£,EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Impact and Benefit
Assessment for Proposed Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and Standards for
the Airport Deicing Category
July 2009
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Off ice of Water (4303T)
Engineering and Analysis Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821-R-09-003
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessment for Proposed Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
The Airport Deicing Effluent Guidelines proposed rule and support documents were prepared by
Office of Water staff.
The following contractors provided assistance in performing the analyses supporting the
conclusions detailed in this document:
Abt Associates, Inc.
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Neither the United States Government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or
their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for any third party's use of or the results of such use of any information, apparatus,
product, or process discussed in this document, or represents that its use by such a party would
not infringe on privately owned rights. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement by EPA or recommendation for use.
July 2009
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
1 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Airport Deicing and Anti-icing Operations 1-1
1.2 Airport Deicing and Anti-Icing Product Formulations 1-2
1.3 Airport Deicing Chemical Dispersion in the Environment 1-4
1.4 Environmental Impacts from Airport Deicing Operation Discharges 1-5
2 Airport Deicing Product Components and Environmental Behavior 2-1
2.1 Airport Deicing Product Components 2-1
2.1.1 Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components 2-1
2.2 Environmental Behaviors of Airport Deicing Product Components 2-10
2.2.1 Environmental Behaviors 2-11
2.2.2 Detailed Airport Deicing Product Component Profiles 2-18
3 Environmental Impact Potential under Current Airport Deicing Practices 3-1
3.1 Universe of Airports in Scope of Proposed Regulatory Options 3-1
3.2 Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharges to the Environment 3-2
3.2.1 Factors Influencing Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharge to the Environment 3-2
3.2.2 Quantified Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharge Estimates 3-6
3.3 Factors Influencing Airport Deicing Pollutant Concentrations in Receiving Surface Waters 3-13
3.4 Documented Environmental Impacts from Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharges 3-15
3.4.1 Chemical Oxygen Demand, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Dissolved Oxygen, and
Nutrient Impacts 3-17
3.4.2 Wildlife Impacts 3-19
3.4.3 Human Health, Aesthetic, and Other Aquatic Resource Use Impacts 3-20
3.4.4 Permit Violations 3-21
3.5 Potential Current Impacts to Impaired Waters and Other Resources 3-22
3.5.1 303(d)-Listed Waters Receiving Airport Deicing Discharges 3-22
3.5.2 Airport Deicing Discharges Listed as TMDL Point Sources 3-32
3.5.3 Resources Located Downstream from Airport Deicing Discharge Outfalls 3-33
4 Benefits of Proposed Regulatory Options 4-1
4.1 Proposed Regulatory Options 4-1
4.2 Airports Affected by the Proposed Regulatory Options 4-2
July 2009
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4.3 Environmental Benefits Anticipated under Proposed Regulatory Options 4-4
4.3.1 Airport Actions and Benefits under Proposed Regulatory Options 4-4
4.4 Expected Ecological, Human Aquatic Resource Use, and Human Health Benefits 4-17
4.4.1 Ecological Benefits 4-17
4.4.2 Human Health Benefits 4-17
4.4.3 Human Use of Aquatic Resource Benefits 4-18
5 References 5-1
Appendix A : Detailed Characterization of Airport Deicing Products A-l
Appendix B : Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of the Proposed Regulatory Options B-l
Appendix C : Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges C-l
July 2009
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Table 1-1: U.S. Commercial Airports - National Estimate of Aircraft Deicing and Anti-Icing
Fluid Use/Purchase * 1-3
Table 1-2: U.S. Commercial Airports - National Estimate of Pavement Deicer Chemical Use 1-3
Table 2-1: Comparison of Aircraft Deicing and Anti-Icing Fluid Characteristics by Type 2-3
Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components 2-5
Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF
Application Sites at Surveyed Airports 3-8
Table 3-2: Ammonia Discharge from Deicing Operations at Surveyed Airports 3-12
Table 3-3: Estimate of National Baseline COD Discharges from ADF Application Sites and
Airfield Pavement Deicing by Airport Hub Size Category 3-13
Table 3-4: Estimate of National Baseline Ammonia Discharges from Airfield Payment Deicing
by Airport Hub Size Category 3-13
Table 3-5: Documented Environmental Impacts Associated with Airport Deicing Discharges 3-16
Table 3-6: Airport Deicing System Improvements 3-17
Table 3-7: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Fresh Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing
Discharges 3-23
Table 3-8: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Marine Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing
Discharges 3-23
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges 3-25
Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted by Airport Deicing Discharges 3-34
Table 4-1: Proposed Regulatory Options Evaluated for the Airport Deicing Category 4-2
Table 4-2: Surveyed Airports Affected by Proposed Regulatory Options 4-3
Table 4-3: Proposed Option 1 - Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 4-6
Table 4-4: Proposed Option 2 - Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 4-8
Table 4-5: Proposed Option 3 - Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 4-11
Table 4-6: Proposed Option 4 - Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 4-14
Table 4-7: Annual Pollutant Discharge Reductions under Proposed Regulatory Options 4-17
Table A-l: Surveyed U.S. Commercial Airports- Chemical Pavement Deicer Usage A-l
Table A-2: Chelating Agents A-2
Table A-3: Freezing Point Depressants: Sugars A-3
Table A-4: Freezing Point Depressants: Acetates A-4
July 2009
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Table A-5: Freezing Point Depressants: Formates and Lactates A-5
Table A-6: Freezing Point Depressants: Other A-6
Table A-7: Freezing Point Depressants: Ethylene Glycols A-7
Table A-8: Freezing Point Depressants: Propylene Glycols A-9
Table A-9: Freezing Point Depressants: Urea and Metabolites A-10
Table A-10: Thickeners: Acrylic Acid Polymers A-ll
Table A-ll: Thickeners: Natural Gums A-12
Table A-12: Thickeners: Other A-13
Table A-13: Surfactants: Alcohol Ethoxylates A-14
Table A-14: Surfactants: Alkylbenzene Sulfonates A-15
Table A-15: Surfactants: Alcohol Ethoxylates A-16
Table A-16: Surfactants: Alkylphenol Ethoxylates A-17
Table A-17: Surfactant Breakdown Products: Alkylphenols A-18
Table A-18: Surfactants: Diamines A-19
Table A-19: Surfactants: Polyethylene Oxide Monomer and Polymer A-20
Table A-20: Surfactants: Other Nonionic Detergents A-21
Table A-21: Corrosion Inhibitors and Flame Retardants: Tolyltriazoles A-22
Table A-22: Corrosion Inhibitors and Flame Retardants: Other Triazoles A-23
Table A-23: Corrosion Inhibitors: Alcohols A-24
Table A-24: Corrosion Inhibitors: Nitrite, Nitrate, and Silicate Salts A-25
Table A-25: Corrosion Inhibitors: Other Inorganics A-26
Table A-26: Corrosion Inhibitors: Other Organics A-27
Table A-27: Corrosion Inhibitors: Ethanolamines A-28
Table A-28: pH Buffers, Phosphate-Based A-29
Table A-29: pH Reducers A-30
Table A-30: Antifoamers: Silicones A-31
Table A-31: Antifoamers: Silicones and Other Substances A-32
Table A-32: Dyes A-33
Table A-33: Additional Dyes A-34
Table A-34: Hydrophobic Agents A-35
Table A-35: Solvents A-36
Table A-36: Solvents: Alcohols and Other Solvents A-38
July 2009
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Table A-37: Plasticizers and Other Miscellaneous Substances A-40
Table A-38: Degradation Products A-42
Table A-39: Emulsifiers and Other Miscellaneous Substances A-44
Table A-40: Ecological Toxicity Values for Airport Deicing Product Components A-46
Table A-41: Human Health Effects of Airport Deicing Product Components as Reported in IRIS,
EPA NRWQC, EPA Drinking Water MCLs, and RSEI A-49
Table A-42: Acetate A-50
Table A-43: Alcohol Ethoxylates A-51
Table A-44: Dyes A-52
Table A-45: Ethylene Glycol A-53
Table A-46: Formate A-55
Table A-47: Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates A-56
Table A-48: Polyacrylic Acid A-58
Table A-49: Potassium A-59
Table A-50: Propylene Glycol A-60
Table A-51: Sodium A-61
Table A-52: Tolyltriazoles, Benzotriazoles, Methyl-substituted Benzotriazole A-62
Table A-53: Urea and Ammonia A-63
Table B-l: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA's Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport
Deicing Operations B-l
Table C-l: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges C-l
Figure 3-1: Airports within Scope of Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing
Operations 3-2
Figure 3-2: Initial Receiving Water Discharge Flows at EPA Surveyed Airports 3-14
Figure 3-3. Initial Receiving Water Slopes at EPA Surveyed Airports 3-15
July 2009
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADF—Aircraft Deicing and Anti-icing Fluid
AMS—Aerospace Material Specification
atm—Atmospheres
BAF—Bioaccumulation Factor
BCF—Bioconcentration Factor
BOD—Biochemical or Biological Oxygen Demand
BOD5—Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
C—Celsius
CASRN—Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
CBOD5—Five Day Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
cfs—Cubic Feet per Second
COD—Chemical Oxygen Demand
DO—Dissolved Oxygen
EPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency
ECX—Effective Concentration for x% of test organisms
ESRI—Environmental Systems Research Institute
g—Gram
GA/C—General Aviation and/or Cargo
GIS—Geographical Information System
GRV—Glycol Recovery Vehicle
IARC—International Agency for Research on Cancer
IRIS—Integrated Risk Information System
kg—Kilogram
KOC—Soil organic carbon adsorption coefficient
Kow—Octanol water partition coefficient
L—Liter
LCX—Lethal Concentration for x% of test organisms
LOEC—Lowest Observed Effect Concentration
LOAEL—Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
m—Meter
MATC—Maximum Allowable Toxicant Concentration
MCL—Maximum Contaminant Level
mg—milligram
mm—millimeter
MSDS—Material Safety Data Sheet
NHD—National Hydrography Dataset
NOEC—No Observed Effect Concentration
NOAEL—No Observed Adverse Effect Level
NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRWQC—National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
NWRA—National Wildlife Refuge Area
POTW—Publicly Owned Treatment Works
RfC—Reference Concentration
RfD—Reference Dose
RSEI—Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators model
SAE—Society for Automotive Engineers
July 2009
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
SOFP—Snow or Freezing Precipitation
TMDL—Total Maximum Daily Load
\ig—microgram
WATERs—Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results
WOE—Weight of Evidence
WTP—Willingness to Pay
July 2009
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 1. Introduction
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
1 Introduction
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing effluent limitation guidelines
and standards for the Airport Deicing Category. The proposed regulations address primary commercial
airports that conduct airfield or aircraft deicing operations and also have 1000 or more jet departures
annually. This document discusses environmental impacts associated with deicing operations at these
airports and the environmental benefits EPA estimates would result from pollutant discharge reductions
under the proposed regulatory options. This document presents information on the environmental impacts
airport deicing discharges have caused in the past and on their potential to do so in the future. The
proposed regulatory options will reduce the frequency and severity of environmental impacts associated
with airport deicing discharges. The regulatory options will primarily benefit surface waters, though soil
and groundwater resources could benefit from pollutant discharge reductions, as well.
This introduction briefly describes the nature of airport deicing operations and their pollutant discharges
and provides an overview of associated environmental impacts. Additional information on the
characteristics of airport deicing operations and their discharges is available in the Technical
Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport
Deicing Category (US EPA 2009). EPA's proposed rule addresses only those deicing activities that take
place on the airfield side of airports where aircraft are active. It does not address pollutant discharges
from deicing activities airports undertake to clear snow and ice from parking lots, roads, sidewalks and
other airport surfaces beyond the airfield.
Chapter 2 of this document provides information on the chemical composition of airport deicing products
used in the United States and discusses the potential for environmental impacts from various formulation
ingredients. Chapter 3 provides information on known locations and levels of U.S. airport deicing
operation discharges and associated environmental impacts. Chapter 4 discusses each of the proposed
regulatory options in terms of the environmental benefits EPA estimates would result from each option.
1.1 Airport Deicing and Anti-icing Operations
The purpose of airport deicing operations is to ensure safe aircraft departures, landings, and travel on
airport grounds. Frozen precipitation or frost on aircraft surfaces can compromise aircraft ability to obtain
sufficient lift for departures or damage aircraft. Frozen precipitation on the airfield can cause loss of
aircraft control due to lack of traction between aircraft wheels and airfield surfaces. Frost and frozen
precipitation must be addressed if aircraft are to function safely under winter conditions.
There are two types of snow and ice removal operations. Deicing operations remove snow and ice
accumulations from aircraft and airfield surfaces. Anti-icing operations prevent snow and ice from
accumulating on aircraft and airfield surfaces, either before accumulation can take place or after a surface
has been cleared by deicing operations. Both aircraft and airfield surfaces undergo deicing and anti-icing
operations. In this document, the phrase "airport deicing operations" refers generally to all deicing and
anti-icing operations that take place at airports.
Aircraft deicing removes snow and ice accumulations from aircraft surfaces. Aircraft deicing includes
both "wet weather" and "dry weather" deicing. Wet weather deicing takes place during or after weather
events that coat aircraft surfaces with snow or ice. Dry-weather deicing takes place when ambient
temperatures are low enough, typically below 55° F, to allow frost or ice formation on aircraft surfaces.
July 2009 1-1
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 1. Introduction
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
During a typical aircraft deicing process, trained personnel spray specially formulated and heated deicing
fluids on aircraft surfaces at high pressure in order to remove snow and ice. Depending on the aircraft,
snow and ice accumulation levels, and weather conditions, wet weather deicing of a single aircraft
requires the use of a couple hundred to several thousand gallons of aircraft deicing fluid. Dry weather
deicing requires less fluid than wet weather deicing because of lower ice accumulations during dry
weather conditions.
Aircraft anti-icing takes place when weather conditions threaten to re-contaminate freshly deiced aircraft
surfaces with new snow or ice. Aircraft anti-icing fluids are specially formulated to temporarily prevent
snow and ice accumulation on deiced aircraft surfaces, protecting aircraft until their departure from an
airport. Anti-icing is typically necessary only during wet weather conditions. The process consists of the
spraying of a thin layer of anti-icing fluid onto aircraft surfaces by trained personnel. Aircraft anti-icing
fluids are viscous and adhere to aircraft surfaces until take-off. The process requires a smaller volume of
fluid than the aircraft deicing process.
Airfield pavement surfaces must also be cleared of snow and ice. Pavement deicing and anti-icing
operations remove and prevent, respectively, snow and ice accumulations on airfield runways, taxiways,
aprons, gate areas, and ramps. Airports use both mechanical and chemical means to clear airfield
pavement. Most frequently, airports use mechanical means such as plows, blowers, and brooms to remove
ice and snow (US EPA 2009). Because ice and snow can be difficult to remove by mechanical methods
alone, many airports also apply liquid or solid chemical pavement deicers. Some of these deicers are
applied prior to precipitation events as anti-icers in order to prevent ice formation or ease later removal of
snow and ice. Airports also frequently apply sand to increase airfield traction.
Deicing operations typically take place during the winter when low temperatures and freezing
precipitation (e.g., snowfall, freezing rain, and ice) occur. Local climate conditions determine both the
duration and intensity of deicing seasons at individual airports. The deicing season can begin as early as
September and continue through May in colder regions of the U.S. In general, however, December,
January, and February are the peak deicing months for U.S. airports, and September and May have the
lowest incidence of deicing activity. The majority of airports have a five month deicing season, though
some airports have seasons as short as two months or as long as nine months.
The nature, frequency, and intensity of precipitation events also vary from airport to airport. Some
airports rarely engage in deicing activities beyond aircraft frost removal, whereas other airports often
cope with frequent and heavy snow or ice storms that necessitate both aircraft and pavement anti-icing
and deicing. There can even be substantial variability among weeks or seasons at individual airports as
weather patterns shift and affect the necessity for deicing activity. The nature and intensity of deicing
activities and their associated pollutant discharges therefore vary substantially both among airports and
among deicing seasons at individual airports.
1.2 Airport Deicing and Anti-Icing Product Formulations
Airport deicing products include aircraft deicing fluids, aircraft anti-icing fluids, and airfield pavement
deicers. The materials used for aircraft deicing and anti-icing are specially formulated fluids with multiple
chemical components. Pavements materials are typically simpler formulations and can be either solid or
liquid in form.
July 2009 1-2
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 1. Introduction
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Four aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluid (ADF) categories are available in the global market: Type I,
Type II, Type III, and Type IV. Type I and Type IV are the fluid categories most commonly used at the
U.S. primary commercial airports addressed by EPA's proposed regulatory options.
Type I fluids are aircraft deicers, and Type IV fluids are aircraft anti-icers. By volume, both fluids consist
primarily of a freezing point depressant, typically propylene glycol or ethylene glycol, and water. The
fluids also contain a relatively small volume, approximately 1-3%, of chemicals commonly known as
"additives" which function as surfactants, corrosion inhibitors, pH modifiers, flame retardants, defoamers,
dyes, oils, antioxidants, and antimicrobials. Type IV fluids also contain thickeners to increase their
viscosity and allow them to adhere to aircraft surfaces until take-off. ADFs function by lowering the
temperature at which snow and ice are able to adhere to aircraft surfaces.
Based on data from responses to the EPA Airline Deicing Questionnaire (2006b) the most commonly
used ADF at commercial U.S. airports is Type I propylene glycol deicing fluid, accounting for
approximately 77% of ADF use or purchase. A recent trend in ADF use has been increasing use of
propylene glycol-based ADFs instead of ethylene glycol-based ADFs. Table 1-1 presents EPA's estimate
of national ADF use based on information provided in survey responses for the 2002-2003, 2003-2004,
and 2004-2005 deicing seasons. Because glycol levels vary among individual manufacturer's ADF
formulations, ADF quantities in Table 1-1 are normalized to represent 100% glycol levels.
Table 1-1: U.S. Commercial Airports - National Estimate of Aircraft Deicing and Anti-Icing Fluid
Use/Purchase *
Average Total Airport
Use/Purchase Percentage of ADF
Chemical
Type I Propylene Glycol Aircraft Deicing Fluid
Type IV Propylene Glycol Aircraft Anti-Icing Fluid
Type I Ethylene Glycol Aircraft Deicing Fluid
Type IV Ethylene Glycol Aircraft Anti-Icing Fluid
(million gallons/year)
19.305
2.856
2.575
0.306
Use/Purchase
77.1
11.4
10.3
1.2
Source: US EPA Airline Deicing Questionnaire (2006b).
*EPA primarily relied on ADF purchase records to estimate annual ADF usage levels. See US EPA (2009) for additional details.
Based on responses to the EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c), the most commonly used
pavement deicer on U.S. airfields is potassium acetate. Potassium acetate comprises approximately 63%
of pavement deicer use by weight. A recent trend in pavement deicer use has been for U.S. airports to
cease or decrease their use of urea due to water quality impact concerns. Table 1-2 presents EPA's
estimate of national levels of pavement deicer use at commercial airports based on information provided
in survey responses for the 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005 deicing seasons.
Table 1-2: U.S. Commercial Airports - National Estimate of Pavement Deicer Chemical Use
Pavement Deicer Chemical Estimated Total Airport Use (tons/year)
Potassium acetate 22,538
Urea 4,127
Propylene glycol-based fluids 3,883
Sodium acetate 3,100
Sodium formate 1,117
Ethylene glycol-based fluids 774
Source: US EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c).
Of the 150 airports that responded to EPA's 2006 Airport Deicing Questionnaire, ninety airports reported
use of chemical pavement deicers, approximately thirty eight airports reported no airfield pavement
July 2009 1-3
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 1. Introduction
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
deicing (including no sand use), and the remainder reported only sand use or unknown levels of chemical
pavement deicer use (US EPA 2009). EPA estimates airports use, on average, more than 43,000 tons of
sand annually in their airfields. Additional information on pavement deicer usage is provided in Table A-l
in Appendix A.
The identity and environmental behavior of individual ADF and pavement deicer components is
discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.
1.3 Airport Deicing Chemical Dispersion in the Environment
Because aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluids (ADFs) and pavement deicers are typically used in very
open and exposed outdoor environments, their dispersion begins immediately after application. ADFs are
typically applied to aircraft at specific airport locations. These locations vary by airport and can include
gate areas, aprons, or deicing pads. ADFs are designed to drip and shear from aircraft surfaces after
application in order to avoid compromising aircraft lift during take-off. Type I deicing fluids drip from
aircraft relatively quickly. The majority of these fluids fall to the pavement at fluid application sites. The
remainder drips or shears from aircraft as they travel on the airfield, primarily falling on pavement and
other airfield surfaces. Type IV anti-icing fluids are designed to remain on aircraft surfaces for a longer
period of time than Type I deicing fluids to protect aircraft surfaces from snow and ice accumulation until
take-off. A relatively small amount of Type IV fluid falls to the pavement at application sites. Most Type
IV fluid drips or shears from aircraft during taxiing or take-off, falling primarily on pavement or other
airfield surfaces. A lesser quantity of ADF becomes airborne during application or aircraft taxiing and
take-off and can be carried by wind to other parts of the airfield or beyond airport property lines.
Little quantified research is available on ADF dispersion after application. EPA's analysis of baseline
pollutant loadings to the environment has assumed that 80% of Type I fluids fall to the ground at
application sites (Switzenbaum et al. 1999). Because Type IV fluids are designed to remain on the aircraft
until take-off, EPA has assumed that only 10% of these fluids fall to the ground at the point of application
(US EPA 2009). The remainder of the fluids disperses in areas beyond the application site.
Airports apply pavement deicers directly to the ground. Treated surfaces can include runways, taxiways,
aprons, ramps, and gate areas. The extent of pavement surface deicing varies with the nature of
precipitation events.
Once on the ground, ADFs and pavement deicers can disperse in several ways. ADFs and pavement
deicers on paved surfaces often flow into stormwater management systems. Many airfields also have
vegetated or other pervious surfaces adjacent to paved areas. In these areas, ADFs and pavement can
percolate through soil and eventually enter groundwater if present beneath the airport.
ADFs and pavement deicers in stormwater management systems can discharge to surface waters or, in
some locations, enter stormwater collection and treatment systems. Airports most frequently collect and
treat stormwater originating from ADF application sites. Stormwater from these sites tends to contain
higher percentages of deicing pollutants than other airport areas. These areas are also relatively limited in
size and therefore provide an easier collection and treatment opportunity. Airports are less likely to collect
and treat ADFs and pavement deicers dispersed in other parts of the airfield because of the larger surface
areas and larger stormwater volumes involved, both of which increase collection and treatment
complexity and expense. In addition, stormwater pollutant concentrations tend to be lower in these areas,
though total loadings can still be significant. ADFs and pavement deicers dispersed in the airfield are
more likely to discharge to surface waters or infiltrate pervious airfield surfaces.
July 2009 1-4
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 1. Introduction
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Because of variability among individual airports in ADFs and pavement deicers usage levels, extent and
configuration of paved and pervious areas, and storm water collection and treatment, there is great
variability in the quantities of deicing activity pollutants that reach surface waters at individual airports.
The nature of ADF and pavement deicer dispersion in the environment is discussed in more detail in
Chapter 3.
1.4 Environmental Impacts from Airport Deicing Operation Discharges
EPA has identified a number of cases in which airport deicing operation discharges to the environment
have affected water quality, aquatic ecosystems, and human use of aquatic resources. Identified impacts
include:
> Reductions in dissolved oxygen levels in water bodies receiving deicing stormwaters
> Increased nutrient concentrations in water bodies receiving deicing stormwaters
> Fish kills downstream of deicing stormwater outfalls
> Impacts to aquatic ecosystems downstream of deicing stormwater outfalls, including reductions in
organism abundance and diversity or elimination of the aquatic community
> Contamination of groundwater and surface drinking water resources
> Aesthetic impacts to surface waters, including foaming, noxious odors, and discoloration
> Complaints of headaches and nausea by people exposed to deicing stormwater odors
Of particular and well-known concern is the oxygen demand exerted by ADF and pavement deicer-
contaminated stormwater. All of the primary ingredients in ADFs and pavement deicers exert oxygen
demand as they decay. As airport deicing materials decay in surface waters, they consume oxygen
dissolved in the water column. If the level of dissolved oxygen becomes too low, aquatic organisms can
be impaired or killed. Chronic low oxygen conditions can eventually change the biochemistry and overall
community structure of aquatic ecosystems.
Discharges of raw or partially treated sewage from cities and towns were a common cause of low oxygen
conditions in surface waters prior to implementation of more stringent sewage treatment requirements
under the Clean Water Act. The oxygen depletion potential of airport deicing operation discharges is
many times greater than that of raw sewage. For example, before application, Type I propylene glycol-
based deicing fluid is generally diluted to a mixture containing approximately 50% propylene glycol. Pure
propylene glycol has a BOD5 concentration of approximately 1,000,000 mg/L. A typical diluted
propylene-based deicing fluid could therefore have a BOD5 concentration of approximately 500,000
mg/L. In comparison, raw sewage typically has a BOD5 concentration of approximately 200 mg/L. The
amount of fluid used to deice a single jet depends on the nature of the precipitation event and the size of
the aircraft but can range from a couple hundred to several thousand gallons. Therefore, deicing a single
jet can generate a BOD5 load greater than that of one million gallons of raw sewage. A large hub airport
often has several hundred flights each day. Pavement deicers applied to airfield pavement can also exert
significant BOD. The BOD5 generated from deicing activities at a large airport in a single day can
therefore equal the BOD5 associated with the raw sewage from more than one million people (or a large
city) (US EPA 2008a).
In addition to oxygen demanding substances, airport deicing products also contain a number of additives.
Some of these additives have toxic or other properties that could harm aquatic ecosystems. Other
July 2009 1-5
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 1. Introduction
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
additives have not yet been publicly identified because of the proprietary nature of deicing material
formulations and the limitations of currently available research on deicing product formulations. Without
information on the identity of these additives, it is impossible to determine the potential environmental
impacts from these chemicals.
Many of the surface waters to which airports discharge deicing materials are small streams with limited
absorption and dilution potential for processing large quantities of oxygen demanding substances and
other pollutants. EPA has evaluated the impairment status of a number of surface waters directly
receiving airport deicing operation discharges and has found a large number of these waters to be listed as
impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (see Chapter 3). Many of these waters have the
types of impairments that can be associated with airport deicing operation discharges (e.g., depressed
dissolved oxygen levels). Other waters are stressed and impaired by other types of pollutants (e.g., PCBs,
pathogens). The proposed regulatory options will reduce the intensity of discharges of airport deicing
pollutants to a number of these surface waters and have the potential to improve the health of these
impaired aquatic resources.
Environmental impacts associated with airport deicing discharges are discussed in more detail in
Chapter 3.
July 2009 1-6
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
2 Airport Deicing Product Components and Environmental Behavior
Airport deicing products include aircraft deicing fluids, aircraft anti-icing fluids, and airfield pavement
deicers. Aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluids (ADFs) are used on aircraft. Pavement deicers are used on
airport runways, taxiways, aprons, ramps and gate areas. Each type of airport deicing product is specially
formulated for the purpose it serves.
This chapter provides information on the basic composition of airport deicing products and summarizes
information EPA was able to gather through a review of the literature available on the identity and
quantity of specific chemicals used in airport deicing products (Section 2.1). This chapter also provides an
overview of the environmental behavior and potential environmental impacts associated with these
chemicals (Section 2.2). In addition to a broad review of the physical properties and fate and transport
characteristics of approximately 99 chemicals that may be components or decay products of ADFs and
airfield pavement deicers, more detailed discussions are provided for 12 chemical or chemical groups of
potential environmental concern (Section 2.2.2).
2.1 Airport Deicing Product Components
Many different types of aircraft deicing fluid, aircraft anti-icing fluid and airfield pavement deicer
formulations are used at airports in the U.S. Manufacturers use a variety of freezing point depressants and
additives to formulate their products. According to responses to EPA's Airport Deicing Questionnaire
(2006c), the ADFs most widely used at U.S. airports consists of water, propylene glycol or ethylene
glycol as a freezing point depressant, and a range of additives that differ by ADF manufacturer and
specified fluid use. Pavement deicers typically consist of a chemical that serves as a freezing point
depressant and, in many formulations, various additives. The pavement deicer freezing point depressants
most widely used at U.S. airports are potassium acetate, urea, sodium acetate, sodium formate, propylene
glycol, ethylene glycol, or a mixture of ethylene or propylene glycol and urea (see Table 1-2).
Manufacturers are generally willing to identify the freezing point depressants comprising the bulk of their
airport deicing product formulations, but the identity of product additives and their concentration in
product formulas is generally considered to be proprietary. Research by parties outside the airport deicing
product manufacturing community indicates that some airport deicing products additives have toxic or
other properties potentially harmful to aquatic ecosystems. Understanding the identity, quantity, and
nature of chemicals present in airport deicing products is a useful step in characterizing the potential
environmental risks associated with ADF and pavement deicer discharges. This section summarizes
information EPA was able to gather through a review of the literature currently available on the identity
and quantity of chemicals used in airport deicing products. A recently released study contains significant
additional information on airport deicing products (Ferguson, et al. 2008).
2.1.1
Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components
To determine the chemical composition of ADFs and pavement deicers, EPA reviewed available data
sources including Society for Automotive Engineer Aerospace Material Specifications (SAE AMSs),
deicing product Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), patent descriptions, peer-reviewed literature, other
published reports, and data from EPA airport sampling events.
July 2009
2-1
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
EPA's determination of the composition of ADFs and pavement deicers is incomplete, however, for
several reasons. EPA relied on available data sources to identity components. These sources are limited
because many airport deicing product ingredients are proprietary, and manufacturers do not, therefore,
identify them in product labels, MSDSs, or other publicly available documents. Because a significant
level of effort is required for an outside party to determine a deicing product's composition, the peer-
reviewed literature on this subject is limited, particularly for chemicals present in formulations in low
concentrations as are most airport deicing product additives. Even when the identity of an additive is
available, it is sometimes known only by its trade name, and publicly available information for many such
chemicals is limited or nonexistent.
In addition, although EPA endeavored to obtain current information on product formulations, it is
possible given manufacturers' ongoing product development that some components listed in the literature
are no longer in use. It is also possible that some components listed in patents have never been used either
because a patented product has never been brought to market or because a final product incorporates only
some of a wide group of possible components listed in a patent.
Despite these limitations, the results of the literature review provide an indication of the types and
quantities of chemicals typically used in airport deicing product formulations.
2.1.1.1 Standard Composition of Aircraft Deicing Fluids and Aircraft Anti-icing Fluids
Four categories of aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluids (ADFs) are currently manufactured for the global
market: Type I, Type II, Type III, and Type IV. Of these four categories, Type I and Type IV are the two
categories commonly used at U.S. commercial airports.
ADFs are developed and manufactured to industry standards published in the U.S. by the Society for
Automotive Engineers (SAE). SAE Aerospace Material Specifications (AMS) 1424 and 1428 are adopted
on a voluntary basis by manufacturers and governments and include performance requirements for the
three types of ADFs used in the U.S. (Types I, II, and IV).1 The Association for European Airlines and
the International Standards Organization publish similar standards, which are adopted voluntarily by
manufacturers and governments in Europe and throughout the world, respectively. Table 2-1 compares
the characteristics and uses of the fluid categories.
Type III fluid is rarely used and intended only for small aircraft. AMS 1424 applies to SAE Type I fluids, and AMS 1428
applies to SAE Type II, III, and IV fluids (Boeing 2008).
July 2009 2-2
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Table 2-1: Comparison of Aircraft Deicing and Anti-Icing Fluid Characteristics by Type
Type I
Type II
Type IV
Function
Aircraft Deicing
Fluid
Aircraft Anti-icing
Fluid
Aircraft Anti-icing
Fluid
Characteristics
> Low viscosity
> Provides short-term protection because flows quickly off aircraft
surfaces after application
> Typically dyed orange to aid in identification and application of a
consistent layer on aircraft
> Typically heated (130° - 180° F) and applied as a high pressure spray
to remove snow, ice, and frost
> Contains a polymeric thickening agent to prevent immediate flow off
aircraft surfaces and provide protection until aircraft take-off
> Fluid remains in place until aircraft attains speed of approximately 100
knots, at which point fluid shears from aircraft
> Typically colorless
> Useful only for larger aircraft
> Use of Type II fluids is diminishing in favor of Type IV fluids
> Contains a polymeric thickening agent to prevent immediate flow off
aircraft surfaces and provide protection until aircraft take-off
> Fluid remains in place until aircraft attains a certain speed, at which
point fluid shears from aircraft
> Typically dyed green to aid in identification and application of a
consistent layer on aircraft
> Provides longer-term protection than Type II fluids
Sources: Corsi et al. (2007); Ritter (2001).
Freezing point depressants comprise the majority of ADFs. One study in the literature states that a
freezing point depressant, either ethylene glycol or propylene glycol, typically makes up 50% to 80% of
ADF product as applied (Johnson et al. 2001). The rest of the product consists of water and various
additives. These additives function as surfactants, corrosion inhibitors, thickeners, flame retardants, pH
modifiers, defoamers, dyes, antimicrobials, oils, chelators, and antioxidants.
Surfactants help ADFs spread evenly across aircraft surfaces by lowering fluid surface tension.
Thickeners are used in Type II, III, and IV fluids to increase fluid viscosity and allow them to maintain
their protective position on aircraft surfaces until take-off.
A single formulation does not necessarily contain a different chemical for each additive function. Some
formulations contain components that serve multiple functions. Other formulations need only contain a
subset of additives because of beneficial interactions among component chemicals.
