AIR TOXIC EMISSIONS
FROM SELECTED
NON-TRADITIONAL SOURCES
IN THE PUGET SOUND REGION
VW '
/¦
" fW "A
\A
. r». £>* ...
" ,«;V'
• y,'¦ ..'•.A.-'V! . J« J.r * 'i ' M
¦- '¦ . \^Pa
PREPARED FOR THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98101
AND THE
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
200 WEST MERCER STREET
SEATTLE, WA 98109
APRIL, 1986
-------
DETERMINATION OF AIR TOXIC EMISSIONS
FROM NON-TRADITIONAL SOURCES IN THE PUGET SOUND REGION
Prepared for
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Seattle, Washington
and the
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
Seattle, Washington
Prepared by
Engineering - Science, Inc.
Boise, Idaho
April 1986
iSf1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iv
SUMMARY
1
INTRODUCTION
6
IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL SOURCES
9
DESCRIPTION OF EMISSION ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
15
RESULTS OF EMISSION ESTIMATES
35
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Landfills
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
Superfund Sites
CONCLUSION 50
REFERENCES 51
APPENDIX A A-l
Air Toxic Emission Estimates for
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
APPENDIX B B-l
Discussion of Site Visits to Selected
Non-Traditional Sources of Air Toxic Emissions
APPENDIX C C-l
Example Emission Calculations
APPENDIX D D-l
Results of Sample Analyses
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLE S-l Summary of Combined Toxics Emissions
for the Largest Sources Evaluated
Within Designated Source Categories
TABLE I Listing of Non-Traditional Sources
TABLE II Equations Used for Estimating Emission
from Surface Impoundments
TABLE III Pollutant Concentrations of
Generic Influent Streams
TABLE IV Toxic Air Contaminant Emission
Estimations Equations
TABLE V Average Compositions of Landfill
Flare Gases Toxic and Priority Pollutant
TABLE VI Total Identified Toxic Emissions from
Selected POTWs
Page
4
11
21-22
25
33
34
37-38
TABLE VII Estimated Emission from Selected
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities
40
TABLE VIII Estimated Toxic Air Emissions from
Selected Landfill Sites
FIGURE I General process flow diagram for
solvent recovery operations
TABLE IX Air Toxic Emission Estimates for
Selected Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
42
45
46
TABLES A1 Publicly Owned Treatment Works
-A31 Air Toxic Emission Estimates
A1-A31
iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to extend their appreciation for much helpful assistance to
Ms. Dana Davoli, Air Toxic Coordinator for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10 and Mr. David Kircher, Senior Air Pollution Project Adminis-
trator with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Both provided
valuable suggestions and assistance in selecting sources, evaluating results,
and reviewing report drafts. Mr. Kircher also expended great effort in
gathering the basic information regarding the population of non-traditional
sources in the Puget Sound area and identifying key contact personnel at each
site of importance to this study. These efforts greatly reduced our workload.
We also would like to thank Mr. K. C. Hustvedt, Ms. Susan Thorneloe, and Ms.
Penny Lassiter of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Chemi-
cals and Petroleum Branch for the review of emission models selected for the
study. Their comments and suggestions were most helpful.
The authors extend great appreciation also to Ms. Diana Pelkey for her long
hours preparing the unfamiliar text under difficult working arrangements.
iv
-------
DETERMINATION OF A.IR TOXIC EMISSIONS
FROM NON-TRADITIONAL SOURCES IN THE
PUGET SOUND REGION
SUMMARY
In the past few years there has been increasing interest in identifying the
potential public health problems resulting from the emissions of toxic air
contaminants for which ambient air quality standards do not currently exist.
A key element in assessing the effects of these so-called toxics is determin-
ing the quantity of emissions of contaminants of concern. As with criteria
pollutants there are both point and area sources of such contaminants
requiring a review of a broad variety of potential sources. The Puget Sound
Air Pollution Control Agency in 1983 began an air toxic inventory program
addressing traditional point sources to quantify toxic emitters. As this
inventory was nearing completion, it was becoming clear through research by
EPA and others that a number of non-traditional air pollution sources may in
fact be important sources of toxic air pollutants. To help identify and
understand the scope of such emissions of air toxics, Puget Sound Air Pol-
lution Control Agency requested assistance from EPA Region 10 in developing
emission estimates for several selected non-traditional sources. The result-
ing plan established five source categories for investigation: Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW); Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plants; Superfund
Clean-up Sites; Municipal Landfills; and Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and
Disposal Facilities (TSDFs). To ensure a broad review of non-traditional
sources, emissions were to be estimated for facilities from each category.
Because details of processes and wastes handled are critical to potential
emissions, site visits were planned to key representative facilities within
each of the source groups. Where appropriate and beneficial, considering
available resources, field samples or measurements were to be taken to allow
improved emission estimation. The facilities eventually visited within each
source category are listed below:
1
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
METRO West Point Treatment Plant
METRO Renton Treatment Plant
Everett Wastewater Treatment Plant
Chambers Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Weyerhaeuser - Everett
Scott Paper - Everett
Wyckoff
Superfund Clean-up Site
Tacoma Tar Pits
Municipal/Public Landfills
Hidden Valley
Cedar Hills
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
Chemical Processors, Inc. - Georgetown
Lilyblad Petroleum
The information garnered as a result of these visits was used to augment and
refine emission estimates prepared for similar facilities within each catego-
ry.
In evaluating emissions, no selected or limited list of toxic materials was
used; however, almost all available analyses of waste waters were prepared to
evaluate the presence of EPA's priority pollutant list. Although this list
includes many materials of low volatility, it was found that several of these
are being emitted as air toxics. However, their low volatility does aid in
limiting emissions in cases where direct evaporation is a dominant emission
2
-------
mode such as chemical process losses and conditions of surficial evaporation
where there is little restriction due to diffusion. Table S-l lists the
largest sources of toxic air contaminants identified as a result of the
estimates made here. As may be seen, industrial and publicly-owned wastewater
treatment works can show substantial emissions though this is closely tied to
the presence of volatile contaminants combined with aerated treatment. In
addition, it is important to note that the estimates for wastewater treatment
are conservative since they give no credit to other removal modes such as
removal by biological action or adsorption on solids. In addition, VOCs in
POTW effluents may still be emitted from receiving waters. Landfills also are
significant sources mainly due to bio-gas flux which carries with it trace
quantities of toxic components. Actual fluxes have not been measured at Puget
Sound landfills, however, and these estimates are based on landfill gas
production models which are admittedly imprecise estimators of overall
amounts. Another important caveat regarding the accuracy of landfill
estimates results from uncertainties regarding the effectiveness of flaring.
No data exist of flare gas flow rates and destruction efficiencies for most
landfills in the area. In addition, flares tend to self-extinguish. Records
for relighting which helped assess outage periods were available for three
landfills only.
Analysis of hazardous waste handlers and Superfund sites showed relatively
small emission potential. Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
sites reviewed here simply did not handle large quantities of toxic material
making overall emissions relatively small except for the listed solvent
recyclers. In addition, much of the very large tonnage associated with listed
organic wastes (ignitables or waste solvents) results from large percentages
of water in the combined waste. Superfund sites analyzed were, for the most
part, those considered most critical with the largest potential for emissions.
In each case, however, volatiles with the greatest emissions potential were
found at low concentration in soils scheduled for removal (most volatiles
probably left before or shortly after the waste got into the soil). Material
remaining at high concentration were largely heavier volatiles (toluene,
xylene and derivatives), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, oily wastes, and
metals.
3
-------
TABLE S-l
SUMMARY OF COMBINED TOXICS EMISSIONS'
FOR THE LARGEST SOURCES EVALUATED
WITHIN DESIGNATED SOURCE CATEGORIES
Facility
Weyerhaeuser Kraft
Scott Paper Kraft
Simpson Tacoma Kraft
Kent Highlands Landfill
Hidden Valley Landfill
Cedar Hills Landfill
Olalla Landfill
Lilyblad Petroleum
Northwest Enviro Services
Chemical Processors
METRO-Renton POTW
Everett POTW
Chambers Creek POTW
Puyallup POTW
Brownsville POTW
METRO-West Point POTW
Source
Aeration Lagoon
Secondary wastewater
treatment
Wastewater treatment
Landfill gas/flares
Landfill gas/flares
Landfill gas/flares
Landfill gas/flares
Solvent Recovery
Oily/Solvent Water
treatment
All
All
All
All
All
All
Primary Sedimentation
Emission
Estimate
(Ton/Year)
35 - 492b
18.2
2.3
11.3
12.3
10.8
3.1
1.4
2.4
1.1
8.6
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
a The above estimates include the following compounds: Acetone, Benzene,
Carbon Tetrachloride, Chloroethane, Chloroform, Dichloroethane,
Dichloroethylene, Methylene Chloride, Naphthalene, Phenol,
Tetrachloroethylene, Toluene, 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane, Trichloroethylene,
among others. For a compound-by-compound breakdown see pages 35-52 and A1
through A24.
b The high value of this range is based upon a single sample of wastewater
taken during what is believed to have been a batch release of chemicals.
Weyerhaeuser emission estimates are discussed on page 41.
4.
-------
Clearly industrial wastewater treatment presents a potentially significant
source group of toxic emissions. It also is a group for which only limited
information is available, usually a one-time effluent analysis to determine
compliance with discharge permit regulations. These sources will require
detailed investigations to prepare improved estimates of alternative removal
mechanisms and validate surface impoundment and treatment tank emission rates.
In general, refinement of the values in Table S-l will require further field
testing to verify critical concentrations and quantities. For example, it is
suspected the large emissions attributed to Weyerhaeuser may be due to a batch
release of bleach chemicals rather than an average value. This on-going
analysis and inventory development should be directed primarily at refining
industrial wastewater treatment and landfill emission values.
5
-------
DETERMINATION OF AIR TOXIC EMISSIONS
FROM NON-TRADITIONAL SOURCES IN THE
PUGET SOUND REGION
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, greater interest has been expressed by regulatory agencies in
identifying and controlling sources of toxic air contaminates. This interest
has been due chiefly to two reasons: First, implementation of programs to
control criteria pollutants have largely been put in place; and second, it is
clear that many volatile organic compounds and particulates have toxic effects
beyond those contemplated when the original criteria pollutant standards were
established. Many regulatory agencies have begun to identify toxic air
contaminant point sources through inventory efforts aimed at major sources of
volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. For the most part, these sources
were already on existing inventory lists due to their emission of other
criteria pollutants. These efforts have been aimed at better identifying the
significance of the pollutants through identification of the individual toxic
species that may be emitted.
During 1983 and 1984, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA)
began such an inventory of point sources within its area of jurisdiction in
order to identify toxic air contaminant emissions. As a result of inves-
tigation associated with this inventory effort and with the findings of other
investigations in other areas, it became clear that many of the toxic air
contaminant emissions may result from so called non-traditional sources. Of
particular interest because of their potential emissions are such sources as:
wastewater treatment plants for public, private and industrial uses; land-
fills; hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; and
abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites, including Superfund sites. In order
to critically assess the emissions of the toxic air contaminants from such
operations, it is necessary to gather basic information about source processes
6
-------
such as the types of toxic materials that are handled, the amounts of material
which are handled, and the method of transfers of toxic material from one
process to another. A particularly important factor is the concentration of
the hazardous or toxic material in the waste that is being handled.
Clearly the evaluation of toxic emissions for all potential toxic materials
from a wide variety of sources is a difficult and time consuming task. In
order to reduce the amount of work to be performed under this contract, it was
decided that Engineering - Science would prepare emission estimates for some
50 non-traditional sources located in the PSAPCA area of jurisdiction. The
emission estimates prepared for these sources, would be supported by data
collected during site visits to a selected number of the potential sources.
Both the original 50 sources and those to be observed during site visits were
selected to represent a larger number of sources located in the area. Thus,
both emissions estimates and emission estimation procedures would have broad
application to other sources of toxic air contaminants. It was intended that
site visitation procedures, sampling and analytical methods for materials
containing potential toxic air contaminants, and emissions estimations methods
would serve as a guide to PSAPCA during the completion of its air toxic
inventory.
Emission estimation procedures for non-traditional sources of air pollution
are not well developed. Standard emission factors do not exist. Because of
the wide variety of potential toxic emissions and levels of concentration in
materials handled, simplified emission estimation methods such as exist for
criteria pollutants have not been prepared for non-traditional sources. In
addition, traditional methods for measuring emissions from point sources such
as stack testing and material balance are more difficult to apply to
non-traditional sources where emissions may occur over large areas (e.g.
lagoons).
Methods for measuring emissions of material from a large area are generally
expensive requiring large commitments of time and equipment in the field. As
a result, calculations of emissions for large areas such as landfills and
surface impoundments are based primarily on the mathematical modeling of the
7
-------
diffusion of volatile material through liquids and solids and material balance
data. Unfortunately, use of emission estimation models is not a simple
alternative. They often require detailed information with regard to the
nature of the potential air contaminants and the waste in which it is mixed.
Of necessity, they tend to simplify the physical conditions under which
emissions occur, thereby making them less representative of the actual emis-
sion problem. However, they do allow estimation of the emissions for a large
number of sources for which field studies would be impractically expensive.
8
-------
IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL SOURCES
In order to limit the amount of contractor effort involved in identifying
sources of potential emission, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
(PSAPCA) prepared a draft report entitled "Identification of Potential
Non-Traditional Sources of Toxic Air Pollutants in the Puget Sound Region"
(Kircher, 1985) . This report relied upon existing information for hazardous
waste handling, landfills, publicly owned treatment works, and Superfund sites
for preparing a list of potential toxic air contaminant sources. Utilizing
existing lists resulted in relatively limited information with regard to any
individual source. However, it did allow the rapid tabulation of general
information about a wide variety of sources with potential TAC emissions. The
PSAPCA report addresses potential TAC emissions from five source areas: I)
publicly owned treatment works (sewage treatment); 2) active and abandoned
landfills; 3) potential and listed superfund sites; 4) industrial wastewater
treatment; and 5) hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal. For each
of these potential source areas, evaluation of existing facility data was
followed up by detailed telephone conversations with source owners and opera-
tors. This information was used to select the limited number of sources to be
included in this study and to be the subjects of site visitation. A dis-
cussion of the procedures for selecting sources in each category is given
below.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (Sewage Treatment Plants)
A general listing of publicly owned treatment works was prepared based upon
telephone conversations with METRO, the City of Seattle, the Washington State
Department of Ecology, and investigation of various environmental impact
studies prepared for comprehensive land use and other planning needs. Data on
the capacities and types of treatments at METRO facilities was provided
directly to PSAPCA as were reports regarding toxicant pre-treatment and
treatment. Information regarding other facilities was drawn largely from the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit data which
basically identify the locations of treatment plants. Some detailed informa-
tion was available on a very limited number of facilities through environ-
mental impact statements or other studies which have been prepared to identify
9
-------
treatment difficulties, potential client sources, and general benefits of
treatments to surface waterways. Through a special request to the Washington
Department of Ecology (WDOE), PSAPCA identified all treatment facilities,
their capacities, and the types of treatments used. This resulted in a
listing of some 55 publicly owned treatment works with capacities varying from
29,000 gallons to 125 million gallons per day. Treatment methods varied from
sophisticated secondary treatment, using activated sludge, and anaerobic
digestion, to simple primary treatment for removal of solids.
Treatment works were selected from this list of 55 facilities based on the
need to investigate both potentially large sources of toxic air contaminants
as well as sources that would be representative of a broad spectrum of treat-
ment works. With the knowledge that secondary treatment, especially that
conducted in aerated lagoons or aerated or agitated tanks, has the potential
for significantly greater emissions than simple primary treatment, interviews
were conducted with a number of treatment works operators in order to identify
both large and representative facilities for further investigation. Based on
these discussion, four treatment works were selected for on-site visits.
Selection of other treatment works for emission estimation was prioritized
based on overall capacity and potential to emit air toxics. The final list of
POTWS to be evaluated is shown in Table I.
Active and Abandoned Landfills
PSAPCA investigated active and abandoned landfills through existing EPA and
WDOE files and status reports on solid waste management facilities. In
addition, both the WDOE and the EPA information on potential Superfund sites,
many of which are abandoned landfills, was investigated. The basis for
investigation and documentation of landfill activities is rarely air pollution
potential. The priorities assigned by regulatory agencies tend to reflect the
potential environmental problem in a general sense. Thus, the agency priori-
tizations can be used only as a guideline in making preliminary selections of
landfills for further investigations of air emissions. The priorities can be
modified based on the availability of additional information such as the types
of waste that have entered the landfill, the nature of businesses of major
generators whose waste entered the landfill, and any specific information
10
-------
TABLE I
LISTING OF NON-TRADITIONAL SOURCES
SUBJECT TO AIR TOXIC EMISSION ESTIMATES
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
METRO, West Point*
METRO, Renton*
METRO, Alki
Chambers Creek*
Puyallup
Tacoma Northend
Tacoma Central
Edmonds
Everett*
SW Suburban (Miller Creek)
Bremerton
Lake Haven (Redondo)
Snohomish
Enumclaw
Des Moines SD
Brownsville
Lakehaven (Lakota)
METRO, Carkeek Park
METRO, Richmond Beach
SW Suburban (Salmon Crk)
Alderwood Water Dist.
Sumner
Marysville
Lake Stevens
Westside
Tacoma (Western Slopes)
Lynnwood
Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Simpson Tacoma
Scott Paper*
Wyckoff*
Weyerhaeuser*
Active and Abandoned Landfills
Cedar Hills*
Kent Highlands
Midway
Hidden Valley (Thun Field)*
Olympic View
Hansville
Ollalla
Significant Superfund Sites
Western Processing
Tacoma Tar Pits*
Queen City Farms
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Lillyblad Petroleum*
Chemical Processors*
Safety Kleen - Auburn
Safety Kleen - Renton
Northwest Enviro Service
Boeing Plant 2
Boeing Renton
Crosby and Overton
* Facilities visited as part of field investigations.
11
-------
about volatile organic compounds, or toxic particulate matter. For
generalized lists, some 200 landfills were identified in the four county area
subject to PSAPCA jurisdiction. Many of these clearly have limited potential
for air pollution. However other sites may be considered significant
potential sources of air contaminants because of known releases of toxic
gases, the existence of both putrescible and hazardous material in the same
fill, large overall size or the presence of significant quantities of
industrial waste. An initial screening of these sites based on readily
available data was followed up with telephone interviews with site operators.
The combined information from these activities resulted in the list of select-
ed landfills identified in Table I.
Potential and Listed Superfund Sites
Puget Sound staff members collected information on uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites within the State of Washington. These sites which are being
investigated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department
of Ecology include some 450 locations across the state and about 200 in the
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency's jurisdiction. As part of the
Superfund evaluation process preliminary assessments have been conducted on
about 160 of the sites. The preliminary assessments are intended to provide
some early evaluation of the environmental hazard associated with the given
location. A prioritization of each site in accordance with evaluation crite-
ria indicates the need for and urgency of action. Unfortunately, these
preliminary assessment reports rarely provide sufficient data to quantify
emissions though they may present the conclusion that air emissions do exist.
