate
—
338.
Bis_(2-ethylhexyl)_phthalate
D—13
-------
SIXTEENTH
[
SAMPLE NUMBER I 205 I 1215 I 1226 I I Avg. 1
Metals (iig/L)
501.
Antimony
—
—
2
0. 6
502.
Arsenic
—
—
504.
Cadmium
—
—
—
—
505.
Chromium
120
120
98
113.1
506.
Copper
43
61
35
45.2
507.
Lead
130
120
70
L08.6
508.
Manganese
190
190
170
L83.7
509.
Mercury
.
510.
Nickel
10
11
5
8.7
511.
Selenium
—
4
—
1.0
512.
Silver
8
31
4
12.8
514.
Zinc
180
200
140
.72.7
[ 601. Total Cyanides I — I
I - I I- I - I I
[ 602. Total Phenols 36 49 I I 25 I 36. 0 I
Classical Parameters (mg/L)
701.
pH
6.5
6.7
6.6
702.
T(°C)
19.8
20.5
20.1
703.
Ammonia
3.05
4.9
5.4
4.3
704.
Oil and Grease
20
180
20
62.0
705.
TSS
200
300
120
201.2
706.
TOC
48
102
43
60.6
707.
COD
95
250
80
l3LO
708.
BOD
45
150
65
78.8
D-14
-------
ENSIGN
SAMPLE NUMBER
I 210 I I 220 I I 231 I I Avg. I I
Organics__(i.ig/L)
104.
Vinyl chloride
—
—
3
1
105.
Chloroethane
—
22
—
7 . 3
108.
Trichlorofluoromethane
109.
Acrylonitrile
—
—
110.
1,1-Dichloroethylene
4
53
5
17.3
111.
1,1-Dichloroethane
1
1
0.6
112.
Trans -1,2•dichloroethylene
11
13
16
13.0
113.
Chloroform
3
19
4
7. 5
114.
1,2-Dichloroethane .
—
6
—
1.6
115.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
140
300
110
173.4
116.
Carbon tetrachloride
—
12
—
3.2
117.
Bromodichloromethane
—
—
118.
1,2-Dichloropropane
3
—
—
1
120.
Trichloroethylene
17
17
21
18.2
121.
Benzene
1
1
1
1.0
123.
Dibromochloromethane
—
—
—
—
124.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
—
—
—
—
126.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
127.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
51
44
32
43.5
128.
Toluene
98
95
21
74.2
129.
Chlorobenzene
—
—
—
—
130.
Ethyl benzene
170
130
11
111.9
201.
2-Chlorophenol
—
—
203.
Phenol
26
32
—
19.8
204.
2,4-Dimethylphenol
18
14
—
11.6
205.
2,4-Dichlorophenol
—
—
—
—
206.
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
—
—
—
210.
Pentachlorophenol
—
—
—
—
301.
Dichlorobenzenes
12
—
—
5.2
315.
Naphthalene
—
—
—
—
326.
Diethyl phthalate
—
—
—
—
331.
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
—
333.
Di-n-butyl phthalate
—
—
—
—
337.
Butyl benzyl phthatate
600
400
32
377.3
338.
Bis (2-ethyihexyl) phthalate
—
—
—
D- 15
-------
ENSIGN
SAMPLE NUMBER 210 220 I 1231 I I Avg.
Metals (pg/L)
501.
Antimony
*
*
*
502.
Arsenic
—
—
—
—
504.
Cadmiu
m
150
68
—
83.5
505.
Chromium
16
78
18
33.0
506.
Copper
91
L100
38
342.5
507.
Lead
96
100
77
91.4
508.
Manganese
350
480
540
4l.2
509.
Mercury
6
3
—
3.4
510.
Nickel
5
8
15
8.8
511.
Selenium
—
512.
Silver
12
27
4
13.6
514.
Zinc
160
140
140
48.7
Total Cyanides j 180 282 64 1172.41 I
602. Total Phenols
293 153
I
I 8 1 .5I
*
Apparent Interference: Not Analyzed
Classical Parameters (mg/L)
701. pH
7.1
6.8
6.6
702. T(°C)
16.9
17.2
17.0
•
703. Ammonia
4. 0
5.3
3. 3
4. 1
704. Oil and Grease
90
-
43
38
62.0
705. TSS
120
80
60
91.5
706. TOC
160
190
46
133.9
707. COD
380
440
•
120
318.2
708. BOD
250
280
80
207.1
601.
D- 16
-------
SURREY
SAMPLE NUMBER
1209 I ] 219 J 230 Avg.
104.
Vinyl chloride
—
—
—
—
105.
Chloroethane
—
—
—
—
108.
Trichlorofluoromethane
—
5
—
1.7
109.
Acrylonitrile
—
—
—
—
110.
1,i-Dichloroethylene
—
7
2
3.0
111.
1,1-Dichloroethane
—
2
2
1.0
112.
Trans-i ,2-dichloroethylene
—
—
1
0. 1
113.
Chloroform
3
7
8
5.0
114.
1,2-Dichloroethane
—
—
—
—
115.
i,1,1-Trichloroethane
20
150
36
73.2
116.
Carbontetrachloride
—
37
—
14.8
117.
Bromodichloromethane
118.
1,2-Dichloropropane
120.
Trichloroethylene
5
3
3
4.0
121.
Benzene
—
2
—
0.8
123.
Dibromochloromethane
—
—
—
—
124.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
—
—
r126
1,1,2,2-Tetrachioroethane
—
—
1
0.3
127.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
75
190
110
123.9 1
128.
Toluene
120
140
72
123.8
129.
Chlorobenzene
—
—
130.
Ethyl benzene
160
400
190
258. 3
201.
2-Chlorophenol
—
—
—
203.
Phenol
.
230
1000
400
55l.8
204.
2,4-Dimethylphenol
16
700
160
301. 3
205.
2,4-Dichlorophenol
—
—
—
—
206.
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
—
—
—
—
210.
Pentachlorophenol
—
23
—
9.2
301.
Dichlorobenzenes
—
315.
Naphthalene
150
290
25
194.9
326.
Diethyl ohthalate
331.
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
—
333.
Di-n-butyl phthalate
83
—
—
42 .7
337.
Butyl benzyl phthalate
900
300
250
604.(
338.
Bis 2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
130
220
220
173.
D- 17
-------
SURREY
I
SAMPL
ENUMBER 209 1219 I I 2301 I Avg. 1
Metals (iig/L)
501.
Antimony
*
*
*
502.
Arsenic
—
5
—
2.0
504.
Cadmium
—
43
—
17.1
505.
Chromium
1700
2500
114
.880.(
506.
Copper
49
120
27
75.4
507.
Lead
670
2100
490
224.5
508.
Manganese
140
180
250
65.5
509.
Mercury
2
2
—
1.8
510.
Nickel
520
800
120
96.7
511.
Selenium
—
—
512.
Silver
9
8
6
8.3
514.
Zinc
2500
4800
800
3356.
601.