Three main classes of additives have been identified in the literature as widely used by ADF
manufacturers: the corrosion inhibitors/ flame retardants benzotriazole (BT) and methyl-substituted
benzotriazole (MeBT) (Cornell 2001; Pillard et al. 2001), the surfactant alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEOs)
(Nieh 1992; Corsi et al. 2006), and the pH modifier triethanolamine (Boluk et al. 1999).
Less information is available on the proportions in which the various components are present in ADF
formulations. One study states that typical ADFs consist of 50% to 80% ethylene glycol or propylene
glycol and 20% to 50% water (Breedveld et al. 2002). A second study states that, in undiluted form, Type
I deicing fluids consist of 88% propylene glycol or ethylene glycol, 0.5% to 0.6% methyl-substituted
benzotriazole (MeBT) mixture, l%to 2% proprietary additives (corrosion inhibitors, buffer, and
surfactants), and water (Cornell 2001). A third study states that ADFs contain 0.5% to 0.6% MeBT and
that the commercial mixture of MeBT is 45% 4-MeBT and 55% 5-MeBT (Pillard et al. 2001).
July 2009
2-3
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
A number of patents exist for ADFs based on freezing point depressants other than ethylene glycol or
propylene glycol (e.g., pentaerythritol, glycerol, sorbitol, xylitol and other chemicals) (Simmons et al.
2007). According to responses to EPA's Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c), ADFs based on these
components are not used at major U.S. airports.
2.1.1.2 Standard Composition of Airfield Pa vement Deicers
Several basic types of pavement deicers are used at U.S. primary airports. These deicers include
formulations consisting primarily of potassium acetate, urea, sodium acetate, sodium formate, propylene
glycol, ethylene glycol, or a mixture of propylene or ethylene glycol and urea. These primary ingredients
serve as freezing point depressants.
Pavement deicers are more simply formulated than ADFs and consist primarily of the primary freezing
point depressant ingredient. Potassium acetate, sodium formate, and sodium acetate formulations are
known to contain corrosion inhibitors, as well (Switzenbaum et al. 1999; Shi 2008; USDOT 2007) though
the corrosions inhibitors' chemical identity is not known.
2.1.1.3 Detailed Listing of Potential Airport Deicing Product Components
Table 2-2 presents the chemicals for which EPA found some evidence of use in airport deicing product
formulations through its literature review. Many of the chemicals in the table below are presented and
discussed in Ferguson et al. 2008.
July 2009 2-4
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components
Source
Johnson etal. (2001)
Johnson etal. (2001)
Corsi et al. (2006)
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993)
Hu etal. (1998)
Hu etal. (1998)
Hu etal. (1998)
Boluk etal. (1999)
Moles et al. (2003)
Moles et al. (2003)
Moles et al. (2003)
Boluk et al. (1999); Hu et al. (1998);
Nieh(1992)
Boluk et al. (1999); Hu et al. (1998);
Moles et al. (2003); Nieh (1992)
Johnson et al. (2001) and Hu et al.
(1998)
Hu etal. (1998)
Hu etal. (1998)
Boluk etal. (1999)
Hu et al. (1998), Boluk et al. (1999);
MaandComeau(1990)
Coffey etal. (1995)
Chan etal. (1995)
Lockyerm etal. (1998)
Chan et al. (1995); Lockyerm et al.
(1998)
Chan et al. (1995); Lockyerm et al.
(1998)
Johnson etal. (2001)
Current
U
U
U
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
CASRN
1303-96-4
532-32-1
29878-31-7
-
110-65-6
107-19-7
62-56-6
-
7778-53-2
10006-28-7
13870-28-5
-
29385-43-1
7631-99-4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
95-14-7
Chemical Name
Borax
Sodium benzoate
4-methyl- IH-benzotrizole
Cobratec TT-50S, tolyltrizole solution
Butyne-l,4diol
Propargyl alcohol
Thiourea
Sandocorin 8132, sodium dodecylbenzene
sulfonate
Potassium phosphate
Potassium silicate
Sodium silicate
Benzyltriazole
Tolyltriazole
Sodium nitrate
AF-9020, polydimethylsiloxane
DC 1520, silicone antifoam
Foamban
Silicone antifoam 2
Eosin orange, tetrabromofluorescein
Malonyl green, C.I. Pigment Yellow 34
Shilling green
FD&C Blue #1, alphazurine
FD&C Yellow #5, tartrazine
Benzotriazoles
Characterization
Corrosion inhibitor
Corrosion inhibitor
Corrosion inhibitor
Corrosion inhibitor
Corrosion inhibitor
Corrosion inhibitor
Corrosion inhibitor
Corrosion inhibitor
Corrosion inhibitor
Corrosion inhibitor
Corrosion inhibitor
Corrosion inhibitor
Corrosion inhibitor
Corrosion inhibitor
Defoamer
Defoamer
Defoamer
Defoamer
Dye
Dye
Dye
Dye
Dye
Flame Retardant and Corrosion Inhibitor
July 2009
2-5
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components
Source
Corsi et al. (2006)
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993); Bloom
(1986); Boluk et al. (1999); Hu et al.
(1998); Konig-Lumer et al. (1982);
Nieh(1992)
Back etal. (1999)
Back etal. (1999)
Boluk etal. (1999)
Sapienza et al. (2003)
Sapienza (2003)
Sapienza (2003)
Sapienza (2003)
Lockyerrn et al. (1998); Westmark et
al. (2001)
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993); Boluk et
al. (1999); Nieh (1992)
Konig-Lumer et al. (1982); Lockyerrn
etal. (1998)
Boluk et al. (1999); Westmark et al.
(2001)
Back et al. (1999); Sapienza et al.
(2003)
Back et al. (1999); Simmons et al.
(2007)
Back et al. (1999); Boluk et al.
(1999); Westmark et al. (2001)
Back et al. (1999); Sapienza (2003);
Sapienza et al. (2003)
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993); Boluk et
al. (1999); Konig-Lumer et al. (1982);
Ma and Comeau (1990); Nieh (1992)
Corsi et al. (2006)
Current
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
CASRN
136-85-6
57-55-6
608-66-2
115-77-5
25322-68-3
97-64-3
147-85-3
72-17-3
54571-67-4
107-88-0
25265-71-8
504-63-2
112-27-6
69-65-8
149-32-6
56-81-5
50-70-4
111-46-6
57-55-6
Chemical Name
5-Methyl-lH-Benzotriazole
1,2-Propylene glycol
Dulcitol
Pentaerythritol
Polyethylene gylcol, mw from 62 to 106
Ethyl lactate
Pro line
Sodium lactate
Sodium pyrrolidone carboxylate
1,3-Butanediol
Dipropylene glycol
1,3-Propylene glycol
Triethylene glycol
Mannitol
Erythritol
Glycerol
Sorbitol
Diethylene glycol
Propylene glycol
Characterization
Flame Retardant and Corrosion Inhibitor
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
July 2009
2-6
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components
Source
Corsi et al. (2006)
Comfort (2000)
US EPA (2000a)
Comfort (2000)
Comfort (2000)
US EPA (2000a)
Hu et al. (1998); Konig-Lumer et al.
(1982)
MaandComeau(1990)
MaandComeau(1990)
Lockyerm et al. (1998)
Nieh (1992)
Huetal. (1998)
Boluketal. (1999)
Boluketal. (1999)
Boluketal. (1999)
US EPA (2000a)
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993); Boluk et
al. (1999); Huetal. (1998)
Haslim (2004)
Corsi et al. (2003)
Konig-Lumer et al. (1982)
Bloom (1986)
Bloom (1986)
Bloom (1986)
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993)
Boluketal. (1999)
Boluketal. (1999)
Current
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
CASRN
107-21-1
127-08-2
590-29-4
127-09-3
(anhydrous)
141-53-7
57-13-6
-
-
-
112-53-8
7558-79-4
7758-11-4
111-42-2
141-43-5
102-71-6
1310-58-3
1310-73-2
112-53-8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chemical Name
Ethylene glycol
Potassium Acetate
Potassium Formate
Sodium Acetate
Sodium Formate
Urea
Mineral oil
Dimethyl polysiloxane
White mineral oil (10 cSt)
1-dodecanol
Disodium phosphate
Dipotassium phosphate
Diethanolamine
Monoethanolamine
Triethanolamine
Potassium hydroxide
Sodium hydroxide
Dodecanol 4
Alcohol ethoxylates
Sodium alkylbenzenesulfonate
Oleic acid diamine
Oleyl propylene diamine
Palmitic acid diamine
Aliphatic alcohol ethoxylates
Siponate A-2466, sodium dodecylbenzene
Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate 3
Characterization
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing point depressant
Freezing pont depressant
Oil used as hydrophobic agent
Oil used as hydrophobic agent
Oil used as hydrophobic agent
Oil used as hydrophobic agent
pH Modifier
pH Modifier
pH Modifier
pH Modifier
pH Modifier
pH Modifier
pH Modifier
Surfactant/Defoaming agent
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
July 2009
2-7
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components
Source
Boluketal. (1999)
Westmarketal. (2001)
Westmarketal. (2001)
Corsi et al. (2003)
Corsi et al. (2003)
Corsi et al. (2003)
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993); Nieh
(1992)
Nieh (1992)
Nieh (1992)
Corsi et al. (2007)
Tyeetal. (1987)
Tyeetal. (1987)
MaandComeau(1990)
Westmarketal. (2001)
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993); Nieh
(1992)
Konig-Lumer et al. (1982); Nieh
(1992)
Lockyerm et al. (1998); Ma and
Comeau (1990); Westmark et al.
(2001)
Johnson etal. (2001)
Johnson etal. (2001)
Johnson etal. (2001)
Johnson etal. (2001)
Johnson etal. (2001)
US EPA (2000a)
US EPA (2000a)
Current
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
Y
Y
CASRN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9062-07-1
-
9004-62-0
-
-
-
-
123-91-1
75-07-0
75-21-8
-
37306-44-8
117-81-7
84-74-2
Chemical Name
Tergitol TMN-10, branched secondary
alcohol ethoxylate
Emerest 2660 (OEG-12 oleate)
Emsorb 6900 (PEG-20 sorbitan oleate)
Decyl alcohol ethoxylate
Lauryl alcohol ethoxylate
Lauryl alcohol phosophoric acid-ester
ethoxylate
Ethylene oxide / propylene oxide block
copolymers
Nonylphenol ethoxylate
Octylphenol ethoxylate
Alkylphenol ethoxylates
lota-carrageenan
Kappa-carrageenan
Hydroxyethylcellulose
Welan gum
Polyacrylic acid1
Cross-linked polyacrylic acid
Xanthan gum
Dioxane 5
Acetaldehyde
Ethylene oxide
Polyamines
Triazoles
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Characterization
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Thickening Agent
Thickening Agent
Thickening Agent
Thickening Agent
Thickening Agent
Thickening Agent
Thickening Agent
July 2009
2-8
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components
Source
US EPA (2000a)
US EPA (2000a)
US EPA (2000a)
US EPA (2000a)
Corsi et al. (2006)
Corsi et al. (2006)
Current
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
CASRN
100-41-4
-
112-40-3
108-88-3
25154-52-3
-
Chemical Name
Ethylbenzene
M- + P-Xylene
N-Dodecane
Toluene
Nonylphenol
Octylphenol
Characterization
1. Carbopol polyacrylic acid 1610, 1621, 1622, 672, and 934 were listed in the literature.
2. Silicone antifoam was listed in the literature as SAG 7133, SAG 1000, and Siltech E-2202.
3. Siponate DS and Siponate DDB-40 sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate were listed in the literature.
4. CASRN for this chemical is provided as that of 1-dodecanol.
5. CASRN for this chemical is provided as that of 1,4-Dioxane.
U = Unknown if chemical is currently used in deicing formulas.
Y = Chemical identified as currently used in deicing formulas as of the date of reference publication.
Of the 111 identified ingredients, 61 (55%) were identified in sources that were published in 2000 or later.
July 2009
2-9
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
2.2 Environmental Behaviors of Airport Deicing Product Components
This section provides an overview of the characteristics of many of the potential airport deicing product
components identified in Table 2-2. EPA's review focused on characteristics that influence a component's
potential to disperse in and impact the environment. The ultimate behavior of ADFs and pavement deicers
in the environment is a function of both chemical-specific factors and airport-specific hydrological,
geochemical, biological, and climatic factors. This chapter presents chemical-specific information which
is then considered in environmental context in Chapter 3.
It is important to note that the individual components of ADFs and pavement deicers have varying fate
and transport properties that cause deicing products to disaggregate into their individual components once
they enter the natural environment. Fresh and concentrated wastestreams located closer to the point of
ADF and pavement deicer application are more likely to reflect original product properties. Older and
more dilute wastestreams further from the site of application have characteristics determined by the
presence or absence of individual pollutants and the transformation and transport processes they have
undergone. For this reason, it is important to consider the nature of individual product components in
addition to the nature of the original product.
The Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE) sets technical standards for aircraft deicing and anti-icing
and fluids (ADFs). At this time, SAE requirements addressing ADF environmental impacts are limited.
SAE AMS 1424 requires Type I fluids entering the market after August 2002 to have a mammalian
toxicity (LC50) greater than 5,000 mg/L and a fluid aquatic toxicity (LC50 for several different aquatic
organism species) greater than 4,000 mg/L (SAE 2007). Research has shown that even at levels less than
4,000 mg/L, sub-lethal toxic effects will be exerted on aquatic organisms (Corsi et al. 2006). In addition,
the toxicity standard does not apply to Type IV fluids, the more toxic of the two commonly used ADFs
(Corsi et al. 2006). SAE also provides no guidance for ADF BOD or COD content. SAE has considered
setting toxicity standards for additional fluids (US EPA 2000a) as well as a more stringent toxicity
requirement for Type I fluids.
Appendix A contains tables that summarize information on the physiochemical properties of many known
and potential ADF and pavement deicer components and their potential decay products as cited in Table
2-2. Except where otherwise noted, all of the information in the tables is from the U.S. National Library
of Medicine's Hazardous Substances Databank and ChemFinder databases, which compile data from a
wide variety of sources. In some cases, the sub-citations within these databases are incomplete or not
supplied and therefore cannot be reported here. Other information sources include deicing and chemical-
specific literature, as cited in the tables. For some physiochemical properties, information either does not
exist or was not attainable from these sources; therefore a number of table entries are blank.
EPA collected information on components present in airport deicing products regardless of whether they
were present in large and small proportions. Although some components (such as many deicing product
additives) constitute a relatively small proportion of ADFs and pavement deicers, their properties may be
such that they contribute disproportionately to toxic or other harmful effects to the environment
associated with airport deicing discharges.
Components are organized in functional groups in Table A-2 through Table A-39. For example, Table A-2
contains information for chelators, Table A-3 contains information for sugar-based freezing point
depressants, and Table A-4 contains information for acetate-based freezing point depressants, etc. A
number of the substances within a table share similar properties. Other substances may have very
different or unknown properties. These attributes are noted in each table. Table A-40 presents available
July 2009 2-10
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
information on ecological toxicity values associated with potential components. Table A-41 presents
information on human health effects associated with potential components.
Characteristics of 12 of the 99 potential ADF and pavement deicer components are presented in greater
detail in Section 2.2 and in Table A-42 through Table A-53 in Appendix A. These 12 components or
component groups were chosen for a more detailed analysis for one or more of the following reasons: the
component is a well-known ingredient in airport deicing products; the component is released to the
environment in significant quantities; or the component has environmental impact potential.
2.2.1 Environmental Behaviors
EPA collected information on a wide variety of individual chemical environmental behaviors of potential
interest in the context of discharges from airport deicing activities. Information was collected on traits of
interest for assessing a chemical's ability to disperse in the environment, its potential to impacts aquatic
ecosystems and organisms, and its potential to impact human health and aquatic resource uses such as
drinking water supply, recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment.
Chemical-specific factors such as water solubility, affinity for solid surfaces and organic matter,
volatility, degradation rates and products, and microbial acclimation needs influence environmental fate
and transport of ADF and pavement deicer components. Some components have traits that elevate their
potential for environmental impact in the aquatic environment.
Chemical-specific factors alone do not determine potential for environmental impact. Hydrological,
geochemical, biological, and climatic factors all influence fate and transport of ADFs and pavement
deicers in the environment. Specific factors can include flow volumes and patterns in receiving waters,
water and soil/aquifer chemistry, microbial community characteristics, aquatic biological community
composition, amount and intensity of sunlight, quantity and type of precipitation, and air temperature
range and seasonal distribution.
Individual component traits must therefore be considered in concert with information about discharge
quantities and the nature of the receiving environment in order to fully assess potential for environmental
impact. The summary below presents the information EPA was able to gather on individual chemical
traits. Chapter 3 discusses these traits in the context of the discharge environment.
2.2.1.1 Fate and Transport Beha viors
After application of ADFs to aircraft or pavement deicers to airfield pavement, environmental fate and
transport of the chemicals in these products depends on both physical processes and chemical-specific
behaviors.
Airport deicing product components enter the aquatic environment through a variety of physical
pathways. Most deicing chemicals discharge to the aquatic environment through stormwater discharge to
surface waters. A certain quantity of chemicals enters surface waters through groundwater discharge or
aerial deposition. Some deicing wastewaters undergo treatment but can retain certain components
unaffected by treatment. These components can enter the aquatic environment when treated wastewaters
are discharged to surface waters. Once in surface water, components may travel to downstream surface
waters.
Airport deicing product components can also percolate into soil horizons. The components can
accumulate, degrade, or move into groundwater. Components in groundwater can accumulate, degrade, or
travel with groundwater flow.
July 2009 2-11
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
During the physical transport of individual components, chemical-specific processes are underway, as
well. To help assess environmental fate, transport, and impact potential from ADF and pavement deicer
components on aquatic ecosystems and organisms, EPA gathered information on three characteristics:
> Volatilization
> Adsorption
> Biodegradation
These traits are described in further detail below.
Volatilization
Volatilization is a process whereby chemicals dissolved in water escape into the air. Chemicals with
higher volatilization potential are typically of less concern to aquatic receptors because they tend to enter
the atmosphere before discharge to surface waters or to be removed quickly from the water column. Some
volatile pollutants can be a concern to human health, however, if inhaled.
EPA used the air/water partitioning coefficient H to estimate a chemical's volatilization potential. H
represents the ratio of a chemical's aqueous phase concentration to its equilibrium partial pressure in the
gas phase (at 25 degrees Celsius). Units are typically expressed as atm.m3/mole.
Volatilization data for individual deicing product components is summarized in Table A-2 through Table
A-40 in Appendix A.
Adsorption
Adsorption is a process whereby chemicals associate preferentially with organic carbon found in soils and
sediments. Highly adsorptive compounds tend to accumulate in sediments. In aquatic ecosystems, such
chemicals are more likely to be taken up by benthic invertebrates and to affect local food chains. Both
accumulation in sediment and local food chain impacts make these chemicals more likely to affect
predator organisms higher on the food chain, including human beings.
EPA gathered information on the adsorption coefficient (Koc) to assess the potential of organic ADF and
pavement deicer components to associate with sediment organic carbon. Koc represents the ratio of the
target chemical adsorbed per unit weight of organic carbon in the soil or sediment to the concentration of
that same chemical in solution at equilibrium.
Metals in the aquatic environment typically concentrate in the sediment phase but do not bind to organic
carbon (except nickel). EPA assumes that all metals show a high affinity for sediments independent of
their negligible Koc values.
Adsorption data for individual deicing product components is summarized in Table A-2 through Table
A-40 in Appendix A.
Biodegradation
Biodegradation is a process whereby organic molecules are broken down by microbial metabolism.
Biodegradation represents an important removal process in aquatic ecosystems. Compounds that are
readily biodegraded generally represent lower intrinsic toxicity and accumulation hazards because they
can be eliminated more rapidly from ecosystems. These compounds are therefore less likely to create
long-term toxicity problems or to accumulate in sediments and organisms. Chemicals that biodegrade
slowly or not at all can accumulate and linger for longer periods of time in sediments, and represent a
greater hazard to aquatic receptors.
July 2009 2-12
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
EPA gathered information on biodegradation half-life to estimate the potential for an organic chemical to
biodegrade in the aquatic environment. Biodegradation half-life represents the number of days a
compound takes to be degraded to half of its starting concentration under prescribed laboratory
conditions.
Biodegradation data for individual deicing product components is summarized in Table A-2 through
Table A-40 in Appendix A.
2.2.1.2 A quatic Organism and Community Impact Beha viors
Aquatic organisms and communities are exposed to airport deicing product components when they enter
surface waters. EPA gathered information on three chemical-specific behaviors relevant to examining
airport deicing product components' potential to directly impact aquatic organisms and communities:
> Aquatic Toxicity
> Bioconcentration Factors
> Chemical and Biological Oxygen Demand
These traits are described in further detail below.
Aquatic Toxicity
EPA gathered information on both acute and chronic aquatic toxicity. Acute toxicity assessments show
the impact of a pollutant after a relatively short exposure duration, typically 48 and 96 hours for
invertebrates and fish, respectively. The primary endpoint of concern is mortality, reported as the LC50.
The LC50 represents the concentration lethal to 50% of test organisms for the given duration of the
exposure.
Chronic toxicity assessments indicate the impact of a pollutant after a longer-duration exposure, typically
from one week to several months. The endpoints of concern are one or more sub-lethal responses, such as
changes in reproduction or growth of the affected organisms. The results are reported in various ways,
including EC5, ECio, or EC50 (i.e., the concentrations at which 5%, 10%, or 50% of test organisms show a
significant sub-lethal response), NOEC (No Observed Effect Concentration), LOEC (Lowest Observed
Effect Concentration), or MATC (Maximum Allowable Toxicant Concentration). MATC is defined as the
highest level of a chemical acceptable in a water supply above which a specific effect occurs.
The summary also contains information on National Recommended Water Quality Criteria set by EPA to
protect aquatic organisms from acute and toxic effects. Acute and chronic aquatic toxicity data for several
ADF and pavement deicer components are summarized in Table A-40 in Appendix A.
Bioconcentration Factors
The bioconcentration factor (BCF) is a good indicator of the potential for a chemical dissolved in the
water column to be absorbed by aquatic biota across external surface membranes such as gills. The BCF
is expressed in units of liters per kilogram and is defined as follows:
BCF = equilibrium chemical concentration in target organism (mg/kg. wet weight)
mean chemical concentration in surrounding water (ug/L)
EPA examined BCF values because they can indicate chemicals with the ability to bioconcentrate in
aquatic organisms and transfer up the food chain if they are not metabolized and excreted. Pollutant
transfer up the food change can result in significant levels of pollutant exposure for predator organisms
(including human beings) consuming contaminated fish, shellfish, or other aquatic organisms.
July 2009 2-13
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
The bioaccumulation factor (BAF) is a better measure than the BCF of the potential for a chemical
dissolved in the water column to be taken up by aquatic biota because it accounts for vertical
accumulation of the chemical in the food chain, whereas the BCF does not. For this reason, BCFs
underestimate risk to aquatic organisms. Because field-measured BAFs are not readily available for many
chemicals, EPA instead collected BCFs for deicing product components. This information is summarized
in Table A-2 through Table A-40 in Appendix A.
Chemical and Biological Oxygen Demand
Oxygen demand, or the oxygen consumed by a substance when decaying in water, is reported as either
biochemical or biological oxygen demand (BOD), carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD),
or chemical oxygen demand (COD). BOD is a measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by the
biological processes that break down organic matter in water. The greater the BOD level, the greater the
degree of pollution (US EPA 2008f). CBOD is a test method that departs from customary methods for
determining BOD in its use of a chemical inhibitor to block nitrification, thus preventing the nitrogenous,
or second stage, BOD from being consumed. COD is a measure of the oxygen-consuming capacity of
inorganic and organic matter present in water. COD is expressed as the amount of oxygen consumed in
milligrams per liter (mg/1). Results do not necessarily correlate to BOD results because the chemical
oxidant in the COD test may react with substances that bacteria do not metabolize (US EPA 2008f).
EPA has developed aquatic life NRWQC for ambient DO that take into account life stages and
temperature preferences of different types offish. The 7-day mean DO concentration for early life stages
is 9.5 mg/1 for cold water fish and 6.0 mg/1 for warm water fish. The 7-day mean minimum DO for older
life stages is 5.0 mg/1 for cold water fish and 4.0 mg/1 for warm water fish (US EPA 1986). Low dissolved
oxygen levels are the reason for the listing of 5,401 miles of impaired waters in the United States or about
13% of total impaired miles (US EPA 2008b).
A well-known example of ecological alteration due to high BOD levels is the anoxia that is an annual
occurrence throughout the Chesapeake Bay. For several months every year, large areas of the bay are
unfit for fish or shellfish (US EPA 1998b). A past example of BOD impact was the Delaware River in the
vicinity of Philadelphia and Camden. Every summer for many years, this area experienced severe DO
"blocks" due to excessive BOD input from point sources. The anoxic conditions prevented several
anadromous fish species (e.g., Atlantic menhaden and shad) from migrating upstream to spawn. Since the
early 1980s, however, conditions have improved to the point that these species are once again able to
swim upstream in large numbers to reproduce (Delaware Estuary Program 1996).
2.2.1.3 Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Impact Behaviors
Human beings can be exposed to airport deicing product components through several aquatic resource
pathways. Exposure occurs when a pollutant comes into contact with the human envelope—the lungs,
gastrointestinal tract, or skin—resulting in inhalation, ingestion, or dermal absorption. Human beings also
experience aesthetic impacts through sight, smell, and taste of aquatic resources affected by airport
deicing discharges.
Human beings come into contact with surface waters during recreational activities such as fishing, nature
observation, boating, and swimming. Exposure can involve skin contact, fish consumption, or inhalation
of volatile chemicals. People who live in communities near surface waters containing airport deicing
discharges can also inhale chemicals that volatilize from surface waters.
Drinking water is an additional exposure pathway. Many drinking water supply systems draw water from
surface water sources. If a drinking water treatment process does not remove airport deicing product
July 2009 2-14
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
components from source water, human beings can be exposed to them through water ingestion or dermal
exposure and inhalation during bathing. Airport deicing product components can also enter groundwater
and be drawn into industrial, commercial, municipal, and residential wells. Some groundwater undergoes
treatment before use and some is used without treatment, particularly groundwater from residential wells.
To help assess the potential for impacts to human health and aquatic resource use from ADF and
pavement deicer components, EPA gathered available information on component toxicity, carcinogenic
potential, and aesthetic impact potential. These traits are described in further detail below.
The assessment of human health risk from a pollutant has four traditional steps:
1. Hazard Identification
2. Exposure Assessment
3. Dose-Response Analysis
4. Risk Characterization.
The amount of chemical human beings are exposed to through ingestion, inhalation, or dermal absorption
is an important variable contributing to risk associated with that chemical. A dose-response function is
used to fully characterize human health risk from a given chemical. This section summarizes information
available on chemical-specific characteristics. Chapter 3 summarizes information available on the
quantities of deicing chemicals airports discharge to the environment, the manner in which they disperse,
and the potential for human exposure.
Human Toxicity
EPA examined human health toxicity data both for outcomes resulting in cancer and for outcomes other
than cancer (e.g., increased liver weight or respiratory effects). EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) and other toxicity databases separate outcomes into these two types. The reasoning for this
delineation is the assumption that there is no safe level of exposure to cancer-causing chemicals. Even a
small exposure increases cancer risk to a certain extent. For chemicals that result in health effects other
than cancer, there is thought to be a threshold level below which exposure is "safe."
Some chemicals are toxic at low doses. Other chemicals must be present at high levels to create a toxic
effect. Some chemicals display hormesis and are beneficial at low doses, yet toxic at higher doses.
Information on chemical toxicity is available in the toxicological and epidemiological literature. The
discipline of toxicology utilizes laboratory studies on animals (in vivo) or cells (in vitro). Epidemiological
studies examine human health outcomes in relation to chemical exposures on a day-to-day basis (time
series studies) or over many years (cohort studies). Data on personal exposures to a chemical integrated
over the population of interest and combined with chemical toxicity information are used to estimate
human health risk from a chemical. Unfortunately, the toxicity of many chemicals either has not been
studied or is not well understood.
EPA located toxicity information for 12 chemicals and chemical categories listed as potential ADF and
pavement deicer components. EPA reviewed the following information sources for this data:
July 2009 2-15
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
> Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
> Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators Model (RSEI)
> National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC)
> Maximum Contaminant Levels for Drinking Water (MCLs)
> Peer-reviewed journal articles and government reports
Table A-41 in Appendix A summarizes the results for all 12 chemicals and chemical categories for which
EPA was able to locate information.
Cancer Outcomes
EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) use weight of evidence (WOE)
classifications to qualitatively define carcinogens based on available data. The EPA defines six WOE
guidelines, described below. IARC uses a similar scheme.
Category Weight-of-Evidence:
> A. Sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies to support a causal relationship between
exposure to the agent and cancer.
> Bl. Limited evidence from epidemiological studies and sufficient animal data.
> B2. Sufficient evidence from animal studies but inadequate or no evidence or no data from
epidemiological studies.
> C. Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and an absence of evidence or data in humans.
> D. Inadequate human and animal evidence for carcinogenicity, or no data.
> E. No evidence for carcinogenicity in at least two adequate animal tests in different species or in
both adequate epidemiological and animal studies, coupled with no evidence or data in
epidemiological studies.
For chemicals with a sufficient WOE, quantitative measures have been set. Since there is thought to be no
safe level of exposure for carcinogens, many databases report slope factors or unit risks for carcinogens.
There may be an oral slope factor (corresponding to ingesting a chemical in food), a drinking water unit
risk (corresponding to ingesting a chemical in drinking water), and an inhalation unit risk (corresponding
to inhaling a chemical from the air).
IRIS notes that the Oral Slope Factor represents the upper-bound (approximating a 95% confidence limit)
estimate of the slope of the dose-response curve in the low-dose region for carcinogens. The units of the
slope factor are usually expressed as the inverse of milligrams per kilogram-day (mg/kg-day)"1. The
Inhalation Unit Risk is defined as the upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from
continuous exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1 gram per cubic meter (g/m3) in air.
A number of assumptions are used to develop these values. For example, a person is assumed to weigh 70
kilograms, drink 2 liters of water per day, and breathe air at a rate of 20 cubic meters per day continuously
for 70 years. Other assumptions are made in regard to animal-to-human extrapolation as most
toxicological studies are performed on animals rather than humans. Assumptions are also made about
low-dose extrapolations since study animals are generally exposed to much higher levels of pollutants
than humans are expected to encounter.
July 2009 2-16
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
Non-cancer Outcomes
For compounds resulting in health effects other than cancer, safe exposure thresholds are deemed to exist.
IRIS has developed both reference doses (RfDs) and reference concentrations (RfCs), corresponding to
ingestion and inhalation exposures.
IRIS states: ".. .the RfDs and RfCs are estimates (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude) of daily exposure [RfD], or continuous inhalation exposure [RfC], to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer
effects during a lifetime."
Because most toxicological studies are conducted on animals, animal-to-human and low-dose
extrapolation assumptions are also a factor in determining RfCs and RfDs. Generally, a point of departure
from a toxicological study is selected and divided by uncertainty factors to account for these issues. Care
must be taken when comparing RfD or RfC values from IRIS to other reference levels, because other
reference sources may not use the same uncertainty factors or may use none at all.
Water Quality Guidelines
EPA also examined two types of water quality standards for this analysis. National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria (NRWQC), set by EPA, aim to protect the health of human beings who consume water
and aquatic organisms or solely aquatic organisms from contaminated aquatic habitats. The criteria,
expressed in micrograms per liter (ug/L), represent surface water pollutant concentrations that are likely
to cause adverse health effects in human beings if exceeded.
EPA also examined human health-based drinking water criteria. These criteria are usually presented as
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and are also developed by EPA. MCLs for non-carcinogens
represent chemical-specific concentrations (expressed in ug/L) below which adverse health effects are not
expected in exposed populations. MCLs for carcinogens represent chemical-specific concentrations
(expressed in ug/L) that generally are expected to result in less than one additional cancer case per million
lifetime exposures if the level is not exceeded in drinking water supplies.
Aesthetic Impacts
Human beings experience aesthetic impacts to aquatic resources in a variety of ways including impacts to
water's visual appearance or its smell or taste. These impacts can affect human use or enjoyment of
affected water and surrounding areas.
Objectionable tastes, odors, colors, and foaming have been reported in surface waters containing airport
deicing operation discharges. These effects are generated in at least two ways. First, certain deicing
product components are inherently likely to cause these effects. For example, dyes can directly add color
to water. Airport deicer components and their breakdown products (e.g., urea, ammonia, ethylene glycol,
propylene glycol, polymers of acrylic acid, and ethanolamines, have characteristic and potentially
unpleasant odors. Glycols have a distinctive sweet odor. Solvents such as ethylbenzene, toluene, and
xylenes can also add objectionable odors to water and their volatility lowers the detection threshold of
those odors. Information on taste is not as readily available as information for odor, but glycols are known
to have a somewhat sweet flavor and many surfactants taste bitter. The causes of foaming are not clear.
The second route by which ADFs and pavement deicers can cause adverse aesthetic impacts is through
die-off of aquatic biota. Fish, macrophytes, and invertebrates can die when dissolved oxygen levels fall in
or toxic substances enter surface water. Algae and heterotrophic microorganisms inhabiting the water
column can die, as can the epilithon, the biotic layer covering the substrate of a stream or lake. This dead
biomass can decay aerobically if the water recovers sufficient oxygen, or anaerobically in a process
July 2009 2-17
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
known as putrefaction, which generates particularly foul odors. This decomposition process also releases
proteins, polysaccharides, and other organic compounds which can provide building blocks for the
generation of persistent foams in water. Under the resulting anoxic conditions, the reduction of iron and
manganese ions to more soluble species can impart color to water (Zitomer 2001).