Based on the priorities assigned to Superfund sites as result of EPA/WD0E
assessments and upon its understanding for potential air emissions from
individual sites, Puget Sound staff suggested individual sites for inves-
tigation under this study. Further investigation of these PSAPCA priority
sites was carried out by Engineering-Science through telephone conversations
with EPA site clean-up managers. As a result of these conversations, the list
in Table I was developed for site investigation as part of this study. These
sites were prioritized based on indications of gas releases at the clean-up
site, knowledge that volatile organic compounds were handled or disposed of at
12
-------
the site, clear knowledge that toxic materials were involved and a potential
for exposure to surrounding populated areas.
Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Relatively limited data are available on industrial wastewater treatment
facilities within the PSAPCA jurisdiction. Only general summary information
is available from the NPDES permit program. NPDES information indicating the
type of treatment utilized was of some value in estimating potential air
emissions, however, because of the limited value of the NPDES information,
PSAPCA investigated hazardous waste data which provided significantly more
information about the types of specific chemicals handled. The combined NPDES
and hazardous waste information was utilized to prioritize industrial wastewa-
ter treatment facilities for site visits. Prioritization criteria for these
sites included not only the potential size and toxicity of the emissions, but
how well they represented other industrial activities within the Puget Sound
area. Selected sites are listed in Table I.
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
Hazardous wastes are regulated through both the Washington Department of
Ecology and the Environmental Protection Agency. A potentially large air
emissions source group includes those facilities which treat, store and
dispose of hazardous wastes as defined under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). At PSAPCA request, the Department of Ecology prepared a
listing of major hazardous waste handlers located within the PSAPCA
jurisdiction. The listings identified quantities of compounds that were
stored, treated or disposed of at a given location. Of particular concern
were RCRA codes D001, ignitable wastes; F001 and F002, spent halogenated
solvents; F003 and F005, spent non-halogenated solvents; and Department of
Ecology codes WT01 - WT02, toxic wastes; WP01 - WP02, halogenated wastes; and
WP03, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Wastes with RCRA U- and P- codes were
reviewed individually to assess their air toxic potential. In general, if the
vapor pressure of this material exceeded 0.1 mm Hg and the quantity handled
exceeded one metric ton, t\ ^ material was considered to be a potentially
significant air toxic source. Within the limitations of the current hazardous
13
-------
waste reporting system, this listing proved invaluable in identifying the
potential air toxic emissions sources connected with hazardous waste
facilities.
The sources identified in Table I were selected from the listing of hazardous
waste treatment storage and disposal facilities based upon the quantities and
types of RCRA wastes handled. Highest priority was given to facilities with
volatile organic wastes or those that handled known toxic wastes. In
addition, if a hazardous waste TSDF was believed to be representative of a
number of similar facilities, it was given a suitably higher priority for site
visitation.
14
-------
DESCRIPTION OF EMISSION ESTIMATION METHODOLOGIES
As noted previously, the measurement of emissions from non-traditional sources
is complicated due to their size and complexity. Large area sources, such as
surface impoundments and landfills do not lend themselves to traditional
source sampling and monitoring techniques. Field measurement techniques
typically require extensive instrumentation or sampling hardware and eval-
uation of very low concentrations samples, both of which tend to make sampling
and analysis expensive and results less reliable. (Cox, et. al., 1984) Field
sampling methodology generally fall into three categories: downwind plume wind
transect; surface emission measurements; and flux box techniques. The down-
wind plume transect requires measurements in the plume of gases emitted by the
source at various crosswind distances and heights above ground level. An
integration of the concentrations of the gases in the plume identifies the
total emissions from the source. A large number of samples must be taken of
low concentration gases to obtain a result. In addition, actual source
strength can only be determined based upon atmospheric measurements which
allow the dispersion characteristics of the atmosphere to be determined. Back
modeling from the point of measurement to the actual source of emissions is
then required.
Measurement of surface emissions also requires extensive field sampling.
Typically, sampling heads are located near the surface of the emitting source
whether it be surface impoundment or landfill. Though concentrations are
somewhat higher in this case, sampling must again be conducted in several
locations across the surface in order to insure representative collection of
data. (Pellizzari, 1982)
Flux box techniques utilize a temporary cover or box which is placed over the
surface to contain emissions at a higher concentration. The gases within the
box are then drawn through a sample collection system for subsequent analysis.
The flux box has the disadvantage of changing environmental conditions during
sampling. Again the sample box must be placed at several spots across the
area to ensure representative estimations of emissions.
15
-------
Because of the cost and complications of such field sampling techniques and
the need to analyze and prioritize a large number of sources, EPA has support-
ed development of both theoretical and empirical models to aid in estimation
of emissions from area sources under discussion here. In general, these
models are of the so called two-film type in which the movement of pollutants
is limited by their ability to diffuse through either soil or water and, after
release from the surface, through the air. The models address movement of
pollutants as affected by concentration and pressure gradient. Over a limited
range of conditions and single component systems in laboratory tests the
models have proved to be good emissions predictors. However, a number of
factors greatly increase the uncertainty in the use of two-film type models.
Waste composition: Often waste composition is not known. Either composition
must be determined or emission estimates must be based on literature values or
speculation regarding the highly variable composition. The emissions so
derived could show considerable error.
Multi-component systems: Wastes often contain several chemical species of
concern. Interaction of the species may be non-characteristic in that
solubility, vapor concentrations and overall volatility do not change in a
predictable manner. Data on the performance of such multi-component systems,
especially in the presence of solid, absorbtive materials is very limited.
Biological and Chemical Breakdown: Chemicals deposited in biologically active
systems such as landfills and wastewater treatment plants are subject to
decomposition and oxidation often resulting in changes in toxicity, solubility
and volatility. Chemical reactions may bring about similar results. The
extent to which these changes take place can only be assessed by routine
sampling and a thorough understanding of the waste treatment system. Basic
mass transfer models cannot address these effects.
Clearly there are major uncertainties in preparing emission estimates using
simplified models. However, with some additional information much useful
information can be gained in a variety of applications. For example, often
there is some understanding through routine or special sampling of waste and
wastewater composition allowing identification of toxic components. When
16
-------
toxics are present in low concentrations multi-component effects are to some
extent reduced. The assumptions of no chemical or biological breakdown is
conservative, since it tends to maximize the predicted emissions, and very
close to reality in many aerated treatment systems where removal of volatile
components is rapid.
Considering the cost and uncertainties of field sampling techniques, the
methods discussed and used in this report provide the best approach for making
preliminary emission estimates and prioritizing sources for further investiga-
tions of non-traditional toxic emissions.
Selection of Emission Models
To be of value for the purposes of this study, the emission model must 1)
represent conditions that exist at various potential sources and 2) be useable
in the sense that it does not require unavailable information (a model which
relies upon detailed field measurements or arcane data to produce reasonable
results is of no time or cost saving benefit). Models must address adequately
the principal physical conditions under which emissions are of concern. These
include mixtures of liquid wastes, both aqueous and non-aqueous conditions,
mixtures of immiscible liquids, volatile liquids spilled on soil surfaces,
volatile liquids diffusing from buried sources, and surface impoundments. For
the purposes of this study, models were selected for the estimation of
emissions of volatile organic materials from the surfaces of liquid water in
which the organic was a minor constituent. Models also were selected for
surface impoundments in which surface aeration is used. For volatile wastes
mixed with solid material, emission models were selected for the case of the
landfill where wastes are contained below a permanent or temporary soil cover.
The resources of this study were limited and models were selected which did
not require significant amounts of field measurements or laboratory develop-
ment. Thus site measurements could be limited to those made during a one time
site visit with portable instruments. Chemical data was limited to that which
could be derived from the literature or any previously completed special
studies. Given these general restrictions, data collection efforts at the
individual sites were directed toward quantifying the variables necessary to
17
-------
utilize the selected emission models. The following sections discuss specific
models to address emissions from surface impoundment, landfills and waste
processing.
Emissions Models for Surface Impoundments
Both publicly owned and industrial wastewater treatment systems normally
consist of a series of open impoundments through which the contaminated water
passes. Because of the large number of such facilities, estimation of toxic
emissions from these sources is especially important.
Emissions of potential toxic materials from surface impoundments are limited
by either the influent quantities or the mass transfer opportunities present
in the facilities. For most facilities, the actual amounts of entering toxic
components have not been fully determined while effluent quantities have been
measured to ensure compliance with applicable discharge permits limits.
Fortunately, the largest treatment works have completed or are planning
influent/effluent analyses allowing improved estimation of the upper limit of
the more significant toxic air contaminant sources.
Two other factors can substantively affect the level of toxic materials
emitted to the air. First, alternative removal processes are at work espe-
cially in treatment facilities. These are primarily removal by biological
digestion of the chemicals in secondary treatment and removal and disposal
with primary and secondary sludges. For a few potential toxics, a very large
fraction of the mass absorbs on the sludge. The emissions of these materials
are controlled to the extent sludge digestion gases are treated (incinerated).
Second, chlorination of wastewater within the treatment plant actually result
in the creation of some toxic constituents though the simultanious
chlorination of residual organic compounds.
Unfortunately, except for those cases for which detailed influent/effluent
analysis is available, consistent and meaningful assumptions regarding these
alternative addition and removal mechanism cannot be made. Consequently
emission analysis for treatment facilities of this study are based upon both
mass balance and mass transfer limitations. The most conservative estimate
18
-------
from the perspective of the control agency would be given by the higher of
these two values. Studies at METRO West Point and Renton indicated that the
volatile toxics of greatest concern were removed, principally in primary and
secondary treatment processes, with only a small fraction eliminated through
sludge removal. Since sludge digestion gases are subsequently combusted the
potential emissions of toxics from this source was considered insignificantly
small in this study.
In addition to the available mass of toxic material, emission release rates
also are controlled by factors affecting the mass transfer of the component of
concern from the wastewater solution to the air. Besides overall exposed
surface area of the impoundment other key factors affecting the transfer are
wind speed, turbulence of the liquid and the relative volatility and solubil-
ity of the chemicals. Based on a review of mass transfer models addressing
such factors (U.S.E.P.A., 1984a), ES selected the emission estimation models
of Thibodeaux, Parker and Heck with Hwang and Shen simplifications. These
models are based upon a two film resistance theory which assigns a separate
transfer coefficient for movement of the chemical through the air and liquid
phases. The overall transfer coefficient a compound is determined as follows:
1_ = 1 + 1
*L
where
K = overall liquid phase mass transfer coefficient for the compound
Li
k^ = individual liquid phase mass transfer coefficient of the compound
k = individual gas phase mass transfer coefficient of the compound, and
u
K ¦ constant establishing equilibrium between the liquid and air phases.
With the overall mass transfer coefficient so defined, emission estimates are
determined from:
Qt
where
Qi ¦ rate of air emission of compound i;
Kk,
19
-------
A = area of impoundment;
= concentration of i in the impoundment liquid; and
MW^ = molecular weight of i.
These equations assume: 1) Concentrations of i in the liquid are relatively
low such that Henry's Law applies; 2) the impoundment is a steady state
system, and 3) the air concentrations of i are small compared to water concen-
trations. When Henry's Law applies the equilibrium constant K is essentially
the Henry's Law constant (H) for the chemical multiplied by suitable factors
to obtain the mole fraction form for K^". (Thibodeaux, et. al., 1983)
The individual liquid phase coefficient is dependent on a dimensionless
Reynolds roughness value, Re*, which in turn is a function of wind speed.
However, at wind speeds below about 4 m/s, there is little effect due to wind
resulting in the use of a minimum k^ value of 2.4 cm-hr ^ or 0.271
-2 -1
lb-mol-ft -hr . Since annual average wind speed in the Puget Sound Region
is less than 4 m/s, the minimum value was used in all calculations of
non-aerated impoundment emissions. Equation used for estimating are shown
in Table II.
The individual gas phase transfer coefficient, k , is also primarily a func-
(j
tion of wind speed and for this work was estimated using the equation of Table
II. Also shown in the table, the Schmidt number was estimated using a linear
equation based on a simplification suggested by Shen.
Alternative equations were used for and k^ under conditions of mechanical
aeration of the impoundment. Individual liquid phase coefficients are highly
dependent on aerator power input and efficiency. The gas phase transfer is
closely tied to aerator physical parameters (particularly diameter and rota-
tional speed) and the density of the gas of concern. Equations for aerated
impoundments also are shown in Table II.
* Typically,
K = H (atm-m^-mol ^) x 10^ (g-m ^ of solution)
1 (atm) x MW (g-mol ^ of solution)
20
-------
TABLE II
EQUATIONS USED FOR ESTIMATING
EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS (U.S.E.P.A., 1984a)
NON-AERATED IMPOUNDMENT
Liquid Phase Coefficient, k^:
k. = (1.3 Re* °*195 - o.57) (MW, /MW, )0,5
L benzene i
and
* -2 1 25
Re = 7.07 x 10 (U1Q)
va exp (56.6/(U10°-25)
if Re* < 0.11, then = 0.273 lb-mol-ft~2-hr_1
where
molecular weight of benzene
molecular weight of compound i
wind speed in (cm/s) at a height of 10 meters above the water
surface 2
kinematic viscosity of air (cm /sec)
MW,
.benzene
MW.
va
Gas Phase Coefficient, kn:
(j
k_ = 0.0958 U0,78 N_ "°-67 d "0-n p/MW
G Sc e air
where
U = wind speed in (m/hr) ,7
N_ = Schmidt number for vapor (N„ ' estimated by :0.81 - 0.00138 MW
C after Shen) C q ^
dg = effective diameter of the impoundment (m) (estimated by (4 x Area) ' )
3
p = density of air (lb/ft )
MW = molecular weight of air (lb/lb-mole)
21
-------
TABLE II (cont.)
EQUATIONS USED FOR ESTIMATING
EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
AERATED IMPOUNDMENTS
Liquid Phase Coefficient turbulent zone, (k^)^:
(kL)T = 4850 J (P) (1.024) "2°
(av)(v)
where
J = 0^ transfer rating of aerators (abt. 3 lb 02/hp-hr)
P = Aerator power (rated hp x efficiency)
9 = temperature ( C)
a^ = surface area per unit volume of surface impoundment (ft *)
3
v = volume of surface impoundment in the region of effect of aerators (ft )
D „ = diffusion coefficient of compound i in water
i,h20
D = diffusion coefficient of 0„ in water
°2,2 2
Gas Phase Coefficient, turbulent zone,
(Vt - 0.00039 pg Dt_ alr (N^)1"42 (HFr)-°-21 (V°-4 («sc>°'5
d
where _
NRe = pg d ^vg *
Npr = d u>2/g*
Np = P g/PL d5 a)3*
N = y /p D, *
Sc 02,H2°
0.5
22
-------
A critical factor affecting emissions is the Henry's constant (H) for a given
material, which indicates the ratio of volatility to solubility. Specifically
H is defined in Henry's Law for a two-phase system by:
where
*i " Hxi
y^ = concentration of i in vapor phase; and
x^ = concentration of i in liquid phase
Henry's Law is applicable for ideal solutions which are approximated at low
concentrations of solute. It has been shown that for a Henry's constant value
-3 3 -1
greater than 10 atm-m -mol mass transfer is essentially controlled by the
liquid above so that = k^. For a Henry's constant less than 2 x 10
atm-m"^-mol transfer is controlled by the gas phase so that = kg. For
intermediate values of H, both coefficients are important and is defined as
shown previously.
Because aeration has a much more significant effect on liquid than gas phase
mass transfer, it tends to greatly augment the transfer rates of materials
that were previously liquid phase limited. As a result, transfer rates of
chemicals with high volatility and low solubility (high Henry's constant) are
dramatically increased compared to those with a low H value when aeration is
introduced.
An example calculation estimating emissions from both aerated and non-aerated
surface impoundments is contained in Appendix C.
Modeling of Sewage Treatment Plant Emissions
Because most treatment plants for which emission estimates were to be prepared
could not be visited and sampled, it was necessary to assume potential toxic
constituent concentrations. Though data from the field sampling activities of
this project and well-analyzed plant influents (such as for Renton and West
Point) serves as a partial basis, previous EPA analyses of a broad range of
priority pollutants in publicly owned treatment works provided a substantial
23
-------
additional data base to characterize POTW concentrations (USEPA, 1979 and
USEPA 1982b). The results of this broad EPA study clearly show the difference
in concentrations of potential air toxic chemicals based on the industrial
contribution to plant influent.
Detailed review of information on individual facilities showed that most
plants included in the EPA study had a substantial industrial component in
their service area. Priority pollutant levels approximated or exceeded those
at West Point and Renton facilities of METRO which handle the large fraction
of the METRO service area industrial load. To provide a better estimate of
toxic plant loadings for Puget Sound areas where residential customers were
dominant, data were selected from two "residential only" facilities in the EPA
study and combined with data from the Chambers Creek and Everett treatment
works. The latter two plants have minimal industrial loading, and in each
case, some recent compositional information was available. The average of
influent values for these four facilities, used as a generic wastewater in
preparing estimates for other plants serving residential areas, is shown in
Table III.
Publicly owned treatment works included in this emission estimation effort
were categorized according to significance of industrial contribution based on
discussion with plant operators and PSAPCA. Plants with a clear and
significant industrial component in the service area were classified as
industrial facilities. Plants which served areas with no or minimal indus-
trial activity were classified non-industrial treatment works. For industrial
treatment for which no specific analysis was available, it was necessary to
assume influent concentrations also. These concentrations are based on
average values of those measured at METRO West Point and Renton facilities.
24
-------
TABLE III
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS OF GENERIC INFLUENT STREAMS
(micrograms per liter)
Residential^
2
Industrial
Toluene
3.85
50.6
Tetrachloroethylene
6.82
15.8
Methylene Chloride
3.85
48.7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
5.77
0
Chloroform
2.97
9.8
Trichloroethylene
17.5
12.6
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1.93
0
Ethylbenzene
0.90
8.7
Phenol
0.08
50.2
Di-n-butyl phthalate
0.02
43.4
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
8.75
0
Benzene
2.81
3.4
Butyl benzyl phthalate
0.01
61.6
Napthlene
0.01
13.7
Diethylphthalate
0
4.5
Specific influent data were available for Chambers Creek and Everett
facilities.
Specific influent data were available for METRO-West Point and Renton
facilities.
25
-------
Emission Models for Hazardous Waste and Chemical Process Equipment
Included in this review of non-traditional emissions sources were hazardous
waste treatment facilities. The most significant emissions from these plants
are associated with the handling and recovery of waste solvents and other
wastes which contain significant solvent fractions. Processes in these
facilities include decanting or pumping of drummed solvent waste, separation
of solvents by gravity and distillation, disposal of still bottom wastes, and
storage and drumming of recovered products. Emissions estimation techniques
for each of these processes is discussed below.