1236.4
Total Cyanides J 40 I I 522 I I 88 I
F
602. Total Phenols
331 631 I 446.11
*
Apparent Interference:
Not Analyzed
Classical Parameters (nig/L)
701. pH
7.7
7.6
7.7
702. T(°C)
24.6
25.1
18.9
703. Ammonia
2.8
5.2
1.25
3.6
704. Oil and Grease
770
80
35
430. 7
705. TSS
240
740
180
434.1
706. TOC
98
350
73
196.3
707. COD
480
2700
310
350.
708. BOD
140
775
90
388.8
D-18
-------
DEFOORS
SAMPLE NUMBER I 207 I 1217 I I 228 j Avg. I I
Organics__(pg/L)
104.
Vinyl chloride
105.
Chloroethane
108.
Trichlorofluoromethane
—
—
—
—
109.
Acrylonitrile
—
—
—
—
110.
1,1-Dichloroethylene
11
100
45
49.2
111.
1,1-Dichloroethane
7
7
11
7.9
112.
Trans-1,2-dichtoroethylene
46
49
90
56.8
113.
Chloroform
3
50
5
19.6
114.
1,2-Dichloroethane
2
3
—
1.9
115.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
220
300
240
252.0
116.
Carbontetrachloride
82
260
120
151.7
117.
Bromodichloromethane
118.
1,2-Dichioropropane
—
—
—
—
120.
Trichloroethylene
71
56
79
67.6
121.
Benzene
2
2
1
1.8
123.
Dibromochloromethane
—
—
—
—
124.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
—
2
—
0.7
126.
1,1,22-Tetrachloroethane
—
—
—
—
127.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethvlene
200
240
160
204.8
128.
Toluene
58
78
51
63.3
129.
Chtorobenzene
4
10
2
5.6
130.
Ethyl benzene
250
300
78
228.9
201.
2-Chlorophenol
—
•
20
203.
Phenol
400
160
19
232.5
204.
2,4-Dimethylphenot
230
78
20
130.9
205.
2,4-Dichlorophenol
—
17
—
5. 7
206.
2,4 ,6 -Trichlorophenol
—
17
—
5. 7
210.
Pentachlorophenol
48
40
75
51.3
301.
Dichlorobenzenes
3000
2000
900
187.
315.
Naphthalene
110
72
28
78.6
326.
Diethyl phthalate
—
—
—
—
331.
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
91
35
37
54.3
333.
Di-n-butyl phthalate
130
85
22
90.4
337.
Butyl benzyl phthalate
338.
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
75
150
—
84. 1
D— 19
-------
DEFOORS
SAMPLE NUMBER I 2071 1217 I I 228 I Avg. 1
Metals__(ug/L)
501.
Antimony
*
*
*
502.
Arsenic
9
10
5
8. 5
504.
Cadmium
—
5
—
1.7
505.
Chromium
240
5700
320
136.
506.
Copper
180
220
42
63.0
507.
Lead
450
440
85
65.2
508.
Manganese
380
300
540
188.1
509.
Mercury
7
7
2
5.9
510.
Nickel
28
22
11
22.1
511.
Selenium
—
—
—
—
512.
Silver
31
24
18
25.7
514.
Zinc
590
510
280
93.4
[ 601. 1
Total Cyanides J 48 69 19 48.8
602. TotalPhenols 629 I 1609 I I 147 I 1514.71 I
* Apparent Interference: Not Analyzed
Classical Parameters (mg/L)
701.
pH
7.0
7.8
6.2
702.
T(°C)
18.6
18.5
16.5
703.
Ammonia
9.5
10.5
3.1
8.4
704.
Oil and Grease
125
85
90
103. 4
705.
TSS
580
800
110
550.9
706.
TOC
310
370
53
273.4
707.
COD
1300
1400
105
06&0
708.
BOD
620
700
70
524.9
D-20
-------
TAP WATER
[
SAM
PLE NUMBER 202 223 J Avg.
Organics__(pg/L)
104.
Vinyl chloride
—
105.
Chloroethane
—
108.
Trichlorofluoromethane
—
109.
Acrylonitrile
—
—
110.
1,1•Dichloroethylene
—
—
—
111.
1,1-Dichloroethane
—
—
—
112.
Trans• 1 ,2-dichloroethylene
113.
Chloroform
23
20
21.5
114.
1,2-Dichloroethane
115.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
—
—
116.
Carbon
tetrachloride
—
—
—
117.
Bromodichloromethane
3
4
3•5
118.
1,2 -Dichloropropane
—
—
—
120.
Trichloroethylene
—
—
121.
Benzene
—
—
123.
Dibromochloromethane
—
1
0.5
124.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
—
—
—
126.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
—
127.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
3
—
1.5
128.
Toluene
—
—
—
129.
Chlorobenzene
—
—
130.
Ethyl benzene
—
—
—
201.
2-Chlorophenol
—
—
203.
Phenol
—
—
—
204.
2,4 -Dimethylphenol
—
—
—
205.
2,4-Dichlorophenol
—
—
206.
2,4,6-Tr
ichiorophenol
—
—
—
210.
Pentachlorophenol
—
—
—
301.
Dichlorobenzenes
—
—
•
315.
Naphthalene
—
—
—
326.
Diethyl
phthalate
—
—
-
E .
—
331.
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
333.
Di-n-bu
tyl phthalate
—
—
._
337.
Butyl be
nzyl phthalate
338.
Bis_(2-et
hylhexyl)_phthalate
D—2j.
-------
TAP WATER
I SAMPLE NUMBER 202 f 223 Avg. 1
Metals (pg/L)
501. Antimony
—
—
—
502. Arsenic
—
—
504. Cadmium
-
505. Chromium
—
506. Copper
21
24
22.5
507. Lead
13
13
13
508. Manganese
8
5
6. 5
509. Mercury
—
—
510. Nickel
6
2
4.0
511. Selenium
512. Silver
—
—
—
514. Zinc
200
220
210.0
L 6 01. I
Total Cyanides — I I — I I I — I
602. Total Phenols — I I — I I I I — I
Classical Parameters (mg/L)
701.
pH
6.4
6.3
702.
T(°C)
16.2
16.9
•
703.
Ammonia
—
—
—
704.
Oil and Grease
705.
TSS
—
—
706.
TOC
4
5
4.5
707.
COD
708.
BOD
-
-
-
D— 22
-------
POTW INFLUENT
SAMP
LE NUMBER 201 212 222 Avg.
Organics__(i.’g/L)
104.
Vinyl chloride
—
—
—
—
105.
Chloroethane
—
—
—
108.
Trichlorofluoromethane
3
1
109.
Acrylonitrile
2
—
—
0. 7
110.
1 ,1-Dichloroethylene
10
15
—
8.6
111.
1,1-Dichloroethane
—
—
—
—
112.
Trans-1,2-dichloroethytene
6
24
30
18.6
113.
Chloroform
5
12
s
7.1
114.
1,2-Dichtoroethane
1
—
—
0.4
115.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
93
180
12
95.9
116.