2.2.2 Detailed Airport Deicing Product Component Profiles
This section summarizes available information on 12 ADF and pavement deicer components or
component groups. These components were chosen for a more detailed analysis for one or more of the
following reasons: the component is a well-known ingredient in airport deicing products; the component
is released to the environment in significant quantities by airport deicing operations; or the component has
environmental impact potential. Additional information on these components is summarized in Table
A-42 through Table A-53 in Appendix A.
2.2.2.1 Acetate
Sodium acetate and potassium acetate are used as freezing point depressants in airfield pavement deicers
and are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. The dissolution of these chemicals after
application releases acetate (C2H3O2) into the environment in its ionic form. Acetate can impact aquatic
environments through consumption of dissolved oxygen during degradation. This section and Table A-42
of Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human
effects of acetate.
Fate and Transport
Acetate is not expected to volatilize (US NLM 2008).
Acetate ions are soluble in water (US NLM 2008). The solubility of acetate from particular compounds,
for example sodium acetate, depends on the solubility of those compounds. Sodium acetate has a
solubility of 1,190 grams per liter at 0° C (US NLM 2008).
The degree to which acetate ions adsorb or complex with soil or water constituents or remain dissolved in
surface water or groundwater depends on site-specific factors. The rate of transport of acetate through soil
will depend on a combination of the degradation rate and interactions with soils/sediments. Therefore,
transport rates will be site-specific (US NLM 2008).
Acetate is rapidly biodegraded under aerobic conditions in surface water, groundwater, and soil (US NLM
2008). Acetate is also anaerobically biodegradable (US NLM 2008). Acetate in soil, derived from calcium
magnesium acetate, was completely degraded within three to six days (D'ltri 1992). Since aerobic
degradation is rapid, acetate plumes are rare, except possibly in anaerobic groundwater (Maest 2008).
Formate can slow the breakdown of acetate in anaerobic environments (US NLM 2008). Acetate
degradation produces bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, and water (D'ltri 1992).
Acetate has a moderately high BOD falling between the BODs of urea and formate. Acetate's BOD and
COD are lower than those of propylene and ethylene glycol. One formulated pavement deicer product
consisting primarily of sodium acetate is reported to have a BOD5 of 0.58 g O2/g product (Fyve Star, Inc.
2008).
Ecological Effects
Acetate anions decay through a process that consumes dissolved oxygen present in surface waters and
groundwater. Chemicals that exert oxygen demand during the degradation process reduce the level of
dissolved oxygen available for aquatic organisms, which require a certain level of dissolved oxygen to
July 2009 2-18
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
function and survive. For additional information on the impacts of oxygen demand, see Sections 2.2.1.2,
2.2.2.1, and 2.2.2.2.
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
EPA's literature search did not locate conclusive reports on the human health effects of acetate. Acetate
may contribute to aesthetic impacts, however. Acetate decomposition consumes dissolved oxygen in
surface waters. Low dissolved oxygen levels in surface waters can cause unpleasant odors and
discoloration of water.
2.2.2.2 Alcohol Ethoxylates
Alcohol ethoxylates (CH3(CH2)n(OCH2 CH2)yOH) are a major class of non-ionic surfactants that are
widely used in a variety of consumer and industrial products, including laundry detergents (HERA 2007).
Their use in ADFs as a surfactant additive has been documented in the literature. Their use may, in part,
be in response to concerns about potential environmental impacts associated with the use of nonylphenol
ethoxylate surfactants. Surfactants typically compose less than 2% of ADFs by volume. This profile and
Table A-41 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and
human effects of alcohol ethoxylates.
Fate and Transport
Alcohol ethoxylates are a class of nonionic surfactants possessing alkyl chains with 12 to 18 carbons and
ethoxylates with 0 to 18 units (Belanger et al. 2006).
Sorption to organic carbon and solids in the water column and subsequent burial in sediments is an
important removal process in aquatic systems. Rates of sorption vary by ethoxymer and increase with
increasing number of ethoxylate units and attendant hydrophobicity (Belanger et al. 2006). In soil,
sorption to solids and organic carbon is a significant partitioning process (Belanger et al. 2006), and can
reduce the chemical's rate of migration through the soil. Rates of sorption vary by ethoxymer, and
increase with increasing hydrophobicity (Belanger et al. 2006).
Anaerobic breakdown has been documented in laboratory experiments simulating wastewater treatment
(Belanger et al. 2006). Aerobic degradation also occurs. Rates of biodegradation vary by compound, but
extremely rapid biodegradation is expected for all ethoxymers (Belanger et al. 2006). Rapid degradation
was observed in natural estuarine waters with an alkyl half-life of 2.1 days and an ethoxy half-life of 6.3
days under environmental conditions (temperature unknown) (Vashon 1982). Linear and monobranched
alcohol ethoxylates were completely biodegraded within 20 days and approximately 5% of the initial
amount of multibranched alcohol ethoxylates remained after 30 days (Marcomini et al. 2000, as cited in
Environment Canada 2002a).
Alcohols and fatty alcohols are alcohol ethoxylates' primary degradation products (Belanger et al. 2006).
Anaerobic degradation also produces methane. The degradation intermediates of alcohol ethoxylates are
less toxic than the parent compounds, and polyethylene glycol is the primary intermediate product
(Environment Canada 2002a). Aerobic degradation occurs by stepwise removal of ethylene oxide units,
and simultaneous degradation of the alkyl chain can also occur, proceeding to complete degradation into
carbon dioxide and water (Environment Canada 2002). However, the following intermediate products are
also expected, depending on the form of the parent compound (Environment Canada 2002):
> Parent Compound: Linear alcohol ethoxylates
Intermediate Compounds: Linear fatty alcohol, carboxylic fatty acid, polyethylene glycol,
monocarboxylated polyethylene glycol, and dicarboxylated polyethylene glycol.
July 2009 2-19
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
> Parent Compound: Monobranched alcohol ethoxylates
Intermediate Compounds: Carboxylated alcohol ethoxylates with a carboxylic group on the
alcohol chain, monocarboxylated polyethylene glycol, dicarboxylated polyethylene glycol,
carboxylated alcohol ethoxylates with a carboxylic group on the polyethoxylic chain, and
carboxylic fatty acid.
> Parent Compound: Multibranched alcohol ethoxylates
Intermediate Compounds: Carboxylated alcohol ethoxylates with a carboxylic group on the
polyethoxylic chain and carboxylic fatty acid.
Alcohol ethoxylates can also increase the mobility of other substances through soil and groundwater
because of their physical properties as nonionic surfactants (Krogh et al. 2003).
Ecological Effects
Available information suggests that alcohol ethoxylates can have acute and chronic toxic effects on
aquatic organisms. These effects vary by carbon chain length. Typical alcohol ethoxylate surfactant chain
length ranges from 9 to 18 carbons and 3 to 8 ethoxylate groups. Toxicity generally declines as the
number of ethoxylates increases (Campbell 2002).
A summary of chronic toxicity data from 60 studies conducted between 1977 and 2004 on fish, aquatic
invertebrates, and aquatic plant and algae species states that alcohol ethoxylates' effects on aquatic
species include reduced growth rates, impaired reproduction, and reduced survival of neonates, as well as
acute mortality. Alcohol ethoxylates may cause diminished growth rates and reduced cell counts in algae
species at concentrations as low as 0.03 mg/L (Belanger et al. 2006).
The concentrations at which alcohol ethoxylates lead to acute mortality in aquatic species are similar to
the concentrations at which nonylphenol ethoxylates lead to acute mortality. However, alcohol
ethoxylates degrade more quickly in the aquatic environment to relatively non-toxic compounds, whereas
nonylphenol ethoxylate degradation typically yields nonylphenol, which is toxic as well as persistent in
the aquatic environment.
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
Human beings have regular contact with alcohol ethoxylates through a variety of industrial and consumer
products such as soaps, detergents, and other cleaning products (US EPA 2000b). Exposure to these
chemicals can occur through ingestion, inhalation, or contact with the skin or eyes. Studies of acute
toxicity show that volumes well above a reasonable intake level would have to occur to produce any toxic
response. Moreover, no fatal case of poisoning with alcohol ethoxylates has ever been reported. Multiple
studies investigating the acute toxicity of alcohol ethoxylates have shown that the use of these compounds
is of low concern in terms of oral and dermal toxicity (HERA 2007).
Clinical animal studies indicate these chemicals may produce gastrointestinal irritation such as ulcerations
of the stomach, pilo-erection, diarrhea, and lethargy. Similarly, slight to severe irritation of the skin or eye
was generated when undiluted alcohol ethoxylates were applied to the skin and eyes of rabbits and rats.
The chemical shows no indication of being a genotoxin, carcinogen, or mutagen (HERA 2007). No
information was available on levels at which these effects might occur, though toxicity is thought to be
substantially lower than that of nonylphenol ethoxylates. Concentrations of alcohol ethoxylates in aquatic
resources affected by airport deicing discharges are expected to be fairly low.
July 2009 2-20
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
2.2.2.3 Dyes
Manufacturers add dye to ADFs to help ADF users track their presence on aircraft and airfield surfaces
and to help them to distinguish Type I from Type IV fluids. Numerous dyes are found in ADFs, including
alphazurine, tetrabromofluorescein, tartrazine, malonyl green, and shilling green dyes. Because of the
proprietary nature of ADF formulations, the identity of all ADF dyes in use is not known. Type I ADFs
are typically orange, and Type IV ADFs are typically green. Dyes and other ADF additives typically
compose less than 2% of ADF volume. While some ADF dyes have been found to be safe for human
consumption and are regularly used as food colorants, others may be detrimental to ecosystems or have
unknown impacts. This section and Table A-44 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate
and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of ADF dyes.
Fate and Transport
Dyes are a diverse group of substances. Fate, transport, and partitioning behaviors depend on the specific
dye in question. Most ADF dyes are expected to be at least somewhat water-soluble. Dyes reported as
present in ADFs include: eosin orange (tetrabromofluorescein), FD&C Blue #1 (alphazurine), FD&C
Yellow #5 (tartrazine), malonyl green (C.I. Pigment Yellow 34), and shilling green.
EPA was unable to locate information on the fate and transport behavior of these dyes through its
literature search. However, in general, dyes tend to absorb ultraviolet radiation and have the potential to
form decay products more toxic than the original parent dye compound.
Ecological Effects
The ecological effects of many ADF dyes have not been well documented.
Tetrabromofluorescein, a red dye, is not considered to be toxic to aquatic organisms except in very high
concentrations. Aquatic invertebrates may have a somewhat lower sensitivity threshold than fish. It is not
likely to bioaccumulate (Environment Canada 2008a).
No toxicity testing data is available for alphazurine, but some studies suggest that long-term degradation
products of this dye may be of concern (ScienceLab 2005).
Malonyl green uses C.I. Pigment Yellow 34 which is a substance listed as being of environmental
concern in the European Union due to the potential for highly toxic effects from two of its constituents,
lead chromate and lead sulfate. These substances are also considered to be persistent in the environment
and potentially bioaccumulative (Environment Canada 2008b).
EPA found no toxicity data for shilling green or tartrazine through its literature search.
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
EPA found limited information on human health effects of ADF dyes through its literature search. Dyes
may contribute to discoloration of surface waters downstream of airport deicing discharge outfalls.
2.2.2.4 Ethylene Glycol
Ethylene glycol (C2H6O2) is well known as one of two freezing point depressants used in most Type I and
Type IV ADFs. Most of the ADF currently applied at U.S. airports is based on the other main freezing
point depressant, propylene glycol, but a sizeable fraction of current ADF usage continues to be based on
ethylene glycol. These fluids are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. Before dilution for
application, an ADF can consist of nearly 90% ethylene glycol. For this reason, large quantities of
ethylene glycol are released to the environment during airport deicing activities. Ethylene glycol is also
July 2009 2-21
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
used in some airfield pavement deicer formulations. Ethylene glycol contamination has been detected in
surface waters, ground-water, sediments, and wastewater discharges at or near airports using ADFs.
When released to surface waters in large quantities, the chemical has the potential to consume large
quantities of dissolved oxygen from the water column, potentially affecting the ecosystem and human use
of aquatic resources. This profile and Table A-45 in Appendix A summarize available information on the
environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of ethylene glycol.
Fate and Transport
This section summarizes the environmental fate and transport characteristics of ethylene glycol. As
discussed in previous sections, deicing products containing ethylene glycol can enter surface waters, soil,
and groundwater on or near airports.
Volatilization of ethylene glycol from soil or water is not, in general, expected. However, ethylene glycol
can be released into the atmosphere by spray application of ADFs to aircraft, particularly under windy
conditions, and by shearing of ADFs from aircraft during taxiing and take-off. Ethylene gly col's
atmospheric half-life is 50 hours at 25° C (US NLM 2008).
Ethylene glycol is freely soluble in water and is highly mobile in both surface water and groundwater (US
NLM 2008). Tracer experiments appear to show that ethylene glycol moves through soil with
groundwater. It adsorbs poorly to clay and sandy clay soils (US NLM 2008).
Ethylene glycol undergoes rapid microbial degradation in both soil and water. It can be degraded both
aerobically and anaerobically (Johnson et al. 2001). Photolysis and hydrolysis are expected to be
insignificant degradation pathways.
As with other glycols, unacclimated microbial communities in surface waters and soils often experience a
lag of several days before degradation begins. Microbial communities acclimated to glycol inflows can
begin degradation much sooner. Additives in ADFs, however, can significantly delay degradation
(Johnson et al. 2001) as can low temperatures (US NLM 2008). Even though ethylene glycol itself may
be completely degraded within a few days under optimal conditions, the full theoretical biological oxygen
demand may not be observed for several weeks (US NLM 2008).
Ethylene glycol degradation requires a great deal of oxygen, with a reported CBOD5 of 0.4 to 0.7 g O2/g
of ethylene glycol or 400 to 800 g O2 per liter of ethylene glycol (D'ltri 1992).
In various field soils, 90% to 100% degradation of ethylene glycol was observed in 2 to 12 days (study
temperatures unknown). Ethylene glycol in ADFs was completely degraded in soils along airport runways
within 29 days at 8° C (US NLM 2008). Ethylene glycol in river water degraded completely in three days
at 20° C and in 5 to 14 days at 8° C (US NLM 2008). Ethylene glycol should exhibit minimal partitioning
to sediments or suspended particles in water. Given these behaviors, the distance ethylene glycol travels
in surface water, groundwater, and soil will depend primarily on the balance between rates of transport
and degradation (US NLM 2008).
Anaerobic degradation can be complete, producing methane and carbon dioxide, or incomplete,
producing ethanol and acetate (Johnson et al. 2001). When there is insufficient oxygen to allow complete
aerobic degradation, anaerobic degradation occurs unless inhibited by ADF additives or high
concentrations of metabolic byproducts.
July 2009 2-22
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
Ecological Effects
Ethylene glycol toxicity data for aquatic organisms is relatively limited in its scope and availability.
However, available data indicates ethylene glycol may cause general chronic toxicity effects at high
concentrations (>3400 mg/L), including slower growth and inhibited reproduction. It can also cause acute
mortality. A study by Corsi et al. (2006) found that in certain Type I formulations, ethylene glycol
contributed as much as 87% of the total toxic effect to the algae Selenastrum capricornutum. However, it
contributed a much smaller percentage of the toxicity of the formulation to the fathead minnow (35%),
the daphnid Ceriodaphnia dubia (47%), and Microtox testing (9%). It also contributed a much smaller
percentage of the toxicity of a Type IV formulation to all four of the aforementioned tests (ranging from
less than l%to 19%).
Ethylene glycol is known to exert high levels of biological oxygen demand (BOD) during degradation in
surface waters. This process can adversely affect aquatic life by consuming oxygen aquatic organisms
need to survive (Corsi et al. 2001). Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are
consumed when microbial populations decompose ethylene glycol. As described above, ethylene glycol
degradation requires a great deal of oxygen, with a reported CBOD5 of 0,4 to 0.7 g O2/g of ethylene
glycol, or 400 to 800 g O2 per liter of ethylene glycol (D'ltri 1992).
Sufficient DO levels in surface waters are critical for the survival offish, macroinvertebrates, and other
aquatic organisms. If oxygen concentrations drop below a minimum level, organisms emigrate, if able
and possible, to areas with higher oxygen levels or eventually die (US EPA 1993). This effect can
drastically reduce the amount of useable aquatic habitat. Reductions in DO levels can reduce or eliminate
bottom-feeder populations, create conditions that favor a change in a community's species profile, or alter
critical food-web interactions.
An example of dissolved oxygen impacts deriving from airport deicing operation discharges is the
impairment of Gunpowder and Elijah Creeks in northern Kentucky. News reports have shown that
discharges from Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, specifically ethylene glycol, are to
blame for the creeks' states, which were so degraded at the time of the reports that they did not support
life (Kelly and Klepal 2004).
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
Human exposure to ethylene glycol can occur through dermal contact, inhalation, ingestion, and eye
contact (NIOSH 2005a). Exposure typically targets the eyes, skin, respiratory system, and central nervous
system, and manifests through irritation to the eyes, skin, nose, and throat; nausea, vomiting, abdominal
pain, lassitude (weakness, exhaustion); dizziness, stupor, convulsions, central nervous system depression;
and skin sensitization (NIOSH 2005a). Effects can occur at concentrations as low as 2 mg/kg*day.
Children and adults are expected to similarly express pollutant exposure symptoms (US HHS 2007a).
No negative health effects have been reported in persons chronically exposed to ethylene glycol at natural
levels found in the environment (US HHS 2007b), though available monitoring data indicate that ethylene
glycol is typically found only near areas of release (e.g., production facilities and airports). Workers
involved in airport deicing operations have produced urine samples containing ethylene glycol. Further
research is still needed, however, to fully assess the cancer potential, developmental toxicity, and other
human health impacts of this pollutant, particularly with respect to the general public (US HHS 2007b).
Several articles have reported a strong sweet odor downstream from airport deicing outfalls which is
believed to derive from ethylene and/or propylene glycol (e.g., Eddy 1997). Additionally, anoxic waters,
July 2009 2-23
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
which can result from the high BOD ethylene glycol exerts, typically produce a strong, unpleasant odor
(State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2001).
2.2.2.5 Formate
Sodium formate is used as a freezing point depressant in airfield pavement deicers and is used in large
quantities at a number of airports. The dissolution of sodium formate after application releases formate
(CH2O2) into the environment in its ionic form. Formate can impact aquatic environments through
consumption of dissolved oxygen during degradation. This section and Table A-46 of Appendix A
summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of formate.
Fate and Transport
Formate is not expected to volatilize (US NLM 2008).
Formate ions are very soluble in water though the solubility of formate in compounds depends on the
solubility of those compounds (US NLM 2008). Sodium formate has a solubility of 972 g/L at 20° C (US
NLM 2008). Depending on site-specific factors, formate ions may adsorb or complex with soil or water
constituents or remain dissolved in surface water or groundwater (US NLM 2008).
Formate is slowly hydrolyzed in water (US NLM 2008). It is subject to rapid aerobic degradation, and can
be anaerobically degraded by methanogens (US NLM 2008). Researchers observed that the aerobic
degradation rate appears to decrease sharply with decreasing temperatures (Hellsten et al. 2005). The
aerobic degradation of formate produces carbon dioxide and bicarbonate (Hellsten et al. 2005).
Formate has a slightly lower BOD and COD than acetate and a lower BOD and COD than ethylene and
propylene glycol. Sodium formate granules in one formulated deicing product (Kilfrost CIM) are reported
to have a COD of 0.3 g O2/g product. The product's BOD was not reported (Reeves et al. 2005).
Ecological Effects
Formate anions decay through a process that consumes dissolved oxygen present in surface waters and
groundwater. Chemicals that exert oxygen demand during the degradation process reduce the level of
dissolved oxygen available for aquatic organisms, which require a certain level of dissolved oxygen to
function and survive. For additional information on the impacts of oxygen demand, see Sections 2.2.1.2,
2.2.2.1, and 2.2.2.2.
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
EPA's literature search did not locate conclusive reports on the human health effects of acetate. Formate
may contribute to aesthetic impacts, however. Formate decomposition consumes dissolved oxygen in
surface waters. Low dissolved oxygen levels in surface waters can cause unpleasant odors and
discoloration of water.
2.2.2.6 Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates
The widespread use of nonylphenol ethoxylates (CgHig-CeFL^CF^CF^O^Ff) as a surfactant additive in
Type I and Type IV ADF formulations has been well documented in the literature. Nonylphenol is a
common decay product of nonylphenol ethoxylates. Surfactants typically comprise less than 2% by
volume of ADFs. There is currently uncertainty, however, over the extent to which manufacturers have
recently modified ADF formulations to replace nonylphenol ethoxylates with other types of surfactants.
Nonylphenol ethoxylates and nonylphenol can have toxic and estrogenic properties and persist in the
environment. They can cause mortality and endocrine disruption in aquatic organisms. Some preliminary
data suggest that nonylphenol may cause cancer and reproductive problems in human beings.
July 2009 2-24
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
Nonylphenol ethoxylate and nonylphenol contamination has been detected in surface waters,
groundwater, sediments, aquatic organisms, and wastewater discharges at or near airports using ADFs.
This profile and Table A-47 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport,
ecological effects, and human effects of nonylphenol and its ethoxylates.
Fate and Transport
This section summarizes the environmental fate and transport characteristics of nonylphenol ethoxylates
and nonylphenol. As discussed in previous sections, airport deicing products containing nonylphenol
ethoxylates and nonylphenol can enter surface waters, soil, and groundwater on or near airports.
Nonylphenol and its ethoxylates are a large class of alkylated phenols with varying physical properties;
fate, transport, and partitioning behavior vary somewhat by ethoxymer.
Nonylphenol has very low volatility. Its ethoxylates are also not expected to volatilize readily. However,
nonylphenol ethoxylates can be released into the atmosphere by spray application of ADF to aircraft,
particularly under windy conditions, and by shearing of ADF from aircraft during taxiing and take-off.
Nonylphenol ethoxylates are expected to degrade rapidly in air (Environment Canada 2002).
Nonylphenol ethoxylates are likely to partition to organic matter or minerals in soil, but this tendency
varies by ethoxymer and degree of hydrophobicity. Migration of nonylphenol ethoxylates through the soil
has been observed (Environment Canada 2002). In water, as in soil, nonylphenol ethoxylates may sorb to
organic matter or particulates (Environment Canada 2002). The decay product nonylphenol is likely to
partition to sediments and mineral particles in water and soil but can still leach through soils
(Environment Canada 2002).
Degradation of nonylphenol ethoxylates varies by ethoxymer and tends to produce some recalcitrant
compounds with endocrine disrupting potential, including nonylphenol, nonylphenol monoethoxylate,
nonylphenol diethoxylate, nonylphenoxyacetic acid, and nonylphenoxyethoxyacetic acid (Environment
Canada 2002). Observed half-lives for nonylphenol ethoxylates in environmental media range from 3 to
26 days under ideal aerobic conditions with an acclimated microbial community (Staples et al. 2001).For
nonylphenol, a biphasic degradation profile has been observed in soils with relatively rapid initial
degradation of 30-50% during the first several weeks and the remainder degrading with a half-life of
approximately 90 days (Environment Canada 2002). Degradation rate also appears to be strongly
dependent on the environmental medium. Half-lives of nonylphenol range from 2.4 hours to 0.74 d in
water (US NLM 2008). The photolytic half-life of nonylphenol in the upper layer of surface water is 10-
15 hours but is much slower in deeper layers. In a sediment mesocosm, a half-life of 66 days was
observed for nonylphenol (Environment Canada 2008a).
Ecological Effects
Nonylphenol ethoxylates are highly toxic to many aquatic species. Nonylphenol ethoxylates degrade
quickly and are therefore chiefly of concern because of their acute effects. Nonylphenol, the primary
degradation product of nonylphenol ethoxylates persists in water for substantially longer time periods
than nonylphenol ethoxylates and is more likely to contribute to chronic, as well as acute, effects. It is one
of the most prevalent contaminants in U.S. streams, both in terms of the number of streams affected and
the concentrations found (US EPA 2005).
The primary impacts of these chemicals on aquatic life are sublethal toxic effects, although at sufficient
doses both can cause mortality. Nonylphenol ethoxylate toxicity has not been studied to the same extent
as nonylphenol toxicity, but several types of adverse impacts have been noted. These impacts include
acute mortality in some sensitive species at concentrations as low as 2.8 mg/L, reproduction impacts,
July 2009 2-25
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
diminished egg emergence in aquatic animals, and growth impairment in algae and aquatic animal
species. Nonylphenol ethoxylates are not thought to bioaccumulate in any species (Environment Canada
2001). A study by Corsi et al. (2006) found that in certain Type I and Type IV deicing formulations,
nonylphenol ethoxylates were responsible for 40 to 50% of toxicity in one Type I and one Type IV
formulation for several species. However, it was not detected in three of the other formulations tested, and
was responsible for only a small fraction of toxicity in the remaining four.
An EPA study of the effects of nonylphenol on aquatic life found that at concentrations as low as 0.01
mg/L, impacts include reproduction impairment, reduced numbers of live offspring, diminished growth,
and reduced offspring survival (US EPA 2005). Several other studies address estrogenic or other
reproductive effects, including evidence suggesting increased vitellogenin concentrations in fish from
chronic nonylphenol exposure and, at high concentrations, impacts on sex ratios and spawning habits.
Nonylphenol has also been shown to inhibit growth and cellular counts in algae and to potentially
bioaccumulate in some mollusk species. EPA has stated that the maximum acceptable one-hour average
concentrations of nonylphenol in freshwater is 28 (ig/L and 7.0 (ig/L in saltwater. The maximum
acceptable four-day average is 6.6 (ig/L in freshwater and 1.7 (ig/L in saltwater (US EPA 2005).
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
Human exposure to nonylphenol and its ethoxylates can occur through ingestion, inhalation, and
absorption through the eyes or skin (US EPA 2006a). Fish consumption is the largest contributor to
human exposure, and is estimated to account for roughly 70 to 80% of typical daily doses (UNEP et al.
2004). This pollutant primarily affects the upper respiratory system and kidneys. Exposure symptoms can
include skin and eye irritation, tissue decay, swelling, mottled kidneys, lethargy, coughing, wheezing,
shortness of breath, headache, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Data show that low concentrations of these
chemicals act as mild irritants. High concentrations of nonylphenol and its ethoxylates may be extremely
destructive to the upper respiratory tract, eyes, and skin (US EPA 2006a, Cox 1996), but human beings
are unlikely to encounter such concentrations through exposure to aquatic resources contaminated by
airport deicing products. The no observed adverse effect level is considered to be 10 mg/kg*day.
Current evidence of this pollutant as a genotoxin or carcinogen is inconclusive, but data seem to suggest
that nonylphenol ethoxylates cause breast cancer cells to increase in number. Nonylphenol has also
demonstrated estrogenic behavior, causing an increase in breast tumor numbers and size, reproductive
problems, and various hormonal disruptions (UNEP et al. 2004).
2.2.2.7 Poly acrylic A cid
Polyacrylic acid (CsFLtC^n is composed of a connected series of acrylic acid monomers. This chemical is
used as a thickener in some Type IV ADFs to make them viscous enough to maintain their position on
aircraft surfaces until aircraft take-off. Thickeners and other ADF additives typically make up less than
2% of ADF volume. During degradation in the natural environment, polyacrylic acid can break down into
its component monomers. Polyacrylic acid and acrylic acid monomers have been linked to human health
problems, adverse impacts on aquatic life, and disruptions of aquatic community trophic webs. This
section and Table A-48 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological
effects, and human effects of polyacrylic acid.
Fate and Transport
Polyacrylic acids comprise a family of polymers. They are usually marketed as mixtures of polymers by
molecular weight. The behavior of these mixtures in the environment may vary somewhat, but overall
they are fairly similar (US NLM 2008).
July 2009 2-26
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
Polyacrylic acids are not expected to volatilize from water or moist soil (US NLM 2008). Slow
volatilization from dry soil is possible (US NLM 2008). They are not expected to adsorb to soils or
particulates, therefore potential for transport in soils, surface waters, and groundwater is high (US NLM
2008).
Biodegradability decreases with an increasing number of polymerized units and increasing formula
molecular weight. Biodegradability drops off sharply between molecular weights 700 and 1,000, and for
polymers with more than seven units (Larson et al. 1997). It appears that monomers and dimers of acrylic
acid are completely biodegradable, but there is evidence that polymers of three to seven units are
incompletely biodegraded (Larson et al. 1997).
Non-polymerized (monomeric) acrylic acid biodegrades fairly quickly under both aerobic and anaerobic
conditions. For example, it was 68% degraded within two weeks with an activated sludge inoculum. In a
42-day anaerobic study with a sewage seed inoculum, 71% was degraded (US NLM 2008).
It is possible for substances such as polyacrylic acids, which are slowly biodegradable, to accumulate in
soils and to enhance the growth of microbial biomass in those soils. If microbial growth is high enough,
the pores of the soil can become plugged with microbial biomass. This process can lead to plume
spreading as new loadings of polyacrylic acid contaminated runoff are forced around regions of low
permeability.
Ecological Effects
Acute toxicity impacts on numerous invertebrates and fish have been noted for acrylic acid, primarily in
the form of mortality but also in the form of behavioral changes in the water flea (Dctphnia magna). Some
studies also note growth rate inhibition and biomass reductions in green and blue-green algae. These
effects may occur at levels as low as 0.17 mg/L (IPCS 1997).
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
Exposure to acrylic acid can occur through inhalation, ingestion, and skin or eye contact, and can cause a
variety of ailments including irritation to the eyes, skin, and respiratory system; eye and skin burns; skin
sensitization; and lung, liver, and kidney disease (as revealed through animal studies) (NIOSH 2005b).
Currently there have been no reports of poisoning incidents in the general population. Most data indicate
that this pollutant is of low to moderate acute toxicity by the oral route (NOAEL 140 mg/kg/day), and
moderate acute toxicity by the inhalation (LOAEL 15 mg/m3) or dermal route. It is unclear what
concentration is non-irritant. Available reproduction studies indicate that acrylic acid is not teratogenic
(i.e., does not cause birth defects) and has no effect on reproduction. The current data available are
inconclusive regarding carcinogenic health hazards associated with acrylic acid exposure (US NLM
2008).
Acrylic acid monomers have a strong acrid odor, though no reports have linked this odor specifically to
airport deicing discharges (BAMM 2006).
2.2.2.8 Potassium
Potassium acetate is used as a freezing point depressant in airfield pavement deicers and is applied in
large quantities at a number of airports. The chemical is typically applied in liquid form and releases
potassium into the surrounding environment in its ionic form. Following dissolution after application,
solid forms of potassium acetate also releases potassium in its ionic form to the environment. Potassium
can elevate measures of salinity, conductance, or total dissolved solids (TDS) in surface waters. It can
impact aquatic environments and, at high levels, cause health problems in human beings. This section and
July 2009 2-27
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
Table A-49 of Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and
human effects of potassium.
Fate and Transport
Ionic potassium is highly soluble and highly mobile in both surface water and groundwater. In soil,
potassium can accumulate in areas where there is insufficient water available to transport it through the
soil horizon. Otherwise, it is transported easily through soil and can enter and travel with groundwater.
As an elemental ion, potassium is not subject to decay and persists in the environment. It is not expected
to volatilize.
Ecological Effects
Most freshwater surface waters contain a small quantity of potassium. Fish require potassium for growth,
reproduction, and survival. Freshwater fish actively assimilate potassium from food and water. Saltwater
fish are generally at lower risk of potassium deficiency than freshwater fish because marine water
contains higher levels of potassium then fresh water. High potassium loadings or long turnover times,
however, can create surface water ion balance issues that can impact aquatic organism functioning and
survival (Public Sector Consultants 1993).
Exposure to high levels of potassium can cause osmoregulatory dysfunction in aquatic organisms.
Freshwater fish tissues typically have higher potassium content than surrounding water. Under normal
conditions, freshwater fish use their gills, circulatory system, and kidneys to work against this osmotic
gradient in order to prevent the influx of excess water and the loss of potassium from their tissues.
Specialized cells in fish gill epithelium use potassium and sodium ions to transport chloride into or out of
fish tissue (Jobling 1996). In marine fish, chloride ions are pumped from fish against an osmotic gradient.
This process helps to maintain optimal osmotic potential between the fish and its environment.
The process moves potassium ions in the opposite direction in freshwater fish. The gill has mechanisms
which actively work to re-import potassium into the blood on order to replace potassium lost through the
gills. When external potassium levels exceed internal potassium levels, these osmoregulatory mechanisms
can lead to rapid fish dehydration, ionoregulatory system imbalance, and impairment to fish functioning
and survival.
Exposure to excessive potassium concentrations can interfere with these essential osmoregulatory
mechanisms in both freshwater and saltwater fish, requiring fish to expend more energy to maintain
homeostasis or, if concentrations are high enough, cause death through ionic imbalance.
In lakes, increased salt concentrations can also lead to increased density of water layers, leading to or
exacerbating stratification during cold or still weather to the point that normal seasonal overturn does not
occur (D'ltri 1992).
Plants use potassium to regulate ion transport. Plants exposed to high concentrations of potassium suffer
adverse effects similar to those associated with potassium deficiencies by causing deficiencies in
magnesium and calcium (Motavalli et al. 2008), which are essential for growth, reproduction, and
survival.