Transfers of Drummed Waste (Decanting)
Liquid drummed wastes which are consolidated into tank storage result in
emissions equivalent to other tank filling operations. Since tank storage is
of the fixed roof variety, emissions are equivalent to the equations discussed
under the tank storage section. Fugitive emissions for pump transfers are
discussed in the section addressing fugitives from process equipment.
Open air drum decanting of liquid and semi-solid waste results in noticeable
losses of volatile solvents. Emissions from this process have not been
well-documented but were estimated by EPA in relation to landfill solidifica-
tion processes. Though decanted liquids flow readily to holding tanks,
solvent-saturated wastes serve as an emission source until repacked in drums
or the solvent is evaporated. Because high solids wastes normally contain
about 20 percent solvent, most of which is Immediately recovered by decanting,
only about 1% of the total waste amount is lost as an air contaminant. This
is roughly equivalent to four pounds per drum decanted when the liquid is sub-
stantially solvent (Engineering-Science, 1984a)
Tank Storage
Materials stored in tanks in solvent recovery facilities include clean and
dirty solvent and solutions or immiscible mixtures of solvents and solvents
and water. Although tanks are used primarily for storage they also are used
for gravity separation of water/solvent mixtures. Only in the case of the
26
-------
separation of heavy organics and halocarbon solvents in which the recovery
products are covered by a layer of water would emissions from gravity sepa-
ration processes be reduced compared to normal tank storage. Storage tank
emission estimation methods are well documented once waste stream composition
is determined and tank geometry is established (EPA, 1982).
Process Equipment Emissions
Besides normal pumps and piping, process equipment at the solvent recovery
operations consisted of pot stills, wiped-film evaporators, and distillation
columns. Emissions from the column and evaporator will be due to fugitives
and vacuum pump exhaust only since these units operate under a vacuum for most
solvents. EPA surveys of emissions from solvent recovery operations indicated
3.3 lb/ton of reclaimed solvent is lost as emissions (Engineering-Science,
1985) .
Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive leaks occur from pumps, flanges, valves and drums and have been
investigated extensively by EPA pursuant to establishing good operating
practices for the petroleum processing industry. These factors are applied to
solvent processing equipment which follows the procedures of previous analyses
of hazardous waste processing equipment prepared by EPA (Engineering-Science,
1985). The specification of the VOC estimates prepared is based on hazardous
waste types identified in annual RCRA reports (Washington Department of
Ecology, 1983).
Identification of Hazardous Waste Constituents
Under its hazardous waste regulations the U.S. EPA has established a series of
codes for identification of hazardous wastes. Some codes identify waste
properties, others the waste sources or groups of similar waste compounds, and
some refer to off specification chemicals. The Washington Department of
Ecology has added to this list several additional wastes identified as danger-
ous. Non-specific waste codes tell little about the air pollution potential
27
-------
of the waste since detailed composition is not known. These codes were not
developed to assess or track the air pollution potential of a waste but rather
to identify the principal hazardous material or property. As a result a waste
constituent that may have significant potential to become an air toxic
emission may not be noted beyond the original manifest. For example, a corro-
sive liquid may be assigned a code of D002 based on low pH. The same waste
may also contain 1% of a chlorinated solvent but this constituent may not be
identified or reported in waste summaries. Since practical inventory efforts
must rely upon this summarized waste information, emissions from many waste
streams cannot be accurately estimated.
To evaluate the emission potential of wastes of concern, ES obtained copies of
WDOE facility reports (WDOE, 1983) so that both waste codes and actual waste
descriptions could be reviewed. Based on this information, key wastes codes
such as D001 (ignitable wastes), F001-005 (waste solvents), and WP01 (wastes
containing volatile organics) were evaluated and categorized as to volatility
and the physical nature and likely method of processing of the waste compounds
involved.
Landfill Emission Models
Emissions of air toxics from landfills are dramatically affected by such
factors as the volume and nature of non-toxic wastes, size and age of the
landfill, the soil used for intermediate and final cover and the number and
functioning of flares. None of the landfills investigated in this study
operated as hazardous waste landfills. However, all are believed to have
received some such wastes during their active histories and all continue to
receive small quantities of hazardous waste (i.e., household hazardous
wastes). All have operated as municipal landfills receiving a wide variety of
putrescible materials. As a result the landfills may be considered
co-disposal sites with what is believed to be a small but not well defined
toxic component to the wastes. Substantial landfill gas flux is evident,
particularly at Midway, Cedar Hills and Kent Highlands sites, which carries
toxic constituents to the surface to be emitted along with methane, carbon
dioxide, and other common landfill gas components. Toxic emissions are
28
-------
greatly increased when gas generation and movement augment the concentration
gradient driven transfer of toxic materials.
Thibodeaux's recommended emission estimation model for landfills with internal
gas generation was selected for estimation of net gas flow from the modelled
landfill (USEPA, 1984a). In this model, soil diffusion factors are largely
overshadowed by net upward gas flow except when gas generation is small or
there is a thin porous covering over volatile materials. The net gas velocity
must be estimated by other means namely estimating the net gas flux. Table IV
illustrates the Thibodeaux equation and terms.
Estimation of the critical gas velocity term were based upon best available
gas generation data for municipal disposal sites. For Kent Highlands,
(Lockwood, 1985) and Cedar Hills (Schulte, 1985) landfills, specific, though
preliminary, gas generation studies have been completed. From waste quantity
estimates for other sites, generation rates were estimated based on these
studies and general landfill gas generation data.(Baron et. al., 1981) For
the entire decomposition life of a typical waste, total gas volume is
3
estimated as approximately 6ft /lb of waste. Because the decomposition
process takes place over many years, under typical moist, anaerobic
3
conditions, an average gas release rate of 0.15 ft /lb-yr can be assumed.
These values combined with landfill mass provide a net flux rate. Using gas
composition data (see section Gas Composition), an estimate of total potential
air toxics emissions can be made for a given site. An example calculation for
emission estimates for codisposal landfills may be found in Appendix C.
Emission from waste in landfills without gas generation (such as newly placed
waste or buried materials with small bio-gas generation potential) are limited
by the resistance provided by soil and air diffusion. In virtually all cases
the overall mass transfer will be limited by soil phase diffusion coefficient
so that the emission is estimated by
E = k C. A (Spawn and Farino, 1983)
soil ig
where
E ¦ emission rate (g/sec)
k ,, ¦ soil phase diffusion coefficient (cm/sec)
soil r
29
-------
C = vapor concentration of compound i in soil or waste pores (g/cm )
ig 2
A = surface area of waste (cm )
Clearly the diffusion coefficient and concentration factors are key and
because of limited field measurements must be estimated. ES prepared esti-
mates of using the following equation (Farmer, 1978):
1 n e 3.33
k = D. . La
soil i, air
where
o
Di a^r = diffusivity of i in air (cm /sec)
h = depth of cover (cm)
e ¦ total soil porosity
= e - = air filled soil porosity
= soil gravimetric moisture (g/g)
3
B = soil bulk density (g/cm )
As may be noticed increasing moisture content tends to reduce k and,
soil
therefore, emissions due to smaller pore and passage size.
If not known by direct measurement vapor concentration within the pore spaces
can be estimated provided the bulk concentration of the material of concern is
known:
Cig-Vi piMW
where
RT
= weight percent of compound i in waste
- activity coefficient of i in waste, normally 1 for hydrocarbons
and mixtures of hydrocarbons
= vapor pressure of i (mmHg)
MW = average molecular weight of waste (g/g-mol)
3 3
R = universal gas constant (6.24 x 10 mmHg - cm /gmol-K)
30
-------
T = absolute temperature (°K)
The assumption of unity for the activity coefficient is not applicable to
aqueous solution and must be evaluated individually from chemical equilibrium
data. For the purpose of these estimates it was assumed that emissions
occurred from deposited or accumulated organic solution. This serves to give
conservative (high) emission estimates.
Flare Emissions
Since most municipal landfill sites have had concerns or problem with odorous
gases and horizontal gas migration, gas flares are commonly used to reduce
landfill gas pressure and destroy potential odorous compounds. The fraction
of the potential gaseous emissions which are released through flares is
incinerated resulting in a substantial reduction in emissions of toxic mate-
rials. (85 to 95% are typical control efficiencies for such flares when
operating.) Reports prepared to estimate impacts of flare emissions on the
surrounding land owners indicated about 15% of the flares were
self-extinguished each day resulting in a direct release of landfill gas and
associated air toxics (Larson and Wineman, 1985). Flow rates for these flares
vary greatly depending on location and size and have only limited documenta-
tion. However, an average flow of 30 cfm from 4 inch diameter flare pipes has
been advanced based on measurement at a limited number of sites. (Larson and
Wineman, 1985) Since flow is affected by local landfill pressure, atmospheric
pressure, porosity of wastes, well dimensions, and the flare assembly, good
characterization of flows will require measurements of individual flares.
Gas flow through the flare system was based on the identified number of flares
when available. Otherwise flare numbers were estimated by 1 flare per 4 acres
of landfill. This "treated" gas was subtracted from that estimated for the
landfill as a whole in estimating toxic emissions.
Gas Composition
Composition of landfill gases is available for the largest landfills in the
Puget Sound area which are all being investigated as part of closure or
expansion planning. Composition data for these sites are summarized in Table
31
-------
V. Gas composition for other landfills is based on the average of these
measurements.
32
-------
TABLE IV
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT
EMISSION ESTIMATIONS EQUATIONS
FOR LANDFILLS WITH INTERNAL
GAS GENERATION (USEPA, 1982)
Vy ( PA1 pAli)
N. = + V
A y A1
- 1
exp (h Vy/DA3)
N^, mass flux rate
p*l» conc. of A in sand chamber filled pore spaces
h, depth of fill cover
Da3' effect:l-ve diffusivity of A within the air-filled soil pore space
Vy, mean gas velocity in pore spaces
p.,., concentration of A at air-soil interface
Ali
33
-------
TABLE V
AVERAGE COMPOSITIONS OF LANDFILL FLARE
GASES TOXIC AND PRIORITY POLLUTANT
Landfill
Compound
Kent
Highlands
Midway
Cedar
Hills
(ppm)
(mg/m3)
(ppm)
(mg/m3)
(ppm)
(mg/m3
Acetone
4.81
11.62
0.98
1.16
NR
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.02
0.08
0.16
0.64
NR
Carbon Tetrachloride-
Benzene
92.06
276.49
43.26
129.92
2.48
8.03
Isooctane
3.2
15.47
0.99
4.78
NR
Trichloroethylene
3.53
18.66
0.07
0.37
2.42
12.79
Toluene
40.50
151.69
10.25
38.39
35.54
133.11
Octane
3.20
15.44
3.35
16.17
4.12
19.89
Tetrachlojoethylene
4.91
52.77
0.77
5.14
4.40
29.37
C^Benzene
27.76
120.76
17.48
76.03
5.92
25.75
Hydrogen Cyanide
0.10
0.11
ND
ND
ND
ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro-
ethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
Limonene
30.20
167.96
5.52
30.70
NR
Hydrogen Sulfide
96.0
135.06
8.95
12.60
ND
ND
Chlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
Methylene Chloride
34.33
120.00
1.11
3.88
1.31
4.58
4-Methy1-2-Pentanone
0.08
0.33
0.20
0.83
NR
2-Butanone
0.40
1.08
0.04
0.11
2.53
6.83
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
0.04
0.23
0.04
0.23
2.92
13.91
Chloroethane
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
NR
Chloroform
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
1,1-Dichloroethane
0.17
0.25
ND
ND
NR
1,2-Dichlorethylene
0.16
0.54
0.05
0.18
0.64
1.96
1,1-Dichloroethylene
0.06
0.21
0.05
0.21
4.19
15.08
1,2-Dichloropropane
0.02
0.05
Trace
NR
Vinyl Chloride
0.04
0.10
Trace
NR
3
ND - Not Detected, Detection limit = 0.15 mg/m @ 49L
NR - Not Reported
* Data from Parametrix, 1984; Powell, 1985.
2
Benzenes include Xylene Isomers & Ethyl Benzene
34
-------
RESULTS OF EMISSION ESTIMATES
Emission estimates were prepared for the non-traditional sources listed in
Table I. In each case, emissions were based on throughput values, volumes or
other key data obtained from field testing, special study reports, regulatory
agencies, the facility operator or their consultants. In cases where appro-
priate detailed information was not available, estimates were based on data
for similar sources or estimates prepared from the previously noted informa-
tion sources and standard references.
This section discusses by category the results of these emission evaluations.
However a word should be provided about the general level of confidence
attributable to the various estimates. The categorization of emission esti-
mate confidence level generally can be summarized using the criteria defined
for federal emission factor development.
Emission
Factor Rating Basis of Factor
A Stack test results
B Documented material balance
C Recognized emission factor, material
balance estimates
D Engineering judgement using available
data
E Guess
Virtually none of the non-traditional sources that were subjects of this
investigation had been source tested regarding any emissions, much less toxic
air contaminants. As a result there are no factors with A ratings. Only the
METRO-West Point and Renton facilities qualify as having well-documented
material balance information. However, there is such variability and incon-
sistencies in these results that a "B" rating would be difficult to justify.
Other facilities including those sampled during this study have limited
35
-------
material balance data or other significant analytical questions which limit
confidence to C levels or less. The following sections discuss emission
estimation results on a category-by-category basis:
Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works
The large POTWs of METRO-West Point and Renton and Tacoma Central and Northend
have substantial potential emissions due to industrial influent (assumed in
the case of the Tacoma facilities, to be equivalent in concentration to the
Renton works). However, since the primary treatment facilities have no
aeration, emissions are small due to mass transfer limitations. As a result,
the Renton facility has by far the largest emissions of all POTWs. The West
Point facility with a very large total throughput of toxics (about 70
Tons/Year) emits very little due to the undisturbed surface of the primary
clarifier. (METRO, 1984a and METRO, 1984b) Mass transfer coefficients are
very low for this impoundment which has a low velocity flow and is
well-protected from wind. Of course some portion of the toxics which pass
through these plants will be emitted from the receiving waters.
The effect of aeration is to increase the overall transfer coefficient by a
factor of perhaps 300 for liquid phase-limited (volatile, sparingly soluable)
chemicals and about 4-6 times for highly soluable, low volatility chemicals.
As a result any aerated impoundment rapidly strips out those chemicals with
-4 -3
Henry's constants exceeding about 10 atm-mol-m . Table VI lists treatment
plants by total toxic emission based on identified or estimated wastewater
concentrations. As may be noted small throughput plants with secondary
treatment can emit relatively significant levels of volatile compounds.
Breakdowns of these total emissions into toxic components are found for each
plant in the Tables of Appendix A. Review of this information shows the
largest single compound release to be 2.8 Ton/Year of methylene chloride from
the METRO-Renton facility.
36
-------
TABLE VI
TOTAL IDENTIFIED TOXIC EMISSIONS
FROM SELECTED POTWS
Primary Treatment Plants
Plant Name
Wastewater Throughput
(MGD)
Toxic Emissions
(Ton/Year)
1
Bremerton 3.6
Des Moines 6.0
Edmonds 10.0
Lakehaven (Lakota) 3.5
Lynnwood 4.5
Maryville 4.5
METRO, Alki 10.0
METRO, Carkeek Park 3.5
METRO, Richmond Beach 3.2
METRO, West Point 125.0
Snohomish 1.0
Southwest Suburban (Miller Creek) 3.6
Southwest Suburban (Salmon Creek) 3.5
Tacoma Central 38.0
Tacoma Northend 10.0
Tacoma Western Slopes 3.0
0.005
0.010
0.012
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.012
0.005
0.005
0.377
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.107
0.028
0.005
0.603
Secondary Treatment Plants
Alderwood Water District
Brownsville
Chambers Creek
3.0
4.8
3.5
0.258
0.510
0.800
37
-------
TABLE VI (cont.)
Enumclaw 2.5 0.211
Everett 31.0 1.210
Lake Stevens 0.5 0.056
Lakehaven (Redondo) 3.6 0.310
METRO-Renton 50.0 8.648
Puyallup 8.0 0.688
Sumner 2.0 0.172
Westside 0.75 0.087
12.950
1
Total toxic emissions include the following chemical species: benzene; bis
(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate; butyl phthalate; chloroform; diethyl phthallate;
di-n-butyl phthallate; ethyl benzene; methylene chloride; naphthalene;
phenol; tetrachloroethylene; toluene; 1,2-transdichloroethylene; 1,1,1
trichloroethane; trichloroethylene; 1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane and 1,1,2,2
tetrachloroethene. Listings of estimated emissions of each of these
chemicals for each facility are located in Appendix A.
38
-------
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Each industrial wastewater treatment facility handles specific varieties of
wastes usually with only moderate change in composition and flow. Occasion-
ally, however, plant operational problems cause a major shift in wastewater
chemistry or volumes to be treated. Such swings in operation are much greater
and occur more rapidly than those experienced by POTWs which normally are not
dramatically affected by changes in operation of a single customer.
Because of the nearly unique composition of industrial wastewater treatment
streams it was not practical to expand emission estimation beyond those sites
visited except where the process activity and the resulting wastewater are
essentially identical to those of a source examined previously. As a result
ES' analysis is limited to four industrial wastewater treatment operations
shown in Table VII.
Each of the pulp mill operations required treatment of water contaminated with
wood pulp, lignin, and paper bleach chemicals. Each treatment process an-
alyzed differed from the other, though all employed forced aeration of the
neutralized and clarified influent. The Scott Paper Company plant used
conventional activated sludge (using a diffused air system) followed by
secondary clarifation prior to release. Weyerhaeuser performed aeration in
large aeration lagoons equipped with surface aerators. The Simpson-Tacoma
(formerly St. Regis) plant treats wastewater using the UNOX system with pure
oxygen aeration.
Similar levels of aeration power were supplied to the Scott Paper and
Weyerhaeuser aerators and this fact was used to estimate emissions from the
bubbling system employed by Scott. The chemical stripping ability of the
Scott plant was assumed to be equal to that provided by equivalent oxygen
transfer by surface aerators for which emission estimation models have been
derived. The UNOX system supplies only slightly greater amounts of oxygen for
aeration than are needed by the treatment processes. Secondary treatment is
covered resulting in very limited emissions from this process.
39
-------
TABLE VII
ESTIMATED EMISSION
FROM
SELECTED INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES (Ton/Year)
Air Contaminant
Company/Source
Scott Paper/
Sec. Treatment
Weyerhaeuser/
Lagoon System
Simpson-
Tacoma
UNOX
Wyckoff/
Water
Evapora-
tion
Chloroform 14.6
Ethyl Benzene
Styrene
Toluene 3.6
O-xylene
M-xylene
Pentachlorophenol
35 - 492
2.3
0.0005
0.0040
0.0005
0.0005
0.53
1 Range of values is presented because 492 ton value is based on a single
sample and believed to be non-representative. The sample appears to have
been taken during a batch release of chemicals. Refer to page 40 for
further discussion.