Carbon tetrachioride
—
—
—
117.
Bromodichloromethane
—
—
—
—
118.
1,2-Dichloropropane
—
—
—
—
120.
Trichloroethylene
67
230
230
164.9
121.
Benzene
—
—
—
—
123.
Dibromochloromethane
—
124.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
—
—
126.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
127.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
240
190
290
239.4
128.
Toluene
28
40
7
25.5
129.
Chlorobenzene
—
—
—
—
130.
Ethyl benzene
66
49
25
48. 7
201.
2-Ch lorophenol
—
—
—
203.
Phenol
18
38
—
18.8
204.
2,4-Dimethylphenol
14
14
—
9.9
205.
2,4-Dichlorophendl
—
—
—
—
206.
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
—
—
210.
Pentachlorophenol
20
26
11
19.2
301.
Dichlorobenzenes
140
120
—
92. 7
315.
Naphthalene
17
85
—
32.9
326.
Diethyl phthalate
—
—
17
5.0
331.
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
—
333.
Di-n-buty
I phthalate
11
—
—
4.4
337.
Butyl be
nzyl phthalate
61
160
13
77.3
338.
Bis (2-eth
ylhexyl) phthalate
—
—
—
D— 23
-------
POTW INFLUENT
SAMPLE NUMBER I 2011 212 I 222 I Avg.
Metals (i.ig/L)
501.
Antimony
—
2
—
0.6
502.
Arsenic
—
—
—
—
504.
Cadmium
4
5
—
3.1
505.
Chromium
84
74
54
72.1
506.
Copper
56
51
42
50.4
507.
Lead
130
110
170
135.6
508.
Manganese
260
250
330
277.5
509.
Mercury
2
—
—
0.8
510.
Nickel
21
19
14
18.3
511.
Selenium
—
—
—
—
512.
Silver
19
10
6
12.4
•
514.
Zinc
350
370
340
353.2
601.
I .. .. 1
Total Cyanides — 16 — I 1 4. I
602.
Total Phenols 1105 I 162 28 I 99.81
Classical Parameters (mg/L)
701. pH
6.3
6.3
6.2
702. T(°C)
17.5
.7.5
17.9
703. Ammonia
6.4
8.8
7.4
7.4
704. Oil and Grease
30
30
25
28.5
705. TSS
120
140
160
137.9
706. TOC
61
94
50
67.9
707. coo
130
280
160
184.8
708. BOD
75
145
90
100.9
1
D- 24
-------
FIELD BLANKS
SAMPLE NUMBER 233 234 J Avg.
Organics ( g/L)
104. Vinyl chloride
—
—
—
105. Chloroethane
—
—
—
108. Trichlorofluoromethane
109. Acrylonitrile
—
110, 1,1-Dichloroethylene
—
—
—
111. 1,1-Dichloroethane
—
—
112. Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
—
113. Chloroform
3
4
35
114. 1,2-Dichloroethane
—
—
115. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
—
116. Carbon tetrachloride
—
—
117. Bromodichloromethane
—
—
—
118. 1,2-Dichloropropane
—
—
—
120. Trichloroethylene
—
—
—
121. Benzene
—
—
—
123. Dibromochloromethane
1
0.5
124. 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane
126. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
127. 1,1,2 .2-Tetrachloroethylene
1
0.5
128. Toluene
1
—
.
0.5
129. Chlorobenzene
—
—
—
130. Ethyl benzene
—
1
0.5
201. 2-Chlorophenol
—
—
203. Phenol
—
—
—
204. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
205. 2,4-Dichlorophenol
—
—
—
206. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
—
—
—
210. Pentachlorophenol
—
—
—
301. Dichlorobenzenes
—
315. Naphthalene
—
—
326. Diethyl phthalate
—
—
—
331. Anthracene/Phenanthrene
—
—
—
333. Di-n-butyl phthalate
—
—
—
337. Butyl benzyl phthalate
—
—
—
______
338. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
—
D- 25
-------
FIELD BLANKS
SAMPLE NUMBER
233 234 I
Metals (ugiL)
1 I Avg. 1 I
501.
Antimony
—
—
—
502.
Arsenic
—
—
504.
Cadmium
-
-
-
505.
Chromium
—
—
—
506.
Copper
—
9
4.5
507.
Lead
—
—
—
508.
Manganese
—
—
—
509.
Mercury
—
—
510.
Nickel
—
—
—
511.
Selenium
—
—
512.
Silver
514.
Zinc
—
11
5.5
I .. ... •1
601. Total Cyanides — I I — I I I I — I
602. Total Phenols I — I I — I I I I I
Classical Parameters (mg/L)
701. pH
702. T (°C)
703. Ammonia
1.05
0.10
0.6
704. Oil and Grease
—
—
705. TSS
—
-
706. TOC
4
3
4
707. COD
-
-
-
708. BOD
—
—
—
D— 26
-------
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 measured concentrations, source identification,
average concentrations, and the fraction of samples in which the
pollutant was observed.
E- 1
-------
104 VINYL CHLORIDE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TU— ED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
NORTHS IOE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENuX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
0 SIXTEENTH 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DEFOORS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
C DEKAL8 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SUFREY 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S ENSIGN 0 0 3 3.0 1.0 .33
— WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
POT INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
105 CIILURUETHANE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTIUN
TU—WEL) THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRLSENT AVERAGE PRESENT
NURTHSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENOX 0 0 0 • .0 .0 .00
O SIXTEENTH 0 0 0 .0 .o .00
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R OEFOOHS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
C DEKALB 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E. SURREY 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S ENSIGN 0 22 0 22.0 7.3 .33
— WAkREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
POTW INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
108 TRICHLUROFLUOROMETHANE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TU—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
— NQRTHSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENOX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
o SIXTEENTH 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R L)EFOORS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
C DEKALd 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SURREY 0 5 0 5.0 1.7 .33
S ENSIGN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
POTW INFLUENT 0 0 3.0 1.0 .33
-------
109 ACHYLCNITNLLE
TAP SATER
POT INFLUENT
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
111 1.1—QIC1-sLORUETHArjE
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
0
2 0
0
10 15
0
0
.0 .00
.0 .00
SITES
— NORTHSIDE
S LENOX
O SIXTEENTH
U PEACHT1 EE
R DEFOOI’iS
C OEKALB
E SUI’REY
S ENSIGN
wARREN
TU—WED
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
THUR—FR I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
tT
FRACT iON
PRESENT
.00
• .00
.00
• 00
.00
• 00
.00
.00
.03
110 1. 1—DICHLOROETHYLENE
SITES
S
0
U
R
C
E
S
0 ..0 .0 .00
0 2.0 .7 .33
TU —WED
THUR—FRI
NO THSICE
0
0
LENOX
0
0
SIXTEENTH
0
0
PEACHTREE
0
0
DEFCORS
11
100
DEKAL8
0
0
SURREY
0
7
ENSIGN
4
53
WAIREN
0
0
SAT—SUN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SAT—SUN
0
0
0
0
45
0
2
5
0
SAT— SUN
0
0
0
0
11
0
2
1
0
0
0
AVERAGE
WHEN
.