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
Potassium is an essential part of the human diet. This element is an essential in preventing and treating
high blood pressure, hypoglycemia, diabetes, kidney disease, obesity, and potentially paralysis. The
absence of adequate potassium in the diet may lead to listlessness, fatigue, gas pains, constipation,
July 2009 2-28
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
insomnia, and low blood sugar. Moreover, deficient individuals may have weak muscles and a slow,
irregular pulse (IFIC 2005).
This element is beneficial at lower levels but may have detrimental health impacts if consumed in excess.
U.S. health guidelines advise that no more than 4,700 mg potassium be consumed each day (US HHS and
DoA 2005). However, many humans do not consume enough potassium. Human beings may ingest
potassium from airport deicing discharges through consumption of contaminated drinking water sources.
2.2.2.9 Propylene Glycol
Like ethylene glycol, propylene glycol (C3H8O2) is a well-known freezing point depressant used in many
Type I and Type IV ADFs. These fluids are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. Most ADF
in current use at U.S. airports is based on propylene glycol. Before dilution for application, an ADF can
consist of nearly 90% propylene glycol. Propylene glycol is also used in some airfield pavement deicer
formulations. For this reason, large quantities of propylene glycol can be released to the environment
during airport deicing activities. Propylene glycol contamination has been detected in surface waters,
groundwater, sediments, and wastewater discharges at or near airports using ADFs.
Though more expensive than ethylene glycol, propylene glycol is considerably less toxic to human beings
and other mammals. When released to surface waters in large quantities, however, it has the potential to
consume large quantities of dissolved oxygen from the water column, potentially affecting the ecosystem
and human use of aquatic resources. This profile and Table A-50 in Appendix A summarizes available
information on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of propylene
glycol.
Fate and Transport
This section summarizes the environmental fate and transport characteristics of propylene glycol. As
discussed in previous sections, deicing products containing propylene glycol can enter surface waters,
soil, and groundwater on or near airports.
Volatilization of propylene glycol from soil or water is not, in general, expected (US NLM 2008).
However, propylene glycol can be released into the atmosphere by spray application of ADF to aircraft,
particularly under windy conditions, and by shearing of ADF from aircraft during taxiing and take-off.
Propylene glycol's atmospheric half-life is 32 hours at 25° C (US NLM 2008).
Propylene glycol is freely soluble in water, and has very high mobility in soils, sediments, surface water,
and groundwater (US NLM 2008). Estimates of log K0w for propylene glycol are low, and range from -
0.92 (US NLM 2008) to -1.41 (French et al. 2001, as cited in Jaesche et al. 2006). These low estimates of
KQW support the observations of Jaesche et al. (2006), who found negligible soil sorption in laboratory
experiments. Propylene glycol should also exhibit minimal partitioning to sediments or suspended
particles in water. Given these behaviors, the distance propylene glycol travels in surface water,
groundwater, and soil will depend primarily on the balance between rates of transport and degradation.
Propylene glycol undergoes rapid microbial degradation in both soil and water. It can biodegrade under
both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. For unacclimated microbial communities, there is often a lag of
several days before glycol degradation begins. Microbial communities acclimated to glycol inflows can
begin degradation much sooner. Additives in ADFs, however, can significantly delay degradation
(Johnson et al. 2001). In microcosm experiments under aerobic conditions, degradation rates of up to 95
milligrams of propylene glycol per day per kilogram of dry soil were observed by Klecka et al. (1993; as
cited in Jaesche et al. 2006). Jaesche et al. (2006) found that in subsoil materials, the anaerobic
July 2009 2-29
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
degradation of propylene glycol was very slow and was dependent on the import of microbiota from
surface soils.
Propylene glycol degradation is also temperature-dependent. In laboratory experiments with field-
collected soils, propylene glycol was not observed to degrade anaerobically at 4° C, and degraded
anaerobically at 20° C only in soil that was rich in organic matter (Jaesche et al. 2006).
During anaerobic wastewater treatment, propylene glycol degrades first to propionaldehyde, then to
propionate and 1-propanol. The final products are acetate, methane, and carbon dioxide (Jaesche et al.
2006).
Propylene glycol degradation requires a great deal of oxygen, with an estimated CBOD5 of 1 g O2/g of
propylene glycol, or 1,000 g O2 per liter of propylene glycol (Mericas and Wagoner 1994; Safferman et
al. 1998, all as cited in Johnson et al. 2001).
Anaerobic degradation of propylene glycol can increase the efflux of terminal electron acceptors such as
iron and manganese (hydr)oxides from soils (Jaesche et al. 2006). Overtime, continued input of
propylene glycol can therefore lead to a reduction in soil's redox potential, promoting anoxic conditions
in the soil (Jaesche et al. 2006).
Ecological Effects
Data on propylene glycol's toxicity for aquatic organisms is relatively limited, though it is generally
perceived as being relatively low. Available data indicate that propylene glycol may cause general
chronic toxicity effects, including slower growth and inhibited reproduction, as well as acute mortality at
concentrations greater than 5000 mg/L. A study by Corsi et al. (2006) found that in certain Type I
formulations, propylene glycol had a greater toxic effect on its own than did the formulation.2 However, it
contributed a much smaller percentage of the toxicity of the formulation to the fathead minnow, the
daphnid Ceriodaphnia dubia, and Microtox testing for both Type I and Type IV fluids (ranging from less
than 1% to 51%).
Propylene glycol is known to exert high levels of biological oxygen demand (BOD) during degradation in
surface waters. This process can adversely affect aquatic life by consuming oxygen aquatic organisms
need to survive (Corsi et al. 2001). Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are
consumed when microbial populations decompose ethylene glycol.
Sufficient DO levels in surface waters are critical for the survival offish, macroinvertebrates, and other
aquatic organisms. If oxygen concentrations drop below a minimum level, organisms emigrate, if able
and possible, to areas with higher oxygen levels or eventually die (US EPA 1993). This effect can
drastically reduce the amount of useable aquatic habitat. Reductions in DO levels can reduce or eliminate
bottom-feeder populations, create conditions that favor a change in a community's species profile, or alter
critical food-web interactions.
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
Unlike ethylene glycol, a cause of acute toxicity in human beings and other mammals, propylene glycol is
generally considered to be safe and a rare cause of toxic effects. Human exposure to propylene glycol can
occur through dermal contact, inhalation, ingestion, and eye contact
The paper explains that this may be caused either by uncertainty in calculating the relative toxicity factors, or by the
possibility that the interactions of all chemicals in a deicing formulation may result in lower toxicity than propylene glycol
alone.
July 2009 2-30
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
Humans typically come in contact with propylene glycol through ingestion of food and medications and
through dermal contact with cosmetics or topical medications. Background concentrations in foods range
from < 0.001% in eggs and soups to about 15% in some seasonings and flavorings. No health effects have
been reported in persons chronically exposed to propylene glycol at levels found in the environment.
Some special-risk groups may be more sensitive at lower levels; these include neonates, infants and the
elderly, or those with pre-existing skin or eye conditions or allergies (US HHS 2007b).
Extensive topical application has been known to cause burns to the skin. The common use of propylene
glycol in burn creams has been associated with hyperosmolality, lactic acidosis (the build-up of lactic acid
in the body), intravascular hemolysis (the rupturing of blood vessels), central nervous system depression,
seizures, coma, hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and renal failure, although only in very high doses (US
HHS 2007b). For example, one study found an LD50 in the rat of 30,000 mg/kg (US EPA 2000a).
However, it is expected that this level of exposure through human contact with propylene glycol-
contaminated aquatic resources would be very unlikely.
Several news articles have reported strong sweet odors downstream from airport deicing outfalls which
are believed to be linked to ethylene glycol and propylene glycol discharges (e.g., Hopey 1998).
Additionally, anoxic waters, which can result from the high BOD propylene glycol exerts, typically
produce a strong, unpleasant odor (State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2001).
2.2.2.10 Sodium
Sodium acetate and sodium formate are used as freezing point depressants in airfield pavement deicers
and are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. The dissolution of these chemicals after
application releases sodium into the environment in its ionic form. Sodium can elevate measures of
salinity, conductance, or total dissolved solids (TDS) in surface waters. It can impact aquatic
environments and, at high levels, cause health problems in human beings. This section and Table A-51 of
Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects
of sodium.
Fate and Transport
Sodium is highly soluble and highly mobile in both surface water and groundwater. In soil, sodium can
accumulate in areas where there is insufficient water available to transport it through the soil horizon.
Otherwise, it is transported easily through soil and can enter and travel with groundwater.
When sodium replaces calcium in soil through an anion exchange process, the structure of the soil can
deteriorate, and aeration and water availability decrease (D'ltri 1992). Poor soil structure due to high
sodium levels can also increase the soil mobility of metals (Amrhein and Strong 1990, as cited in D'ltri
1992).
As an elemental ion, sodium is not subject to decay and persists in the environment. It is not expected to
volatilize.
Ecological Effects
Most freshwater surface waters contain a small quantity of sodium. High sodium loadings or long
turnover times, however, can create surface water ion balance issues that can impact aquatic organism
functioning and survival (Public Sector Consultants 1993).
Freshwater aquatic organisms are very sensitive to excess sodium in surface waters. Exposure to high
levels of sodium can cause osmoregulatory dysfunction. Freshwater fish tissues typically have higher
sodium content than surrounding water. Under normal conditions, freshwater fish use their gills,
July 2009 2-31
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
circulatory system, and kidneys to work against this osmotic gradient in order to prevent the influx of
excess water and the loss of sodium from their tissues.
Sodium loss and water influx takes place at the fish gill surface. Specialized cells in fish gill epithelium
use potassium and sodium ions to transport chloride into or out offish tissue (Jobling 1996). In marine
fish, chloride ions are pumped from fish against an osmotic gradient. This process helps to maintain
optimal osmotic potential between the fish and its environment.
In freshwater fish, the process moves ions in the opposite direction. The fish's circulatory system moves
excess water to the kidney where it is rapidly excreted. The gill has mechanisms which actively work to
re-import sodium into the blood on order to replace sodium lost through the gills. When external sodium
levels exceed internal sodium levels, these mechanisms can contribute to rapid fish dehydration,
ionoregulatory system imbalance, and impairment to fish functioning and survival.
Exposure to excessive potassium concentrations can interfere with these essential osmoregulatory
mechanisms in both freshwater and saltwater fish, requiring fish to expend more energy to maintain
homeostasis or, if concentrations are high enough, cause death through ionic imbalance.
In lakes, increased salt concentrations can also lead to increased density of water layers, leading to or
exacerbating stratification during cold or still weather to the point that normal seasonal overturn does not
occur (D'ltri 1992).
Both aquatic and terrestrial plants are susceptible to damage following exposure to excess sodium in
surface water, soil, porewater, and groundwater. Sodium-induced plant damage occurs in several ways
(Moran et al. 1992). First, increasing osmotic pressure of the surrounding water (for aquatic plants) or soil
solution increases sodium migration into and water diffusion from the cells, causing dehydration. Second,
sodium ion accumulation in plant tissues can reach toxic concentrations. This is often visible in leaf
margins, as transpiration pulls water into the leaves. As water evaporates from leaves, sodium ions remain
behind and accumulate to toxic levels (University of Illinois Extension 2008). Sodium inhibits many
enzymes in plants and is particularly harmful when intracellular potassium is low relative to sodium, as
discussed below (Zhu 2007). Third, sodium stress induces the production of abscisic acid, which causes
stomatato close and reduces gas exchange and photosynthesis (Zhu 2007).
In addition, the mineral composition of the soil can become unbalanced, making plant nutrient absorption
more difficult (Moran et al. 1992). Sodium out-competes potassium for uptake by plant roots, eventually
leading to potassium deficiency. Sufficient potassium levels are critical for maintaining adequate cell
turgor (fluid pressure), membrane potential, and enzymatic activity (Zhu 2007).
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
Sodium is a necessary component of the human diet. While this element is vital in small amounts,
excessive consumption may have adverse health effects. Health guidelines advise humans to consume
2,300 mg (1 teaspoon) of sodium per day (US HHS and DoA 2005). At elevated levels, this element is
known to cause high blood pressure and possibly calcium loss. Human beings may ingest sodium from
airport deicing discharges through consumption of contaminated drinking water sources.
2.2.2.11 Tolyltriazoles, Benzotriazoles, and Methyl-substituted Benzotriazoles
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) requires glycol-based ADFs to contain a fire suppressant
because of concerns about ADF flammability in some aircraft electrical systems. The use of tolyltriazoles
(C7H7N3), benzotriazoles, or methyl-substituted benzotriazoles as flame retardants and corrosion
inhibitors in ADFs has been documented in the literature. Tolyltriazole refers to a mixture of the 4-methyl
July 2009 2-32
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
and 5-methyl isomers of benzotriazole. Methyl-substituted benzotriazoles have a methyl group attached to
the benzene ring. These chemicals, along with other ADF additives, typically comprise less than 2% of
ADF volume. Studies have identified the presence of these chemicals in drainage ditches, groundwater,
wells, and soils on or near airports where ADFs have been used. This profile and Table A-52 in Appendix
A summarizes data on these chemicals' environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human
effects.
Fate and Transport
Volatilization of tolyltriazole is not expected (US NLM 2008).
Benzotriazoles are highly polar and dissolve well in water (Weiss et al. 2006). All triazoles are expected
to be highly mobile in surface water, groundwater, and soils (US NLM 2008, Breedveld et al. 2003).
Methyltriazoles are known to be mobile in groundwater (US NLM 2008). However, triazoles may
protonate in some environmental matrices, and the cationic form would be expected to bind to organic
material and clays (US NLM 2008). Methylbenzotriazole was found to sorb to digested sludge (Gruden et
al. 2001), and thus may be able to bind to organic carbon in soil. Sorption is not expected to be very
significant in soils, however. Breedveld et al. (2003) found that benzotriazole showed very little sorption
in various soil matrices, and only peat and compost with a high organic carbon content showed significant
sorption.
Photolysis is a potential route of degradation in environmental media with high exposure to light (US
NLM 2008).
Biodegradation of these compounds varies by isomer. 5-methylbenzotriazole is much more aerobically
degradable than the 4-methylbenzotriazole isomer (Weiss and Reemtsma 2005). The same pattern was
observed in bench-scale bioreactor experiments in which 5-methyltriazole was completely biodegraded
within 17 days, but 4-methyltriazole was only 25% biodegraded after 28 days, and the remainder was
recalcitrant to further degradation (Weiss et al. 2006). Furthermore, 5-methylbenzotriazole was found to
be "unstable" in cooling towers (an aerobic environment), whereas 4-methylbenzotriazole was not
degraded (Gruden et al. 2001).
Another study found that methylbenzotriazole (isomer not specified) was not anaerobically digestible in
lab experiments (Gruden et al. 2001). Anaerobic degradation was not observed for benzotriazole and its
derivatives in lab reactor experiments (Tham and Kennedy 2005). Davis et al. (2000) have demonstrated
that higher plants and white rot fungi can take up and degrade triazoles. No information was located on
the degradation products of benzotriazoles.
Weiss and Reemtsma (2005) found that both benzotriazole and 4-methylbenzotriazole survived bank
filtration treatment although 5-methylbenzotriazole did not. Ozonation appears to be capable of almost
completely removing benzotriazole and 4- and 5-methylbenzotriazole from wastewater and might also be
able to remove them during drinking water treatment, where this technology is used (Weiss et al. 2006).
One study found that up to 300 mg/1 of benzotriazole only slightly inhibited the anaerobic degradation of
glycols, that up to 20 mg/1 of 5,6-dimethylbenzotriazole did not inhibit their anaerobic degradation, and
that 300 mg/1 of 5-methylbenzotriazole was capable of severely inhibiting their anaerobic degradation
(Johnson etal. 2001).
Benzotriazole and methylbenzotriazole have been detected in groundwater near an airport at levels greater
than 100 mg/1. This concentration is high enough to be potentially toxic to microbiota, fish, and
invertebrates (Cancilla et al. 1998). At two airports, 4-methyltriazole was detected in all wells sampled,
July 2009 2-33
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
but 5-methyltriazole was not detected in any of the wells (Cancilla et al. 2003 and Cancilla et al. 1998).
Breedveld et al. (1997) reported soil concentrations of up to 13 mg/kg in a drainage ditch and up to 1.1
mg/1 in groundwater at Oslo Airport one to two years after deicing was discontinued.
Ecological Effects
Triazoles are a major contributor to ADF toxicity and may be responsible for the majority of total toxicity
in some formulations (Corsi et al. 2006). Triazoles are several orders of magnitude more acutely toxic
than glycols to multiple aquatic species, including the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and the water flea
(Daphnia magna). The LC50 for the waterflea for tolyltriazole is 74 mg/L. Tolyltriazole is considered to
be more toxic than other benzotriazoles. Though not likely to bioaccumulate, triazoles may persist in the
aquatic environment due to their resistance to natural degradation (British Environment Agency 2000).
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
EPA's search of publicly available literature yielded no consistent or conclusive information on the
impact of triazoles on human health or the aesthetic attributes of receiving waters.
2.2.2.12 Urea (Ammonia)
Urea (NH2CONH2) is used as a freezing point depressant in airfield pavement deicers and is applied in
large quantities at a number of airports. It is typically used as a solid pavement deicer or in combination
with ethylene or propylene glycol as a liquid pavement deicer. Urea is also a common fertilizer that
enhances plant growth. Urea forms ammonia (NH3) during decay. Ammonia is toxic to aquatic organisms
at low concentrations and can cause both organism mortality and reproduction impairment. Ammonia can
further decay in aquatic environments into several nitrogen-containing compounds (e.g., nitrate) that can
fertilize aquatic plants and foster biological overgrowths. Ammonia may cause minor to severe dermal or
pulmonary irritation to human beings who come into contact with it. Urea and ammonia have been
documented as contaminants in surface waters, groundwater, and soil in and near airports using urea as a
pavement deicer. This section and Table A-53 of Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate
and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of formate.
Fate and Transport
Urea has a low vapor pressure and is not expected to volatilize readily from soil or water (US NLM
2008). Ammonia, a by-product of urea degradation, is quite volatile.
Urea has a solubility of 545 g/l, making it reasonably soluble (US NLM 2008). Urea is transported readily
in surface water and its presence has been documented in groundwater at several airports using urea as a
pavement deicer. This is despite the fact that urea's soil infiltration is thought to be minimal except where
the soil is sandy (D'ltri 1992). Transport Canada (1990) (as cited in D'ltri 1992) reported that between 64
and 100% of applied urea can reach surface waters via overland flow. Urea can also accumulate in
snowbanks and be released as a large load in a short amount of time during snowmelt (D'ltri 1992).
Urea biodegrades well under aerobic conditions and produces ammonia which eventually degrades to
nitrate. The degradation rate is temperature dependent and is expected to be slow during winter. After 14
days in river water at 8° C, degradation was almost nil (Evans and Patterson 1973 as cited in D'ltri 1992).
At 20 degrees Celsius, urea fully degraded to ammonia within 4 to 6 days (Cryotech 2008).
Urea contains 46% nitrogen by weight, making it a potential contributor to undesirable eutrophication of
surface waters (D'ltri 1992). Urea's BOD is approximately 1.8 g O2/g urea (Cryotech 2008) and is much
higher than that of acetate and formate-based pavement deicers, as well as higher than that of ethylene
glycol or propylene glycol-based pavement deicers and ADFs.
July 2009 2-34
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior
Ammonia levels in runoff from airports have been commonly reported at levels between 2 and 15 mg/L
and can be higher (D'ltri 1992). These levels are potentially toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
Ecological Effects
Urea is not particularly toxic to aquatic life. However, urea degrades to ammonia which is highly toxic to
many aquatic organisms. EPA established a National Recommended Water Quality Criterion for
ammonia in 1984 and last revised it in 1998. Because of ammonia's unique properties, the criteria are
dependent on pH, temperature, and organism life stage. Ammonia is most toxic in its un-ionized form
which is more likely to exist at higher temperatures and pH levels. If salmonids are present, acute criteria
range from 0.885 to 32.6 mg N/l, depending upon pH. If salmonids are not present, acute criteria range
from 1.32 to 48.8 mg N/l. Chronic criteria, which do not vary according to salmonid presence or absence,
range from 0.254 to 3.48 mg N/l, depending upon pH (US EPA 1998a).
Ammonia is capable of causing acute mortality in many aquatic organisms, particularly at higher
concentrations. Ammonia can also cause a host of chronic effects in aquatic organisms, including
reproduction inhibition, diminished juvenile growth, and reduced embryo and neonate survival. Salmonid
fish are particularly sensitive, and EPA's ammonia standard is stricter for water bodies in which they are
present. For example, one study determined an LC50 for the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) of
0.068 mg/L (US EPA 1998a). Ammonia has been noted as a major cause offish kills (US EPA 1991;
USDA 1992). In addition, if surface water substrate sediments are enriched with nutrients, the
concentrations of nitrites on the overlying water can be raised enough to cause nitrite poisoning or "brown
blood disease" in fish (USDA 1992).
Ammonia further decays in aquatic environments to nitrates. Nitrates function as a source of nitrogen
nutrients. Surface water eutrophication due to excessive nutrient levels can produce ecological impacts
such as nuisance algal blooms, death of underwater plants (due to reduced light penetration through turbid
waters), reduced dissolved oxygen levels, and impaired aquatic organism populations.
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
A person ingests an average of 0.36 mg/day of ammonia through drinking water sources (US HHS 2004).
Ammonia begins to be noticeable to drinking water consumers at 35 ppm (taste) to 50 ppm (odor). Low
levels of exposure may not cause any problems in healthy individuals but may harm sensitive individuals
such as those with asthma. At higher concentrations, ammonia exposure may also cause skin burns to the
exposed area. Children respond to ammonia exposure in much the same way as adults. No evidence has
been found to suggest that low-level chronic ammonia exposure causes birth defects or other
developmental problems. However, chronic exposure has been found to cause transient respiratory
distress (US HHS 2004).
Data for assessing the carcinogenic potential of ammonia are limited. At consumption levels of 200
milligrams per day, ammonia may act as a cancer promoter. However, well-designed animal studies have
not yet been conducted in order to better elucidate ammonia's role as a potential carcinogen (US HHS
2004).
At high exposure levels, effects include irritation to the eyes, nose, and throat; dyspnea (breathing
abnormalities), wheezing, and chest pain; pulmonary edema; pink frothy sputum; skin burns, and
vesiculation (formation of blisters or vesicles) (NIOSH 2005c). Human exposure to such high levels
through aquatic resources contaminated by airport deicing discharges is not expected.
July 2009 2-35
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Environmental Impact Potential under Current Airport Deicing
Practices
This chapter summarizes the potential environmental impacts of airport deicing operation discharges
under current conditions and industry practices. Chapter 4 presents information on environmental
improvements and benefits expected under each of EPA's proposed regulatory options.
This chapter provides information on facilities within scope of the proposed rule (Section 3.1), discusses
factors that influence airport deicing pollutant discharges to the environment and provides an overview of
current airport deicing pollutant discharges (Section 3.2), discusses factors influencing pollutant
concentrations in surface waters (Section 3.3), summarizes documented environmental impacts from
airport deicing activities (Section 3.4), and discusses potential impacts to impaired waters and other
resources (Section 3.5).
3.1 Universe of Airports in Scope of Proposed Regulatory Options
In determining the scope of the proposed regulatory options, EPA aimed to capture those airports that
perform the majority of deicing operations in the United States. EPA's proposed regulatory options
address airports with the following characteristics:
> Classified by FAA as primary commercial airports;
> Not categorized by FAA as general aviation or cargo airports;
> 1,000 or more jet departures annually; and
> Conduct aircraft or airfield pavement deicing operations.
EPA is focusing on primary commercial airports because they are more likely than general aviation and
cargo airports to continue operations during inclement winter weather. Primary commercial airports have
higher levels of jet activity. Jets are more likely than other types of aircraft to operate during inclement
winter weather and therefore require aircraft and pavement deicing to function.
EPA focused on primary commercial airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures because these
airports are more likely to operate during inclement winter weather and conduct the majority of airport
deicing operations. Although deicing takes place at some general aviation and cargo airports and primary
commercial airports with fewer than 1,000 annual jet departures (see Table 3-1), EPA focused on an
airport category that conducts the majority of airport deicing activity.
EPA used airports' responses to EPA's Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c) to identify a
number of airports that conduct deicing operations. Because EPA did not survey every airport in the U.S.,
EPA assumes, for the purposes of this analysis, that airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures and
one or more snow or freezing rain precipitation (SOFP) days per year (on average) conduct deicing
operations and are in scope of the proposed regulatory options. These discussions of the universe of
airports within scope of the proposed regulatory options are not official determinations of regulation
applicability but rather EPA's current best estimate of the universe of facilities affected by the proposed
regulatory options.
Table B-l in Appendix B lists those airports EPA estimates are within scope of the proposed regulatory
options. Table B-l also lists facilities that are potentially within scope of the proposed regulatory options.
July 2009
3-1
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
EPA assumes airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures and zero SOFP days per year (on average)
are potentially in scope. These airports are located in areas of the country where deicing activity levels are
typically low and may or may not take place at the airports in question. EPA has insufficient information
at this time to determine the extent of deicing activity at these airports and has therefore designated these
facilities as potentially within scope of the proposed regulatory options. Figure 3-1 presents a map of the
in-scope airports listed in Appendix B. Airports potentially within scope of the proposed regulatory
options are not illustrated in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1: Airports within Scope of Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operations
In Scope Airports
(Greater than or equal to 1 DOO jet departures and
GreaterthanO SOFPdays)
500
Miles
As shown in Figure 3-1, airports engaging in deicing activities are widely distributed throughout the U.S.
These airports vary greatly, however, in the levels at which they conduct aircraft and pavement deicing
and in their discharge environments. These variables are discussed in Section 3.2.
3.2 Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharges to the Environment
Airport deicing pollutant discharges to the environment vary widely among individual airports. Pollutant
discharges can also vary widely from day to day at any individual airport. This variability is driven by
individual airport deicing practices and environmental contexts and the weather-dependent nature of
deicing activities and discharges. This section discusses a number of factors that influence airport deicing
pollutant loads and also describes EPA's quantified estimates of national and individual airport deicing
pollutant discharges.
3.2.1 Factors Influencing Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharge to the Environment
Several factors influence the nature and quantity of pollutant loadings to the environment at individual
airports:
July 2009
3-2
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
> Deicing product selection
> Air traffic composition and levels
> Airport treatment and collection practices
> Airfield design
> Weather conditions
3.2.1.1 Deicing Product Selection
Deicing product choice is the first determinant of deicing pollutant loadings at an individual airport. A
variety of ADF and pavement deicer formulations are available for purchase and use by airports and
airlines. These formulations contain one or two of several freezing point depressants, which constitute
most of the formulation, as well as a variety of chemical additives. The formulations chosen by an airport
or airlines affect the chemicals that will discharge to the environment. For example, an airport that
chooses a potassium acetate-based pavement deicer will discharge potassium, undegraded acetate,
COD/BOD, and unidentified additives to the environment; whereas an airport that chooses a urea-based
pavement deicer will discharge undegraded urea, ammonia, nitrates, and higher levels of BOD/COD to
the environment. For additional information on the types and quantities of different chemicals found in
ADF and airfield pavement deicer formulations, see Chapter 2.
Multiple factors drive deicing product choice including airport climate, product performance, cost,
availability, and compatibility with aircraft and airport infrastructure. Weather conditions also strongly
influence the need for use of different types of airport deicing products. For example, during winter
freezing precipitation events, the use of Type I ADF for aircraft deicing, Type IV ADF for aircraft anti-
icing and pavement deicers may all be necessary to maintain aircraft operations. Environmental release of
chemicals from all three product types would therefore be expected under these conditions. During calm
winter conditions, use of only Type I ADF to remove light layers of frost from aircraft may be necessary,
and under these conditions releases of chemicals associated with Type IV ADF and pavement deicers
would not be expected.
3.2.1.2 Air Traffic Composition and Levels
Airports vary widely in the types of aircraft using their facilities and in total number of aircraft departures
during the winter deicing season. EPA has focused the scope of the rule on those airports that have higher
levels of jet departures (1,000 or more annually). Jets are more likely than other types of aircraft (e.g.,
propeller-driven aircraft) to continue operating during inclement winter weather. Airports with larger
numbers of jet departures are more likely to use ADF and pavement deicers to maintain operations and
therefore are more likely to discharge deicing pollutants.
The type of jet also makes a difference in the quantity of ADF released to the environment since larger
jets require larger quantities of ADF than smaller jets for both deicing and anti-icing.
In addition, all other factors being equal, airports with larger numbers of jet and other aircraft departures
will use larger quantities of deicing products.
3.2.1.3 Airport Deicing Pollutant Treatment and Collection Practices
Airports vary widely in the nature of their deicing pollutant collection and treatment practices. A number
of airports discharge some or all of their deicing pollutants to surface waters near airports. Some airports
collect a portion of their deicing wastewaters and either treat them on-site or send them off-site to a
publically owned treatment works (POTW) or other facility for treatment and discharge. Other airports
July 2009 3-3
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
discharge stormwater containing deicing pollutants to soil and groundwater. Many airports have a
combination of these discharge conditions. EPA's Technical Development Document for the Proposed
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2009) provides
additional information on the collection and treatment systems found at individual airports.
ADF and pavement deicer chemicals disperse widely during use. Type I and Type IV ADF drip and shear
from aircraft during application, taxiing, and take-off. Airports apply pavement deicers to large expanses
of airfield pavement found at many airports, including aprons, gate areas, taxiways, and runways. Due to
this widespread product dispersion, large quantities of airport stormwater frequently contain some level of
deicing pollutants. The large quantities and dispersed nature of contaminated stormwater make it difficult
for airports to collect and treat more than a fraction of released deicing product. For this reason, most
airports discharge the majority of their deicing pollutants to the environment.
Deicing collection and treatment systems vary in design and effectiveness by airport. EPA's Technical
Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport
Deicing Category (US EPA 2009) describes collection and treatment technologies and their effectiveness
in reducing deicing pollutant discharges in detail. EPA assessed three ADF stormwater collection
technologies and one stormwater treatment technology for the purpose of constructing regulatory options.
The assessed collection technologies include glycol recovery vehicles (GRVs), GRVs used in
combination with "plug and pump" systems, and deicing pads. The assessed treatment technology is
anaerobic fluidized bed (AFB) biological treatment. EPA's Technical Development Document for the
Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2009)
also discusses other approaches airports use to reduce discharge of deicing pollutants to surface waters.
3.2.1.4 Airfield Design
The configuration of airport grounds and infrastructure relative to surface waters, pervious surfaces, and
groundwater also affect deicing pollutant dispersion in the environment. Influential airport design
elements include:
> Stormwater infrastructure collection and delivery efficiency;
> Runway and taxiway proximity to surface waters;
> Airfield imperviousness;
> Airfield slope; and
> Amount of vegetation buffer between impervious areas and surface waters.
Stormwater collection and delivery systems at airports vary in their design delivery efficiency and
condition. Some systems deliver large fractions of airport stormwater to a chosen destination quickly and
without substantial volume loss during delivery. Other systems are designed or are in a condition such
that substantial volumes of stormwater are lost prior to ultimate discharge. Pervious or partially pervious
system elements such as unlined ditches and ponds and leaking stormwater pipes and storage units allow
stormwater loss. Deicing pollutants in stormwater lost from collection and delivery systems typically
enter the soil column where they degrade, accumulate, or eventually enter groundwater if present on
airport grounds. Groundwater and the pollutants it contains may ultimately discharge to nearby surface
waters or flow beyond airport property lines. In these situations, infiltration may slow and reduce
pollutant discharges to surface waters, but not eliminate them. In other cases, pollutants in groundwater
may degrade before they discharge to surface waters or cross airport property lines.
July 2009 3-4
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
Deicing pollutants can also degrade during stormwater transport and storage. Degradation rates are slower
under cold temperatures and increase as temperatures rise. Systems that discharge stormwater more
slowly, particularly those that hold stormwater until later in the year when average temperatures rise,
allow greater opportunity for degradation of deicing pollutants prior to discharge. The degradation
process can remove some chemicals of concern in deicing discharges. In some cases, however,
degradation can create new pollutants of concern or a volume of stormwater with very low dissolved
oxygen levels, both of which can be of concern if discharged to surface waters in sufficient quantities. For
additional information on airport deicing product degradation products, see Chapter 2.
In general, the closer airport runways and taxiways are to surface waters, the greater the potential for
deicing pollutants to enter those waters through stormwater flow, groundwater flow, or aerial deposition.
Shorter distances reduce pollutant loss from stormwater transport systems, degradation, and soil retention.
Shorter distances also make it more likely that ADF released to the air during taxiing and takeoff can be
carried by the wind to surface waters. Some airport takeoff flight paths extend directly over surface
waters and ADF shed during takeoff can fall directly into those surface waters. Conversely, greater
distances increase opportunities for pollutant loss, retention, and degradation.,
As the imperviousness and slope of the airport grounds increase, the amount of stormwater runoff
available to mobilize and carry deicing pollutants to surface waters tends to increase. Pervious areas on
airfields can include areas of vegetation or bare soil as well as paved areas with cracked surfaces.
Vegetation buffers between impervious areas where ADF and pavement deicers are initially released and
surface waters can decrease the amount of stormwater and pollutants entering surface waters by providing
an opportunity for stormwater infiltration and pollutant accumulation or degradation in the soil column.
Pollutants associated with Type IV fluids and pavement deicers, in particular, are affected by overall
airfield design because of their widespread dispersion in the airfield. A smaller proportion of Type I fluids
are affected by overall airfield design because most are released to the environment close to ADF
application sites. Type I ADF dispersion is therefore most influenced by the design of the particular
portions of the airfield that contain and drain stormwater from ADF application sites.