2
Assumes 0.1 mg/1 chloroform lost to atmosphere and 15 million gallons/day
throughput
3
Worst case estimate - assumes water saturated with pentachlorophenol
40
-------
Because of the chlorine-based bleach chemicals in the influent, there is a
tendency to form chlorinated organic compound as was evidenced by chloroform
in samples taken from the influent of the Scott and Weyerhaeuser. This was
the only volatile air toxicant identified in the analysis performed by ES
except for toluene in the Scott sample. However, chloroform levels were
relatively high, 13 mg/1 at Weyerhaeuser and 0.8 mg/1 at Scott. No chloroform
was detected in the effluent streams. Table VII indicates annual emission
levels associated with these facilities. The limited emissions of
Simpson-Tacoma are due to the limited stripping action of the UNOX system.
The high levels at Weyerhaeuser are probably due to batch release of bleach
chemicals and therefore may not be representative of the influent stream.
This can only be verified with additional sampling and analysis. For compari-
son, chloroform emission were estimated based on previously prepared emission
factors for uncontrolled pulp and paper mills (EPA., 1984b) . Annual chloroform
emission are 35 tons using this value and Weyerhaeuser pulp production. Both
values are included in Tables S-l and VII recognizing that the larger value is
probably not representative of routine emissions.
The wastewater treatment system was also reviewed at the Wyckoff Company. To
avoid discharges of contaminated water, Wyckoff continuously evaporates water
collected from wood treating activities and the rainfall run-off control
system. Water from treated timber is separated from immiscible oils and the
treating materials, creosote and pentachlorophenol, and circulated through an
open spray tank. If necessary two heated ventilated tanks are also used.
The total quantity of water treated annually by Wyckoff is small, little more
than one million gallons, but all contaminants therein are released to the
air. Because of limited funds, Wyckoff water analyses were limited to vola-
tiles which resulted in the emission estimates shown in Table VII. Unfortu-
nately, many of the important materials handled by Wyckoff are non-volatiles
which must be extracted from the water samples and analyzed. These include
the cresols, cresylic acids and pentachlorophenol.
Saturating the wastewater with pentachlorophenol would result in about one
thousand pounds of the product being emitted in a year. However, the cresols
and related acids are highly soluble and substantial tonnages can be
41
-------
TABLE VIII
ESTIMATED TOXIC AIR EMISSIONS FROM SELECTED
LANDFILL SITES
Cedar Hills Midway Kent Hidden Olympic
Highlands Valley View Ollalla Hansville
Esitmated steady
state annual
gas,volume
(10 ft /yr) 1679 480 1800 802 800 200 31
Estimated % through flares 14 82 88 10 90 0 0
Net Control efficiency (%) 13 74 79 9 81 0 0
Emissions of Toxic
Components (Ton/Year)
Toluene 6.30 0.15 21.79 2.80 0.58 0.77 0.11
Tetrachloroethylene 1.13 0.02 0.62 0.47 0.10 0.13 0.02
Methylene Chloride 0.21 0.02 1.41 0.69 0.14 0.19 0.03
Chloroform ND ND ND ND ND K'D ND
Trichloroethylene 0.66 0.12 0.22 0.46 0.10 0.12 0.02
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND O.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,2 Dichloroethyene 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.04 0.00
Benzene/CCl. 0.37 0.50 3.26 2.81 0.58 0.77 0.11
1,1 Dichloroethane 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00
Hydrogen Sulfide ND 0.03 1.59 0.80 0.17 0.22 0.03
Limonene NR 0.11 1.98 1.51 0.31 0.41 0.06
Xylenes 1.21 0.30 1.42 1.59 0.33 0.44 0.07
10.79 1.25 12.29 11.28 2.34 3.10 0.49
-------
dissolved in the annual wastewater throughput. An estimate of the emission
for these materials will be equal to their average concentration in the
wastewater multiplied by annual throughput of 1,104,000 gallons per year.
(DaRos, et. al., 1982)
Landfills
As discussed previously landfill emissions occur from buried wastes and from
newly applied waste which still resides on the landfill surface. In general
emissions are diffusion controlled, however, where there is putrescible waste
the considerable emissions of methane and carbon dioxide carry with them any
toxic constituent greatly increasing the toxic emissions also. Since the
large landfills studied here all received municipal waste, landfill gas
generation would dominate the emissions mechanisms.
Table VIII identifies the anticipated annual gas emission rate from several
landfills in the Puget Sound Area. These values are based upon both detailed
studies and evaluations using general estimating procedures (Schulte, 1985;
Lockwood, 1985; Dehn, 1985; Powell, 1985; Dunlap, 1985; Miller, 1985;
Parametrix, 1984). The toxic emission are proportional to overall landfill
gas flow and are estimated based on gas composition data obtained in support
of closure and expansion plans. The composition data is accurate for samples
taken; however, it is clear from samples at various well sites that there is
great variation between wells making average compositions only useful in the
sense of this broad inventory (Larson and Wineman, 1985). No meaningful
average gas composition has been determined for any facility at this time.
Averages of available data were used to estimate emissions from unmeasured
sites.
As noted previously, a fraction of landfill gas is released through flares to
control noxious gases and odors. The amount that is emitted by this route has
only been measured at one site and great variability was noted. However, an
average value of 30 cfm was measured and is used for making estimations of
this emission component. A control efficiency of 90% is assumed for the flare
when operating. (Powell, 1985) Although flare efficiencies have been
43
-------
measured both above and below this value, the 90% value was selected because
non-methane organics are found only in small fractions so that combustion is
not complicated by heavier organic fuels. Smokiness or other indications of
diffusion flame burning and associated high emissions were not observed.
Refinement of flare gas flow rates is needed to improve the emission estimate
but would require, as a minimum, an extensive flare testing program.
Hazardous Waste Facilities Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
As noted previously, emission estimates for waste solvent handling were
prepared based upon factors developed through a recent survey of state control
agencies with regard to solvent recovery operations (Engineering-Science,
1985). These factors were applied to operations at the Chemical Processors,
Inc., Georgetown plant and the Lilyblad Petroleum plant. Processing was
similar at the two plants, though Chemical Processors, Inc. (Chem-Pro) handled
a broad variety of materials while Lilyblad Petroleum essentially recovered
lacquer thinners and related paint solvents. Figure 1 illustrates the basic
material flow through these facilities. Emission estimates also were prepared
for six other hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facilities based
on waste type and quantity handled and process activities. Processes were
identified from RCRA Part A data and discussions with Department of Ecology
and facility personnel. Waste amounts and types were based solely on DOE
records. (WDOE, 1984 and WDOE, 1985) Emission estimates for these RCRA
facilities are summarized in Table IX.
It should be noted that the totals of Table IX are based on the best estima-
tion of the nature and volatility of the coded waste. Also the apparent
fraction of waste in water or other material was addressed when possible.
However, there is little specific waste data in RCRA or WDOE summary records
which makes species determination possible except for wastes codes that define
single species or for wastes that may have been specifically noted. These are
a small minority. Thus the estimates of Table IX include material identified
as hazardous but not necessarily an air toxic of concern. Some detail on
toxic species is included in hazardous waste report, implicitly and explicit-
ly. For example, Lilyblad handles quantities of perchloroethylene and
1,1,1-trichloroethane which are identified by name and Crosby and Overton
44
-------
CM=00 OO
I
OO OO
n
WASTE SOLVENT RECEIVING
-Emission point
Sol ids
to
Waste
I
DECANTING
0^=00 OO
r\
DISTILLATION
CLEAN
SOLVENT
STORAGE
y
PRODUCT SOLVENT LOADING
Figure 1. General process flow diagram for solvent recovery operations.
-------
TABLE IX
MR TOXIC EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR
SELECTED HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Plant Name
Processes
Potential Toxic
Air Contaminant
Total Estimated
Estimated Toxic
Emissions Emissions
(T/Y) (T/V)
Chemical Processors,
Inc.
Solvent storage (drums
and tanks)
Solvent transfers
Drum decanting
Solvent distillation
Chlorinated solvents,
benzene, xylenes
2.89
1 .09
Lilyblad Petroleum Solvent storage (drums Chlorinated solvents,
and tanks) xylenes 8.66 1.42
Solvent transfers
Solvent distillation
Northwest Enviro
Services
Waste storage (drums
and tanks)
Treatment (separation)
in tanks
Solidification
Halogenated and
non-halogenaced
solvents
5.09
2.38
Boeing Plant 2
Waste storage (drums
and tanks)
Halogenated and non-
halogentated solvents
0.40
o.:
Boeing Ronton
Waste storage (drums
and tanks)
Halogenated and non-
halogentated solvents
Oily water
0.40
0.1
Crosby & Overton
Waste storage (drums
and tanks)
Treatment (separations)
in tanks
Gasoline and water,
oily water, paint
sludges
0.75
o. in
Safety Kleen - Auburn
Transfers of dirty solvents
(drums, small container,
small tanks)
Halogenated and
non-halogented
solvents
0.35
0.25
Safety Kleen - Renton
Transfer of dirty solvents
(drums, small containers,
small tanks)
Halogenated and
non-halogenated
solvents
0.30
0.22
46
-------
handle gasoline contaminated waters which contain benzene and xylenes, but
these clearly specified quantities are small and associated emissions are
insignificant.
If the generalization is made that halogenated solvents, aromatic solvents
(including benzene, toluene, and xylenes), and wastes listed as toxics (WT) by
Washington Department of Ecology are all potential air toxics, an estimate of
toxic emissions can be prepared from available summarized data. This estimate
is included as the last column of Table IX.
Superfund Sites
Emissions were evaluated for three currently active Superfund sites for which
clean up plans are now being developed. The Western Processing site located
in Kent, Washington has already undergone surface clean-up, however, the
substantial subsurface accumulations of waste are still to be removed. They
are widespread under the site with most within nine feet of the surface. The
Tacoma Tar Pits are the results of waste disposal from coal/oil gasification
processing. Residual tars were land disposed for a period of more than 25
years resulting in substantial soil concentrations and some small surface
impoundments of tar. Queen City Farms is a waste disposal area which received
a variety of waste solvents, oils, polychlorinated biphenyls and metals.
Periodically solvents and oils were burned presumably to reduce the volume of
waste in three small ponds. As a result of years of disposal, pond areas are
heavily contaminated with organic and metal sludges. Surrounding surface and
subsoils also are contaminated.
Western Processing
Emission estimates were prepared for two separate categories of toxics:
volatile and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. As with other sites there is
considerable variation from point-to-point within the site making it difficult
to generalize about concentrations of specific compounds. Compounds were
grouped in two categories, volatiles and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, in
summary reports. (USEPA, 1985a)
47
-------
Emissions were based on the most ambitious clean up alternative; removal of
300,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil. Removal is estimated to take 400
days over twenty months. Under this plan, soil is to be removed to a depth of
15 feet over most of the site resulting in an exposed excavation face area of
approximately 6,500 square feet. For the purposes of estimation, it was
assumed that the entire face is excavated each day resulting in the maximum
contaminated soil exposure. Appropriate excavation procedures could reduce
this daily exposure of new surface by 75%. Complete volatilization of toxic
materials in a newly exposed soil layer was assumed within the first day with
emissions from the remaining buried waste then restricted by this layer. The
thickness of this layer was determined by equating the loss by evaporation of
all of the compound ixi the layer to the loss through the layer by diffusion.
Thus layer thickness increases as volatility increases. This method over
predicts consistently by a factor of less than two and avoids the need to
evaluate daily emissions using time dependent models and the errors resulting
from an assumed constant thickness. Emission estimates are based on average
volatility and diffusion factors for the two compound groupings. Though this
lack of detail is unfortunate, overall emissions estimates of less than 0.1
lb/day make such detail unnecessary. For comparison current annual emissions
for the site also were determined. These values are based on the waste being
primarily located between six and nine feet below the surface thus approximat-
ing a waste landfill with a six foot thick cap. Because the concentrations of
these buried wastes are relative low over most of the site current emissions
are exceedingly small; less than 0.01 lb/day.
Tacoma Tar Pits
The Tacoma Tar Pits remedial action is not as far along in planning as Western
Processing though site contamination has been characterized. (Applied
Geotechnology, 1985) As a result excavation parameters are not available.
Assuming this option to be viable, an analysis similar to that conducted for
Western Processing was completed. For excavation rates comparable to those
planned for Western Processing, a higher daily emission rate would be antic-
ipated at the Tar Pits (though still less than 0.25 lb/day) due principally to
higher soil concentrations of toxics. Extreme concentrations of tar and tar
saturated soils will likely cause short-term emissions to increase greatly for
48
-------
some days. Concentrations of toxics in pond sediment are one to two orders of
magnitude greater than soil values on which overall estimates are based. Thus
special attention should be paid to site activities when pond/pit excavation
is planned.
Queen City Farms
The clean-up of Queen City Farms will be a small undertaking compared to the
previously described sites. Only 22,000 cubic yards of material have been
identified as contaminated. Again excavation plans are not well developed,
however, removal of waste over the period of two months would be in line with
other removal plans. Wastes reside in three separate areas: pond waters,
pond sediments and soils below and between the ponds. Sediment volumes
represent about one-fourth the total volume but have concentrations of toxics
50 times that of surrounding soils.(Hart, Crowser, 1985) The five to ten days
during which these materials are removed represent the period of greatest
concern for this site. However, even during this period average emissions
should remain relatively low. Concentrations of toxics in impounded waters
are estimated to cause emissions of volatiles of nearly 0.8 lbs/day. These
emissions will dominate overall site emission even during removal efforts.
49
-------
CONCLUSION
Toxic emissions from the facilities addressed in this report total to approxi-
mately 100 tons assuming the high emission estimate attributed to
Weyerhaeuser-Everett is not representative of normal operation. After careful
verification of our sample analysis, ES suggests additional sampling be
conducted at this plant to determine the effect of batch chemical releases on
overall wastewater quality. Major emitters also are wastewater treatment
facilities both industrial and municipal. Large municipal landfills form a
second group with emissions roughly equivalent to median wastewater treatment
facilities. Clearly of lesser interest among those facilities reviewed are
hazardous waste handlers and clean-up sites where relatively low annual
throughputs (solvent recovery) or low volatility wastes limit emissions.
In preparing such estimates our limited understanding of the make-up of
materials being handled and, in the case of landfills, the total amount of
waste, greatly restrict the ability to make precise estimates. However, many
of these limitations also apply to traditional inventories even after source
inspections. Improving emission estimates, especially for the larger sources,
will require collection of additional field data. For example, routine
analysis of paper and pulp mill wastewater influent and effluent would improve
estimates; however, verification of emissions will have to come by way of
source test due to biological and sedimentary removal mechanisms. Improving
landfill estimates will require flare system measurements and detailed esti-
mates of potential gas production in addition to documentation of toxic
composition. Because of the variability of wastes handled by TSDFs, several
samplings of weekly or monthly waste records would serve to both characterize
and indicate the variability in waste streams. Superfund clean-up activities
need be addressed only on a case-by-case basis. Since Superfund sites have
generally been in existence for sometime, the high volatility organics are no
longer present. The remaining high molecular weight materials will be slow
emitters.
Ultimately improvement in emissions estimates will rely upon continued inves-
tigations of sources of interest in order to collect and refine pertinent
information. It is hoped this initial review provides a basis for prioritiz-
ing the work ahead.
50
-------
REFERENCES
Applied Geotechnology Inc. Tacoma Tar Pits RI, Draft Information Package, May
28, 1985.
Baird, Carl. Everett Wastewater Treatment Plant. Personal communication.
June 3, 1985.
Baron, Jill L. , Russell C. Eberhardt, et. al. Landfill Methane Utilization
Technology Workbook. The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics
Laboratory. Prepared for U.S. Dept. of Energy, Contract No. 31-109-38-5686.
February, 1981.
Cox, R.D., J.I. Steinmetz, D.L. Lewis, and R.G. Wetherold. Evaluation of VOC
Emissions from Wastewater Systems (Secondary Emissions). United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Research and Development, EPA-600/S2-84-080, May 1984.
DaRos,B., R. Merrill, H.K. Willard, and C.D. Wolbach. Emissions and Residue
Values from Waste Disposal During Wood Preserving. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research and
Development, EPA-600/S2-82-062. August 1982.
Dehn, Starr. Project Engineer, CH^M-Hill Inc. Personal Communications.
July 10, 1985.
Dunlap, Dave. Project Engineer, Parametrix, Inc. Personal Communication.
September 26, 1985.
Engineering-Science. National Air Emissions From Tank and Container Storage
and Handling Operations at Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities. Draft report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
September 1984a.
Engineering-Science, Inc.. Case Study Reports to Support Air Emission Deter-
minations for Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities.
Draft report prepared for U.S. Envorinmental Protection Agency, OAQPS.
October, 1984b.
Engineering-Science. Supplemental Report on the Technological Assessment of
Treatment Alternatives for Waste Solvents, Prepared for U.S. Environemtnal
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. July, 1985.
Hart, Crowser and Associates. Assessment of Hydrogeology and Ground Water
Quality Surficial Aquifer, Queen City Farms, King County, Washington.
Prepared for Queen City Farms, Inc. December, 1983.
Kircher, David S. Identification of Potential Nontraditional Sources of Toxic
Air Pollutants in The Puget Sound Region, Second draft. Puget Sound Air
Pollution Control Agency, Engineering Division. May 15, 1985.
Larson, Timothy, and Marian Wineman. Midway Landfill Air Quality Analysis
Technical Report. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington.
July, 1985.
51
-------
REFERENCES (cont.)
Lockwood, Dee. Biogas Inc. Personal Communication. September 24, 1985.
METRO, TPPS Technical Report A3: Industrial Waste Characterization, Toxicant
Pretreatment Planning Study, Metro Toxicant Program Report No. 4C, Water
Quality Division, May 1984a.
METRO, TPPS Technical Report A1: Treatment Plant Evaluation, Toxicant Pre-
treatment Planning Study, Metro Toxicant Program Report No. 4A, Water Quality
Division, May 1984b.
Miller, Ken. Snohomish County Solid Waste. Personal Communication.
September 23, 1985.
Mudge, L.K. and C.A. Rohrmann. Gasification of Solid Waste Fuels in a
Fixed-Bed Gasifer in Solid Wastes and Residues Conversion by Advanced Thermal
Processes, Jerry L. Jones and Shirely B. Radding, editors. American Chemical
Society, 1978.
Parametrix, Inc. Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Kent
Highlands Landfill Closure, Technical Appendices. Prepared for Seattle Solid
Waste Utility, September, 1984.
Pellizzari, Edo D. Volatile Organics in Aeration Gases at Municipal Treatment
Plants. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Research and Development. EPA-600/S2-82-056. August
1982.