FRACTION
PRESENT
AVERAGE
PRESENT
.0
.0
.00
.0
.0
.00
.0
.0
.00
.0
.0
.00
52.0
52.0
1.00
.0
.0
.00
4.5
3.0
. 7
20.7
20.7
1.00
.0
.0
0 .0
.0
.00
0 12.5
8.3
•t7
SITES
NURTHSI OE
S LENUX
o SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
P DEFOORS
C DEKALb
E SURRLY
S ENSIGN
— WARI EN
TU—WED
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
THUR—FR I
0
0
0
0
7
0
2
1
0
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
.0
.0
.0
.0
8.3
.0
2.0
1.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE
.0
.0
.0
.0
8.3
.0
1.3
.7
.0
FR AC 1 ION
PRESENT
.00
.00
.00
00
1.00
.00
.67
.00
0
-------
112 TMANS—1,2—DICHL(JROETtIYLENE
113 CHL0 OFURM
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
114 1 .2—DLCHLORUE IHANE
23
5 12
SITES
NUJ THSIDE
S LENOX
O SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R DEFGORS
C DEKALB
€ SURREY
S ENSIGN
— WARREN
TAP IATEH
POTW INFL.UENT
A VERAGE
WHEN
P HE SE NT
.0
2.0
2.3
.0
61.7
9.3
1.0
13.3
.0
AVERAGE
.0
2.0
2.3
.0
61.?
9.3
.3
13.3
.0
.1:-
FR AC T I ON
PRESENT
.00
1 • 00
1.00
.00
1 • 00
1 • 00
.33
1 • 00
.00
TU—WEL)
0
2
1
0
46
8
0
11
0
0
6
TU—wED
3
5
9
5
3
8
3
3
3
THUR—FR I
0
2
3
0
49
12
0
13
0
24
THUR—FR I
4
8
5
5
50
33
7
19
8
0 .0 .0
.00
30
SITES
— NURTHSIDE
S LENOX
o SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R OEFOORS
C OEXALB
E SURREY
S ENSIGN
— WARREN
SAT—SUN
0
2
3
0
90
a
1
16
0
SAT—SUN
4
8
4
0
5
10
8
4
4
SAT—SUN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
3.7
7.0
6.0
5.0
1 9 • 3
17.0
o.0
8.7
5.0
AVERAGE
3.7
7.0
6.0
3.3
19.3
17.0
6.0
8.7
5.0
F H AC T I U N
PRESENT
1 • Go
1.00
1.00
.6?
1 • 00
1 • 00
1 • 00
1 • 00
1 • 00
21.5
21.5
1.0 )
5 7.3
SITES
— NORTHSIDE
S LENOX
o SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R DEFOORS
C D€KALB
F SURREY
S ENSIGN
— WARREN
TAP WATER
P01W INFLUENT
TU—WED
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
THUR—FRI
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
6
0
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
.0
.0
.0
.0
2.5
.0
.0
6.0
.0
.0
1.0
AVERAGE
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.7
.0
.0
2.0
.0
FR AC I I ON
PHE sENT
.00
.00
.00
.00
.67
.00
.00
• 33
.00
0 0
1 0 0
.0 .00
.3 .33
-------
115 1.2.l—TRIC)-$LQRQE’THANE
AVEI AGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TU— ED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
NOkTHSIDE 3 1 0 2.0 1.3 .67
S LEr. QX 0 a 0 8.0 2.7 .33
0 SLXT ENTH 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U PEAChTREE 3 3 0 3.0 2.0 .67
R OEFCORS 220 300 240 253.3 253.3 1.00
C DEKALB 4 0 0 4.0 1.3
E SURREY 20 150 36 68.7 6 .7 1.00
S ENSIGN 140 300 110 183.3 1t33.3 1.00
— WAFffiLN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP ATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
PQ1 ItMFLUENT 93 180 12 95.0 9.0 1.00
116 CAH8ON TETRACHLORIDE
AVER A GE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
— ru—wEo THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESCNT AVERAGE PRESENT
NORIRSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENCIX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
0 SIXTEENTH 2 1 0 1.5 1.0 .67
U PEAChTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DEFDORS 82 260 120 154,0 54.0 1.00
C DEKALI3 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SURREY 0 37 0 37.3 12.3 .33
S ENSIGN 0 12 0 12.0 4.0 .33
— WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
POT INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
117 8ROMODICHLOROMETHANE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TU—WED THUR—FRi SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
NUAT HS IDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENOX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
0 S1X1EENT1- 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 0
U PEACHTREE 3 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DEFOORS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
C DEb(ALB 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SURRF’v 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S ENSIGN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER 3 4 3.5 3.5 1.00
POTW INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
-------
118 1.2—DICHLUROPROPANE
AVERAGE
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
.0
t;i
0
FRACTION
PRESENT
• 00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
• 33
• 00
0
THUR—FR I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
THUR—FRI
3
0
300
500
56
30
3
17
0
0
0
SAT—SUN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SAT—SUN
3
0
7
19
79
8
:3
21
0
.0
.0
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
3.0
.0
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
3.0
.0
153.5
176.3
68 • 7
60.7
3.7
18.3
.0
.0 .00
.0 .00
SITES
lU—WED
N ORTHSIOE 0
S LENOX 0
O SIXTEENTH 0
U PEACHTREE 0
R DEFO(JRS 0
C DEKALb 0
E SURREY 0
S EP SLGN 3
— WARREN 0
TAP * TER 0
PUTW INFLUENT 0
120 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
SITES
lu—WED
N ORT HSIDE 0
S LENOX 0
O SIXTEENTH 0
U PEACHTREE 10
R DEFOORS 71
C DEKA1 .O 144
E SURREY 5
S ENSIGN 17
— WARREN 0
TAP WATER 0
P01W INFLUENT 67
121 BENZENE
SITES
TO—WED
— NOHTHSIDE 0
S LENOX 0
o SIXTEENTH 3
U PEACHTREE I
R DEFOORS 2
C DEXALd 0
E SURREY 0
S EP’ SIGN 1
— WARREN 0
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
AVERAGE
2.0
.0
102.3
176.3
68 • 7
60 • 7
3.7
18.3
.0
FRACT LCN
PRESENT
.67
• 00
.67
1 • 00
1 • 00
1 • 00
1 • 00
1 • 00
.00
0
.0
.0
.00
230 230
175.?
175.7
1.00
THUR—FRi
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
0
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
.0
.0
.3.0
1.0
1.7
.0
2.0
1.0
.0
SAT—SUN
0
0
0
I
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
AVERAGE
.0
.0
1.0
.7
1.?