3.2.1.5 Weather Conditions
Because the use of ADF and airfield pavement deicers is so weather-dependent, deicing pollutant
discharges among individual airports vary widely with differences in climate and typical winter weather
conditions. Deicing pollutant discharges can also vary widely from year-to-year and day-to-day at
individual airports as winter weather conditions vary at airports on seasonal and daily bases. In addition to
influencing choice of deicing product for application, as discussed above, weather conditions also
influence the quantity of product applied and its dispersion in the environment.
Important factors influencing the quantity and dispersion of airport deicing products include:
> Precipitation type (e.g., freezing rain, sleet, snow, rain or a mixture);
> Ground and air temperatures
> Precipitation event magnitude; and
> Precipitation event timing.
Winter precipitation types range from rain to freezing rain, sleet, and snow. Some individual precipitation
events contain two or more of these precipitation types. Precipitation type affects both the quantity of
deicing product used as well as its dispersion. For example, freezing rain tends to coat aircraft with ice.
July 2009 3-5
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
Ice coatings tend to require greater quantities of Type IADF to remove than loose, dry snow or light
frost.
Precipitation type and ground and air temperatures also affect pollutant dispersion. Precipitation that is
liquid, such as rain, or that melts, such as snow on a warm ground surface, mobilizes deicing pollutants
and moves them through stormwater transport systems to discharge more quickly than solid precipitation
that accumulates on airfield surfaces. After a snow event, a significant quantity of ADF and pavement
deicers can be trapped in plowed snowbanks or snow storage units and will not enter stormwater transport
systems or surface waters, soil, or groundwater until ground and air temperatures are high enough to
allow the snow to melt. Rates and timing of snowmelt can vary widely among airports (e.g., Fairbanks
International in Alaska versus Dallas-Fort Worth International in Texas) and among winter seasons or
snow events at individual airports.
Ground and air temperatures are also important in their influence on rates of pollutant degradation since
higher temperatures allow higher degradation rates.
Strong winds associated with some weather events can increase aerial deposition of ADF on the airfield
and adjacent surface waters.
Another factor that influences deicing pollutant discharge is precipitation event magnitude. In general, as
precipitation quantity increases, use of greater quantities of ADF and pavement deicer is required. In
addition, larger precipitation events tend to produce more stormwater. Larger quantities of stormwater
tend to mobilize and discharge deicing pollutants more quickly than smaller quantities of stormwater. The
timing of stormwater availability from a specific event will, however, be dependent on the type of
precipitation and its melting rate, as discussed above. Because larger stormwater quantities move deicing
pollutants more quickly, they may reduce the quantity of pollutants that infiltrate soil and other pervious
airport surfaces.
Another important factor is the timing of precipitation events. Precipitation events that take place during
periods of high air traffic levels (e.g., holidays, morning rush times) require deicing operations for a
greater number of aircraft and the use of greater quantities of deicing materials (see Aircraft Traffic
Composition and Levels above).
3.2.2 Quantified A irport Deicing Pollutant Discharge Estimates
EPA estimated seasonal pollutant discharges from airport deicing operations based on current airport
practices and conditions. EPA had sufficient information to quantify a portion of the total discharge of
chemical oxygen demand (COD) and ammonia from airport deicing operations. A more detailed
description of EPA's estimation methodology and results is available in the Technical Development
Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing
Category (US EPA 2009).
COD is a parameter well-suited to monitoring oxygen demand from ADF and pavement deicer
discharges. Five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) is another parameter that can be used to
monitor oxygen demand, but EPA selected COD for its analysis for the following reasons:
July 2009 3-6
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
> While both COD and BOD5 are good indicators of stormwater oxygen demand, COD also
measures oxygen demand from all chemicals that can be oxidized and which may not be reflected
in a measure of BOD5.
> COD analyses are simpler to conduct and can be measured in real time rather than the 5 days
required for BOD5 analyses.
> BOD5 analyses reflect a specific set of conditions (i.e., oxygen demand at 20°C and over a 5 day
period). Because most deicing discharges take place at temperatures lower than 20°C and remain
in the environment for periods much longer than 5 days, COD is a better measure of the long term
oxygen demand associated with the discharges.
> Active bacterial cultures are required for BOD5 analyses. Toxic ADF and pavement deicer
additives can have a negative and variable impact on bacteria culture acclimation to deicing
stormwaters, making the method less robust than COD analyses.
EPA developed a pollutant discharge ("loading") calculation methodology to estimate COD discharges to
surface waters based on ADF and pavement deicer use at airports surveyed by EPA (2009). As described
in Section 3.2.1, a number of airport-specific factors influence the discharge of deicing pollutants to
surface waters. Typically, ADF is applied at specific airport locations such as gate areas, deicing pads,
and aprons. Airports typically apply pavement deicing chemicals over a larger area and variety of
locations, including runways, taxiways, aprons, and gate areas. For the purposes of this analysis, EPA
assumed that pavement deicing chemicals could be present in discharges from almost every airport
outfall, whereas the majority of ADF chemicals are present in the discharges from the smaller number of
outfalls that drain ADF application sites.
For the purposes of this analysis, EPA estimated the percentage of ADF and pavement deicers that can be
carried by stormwater and potentially discharged to surface waters. Because pavement deicers are applied
to large and varied expanses of the airfield, the amount of pavement deicers available for discharge to
surface waters can range from nearly 100% from paved areas near outfall drains to nearly 0% for deicers
that fall on grassy areas and infiltrate unfrozen soil. Estimating the percentage of pavement deicers
discharged to surface waters at individual airports is difficult without performing a detailed study of each
airport. Therefore, EPA assumed 100% of pavement deicers are available for discharge to surface waters
in order to analyze the maximum possible amount of discharge.
For ADF discharges, EPA chose to estimate only discharges from ADF application sites and did not
estimate discharges associated with ADF dispersed in the airfield beyond ADF application sites. EPA
may further examine airfield ADF discharge levels at a later date.
EPA estimates that 80% of Type I fluid applied to aircraft falls to the pavement at ADF application sites
and is available for discharge from those areas. The remaining 20% is dispersed in the airfield beyond
ADF application sites due to tracking by aircraft tires, wind dispersion, and dripping and shearing from
aircraft during taxiing and take-off (Switzenbaum et al. 1999). EPA estimates that 10% of Type IV anti-
icing fluid falls to the pavement at ADF application sites and is available for discharge from those areas.
The remaining 90% is primarily dispersed in the airfield due to tracking by aircraft tires, wind dispersion,
and dripping and shearing from aircraft, particularly during take-off. Some ADF can be carried by aircraft
or wind beyond airport property lines. EPA multiplied the total amount of Type I and Type IV ADF
applied at individual airports by the appropriate ADF application site percentage to determine the amount
of each type of ADF available for discharge from ADF application sites.
July 2009 3-7
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
EPA also calculated the annual volume of ADF-contaminated storm water associated with ADF
application sites by using the information described above in conjunction with 30 years (1971-2000) of
precipitation data from the National Climate Data Center, airport site characteristic information from
EPA's airport survey, sampling data, published journal and other articles, and discharge information from
EPA's Permit Compliance System. It is important to note that not all airports report discharge information
to their permitting authority, therefore available discharge data is limited.
EPA then determined the percentage of ADF from ADF application sites that would be collected and
treated at each airport. EPA estimated these percentages using information provided during to EPA during
airport site visits and in responses to EPA's Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c). If an airport
did not provide EPA with a percentage estimate for their collection and treatment system, EPA reviewed
the airport's questionnaire responses as well as reported collection and treatment percentages for similar
collection and treatment systems to determine a percentage estimate for the airport.
EPA reduced the estimate of total COD load from ADF application sites at each airport by EPA's
percentage estimate of the airport's current collection and treatment system effectiveness to estimate the
amount of COD the airport discharges to surface waters from ADF application sites. These estimates
represent the current, "baseline" amount of ADF discharged to the environment from ADF application
sites over a single deicing season.
To estimate COD discharges associated with pavement deicers, EPA first determined the type and
quantity of pavement deicer product applied at individual airports using responses to EPA's Airport
Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c). EPA then calculated the quantity of COD associated with the
type and quantity of pavement deicer used at each airport. EPA assumed 100% of pavement deicers are
available for discharge to surface waters. This assumption may overestimate the quantity of COD
reaching surface waters because of losses at some airports to soil infiltration. EPA has insufficient
information to estimate levels of soil infiltration at individual airports.
Table 3-1 summarizes ADF application site and pavement deicer COD discharges EPA estimated for each
airport that responded to EPA's questionnaire. EPA did not have sufficient information to estimate
discharges from individual airports EPA did not survey. As discussed above, COD discharge levels in
Table 3-1 do not reflect COD discharges associated with Type I and Type IV ADF dispersed beyond
ADF application sites.
Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF
Application Sites at Surveyed Airports
Pavement Deicer
COD Discharge
ADF Application
Site COD
Discharge
Airport Name
Aberdeen Regional
Airborne Airpark
Akron - Canton Regional
Albany International
Albuquerque International Sunport
Aniak
Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field
Austin Straubel International
Austin-Bergstrom International
Baltimore-Washington International
Barnstable Muni-Boardman/Polando Field
(pounds/year)
12,472
1,210,057
56,700
214,534
2,617
5,115
38,268
110,283
9,976
884,564
S
(pounds/year)
0
2,331,713
255,826
109,890
524,227
5,540
91,601
378,973
146,656
1,374,218
469,111
Airport Service Level
Non-Hub /<1,000 jet
General Aviation/Cargo
Small Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub /<1,000 jet
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub /< 1,000 jet
July 2009
3-8
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges
Application Sites at Surveyed Airports
Airport Name
Bert Mooney
Bethel
Birmingham International
Bismarck Municipal
Bob Hope
Boeing Field/King County International
Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field
Bradley International
Buffalo Niagara International
Central Wisconsin
Charlotte/Douglas International
Cherry Capital
Chicago Midway International
Chicago O'Hare International
Chippewa Valley Regional
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International
City of Colorado Springs Municipal
Cleveland-Hopkins International
Cold Bay
Craven County Regional
Dallas Love Field
Dallas/Fort Worth International
Deadhorse
Denver International
Des Moines International
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County
Duluth International
El Paso International
Eppley Airfield
Evansville Regional
Fairbanks International
Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International
Fort Wayne International
Fort Worth Alliance
General Edward Lawrence Logan International
General Mitchell International
George Bush Intercontinental Airport/Houston
Gerald R. Ford International
Gillette-Campbell County
Glacier Park International
Greater Rochester International
Greater Rockford
Gulfport-Biloxi International
Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta International
Helena Regional
Pavement Deicer
COD Discharge
(pounds/year)
0
140,659
0
9,195
0
5,851
937,541
460,060
913
215,733
558,864
36,219
718,880
10,365,065
0
1,515,928
113,269
1,816,972
S
0
125
10,373
50,848
1,911,606
176,265
1,010,803
0
0
146,043
16,448
941,866
0
712,697
2,991
1,359,382
699,290
0
36,210
*
710
170,234
1,590,039
0
179,433
0
from Pavement Deicers and ADF
ADF Application
Site COD
Discharge
(pounds/year)
0
50,915
50,847
213,443
0
31,446
290,420
1,778,704
1,832,048
443,467
1,392,605
0
0
8,733,878
0
822,345
462,436
3,709,111
621,909
8,928
227,012
593,712
0
777,648
490,533
0
765,304
0
1,128,249
204,825
319,152
0
545,428
6,898
9,740,474
957,716
60,235
600,371
0
391,940
1,228,022
557,825
0
1,472,952
0
Airport Service Level
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Large Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub /<1,000 jet
Large Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Primary Commercial
Service /<1,000 jet
Non-Hub /<1,000 jet
Medium Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub /< 1,000 jet
Large Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
General Aviation/Cargo
Large Hub
Medium Hub
Large Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub /< 1,000 jet
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
July 2009
3-9
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges
Application Sites at Surveyed Airports
Airport Name
Honolulu International
Indianapolis International
Jackson Hole
Jacksonville International
James M Cox Dayton International
John F Kennedy International
John Wayne Airport-Orange County
Juneau International
Kahului
Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International
Kansas City International
Kona International at Keahole
La Guardia
Lafayette Regional
Lambert-St Louis International
Lanai
Lewiston-Nez Perce County
Long Island Mac Arthur
Los Angeles International
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International
Louisville International-Standiford Field
Lovell Field
Luis Munoz Marin International
Manchester
Me Carran International
Memphis International
Metropolitan Oakland International
Miami International
Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold-
Chamberlain
Montgomery Regional (Dannelly Field)
Nashville International
Newark Liberty International
Nome
Norfolk International
Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International
Northwest Arkansas Regional
Ontario International
Orlando International
Outagamie County Regional
Palm Beach International
Pensacola Regional
Philadelphia International
Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Piedmont Triad International
Pittsburgh International
Pavement Deicer
COD Discharge
(pounds/year)
0
824,663
0
0
86,686
3,068,666
0
1,082,651
0
2,730
346,890
0
1,315,424
0
3,322,542
0
s
0
0
0
439,328
0
0
229,469
0
334,157
0
0
681,924
0
93,454
1,686,306
22,429
*
0
397,847
0
0
130,836
0
0
1,701,450
0
243,299
906,866
from Pavement Deicers and ADF
ADF Application
Site COD
Discharge
(pounds/year)
0
2,907,633
0
0
380,946
5,489,149
0
459,700
0
88,053
1,279,726
0
4,487,109
15,133
1,230,807
0
0
176,997
0
0
522,149
42,182
0
1,828,125
64,919
2,073,854
0
0
6,362,897
2,359
372,242
11,464,956
30,113
251,092
0
312,852
356
0
588,037
0
0
1,530,580
0
698,801
3,931,605
Airport Service Level
Large Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub /<1,000 jet
Non-Hub /<1,000 jet
Small Hub
Large Hub
Medium Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Medium Hub
Large Hub
Medium Hub
Large Hub
Large Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Large Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
July 2009
3-10
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges
Application Sites at Surveyed Airports
Airport Name
Port Columbus International
Portland International
Raleigh-Durham International
Ralph Wien Memorial
Rapid City Regional
Redding Municipal
Reno/Tahoe International
Richmond International
Rickenbacker International
Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field
Roberts Field
Rochester International
Ronald Reagan Washington National
Sacramento International
Sacramento Mather
Salt Lake City International
San Antonio International
San Diego International
San Francisco International
Santa Fe Municipal
Santa Maria Pub/Capt G Allan Hancock Field
Sarasota/Bradenton International
Seattle-Tacoma International
South Bend Regional
Southwest Florida International
Spokane International
St George Municipal
Stewart International
Syracuse Hancock International
Tampa International
Ted Stevens Anchorage International
Theodore Francis Green State
Toledo Express
Trenton Mercer
Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field
Tucson International
Tupelo Regional
Tweed-New Haven
Washington Dulles International
Waterloo Municipal
Wiley Post- Will Rogers Memorial
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International
Will Rogers World
William P Hobby
Williamson County Regional
Williamsport Regional
Pavement Deicer
COD Discharge
(pounds/year)
313,879
178,213
190,387
43,866
10,907
*
30,378
151,669
44,335
75,056
S
*
366,464
0
0
3,272,738
*
0
0
0
0
0
56,346
69,136
0
1,362,864
0
370,095
6,729
0
4,140,073
80,620
112,145
7,625
149,013
0
*
199
2,032,669
12,787
42,624
*
26,285
0
0
S
from Pavement Deicers and ADF
ADF Application
Site COD
Discharge
(pounds/year)
3,120,055
911,546
1,041,489
25,326
258,448
7,035
606,939
361,921
108,882
334,727
0
210,773
1,309,731
0
11,932
1,794,858
129,604
0
0
0
0
0
1,600,739
0
0
0
0
196,863
844,427
0
2,416,962
610,460
383,445
54,836
131,595
19,045
8,339
50,074
6,052,151
79,504
29,821
432,418
503,236
0
0
40,953
Airport Service Level
Medium Hub
Medium Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub /< 1,000 jet
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub /< 1,000 jet
Non-Hub
Large Hub
Medium Hub
General Aviation/Cargo
Large Hub
Medium Hub
Large Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub /<1,000 jet
Non-Hub /<1,000 jet
Small Hub
Large Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub /< 1,000 jet
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Medium Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub /<1,000 jet
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub /< 1,000 jet
Non-Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub /< 1,000 jet
Non-Hub /< 1,000 jet
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub /< 1,000 jet
Non-Hub /< 1,000 jet
July 2009
3-11
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF
Application Sites at Surveyed Airports
ADF Application
Pavement Deicer Site COD
COD Discharge Discharge
Airport Name (pounds/year) (pounds/year) Airport Service Level
Willow Run S 62,356 General Aviation/Cargo
Wilmington International 0 22,118 Non-Hub
Yeager 75,865 302,292 Non-Hub
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) loads were calculated from data provided in response to the EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire
(2006c) and the EPA Airline Deicing Questionnaire (2006b).
<1,000 jet- Airport has less than 1,000 jet departures annually.
S - The airport reported using only sand as a pavement deicer (US EPA 2006c).
* - The airport reported that the quantity of pavement deicer usage was unknown (US EPA 2006c).
EPA also estimated annual ammonia discharges from urea pavement deicer use at individual airports
surveyed by EPA (Table 3-2). EPA does not have sufficient information to estimate ammonia discharge
levels at individual airports EPA did not survey.
Table 3-2: Ammonia Discharge from Deicing Operations at Surveyed Airports
Pavement Deicer Ammonia
Airport Name Discharge (pounds/year)
Akron - Canton Regional 12,077
Austin Straubel International 23,516
Bethel 37,363
Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field 229,654
Bradley International 9,481
Central Wisconsin 47,775
Charlotte/Douglas International 131,873
Fairbanks International 217,005
Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International 151,694
General Edward Lawrence Logan International 3,227
Glacier Park International 189
Greater Rockford 370,834
Juneau International 287,579
Manchester 12,737
Northwest Arkansas Regional 15,285
Piedmont Triad International 55,855
Raleigh-Durham International 50,572
Ralph Wien Memorial 5,661
Reno/Tahoe International 4,097
Ronald Reagan Washington National 35,476
Salt Lake City International 830,662
South Bend Regional 18,364
Spokane International 361,550
Stewart International 85,934
Ted Stevens Anchorage International 945,803
Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field 35,476
Yeager 15,087
EPA was able to create national estimates of COD and ammonia discharges from ADF application sites
and pavement deicers. EPA estimated COD loads from ADF application sites using discharge estimates
for airports EPA surveyed in conjunction with airport weighting factors developed as part of the EPA
July 2009 3-12
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
Airport Deicing Questionnaire sample frame. EPA estimated COD and ammonia loads from pavement
deicer use using reported usage levels for airports EPA surveyed in conjunction with airport weighting
factors. The national estimate of COD loads associated with pavement deicer use is an underestimate
because some airport survey respondents were unable to quantify their level of pavement deicer use, and
EPA has insufficient information to estimate their use levels.
Table 3-3 presents the estimate of current national COD loads from ADF application sites and pavement
deicers by airport hub size category. COD discharges associated with ADF dispersed in areas beyond
ADF application sites are not reflected by the figures in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Estimate of National Baseline COD Discharges from ADF Application Sites and Airfield
Pavement Deicing by Airport Hub Size Category
ADF Application Site COD Pavement Deicer COD
Discharge Discharge
Airport Hub Size (pounds/year) (pounds/year)
Large
Medium
Small
Nonhub
General Aviation/Cargo
Total
70,287,571
28,433,086
9,863,368
17,382,976
2,412,898
128,379,900
36,926,292
10,337,507
8,097,151
6,232,568
1,213,047
62,806,565
EPA also calculated current, baseline national ammonia discharges associated with airport use of urea as a
pavement deicer. These discharges are presented by airport hub size category in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4: Estimate of National Baseline Ammonia Discharges from Airfield Payment Deicing by
Airport Hub Size Category
Ammonia Discharge
Airport Hub Size (pounds/year)
Large 1,001,238
Medium 1,022,690
Small 1,577,948
Nonhub 1,051,967
General Aviation/Cargo NA
Total 4,653,843
Other pollutants in addition to COD and ammonia discharge from airport deicing operations. EPA has not
quantified discharge levels of these other pollutants. Chapter 1 discusses current levels of airport deicing
product usage in the U.S. Chapter 2 discusses the range of pollutants potentially present in ADF and
pavement deicer products.
3.3 Factors Influencing Airport Deicing Pollutant Concentrations in Receiving
Surface Waters
Pollutant concentrations in the environment, as well as total discharges, are of interest because of their
influence on the manner in which some pollutants impact the environment. As discussed in Chapter 2, a
number of pollutants have threshold levels above which impacts have been documented.
A number of factors influence airport deicing pollutant concentrations in surface waters. An important
factor is the total quantity of pollutants discharging to surface waters. Factors influencing total pollutant
discharges from airports are discussed in Section 3.2.
July 2009 3-13
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
ADFs and pavement deicers, as applied, contain certain concentrations of chemicals (see Chapter 2).
Before they enter surface waters, however, ADF and pavement deicers typically undergo dilution with
precipitation and, in some cases, a certain amount of degradation. Pollutant concentrations in deicing -
contaminated stormwater are typically lower, therefore, than the concentrations found in airport deicing
products as-applied.
When deicing pollutants enter surface waters, they are typically diluted further. Receiving water volume,
waterbody flow rate, and waterbody mixing dynamics influence dilution levels. Surface water
characteristics such as vegetation, stream slope, presence of ice and snow cover, stream channel obstacles,
and tidal influences can significantly affect flow rate and mixing. High vegetation levels and low stream
channel slopes tend to retard flow. Channel depressions can slow low flows and significantly increase
residence times of deicing pollutants in receiving streams. Snow pack and ice in streams can also alter
flow either by altering stream channel characteristics. Snow pack and ice can create depressions in a
channel that can reduce stream flow. They can also increase flow by filling in existing stream channel
depressions and reducing resistance to flow. Stream channel obstacles such as woody debris, rocks, and
falls can increase turbulence and mix pollutants with greater volumes of water. Tidal currents can also
increase mixing and dilution.
Many of the surface waters that directly receive airport deicing pollutants are small, low-flow, and
relatively low-slope streams. Figure 3-2 summarizes available flow rate data for surface waters directly
receiving deicing discharges from airports EPA surveyed. According to available data, 62% of initial
receiving waters have a flow rate of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) or less.
Figure 3-2: Initial Receiving Water Discharge Flows at EPA Surveyed Airports
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Unknown 0 Oto1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 40 40 to 80 80 to 160 160 to 1,000 to Greater
1,000 10,000 than
Discharge Flow (cfs) 10,000
Figure 3-3 summarizes available slope data. According to available data, 75% of initial receiving waters
have a slope of less than 1%.
July 2009
3-14
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Figure 3-3. Initial Receiving Water Slopes at EPA Surveyed Airports
140 -,
100
to
0)
^
o
-Q on
b 80
1
•5
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
describing environmental impacts from airport deicing discharges. In some cases, deicing pollutant
discharges have been definitively linked to environmental impacts. In other cases, impact linkage to
deicing pollutants is suggested, rather than definitive. Compiled articles describe a wide range of airport
and discharge conditions.
Surface waters are often subject to multiple stressors (e.g., pollutants from airport activities other than
deicing, other industrial discharges, invasive species). Determining the source(s) of a water's impairment
can be difficult and requires complex analyses that have not yet been conducted and published. EPA has
summarized suggested, as well as definitive, impact cases in this section because of the additional
information they provide on potential environmental impacts from deicing pollutant discharges.
Approximately half of the articles describe impacts with a definitive connection to airport deicing
pollutant discharges.
The majority of the environmental impact documentation focuses on impacts observed in surface waters
directly receiving airport deicing pollutant discharges. Wildlife impacts such as fish kills or other
organism deaths are the most frequently described environmental impact. Table 3-5 summarizes the total
number of studies EPA found on different types of environmental impacts and that were categorized as
having either a definitive or suggested connection to airport deicing discharges.
Table 3-5: Documented Environmental Impacts Associated with Airport Deicing Discharges
Impact
Connection to Airport
Deicing Definitive
Connection to Airport
Deicing Suggested
Total Number of
Studies
COD, BOD, DO, Nutrients
COD or BOD
DO
Nutrients
Wildlife Impacts
Fish Kill
Other Organisms
Human Health Impacts
Health
Drinking Water
Aesthetic Impacts
Foam
Odor
Color
Violations
Permit Violations
11
10
8
8
25
4
1
4
14
11
17
5
10
9
10
20
4
7
6
17
9
10
16
20
17
18
45
8
8
10
31
20
27
Though EPA's literature search was extensive, it is unlikely that EPA located all available documentation
of environmental impacts from airport deicing discharges. There are probably environmental impacts
from airport deicing discharges that have not yet been documented and published because of the time and
effort often required to detect, analyze, and document environmental impacts from industrial discharges.
An additional limitation on EPA's literature compilation is its ability to reflect current conditions at
individual airports. Since the publication of articles describing environmental impacts from certain
airports, some of those airports have installed collection and treatment systems or otherwise changed their
deicing practices in order to reduce deicing pollutant discharges. Table 3-6 summarizes a number of
improvements airports have undertaken to reduce their environmental impact in recent years. A number
of these efforts have improved conditions in receiving surface waters.
July 2009
3-16
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-6: Airport Deicing System Improvements
Airport
Environmental Impacts Deicing System Improvements
Date
Improvement
Implemented
Baltimore/Washington
International Airport
Odor, foam and color issues, fishDeicing pads and drains
impacts, Clean Water Act
violation
By winter 1997-98
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
International Airport
Anoxia, Sphaerotilus Discharge routing to POTW,
overgrowth, color and odor recycling system
issues, "dead" stream, high BOD
and ammonia levels
1994-2004
Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport
High ammonia levels, fish kills, Deicing pads and basins
color and odor issues
By 2004
Dayton International Airport
Contaminated drinking water, New deicing collection and
high ammonia levels, loss of fish treatment system constructed
community, thousands of
organisms killed
1996
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne
County Airport
Odor and color issues, permit
violations, fish kills
Construct sewer line to route
discharges to POTW
By 2010
Des Moines International
Airport
Odor and color issues, state
water quality standard violations
Stormwater detention facility
Long-term plan as
of 1998
General Mitchell International
Airport
Color issues, fish kills, high
glycol and BOD levels
Redesigned storm sewers
Pre-2006
Louisville International
Airport
High ammonia and BOD levels,
low DO levels, fish kills
No longer using urea
Pre-2002
Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport
Low DO levels, odor and color
issues, high BOD and glycol
levels, permit violations
Sewer system improvements
and deicing pads
1998-2001
Port Columbus International
Airport
High nutrient levels, low DO
levels, fish kills, aquatic species
diversity loss
No longer using urea,
construction of containment
system
By 2002-2003
Despite these limitations, the literature compilation provides a diverse profile of the types of
environmental impacts associated with airport deicing discharges. As air traffic and deicing product usage
levels continue to increase in the U.S. these types of impacts will either reappear at previously affected
airports or newly appear at airports where they had not been previously detected, unless application,
collection, and treatment practices change. Environmental impacts from deicing discharges continue to
persist at some level at many of the airports listed in Table 3-6, despite the sometimes significant efforts
made to address them.
Sections 3.4.1 to 3.4.5 provide additional information on documented environmental impacts. For
additional information on individual articles EPA compiled during the literature review, see Table C-l in
Appendix C. Section 3.5 provides information on the potential current extent of environmental impacts
from airport deicing discharges.
3.4.1
Chemical Oxygen Demand, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Dissolved
Oxygen, and Nutrient Impacts
3.4.1.1 Chemical Oxygen Demand and Biochemical Oxygen Demand
The primary ingredients in ADFs and pavement deicers are organic compounds that serve as freezing
point depressants. These organic compounds degrade after release to the environment, creating high
chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels in surface waters. High
July 2009
3-17
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
COD and BOD levels in surface waters can lead to high levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) consumption as
the organic matter degrades, potentially lowering DO concentrations below levels required for the health
and survival of aquatic organisms (see Section 2.2.1.2). EPA documented COD and BOD problems for 13
individual airports in 16 articles, 11 of which were classified as being definitively connected to airport
deicing discharges. Many of the information sources were state government reports and published journal
articles.
In a newspaper article on impacts from Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport's deicing operations,
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's water quality supervisor is quoted as stating that the airport's
deicing discharges represent the largest source of organic pollutants to the Minnesota River (Meersman
1993). During the course of the 1992-1993 deicing season, approximately 2,400 tons of glycol were
discharged to the Minnesota River. State officials suspected that these discharges lower DO levels in the
Minnesota River.
In 1998, the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection determined that the Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International Airport was responsible for elevated glycol levels and BOD issues observed in
surface waters receiving stormwater discharges from the airport. These problems continued to persist,
even after the airport implemented remediation actions (Kentucky Department of Environmental
Protection 1998).
3.4.1.2 Dissolved Oxygen
As organic material, BOD, and COD levels increase in airport deicing discharges increases, the amount of
dissolved oxygen (DO) required by surface water microorganisms to digest the material also increases.
Biodegradation of organic material lowers DO levels in surface waters and can ultimately make them
uninhabitable for aquatic life. EPA compiled 20 articles describing DO impacts from deicing activities at
13 airports. The impacts in 10 articles could be definitively connected to airport deicing discharges. The
articles describe low levels of DO and anoxia in receiving waters.
The Columbia Slough receives deicing pollutant discharges from Portland International Airport and is a
well-documented case of deicing pollutants lowering DO levels in a receiving water. In a technical report
prepared for the City of Portland, the airport's deicing discharges were documented as contributing 79%
of all organic material discharging to the Columbia Slough (Wells 1997). Low DO levels clearly coincide
with cold weather deicing activities. A separate report written by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (1998) specifically states that the airport's deicing pollutants have lowered DO in
the Slough.
3.4.1.3 Nutrients
The pavement deicer urea decays and forms ammonia in surface waters. High concentrations of ammonia
can be toxic to many aquatic organisms and plants can use the nitrogen in ammonia to fuel extra growth.
Bacteria can also convert ammonia to other nitrogen-containing compounds that plants can absorb as
nutrients. Nitrogen in airport deicing discharges can encourage algal blooms and other biological
overgrowths, followed by low DO levels or anoxia as the overgrowths die and decay. EPA found nutrient
impact complaints in 17 articles, 8 of which EPA classified as definitively connected to airport deicing
discharges. The 17 articles discuss 12 different airports. Most of the articles describe impacts from algal
blooms and elevated surface water levels of ammonia and nitrates.
Two articles describe nutrient enrichment in surface waters receiving deicing discharges from Port
Columbus International Airport (State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 1998, State of Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency 2004). A third report, another Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
July 2009 3-18
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
publication, describes high ammonia and nitrate concentrations in receiving waters downstream of the
airport and the discharge of significant quantities of glycol (State of Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency 2003).
3.4.2 Wildlife Impacts
3.4.2.1 Fish Kills
As described in Chapter 2, ADFs and pavement deicers have toxic components that can harm or kill
aquatic organisms when discharged in sufficient quantities to surface waters. As described in Section
3.4.1, ADFs and pavement deicers also contain high levels of organic matter and nutrients that, during
degradation in surface waters, can lower DO concentrations to harmful or uninhabitable levels for aquatic
life. Either of these pathways can result in acute fish death events known as fish kills. Eighteen of the
articles documented in the literature review discussed fish kills. EPA classified impacts in 8 articles as
definitively linked to airport deicing discharges. The 18 articles discussed fish kills downstream of 13
different airports and included newspaper articles, journal articles, and state government reports.
At Airborne Airpark in Wilmington, Ohio, fish kills were specifically noted downstream of airport
outfalls. In February of 1998, a fish kill of thousands of bass and bluegill, among other species, occurred
in Lytle Creek downstream of the airport's outfalls (Hannah 1998).
At Dayton International Airport, an ADF spill in the winter of 1986 killed thousands offish and other
organisms in Mill Creek (State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 1995).
At Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport in May 2001, a storm water collection pond primarily
containing stormwater contaminated with ethylene and propylene glycol from deicing activities breached
and discharged to the Frank and Poet Drain (Lochner 2006). Two days later, a fish kill was observed at
the location where the Drain discharges to the Detroit River. EPA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
investigated the incident and charged the airport with violating the Clean Water Act after failing to report
the discharge.
3.4.2.2 Other Organism Impacts
In addition to fish kills, airport deicing discharges have been linked to the death of other types of aquatic
organisms and have been implicated in the sickening or deaths of other wildlife and pets that have come
in contact with contaminated surface waters. Of the 45 articles EPA compiled in this category, 25 are
definitively connected to airport deicing discharges. The 45 articles discuss 26 different airports. The
following airports are discussed in 3 or more articles:
> Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (6 articles);
> Baltimore/Washington International Airport (3 articles);
> Denver International Airport (3 articles); and
> General Mitchell International Airport (3 articles).
At Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, Denver International Airport, and Buffalo-
Niagara International Airport waters receiving deicing discharges are described as lifeless (Sierra Club
2004, Scanlon 1997, and Dawson 1994).
A number of studies conducted on the receiving waters located downstream from deicing outfalls at
Baltimore/Washington International Airport report glycol concentrations high enough to kill daphnids and
minnows (Hartwell et al. 1993, Fisher et al. 1995, Pelton 1997a).