Powell, Ed. Project Engineer, CH_M-Hill, Inc. Personal Communication, July 12,
1985. Z
Schulte, Steve. Project Manager, CH„M-Hill, Inc. Personal Communication,
September 22, 1985.
Spawn, Peter D., and William J. Farino. GCA/Technology Division. Estimation
Of Air Emissions From Hazardous Waste Facilities. 1985.
Swafford, Wally. Manager, Toxic and Hazardous Material Program, King County
Solid Waste. Personal communication. June 10, 1985.
Thibodeaux, Louis J., David G. Parker, and Howell H. Heck. Measurement of
Volatile Chemical Emissions from Wastewater Basins. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Research and Development. EPA-600/S2-82-095. August, 1983.
Thompson, Steve. Chemist, Chambers Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. Personal
communication. September 26, 1985.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division,
Office of Water & Waste Management. Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly
Owned Treatment Works, Pilot Study. EPA-440/1-79-300. October, 1979.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors (AP-42) Third Edition. PB-275-525. 1982a.
52
-------
REFERENCES (cont.)
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Fate of Priority Pollutants in
Publicly Owned Treatment Works - Final Report - Volume 1. EPA 440/1-82-303,
V.l. September, 1982b.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards Research. Evaluation and Selection of Models For Estimating Air
Emissions from Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
EPA-450/3-84-020. December, 1984a.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Site Control Divi-
sion., Remedial Planning/FieId Investigation Team. Executive Summary - Fea-
sibility Study for Subsurface Cleanup, Western Processing. EPA 37.0L16.2,
March 6, 1985a.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Locating and Estimating Air
Emission from Sources of Chloroform. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, EPA-450/4-84-007c. March, 1984b.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards Research, Physical- Chemical Properties and Categorization of
RCRA Wastes According to Volatility. EPA-450/3-85-007. February 1985b.
Washington Department of Ecology, Office of Hazardous Substances & Air Quality
Programs, Hazardous Waste, 1983 Annual Report. WDOE 84-13. 1984.
Washington Department of Ecology, Office of Hazardous Substances and Air
Quality Programs. Hazardous Waste Facility Data for 1983. 1985.
53
-------
Appendix A
Air Toxic Emission Estimates
for
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(Refer to Table III of main text
for assumed influent concentrations)
A-l
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Bremerton
Location: Kitsap County
Average Daily Flow: 3.8 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE Total emissions of all constituents
1,1>1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE estimated as less than 0.005 Ton/Year
ETHYLBENZENE
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
A-2
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Lynnwood
Location: King County
Average Daily Flow: 4.5 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE Total emissions of all constituents
1,1>1-TRICHLOROETHANE estimated as less than 0.005 Ton/Year
ETHYLBENZENE
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
A-3
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Snohomish
Location: Snohomish County
Average Daily Flow: 3.5 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE Total emissions of all constituents
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE estimated as less than 0.005 Ton/Year
ETHYLBENZENE
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
A-4
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: METRO, West Point Treatment Plant
Location: Discovery Park, Seattle, King County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 125 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE 0.114
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.040
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.110
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE ND
CHLOROFORM 0.020
TRICHL0R0ETHYLENE 0.030
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE ND
ETHYLBENZENE 0.020
PHENOL 0.004
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.001
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE ND
BENZENE 0.007
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE 0.002
NAPHTHALENE 0.028
DIETHYL PHTHALATE 0.001
0.377
A-5
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Everett
Location: City of Everett, Snohomish County
Average Daily Flow: 31 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE ND
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE ND
METHYLENE CHLORIDE ND
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE ND
CHLOROFORM ND
TRICHLOROETHYLENE ND
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE ND
ETHYLBENZENE ND
PHENOL 0.61 ll
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE ND
1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE ND
BENZENE ND
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE ND
NAPHTHALENE ND
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.30
1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHENE 0.30
1.21
V value based on 99% removal of phenol found typical. Influent/effluent
analysis of "total phenols" (1) of 12/84 would indicate potential emissions of
2.03 T/Y.
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Chambers Creek
Location: Pierce County
Average Daily Flow: 3.5 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE 0.01
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE ND
METHYLENE CHLORIDE ND
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE ND
CHLOROFORM ND
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 0.20
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE ND
ETHYLBENZENE ND
PHENOL ND
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE ND
1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE 0.14
BENZENE ND
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE ND
NAPHTHALENE ND
ACETONE 0.15
ISOPROPANOL 0.10
DIMETHYL DISULFIDE 0.10
TETRAHYDROFURAN 0.10
0.80
A-7
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Brownsville
Location: Kitsap County
Average Daily Flow: 4.8 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE 0.03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.04
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.02
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE 0.03
CHLOROFORM 0.01
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 0.13
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.01
ETHYLBENZENE 0.01
PHENOL 0.04
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.03
1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE 0.06
BENZENE 0.02
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE 0.04
NAPHTHALENE 0.01
DIETHYL PHTHALATE Q.Q3
0.51
A-8
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Des Moines Sewage District
Location: King County
Average Daily Flow: 6.0 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE Total emissions of all constituents
PHENOL estimated as less than 0.010 Ton/Year
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
A-9
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Tacoma Central
Location: City of Tacoma, Pierce County
Average Daily Flow: 38 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE 0.033
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.012
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.033
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE ND
CHLOROFORM 0.006
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 0.010
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE ND
ETHYLBENZENE 0.006
PHENOL 0.001
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.001
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE ND
BENZENE 0.002
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE 0.001
NAPHTHALENE 0.002
0.107
A-10
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: METRO - Renton Sewage Treatment Plant
Location: Renton, King County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 50 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year-)
TOLUENE 0.721
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 1.522
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 2.823
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE ND
CHLOROFORM 0.224
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 1.689
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE ND
ETHYLBENZENE 0.139
PHENOL 0.163
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.102
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE ND
BENZENE 0.196
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE 0.138
NAPHTHALENE ND
DIETHYLPHTHALATE 0.066
1,2-DIBR0M0ETHANE 0.745
DI-0CTYL PHATHALATE 0.120
8.648
A-11
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Puyallup
Location:
Average Daily Flow: 8 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE 0.048
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.085
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.048
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE 0.072
CHLOROFORM 0.037
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 0.218
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE 0.024
ETHYLBENZENE 0.011
PHENOL 0.001
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE 0.109
BENZENE 0.035
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
0.688
A-12
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Sumner Sewage Treatment Plant
Location: Pierce County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 2.0 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE 0.012
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.021
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.012
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE 0.018
CHLOROFORM 0.007
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 0.055
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE 0.006
ETHYLBENZENE 0.003
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE 0.027
BENZENE 0.009
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
0.172
A-13
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Westside Sewage District
Location: Pierce County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 0.75 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE 0.005
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.008
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.005
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE 0.008
CHLOROFORM 0.003
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 0.021
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE 0.003
ETHYLBENZENE 0.002
PHENOL 0.006
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.006
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE 0.010
BENZENE 0.003
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE 0.005
NAPHTHALENE 0.002
0.087
A-14
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Edmonds Sewage Treatment Plant
Location: Snohomish County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 10 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE 0.0008
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.0014
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.0008
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE 0.0012
CHLOROFORM 0.0006
TRICHL0R0ETHYLENE 0.0035
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.0004
ETHYLBENZENE 0.0002
PHENOL 0.0004
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.0004
1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE 0.0008
BENZENE 0.0006
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE 0.0005
NAPHTHALENE 0.0002
0.0118
A-15
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Lakehaven Sewage District (Lakota)
Location: King County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 3.5 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE Total emissions of all constituents
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE estimated as less than 0.005 Ton/Year
ETHYLBENZENE
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
A-16
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Marysville Sewage Treatment Plant
Location: Snohomish County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 4.5 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE Total emissions of all constituents
ETHYLBENZENE estimated as less than 0.006 Ton/Year
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
A-17
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: METRO, Alki
Location: King County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 10 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE 0.0008
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.0014
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.0008
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE 0.0012
CHLOROFORM 0.0006
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 0.0035
1,1.1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE 0.0004
ETHYLBENZENE 0.0002
PHENOL 0.0004
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.0004
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE 0.0008
BENZENE 0.0006
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE 0.0005
NAPHTHALENE 0.0002
0.0118
A-18
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: METRO, Carkeek Park
Location: King County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 3.5 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE Total emission of all constituents
ETHYLBENZENE estimated as less than 0.005 Ton/Year
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
I,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
A-19
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: METRO, Richmond Beach
Location: King County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 3.2 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CHLOROFOKM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE Total emissions of all constituents
ETHYLBENZENE estimated as less than 0.005 Ton/Year
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
A-20
-------
Publicly Ovmed Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Lake Stevens Sewage Treatment Plant
Location: Snohomish County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 0.5 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE 0.003
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.005
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.003
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE 0.005
CHLOROFORM 0.002
TRICHL0R0ETHYLENE 0.014
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.002
ETHYLBENZENE 0.001
PHENOL 0.004
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.004
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE 0.007
BENZENE 0.002
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE 0.003
NAPHTHALENE 0.001
0.056
A-21
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Southwest Suburban (Salmon Creek)
Location: King County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 3.5 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE Total emissions of all constituents
ETHYLBENZENE estimated as less than 0.005 Ton/Year
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
A-22
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Tacoma Northend
Location: Pierce County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 10 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE 0.009
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.003
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.009
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE ND
CHLOROFORM 0.002
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 0.003
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE ND
ETHYLBENZENE 0.002
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE ND
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
0.028
A-23
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Alderwood Water District
Location: Snohomish County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 3.0 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE 0.018
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.032
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.018
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE 0.027
CHLOROFORM 0.014
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 0.082
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE 0.009
ETHYLBENZENE 0.004
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
I,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE 0.041
BENZENE 0.013
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
0.258
A-24
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Southwest Suburban (Miller Creek)
Location: King County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 3.8 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
I,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE Total emissions of all constituents
ETHYLBENZENE estimated as less than 0.005 Ton/Year
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
A-25
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Enumclaw
Location: King County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 2.46 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE 0.015
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.026
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.015
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE 0.022
CHLOROFORM 0.011
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 0.067
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.007
ETHYLBENZENE 0.003
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE 0.034
BENZENE 0.011
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
0.211
A-26
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Lakehaven (Redondo)
Location: King County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 3.61 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds (Ton/Year)
TOLUENE 0.022
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.039
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.022
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE 0.032
CHLOROFORM 0.017
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 0.098
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.011
ETHYLBENZENE 0.005
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE 0.049
BENZENE 0.016
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
0.310
A-2 7
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Tacoma (Western Slopes)
Location: Pierce County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 3 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE Total emissions of all constituents
ETHYLBENZENE estimated as less than 0.005 Ton/Year
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
A-28
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Snohomish
Location: Snohomish County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 1.0 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE Total emissions of all constituents
ETHYLBENZENE estimated as less than 0.005 Ton/Year
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
A-29
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Lynnwood
Location: Snohomish County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 4.5 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE Total emissions of all constituents
ETHYLBENZENE estimated as less than 0.006 Ton/Year
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
A-30
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Air Toxic Emission Estimate
Facility Name: Bremerton
Location: Kitsap County, Washington
Average Daily Flow: 3.58 MGD
Estimated Annual Emissions for Specified Compounds
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
NETHYLENE CHLORIDE
BIS (Z-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE Total emissions of all constituents
ETHYLBENZENE estimated as less than 0.005 Ton/Year
PHENOL
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
1,2-TRANS-DICHL0R0ETHYLENE
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
A-31
-------
Appendix B
Discussion of Site Visits to
Selected Non-Traditional Sources
of Air Toxic Emissions
B-l
-------
Discussion of Site Visits and
Emissions Estimation for Selected Non-Traditional Sources
The following are summarizations of investigations of individual facilities
selected from lists provided by Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
(PSAPCA) as potential air toxic emission sources. Summaries are based on data
provided by PSAPCA, telephone converation with source operators and managers,
actual site visitation, field measurements, and other investigations, such as,
pretreatment studies remedial investigation/feasibility studies and sampling
and analysis data. Selection of these sources was not based necessarily on
their being the largest or most complicated but on their overall significance
based upon size, potential toxicity of emissions, or the extent to which they
represented other similar facilities within the Puget Sound jurisdictional
area.
METRO West Point Sewage Treatment Plant
METRO West Point Treatment facility is the largest sewage treatment plan in
the area and provides primary treatment for some 600,000 residential and 300
industrial users. Primary treatment only is carried out at the plant. This s
conducted in 12 rectangular primary sedimentation tanks, each about 38 by 254
feet in size. Thus some 116 thousand square feet of wastewater are exposed at
all times. Since these are sedimentation tanks there is not aeration or
agitation resulting in minimum potential for volatilization of dissolved
gases. After removal of the solids the primary effluent is disposed of via a
submarine outfall into Puget Sound. Recovered solids are treated in heated
anerobic digesters with by product methane being used for heating purposes.
Pretreatment studies conducted by METRO for the West Point Facilities indicat-
ed a broad variety of organic compounds that are on current priority pollutant
lists. Total influent of these materials to the West Point Plant is on the
order of 350 pounds per day making the facility a maximum of 70 ton per year
toxic source. In general, a relatively small fraction of most of the priority
pollutants identified were related to specific industrial activities.
B-2
-------
Inclusion of the West Point Facility was not due to a particularly high
specific emission level, but primarily addresses its large total throughput,
some 125 mission gallons per day during the dry season. This large flow rate
combined with the identified organic loadings indicated that the West Point
Facility could be a substantial source of toxic compounds.
The West Point facility was visited on July 10, 1985 by S.A. Freeburn (ES),
Dana Davoli (EPA) and Fred Austin (PSAPCA). Samples of influent were taken,
with the assistance of Mr. Ed Babick, at the coarse grit structure. Effluent
samples were taken after primary sedimentation just prior to the chlorination
channel. The surfaces of the primary sedimentation tanks are very well
protected from wind due to open wall and roof structures surrounding the tanks
and to the surface of the wastewater being three feet below adjacent walkways.
Since these tanks are 9.5 feet deep diffusion of air toxics through the
relatively still water will be a principal limiting factor to emissions,
especially of volatiles. Sludge removed from primary sedimentation is digest-
ed and off gases are used to power three IC engines. Toxics that are removed
with the sludge and are subsequently stripped during digestion should be
essentially eliminated by passage through the engines.
The METRO Renton Sewage Treatment Plant
The METRO Renton Treatment Plant provides sewage treatment for a population of
about 265 thousand people. The design capacity of the plant is 36 million
gallons a day though construction is now underway to expand the capacity to 72
million gallons per day, average dry weather flow. Actual current throughput
is about 50 MGD. After screening, the influent passes into the preaeration
tank where some fine grit is separated. From the preaeration tanks, the
influent passes into primary sedimentation tanks where solids are removed.
Primary sedimentation is completed in eight rectangular tanks with solids
being removed and sent to the West Point Facility via a 12 inch diameter
sludge force main and the Elliott Bay interceptor. After primary
sedimentation, the sewage liquid is mixed with activated sludge from the
secondary sedimentation tanks and aerated. The aerated liquid is then fed to
eight 100 foot diameter secondary sedimentation tanks. Because of the secon-
dary treatment (activated sludge) at the Renton Facility, the potential
B-3
-------
air emissions are increased over the primary treatment plant at West Point
since emission can occur from the preaeration tank, primary sedimentation
tanks, the aeration tanks, the secondary sedimentation tanks, as well as the
chlorine contact channel prior to release into the Duwamish River. Of these
sources, the aeration tanks are by far the most significant.
Though the total amount of the toxic chemicals entering the facility as
determined under the Toxic and Pretreatment Planning Study is less than that
for the West Point Facility, the increased exposure of wastewater in the
aeration activity increased potential specific emission of volatiles dramat-
ically. In addition, since the Renton facility is planned for expansion and
is representative of a large number of facilities using activated sludge it
was included as an important site visitation facility.
The Renton facility was visited on July 11, 1985 by S.A. Freeburn (ES) and
David Kircher (PSAPCA). After a brief plant tour and discussion with Mr. Bill
Burwell, wastewater samples for volatiles analysis were taken at the pre-
aeration tank, after primary sedimentation, and after chlorination. The
preaeration water surface is highly agitated though the overall area is
relatively small. Like the METRO West Point facility, Renton's primary
sedimentation tank are well protected from wind by protective barriers, roof
and sidewalk and walls elevated about three feet above the water surface.
Aeration is accomplished by blowing air into the secondary treatment tanks.
Oxygen content is controlled by throttling blower inlets. After aeration and
secondary clarification the wastewater flows through a 900 foot long chlorine
contact channel. Flow in the channel was technically turbulent but surface
mixing was minimal.
The Everett Sewage Treatment Plant
The Everett treatment works rely upon aerated lagoons for secondary treatment.
Wastewater is processed in primary screening which is followed by aeration in
basins. After aeration wastewater passes through polishing ponds before final
chlorination and release. There are approximately 192 cres of cells at the
Everett Treatment works. Thirty acres are utilized for aeration purposes.
B-A
-------
Thus there are some 1.3 million square feet of agitated impoundment surfaces
from which air toxicants can be emitted. Though the Everett Facility has a
dry weathered flow of only 11 to 12 million gallons per day, this large
aeration surface would promote the removal of significant quantity of volatile
organics from the influent wastewater.
Priority pollutant sampling and analysis was completed for both influent and
effluent under wet weather flow conditions. (Baird, 1985) Dry weather
studies were to be completed with summer.
The Everett facility was visited on July 9, 1985 by S.A. Freeburn (ES) , Dave
Kircher (PSAPCA), and Bill Ingram (DOE). Mr. Carl Baird explained facility
operations and assisted in gathering of VOA samples. Samples were taken of
influent (through an access manhole to the influent sewer line), of influent
to the oxidation pond, and the effluent just prior to the chlorination.
Only the influent and final effluent sample were analyzed for volatiles. The
only significant levels were for toluene in the influent at 0.2 mg/1. It was
not evident in the effluent. This analysis is supported by the Everett
analyses serving to support treatability studies. These showed exceedingly
low values of 1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane and phenol as the only significant
priorty pollutants.
Chambers Creek Sewage Treatment Plant
Chambers Creek Sewage Treatment Plant is a new facility which is currently
operating at about one-fourth its design capacity of 12 million gallons per
day. Primary clarifiers are used to separate solids and cover approximately
14 thousand square feet. These are followed by an activated sludge system
utilizing submerged turbine agitation with air introduced under the propeller.
After activated sludge treatment, wastewaters are moved to a secondary
clarifler and then to chlorine contactors. Aerobic digestion is used to
reduce sludges with this process taking place in floating dome covered tanks.
Two Dissolved Air Flotation units will be used for final separation and
removal of solids. The Chamber Creek Facility is very near the median size
treatment plant for the Puget Sound area. In addition, its utilization of
B-5
-------
activated sludge for secondary treatment is typical of most plants in this
size range. It was selected as a good representative facility of perhaps a
dozen other plants in the Puget Sound jurisdicational area which have very
limited industrial waste streams. A minimal amount of information was avail-
able on expected organic content of the wastewaters treated, however.