.0
.7
1.0
.0
FRACT ION
PRESENT
.00
.00
.33
.67
1.00
.00
.33
1.00
.00
.0 .00
.0 .00
0
0 0
.0
.0
-------
123 DIBROMOCHLORUMETHANE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
— TU— ED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
NORTHSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S L.ENQX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
o SIXTEENTH 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DEFOORS 0 0 0 ..0 .0 .00
C DEKALB 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SURREY 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S ENSIGN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER 0 1 1.0 .5 .50
parW INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
124 1.1 ,2—TRICHLUROETHANE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TU—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
NURTHSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENOX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
o sIXTEENTH 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DEFOORS 0 2 0 2.0 .7 .33
C OEKALB 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
€ SURREY 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S ENSIGN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
P01W INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
126 1.1.2.2—TETRALHLO OETHANE
AVERAGE
SITES • WHEN FRACTION
— TU—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
NORTHSICE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LLNOX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
0 SIXTEENTH 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DEFOORS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
C DEKALB 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SURREY 0 0 1 1.0 .3 .33
S ENSIGN 1 0 0 1.0 .3 .33
— WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
POTW INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
-------
TA ATER
P01W INFLUENT
TAP mATER
POTm INFLUENT
129 Ct-ILORCBENZENE
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
3
240 190
0
28 40
0
0
.0 .00
.0 .00
127
1.1,2.2—TETRACHLOROETHYLEN
AVERAGE
SITES
WHEN
FRACTION
TU—mED
THUR—FRI
PRESENT
AVERAGE
PRESENT
S
N ORIHSIDE
LENOX
10
13
9
7
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
1.00
1.00
0
SIXTEENTH
2
3
2.7
2.7
1.00
U
PEACHTREE
11
11
10.0
10.0
1.00
R
DEFOCJRS
200
240
200.0
200.0
1.00
C
DEKAL8
64
93
84.7
84.7
1.00
E
SURREY
75
190
125.0
125.0
1.00
S
ENSIGN
AHREN
51
2
44
1
42.3
2.0
42.3
2.0
1.00
1.00
3.0
240.0
240.0
1.5
.50
1.00
128 T0LUEI E
SI TES
N ORIHSIDE
lU—WED
THUR—FRI
1
2
SLENOX
2
3
o sIxrEENTH
2
1
U PEACHTREE
3
3
R DEFt 0RS
58
78
C DEl( LB
8
2
E SURREY
120
140
S ENSIGN
98
95
mARrEN
1
0
A V EN A JE
WHEN
PRESENT
1.3
2.0
1.5
4.0
62.3
3.7
110.7
71.3
1.0
SAT—SIaN
7
6
3
8
160
97
110
32
3
0
290
SAT—SUN
1
1
0
6
51
1
72
21
0
SAT—SUN
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE
1.3
2.0
1.0
4.0
62.3
3.7
110.7
71 .3
.3
FRACT ION
PRESENT
1.00
1.00
.67
1 • 00
1.00
1 • 00
I • 00
1.00
.33
0
.0
.0
.00
7
25.0
25.0
1.00
SIrES
— N0i THSIDE
S L.ENOX
0 SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R 0E U0RS
C DEKALD
E SURREY
S ENSIGN
— WARREN
T U—WED
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
THUR—FF I
0
0
0
0
10
U
0
0
0
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
.0
.0
.0
2.0
5.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE
.0
.0
.0
.7
5.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
FRAC 1• ION
PRESENT
.00
.00
.00
.33
1.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
0
-------
130 ETHYL 8ENZENE
SITES
WHEN
FRACTION
PRESENT
AVERAGE
PRESENT
.0
.0
.00
6.3
6.3
1.00
.0
.0
.00
4.3
4.3
1.00
209.3
209.3
1.00
.0
.0
.00
250.0
250.0
1.00
103.7
103.7
1.00
1.0
.3
.33
.0
46 • 7
.0
46 • 7
.00
I • 00
— N04 TI-ISIOE
0
0
0
1
SLENOX
2
0
0 SIXTEENTH
0
0
8
U PEACHTRE
3
2
300
78
H DEFOORS
250
0
C DE.(ALb
0
0
1 0
E SURREY
160
130
11
S Et SIGN
170
1
0
iARREN
0
TAP WATER
0
0
25
POTW INFLUENT
66
201 2—CHL MOPHENuL
SITES

SAT—SUN
TU—WEt)
THUR—FRI
0
0
N0 11 1-ISIOE
0
0
0
SLENOX
0
0
0 SIXTEENTH
0
0
0
U PEACHTREE
0
0
R OEFCIORS
0
0
0
CDEKALD
3
0
E SURREY
0
0
0
SENSIGN
0
0
— WARREN
0
0
TAP .ATER
0
0
0
PUTW INFLUENT
0
203 PHENUL
SITES
THUR—FRI
SAT—SUN
NURTHS IDE
TU—WED
0
0
0
0
SLENOX
0
0
0
0 SIXTEENTH
0
0
0
U PEACHTREE
0
19
H L)EFOORS
400
12
C DEKALB
0
400
E SURREY
230
32
0
S E SLGN
26
0
— WAP . EN
0
18
wHEN
FRACTION
PRESENT
AVERAGE
PRESENT
.0
.0
.00
.0
.0
.0 ’)
.0
.0
.00
.0
.0
.00
20.0
6.7
.34
.0
.0
.00
.0
.0
.00
.0
.0
.00
.0
.0
.00
.0
.0
.0 .00
.0 .00
TAP WATER
P01W INFLUENT
WHEN
FRACTION
PRESLNT
AVERAIJL
PRESENr
.0
.0
.00
12.0
4.0
.33
.0
.0
.00
.0
.0
.00
193.0
193.0
1.00
11.5
7.7
.67
543.3
29.0
543.3
19.3
1.00
.67
18.0
6.3
.33
0
18
0 .0
0 28.0
.0
Ia. 7
.00
.67
38
-------
204 2,4—DIMETHYLPHENOL.