July 2009 3-19
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
3.4.3 Human Health, Aesthetic, and Other Aquatic Resource Use Impacts
3.4.3.1 Human Health
As discussed in Chapter 2, some ADF and pavement deicer components can be harmful to human beings
exposed to sufficient quantities. Some people claim to have been sickened by strong chemical odors
associated with some deicing-contaminated storm waters. Human health impacts are documented for 6
airports in 8 articles. The articles include newspaper articles and reports from organizations. Impacts
range from headaches and nausea due to odors to claims of kidney and other health problems, especially
in children. The Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare (1997), a nonprofit organization of citizens
residing nearby Chicago O'Hare International Airport, documented vomiting and other illness due to
fumes from airport deicing discharges on a number of separate occasions. Residents state that, at times,
streams in residential neighborhoods receiving airport deicing discharges have unnatural colors and emit
odors that cause illness.
3.4.3.2 Drinking Water Contamination
EPA compiled 8 articles that discuss drinking water impacts from 5 airports. One article definitively
connected impacts to airport deicing discharges and the other articles are suggestive of a connection.
Three of the articles discussed drinking water contamination issues near Baltimore Washington
International Airport but did not definitively connect these impacts to airport deicing discharges.
At Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, 10 days after an ADF spill into a major source of
drinking water, consumers complained of a sickeningly sweet taste and smell in their drinking water.
Testing of samples taken three days after the complaints started did not indicate deicing fluid
contamination. However, sampling immediately following the spill indicated that water flowing from the
airport into the river that serves as the drinking water source contained 1,600 ppm of glycol.
3.4.3.3 Foam
Deicing chemicals can form visible foam in surface waters. EPA's compiled 10 articles that describe
foam in surface waters downstream of 7 airports. The articles include journal articles, newspaper articles,
and reports from organizations. Four articles definitively connect the presence of foam to airport deicing
discharges. Foam complaints frequently co-occur with odor and color complaints. High levels of glycols
were also typically found in surface waters containing visible foam.
At Baltimore/Washington International Airport, levels of ethylene glycol as high as 4,800 mg/L were
detected in the Muddy Bridge Branch where foam had been frequently sighted (McDowell 1997). In
1997, the airport applied nearly 200,000 gallons of ADF to planes and it is estimated that as much as 68%
may have entered nearby creeks (Pelton 1998). This discharge coincided with numerous complaints about
pinkish foam present on downstream surface waters.
3.4.3.4 Odor
Deicing-contaminated surface waters are frequently described as having a sickeningly sweet chemical
smell. EPA compiled 31 articles describing complaints of odors from surface waters located downstream
from airport deicing outfalls. Of the 31 articles, EPA classified 14 as describing a definitive connection
between airport deicing discharges and odor. The 31 articles describe 16 different airports. Several
airports are described in multiple articles:
July 2009 3-20
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
> Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (5 articles);
> Baltimore/Washington International Airport (4 articles); and
> Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (3 articles).
Odor complaints are frequently associated with additional impacts such as organism human health, and
aesthetic impacts. For example, all articles describing the odor complaints from Baltimore/Washington
International Airport discharges also described visible foam, human illness complaints, and fish impacts
(McDowell 1997, Pelton 1997b, Pelton 1998). At Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport,
allegations of discharge violations involving Elijah Creek coincided with unpleasant odors, surface water
discoloration, and pollutant concentrations high enough to harm aquatic life (Klepal 2004, Sierra Club
2004). Residents also complained about chemical smells and discolored water in Gunpowder Creek,
which also receives airport deicing discharges. Glycol levels in Gunpowder Creek were found to be up to
3.5 times higher than allowed by the airport's wastewater discharge permit (Kelly 2004).
3.4.3.5 Color
Manufacturers add dye to ADFs to help ADF users track their presence on aircraft and airfield surfaces
and to help them distinguish Type I from Type IV fluids. Sufficient levels of dye can discolor surface
waters. In addition, as described above, degradation of organic material associated with airport deicing
discharges can lower DO levels in surface waters. Under anoxic conditions, reduction of iron and
manganese ions to more soluble species can color surface waters (Zitomer 2001)
EPA found 20 articles describing 11 airports with unnatural colored surface waters downstream of airport
deicing stormwater outfalls. EPA classified 11 of the articles as describing impacts definitively connected
to airport deicing discharges. Five articles described impacts from Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
International Airport and 3 articles describe impacts from Baltimore/Washington International Airport.
Color complaints frequently coincided with odor complaints.
At Des Moines International Airport, color and odor issues are discussed in documents describing Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for receiving waters as well as in materials provided to local city
council members (Iowa Department of Natural Resources 2005, Flannery 1998). The TMDL document
describes ethylene glycol concentrations of 65 to 120 mg/L and propylene glycol concentrations of 210 to
490 mg/L near the airport outfall to Yeader Creek. These high glycol concentrations coincided with a
greenish color and sweet sewage odor in Yeader Creek. Yeader Creek was determined to be severely
polluted and in violation of Iowa Water Quality Standards. Local residents who live near the creek have
lodged complaints with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources about the surface water's discoloration
and odor.
3.4.4 Permit Violations
Permit violations were frequently described in articles compiled by EPA. Permit violations provide
additional information on large quantities of airport deicing pollutants discharging to surface waters. EPA
compiled 27 articles that describe discharge permit violations at 12 different airports. Several airports,
including Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport,
and Baltimore/Washington International Airport were discussed in multiple articles. Seventeen articles
describe direct discharge violations. Other articles describe unspecified violations or administrative
violations such as failure to report an unauthorized discharge.
July 2009 3-21
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
3.5 Potential Current Impacts to Impaired Waters and Other Resources
EPA evaluated the potential for airport deicing discharges to impact surface waters listed as impaired
under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as well as other aquatic resources located downstream of
airport deicing stormwater outfalls. Listing of a surface water as impaired under Section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act is an official determination that a waterbody is unable to serve one or more of its
designated uses such as drinking water supply, recreation, wildlife habitat, etc. because of pollution or
other modifications. It is an indicator of a stressed ecosystem.
EPA examined the listing status of surface waters receiving airport deicing discharges for two reasons.
First, to determine the extent to which airport deicing pollutants are being discharged to already stressed
aquatic ecosystems and potentially contributing additional stress. Second, to determine which listed
waterbodies may be impaired as a direct result of receiving airport deicing discharges.
EPA's analysis used a geographical information system (GIS) analysis of surface waters to which airports
directly discharge deicing pollutants. EPA used this information to identify 303(d)-listed waters and
aquatic resources that could potentially be affected by deicing discharges. EPA also examined existing
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) documents in order to identify airports that have officially been
determined to be point sources contributing to surface water impairment.
3.5.1 303(d)-Listed Waters Receiving Airport Deicing Discharges
Based on airport outfall location information provided in response to EPA's Airport Deicing
Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c), EPA indexed deicing outfall locations to the National Hydrography
Dataset (NHD) Plus stream network. EPA used NHD Plus tools to determine surface waters within 10
miles downstream of airport outfalls. Once downstream waters were identified in NHD Plus, EPA
overlaid their location information with the 2002 national GIS coverage of 303(d)-listed waters
(http://www.epa.gov/waters/data/downloads.html#303d') in order to determine whether any of the
downstream waters are listed as impaired. EPA then linked identified impaired streams to EPA's
Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results (WATERs) database in order to determine
the nature of the impairment. Of the 93 airports for which EPA has sufficient outfall location information
to conduct this analysis, 36 discharge directly to a freshwater waterbody that is listed as impaired. Table
3-7 summarizes the results of this analysis.
July 2009 3-22
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
Table 3-7: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Fresh Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing
Discharges
Number of Airport Deicing Pollutant
Airports with Potentially Contributing to
303(d) Impairment Category Impairment Impairment
Algal Growth
Ammonia
Cause Unknown
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota
Chlorine
Dioxins
Fish Consumption Advisory - Pollutant Unspecified
Flow Alteration
Habitat Alteration
Mercury
Metals (Other Than Mercury)
Nutrients
Oil And Grease
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Pathogens
PCBs
Pesticides
PH
Salinity/TDS/Sulfates/Chlorides
Sediment
Temperature
Total Toxicity
Toxic Organics
Turbidity
1
7
6
4
2
2
2
6
8
3
7
8
1
16
20
8
7
5
3
7
3
6
6
5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Of the 36 airports directly discharging to impaired freshwater waterbodies, 30 discharge to waterbodies
impaired by pollutants associated with airport deicing discharges. Because EPA had sufficient
information for only 93 airports to conduct this analysis, additional airports could be discharging deicing
pollutants to impaired waters.
Because NHD Plus does not provide information on marine waters, airport outfalls discharging directly to
marine waters were not included in the GIS analysis described above. To assess whether any of the
marine waters directly receiving airport deicing discharges are listed as impaired, EPA used information
on receiving marine waters from responses to EPA's Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c) to
search the WATERs database. Table 3-8 summarizes the results of this analysis.
Table 3-8: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Marine Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing
Discharges
Number of Airport Deicing Pollutant
Airports with Potentially Contributing to
303(d) Impairment Category Impairment Impairment
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Nutrients
Aesthetically impaired waters
Metals (Other Than Mercury)
4
3
2
4
Yes
Yes
Yes
Of the 6 airports discharging to impaired marine waters, 5 discharge to waters impaired for pollutants
associated with airport deicing discharges. Because EPA had sufficient information for only 93 airports to
July 2009 3-23
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
conduct this analysis, additional airports could be discharging deicing pollutants to impaired marine
waters.
Because states have not assessed all surface waters receiving deicing pollutant discharges from airports
for impairment, additional waters beyond those described here could be impaired.
Several of the 303(d) impairment categories EPA identified during the analysis can derive from airport
deicing pollutants. These categories include "aesthetically impaired waters," "algal growth," "ammonia,"
"cause unknown," "cause unknown-impaired biota," "fish consumption advisory - pollutant unspecified,"
"nutrients," "organic enrichment/oxygen depletion," "salinity/TDS/sulfates/chlorides," "total toxicity,"
and "toxic organics." A 303(d) listing alone does not mean that airport deicing discharges are the cause
of the waterbody impairments. However, 35 of the 42 airports discharging to impaired waters are
discharging to waters impaired in a manner potentially associated with airport deicing pollutants. Even if
these airports are not the root cause of the identified impairment, they contribute additional loadings of
those pollutants by which the surface waters are already impaired.
Table 3-9 provides additional information on airports discharging directly to 303(d)-listed waters and
associated impairments.
July 2009 3-24
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges
Waterbody
Airport Name Type1
Airborne Airpark FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
Akron - Canton Regional FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
Waterbody Name
Todd Fork
Todd Fork
Todd Fork
Todd Fork
Todd Fork
Nimishillen Creek
Nimishillen Creek
Nimishillen Creek
Nimishillen Creek
Nimishillen Creek
Nimishillen Creek
Nimishillen Creek
Nimishillen Creek
Nimishillen Creek
Nimishillen Creek
Nimishillen Creek
Nimishillen Creek
Tuscarawas River
Tuscarawas River
Tuscarawas River
Tuscarawas River
Tuscarawas River
Tuscarawas River
Tuscarawas River
Tuscarawas River
Tuscarawas River
Tuscarawas River
Tuscarawas River
Tuscarawas River
Parent Cause Description
Ammonia
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Total Toxicity
Flow Alteration
Habitat Alteration
Ammonia
Cause Unknown
Fish Consumption Advisory - Pollutant Unspecified
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Flow Alteration
Metals (Other Than Mercury)
Metals (Other Than Mercury) (Zinc)
Pathogens
PCBs
pH
Temperature
Cause Unknown
Fish Consumption Advisory - Pollutant Unspecified
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Salinity/TDS/Sulfates/Chlorides
Total Toxicity
Toxic Organics
Flow Alteration
Habitat Alteration
Pathogens
PCBs
Sediment
Potentially
Linked to
Airport
Deicing
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
:FW - Freshwater
MW - Marine water
July 2009
3-25
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges
Waterbody
Airport Name Type1 Waterbody Name
Austin Straubel International
Airport
Austin-Bergstrom International
Birmingham International
Boeing Field/King County
International
Bradley International
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
International
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
Dutchman Creek
Dutchman Creek
Dutchman Creek
Dutchman Creek
Dutchman Creek
Colorado River Below Town Lake
Onion Creek
Onion Creek
Onion Creek
Village Creek
Village Creek
Village Creek
Village Creek
Village Creek
Village Creek
Village Creek
Village Creek
Village Creek
Duwamish River
Farmington River
Stony Brook
Elijahs Creek
Elijahs Creek
Elijahs Creek
Gunpowder Creek
Gunpowder Creek
Parent Cause Description
Ammonia
Nutrients
Nutrients (Phosphorus)
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Total Toxicity
Pathogens
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Total Dissolved Solids
Pathogens
Ammonia
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Toxic Organics
Flow Alteration
Metals (Other Than Mercury)
pH
Sediment
Temperature
pH
Pathogens
Cause Unknown
Toxic Organics
Ammonia
Dissolved Oxygen
Ammonia
Dissolved Oxygen
Potentially
Linked to
Airport
Deicing
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
:FW - Freshwater
MW - Marine water
July 2009
3-26
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Cleveland-Hopkins International
Cold Bay
Des Moines International
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne
County
Eppley Airfield
General Edward Lawrence
Logan International
Greater Rockford
Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta
International
Waterbody
Type1
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
MW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
MW
MW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
Waterbody Name
Rocky River
Rocky River
Rocky River
Rocky River
Rocky River
Rocky River
Rocky River
Rocky River
Rocky River
Cold Bay
Yeader Creek
Yeader Creek
Easter Lake
Frank And Poet Drain
Missouri River
Missouri River
Missouri River
Boston Inner Harbor
Boston Inner Harbor
Rock River
Rock River
Rock River
Rock River
Rock River
Rock River
Rock River
Flint River
Parent Cause Description
Ammonia
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Chlorine
Flow Alteration
Habitat Alteration
Pathogens
PCBs
Sediment
Petroleum Products
Salinity/TDS/Sulfates/Chlorides
Toxic Organics
Nutrients (Phosphorus)
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota
Pathogens
PCBs
Pesticides
Toxic Organics
Pathogens
Cause Unknown
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Mercury
Metals (Other Than Mercury)
Pathogens
PCBs
Pesticides
Pathogens
Potentially
Linked to
Airport
Deicing
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
:FW - Freshwater
MW - Marine water
July 2009
3-27
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges
Waterbody
Airport Name Type1
Indianapolis International FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
James M Cox Dayton FW
International FW
FW
FW
FW
John F Kennedy International MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
La Guardia MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
Lafayette Regional FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
Louisville International- FW
Standiford Field FW
Waterbody Name
East Fork White Lick Creek
East Fork White Lick Creek
East Fork White Lick Creek
State Ditch
State Ditch
Stillwater River
Stillwater River
Stillwater River
Stillwater River
Stillwater River
Bergen Basin
Bergen Basin
Bergen Basin
Jamaica Bay
Jamaica Bay
Jamaica Bay
Thurston Basin
Bowery Bay
Bowery Bay
Bowery Bay
Flushing Bay
Flushing Bay
Flushing Bay
Rikers Island Channel
Rikers Island Channel
Rikers Island Channel
Vermilion River
Vermilion River
Vermilion River
Vermilion River
Vermilion River
Southern Ditch
Southern Ditch
Parent Cause Description
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota
Pathogens
PCBs
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota
Pathogens
Ammonia
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Habitat Alteration
Pathogens
Aesthetics
Dissolved Oxygen
Pathogens
Nutrients
Dissolved Oxygen
Pathogens
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved Oxygen
Pathogens
PCBs
Aesthetics
Dissolved Oxygen
PCBs
Dissolved Oxygen
Pathogens
PCBs
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Pathogens
Pesticides
Turbidity
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Pathogens
Potentially
Linked to
Airport
Deicing
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
:FW - Freshwater
MW - Marine water
July 2009
3-28
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Minneapolis-St Paul
International/Wold-Chamberlain
Newark Liberty International
Norman Y. Mineta San Jose
International
Ontario International
Phoenix Sky Harbor
International
Piedmont Triad International
Waterbody
Type1
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
Waterbody Name
Minnesota River
Minnesota River
Minnesota River
Minnesota River
Minnesota River
Elizabeth Channel
Elizabeth Channel
Elizabeth Channel
Elizabeth Channel
Elizabeth Channel
Elizabeth Channel
Newark Channel
Newark Channel
Newark Channel
Newark Channel
Newark Channel
Newark Channel
Los Gatos Creek
Cucamonga Creek
Salt River
Salt River
Salt River
Salt River
Salt River
Brush Creek
East Fork Deep River
East Fork Deep River
East Fork Deep River
Horsepen Creek
Potentially
Linked to
Airport
Parent Cause Description Deicing
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion X
Mercury
Pathogens
PCBs
Turbidity
Toxic Organics X
Dioxin
Floatables
Metals
Pathogens
PCBs
Toxic Organics X
Dioxin
Floatables
Metals
Pathogens
PCBs
Pesticides
Pathogens
Pesticides (Chlordane)
Pesticides (DDT Metabolites)
Pesticides (Dieldrin)
Pesticides (Toxaphene)
pH
Habitat Alteration
Habitat Alteration
Pathogens
Turbidity
Sediment
:FW - Freshwater
MW - Marine water
July 2009
3-29
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges
Waterbody
Airport Name Type1
Port Columbus International FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
Portland International FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
Rickenbacker International FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
Waterbody Name
Big Walnut Creek
Big Walnut Creek
Big Walnut Creek
Big Walnut Creek
Big Walnut Creek
Big Walnut Creek
Big Walnut Creek
Big Walnut Creek
Big Walnut Creek
Big Walnut Creek
Big Walnut Creek
Big Walnut Creek
Big Walnut Creek
Big Walnut Creek
Columbia Slough
Columbia Slough
Columbia Slough
Columbia Slough
Columbia Slough
Columbia Slough
Columbia Slough
Columbia Slough
Columbia Slough
Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek
Parent Cause Description
Ammonia
Cause Unknown
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Total Toxicity
Toxic Organics
Flow Alteration
Habitat Alteration
Metals (Other Than Mercury) (Copper)
Metals (Other Than Mercury)
Pathogens
Sediment
Temperature
Turbidity
Algal Growth
Dioxins
Metals (Other Than Mercury)
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Pathogens
PCBs
Pesticides
PH
Cause Unknown
Fish Consumption Advisory - Pollutant Unspecified
Total Toxicity
Flow Alteration
Habitat Alteration
Pathogens
PCBs
Sediment
Potentially
Linked to
Airport
Deicing
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
:FW - Freshwater
MW - Marine water
July 2009
3-30
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges
Waterbody
Airport Name Type1 Waterbody Name
Ronald Reagan Washington
National
San Antonio International
Seattle-Tacoma International
Theodore Francis Green State
Toledo Express
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton
International
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
Lower Anacostia River
Lower Anacostia River
Lower Anacostia River
Lower Anacostia River
Lower Anacostia River
Lower Anacostia River
Lower Anacostia River
Lower Anacostia River
Lower Anacostia River
Lower Anacostia River
Lower Anacostia River
Lower Anacostia River
Salado Creek
Salado Creek
Salado Creek
Salado Creek
Puget Sound
Puget Sound
Puget Sound
Puget Sound
Puget Sound
Puget Sound
Buckeye Brook
Buckeye Brook
Swan Creek
Swan Creek
Swan Creek
Spring Brook
Parent Cause Description
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Toxic Organics (Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate)
Toxic Organics (Chrysene)
Toxic Organics
Chlorine
Dioxins
Mercury
Metals (Other Than Mercury) (Selenium)
Metals (Other Than Mercury)
Oil And Grease
Pathogens
Turbidity
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Pathogens
Pesticides
Nutrients
Toxic Organics
Mercury
Pathogens
Pesticides
pH
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota
Pathogens
Total Toxicity
Habitat Alteration
Sediment
Cause Unknown
Potentially
Linked to
Airport
Deicing
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
:FW - Freshwater
MW - Marine water
July 2009
3-31
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
3.5.2 Airport Deicing Discharges Listed as TMDL Point Sources
To identify TMDLs that list airport deicing discharges as a point source contributing to a receiving
waterbody's impairment, EPA searched the online TMDL document database
(http ://iaspub.epa. gov/waters/text_search .tmdl_search_form. accessed August 2, 2007). The EPA TMDL
document database tracks information on waters listed by states as impaired under Section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act. The database provides information such as the identity of the pollutant causing the
impairment, the source of the impairment, and the status of TMDL development for the impaired water
body.
To date, EPA has identified 4 TMDL documents officially listing airport deicing discharges as point
sources contributing to surface water impairment:
> Total Maximum Daily Load for Priority Organics Yeader, Creek, Polk County, Iowa;
> Total Maximum Daily Loads for Nutrients and Siltation, Easter Lake, Polk County, Iowa;
> Impacts of Deicing Fluids on Elijahs and Gunpowder Creeks, Boone County, Kentucky; and
> Columbia Slough Total Maximum Daily Loads for Dissolved Oxygen.
The state of Iowa has listed Yeader Creek as impaired by excessive levels of "priority organics" (glycol
compounds) and identified Des Moines International Airport as the primary source. The TMDL describes
Yeader Creek as a small stream (2 to 3 cubic feet per second flow). Waters immediately downstream from
airport deicing stormwater outfalls had a greenish color, a wastewater odor, and no fish or
macroinvertebrates. In addition, exposed substrate was an unusual rust-orange color and embedded
substrate was an unusual black color, suggesting anaerobic conditions. The Yeader Creek TMDL
describes two additional locations downstream as having pools of water the same nonalgal green color
and with the "same odor of sewage and sweetener" as the waters immediately downstream of the airport
deicing stormwater outfalls. The Yeader Creek TMDL established discharge limits for ethylene glycol
and propylene glycol for airport deicing outdalls and set a benthic macroinvertebrate distribution target
for the river to assess stream recovery.
The state of Iowa has listed Easter Lake as impaired for nutrients (i.e., phosphorus) and sediment.
Although the Des Moines International Airport was identified as a contributing point sources for nutrient
impairment, the airport's stormwater phosphorus load (110 pounds per year) was considered to be minor
in comparison to other potential phosphorus sources in the watershed and the airport was not assigned a
waste load reduction goal. The TMDL analysis did not consider the Des Moines International Airport to
be a significant source of sediment to Easter Lake.
Elijahs and Gunpower Creeks are located immediately downstream from the Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International Airport. Since the early 1990s the Kentucky Division of Water has documented
low dissolved oxygen levels, evidence of ammonia toxicity, and extensive growth of Sphaerotilus
bacteria in the creeks. In 1996, both streams were listed on Kentucky's 303(d) list of impaired waters and
ranked as a high priority for TMDL development. The results of the TMDL analysis established discharge
limits for BOD5 and ammonia and required the airport to develop a Best Management Practices plan and
a Groundwater Protection Plan.
The Columbia Slough, located downstream from the Portland International Airport in Oregon, is listed as
impaired for multiple water quality parameters including bacteria, pH, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus,
temperature, lead, and several toxic organics. The TMDL identified a complex list of pollution sources
July 2009 3-32
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices
contributing to the Slough's impairment including combined sewer overflows, landfill leachate, airport
deicing discharges, urban and industrial runoff, and other point sources in the watershed. Airport deicing
discharges were identified as the primary pollution source for wintertime dissolved oxygen violations in
the Slough. The TMDL established a range of BOD waste load allocations for airport deicing discharges
to meet dissolved oxygen goals and also required the airport to perform additional waterbody monitoring.
3.5.3 Resources Located Downstream from Airport Deicing Discharge Outfalls
As a screening-level assessment, EPA evaluated the potential for airport deicing discharges to affect the
following resources:
> Groundwater aquifers;
> Drinking water intakes from surface water sources;
> Federal lands;
> National, state, and local parks; and
> National Wildlife Refuge Areas (NWRAs).
EPA assessed the potential for airport deicing discharges to affect groundwater aquifers based on
information provided in responses to EPA's Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c). Individual
airports' responses indicated whether or not airport grounds are located immediately above an aquifer,
and whether or not the aquifer is a drinking water source. EPA assessed the remaining aquatic resources
listed above for those surface waters located within 10 miles downstream of airport deicing outfalls, using
the same GIS-based methodology described in Section 3.5.1. EPA overlaid the relevant NHD Plus stream
segments over the following GIS coverages to determine whether downstream surface waters intersect
with the GIS areas associated with each resource:
> Drinking water intake point file from EPA's Reach Address Database (RAD);
> National atlas of the U.S. federal land boundaries;
> Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) U.S. Geographic Data Technology, Inc. (GOT)
park landmarks (includes federal, state, and local parks in the U.S.); and
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wildlife Refuge Area boundaries.
EPA analyzed aquatic resources within a distance of 10 miles downstream of airport deicing stormwater
outfalls because, according to EPA's literature compilation, many documented impacts have taken place
within this distance. Impacts could occur at distances beyond 10 miles downstream, but EPA has chosen
10 miles for this preliminary analysis.
Table 3-10 presents the results of the analysis for aquatic resources which could potentially be affected by
airport deicing discharges. Because EPA has sufficient information to conduct this analysis for only
airports EPA surveyed, the table below is not a complete list of airports discharging deicing pollutants to
surface waters containing the resources listed above.
July 2009 3-33
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted
Airport Name Airport City
Aberdeen Regional Aberdeen
Airborne Airpark Wilmington
Akron - Canton Regional Akron
Albany International Albany
Albuquerque International Albuquerque
Sunport
Aniak Aniak
Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field Aspen
Austin Straubel International Green Bay
Austin-Bergstrom International Austin
Baltimore-Washington Baltimore
International
Barnstable Muni- Hyannis
Boardman/Polando Field
Bethel Bethel
Birmingham International Birmingham
Bismarck Municipal Bismarck
Boeing Field/King County Seattle
International
Bradley International Windsor Locks
Buffalo Niagara International Buffalo
Central Wisconsin Mosinee
Charlotte/Douglas International Charlotte
Chicago O'Hare International Chicago
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Covington
International
City of Colorado Springs Colorado Springs
Municipal
Cleveland-Hopkins International Cleveland
Cold Bay Cold Bay
Craven County Regional New Bern
Dallas Love Field Dallas
Dallas/Fort Worth International Dallas-Fort Worth
Denver International Denver
Des Moines International Des Moines
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Detroit
County
Duluth International Duluth
Eppley Airfield Omaha
Evansville Regional Evansville
Fairbanks International Fairbanks
Fort Wayne International Fort Wayne
Fort Worth Alliance Fort Worth
General Edward Lawrence Boston
Logan International
General Mitchell International Milwaukee
George Bush Intercontinental Houston
Airport/Houston
Gerald R. Ford International Grand Rapids
by Airport Deicing
Airport
State
SD
OH
OH
NY
NM
AK
CO
WI
TX
MD
MA
AK
AL
ND
WA
CT
NY
WI
NC
IL
KY
CO
OH
AK
NC
TX
TX
CO
IA
MI
MN
NE
IN
AK
IN
TX
MA
WI
TX
MI
Airport
Grounds
Above an
Aquifer
Yes
DW
DW
DW
Yes
DW
DW
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DW
DW
Yes
Yes
DW
DW
DW
Yes
Yes
DW
Discharges
Within 10 Miles Downstream from
Airport Deicing Outfall
Drinking
Water Federal
Intakes Lands Parks NWRAs
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
July 2009
3-34
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted by Airport Deicing Discharges
Within 10 Miles Downstream from
Airport Airport Deicing Outfall
Airport Name
Glacier Park International
Greater Rochester International
Greater Rockford
Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta
International
Indianapolis International
James M Cox Dayton
International
John F Kennedy International
Juneau International
Kansas City International
La Guardia
Lafayette Regional
Lambert-St Louis International
Louisville International-
Standiford Field
Lovell Field
Manchester
Me Carran International
Memphis International
Minneapolis-St Paul
International/Wold-Chamberlain
Montgomery Regional
(Dannelly Field)
Nashville International
Newark Liberty International
Nome
Norfolk International
Norman Y. Mineta San Jose
International
Northwest Arkansas Regional
Ontario International
Outagamie County Regional
Philadelphia International
Phoenix Sky Harbor
International
Piedmont Triad International
Pittsburgh International
Port Columbus International
Portland International
Raleigh-Durham International
Ralph Wien Memorial
Rapid City Regional
Redding Municipal
Reno/Tahoe International
Rickenbacker International
Roanoke Regional/Woodrum
Field
Airport City
Kalispell
Rochester
Rockford
Atlanta
Indianapolis
Dayton
New York
Juneau
Kansas City
New York
Lafayette
St Louis
Louisville
Chattanooga
Manchester
Las Vegas
Memphis
Minneapolis
Montgomery
Nashville
Newark
Nome
Norfolk
San Jose
Fayetteville/
Springdale
Ontario
Appleton
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Greensboro
Pittsburgh
Columbus
Portland
Raleigh/Durham
Kotzebue
Rapid City
Redding
Reno
Columbus
Roanoke
Airport
State
MT
NY
IL
GA
IN
OH
NY
AK
MO
NY
LA
MO
KY
TN
NH
NV
TN
MN
AL
TN
NJ
AK
VA
CA
AR
CA
WI
PA
AZ
NC
PA
OH
OR
NC
AK
SD
CA
NV
OH
VA
Grounds Drinking
Above an Water
Aquifer Intakes
DW
Yes
DW
Yes
Yes
Yes
DW
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
DW
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DW
DW
DW
DW Yes
Yes
Yes
DW
Yes
DW
DW
DW
Yes
Yes
Federal
Lands Parks NWRAs
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
July 2009
3-35
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted by Airport Deicing Discharges
Within 10 Miles Downstream from
Airport Airport Deicing Outfall
Airport Name Airport City
Rochester International Rochester
Ronald Reagan Washington Washington
National
Sacramento International Sacramento
Sacramento Mather Sacramento
Salt Lake City International Salt Lake City
San Antonio International San Antonio
Seattle-Tacoma International Seattle
Syracuse Hancock International Syracuse
Ted Stevens Anchorage Anchorage
International
Theodore Francis Green State Providence
Toledo Express Toledo
Trenton Mercer Trenton
Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Huntington
Field
Tucson International Tucson
Tupelo Regional Tupelo
Tweed-New Haven New Haven
Washington Dulles International Washington
Waterloo Municipal Waterloo
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Wilkes-Barre/
International Scranton
Will Rogers World Oklahoma City
Willow Run Detroit
Wilmington International Wilmington
Yeager Charleston
Airport
State
MN
DC
CA
CA
UT
TX
WA
NY
AK
RI
OH
NJ
WV
AZ
MS
CT
DC
IA
PA
OK
MI
NC
WV
Grounds Drinking
Above an Water
Aquifer Intakes
DW
Yes
DW Yes
DW
Yes
Yes
DW
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DW Yes
Yes
DW
DW
Yes
Federal
Lands Parks NWRAs
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
DW = Aquifer is known by airport to be used for drinking water.
July 2009
3-36
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
4 Benefits of Proposed Regulatory Options
This chapter summarizes the proposed regulatory options EPA evaluated and the environmental benefits
EPA anticipates will result from each option. The benefits of reduced airport deicing pollutant discharges
may be classified in three broad categories: human health, ecological and economic productivity benefits.
EPA was not able to monetize benefits of the proposed regulatory options because of an imperfect
understanding of the link between discharge reductions and benefit categories, and how society values
some of the benefit events.
This chapter presents a summary of EPA's regulatory options (Section 4.1), a discussion of individual
airports likely to be affected by the proposed options and associated pollutant discharge reductions
(Sections 4.2 and 4.3), and a qualitative assessment of expected ecological and human health and aquatic
resource use benefits from reduced deicing pollutant discharges (Section 4.4).
4.1 Proposed Regulatory Options
EPA evaluated three different collection and treatment scenarios for aircraft deicing operation discharges
from ADF application sites:
> 20% collection and treatment scenario - uses glycol recovery vehicles (GRVs) for deicing
stormwater collection and anaerobic fluidized bed (AFB) treatment for deicing stormwater
treatment;
> 40% collection and treatment scenario - uses GRVs in combination with plug-and-pump
technology for deicing stormwater collection and AFB treatment for deicing stormwater
treatment; and
> 60% collection and treatment scenario - uses centralized deicing pads for deicing stormwater
collection and AFB treatment for deicing stormwater treatment.
A complete description of these collection and treatment methods is available in EPA's Technical
Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport
Deicing Category (US EPA 2009).
EPA also evaluated methods for control of deicing pollutant discharges from the airfield beyond ADF
application sites. One approach EPA evaluated is to eliminate the use of urea as a pavement deicer and
replace it with other, less environmentally harmful products. Other, less harmful products (e.g., potassium
acetate, sodium acetate, and sodium formate) are available for substitution.
Table 4-1 provides a brief description of each of EPA's proposed regulatory options.
July 2009
4-1
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 4. Benefits of Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options
Table 4-1: Proposed Regulatory Options Evaluated for the Airport Deicing Category
Proposed Number of Airports
Option Option Description Subject to Option
1 > All primary commercial airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures that 110
conduct deicing and are not a General Aviation/Cargo (GA/C) airport are in
scope;
> Airports with 10,000 or more annual departures are required to collect and
treat 20% of spent ADF to numeric limit.
> All in-scope airports must discontinue using urea pavement deicer.
2 > All primary commercial airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures that 110
conduct deicing and are not a GA/C airport are in scope.
> Airports with 10,000 or more annual departures must collect and treat 40% of
spent ADF to numeric limit.
> All in-scope airports must discontinue using urea pavement deicer.
3 > All primary commercial airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures that 110
conduct deicing and are not a GA/C airport are in scope. (14 airports subject to
> Airports with 10,000 or more annual departures must collect and treat 20% of 60% requirement, 96
spent ADF to numeric limit. Airports using 460,000 or more gallons of airports subject to 20%
propylene glycol/ethylene glycol annually must to collect and treat 60% of requirement)
spent ADF to numeric limit.