The Chambers Creek Treatment Plant was visited on July 8, 1985 by S.A.
Freeburn (ES) and Dave Kircher (PSAPCA). Larry McCaffrey, Facility Manager
aided in sample collection and a tour of the facility. Samples were taken at
the grit tanks, after primary settling and prior to chlorination. The second
and third sample locations were taken from compositors. Analysis showed
little volatile content except 0.2 mg/1 methylene chloride in the effluent.
Subsequently, more comprehensive analysis showed the following pollutant
levels used in the emission analysis (Thompson, 1985):
Chemical Concentrations (mg/1)
Influent Effluent
Chloroform
0.002
0.003
Perchloroethylene
0.004
0.004
Trichloroethylene
0.039
0.001
Toluene
0.002
0.001
Trans 1,2 Dichloroethylene
0.028
0.001
Tetrahydrofuran
0.020
ND
Acetone
0.030
ND
Flow through the facility averages 3.5 MGD.
Western Processing Superfund Site
Western Processing was a recycling center for hazardous materials, primarily
solvents and used soils. Through many years of operation the ground under and
around the Western Processing site became contaminated by the hazardous
materials that were handled there. As a result, both the groundwater under
the site and the air were subject to contamination by the waste materials.
B-6
-------
Superfund activities have resulted in a cleanup of the surface of the site
during which time some ambient air measurements were taken using a portable
organic vapor analyzer. Though these measurements were not intended to be
comprehensive in nature they generally showed that ambient VOC levels were
essentially background at boundary locations to the plant. No other detailed
monitoring of the ambient air concentrations around the plant has been com-
pleted.
Plans are now being developed for the removal of the remaining contaminated
materials at Western Processing. Because the soils are contaminated, there
will be a potential industrial health hazard and elevation of ambient VOC
concentratins during the excavation and removal process. The degree of
potential exposure and the length of time of emission has not been determined
due to tha lack of a completed plan. Removal of all contaminated materials
should eliminate any potential hazard due to air toxicants from this site.
Though orginially scheduled for a site visitation Western Processing was not
inspected as part of project field activities due to schedule difficulties.
No sampling was planned. Since extensive field investigation and planning of
remedial action alternatives for this site have been completed emissions could
be reasonably estimated based on detailed field data and assuming the most
comprehensive clean-up (removal) program. (Site data from the "Feasibiltiy
Study for Subsurface Cleanup" (USEPA, March, 1985) was used exclusively for
emission potential evaluation).
Lilyblad Petroleum
Lilyblad Petroleum's primary business is the marketing of solvents and the
recycling and recovery of waste solvent materials using vacuum distillation.
A wiped film vaccum still is in operation processing approximately 400 gallons
per day. The primary recovered product is lacquer thinner. The lacquer
thinner has four main components: 1. aromatic hydrocarbons; 2. aliphatic
hydrocarbons; 3. ketones and; 4. alcohols. Lilyblad is regulated under RCRA
as a treatment and storage facility. Emission from this type of facility are
B-7
-------
primarily related to transfers of solvents between drums and still, transfer
of still bottoms and their disposal, and fugitive emissions from the still and
drums in storage.
The Lilyblad facility was typical of numerous small solvent recovery recycling
facilities. However, Lilyblad is unusual in that such a large proportion of
the handled products is lacquer thinner with lesser recovery of other
solvents. Overall there is a very limited variety of products recovered.
During the plant visit by S.A. Freeburn (ES), Dave Kircher (PSAPCA) and Bill
Ingraham (DOE), Mr. Ralph Juris of Lilyblad indicated much solvent is received
in drums, though a few large customers deliver in bulk. For these Lilyblad
maintains dedicated tank storage otherwise solvents must be consolidated from
drums to the solvent still feed tank. Recovered solvent was pumped to storage
for redrumming. None of the operations or storage tanks were equipped with
control devices.
Because of the uncertainity with regard to process wastes and limited re-
sources available RCRA reporting of waste quanitites was used in estimating
emissions. General emission estimates based on a solvent recovery emission
survey was used to make estimates.
Hidden Valley Sanitary Landfill
The Hidden Valley Landfill is an active site with no final cover in place at
this time. It currently received residential trash and garbage which is
placed in the landfill in 12 to 15 foot lifts. These received approximately
two feet of inorganic mineral soil cover. Since the site has been in opera-
tion for more than 15 years there is limited information about the types of
waste that were deposited there in years prior to 1975. It is believed that a
variety of industrial waste may have been deposited in tha landfill prior to
its operation by Land Recovery Incorporated. The Hidden Valley site has been
the source of numerous complaints regarding odors which are traced to
B-8
-------
emissions of gas from the landfill. Currently gas is vented through installa-
tion of temporary perforated gas vents four to eight feet below the soil
surface. The emitted gases are then burned in flares mounted on top of the
perforated tubes. Flaring continues until such time as the flare extinguishes
itself at which time tubes are removed and vent holes are covered over. The
emission of gases from the sides of the landfill is used as an indicator for
the installatin of venting tubes. Gases from the Hidden Valley Landfill were
recently analyzed for composition, however, results are not yet available.
The Hidden Valley site was visited on July 11, 1985 by S.A. Freeburn (ES),
Dave Kircher (PSAPCA), and Bill Ingraham (WDOE). Starr Dehn, CH^H-Hill,
identified current operational procedures and answered question related to
emission potential. Hidden Valley has very rocky soils for use as intermedi-
ate cover which would not appear to significantly impede gas flow under the
present level of generation. Approximately eight acres are new at final
grades though not capped.
Since emissions of toxics are closely tied to internal gas generation data,
waste mass was obtained. Estimates of four million tons in waste were ver-
ified. All flares appeared to be approximately four inch pipes. No data was
available regarding flare flow rates of gas composition. Since flares could
not be extinguished, no gas samples were taken. No data was available on the
amount or composition of toxic materials still being received at Hidden
Valley.
Tacoma Tar Pits
The Tacoma Tar Pits is the site of an old coal gasification facility. Coal
tars produced during the gasification process were disposed of on site and now
mostly found at subsurface locations though some are exposed resulting in the
name of the site. The tar has been in place for more than 20 years. In
addition to the concerns over the toxicity of the coal tar material, the
surface soils in the area demonstrate a high metals content possibly due to
a-9
-------
metal recycling activities that have been carried out at the location since
the demise of the coal gasification operations. There are on site two ponds
which fill seasonally with water and this water is in contact with the coal
tar itself. Though coal tar constituents are of concern (chiefly polynuclear
aromatics materials) they are of relatively low volatility and, in the coal
tar matrix, cannot readily be emitted to the atmosphere. Emission of the
waste may be increased due to the presence of the pond water.
As a Superfund site considerable data have been collected regarding the Tacoma
Tar Pits. At present, data exist regarding the soil concentrations of some of
the wastes, the composition of the tar pit itself, and the composition of
organics in the pond water. In addition, there are maps indicating the
affected areas. As in the case of the Queen City Farms the Tacoma Tar Pits
represent a source of toxic yet low volatility waste materials. Ambient
emission under current conditions would be expected to be minimal. However,
as removal operations precede, these may become a significance source of air
contaminants until such time as excavation is completed.
The Tacoma Tar Pit site was visited on July 11, 1985 for a general inspection
by S.A. Freeburn (ES), Dave Kircher (PSAPCA) and Bill Ingraham (WDOE). No
sampling was planned. Since weather had been dry the Tar Pits examined
contained no water and the tarry surface was exposed. No odor was evident.
Though soft and viscous the tar obviously contains significant mineral materi-
al. The tar surface appeared somewhat sealed by a tar crust and soil com-
bination. In general there were no signs of air emissions of any type.
Emissions during excavation and removal of contaminated soils were estimated
based on contamination reports and probable excavation rates.
Wyckoff Incorporated
Wyckoff is a wood treating company which utilized creosote and
pentachlorophenol for the preservation of wood, primarily wood poles. The
wood treating process is conducted in pressure retorts during which water is
removed from the poles being treated and replaced with preservatives. Because
B-10
-------
of zero discharge requirements for its wastewater, Wyckoff and other wood
treating facilities evaporate collected wastewaters to eliminate the need for
discharge. As a result, Wyckoff operates two heated and one unheated evapo-
ration tank, which contains sprays near the top to increase evaporation
capabilties. This evaporation process is thought to result also in the
evaporation of organic constituents of the waste water including treating oil,
creosote compounds, and pentachlorophenol. Because the Wyckoff wastewater
treatment facility is representative of a number of other wood treating plants
in the Puget Sound area it is included here.
The Wyckoff plant was visited on July 8, 1985 by S.A. Freeburn (ES) , Dave
Kircher (PSAPCA) and Glynis Stumpf (WDOE) and on July 10, 1985 by Freeburn,
Dana Davoli (EPA), and Fred Austin (PSAPCA). On the original schedule date of
July 8, it was found the plant had not been operating and the latter visits
was scheduled. On July 10, process water was about to enter the wastewater
processing system from the gravity separation tanks. The sampling need
actually caused Wyckoff to release a small quantity of the water prior to
normal release time. Thus waters might have somewhat greater organic content
than would otherwise be the case. Samples were taken as the water from the
gravity separation tanks entered the oil water separator. Samples also were
taken from the feed line to the sprays of the open top cooling water tank as
well as the surface of the water in this tank. Since operation had been
limited the cooling water in the tank had been circulating without additional
input of organics for several days. The toxic content of this water would be
expected to be at a minimum. The heated evaporation tanks were not in opera-
tion.
Samples indicated a limited selection of volatiles. (Extractables were not
done due to limited budget and opportunities to obtain analyses through others
means). No volatiles were found in spray water as might be expect under the
circumstances. Gravity separator waters contained these volatiles:
Ethyl benzene 0.1 mg/1
0-Xylene 0.1 mg/1
M-Xylene
Styrene
0.1 mg/1
0.8 mg/1
B-ll
-------
Because of the limited quantity of water treated this composition does not
represent a significant emission source. It is emphasized that these are
estimates of volatiles only.
Chemical Processors Incorporated
Georgetown Facility
Chemical Processors Incorporated is a waste recycling facility dealing in the
recycling and reclaimation of solvents and waste oils, and the treatment of
hazardous wastewaters. The Georgetown Facility specialized in solvent recov-
ery by distillation and the disposal of hazardous waste in drums. Solvents
are received primarily in drums and transferred to a receiving tank. From
this tank, solvents are transferred to the still where solvent reclaimation is
completed. A pot-type still distillation column and wiped film evaporator are
used to reclaim a wide variety of solvent materials. Clean solvents are
returned to drums or tank and still bottoms are solidified and placed in drums
for disposal at a hazardous waste landfill. Chem-Pro also received and
processes hazardous waste for direct disposal in landfills for its customers.
These liquids are mixed with solidification agents in an on-site mixer.
Currently, all hazardous wastes are disposed of at the Arlington, Oregon
hazardous waste disposal site. Chemical Processors has no on site wastewater
treatment capabilities per se, however, all run off waters are captured and
tested prior to release to the sewer system. Some wastewaters with identified
minor organic contamination are processed through the still condensor water
cooling tower. The result is some air stripping of organics of the treated
wastewater. The Chemical Processors facility at Georgetown was recommended
for inclusion in the site visitation lists, since it represents one of the
largest hazardous waste processing facilities in the Seattle-Tacoma area.
The Chem-Pro Georgetown plant was visited on July 10, 1985 by S.A. Freeburn
(ES), Fred Austin (PSAPCA) and Dana Davoli (EPA). Mr. Dennis Stephani repre-
sented Chem-Pro. Distillation and storage equipment was reviewed. Some
decanting operations were in process in which solids were separated from
liquids to be reclaimed. After a period of exposure in the atmosphere, solids
and entrained liquids were further solidified for disposal. No emission
B-12
-------
control equipment was apparent. All product tank storage was underground.
Tank storage of dirty solvent and all drum storage is above ground. Chem-Pro
received about 1100 drums per month. As a result of discussions with Chem-Pro
it was decided to obtain throughput data from Washington State Department of
Ecology. No samples were taken at Chem-Pro.
The Cedar Hills Landfill
The Cedar Hill Landfill is one of the largest solid wastes disposal facilities
in the Puget Sound area and in two years, with the closure of the Kent High-
lands Landfill will received essentially all waste from the Seattle area.
Because Cedar Hills has been in operation for more than 20 years, it predates
many of the regulations restricting the disposal of several common hazardous
wastes, and it may have received industrial and commerical waste that could
result in the emission of toxic materials. It currently received some commer-
cial and light industrial waste, but mostly residential wastes. Cedar Hills
also has been the source of routine odor complaints which are associated with
the emission of landfill gas in the area. Flaring of this gas is a common
practice. Some composition data is available based on samples of the vapor in
the leachate collection system. There have been limited investigations of
subterranean gas transport in the last year. Because of it's large size and
the indications that it will be receiving very much greater amounts of waste,
the Cedar Hills was included for site visitation. (Swafford, 1985)
Cedar Hills was visited on July 12, 1985 by S.A. Freeburn (ES), Fred Austin
(PSAPCA), and Dana Davoli (EPA, Region 10). Shirley Jurgenson of King County
Solid Waste and Ed Powell fo C^M-Hill assisted in describing site activites
and collection of samples. Two samples of landfill gas were taken from wells
placed in the landfill for the purpose. Gases were collected on activated
charcoal tubes. Cedar Hills had already collected and analyzed gas samples
for the purpose of identifying gas production and odor sources. Gas composi-
tion is summarized in Table V of the report body.
Flares were observed but no indications of problem operations were observed.
Flow rate information for flares is not available.
B-13
-------
Midway Landfill
Midway Landfill is a Superfund site under investigation because of a substan-
tial business, commerical, industrial waste received over the last several
years. Significant quantities of industrial waste are known to have been
deposited within the Midway Landfill. In addition, significant quantities of
residential waste have also been deposited resulting in significant gas
production such that flaring of gas is common. Data on the geseous emissions
from the Midway site as well as the types of waste that have been disposed of
in the site are being developed as part of the Superfund feasibility study.
Midway was not visited due to schedule difficulties. Fortunately, however, as
a result of the substantial investigations of the site related to closure plan
development, more emission estimation information had been prepared than for
other sites. Results of emissions estimates were compared to impact study
results and flare throughput data for reasonableness.
Weyerhaeuser Company
The Weyerhaeuser Kraft Paper mill in Everett operates a large aerated stabi-
lization basin for treatment of wastewaters. The sixty acre lagoon allows for
settling of solids and aeration of liquid effluent through use of twenty-seven
aerators. Effluent sources include the bleach plant, scrubber water dis-
charge, and mill drainage. As a result the wastewater contain primarily
bleach chemicals and lignin. Chlorinated hydrocarbons are an obvious poten-
tial air toxic form this combinations.
Because of the large surface area and aeration, the potential for emissions of
volatiles is significant. Because of the large number of Kraft mills in
Region 10, analysis of the emissions was believe to have particularily broad
application and should be included in site visitation and evaluation plans.
Weyerhaeuser, Everett was visited on July 9, 1985 by S.A. Freeburn (ES), David
Kircher (PSAPCA) and Bill Ingrahm (WDOE). Harold Rupert represented
Weyerhaeuser, identified sampling location and responded to questions
B-14
-------
regarding wastewater processing. Samples were taken from liquid surfaces at
the entrance to the equalization pond (influent), the entrance of the follow-
ing oxidation pond, and at the outfall (effluent). Aerators were not operat-
ing during the visit period. Odor was evident.
One sample from the influent showed a high chloroform content of 13 mg/1.
Outfall measurement showed the value to be down to 0.06 mg/1. With the
assumption of no biological breakdown for chloroform, emission of this quanti-
ty of chloroform would represent a substantial toxic sources.
Scott Paper Company
Scott Paper Company, Everett operates a sulphite paper mill. To treat waste-
water from these operations, a primary clarifier is used followed by a secon-
dary treatment system. The primary clarifer receives boiler - ash and paper
fiber - contaminated waters. After removal of these solids, the wastewater is
neutralized with slaked lime and sent to aeration cells. Also introduced at
this point are wastes from pulp bleaching, sludge dewatering, pulp mill
overflow, and sludge incineration. After bubbled aeration, the wastewater is
clarified again and released. Dewatered sludge is incinerated on site.
Priority pollutant scans of wastewaters were conducted five years ago and
though this data is not recent, the process at Scott has not been changed.
Organics in pulping wastes and chlorine in bleach waste can form chlorinated
emissions, chloroform, for example. Chlorinated organics used in processing
are released to secondary treatment also.
The Scott facility being representative of other sulphite mills and the
potential for emissions of toxic chlorinated organics it was believed it
should be included for site visitation and evaluation.
Scott Paper Company was visited on July 9, 1985, by S.A. Freeburn (ES), Dave
Kircher (PSAPCA) and Bill Ingram (WDOE). Scott was represented by Tim
Bechtel. Mr. Bechtel arranged for VOA samples to be taken from untreated
influent, neutralized influent and treated effluent. The plant has
B-15
-------
significant excess capacity and only half the aeration capability was operat-
ing during the visit. Aeration is by air diffusion on the bottom of 20 feet
deep tanks. All plant operations were normal and flow was measured at 15 MGD
during sampling. Samples taken at the influent showed 0.8 mg/1 of chloroform
which was not detected in effluent samples. However 0.2 mg/1 of toluene was
measured in effluent water.
B-16
-------
APPENDIX C
Example Emission Calculations
-------
GENERAL EMISSION ESTIMATION EQUATIONS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Emissions from surface impoundment can be estimated by the following equation:
Q± - 18E-9 (KL)CiL A
where 18E-9 = dimension correction constant
¦ overal mass transfer coefficient in (lb-mole/ft -hr)
C.|T. » concentration of pollutant i in (ug/1)
A » area of impoundment in (ft^)
Q± m emission rate of compound i in (lb/hr)
Kl is the mass transfer coefficient considering mass transfer limited by
diffusion through liquid and gas phase bounary layers. KL is defined
as follows:
» (kL~1 + (keq kG)~1)"1
where kL ¦ liquid phase mass transfer coefficient
kg " gas phase mass transfer coefficient
keq = equivalency factor ¦ Henry's constant (atm-m3/mol) for
compound i x 55555.
The constant 55555. converts Henry's constant in units shown to mole fraction
form (dimensionless) and assumes that the solution is essentially water at
pressure of one atmosphere.
1,000,000 2_
nu? " 55,555. mo1,
18 q • 1 atm atm-m3
g-mole
A key simplification can be made based on the magnitude of Henry's constant for
a given material:
for H >_ 10~3 resistance to mass transfer is 95+% controlled
by liquid phase resistance and = kL
for H 2 x 10~5 resistance to mass transfer is 95+% controlled
by gas phase and KL * kg
for 2 x 10< H < 10resistance to mass transfer is controlled by
both phases and + (55555HkG)""^
C-1
-------
CALCULATING INDIVIDUAL MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS
The individual liquid and gas phase mass transfer coefficients, k^, and kg,
are largely functions of liquid and vapor turbulence and are influenced by
wind speed and forced aeration.