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TU—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
N OkT HSL OE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENCX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
0 SIXTEENTH 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DEFOURS 230 7 20 109.3 109.3 1.00
C OEKAL8 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SURREY 16 700 160 292.0 292.0 1.00
S ENSIGN 18 14 0 16.0 10.7 •67
WARREN 0 13 0 13.0 4.3 .33
TAP WATEk 3 0 .0 .0 .00
P0Th INFLUENT 14 14 0 14.0 9.3 .67
205 2.4—DICHLOJ LJPHENCL
A VERAGE
SITES i1EN FRACTION
— TU—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
NORTHSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENOX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
0 SIXTEENTH 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DEFOORS 0 17 0 17.0 5.7 .33
C DEKALB 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SURREY 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S ENS IGN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WAlER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
POT LNFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
206 2,4.6—TRICHLOROPHENGL
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRAC II3N
TU—*ED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
— NURTHSIOE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S L.ENOX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
o SIXTEENTH 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DEFCCRS 0 17 0 17.0 5.7 .33
C DEKALG 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SUF REY 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S ENSIGN 0 0 0 .3 .0 .00
— WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP ATE1 0 0 .0 .3 .00
POTW INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
-------
210 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
— lU—WED THUH—FRI SAT-SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
NU1 THSIDE 18 12 0 15.0 10.0 .67
S LENOX 52 47 15 .38.0 38.0 1.00
o SIXTEENTH 14 63 17 31.3 31.3 1.00
U PEACHTREE 15 16 12 14.3 14.3 1.00
R DEFOORS 48 40 75 54.3 54.3 1.00
C DEKALO 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SURREY 0 23 0 23.0 7.7 .33
S ENSIGN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
P01W INFLUENT 20 26 11 19.0 19.0 1.00
301 OICHLGRUBENZENES
A V ER AG
SITES WHEN FRACTION
— TU—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENI
NORTHSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENOX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
o SIXTEENTH 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
DEFOORS 3000 2000 900 1966.7 1966.7 1.00
C DEKALB 0 23 0 23.0 7.7
E SURREY 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S ENSIGN 12 0 0 12.0 4.0 .3.3
— WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
POTW INFLUENT 140 120 0 130.0 86.7 .67
315 NAPI-ITHALENE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
— TU—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
NO RTH SICE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENUX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
o SIXTEENTH 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DEFOORS 110 72 28 70.0 70.0 1.00
C DEKALU 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SURREY 150 290 25 155.0 155.0 1.00
S ENS1Gr i 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
POTW INFLUENT 17 85 0 51.0 34.0 .67
-------
326 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
AVERAGE
SITES wHEN FP ACTLON
TU—WED THtm—Fk1 SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
— NOE ThSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENOX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
O SIXTEENTH 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0)
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DEFCONS 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
C DEKAL8 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SURREY 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S ENSIGN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .3 .00
TAP WATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
P0Th INFLUENT 0 0 17 17.0 5.7 .33
331 ANTHRACENE/PHENANTHRENE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTI3N
— TU—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENI
NURIHSLãE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENCX 3 0 0 .0 .0 .03
0 SIXTEENTH 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .03
R DEFUORS 91 35 37 5 .3 54.3 1.00
C OEKAL(3 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SURREY 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S ENSIGN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP hATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
POTW INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
333 DI—N—eUTYL. PHTHALATE
AVERAGE
SITES wHEN FRACTION
lu—WED THUI —FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
NURTHSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENCX 0 0 19 19.0 6.3 .33
O SIXTEENTH 0 17 0 17.0 5.7 .33
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
N OEFOCRS 130 85 22 79.0 79.0 1.00
CDEKALtJ 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SURREY 83 0 0 83.0 27.7 .33
S ENSIGN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— WARREN 11 0 0 11.0 3.7 .33
TAP WATLR 0 0 .0 .0 .00
POTW INFLUENT 11 0 0 1.1.0 3.7 .33
-------
337 BUTYL BENZYL PHTI-$ALATE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
— ru—WED THu —FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
NU ThSI0E 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENOX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
o SIXTEENTH 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
U PEAChTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DEFOOR5 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
C DEKALB 0 47 70 58.5 39.0 .67
€ SURREY 900 300 250 483.3 483.3 1.00
S ENSIGN 600 400 32 344.0 344.0 1.00
— WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
POTW INFLUENT 61 160 13 78.0 78.0 1.00
33 BIS(2—ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTiON
— TU—wED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
NORTHSIDE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENCX 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
o SIXTEENTh 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
o PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DEFCORS 75 150 0 112.5 75.0 •67
C DEKALB 0 b7 0 67.0 22.3 .33
E SURREY 130 220 220 190.0 190.0 1.00
S ENSIGN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
— WARREN 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
TAP WATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
POT* INFLUENT 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
501 ANTLMCNY
AVERAGE
SITES WHEN FRACTION
TU—WED THUR—FRI SAT—SUN PRESENT AVERAGE PRESENT
— N0IITHSICE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
S LENU 0 0 2 2.0 .7 .33
o SIX1EENTH 0 0 2 2.0 .7 .33
U PEACHTREE 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
R DEFOORS .00
C DEXALd 0 0 0 .0 .0 .00
E SURREY .00
S ENSIGN .00
— WARREN 3 0 2 2.5 1.7 .67
TAP WATER 0 0 .0 .0 .00
PUT INFLUENT 0 2 0 2.0 .7 .33
-------
502 ARSENIC
0
0
rz t
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0 .00
.0 .00
AVERAGE
SITES
WHEN
FRACTION
NORII-ISIDE
TU— ED
0
THUP—FRI
0
SAT—SUN
0
PRESENT
.0
AVERAGE
.0
PRESENT
.00
S LENt3X
0
0
0
.0
.0
.00
o SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.00
.00
R DEFOORS
C D KAL8
9
0
10
0
5
0
8.0
.0
8.0
.0
1.00
.00
E SURREY
0
5
0
5.0
1.7
.33
S ErSIGN
0
0
0
.0
.0
.00
— WARREN
0
0
0
.0
.0
.00
TAP aATER
POTW INFLUENT
504 CADMIUM
FRACTION
SITES
AVERAGE
WHEN
N ORTHSICE
TU— ED
0
THUR—FRI
0
SAT—SUN
0
PRESENT
.0
AVERAGE
.0
PRESENT
.00
S LENOX
0
0
0
.0
.0
.00
O SIXTEENTH
0
0
0
.0
.0
.00
U PEACHTREE
0
0
0
.0
.0
.00
R DEFOORS
0
5
0
5.0
1.7
.33
C DE AL8
0
0
0
.0
.0
.00
E SURREY
0
43
0
43.0
14.3
.33
S EP SIGN
150
68
0
109.0
72.7
.67
WARREN
0
0
6
b.0
2.0
.33
—
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
505 CP-ROMIUM
SITES
AVERAGE
WHEN
FRACTIGN
NOHTHSIDE
TU—WED
49
THUR—FRI
16
SAT—SUN
10
PRESENT
2.0
AVERAGE
25.0
PRESENT
1.00
S LENCX
830
85
68
327.7
327.7
1000
0 SIXTEENTH
120
120
8
112.7
112.7
1.00
U PEACHTREE
54
68
58
60.0
60.0
1.00
R DEFOORS
240
5700
320
2086.7
2086.7
1.00
C DEKALB
6
7
7
6.7
6.7
1.00
E SURREY
1700
2500
114
1438.0
1438.0
1.00
S Et SIGN
16
76
18
37.3
37.3
1.00
WARREN
10
4
5
6.3
6.3
1.00
0
4
5
0
0
.0
4.5
.0
3.0
.00
.67
0
54
.00
1.00
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
0
64 74
.0 .0
70.7 70.7
-------
506 caPP
507 LEAD
508 MANGANESE
SI TES
— NORTI-ISIDE
S LENOX
o SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R DEFUORS
C DEKALB
E SURREY
S ENSIGN
— WARREN
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
SAT—SUN
35
37
35
75
42
52
27
38
22
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
38.3
51 • 7
46.3
71.3
147.3
55..,
b5 .3
409.7
2O
.J
AVER AGE
38.3
51 • 7
46.
71.3
147.3
55 • 3
65.3
409.7
38.3
t;i
I .-.