> All in-scope airports must discontinue using urea pavement deicer.
4 > All primary commercial airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures that 218
conduct deicing and are not a GA/C airport are in scope. (14 airports subject to
> Airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures must collect and treat 20% 60% requirement, 204
of spent ADF to numeric limit. Airports using 460,000 or more gallons of airports subject to 20%
propylene glycol / ethylene glycol annually must collect and treat 60% of requirement)
spent ADF to numeric limit.
> All in-scope airports must discontinue using urea pavement deicer.
A complete description of how EPA constructed these regulatory options is available in the Technical
Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport
Deicing Category (US EPA 2009).
4.2 Airports Affected by the Proposed Regulatory Options
Although EPA surveyed many US airports, EPA has not identified all airports that may be affected by the
proposed regulatory options. EPA's survey collected data, for use in evaluating the airport deicing
category, at all large and medium hub primary commercial airports, and a statistical subsample of small
and nonhub primary commercial airports.
To assess airports that may be impacted by the proposed regulatory options, EPA evaluated those airports
for which survey information is available and then scaled up the resulting data using statistical weighting
factors to represent conditions for the entire category. For additional information on the use of survey data
and associated statistical weighting factors, see EPA's Technical Development Document for the
Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA
2009).
For each proposed regulatory option, EPA determined which individual airports are likely to fall within
scope of the option. EPA then determined which surveyed airports are already in compliance with the
option and which airports would likely need to take action to comply with the option.
For airports EPA surveyed, Table 4-2 summarizes which options would likely require an airport to take
action to address deicing discharges. For example, Albuquerque International Sunport falls within scope
July 2009 4-2
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
of Option 1 but, based on EPA's survey data, is believed to be already in compliance with both the 20%
ADF collection and treatment and the urea restriction requirement. Therefore, for this airport under
Option 1, EPA did not estimate additional technology requirements, compliance costs, or pollutant
discharge reductions. Conversely, Charlotte-Douglas International Airport falls within scope of Option 1
and, based on EPA's survey information, is not believed to be in compliance with either the 20% ADF
collection and treatment or the urea restriction requirement. For this airport, EPA evaluated GRV use and
pavement deicer product substitution to reach compliance with Option 1's requirements. EPA also
calculated associated compliance costs and pollutant discharge reductions.
Table 4-2: Surveyed Airports Affected by
Airport Name
Albuquerque International Sunport
Austin Straubel International
Bethel
Birmingham International
Bismarck Municipal
Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field
Bradley International
Central Wisconsin
Charlotte/Douglas International
Chicago O'Hare International
Cleveland-Hopkins International
Eppley Airfield
Evansville Regional
Fairbanks International
Fort Wayne International
General Edward Lawrence Logan International
Glacier Park International
John F Kennedy International
Juneau International
La Guardia
Lafayette Regional
Lovell Field
Manchester
Memphis International
Montgomery Regional (Dannelly Field)
Newark Liberty International
Nome
Norfolk International
Northwest Arkansas Regional
Ontario International
Outagamie County Regional
Piedmont Triad International
Port Columbus International
Portland International
Raleigh-Durham International
Ralph Wien Memorial
Rapid City Regional
Reno/Tahoe International
Rickenbacker International
Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field
Ronald Reagan Washington National
Salt Lake City International
San Antonio International
Proposed Regulatory
Option 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Options
Option 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Option 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Option 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
July 2009
4-3
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-2: Surveyed Airports Affected
Airport Name
South Bend Regional
Spokane International
Stewart International
Ted Stevens Anchorage International
Toledo Express
Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field
Tucson International
Tweed-New Haven
Washington Dulles International
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International
Will Rogers World
Wilmington International
Yeager
by Proposed Regulatory
Option 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Options
Option 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Option 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Option 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Although EPA has insufficient information to determine what would happen under each regulatory option
at each airport that was not surveyed, EPA was able to use statistical techniques to estimate the level to
which each regulatory option would require airport deicing operation changes for the airport population
believed to be within scope of the rule. EPA estimates, based on the statistical weights assigned to
airports it was able to survey, that the approximate number of airports taking action to reduce deicing
pollutant discharges would be 60 airports under Option 1, 70 airports under Option 2, 65 airports under
Option 3, and 110 airports under Option 4.
EPA's estimate of actions taken by individual airports under each regulatory option is based on data from
EPA's Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c) and other publicly available data sources. Although current
conditions at some individual airports may have changed since the survey was conducted, the overall
results of the analysis provide a useful estimate of the level of action required by each proposed
regulatory option.
4.3 Environmental Benefits Anticipated under Proposed Regulatory Options
EPA expects that environmental benefits associated with each proposed regulatory option will accrue to
society in several broad categories, including improved environmental quality, enhanced aquatic resource
value for human use, reduced human health risks, and increased productivity in economic activities that
are adversely affected by airport deicing pollutants discharges. This section provides a qualitative and
quantitative discussion of benefits associated with the proposed regulatory options.
4.3.1
Airport Actions and Benefits under Proposed Regulatory Options
In assessing potential benefits from reducing airport deicing pollutant discharges, EPA used information
on deicing pollutant environmental behavior, pollutant effects on the aquatic environment, human use of
aquatic resources, and human health; deicing pollutant discharge levels under current conditions and
under each proposed regulatory option; and characteristics of surface and ground water resources
potentially affected by deicing pollutant discharges.
Table 4-3 to Table 4-6 list the airports addressed by each proposed regulatory option along with the
following information:
July 2009
4-4
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 4. Benefits of Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options
> The technology EPA estimates each airport will install in order to comply with the option's
requirements (US EPA 2009);
> EPA's estimates of ammonia and COD discharge reductions associated with each airports ADF
collection and treatment and pavement deicer substitution actions;
> Whether the airport discharges deicing pollutants directly to a water body listed as impaired under
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act;
> Whether the airport property is above a groundwater aquifer and if that aquifer supplies drinking
water (US EPA 2006c); and
> Information on aquatic resources (drinking water intakes, federal lands, and park lands) within 10
miles downstream of airport outfalls.3
3 Source files include the drinking water intake point file from EPA's Reach Address Database (RAD); national atlas of the
U.S. federal land boundaries; ESRI U.S. GDT park landmarks (includes U.S. national, state, and local parks); and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife NWRA boundaries.
July 2009 4-5
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-3: Proposed Option
Pavement
Deicer
Ammonia
Airport Name (pounds)
Austin Straubel 23,
International
Bethel 37,
Birmingham
International
Boise Air 229,
Terminal/Gowen
Field
Bradley International 9,
Central Wisconsin 47,
Charlotte/Douglas 131,
International
Eppley Airfield
Fairbanks 217,
International
Fort Wayne 151,
International
General Edward 3,
Lawrence Logan
International
Glacier Park
International
John F Kennedy
International
Juneau International 287,
La Guardia
Manchester 12,
Memphis
International
Newark Liberty
International
Nome
516
363
654
481
775
873
005
694
227
189
579
737
1 - Airport
Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits
COD Discharge
Reduction (pounds)
Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice
Aircraft Plug Anaerobic
Deicing Pavement and Deicing Fluidized Hauling Urea
Fluids Deicers GRV Pump Pad Bed off site Reduction
0
9,928
9,915
0
0
0
271,558
220,009
0
109,086
1,899,392
0
1,070,384
89,641
874,986
356,484
404,401
2,235,666
5,872
64,116
101,869
0
626,150
25,849
130,259
359,551
0
591,664
413,592
8,798
514
0
784,083
0
34,728
0
0
0
1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinkinj
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I water.
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
Within 10 Miles
303(d) Downstream of Airport
Listed Outfall(s)
Waters Drinking
at the Above an Water Federal Park
Outfall1 Aquifer2 Intake Lands Lands
P DW
P X X
DW
P X X
X X
X DW X
DW
DW X
P X
DW X
P XX
P
XX X
X X
P X
X
July 2009
4-6
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-3: Proposed Option 1 - Airport Compliance Actions
COD Discharge
Pavement Reduction (pounds) Estimated
Deicer Aircraft Plug
Ammonia Deicing Pavement and
Airport Name (pounds) Fluids Deicers GRV Pump
Northwest Arkansas 15,285 61,006 41,674 X
Regional
Ontario International 214 OX
Piedmont Triad 55,855 136,266 152,289 X
International
Port Columbus 608,411 0 X
International
Raleigh-Durham 50,572 203,090 137,883 X
International
Ralph Wien 5,661 4,939 15,435 X
Memorial
Reno/Tahoe 4,097 0 11,172
International
Roanoke Regional/ 65,272 0 X
Woodrum Field
Ronald Reagan 35,476 0 96,724
Washington National
Salt Lake City 830,662 0 2,264,796
International
San Antonio 25,273 0 X
International
South Bend Regional 18,364 0 50,070
Spokane 361,550 0 985,763
International
Stewart International 85,934 0 234,299
Ted Stevens 945,803 0 2,578,727
Anchorage
International
Tri-State/Milton J. 35,476 0 96,724
Ferguson Field
Will Rogers World 98,131 OX
Yeager 15,087 0 41,133
and Environmental Benefits
303(d)
Compliance Technology or Practice Listed
Anaerobic Waters
Deicing Fluidized Hauling Urea at the
Pad Bed off site Reduction Outfall1
X X
X X
X XX
X P
X X
X X
X
X
X P
X
X P
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Within 10 Miles
Downstream of Airport
Outfall(s)
Drinking
Above an Water Federal Park
Aquifer2 Intake Lands Lands
X
DW X X
X
DW X
X
DW
X
X XX
X
DW
X
X
X
DW
X
1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.
July 2009
4-7
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-4: Proposed Option
2 - Airport Compliance
Actions and Environmental Benefits
COD Discharge
Pavement Reduction (pounds) Estimated
Airport Name
Albuquerque
International
Sunport
Austin Straubel
International
Bethel
Birmingham
International
Boise Air
Terminal/Gowen
Field
Bradley
International
Central Wisconsin
Charlotte/Douglas
International
Eppley Airfield
Fairbanks
International
Fort Wayne
International
General Edward
Lawrence Logan
International
Glacier Park
International
John F Kennedy
International
Juneau
International
La Guardia
Manchester
Deicer
Ammonia
(pounds)
23,516
37,363
229,654
9,481
47,775
131,873
217,005
151,694
3,227
189
287,579
12,737
Aircraft
Deicing Pavement
Fluids Deicers GRV
127,780 0
0 64,116
19,857 101,869
19,830 0
0 626,150
0 25,849
0 130,259
543,116 359,551
440,017 0
0 591,664
218,171 413,592
3,798,785 8,798
0 514
2,140,768 0
179,283 784,083
1,749,972 0
712,969 34,728
Plug
and
Pump
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Compliance Technology or Practice
Anaerobic
Deicing Fluidized Hauling
Pad Bed off site
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Urea
Reduction
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
303(d)
Listed
Waters
at the Above an
Outfall1 Aquifer2
DW
P DW
P X
DW
P X
X
X DW
DW
DW
P X
DW
P
P
X
Within 10 Miles
Downstream of Airport
Outfall(s)
Drinking
Water Federal Park
Intake Lands Lands
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.
July 2009
4-8
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-4: Proposed Option 2 - Airport Compliance
Airport Name
Memphis
International
Newark Liberty
International
Nome
Norfolk
International
Northwest
Arkansas Regional
Ontario
International
Piedmont Triad
International
Port Columbus
International
Portland
International
Raleigh-Durham
International
Ralph Wien
Memorial
Reno/Tahoe
International
Roanoke Regional/
Woodrum Field
Ronald Reagan
Washington
National
Salt Lake City
International
San Antonio
International
Pavement
Deicer
Ammonia
(pounds)
15,285
55,855
50,572
5,661
4,097
35,476
830,662
Actions and Environmental Benefits
COD Discharge
Reduction (pounds) Estimated
Aircraft
Deicing
Fluids
808,803
4,471,333
11,744
61,204
122,012
214
272,532
1,216,822
222,189
406,181
9,877
147,941
130,544
0
0
50,545
Pavement
Deicers GRV
0
0
0
0
41,674
0
152,289
0
0
137,883
15,435
11,172
0
96,724
2,264,796
0
Plug
and
Pump
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Compliance Technology or Practice
Anaerobic
Deicing Fluidized Hauling Urea
Pad Bed off site Reduction
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
303(d)
Listed
Waters
at the Above an
Outfall1 Aquifer2
X X
P X
X
X
X
X
X DW
P
X
DW
X
DW
X
P X
P
Within 10 Miles
Downstream of Airport
Outfall(s)
Drinking
Water Federal Park
Intake Lands Lands
X X
X
X
X X
X
1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.
July 2009
4-9
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-4: Proposed Option 2 - Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits
COD Discharge
Pavement Reduction (pounds)
Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice
303(d)
Listed
Waters
Within 10 Miles
Downstream of Airport
Outfall(s)
Deicer Aircraft Plug Anaerobic Waters Drinking
Ammonia Deicing Pavement and Deicing Fluidized Hauling Urea at the Above an Water Federal Park
Airport Name (pounds) Fluids Deicers GRV Pump Pad Bed off site Reduction Outfall1 Aquifer2 Intake Lands Lands
South Bend
Regional
18,364
0 50,070
X
DW
Spokane
International
361,550
0 985,763
X
X
Stewart
International
85,934
0 234,299
X
Ted Stevens
Anchorage
International
945,803
0 2,578,727
X
X
Toledo Express
93,465
0
X
X
DW
Tri-State/Milton J.
Ferguson Field
35,476
0 96,724
X
X
Tucson
International
4,642
X
X
X
Will Rogers World
196,262
0
X
X
DW
Yeager
15,087
0 41,133
X
X
1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.
July 2009
4-10
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-5: Proposed Option 3 - Airport Compliance Actions
COD Discharge
Pavement Reduction (pounds) Estimated
and Environmental Benefits
Compliance Technology or Practice
Deicer Aircraft Plug Anaerobic
Ammonia Deicing Pavement and Deicing Fluidized Hauling
Airport Name (pounds) Fluids Deicers GRV Pump Pad Bed off site
Austin Straubel 23,516 0 64,116
International
Bethel 37,363 9,928 101,869 X
Birmingham 9,915 OX
International
Boise Air Terminal/ 229,654 0 626,150
Gowen Field
Bradley International 9,481 0 25,849
Central Wisconsin 47,775 0 130,259
Charlotte/Douglas 131,873 271,558 359,551 X
International
Chicago O'Hare 2,838,510 0
International
Cleveland-Hopkins 1,236,370 0
International
Eppley Airfield 220,009 0 X
Fairbanks 217,005 0 591,664
International
Fort Wayne 151,694 109,086 413,592 X
International
General Edward 3,227 5,698,177 8,798
Lawrence Logan
International
Glacier Park 189 0 514
International
John F Kennedy 3,211,152 0
International
Juneau International 287,579 89,641 784,083 X
La Guardia 2,624,959 0
Manchester 12,737 356,484 34,728 X
Memphis 404,401 0 X
International
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
Urea
Reduction
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
303(d)
Listed
Waters Above
at the an
Outfall1 Aquifer2
P DW
P X
DW
P X
X
X
P
X DW
DW
DW
P X
DW
P
P
X
X X
Within 10 Miles
Downstream of Airport
Outfall(s)
Drinking
Water Federal Park
Intake Lands Lands
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.
July 2009
4-11
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-5: Proposed Option 3 - Airport Compliance Actions
COD Discharge
Pavement Reduction (pounds) Estimated
and Environmental Benefits
Compliance Technology or Practice
Deicer Aircraft Plug Anaerobic
Ammonia Deicing Pavement and Deicing Fluidized Hauling Urea
Airport Name (pounds) Fluids Deicers GRV Pump Pad Bed off site Reduction
Newark Liberty 6,706,999 0
International
Nome 5,872 0 X
Northwest Arkansas 15,285 61,006 41,674 X
Regional
Ontario International 214 OX
Piedmont Triad 55,855 136,266 152,289 X
International
Port Columbus 608,411 0 X
International
Raleigh-Durham 50,572 203,090 137,883 X
International
Ralph Wien 5,661 4,939 15,435 X
Memorial
Reno/Tahoe 4,097 0 11,172
International
Roanoke Regional/ 65,272 0 X
Woodrum Field
Ronald Reagan 35,476 0 96,724
Washington National
Salt Lake City 830,662 0 2,264,796
International
San Antonio 25,273 0 X
International
South Bend Regional 18,364 0 50,070
Spokane 361,550 0 985,763
International
Stewart International 85,934 0 234,299
Ted Stevens 945,803 0 2,578,727
Anchorage
International
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
303(d)
Listed
Waters Above
at the an
Outfall1 Aquifer2
P X
X
X
X
X DW
P
DW
X
DW
X
P X
P
DW
X
X
Within 10 Miles
Downstream of Airport
Outfall(s)
Drinking
Water Federal Park
Intake Lands Lands
X X
X
X
X X
X
1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.
July 2009
4-12
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-5: Proposed Option 3 - Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits
COD Discharge
Pavement Reduction (pounds)
Deicer
Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice
303(d)
Listed
Within 10 Miles
Downstream of Airport
Outfall(s)
Airport Name
Aircraft Plug Anaerobic Waters Above Drinking
Ammonia Deicing Pavement and Deicing Fluidized Hauling Urea at the an Water Federal Park
(pounds) Fluids Deicers GRV Pump Pad Bed off site Reduction Outfall1 Aquifer2 Intake Lands Lands
Tri-State/Milton J.
Ferguson Field
35,476
0
96,724
X
X
Washington Dulles
International
1,966,949
X
X
DW
X
X
X
Will Rogers World
98,131
0 X
X
DW
Yeager
15,087
0 41,133
X
X
P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
! DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.
July 2009
4-13
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-6: Proposed Option 4 -Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits
Pavement
Deicer
Ammonia
Airport Name (pounds)
Austin Straubel 23,516
International
Bethel 37,363
Birmingham
International
Bismarck Municipal
Boise Air Terminal/ 229,654
Gowen Field
Bradley 9,481
International
Central Wisconsin 47,775
Charlotte/Douglas 1 3 1 ,873
International
Chicago O'Hare
International
Cleveland-Hopkins
International
Eppley Airfield
Evansville Regional
Fairbanks 217,005
International
Fort Wayne 151,694
International
General Edward 3,227
Lawrence Logan
International
Glacier Park 189
International
John F Kennedy
International
Juneau International 287,579
La Guardia
COD Discharge
Reduction (pounds)
Within 10 Miles
303(d) Downstream of Airport
Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice Listed Outfall(s)
Aircraft Anaerobic Waters Drinking
Deicing Pavement Plug and Deicing Fluidized Hauling Urea at the Above an Water Federal Park
Fluids Deicers GRV Pump Pad Bed off site Reduction Outfall1 Aquifer2 Intake Lands Lands
0
9,928
9,915
41,621
0
0
86,476
271,558
2,838,510
1,236,370
220,009
39,941
0
109,086
5,698,177
76,428
3,211,152
89,641
2,624,959
64,116
101,869
0
0
626,150
25,849
130,259
359,551
0
0
0
0
591,664
413,592
8,798
514
0
784,083
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X P DW
X
P X X
X DW
X P X X
X
XX X
X X
X P X
X DW X
X DW
XX DW X
X P X
X DW X
P XX
X
P
1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.
July 2009
4-14
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-6: Proposed Option 4 -Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits
COD Discharge
Pavement Reduction (pounds)
Within 10 Miles
303(d) Downstream of Airport
Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice Listed Outfall(s)
Deicer Aircraft Anaerobic Waters Drinking
Ammonia Deicing Pavement Plug and Deicing Fluidized Hauling Urea at the Above an Water Federal Park
Airport Name (pounds) Fluids Deicers GRV Pump Pad Bed off site Reduction Outfall1 Aquifer2 Intake Lands Lands
Lafayette Regional
Lovell Field
Manchester
Memphis
International
Montgomery
Regional (Dannelly
Field)
Newark Liberty
International
Nome
Northwest Arkansas
Regional
Ontario
International
Outagamie County
Regional
Piedmont Triad
International
Port Columbus
International
Raleigh-Durham
International
Ralph Wien
Memorial
Rapid City Regional
Reno/Tahoe
International
Rickenbacker
International
9,080
25,309
12,737 356,484
404,401
460
6,706,999
5,872
15,285 61,006
214
114,667
136,266
55,855
608,411
50,572 203,090
5,661 4,939
50,397
4,097 0
21,232
0
0
34,728
0
0
0
0
41,674
0
0
152,289
0
137,883
15,435
0
11,172
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X P DW
X XXX
X XX
X X
X
P X
X
X X
X X
DW
X X DW X
P
X DW
X X
DW
X DW
P X
X
X
X
X
P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.
July 2009
4-15
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-6: Proposed Option 4 -Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits
COD Discharge
Pavement Reduction (pounds)
Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice
303(d)
Listed
Waters
Deicer Aircraft Anaerobic
Ammonia Deicing Pavement Plug and Deicing Fluidized Hauling Urea at the Above an
Airport Name (pounds) Fluids Deicers GRV Pump Pad Bed off site Reduction Outfall1 Aquifer2
Within 10 Miles
Downstream of Airport
Outfall(s)
Drinking
Water Federal Park
Intake Lands Lands
Roanoke
Regional/Woodrum
Field
65,272
0 X
X
X
Ronald Reagan
Washington
National
35,476
0 96,724
X
X
X
X
Salt Lake City
International
830,662
0 2,264,796
X
San Antonio
International
25,273
0 X
X
X
South Bend
Regional
18,364
0 50,070
X
DW
Spokane
International
361,550
0 985,763
X
X
Stewart
International
85,934
0 234,299
X
Ted Stevens
Anchorage
International
945,803
0 2,578,727
X
X
Tri-State/Milton J.
Ferguson Field
35,476 25,661 96,724 X
X
X
X
Tweed-New Haven
9,764
0 X
X
X
X
Washington Dulles
International
1,966,949
X
X
DW
X
X
X
Wilkes-
Barre/Scranton
International
84,322
0 X
X
X
Will Rogers World
98,131
0 X
X
DW
Wilmington
International
4,313
0 X
X
DW
Yeager
15,087
0 41,133
X
X
1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.
July 2009
4-16
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-7 presents the total COD and ammonia discharge reductions associated with each of the proposed
regulatory options.
Table 4-7: Annual Pollutant Discharge Reductions under Proposed Regulatory Options
Proposed Regulatory
Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
ADF COD
(million pounds)
9.0
18.8
27.2
29.3
Pavement Deicer COD
(million pounds)
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
Pavement Deicer
Ammonia
(million pounds)
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
The totals for each regulatory option in Table 4-7 are greater than the sum of the reductions presented for
individual airports in Table 4-3 to Table 4-6. This is because the totals in Table 4-7 reflect discharge
reductions associated with all airports in scope of the proposed regulatory options, whereas Table 4-3 to
Table 4-6 present reductions associated only with airports EPA surveyed. EPA calculated the discharge
reductions associated with these airports by using statistical weighting factors associated with EPA's
Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c). For additional information on the calculation of
discharge reductions associated with each proposed regulatory option, see EPA's Technical Development
Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing
Category (US EPA 2009).
Table 4- 7 presents discharge reductions only for COD and ammonia. The proposed regulatory options
will reduce discharges of other pollutants, as well (see Chapter 2), but EPA does not have sufficient
information at this time to quantify those reductions.
4.4 Expected Ecological, Human Aquatic Resource Use, and Human Health
Benefits
The proposed regulatory options will reduce discharges of chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonia
from urea pavement deicers, and other airport deicing product chemicals from selected airports. EPA
anticipates that these discharge reductions will improve receiving water characteristics, including
pollutant levels, aesthetic problems, aquatic community health, and utility for human needs and health.
4.4.1
Ecological Benefits
Ecological benefits from the regulation include protection of fresh- and saltwater plants, invertebrates,
fish, and amphibians, and other aquatic organisms, as well as terrestrial wildlife and birds that prey on
aquatic organisms exposed to airport deicing pollutants. The proposed regulation will reduce the presence
and discharge of various pollutants to aquatic ecosystems currently under stress (e.g., 303(d) listed water
bodies). The drop in pollutant discharges would help reestablish productive ecosystems in damaged
waterways, protect resident species, including threatened and endangered species where present, and
reduce the severity and frequency offish kill events.
4.4.2
Human Health Benefits
As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of this document, EPA identified several possible health risks and
incidents of complaint by members of the public associated with certain ADF and pavement deicer
components. To the extent current discharges contribute to human health risk, reducing airport deicing
July 2009
4-17
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 4. Benefits of Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options
pollutant discharges to the nation's waterways will generate human health benefits by reducing risk of
non-cancer and cancer toxic effects from fish and water consumption and contact.
Human health benefits are typically analyzed by estimating the change in the expected number of adverse
human health events in the exposed population resulting from a reduction in effluent discharges. EPA,
however, did not quantify changes in human health risk resulting from the proposed regulatory options
due to unavailability of dose-response functions for many chemicals of potential concern and the
complexity of many chemical's environmental behavior.
In concept, the value of these health effects to society is the monetary value that society is willing to pay
to avoid the health effects, or the amount that society would need to be compensated to accept increases
in the number of adverse health events. Willingness to pay (WTP) values are generally considered to
provide a fairly comprehensive measure of society's valuation of the human and financial costs of illness
associated with the costs of health care, losses in income, and pain and suffering of affected individuals
and of their family and friends. Another measure that is typically used in assessing human health benefits
is the cost of an illness. Cost of an illness is the direct medical costs of treating a health condition (e.g.,
reproductive problems), and can be used to value changes in health risk from reduced exposure to
pollutants such as ethylene glycol.
4.4.3 Human Use of Aquatic Resource Benefits
Improvements in ecosystems and habitats and enhanced aesthetic quality of surface waters enhance
human use and enjoyment of these areas. In particular, reducing instances of objectionable odors, colors,
and foaming that have been frequently reported in surface waters affected by ADFs and pavement deicers
is expected to enhance a broad range of recreational uses of the affected waterbodies, including
swimming, boating, fishing, water skiing, and use of park lands adjacent to affected waterbodies.
Improvements will also enhance quality of life for people who live near affected waterbodies. The
regulation will also augment nonuse values (e.g., option, existence, and bequest values) of the affected
water resources.
EPA's review of 45 surface water valuation studies conducted between 1981 and 2002 demonstrates that
society places a significant value on improving and/or protecting its water resources. Total WTP
(including use and non-use values) for water quality improvements over the sample of 45 studies ranged
from $8.72 to $525.91, with a mean value of $120.54 (US EPA 2008c). WTP values from published
studies vary widely depending on the study (e.g., methodology and sample size) and resource
characteristics (e.g., water body characteristics, the magnitude of water quality improvements, the
geographic scope of improvement). For example, WTP for reducing nutrient pollution and eutrophication
impacts estimated by Shrestha and Alavapati (2004) ranges from to $84.15 to $106.71 (2008$,
annualized). A study by Lindsey (1994) found that WTP to meet nutrient pollution reduction goals in the
Chesapeake Bay ranged from $34.90 to $106.78 (2008$), depending upon the choice of outliers and
protest bids excluded. Values for oil and toxic materials reductions were also available in the same
review. A study by Phaneuf et al. (1998) found that WTP for a 20% reduction in toxins at fishery sites in
North Carolina's Tar-Pamlico basin ranges from $14.59 to $193.46 (2008$), depending upon the models
utilized. Based on the evidence from the published literature, EPA estimates that nonmarket benefits from
water quality improvements resulting from reduced deicing pollutant discharges are likely to be
substantial.
Reduced airport deicing discharges should improve groundwater and drinking water sources located
under or near airports subject to regulation. Drinking water contaminated by deicing pollutants may pose
July 2009 4-18
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 4. Benefits of Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options
health risks or have an unpleasant taste and odor which may cause concerns regarding potential adverse
health effects. Protection of groundwater sources from contamination by airport deicing pollutants is of
particular concern because households that use private wells usually do not treat or regularly test their
drinking water for contamination.
The appropriate measure of the economic value of clean groundwater achieved through a ban on MTBE
use in gasoline is option price. This measure is commonly used when uncertainty is present in the
analysis. Option price is defined as an individual's maximum WTP to secure the option to use a resource
or commodity in the future (Desvousges et al. 1987 and Freeman 2003). Option price is a measure of the
total economic value an individual places on protecting groundwater quality. Protecting groundwater
quality provides a number of services to groundwater users, including avoidance of higher drinking water
costs (e.g., avoided treatment or replacement costs), elimination of potential health concerns associated
with consumption of bad tasting water, general aesthetic enjoyment derived from a clean environment,
and any nonuse values associated with protecting groundwater quality (e.g., bequest value, existence
value).
Based on the meta-analysis of groundwater valuation studies, WTP values for protection of groundwater
from contamination by pollutants other then nitrates and pesticides (i.e., "Other" pollutants) range from
$154.74 to $235.25 for residential wells. For small public water supply systems, household WTP values
range from $78 to $122.03, and for public water supply systems, household WTP values range from $78
to $233.99 (2008$) (US EPA 2001). All are annual values.
July 2009 4-19
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (Year unknown).Public Health Assessment Pease Air
Force Base Portsmouth, Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. "O'Hare Found to be Major Water Polluter." ARCO Flight
Tracks [4]. 1997. Arlington Heights, IL, Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. 8-21-2007.
Amrhein, C., J.E. Strong. 1990. "The Effect of Deicing Salts on Trace Metal Mobility in Roadside Soils.
Journal of Environmental Quality. 19: 765-772.
Ashrawi, S.S., and D.A. Coffey. 1993. Anti-icing compositions having alkylphenol ethoxylate nonionic
surfactant and alkylaryl sulfonate hydrotrope. Texaco Chemical Company (Assignee). U.S. Patent
5,273,673.
Askari, Emilia. 1990. "State Probes Airport in Pollution Allegations." Detroit Free Press. August 30.
Associated Press. 1992. "Cincinnati Airport Cited by State." Cleveland Plain Dealer. June 8.
Associated Press. 1999. "De-icing Chemical Found in Westchester Reservoir." New York Times.
November 14.
Associated Press. 1996. "Panel Settles De-Icing Suit with Homeowners." Cleveland Plain Dealer. March
28.
Associated Press. 2006. "Portland Airport's De-Icing System Harms Fish." USA Today. October 17.
Atlantic States Legal Foundation. 1999. Litigation Update. Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc.
Newsletter [Autumn 1999].
Ayres Ed. 2007. "Airports and cities: Can they coexist?" San Diego Earth Times. 2001. San Diego, CA.
November 29.
Back, D.D., J.A. Meyerand, and C. Ramos. 1999. "Composition and method for de-icing and anti-icing
surfaces" Mainstream Engineering Corp. (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,993,684.
Basic Acrylic Monomer Manufacturers (BAMM). 2006. Acrylic Acid: Background Information.
Available at: http://www.bamm.net/bamm_acrylic_acid_041806.pdf Accessed December 8, 2008.
Belanger, S.E., P.B. Dorn, R. Toy, G. Boeije, S.J. Marshall, T. Wind, R. Van Compernolle, and D. Zeller.
2006. "Aquatic Risk Assessment of Alcohol Ethoxylates in North America and Europe."
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 64: 85-99.
Bennie, D.T., C.A. Sullivan, H.-B. Lee, T.E. Peart, and R.J. Maguire. 1997. "Occurrence of Alkylphenols
and Alkylphenoldiethoxylates in Natural Waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin and the Upper
St. Lawrence River. " Sci. Tot. Env. 193: 263-275.
Bloom, S.H. 1986. Deicing compositions. U.S. Patent 4,585,571.
Boeing Company (Boeing). 2008. Aero Magazine, No. 8.
http://www .boeing .com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_0 8/deice_textonly .html#industry.
Boluk, M.Y., M.S. Jarrell, B.J. Brymer, and G. Archambault. 1999. "Aircraft deicing fluid with improved
anti-icing and ice adhesion control properties." Union Carbide Chemical and Plastics Technology
Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,968,407.
July 2009 5-1
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Breedveld, G.D., G. Olstad, and P. Aagaard. 1997. "Treatment of Jet Fuel Contaminated Runoff Water by
Subsurface Infiltration." Bioremediation Journal 1, 77-88.
Breedveld, G.D., R. Roseth, L. Hem, S. Sparrevik. 2002. Trizoles in the Terrestrial Environment. Report
by the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute for the Oslo International Airport, Statsbygg, and the
Norwegian Airforce.
Breedveld, Gus D., Roger Roseth, Magnus Sparrevik, Thomas Hartnik, and Lars J. Hem. 2003.
"Persistence of the Deicing Additive Benzotriazole at an Abandoned Airport," Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution: Focus 91-101.
British Environment Agency. 2000. Corrosion Inhibitors: Priorities for Environmental Quality Standards
Development. Research and Development Technical Report P189.
California Aviation Association. 2003. New Hampshire "Airport Brook To Be Tested For Chemicals."
California Aviation Association. January 27.
Campbell, P.M. 2002. Alternatives to Nonylphenol Ethoxylates: Review of Toxicity, Biodegradation, &
Technical-Economic Aspects. Prepared for Environment Canada by ToxEcology.
Cancilla, D.A., J. Martinez, and G.C. Van Aggelen. 1998. "Detection of Aircraft Deicing/Antiicing Fluid
Additives in a Perched Water Monitoring Well at an International Airport." Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:
3834-3835.
Cancilla, D.A., J.C. Baird, S.W. Geis, and S.R. Corsi. 2003. "Studies of the Environmental Fate and
Effect of Aircraft Deicing Fluids: Detection of 5-Methyl-lH-Benzotriazole in the Fathead Minnow."