NON-AERATED SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
For non-aerated impoundments, ambient wind speed has a significant effect.
Individual k values can be estimated using equations developed by Thibodeaux,
et.al. (U.S. EPA, 1984a).
kL » (1.3 Re*0,195 - 0.57) (MW benzene/MWi)0,5
where MW benzene =» molecular weight of benzene
MWi ¦ molecular weight of compound i
for 0.11 _<_ Re* 102 and Re* is defined as:
0.0707 U 1'25
v exp(56.6/U0,25)
a
where U » wind speed at 10 m above surface in cm/sec
2
v a ¦ kinematic viscosity of air (cm /sec) ¦ 0.14 at 15°C
Combining these kL is estimated by:
(1.3 [0.707 U1 *25/exp (56.6/U0,25)]0,195 -0.57)(MW benzene/MV^)0 *5
If Re* is less than 0.11, k^ is estimated at 0.27 lb-mole/ft2-hr. k^ is plotted
for various wind speeds on the following Figure C-1.
kg is estimated by the equation from Table II modified for wind velocities
measured in cm/sec.
IV. - 0.0958 (U x 36)0,78 Ne„ ~0,67 d "°*11 p .
u sc e air
MW .
air
where NSc ¦» Schmidt No.
0 s
dfl « equivalent diameter of the impoundment (m) » (4 ' Area/ir)
pair ¦ density of air ¦ 0.075 lb/ft3
C-2
-------
WIND SPEED AT 10 M ABOVE
IMPOUNDMENT SURFACE (M/S)
-------
— 0 67
Assuming mean values for air properties and an estimator for Ngc * based
on Hwang (U.S. EPA, 1984a)
^ = u"0.78 a-0.055 (0.00325 - 5.54E-6 MWi)
where U =• wind speed (cm/sec)
A ¦ impoundment area (m2)
MWi = molecular weight of compound i
kg =¦ gaa phase transfer coefficient in lb-mo1/ft-hr
For typical average wind speeds (2-6 m/s), impoundment areas (100 - 10,000 m2),
and molecular weights (50 - 250), kg varies between 0.0696 and 0.336 lb-mole/
ft2-hr.
AERATED SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
For aerated impoundments, both turbulent and non-turbulent surface conditions
exist. Non-turbulent or convective areas are treated as non-aerated surface
impoundments. For turbulent conditions, the liquid phase transfer coefficient
(kL)-r is estimated by:
- 4850 J (POWER) (1.024) 9~20
(av) (V)
Di, h2o
V *2°
0.5
where J = oxygen transfer coefficient (average value from literature
is about 3 lb 02/hp-hr)
POWER » hp x efficiency of motor
0 ¦ temperature (°C)
m surface area per unit volume (ft~1)
V - impoundment volume in region of effect of aerators (ft3)
DijI^O ™ diffusion coefficient of i in water
D0 HO* diffusion coefficient of O2 in water = 7.1E-4 cit^/sec
2 2
The gas phase mass transfer coeffienct for turbulent areas is estimated by
-------
where = density of gas (lb/ft-*)
D. . ¦ diffusion coefficient of i in air (ft^/hr)
x / air
a
¦ impellor diameter (ft)
Dimensionless numbers, NRe, NFr, Np, NSc are functions of a limited number
of other factors:
(D = rotational speed (rad/sec)
Pg m gas viscosity (g/cm - sec)
g m gravitational constant (32.17 ft/sec2)
Pr * power to impellor (lbf - ft/sec)
PL * density of the liquid (lb/ft^)
NRe = pg d2 w/Vig ¦ Reynolds number
NFr « do> /g m Froude number
C
Up - Pr g/p^d u)J * Power number
NSc ¦ Ug/pg Di,air " number
Thus, (kQ)
-------
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
for
ESTIMATING EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
AT THE RENTON SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
The Renton Sewage Treatment Plant provides secondary treatment for approxi-
mately 50 MGD of influent. After initial separation of grit, influent enters
the primary settling tanks for solids separation. To minimize turbulence the
surface of the water in these tanks is below grade and the entire impoundment
is surrounded and covered by wind breaking structures. After primary separa-
tion, the wastewater enters aeration tanks. Here, microorganisms and oxygen
are added to consume organic contaminants. Aeration is by a submerged air
bubble diffusion system. Flow control is versatile in secondary treatment
allowing untreated and recycled waste water to be introduced at any of several
locations along the treatment channel. Typically, treatment is conducted in
two tank areas, each of which contains approximately 1,200 feet of channel.
Aerated wastewater moves to secondary sedimentation which is conducted in eight
circular tanks each of which is 100 feet in diameter. Though the water sur-
face is somewhat below tank wall level, there are no protective windbreaks.
From these tanks, treated water enters the chlorine contact channel. This 933-
foot long channel provides sufficient residence time for chlorination chemicals
to disinfect the effluent prior to discharge to the Green River. Plant data
necessary for estimating emissions are shown in Tables C-1 and C-2.
C-6
-------
TABLE C-1
IMPOUNDMENT NAME
Primary Sedimentation
Secondary Aeration
Secondary Sedimentation and
Chlorination
IMPOUNDMENT INFORMATION
Renton, WA Sewage Treatment Plant
AERATION?
No
Yes^
No
SURFACE AREA
(ft2)
44,608
76,200
74,027
1 Aeration information:
The Renton Treatment Plant utilizes submerged air diffusers for aeration. For
the purposes of emission calculation, this system is converted to an equivalent
number of surface aerators (for which there are k estimators) based on equiva-
lent O2 transfer. The bubble diffuser system air is provided by four blowers
each delivering 2900 cfm at 7.5 psi. The fine bubble diffuser system has a
12 percent oxygen transfer efficiency. This amount of oxygen is equivalent to
that provided by eighteen 40-horsepower surface aerators.
Aerator data for 40 hp aerator;
Power transfer efficiency:
0.7
Turbulent area:
661 ft2
Agitated volume:
8587 ft3
Impellor diameter:
2 ft
Impellor speed:
1200 rpm
C-7
-------
TABLE C-2
PHYSICAL DATA FOR SELECTED CHEMICALS
PRESENT IN
RENTON TREATMENT PLANT WASTEWATER
Average
Chemical Species
Concentration''
Influent Effluent
(uq/1) (yq/1)
Henry's
Constant
(atm-m3/g-mole)
Molecular
Weight
(g/g-mole)
Diethylphthalate
8.94
4.16
4.75 x 10-5
222
Methylene Chloride
37.1
45.3
3.19 x 10~3
85
Phenol
67.6
46.7
1.3 x 10-6
94
Trichloroethylene
22.2
11.7
8.92 x 10"3
131
Tetrachloroethylene
20.0
14.7
2.87 x 10-2
166
Concentration data are from METRO'S treatability evaluation (METRO, 1984b),
which included an extensive sampling program. The METRO sampling program
provides a better estimate of annual concentrations than could be achieved
from samples taken at the Renton plant on July 11, 1985 as part of this
study. Thus, the METRO values are superior for estimating annual emissions.
C-8
-------
EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR RENTON
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
Primary Clarification
This impoundment is not aerated so estimation of emissions is for convective
surfaces only. Thus
= (1.3 Re*0'195 - 0.57)
-------
Compound
Primary Treatment Emissions (lb/hr)
Mass Transfer Mass Entering
(Q) (M)
Diethylphthalate
Methylene Chloride
Phenol
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
0.00093
0.0080
0.0069
0.0048
0.0043
0.15
0.64
1.17
0.38
0.35
These values are based on influent values only. As may be seen, emissions
are not limited by mass entering primary treatment.
Secondary Treatment-Aerated
Emissions from convective areas of secondary treatment impoundments are calcu-
lated as above. Based on observation they are estimated to cover 10% of the
aeration tank surfaces. Turbulent area emissions are estimated as follows:
Aeration due to the bubbler system is estimated to be equivalent to eighteen
40-hp aerators based on O2 transfer rate. Thus,
(kL)T - 3.0 (40 x .7) (1.024)15-20 4850
(0.0666) 8587
¦ 74732 (Di, h2o'0-5
'1, h20
°0 . HO
2' 2
0.5
(kG)T - 0.00039 Pr0*4 P L"'4 P g1 *92 D±
atr
0.5 d-.4u-.19y 0.92 0.19
where Pr «¦ 40 hp x 550 lb-ft - 22,000 lb-ft/sec
sec-hp
p L - 62.4 lb/ft3
pg - 0.075 MWi/28.9 - 0.0026 MWi
d » 2.0 ft
<11 - 1200 rpm x 2 it/60 - 1 25.67rad/gec
y g » g/cm-sec
Thus
g * 32.17 ft/sec2
(kG)T - 2.568E-8 (MWi)1*92 Difair°*5U g0,92
C-10
-------
And individual mass transfer coefficients are estimated as follows:
Compound (kL)T (kg)T
Diethylphthalate 167 0.563
Methylene Chloride 268
Phenol 0.133
Trichloroethylene 240
Tetrachloroethylene 236
Overall K value is then estimated by the following:
KL " (KL)C Ac/A + (KL)T At/A
where A^/A «¦ 0.1
Ajj»/A -0.9
Compound (KL)c Kl
Diethylphthalate 0.13 1.47 1.34
Methylene Chloride 0.27 268. 241.
Phenol 0.128 0.133 0.133
Trichloroethylene 0.27 240. 216.
Tetrachloroethylene 0.27 236. 212.
Emission estimate for aerated secondary treatment:
Q - 18 x 10~9 Kl CijA
- 1 .371 x 10"3 CiL
or Q » 7.62 x 10~5 CiL per aerator.
Flow through Renton Secondary treatment is split with each half being treated
by the equivalent of nine 40 hp aerators in series. (In winter the influent
may traverse as little as half this process.) Each successive equivalent aera-
tor sees a lower pollutant concentration than the preceding one due to the loss
of compound to the atmsophere. Based on a mass balance around each aerator,
emissions decrease along the treatment channel. Thus, total emissions are
based on the losses from nine successive aeration steps.
Compound Secondary Treatment Emissions (lb/hr)
Mass Transfer Mass Entering
(Q) (M)
Diethylphthalate 0.016 0.15
Methylene Chloride 12.25 0.63
Phenol 0.012 1.16
Trichloroethylene 6.57 0.38
Tetrachloroethylene 5.81 0.35
C-11
-------
Based on this analysis, the quantities of diethylphthalate and phenol are only
partially depleted. Somewhat greater emissions might be expected based on sample
data. The unaccounted for loss may be due to biological activity which is not
addressed here. The other chemicals should be completely depleted though efflu-
ent measurements indicate this is not the case. It is believed the outfall
measurements may be due to creation of chlorinated species in the chlorination
channel or release of adsorbed materials that were not measured in influent and
sludge analyses.
Secondary Clarification and Chlorine Contact Channel
Emissions from the secondary clarifier and chlorine contact channel are again
limited by mass transfer from convective (non-aerated) surfaces. The approp-
riate concentration levels are not well known for volatile chlorinated compounds
since there may be combined emissions and generation of these substances. Since
emission rates are low under these circumstances, concentrations of these ma-
terials may increase along the length of the contact channel due to reactions
between organic compounds and chlorine-based additives. The extent to which
such reactions occur could not be documented as part of this study. However,
to prepare a conservative estimate of emissions for these compounds, it was
assumed a second in-plant peak in concentration occurred at the end of the con-
tact channel. Thus, emission estimates were prepared using effluent concen-
trations for these materials.
Compound Secondary Clarification
and Chlorine Contact Emissions
(lb/hr)
Diethylphthalate 0.0013
Methylene Chloride 0.0162
Phenol 0.0079
Trichloroethylene 0.0042
Tetrachloroethylene 0.0052
Total emissions for the Renton Sewage Treatment facility are shown in Table C-3.
As may be noted the emission predictions for the compounds with low Henry's
constant values, diethylphthalate and phenol, indicate that no more than one
tenth of the entering material would be emitted. Substantial fractions would
leave with the effluent which is consistent with measurement. It is estimated
that the remainder is biologically degraded. The emission estimation equations
would predict essentially 100 percent loss of volatiles to the air. Substan-
tial loss is noted for volatiles except methylene chloride which actually
shows an increase based on an analysis of mass entering and leaving the plant.
Chlorine-based additives may react with organic compounds to cause this increase
and account for relatively high levels of other chlorinated organics in the
effluent.
C-12
-------
TABLE C-3
Compound
Diethylphthalate
Methylene Chloride
Phenol
Trichloroethylene
Te trach1oroethylene
ESTIMATED TOTAL EMISSIONS
RENTON SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
(lb/hr)
Mass Transfer
Mass Balance
Primary
Treatment and
Clarification
0.0009
0.0080
0.0064
0.0048
0.0043
Secondary
Treatment
0.016
0.630
0.012
0.380
0.350
Secondary
Clarification Total
& Chlorine Contact
0.0013 0.015
0.0162 0.644
0.0113 0.037
0.0042 0.385
0.0052 0.347
^ Mass
Entering
Only
0.150
0.63
1.16
0.38
0.35
Mass
Entering
Minus Mass
Leaving
0.085
-0.146
0.372
0.187
0.280
-------
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR CEDAR HILLS LANDFILL EMISSIONS
using
Thibodeaux Landfill Equation with Internal Gas Generation (U.S. EPA, 1984a)
1 + 1
(hv/D^r1
e ¦*
where: surface concentration assumed » 0 for all toxics
2
Na * flux of component A in (gm/cm )
Vy * mean gas velocity in pore spaces (cm/sec)
P*A£ * conc. of component A in pore spaces (g/cc) (from landfill gas
analysis)
h ¦ cover depth (cm)
DA3 ¦ effective diffusivity of component A in air-filled pore space
(cm^/sec)
DA3 is defined by:
°A3 " da e
T
where: DA ¦ diffusivity of component A in air
e » soil porosity; worst casee- 0.62
t ¦ tortuosity ¦ 3
However, DA3 is considered to be better estimated for moist materials by cor-
relations verified by Currie.
Based on empirical work by Currie:
^A3 U0 o
- r(eij) (ea)
°A
where: a m 4
M - 1.4 - 11.0 )
> Empirically derived constants
T - 0.8 - 1.0 )
eT » total porosity - 1-^pp ¦ 0.245 - 0.623
NA " vy P*Ai
C-14
-------
ea * wet soil porosity = et - 0)6 = 0.05 - 0.6
ph2o
uj =* soil moisture (g/g)
3 =¦ bulk density of soil (or waste) (g/cm3) * 1.0 - 2.0 (0.5 - 0.7)
PH 0 * water density ¦ 1.0 g/cm3
p ¦ soil particle density = 2.65 (g/cm3) (typical)
municipal waste density = 1.66 (g.cm) (typical)
Range for : 0.089 - 0.173 cm /sec for volatile compounds
Estimation of pore gas velocity:
v J FG * Gas flux
y ea wet soil porosity
ft3
Vy =* Mass of waste (tons) x P lb-yr x unit correction factor
£a x landfill area (A)
P - gas production, typically, 0.15 ft3/lb waste-yr
Vy =» Mags (tons) ' P * 4.438 E-8 (cm/sec)
Area (A) ea
For Cedar Hills:*
ft3
Vy ¦ 8.7 E 6 (tons) 0.1003 lb-yr 4.438 E-8
34 A ea
™ O'OOI13 cm/sec
ea
For Thibodeaux's equation ?
assume whenever the diffusion term
1 <_ 0.05
. ("VW1
emissions are adequately estimated by the bio-gas flux term alone as it
accounts for 95+% of emissions. For this to be true
hVy 21 3.044
dA3
* Average gas production rate for Cedar Hills is estimated at 0.1003
ft3/lb-year based on studies specific to that site.
C-15
-------
For covered areas of the landfill the following conditions were typical:
Temporary cover thickness = 15 in = 38.1 cm
Soil type: gravelly clay loam
VI - 1.7
3 - 1.5
p - 2.65
Moisture content ¦ 5%
dA3
¦ 0.106 estimated worst case (Currie)
da
dA3
* 0.141 (Thibodeaux)
°A
For this example analysis, assume the toxic of concern is formaldehyde
Da « 0.1729 cm^/sec and
hVy - 38.1 (0.0031 cm/sec) ¦ 6.54 >_ 3.044
.106 (0.1729 cm /sec)
Emissions are dominated by bio-gas flux.
For areas with no soil cover assume that a waste layer acts as a cover layer
and that the effective cover of trash for which the diffusion component is
responsible for 5% of total flux has thickness ¦ h.
Waste data:
y - 3.0*
6 » 0.64**
MC - 0.20***
p - 1.66**
* High percentage of paper in newer trash (60% by volume) assumed to give ma-
terial a semi-platey nature. Value selected is between that of granular
materials (y» 1.4) and platey materials (Vs" 11.0).
** Based on analysis of municipal waste Vancouver, WA (Mudge and Rohrmann,
1978).
*** Average of delivery MC of 5% and final MC of 30%
C-16
-------
Using these values, the Currie correlation gives
dA3/dA = °'091
For formaldehyde:
hVj,
=» h (0.00232) = 3.044
dA3 (0.091) 0.1729
h =« 20.6 cm
Emissions in this layer will be due to both gas flux and diffusion. The simplest
and most conservative assumption is to assume 100% loss of the toxic material
in this layer from areas covered within the last year. This estimate requires
a good understanding of the toxic makeup of entering waste.
Gross Emissions at Cedar Hills Due to Gas Flux
E ¦ Na x Area of flow
=» x Landfill Area (cm^) x ea
¦ Mass * P * 4.438E-8 * p*1
x Area (A) x 40.46E6 (cm^/A) x ea
Area (A) * ea
=» Mass (ton) * P ft * p*., g/cm3 x 1.795
lb-yr
For concentrations in mg/m^ and emissions in lbs:
E(lb/yr) - 1.247 E-4x (mass of waste in ton)
x (gas production rate in ft^ )
lb-yr
x (Toxic component conc. in mg/m^)
Of this total toxic component emission, a fraction is released through flares.
The flare combustion is assumed to be 90% efficient, thus actual emissions are:
Net emissions for component A «¦ ET - EF + EF (0.10)
¦ Eq* "* 0 • 9Ep
C-17
-------
or
Net emissions = 1 - 0.9 EF
Gross emissions E>p
1 - 0.9 NF x VF
VT
where NF = number of effective flares
VF = volume of gas per flare
Vip = total volume of gas for landfill
At Cedar Hills the number of effective flares is estimated at 15. Based on
measured flow of 30 cfm at other landfills:
Net emissions ¦ 1 - (0.9) 15 x 15.7 E6
Gross emissions 1679E6
-0.87
Emissions for toluene for example would then be estimated by:
Etol " 1'24E_4 x 8*7 E6 tons x 0.1003 ft3 x 133.11 mg. x 0.87
lb-yr m3
* 12601 lb/yr ¦ 6.30 ton/year
C-18
-------
LANDFILL EMISSIONS
WITHOUT BIOGAS GENERATION
Emissions from buried materials occur by diffusion through the covering layer.