‘ -J1
FRACT LLJN
PRE SENr
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
I .00
1.00
1 • 00
1.00
I • 00
24 22.5 22.5 1.00
42 49.7 49.7 1.00
SITES
— NU THSLDE
S LENUX
0 SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R DEFCORS
C DEKALU
E SURREY
$ ENSIGN
— WARREN
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
TU—WED
28
45
43
68
180
29
49
91
71
21
56
T U- W i L)
35
5-
130
420
450
34
670
96
67
13
130
TU—WED
160
120
190
310
380
150
140
350
240
8
260
THUR—FR I
52
73
61
71
220
85
£20
1100
22
51
THUR—FI I
63
34
120
220
440
38
2100
100
17
110
THUR—FR I
200
160
190
300
300
140
180
480
270
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
41.7
48.7
106.7
346.7
325 • 0
39 • 7
1086.7
91.0
3.0
AVERAGE
41.7
48.7
1 06 • 7
346 • 7
25.0
39.7
1 086 • 7
91.0
36.0
SAT—SUN
27
57
70
400
85
47
490
77
24
13
1 70
SAT—SUN
180
310
1 70
370
540
1 80
250
540
230
1.3.0 13.0
136.7 136.7
SITES
— N0 ThS IDE
S LENOX
o SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R DEFOORS
C DEXALB
E SURREY
S ENSIGN
WARREN
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
FRACT ION
PRE SENT
1 • 00
1.00
1.00
I • 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FR ACT! U N
PRESENT
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
A V E A GE
WHEN
PR E SE NT
180.0
196.7
183.3
326 • 7
406 • 7
156.7
190.0
456.7
246. 7
AVER AGE
180.0
196.7
183.3
326 • 7
406.7
156 • 7
190.0
456 • 7
246 • 7
6.5
6.5
1.00
250
-------
509 MERCURY
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
0
2 0
SITES
N URTHSLDE
S LENOX
o SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R DEFOORS
C DEKALD
E SURREY
S ENSIGN
— AH REN
TI-ILIR—FkI
0
0
0
0
7
0
2
3
0
AVERAGE
*HEN
P1 ’ ESENT
.0
.0
.0
.0
5.3
.0
2.0
4.5
.0
AVERAGE
.0
.0
.0
.0
5.3
.0
1.3
3.0
.0
FRACTIUN
PRESENT
.00
.00
.00
1 • 00
.00
.67
• 67
.00
a’
0 .0 .0 .00
0 2.0 07 033
TU—WED
0
0
0
0
7
0
2
6
0
T U— ED
4
8
10
18
28
6
520
5
8
6
21
TU— ED
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SAT—SUN
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
SAT—SUN
3
4
5
33
11
5
120
15
3
SAT—SUN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
510 NICKEL
SITES
— NO1iTHSIDE
S L.ENOX
O SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R DEFCORS
C DEKAL8
E SURRE Y
S ENSIGN
— ARkEN
TAP WATER
POTi INFLUENT
511 SELENIUM
SITES
— N ORTHSIDE
S LENOX
O SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R DEFOORS
C DEKALB
E SURREY
S ENSIGN
WARREN
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
AVERAGE
WHEN
FRACTIGN
PRESENT
AVERAGE
PRESENT
3.0
3.0
1.00
5.0
5.0
1.00
8.7
30.0
8.7
J0.U
1.00
1.00
20.3
20.3
1.00
19.3
19.3
1.00
480.0
480.0
1.00
9.3
9.3
1.00
5.0
b.3
1.00
THUR—FR I
2
3
11
39
22
47
800
a
4
19
THtJR—F I
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
4.0
4.0 1.00
14
18.0
18.0 1.00
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE
.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
FRACT ICN
SENT
.00
•
.33
.33
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.0 .00
.0 .00
U
-------
512 SILVEH
514 ZINC
601 TOTAL CVAN1DE S
SITES
— NOI THS I DE
S LENuX
o SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
H OLFOORS
C OEKALG
E SURREY
S ENSIGN
— WARREN
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
t 1
TU—WED
10
10
8
13
31
0
9
12
0
0
19
TU— WED
120
190
180
680
590
120
2503
160
320
200
350
THUR—FR I
7
12
31
20
24
0
a
27
0
10
THUR—FR I
150
170
200
930
510
150
4800
140
89
370
SA 1—SUN
0
4
4
6
18
0
6
4
0
0
6
SAT—SUN
1.30
140
140
780
280
140
1800
140
140
A V ER A GE
WHEN
PRESENT
8.5
8.7
14.3
13.0
24.3
.0
7 • 7
14.3
.0
.0
11.7
A V ER A ‘JIE
WHEN
PRESENT
133 • 3
166.7
1 73 • 3
79b. 7
460.. 3
1 36. 7
3033.3
146.7
183.0
SI TES
— NIJRT HSLDE
S LENCX
o SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R DEFOURS
C DEKAL 3
E SURREY
S ENSIGN
— WARREN
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
AVERAGE
5.7
8. 7
14.3
13.0
24 • 3
.0
7.7
14.3
.0
.0
11.7
A V EM A GE
133.3
166.7
1 73 • 3
796 • 7
460.0
136 • 7
3033.3
146.7
183.0
FRACTICN
PRESENT
.67
1 • 00
1.00
1 • 00
1.00
.00
1.00
1.00
.00
.00
1 ..00
F H AC T 13 N
PHE SENT
1.00
1 • .00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.00
1.00
1.00
1 • 00
1 • 00
220 10.O 210.0
340 353.3 353.3
SITES
A VEHAGE
TU—WED
WHEN
FRACTION
NOMTHSLDE
THUR—FRI
SAT—SUN
PRESENT
AVERAGE
PRESENT
S
LENOX
24
0
0
24.0
ó .0
.33
0
SIXTEENTH
0
0
0
.0
.0
.00
U
PEACHTREE
0
0
0
.0
.0
.00
R
DEFCOW S
0
36
0
36.0
12.0
.33
C
OEK4LB
48
69
19
45.3
45.3
1.00
E
SURREY
0
0
0
.0
.0
.00
S
ENSIGN
40
522
88
216.7
216.7
1.00
WARREN
180
282
64
175.3
175.3
1.00
TAP WATER
POTi INFLUENT
0
0
0 .0
0 16.0
.0
5.3
.00
.
16
-------
602 TOTAL PHENOLS
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
20.3
42.7
36. 7
38.7
461 • 7
41.7
505.3
163.3
20.0
AVERAGE
20 • 3
42,7
36.7
38 7
461 • 7
41 • 7
505.3
163 3
20.0
FRACT ION
PRESENT
1.30
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1000
1.00
1000
1000
t i
I.-
.0 .0 .03
98.3 98.3 1.00
SI TES
— NU1 THSIDE
S LENOX
O SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R OEFGORS
C DEKALLJ
E SURREY
S E S1GN
— wAhREN
TAP WATER
P01W INFLUENT
701 Ph
SITES
— NORTHS IOE
S LENOX
o SIXTEENTh
U PEACHTREE
R DEFUORS
C DEKALD
E SURREY
S ENSIGN
— WAkREN
lAP WATER
PUTW INFLUENT
702 T( C,)
SI TES
— NURTHS IDE
S LENGX
o SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R DEFCURS
C DEKALEJ
E SURREY
S ENSIGN
— WARREN
TAP WATER
POTW INFLUENT
TO—WED
THUR—FRI
SAT—SON
17
22
22
44
53
31
36
49
25
21
64
21
629
609
147
31
56
38
331
554
293
153
44
24
18
18
0
0
105
162
28
TU—WED
THUR—FRI
SAT—SUN
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
7
8
6
8
7
7
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
a
TO—WED
THUR—FRI
SAT—SUN
17
17
16
19
1
6
20
21
20
1.8
19
18
19
19
17
1?
20
20
25
25
19
17
17
17
16
16
17
16
18
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
6.6
6.7
6.6
6.5
7.0
7.1
7.7
6.8
6.9
AVERAGE
6.6
0.7
6.6
6.5
7.0
7.1
7.,
6.8
6.9
FRACT ION
PRESENT
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1000
1.00
6 6.3 6.3 1.00
6 6.3 o.3 1.00
AVERAGE
WHEN
FRACTIJN
PRESENT
AVE AGL
PRESENT
1.6
16.6
1.00
14.6
14.6
1.00
20.1
20.1
1.00
18.2
18.2
1.00
17.9
17.9
.1.00
19.7
19.7
1.00
22.9
22.9
1.00
17.0
17.)
1.00
17 16.5 16.5 1.00
18 17.6 17.6 1.00
18
-------
70.3 AMMONIA
TAP WATER
P01W INFLUENT
TAP WATER
POTV. INFLUENT
TAP WATER
P(JTW INFLUENT
0
6 9
U
30 30
0
120
SI TES
— N(JRTI-1SIDE
S LEN X
o SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R DEFOURS
C DCKALE3
£ SURREY
S ENSIGN
— WARREN
TIiU —FH 1
9
6
5
7
11
7
5
10
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
9.1
28.0
4.4
5 • 7.
7.7
5.7
3.1
4.2
9.4
A V ERA
9.1
28.0
4.4
5.7
7.7
5.7
3.1
4.2
9.4
tzl
ENACT ION
PRESENT
1 • 00
1 • 00
I • 00
1,00
1 • 00
1 • 00
1 • 00
1.00
1,00
T U— WED
8
9
3
5
10
4
3
4
7
TO— ED
20
155
20
75
125
60
770
90
30
0
7
.0
7.5
704 GIL AM) GREASE
SI TES
N O RTHS IDE
S LENOX
o SIXIEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R 0t F0ONS
C: DEKALD
SURREY
S ENSIGN
— WA RkEN
.0
7.5
00
1.00
THUR—FR I
35
95
180
65
85
100
80
43
30
SAT—SUN
11
70
5
5
3
6
1
3
12
SAT—SUN
32
100
20
.35
90
50
35
38
45
0
25
SAT—SUN
70
104
120
160
110
160
180
60
100
0
160
AVERA(iE
WHEN
FRACTIGN
PRESENT
AVERAGE PRESENT
29.0
29.0
1. O
116.7
116.7
1.00
73.3
73.3
1.00
58.3
58.3
1.00
100.0
100.0
1.00
70.0
295.0
70.0
295.0
1.03
1.00
57.0
57.0
1.00
35.0
35.0
1.00
.0
28.3
.0
28.3
.00
1.00
705 TSS
Si TES
—
NOF4THS IDE
lu—WED
60
THuR—FRI
100
S LENOX
80
230
o SIXTEENTH
200
.300
O PEACHTREE
240
260
R DEFOONS
SEQ
800
C DEKALB
140
200
€ SURREY
240
740
S ENSIGN
120
80
— WARREN
540
80
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
76. 7
128.0
206.7
220.0
49o. 7
166.7
386.7
86.7
243.0
AVERA&JE
76 • 7
128.0
206.7
220.0
496. 7
166 • 7
38t • 7
86. 7
240 • 3
FRACT ION
PRESENT
1.00
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1 • 00
.0
143.0
.0
140,0
.00
1 • 00
140
-------
706 iCC
TAP WATER
P01W INFL.UENT
TAP WATER
POTW LNFLUENT
0
75
SITES
— NO& 1HS1DE
S LENCX
O SIXTEENTH
U PEACI-4TREE
R DEFOURS
C OEIcALB
E SURREY
S Er 5IGN
— jARREN
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRE SENT
58.3
1 88 • 7
64.3
55.0
244 • 3
192.0
173.7
1 32 • 0
71.0
AVERAGE
58.3
1 88. 7
64 • 3
55 • 0
244 • 3
1 92 • 0
1 73 • 7
1 32 • 0
71 • 0
F ACTIUN
PRESENT
1.00
1.00
1 • 00
1000
1.00
1 000
1 000
1.00
1000
0
5 4.ti 4.5 1.00
50 68.3 68.3 1.00
T U— wED
-33
154
48
55
310
112
98
160
go
4
61
T U—WED
80
450
95
400
1300
430
480
3e0
240
0
130
lu—WED
50
260
45
80
620
205
140
250
100
THUR—FR I
73
1 72
102
76
370
320
350
190
53
94
THUR—FRI
810
,50
250
550
1400
1100
2700
440
120
280
THUR—FRI
80
420
150
115
700
385
775
280
70
SAT—SUN
69
240
43
.34
53
144
73
46
70
SA 1—SUN
180
130
80
1 00
1 05
550
310
1 20
150
0
160
SA r—sUN
95
7
65
40
70
215
90
80
c5
707 COD
SI TES
— NU 1HS1DE
S LENOX
0 SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
R D& F00RS
C DEKALB
E SURREY
S ENSIGN
— WARREN
TAP WATER
P01W INFLUENI
708 8C0
SI TES
— NORTHSIDE
S LENOX
O SIXTEENTH
U PEACHTREE
t DEFOORS
C DEKALB
E SURREY
S ENSIGN
— WARREN
A V ERA GE
W H EN
PRESENT
356.7
3 7o • 7
141.7
350.0
935.0
693.3
1163.3
313.3
170.0
A V ERA E
356 • 7
5Th • 7
141.7
350 • 0
935.0
69303
1 163 • 3
313.3
170 • 0
FRACT LGN
PRESENT
1.00
1000
1 • 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
.0
.0
.03
190.0
193.0
1.00
AVERAGE
WHEN
PRESENT
75.0
228.9
86. 7
78. s
463.3
268.3
335.0
203.3
88.3
A V EI A GE
75 • 0
228.9
86. 7
7 • 3
463.3
268.3
335.0
203.3
88.3
FRACT ICN
PRESENT
1.00
1000
1.00
1.00
1.00
1000
1.00
1.00
1.00
145
0 .0 .0 .00
90 103.3 103.3 1.00
-------