Emissions for compound i are estimated by:
E " ^soil cig A
where: E ¦ emission rate in grams/sec
kgoii =* soil phase diffusion parameter
C^g * vapor concentration of compound i in the soil or waste
A ¦ surface area of landfill (cm^)
Diffusion through the boundary air layer is not considered because soil resist-
ance to diffusion dominates the overall resistance to mass transfer. The Currie
correlation for ksoil is selected since it addresses wet soil conditions typi-
cal of the area investigated here. The Currie correlation is given by:
^soil * (Di,air) rCe^) (£a)
h
with variables defined as in the Cedar Hills example.
The vapor concentration may be calculated by the following equation:
wi ai pi m
Cig " -
RT
where: - weight percent of the compound in the soil
a^ « activity coefficient of i
¦ vapor pressure of i (mmHg)
MW ¦ average molecular weight of waste (g/g-mol)
R * universal gas constant (624.0 mmHg-cm^/gmol-k)
T « temperature (°K)
C-19
-------
EXAMPLE CALCULATION
EMISSIONS FROM WESTERN PROCESSING
SUPERFUND SITE
The Western Processing site consists of four sub-areas, the soils of which are
contaminated with a variety of organic species. Based on information in the
Feasibility Study for Subsurface Cleanup (USEPA, 1985a), four areas and their
contamination levels are summarized in the attached Tables C-4 through C-6.
Because removal of contaminated soil is proposed over much of the site, two
emission scenarios are calculated: before and during excavation. In each case,
the mixture of compounds are represented by the most volatile species of those
identified by EPA. This approach coupled with worst case concentration assump-
tion should provide a conservative emission estimate. Contaminant and soil data
are shown in the attached tables.
Excavation volumes and weighted concentrations are developed for remedial action
proposal V of the reference. These values are shown in Table C-4 along with
depth information for contaminant deposits. The weighted soil concentration
values for each designated area allow soil pore vapor concentrations, C^g to be
estimated. ksoil values are calculated using the listed soil data and assuming
a mean depth. These are shown in Table C-7.
Utilizing the calculated soil pore vapor concentrations, affected areas, and
kSoii/ emission estimates are prepared for the undisturbed site. These are shown
in Table C-8.
During excavation contaminated soil will be exposed each day. Emissions from
freshly exposed soil will be relatively rapid until the concentrations in exposed
layer decrease. At this time the layer serves to restrict the diffusion and
emission of additional contaminants. Rather than attempting to estimate these
emissions using a time dependent model, a simplification for calculational pur-
poses was adopted.
C-20
-------
TABLE C-4
WESTERN PROCESSING SITE DATA (USEPA, 1985a)
Area
Area
(ft2)
Excavation Data
Depth
(ft)
Volume
(cu.yd.)
Face Area
(ft2)
Vol.
Contaminant Data
Weight Concentration (ppb)
Acid
Extract.
PAHs
Phthalates
I & II
5.54E5
15
3.08E5 6,500
8,090 3,100 167,550 128,900
1.26E5
1 . 4E 4
540
100 1,450
150
620
VIII
9.0E4
1 .0E 4
450
200
34,500
250
IX
4.5E4
1 . 6E 3
180
20
2,000
Depth below surface where compounds most frequently found (ft) 6-9 9-21
0-3
0-9
-------
TABLE C-5
WESTERN PROCESSING SOIL CONTAMINANT DATA
Compound
Group
Representative
Compound
Vapor Molecular
Pressure Weight
(mmHq) (q/q-mol)
Diffusivity
in Air
(cm^/sec)
Volatiles 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 117 133
Acid Extractables Cumene 4.507 120
PAHs Naphthalene 0.232 128
Phthalates Diethylphthalate 8.1E-3 222
0.0794
0.0702
0.0668
0.0513
Average MW of waste - 140 g/g-mol
TABLE C-6
WESTERN PROCESSING SITE SOIL DATA
Soil Type: Sandy Clay Loam
Bulk density, (5: 1.26 g/cm^
Porosity, e : 0.50
T
Moisture Content: 20 percent*
and
r - 0.9
y - 2.0
a = 4
ea - 0.25
* Assumes water table lowered as for excavation as proposed (USEPA, 1985a)
C-22
-------
TABLE C-7
SOIL PORE VAPOR CONTAMINANTS CONCENTRATIONS (g/cm3)
Area Area 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Cumene Naphthalene Diethylphthalate
Designation (cm2)
I & II 5.15E8 6.77E-8 9.0E-10 2.67E-9 1.25E-10
V 1.17E8 8.37E-10 4.2E-10 2.39E-12 6.00E-13
VIII 8.36E7 1.67E-9 0 5.51E-10 2.42E-13
IX 4.1E7 1.67E-10 0 0 1.93E-12
kSoii (cm/sec) 4.9E-6 3.6E-6 2.1E-5 5.3E-6
-------
TABLE C-8
UNDISTURBED SITE EMISSIONS
Compound Group Emissions
g/sec T/Y
Volatiles 1.72E-4 5.97E-3
Acid Extractables 1.85E-6 6.43E-5
PAHs 2.98E-5 1.04E-3
Phthalate 3.42E-7 1.19E-5
7.09E-3
C-24
-------
Complete volatilization of toxic materials in a newly exposed soil layer was
assumed within the first day with emissions from the remaining buried waste then
restricted by this layer. The thickness of this layer was determined by equat-
ing the loss by evaporation of all of the compound in the layer to the loss
through the layer by diffusion. Thus layer thickness increases as volatility
increase. This method over-predicts consistently by a factor of less than two
and avoids the need to evaluate daily emissions using time-dependent models and
the errors resulting from an assumed constant thickness.
Thus, on a daily basis:
Ediffusion = Evaporation
or 86,400 ksoii C^g Af » 0W^ t Af
where Af * area of the excavated face (each day)
t - layer thickness
and ksoii is based on t rather than the depth of the waste below the surface.
This equation is solved for t which is then used to estimate emissions. Thus
t is given by:
Daily emissions are estimated as:
E < 2 Af t Wi B
Assuming a broad excavation face, 6500 square feet are exposed on each of 410
days expected to be required to complete removal of Areas I and II. Emissions
of compound i are estimated by:
E <_ 1 .21E7 Wi 0 t (Areas I & II)
Estimated daily emissions are shown in the attached Table C-9 for designated
excavation areas.
t - 86,400
or
t - 86,400
C—25
-------
TABLE C-9
DAILY SITE EMISSIONS DURING EXCAVATION
(gin/day)
Area Af Excavation Contaminants
Designation Duration
(ft^) (days) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Cumene Naphthalene Diethylphthalate
I & II
6,500
410
100.1
7.02
86.0
10.70
540
19
0.1
0.27
6.4E-3
4.3E-3
VIII
450
13
0.17
1 .22
1.4E-3
IX
180
6.8E-3
4.6E-3
Layer Thickness, t(cm)
0.82
0.15
0.034
0.0055
-------
EMISSION CALCULATIONS
FOR SOLVENT RECOVERY OPERATIONS -
CHEMICAL PROCESSORS, INC.
Emission factors for solvent recovery operations are taken from "Supplemental
Report on the Technological Assessment of Treatment Alternatives for Waste
Solvents" (Engineering-Science, 1985). These factors are based on a survey of
state agencies described in the referenced report. The factors are listed in
the attached Table C-10. It is believed that these factors are directly applic-
able to both the Chem-Pro and Lilyblad facilities. However, they would tend to
over-predict Chem-Pro emissions slightly due to that company's use of under-
ground storage for finished product.
For each operation, throughput of solvent is multiplied by the emission factor to
obtain a point emission estimate.
C-27
-------
TABLE C-10
EMISSION FACTORS FOR SOLVENT RECLAIMING3
(Engineering-Science, 1985)
Source
Criteria
Emission Factor Average
Pollutant
lb/ton
kg/MT
Storage Tank Vent*3
Volatile Organics
0.02
(0.004-0.09)
0.01
(0.002-0.04)
Condenser Vent
Volatile Organics
3.30
(0.52-8.34)
1.65
(0.26-4.17)
Incinerator Stack0
Volatile Organics
0.02
0.01
Incinerator Stack
Particulates
1.44
(1.1-2.0)
0.72
(0.55-1.0)
Fugitive Emissions
Spillage0
Volatile Organics
0.20
0.10
Loading
Volatile Organics
0.72
(0.00024-1.42)
0.36
(0.00012-0.71)
Leaks
Volatile Organics
NA
NA
Open Sources
Volatile Organics
NA
NA
a Data obtained from state air pollution control agencies and presurvey samp-
ling. All emission factor are for uncontrolled process equipment, except
those for the incinerator stack. (Reference 1 does not, however specify
what the control is on the stack.) Average factors are derived from the
range of data points available. Factors for these sources are given in
terms of pounds per ton and kilograms per metric ton of reclaimed solvent.
Ranges in parentheses.
b Storage tank is of fixed roof design.
c Only one value available.
NA - Not available
C-28
-------
EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR CHEMICAL PROCESSORS, INC.
Drum storage data contained in the Hazardous Waste Facility Data for 1983 (WDOE,
1985) is summarized into categories shown in Table C-11. Weighting the solvent
waste storage data by estimated solvent content gives a value of 118.1 tons of
solvent through drum storage. Solvent emissions from drum storage are estimated
by 0.00125 lb. solvent/ton-yr.
Waste processed by distillation (treatment code T63) also was quantified from
the WDOE report and is summarized in Table C-12.
Based on typical 95% recovery noted by Chem-Pro, solvent throughput and emis-
sions are shown in Table C-13.
Review of RCRA data indicate approximately 38% of the solvents handled by
Chem-Pro are typically classified as air toxics. Thus, the air toxic emission
is estimated as 1.09 tons per year.
C-29
-------
TABLE C-11
DRUM STORAGE QUANTITIES FOR CHEMICAL PROCESSORS
(Tons/Year)
Waste Code
Aqueous
Liquid
Liquid and
Solid
Sludge
Assumed % Solvent
5
90
25
10
D001
61.6
62.8
7.2
F001
0.4
1.4
F002
4.2
3.7
F003
6.3
U211
0.4
U220
0.2
WP01
9.6
12.2
WP02
20.6
0.9
WT01
19.0
27.2
Totals
49.2
107.1
67.9
23.5
C-30
-------
TABLE C-12
DISTILLATION TREATMENT QUANTITIES
Waste Code
Quantity Treated
(ton/yr)
D001
256.02
F001
158.21
F002
19.08
F003
328.29
F005
58.70
WP02
1.25
WTO 2
50.51
872.05
C-31
-------
TABLE C-13
EMISSION ESTIMATES
FOR SOLVENT RECOVERY
FACILITIES
Chem-Pro
Solvent
Estimated
Throughput
Emissions
(T/Y)
(T/Y)
Drum Storage
118.1
0.15
Tank Filling & Storage (Receiving)
840.0
0.31
Drum Decant
6.8
0.34
Distillation
840.0
1.44
Process Fugitives
840.0
0.03
Still Bottom Disposal
10.0
0.01
Product Solvent Storage
830.0
0.31
Truck & Drum Filling
830.0
0.30
2.89
C-32
-------
APPENDIX D
Results of Sample Analysis
-------
KEY FOR FACILITY CODES
CC - Chambers Creek Sewage Treatment Plant
ESTP - Everett Sewage Treatment Plant
WEY - Weyerhaeuser (Everett)
S - Scott Paper Company (Everett)
WYC - Wyckoff
REN - Renton Sewage Treatment Plant
CHCF = CHLF - Cedar Hills Landfill
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
Priority Pollutant Analysis
Volatile Organics - EPA 624
Date Received:
Date Reported: 10/9/85 Job No.: 8037.28
For: ES - Boise Attn: Scott Preeburn
Address: 348 Winged Foot Place, Eagle, ID 83616
Lab No:
851572
851575
851576
851580
Source of Sample:
CC001
CC004
ESTP001
ESTP005
Date Collected:
7/8/85
7/8/85
7/9/95
7/9/85
Time Collected:
1 130
1 130
—
—
Type of Sample:
Water
Water
Water
Water
Detection
Compound
Limit
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
mq/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Chlorooethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Bromomethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Vinyl Chloride
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Chloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Dichloromethane
0.05
nd
0.2
nd
nd
Tri chlorofluoromethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,1-Dichloroethene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,1-Dichloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Chloroform
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Bromodichloromethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,2-Dichloropropane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,2-Dibromoethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Trichloroethene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Benzene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Dibromochlorome thane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Bromoform
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
0.05
nd
nrt
nd
nd
Tetrachloroethene
0.05
nd
ni.
nd
nd
Page 1 of 8
-------
Lab No:
Source of Sample:
~ate Collected:
lime Collected:
Type of Sample:
851572
CC001
7/8/85
1130
Water
851575
CC004
7/8/85
1 130
Water
851576
ESTP001
7/9/95
Water
851580
ESTP005
7/9/85
Water
Compound
Detection
Limit
mg/L
mg/L
ANALYTICAL
mg/L
RESULTS
mg/L
mg/L
Toluene
0.05
nd
nd
0.2
nd
Chlorobenzene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Ethylbenzene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,3- & 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Total xylenes
Styrene
0.05
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
Page 2 of 8
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
Priority Pollutant Anal/sis
Volatile Organics - EPA 624
Data Received:
Date Reported:
7/11/85
10/9/85
Job No.: 8037.28
For: ES - Boise
Attn: Scott Freeburn
Address: 348 Winged Foot Place, Eagle, ID 83616
Lab No:
Source of Sample:
Date Collected:
Time Collected:
Type of Sample:
851582
WEY001
7/9/85
Water
851586
WEY004
7/9/85
Water
851588
S001
7/9/95
Water
851592
S007
7/9/85
Water
Detection
Compound Limit ANALYTICAL RESULTS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Chloromethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Bromomethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Vinyl Chloride
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Chloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Dichlorome thane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Trichlorofluoromethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,t-Dichloroethene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,1-Dichloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Chloroform
0.05
13
0.06
0.8
nd
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Bromodichlorome thane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,2-Dichloropropane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,2-Dibromoethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Trichloroethene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Benzene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Dibromochlorome thane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Bromoform
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Te tra chloroethene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Page 3 of 8
-------
Lab No: 851582 851586 851588 851592
Source of Sample: WEY001 WEY004 S001 S007
Date Collected: 7/9/85 7/9/85 7/9/95 7/9/85
Time Collected:
Type of Sample: Water Water Water Water
Detection
Compound
Limit
ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mgA
mg/L
Toluene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
0.2
Chlorobenzene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Sthylbenzene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,3- & 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Total xylenes
Styrene
0.05
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
Page 4 of 8
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
Priority Pollutant Analysis
Volatile Organics - EPA 624
Date Received: 7/16/85
Date Reported: 10/9/85
Job
No.: 803'
For: ES - Boise
Attn:
Scott Freeburn
Address: 348 Winged Foot
Place, Eagle, ID
83616
Lab No:
851698
851701
851719
851723
Source of Sample:
WYC004
WYC009
REN001
REN005
Date Collected:
—
—
7/11/95
7/11/85
Time Collected:
—
—
—
—
Type of Sample:
Water
Water
Water
Water
Detection
Compound
Limit
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Chloromethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Bromomethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Vinyl Chloride
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Chloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Dichloromethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Trichlorofluoromethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
t,1-Dichloroethene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,1-Dichloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Chloroform
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Bromodichloromethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,2-Dichloropropane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,2-Dibromoethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
0.1
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Trichloroethene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Benzene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Dibromochloromethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Bromoform
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Te trachloroe thene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Page 5 of 8
-------
Lab No:
Source o£ Sample:
Date Collected:
Time Collected:
Type of Sample:
851698
WYC004
Water
851701
WYC009
Water
851719
REN001
7/11/95
Water
851723
REN005
7/11/85
Water
Detection
Compound
Limit
ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
mq/L
mq/L
mq/L
mq/L
mq/L
Toluene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Chlorobenzene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Ethylbenzene
0.05
0.1
nd
nd
nd
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,3- & 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
0.05
nd
nd
nd
nd
Total xylenes
Styrene
0.05
0.05
0.2
0.8
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
Page 6 of 8
-------
Date Received: 7/16/85
Date Reported: 10/9/85
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
Priority Pollutant Analysis
Volatile Organics - EPA 624
Job No.: 8037.28
For:
ES - Boise
Attn: Scott Freeburn
Address: 348 Winged Foot Place, Eagle, ID 83616
Lab No:
Source of Sample:
Date Collected:
Time Collected:
Type of Sample:
851707
CHCF001
7/12/85
Charcoal
tube
851710
CHCF004
7/12/85
Charcoal
tube
851711
CHCF005
7/12/95
Charcoal
tube
851712
CHCF006
7/12/85
Charcoal
tube
Compound
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Dichloromethane
Detection
Limit
ug/sample
2
2
2
2
2
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
uq/sample uq/Bample ug/sample ug/sample
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
Trichlorofluoromethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
2
2
2
2
2
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Bromodichloromethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Dibromochloromethane
1.1.2-Trichloroethane
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Bromoform
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
2
2
2
2
2
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
Page 7 of 8
-------
Lab No:
Source of Sample:
Date Collected:
Time Collected:
Type of Sample:
851707
CHCF001
7/12/85
851710
CHCF004
7/12/85
851711
CHCF005
7/12/95
851712
CHCF006
7/12/85
Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal
tube tube tube tube
Detection
Compound Limit
ug/sample
Toluene 2
Chlorobenzene 2
Ethylbenzene 2
1.2-Dichlorobenzene 2
1.3- & 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2
Total xylenes 2
Styrene 2
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ug/sample uq/sample ug/sample uq/sample
11
500
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
53 2400 nd nd
nd 620 nd nd
Page 8 of 8
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
LANDFILL GAS TOXIC COMPONENT CONCENTRATIONS
CEDAR HILLS LANDFILL
* i
Well ID No. Sample No. Sample Flow Rate Sampling Period
(1/m) (min.)
SW-2 CHLF-001 0.146 3.0
CHLF-002
CHLF-003
SW-3 CHLF-004 "
CHLF-005 "
CHLF-006
Well ID No. Concentrations of Toxic Compounds ju.q/1]
Toluene Xylenes(all) Styrene
SW-2 75.3 363. ND
SW-3 3420. 16,400. 4250.
Samples CHLF-002,-003,-005,-006 were back-up tubes. All
sample was collected on tubes CHLF-001 and CHLF-004.
------- |