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 22(1): 134-40.
Chan, S.K., G.L. Hubred, and H.E. Todd. 1995. Deicer/anti-icer compositions for aircraft. General
Atomics International Services Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,435,930.
Chemfate Database. 2008. Syracuse Research Corporation's Chemfate Chemical Search. Available at:
http://www.syrres.com/eSc/chemfate.htm. Accessed April 15, 2008.
Christiansen, L.B., M. Winther-Nielsen, and C. Helweg. 2002. Feminisation of Fish. The Effects of
Estrogenic Compounds and Their Fate in Sewage Treatment Plants and Nature. Danish
Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Project No. 729.
Coffey, D.A., S.S. Ashrawi, and E.G. Nieh. 1995. "Aircraft wing de-icers with improved holdover times."
Texaco Chemical Company (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,386,968.
Comfort, G. 2000. Runway De-Icing Chemicals (No. TP13778). Ottawa, ON, Canada: Transport Canada.
Conetta, A., R. Bracchitta, and P. Sherrer, 1997, Storm Water Management and Control of Aircraft
Deicing Runoff at Westchester County Airport: Environmental Regulation and Permitting.
Conservation Commission of Missouri. 2007. Platte River Watershed Beneficial Use Attainment.
Cornell, Jeffrey S. 2001. "The Environmental Impact of 4(5)-Methylbenzotriazole from Aircraft Deicing
Operations." Ph.D. Thesis directed by Mark T. Hernandez, University of Colorado, CO. May.
Corsi, S. R; Booth, N. L.; Hall, D.W. 2001. "Aircraft and Runway Deicers at General Mitchell
International Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA."Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2001,20, 1474-1482.
July 2009 5-2
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Corsi, S. R., Harwell Glenn R, Geis, S., and Bergman Daniel, 2006. "Impacts of Aircraft Deicer and Anti-
icer Runoff on Receiving Waters From Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, USA."
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 25, p. 2890-2900.
Corsi, S.R., D.H. Zitomer, J.A. Field, and D.A. Cancilla. 2003. "Nonylphenol Ethoxylates and Other
Additives in Aircraft Deicers, Antiicers, and Waters Receiving Airport Runoff." Environmental
Science & Technology 37(18): 4031-4037.
Corsi, Steven R., Steven W. Geis, Jorge E. Loyo-Rosales, and Clifford P. Rice. 2006. "Aquatic Toxicity
of Nine Aircraft Deicer and Anti-icer Formulations and Relative Toxicity of Additive Package
Ingredients Alkylphenol Ethoxylates and 4,5-Methyl-lH-Benzotriazoles," Environmental Science and
Technology. August.
Corsi, Steven, Steven Geis, Jorge Loyo-Rosales, and Clifford Rice. 2007. "Aircraft and Pavement Deicer
and Anti-icer Forensics." Powerpoint Presentation given at SETAC 2007.
Cowan, P.P. 1997. Water Pollution-Chicago International Airport. Alliance of Residents Concerning
O'Hare, Inc., May 28.
Cox, C. 1996. "Nonylphenol and Related Chemicals." Journal of Pesticide Reform. Spring.
Cryotech. 2008. De-Icing Products: Cryotech NAAC. Website. Available at:
http://www.cryotech.com/products/NAAC/environment.php. Accessed July 1. 2008.
Dafforn, Erik. 2007. "Til Hill and Valley are Ringing." Wabash University Magazine.
Davis, L.C., S. Castro-Diaz, D. Lupher, and L.E. Erickson. 2000. "Interaction of Benzotriazoles with
Upland Plants." Environmental and Pipeline Engineering 118-126. Abstract.
Dawson, Dick. 1994. "Contaminant Testing Sought at Ellicott Creek Amherst Councilwoman Fears
Runoff of De-icer Fluids from Airport." Buffalo News. May 11.
Delaware Estuary Program. 1996. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Delaware
Estuary.
deMarban, Alex. 2007. Lake Mower Clears Paths for Floatplanes. Anchorage Daily News. August 13.
Anchorage, AK.
Desvouges, William H., V. Kerry Smith, and Ann Fisher. 1987. Option Price Estimates for Water Quality
Improvements: A Contingent Valuation Study for the Monongahela River. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management. 14: 248-267.
Dickson, Louise. 2004. "Polluted creek killing fish: Reclamation Work Wasted as Second Major Kill
Wipes Out Run." Victoria Times Colonist. November 1.
D'ltri, P.M. 1992. Chemical Deicers and the Environment. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI.
Eddy, Mark. 1997. "Airport Deicer Pollutes Creek." Denver Post, April 22.
Egan, D'Arcy. 2001 "Rocky River fishing in danger as pollutants keep pouring in." Cleveland Plain
Dealer. October 21.
Environment Canada. 2001. Priority Substances List Assessment Report: Nonylphenol and its
Ethoxylates. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt formats/hecs-
sesc/pdf/pubs/contaminants/psl2-lsp2/nonvlphenol/nonylphenol-eng.pdf Accessed June 24, 2008.
July 2009 5-3
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Environment Canada. 2002a. "Alternatives to Nonylphenol Ethoxylates." Review of Toxicity,
Biodegradation, and Technical-Economic Aspects.
Environment Canada. 2002b. "Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines for Nonylphenol and its
Ethoxylates." Cat. No. Enl-34/4-2002E. Report.
Environment Canada. 2008a. "Existing Substances Evaluation: Draft Screening Assessment for the
Challenge." 15086-94-9. Available at:
http://www.ee.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/challenge/batch2/batch2_15086-94-9.cfm. Accessed June 24,
2008.
Environment Canada. 2008b. "Risk Management Scope for C.I. Pigment Yellow 34." Available at:
http://www.ee.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/challenge/batch2/batch2_1344-37-2_rms_en.pdf Accessed
June 24, 2008.
Environmental News Service. 2005. "Minnesota Halts Jet Fuel Leaks, Spills at Twin Cities Airport.
"Environmental News Service. March 18.
Environmental News Service. 2007. Wayne County Airport Admits De-icing Chemical Discharge.
Environmental News Service. 6-14-2006. August 21.
Evans, W.E.D., and S. Patterson. 1973. "Biodegradation of Urea in River Water under Controlled
Laboratory Conditions." Water Research. 7: 975-985. As cited in D'ltri, P.M. 1992. Chemical
Deicers and the Environment. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI.
Farmington River Watershed Association. 2003. State of the Farmington River Watershed Report. 1-69.
2003. Simsbury, CT, Farmington River Watershed Association. November 29.
Ferguson, L., S.R Corsi, S.W. Geis, G. Anderson, K. Joback, H. Gold, D. Mericas, D.A. Cancilla. 2008.
ACRP Web-Only Document 3: Aircraft Deicing and Airfield Anti-Icing Formulations: Aquatic
Toxicity and Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Contractor's Phase I Interim Report for Airport
Cooperative Research Program Project 02-01.
Fisher, D. H., M.H. Knott, S.D. Turley, B.S. Turley, L.T. Yonkos, and G.P. Ziegler, 1995, "The Acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity of Storm Water from an International Airport." Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry, v. 14, p. 1103-1111.
Flannery William. 1998. Status on Recovery of Aircraft Deicing Fluid Operations at the Airport. CITY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION 98-052, FEBRUARY 16, 1998 AGENDA. February 16.
Freeman, A. Myrick. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, 2nd Edition.
Resources for the Future. Washington, DC.
French, H.K., Zee, S.V.D., and Leijnse, A., 2001. Transport and degradation of propylene glycol and
potassium acetate in the unsaturated zone. J. Contam. Hydrol. 49, 23-48.
Fyve Star, Inc. 2008. Catalog. Website, available at: http://www.fyvestar.com/id25.html. Accessed
June 30, 2008.
Gruden, C.L., S.M. Dow, and M.T. Hernandez. 2001. "Fate and Toxicity of Aircraft Deicing Fluid
Additives Through Anaerobic Digestion." Water Environment Research 73(1): 72-79.
Hamrick Dave. 2002. EPD: "We blew it." The Citizen. February 13.
Hamrick, Dave. 2002. "Officials unanimous: Our water is safe." The Citizen. February 13.
July 2009 5-4
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Hannah, James. 1998."De-Icing Chemicals for Planes Killing Creek, Professor Says." Cleveland Plain
Dealer. June 7.
Hartwell, S. I., Jordahl, D. M., and Evans, J. W., 1995, "Toxicity of aircraft de-icer and anti-icer solutions
to aquatic organisms." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 14, p. 1375-1386.
Haslim, L.A. Environmentally friendly compositions having antiicing, deicing or graffiti prevention
properties. U.S. Patent Application No. 20040036054.
Hellsten, P.P., J.M. Salminen, K.S. Joergensen, and T.H. Nysten. 2005. "Use of Potassium Formate in
Road Winter Deicing Can Reduce Groundwater Deterioration." Environ. Sci. Technol. 39(13): 5095-
5100.
Hopey, Don. 1996. "Airport Gets Criticism for Disposal of De-icer." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. October
28.
Hopey, Don. 1998. "Airport Ordered Again to Keep De-icers Out of Streams." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
January 31.
Hu, J.Z., J. Wakelin, and A. Wiesenfeld. 1998. Deicing and anti-icing composition for aircraft. Octagon
Process Inc. (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,817,252.
Human and Environmental Risk Assessment on Ingredients of European Household Cleaning Products
(HERA). 2007. "Alcohol Ethoxylates." May.
International Food Information Council (IFIC). 2005. "IFIC Review: Sodium in Food and Health."
January.
International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1997. Environmental Health Criteria 191: Acrylic
Acid. Available at: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc 191 .htm. Accessed June 24, 2008.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Total Maximum Daily Load For Priority Organics Yeader
Creek Polk County, Iowa. January 23.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Total Maximum Daily Loads For Nutrients and Siltation
Easter Lake Polk County, Iowa.
Isobe, T., H. Nishiyama, A. Nakashima, and H. Takada. 2001. "Distribution and Behavior of
Nonylphenol, Octylphenol, and Nonylphenol Monoethoxylate in Tokyo Metropolitan Area: Their
Association with Aquatic Particles and Sedimentary Distributions." Env. Sci. Technol. 35: 1041-1049.
Jaesche, P., K.U. Totsche, and I. Kogel-Knabner. 2006. "Transport and Anaerobic Biodegradation of
Propylene Glycol in Gravel-Rich Soil Materials. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 85: 271-286.
Jobling, M. 1996. "Environmental Biology of Fishes." Fish and Fisheries Series 16. Chapman and Hall,
London.
Johnson, J.J., N. Varney, and M.S. Switzenbaum. 2001. "Comparative Toxicity of Formulated Glycol
Deicers and Pure Ethylene and Propylene Glycol." Report. University of Massachusetts/Amherst,
Water Resources Research Center. August.
Johnson, Steve. 2005. "Port Plans Study To Enhance Airport Deicing Storm Water Collection System."
September 26.
Kelly, B.R. and D. Klepal. 2004. "Silent Streams." The Cincinnati Enquirer. March 7.
July 2009 5-5
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection.2007. KPDES Permit # KY0082864. July 31.
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection. 2007. KPDES Permit # KY0092185. December 31.
Kibbe, Cindy. 2006. "Planes, trains and automobiles: What are southern N.H.'s transportation options?"
New Hampshire Business Review. April 14.
Klecka, G.M., C.L. Carpenter, and B.D. Landenberger. 1993. "Biodegradation of Aircraft Deicing Fluids
in Soil at Low Temperatures. " Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 25(3): 280-295.
Klepal, Dan. 2004. "Airport pollution provokes ire: Residents fault state for going easy on de-icing
runoff." The Cincinnati Enquirer. September 10.
Konig-Lumer, I., U. Schwenk, R. Salvador, and J. Kapfinger. 1982. Agent for de-icing and protecting
against icing-up. Clariant GMBH (Assignee). U.S. Patent 4,358,389.
Koryak, M., L.J. Stafford, R.J. Reilly, R.H. Hoskin, and M.H. Haberman, 1998, "The Impact of Airport
Deicing Runoff on Water Quality and Aquatic Life in a Pennsylvania Stream." Journal of Freshwater
Ecology, v. 13, p. 297-298.
Krogh, K.A., B. Halling-Sorensen, B.B. Mogensen, and K.V. Vejrup. 2003. "Environmental Properties
and Effects of Nonionic Surfactant Adjuvants in Pesticides: a Review." Abstract. Chemosphere 50(7):
871-901.
Kuehner, John C. 2001. "Airport Ordered to Reduce Discharge". The Plain Dealer. November 1.
Lange, Larry. 2003. "Sea-Tac blamed for fish deaths: Airport denies group's claim that runoff kills
salmon." Seattle Post-Intelligencer. April 14.
Larson, Catherine E. 2004. Lower Minnesota River Model Project Proposal to Develop an Advanced
Water-Quality Model of the Minnesota River, Jordan to the mouth, and Conduct River Monitoring
and Studies to Support the Model. 1-35. January 15.
Larson, R.J., E.A. Bookland, R.T. Williams, K.M. Yocom, D.A. Saucy, and M.B. Freeman. 1997.
"Biodegradation of Acrylic Acid Polymers and Oligomers by Mixed Microbial Communities in
Activated Sludge." Journal of Polymers and the Environment 5(l):41-48.
Legislative Assembly of Ontario. 1989. Stormwater. Transcript of July 16, 1989 Meeting.
Leist, David, Scott Hankla, Kevin Flowers, Gretchen Bartley, Bob Beebe, Todd Giles, Eric Ratcliff, and
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport. 1998. Impacts of Deicing Fluids on Elijahs and
Gunpowder Creeks Boone County, Kentucky. Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection.
Lindsey, G. 1994. "Market Models, Protest Bids, and Outliers in Contingent Valuation." Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management Vol 12: 121-129.
Lochner, Paul D. 2006. Wayne County Airport Authority Pleads Guilty To Violation Of Clean Water Act.
Department of Justice Press Release. June 8.
Lockyerm, R.T., J. Zuk, and A. Gaslim. 1998. Environmentally friendly anti-icing. U.S. Patent 5,772,912.
Ma, F., and D. Comeau. 1990. "Aircraft de-icing and anti-icing composition." Union Carbide Chemical
and Plastics Technology Corporation Limited (Assignee). U.S. Patent 4,954,279.
Maest, Ann. 2008. Personal communication, Dr. Ann Maest, Stratus Consulting Inc., June 28, 2008.
Mapes, Jeff. 1999. Leonard wades into water cleanup with Portland plans. The Oregonian. February 3.
July 2009 5-6
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
McDowell, A. Scott. 1997. Sawmill Creek - Watershed "Restoration" Project. Allwood Community
Association Site Information. March 14.
Meersman, Tom. 1993. "FAA-Mandated Plane De-Icing Puts Minnesota River at Risk."Minneapolis Star
Tribune. March 10.
Meersman, Tom. 1993. "New Rules for Airport De-icers Amount of Chemicals Flushed into River Will
be Reduced."Minneapolis Star Tribune. September 29.
Mericas, D., and B. Wagoner. 1994. "Balancing Safety and the Environment." Water Environment and
Technology 6(12): 38-43.
Meyerhoff, Richard, Nicole Rowan, Janet Kieler, Janell Barrilleaux, Rebecca Albrecht, and Susan Morea.
2005. "Development Of Site-Specific Dissolved Oxygen Standards In Surface Waters At Denver
International Airport." 1002-1026. Water Environment Federation.
Mikkelson, Stephen and Karnowski, Marni. 2004. Water Quality Violations to Cost Metropolitan
Airports Commission $69,076. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Miller, Alan. 1991. "Deicing's Fatal Effect Not Plain." Columbus Dispatch. January 6.
Mills, Karen. 2001. Minneapolisairport saw big jump in runoff from de-icer into Minnesota River.
California Aviation Association. May 19.
Moles, J.O., J.L. Maier, K.L. Johnson, and S.D. Royer. 2003. Aircraft runway deicing composition.
General Atomics International Services Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 6,596,189.
Moran, V.M., L.A. Abron, and L.W. Weinberger. 1992. "A Comparison of Conventional and Alternative
Delcers." Chapter 12 in: Chemical Deicers and the Environment. D'ltri, P.M., Editor. Lewis
Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI.
Motavalli, P., T. Marler, F. Cruz, and J. McConnell. 2008. Website: Essential plant nutrients. Available
at: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/BotanicalSciences/PlantHormones/EssentialPlant/
EssentialPlant.htm. Accessed: June 29, 2008. Adapted from: W.F. Bennett, Editor. 1993. Nutrient
Deficiencies & Toxicities in Crop Plants, APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2005a. "Ethylene Glycol." NIOSH
Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. September.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2005b. "Acrylic Acid." NIOSH Pocket
Guide to Chemical Hazards. September.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2005c. "Ammonia." NIOSH Pocket
Guide to Chemical Hazards. September.
New England Grassroots Environment Fund. 2003 Annual Report. Montpelier, VT.
Nieh, E.D. 1992. "Anti-icing compositions containing thickener blend having polyacrylic acid and
copolymer of acrylic acid and hydrophobic vinyl monomer." Texaco Chemical Company (Assignee).
U.S. Patent 5,118,435.
O'Conner, Robert and Kate Douglas. 1993. "Cleaning Up After the Big Chill: Thousands of Rivers and
Streams are Harmed by the De-Icing Chemicals That Keep Aircraft Flying Through the Winter. Now
Airports Are Being Forced to Curb This Damaging Pollution." New Scientist. January 16.
July 2009 5-7
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit Program Fact Sheet Regarding an NPDES Permit To Discharge to Waters of the State of Ohio
for Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport. NPDES Permit # OH122068, Expiration October 31,
2006.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
2007. NPDES Permit #040124311.
Onondaga County Council on Environmental Health. 2000. Beartrap Creek Reclamation.
Onondaga Lake Partnership. 2003. Izaak Walton League's Efforts Lead To Restored Beartrap Creek.
Reflections 1 [3]. 2003.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Columbia Slough Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) For: Chlorophyll a, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Phosphorus, Bacteria, DDE/DDT, PCBs, Pb,
Dieldrin and 2,3,7,8 TCDD. l-F-2.
Oviedo, C. J. Rodriguez. 2003. "EDTA: The Chelating Agent Under Environmental Scrutiny." Quim.
Nova 26(6): 901-905.
Pelton, Tom. 1998. "BWI Violated Water Act, Group Claims; Environmentalists File Notice of Intent to
Sue; De-Icing Chemicals at Issue; Airport Maintains it Has Tried to Keep Pollution Contained. "
Baltimore Sun. January 8.
Pelton, Tom. 1997a. "De-Icing Fluid Used at BWI Fouls Waters; MD.'s Pride in System Ignores Pollution
Data From Other Agencies; BWI is 'Economic Engine'; 1 Ith-Hour Clearance Gives Airport Time,
$1.6 Million for Drains." Baltimore Sun. August 9.
Pelton, Tom. 1997b. "EPA Probing Allegation of BWI Runoff; Polluting Chemicals Seeping Into Creek,
Environmentalists Say; Airport Cooperating; Public's Health Is Not In Danger, According to State."
Baltimore Sun. April 23.
Peninsula Streams Society. 2006. Reay Watershed: 2003 Fish Kill.
Phaneuf, Daniel J., Catherine L. Kling, and Joseph A. Herriges. 1998. "Valuing Water Quality
Improvements Using Revealed Preference Methods When Corner Solutions Are Present." 80(5), Dec
2002.
Pillard, D. A., 1996. "Assessment of benthic macroinvertebrate and fish communities in a stream
receiving storm water runoff from a large airport." Journal of Freshwater Ecology, v. 11, p. 51-59.
Pillard D., J. Cornell, D. Dufresne, and M. Hernandez. 2001. "Toxicity of Benzotriazole and
Benzotriazole Derivatives to Three Aquatic Species." Water Research 35(2):557-560.
Public Sector Consultants Inc. 1993. "The Use of Selected Deicing Materials on Michigan Roads:
Environmental and Economic Impacts. Conducted for the Michigan Department of Transportation."
Available at: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/OJ607J-151-9622 11045-57246--.OO.html. Accessed
June 24, 2008.
Pytte, Alyson. 1991. "Chemicals Lace Airport Soil Finding Pollution is Easy; Who Pays for Cleanup is
the Problem." Anchorage Daily News. September 8.
Redox Tech. 2008. Lactate. Available at: http://redox-tech.com/Lactate.htm. Accessed: March 19, 2008.
July 2009 5-8
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Reeves, S.J., M.G. Evans, and M.H. Burtwell. 2005. UK Rail Safety and Standards Board Research
Programme. Operations. Evaluation of Frost, Ice and Snow Precautions at Stations. Website.
Available at: http://www.rssb.co.uk/pdf/reports/research/T532%20Evaluation%20of%20frost%20ice
%20and%20snow%20precautions%20at%20stations.pdf Accessed July 1, 2008.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. RIPDES Permit # RI0021598, Expiration
January 1,2010.
Richardson, D. C. 2006. "Cleveland Gets a New Pad." Stormwater:l(l).
Ritter, Steve. 2001. "What's that Stuff: Aircraft Deicers." CENEAR 79(1): 30. Available at:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/7901 scit5 .html. Accessed October 16, 2008.
Roberts, C. R. 1993. "Airport Antifreeze May Be Toting Chill of Death to Miller Creek." Tacoma News
Tribune. January 26.
Safferman, S.I., Ganesh S. Siruvalure, and Larry E. Foppe. 1998. "Deicing Fluid Treatment in Batch -
Loaded Aerobic Fluidized Bed Reactor." Journal of Environmental Engineering 124(1): 11-15.
Sandier, Larry. 2006. "Environmental Group Challenges Airport's Wastewater Permit."Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel. January 25.
Sapienza, R. 2003. Environmentally benign anti-icing or deicing fluids. METSS Corporation (Assignee).
U.S. Patent 6,544,434.
Sapienza, R., W. Ricks, and J. Sanders. 2003. Corrosion inhibited runway deicing fluid. METSS
Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 6,540,934.
Saporito, Jack. 2003. Comments from the Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. to the Federal
Aviation Administration regarding the Draft FAA Five-Year Strategic Plan "Flight Plan" 2004-2008
by Jack Saporito. Letter communication to Sharon Pinkerton and FAA. August 5.
Scanlon, Bill. 1997. "DIA Pollutes Creek / De-icer Washing off Runways Kills Life in Stream That
Flows Toward Barr Lake Bird Sanctuary". Rocky Mountain News. April 22.
Schauer, N.L., D.P. Brown, and J.G. Ferry. 1982. "Kinetics of Formate Metabolism in Methanobacterium
formicicum andMethanospirillum hungate. " Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 44(3): 549-554.
ScienceLab. 2005. Material Safety Data Sheet: Patent blue MSDS. Available at:
http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Patent_blue-9926409. Accessed June 24, 2008.
Shi, X. 2008. Impact of Airport Pavement Deicing Products on Aircraft and Airfield Infrastructure.
Transportation Research Board, Airport Cooperative Research Program Report. Available at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_syn_006.pdf. Accessed December 4, 2008.
Shrestha, R.K., and J.R.R. Alavapati. 2004. "Valuing Environmental Benefits of Silvopasture Practice: A
Case Study of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed in Florida." Ecological Economics Vol 49: 349-359.
Sierra Club. 2006. An Interview with Tim Guilfoile. In Your Town. Fort Thomas, Kentucky, Beech House
Press, LLC. December 5.
Sierra Club. 2004. Sierra Club 2004 Annual Report. "Rescuing the River That Wouldn't Freeze. 1-37.
San Francisco, CA, The Sierra Club Foundation.
July 2009 5-9
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Sills, R.D., and P.A. Blakeslee. 1992. "The Environmental Impact of Deicers in Airport Stormwater
Runoff." In: Chemical Deicers and the Environment. D'ltri, P.M. Editor. Lewis Publishers, Inc.
Chelsea, MI.
Simmons, K.L., J.G. Frye, T.A. Werpy, W.D. Samuels, H.N. Conkle, and B.F. Monzyk. 2007. Biobased
deicing/anti-icing fluids. U.S. Patent 7,169,321.
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 2007. Deicing Fluid, Aircraft, SAE Type I. AMS1424. G-12f
Fluids Subcommittee.
Stahl, James R. and Thomas P. Simon. 1997. A Preliminary Appraisal Of The Biological Integrity Of The
East Fork White Lick Creek In The West Fork White River Watershed Using Fish Community
Assessment. IDEM/32/03/013/1997, 1-19. December 12.
Staples, C.A., C.G. Naylor, J.B. Williams, and W.E. Gledhill. 2001. "Ultimate Biodegradation of
Alkylphenol Ethoxylate Surfactants and Their Biodegradation Intermediates." Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 20(11): 2450-2455.
State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. List of Connecticut Waterbodies Not
Meeting Water Quality Standards. i-C-9. April 8.
State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment Report. DEPLW0817.
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Biological and Water Quality Study of Lower Big
Walnut Creek and Walnut Creek Tributaries Rickenbacker Airport 1996. DSW/MAS 1997-12-10.
April 3.
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Biological and Water Quality Study of Mason Run
1996. DSW/MAS 1996-12-6. 9-11-1998.
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Biological and Water Quality Study of Mill Creek,
Dayton International Airport Miami and Montgomery Counties, Ohio. MAS/1995-2-2, 1-31. 2-20-
1995.
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Big
Walnut Creek Basin 2000. DSW/EAS 2003-11-10, i-203. November 26.
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little
Miami River Basin, 1998. MAS/1999-12-3. June 23.
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Biological and Water Quality Study of the
Stillwater River Basin, 1999, Darke, Miami and Montgomery Counties. OEPA Technical Report
Number MAS/2001-12-8. Columbus, OH
State of Washington Department of Ecology. 2007. NPDES Permit # SO3004373. September 20.
Stewart, Bill. 1998. "Airport Juggles Safety, Pollution Concerns." The Oregonian. February 22.
Switzenbaum, Michael S., Veltman, Shawn, Schoenberg, Theodore, Durand, Carmen M., Mericas, Dean,
and Wagoner, Bryan. 1999. Workshop: Best Management Practices for Airport Deicing Stormwater.
United States Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 173. July 29.
Taylor, Rob. 1995. "Lawsuit Filed Over Stream Pollution From Sea-Tac Airport." Seattle Post-
Intelligencer. August 15.
July 2009 5-10
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Tham, P.T., and K.J. Kennedy. 2005. "Fate of Tolyltriazoles and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates in Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactors." Abstract. J. Envir. Engrg 131(6): 892-900.
Transport Canada. 1990. "The Environmental Impact of Urea Use on Airport Runways." Professional
and Technical Services document, Ottawa, Ontario. TP10069.
Turnbull, D. A. and Bevan, J. R., 1995, "The Impact of Airport De-icing of a River: The Case of the
Ouseburn, Newcastle Upon Tyne." Environmental Pollution, v. 88, p. 321-332.
Tye, R.J., G.E. Lauterbach, and P.R. Standel. 1987. Aircraft anti-icing fluid containing carrageenan. FMC
Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 4,698,172.
Uhlenbrock, Tom. 1995. "Up A Creek Runoff of De-icer from Lamber Field Pits Airport Against U.S."
St. Louis Post Dispatch. February 5.
Umstead Coalition. RDU Airport Changes its Runway Deicing Chemical. 2007.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), International Labour Organization, and World Health
Organization. 2004. "Integrated Risk Assessment: Nonylphenol Case Study." December.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook.
National Engineering Handbook Series, Part 651. 210-AWMFH, 4/92.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (US HHS). 2004. "Toxicological Profile for Ammonia."
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. September.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (US HHS). 2007a. "Draft Toxicological Profile for
Ethylene Glycol." Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. September 2007.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (US HHS). 2007b. "Case Studies in Environmental
Medicine (CSEM) Ethylene Glycol and Propylene Glycol Toxicity." Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry. October 2007.
U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture (US HHS and DoA). 2005. "Sodium
and Potassium." Chapter 8, Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2007. Advisory Circular: Airport Winter Safety and
Operations. AC 150/5200-30C. Available at: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/
resources/draft advisory circulars/media/draft 150 5200 30c.pdf Accessed December 4, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. EPA 440/5-86-
001. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/librarv/goldbook.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1991. Nitrogen Action Plan. Draft (March). PM-221.
40 0/90/003. Nitrogen Work Group.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1993. The Report of the EPA/State Feedlot
Workgroup. Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance. Washington, DC. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1998a. 1998 Update of Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Ammonia. Office of Water. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/nh3 rpt.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1998b. Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries. EPA
600-R-98-147.
July 2009 5-11
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2000a. Preliminary Data Summary for Airport Deicing
Operations. Office of Water. EPA-821-R-00-016. Available at: http ://www. epa. gov/guide/airport/
airport.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2000b. Final Rule Removing Surfactant Alcohol
Ethoxylates from the Glycol Ethers Category of Air Toxics. June.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2001. Economic Analysis of the Proposed TSCA
Section 6 Rule for Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2005. Aquatic Life Ambient Water Criteria:
Nonylphenol. Office of Water. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nonylphenol/
final-doc.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006a. "IUCLID Data Set, Nonylphenol." December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Airline
Deicing Questionnaire.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Airport
Deicing Questionnaire.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2007. Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators
(RSEI). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/. Obtained internal version of underlying
spreadsheet February 11, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008a. Memorandum to Administrative Record for
Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category. Written by
Ashley Allen, dated November 6, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008b. National Summary of Impaired Waters and
TMDL Information. EPA Office of Water. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/. Accessed
December 8, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008c. Environmental Impact and Benefits
Assessment for Proposed Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development
Category.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008d. Current National Recommended Water Quality
Criteria. EPA Office of Water. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.html. Accessed February 19, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008e. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm. Accessed February 19, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008f NPDES Glossary. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System. December. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/glossary.cfmtfC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2009. Technical Development Document for the
Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category.
U.S. National Library of Medicine (US NLM). 2008. Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET). Accessed on
June 19, 2008. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/.
July 2009 5-12
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
University of Illinois Extension. 2008. Salt Damage to Plant Material. Web page, available at:
http://web.extension.uiuc.edu/state/newsdetail.cfm?NewsID=5427. Accessed June 27, 2008.
Vashon, R.D. 1982. "Mineralization of Linear Alcohol Ethoxylates and Linear Alcohol Ethoxy Sulfates at
Trace Concentrations in Estuarine Water." Abstract. ES&T 16(7): 433-436.
Veltman, S., T. Schoenberg, and M.S. Switzenbaum. 1998. "Potential for Anaerobic Treatment of Airport
Deicing Fluids." ASCE Proceeding. Proceedings of the 1998 ASCE Conference on Environmental
Engineering.
Weiss, S., and T. Reemtsma. 2005. "Determination of Benzotriazole Corrosion Inhibitors from Aqueous
Environmental Samples by Liquid Chromatography-Electrospray lonization-Tandem Mass
Spectrometry."^«a/. Chem. 77: 7415-7420.
Weiss, S., J. Jakobs, and T. Reemtsma. 2006. "Discharge of Three Benzotriazole Corrosion Inhibitors
with Municipal Wastewater and Improvements by Membrane Bioreactor Treatment and Ozonation."
Environ. Set. Technol 2006(40): 7193-7199.
Wells, Scott. 1997. The Columbia Slough. Prepared for the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental
Services. Technical Report EWR-2-97. (March)
Westmark, C.S., K.G. Joback, and M. Temchenko. 2001. Environmentally Friendly De-icer and Anti-icer
Compositions. U.S. Patent 7,270,767.
Wohlforth, Charles. 1990. "Toxic Runoff Adds to Lake Hood Pollution. "Anchorage Daily News. May 4.
Worthington, Rogers. 1998. "Group Claims O'Hare fails to report on de-icing toxins." Chicago Tribune.
January 9.
Zhu, J.K. 2007. "Plant Salt Stress." Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Wiley DOI:
10.1002/9780470015902.a0001300.pub2. PDF. Available at: http://www.facultv.ucr.edu/~jkzhu/
articles/2007/ELS%20Zhu.pdf Accessed June 27, 2008.
Zitomer, D.H. 2001. Waste Aircraft Deicing Fluid: Management and Conversion to Methane. Report.
Prepared for Wisconsin Division of Energy. NCES. June.
July 2009 5-13
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Appendix A: Detailed Characterization of Airport Deicing Products
Table A-1: Surveyed U.S. Commercial Airports- Chemical Pavement Deicer Usage
Pavement Deicer
Chemical
Potassium acetate
Propylene glycol-
based fluids
Urea (airside)
Sodium acetate
Sodium formate
Ethylene glycol-
based fluids
2002/2003 Total
Surveyed Airport
Usage (tons/year)
22,804
3,317
3,015
2,815
1,663
1,038
2003/2004 Total
Surveyed Airport
Usage (tons/year)
20,267
4,147
3,804
3,195
696
465
2004/2005 Total
Surveyed
Airport Usage
(tons/year)
20,029
2,884
4,031
2,663
1,359
691
Average Total
Surveyed
Airport Usage
(tons/year)
21,292
3,870
3,553
3,072
1,064
656
Percentage of
Chemical
Usage
64
12
11
9
3
2
Based on the 90 airports reporting airfield deicing chemical use. The 3 year average is not a straight average of the total annual
amounts; the average for each airport was evaluated and calculated separately.
Source: EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c). For additional details, see EPA (2009).
July 2009
A-1
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-2: Chelating Agents
Characteristics
Ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid
(EDTA)
Diethylene triamine penta acetic
acid (DTPA, DTAA)
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant (atm-
nrVmole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Degradation summary
Degradation products
Half-life
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
60-00-4
Clcft6N208
1.0
-3.86
1.99
7.69xlO'16
2xlO'12
Both volatilization and adsorption to soils
and particulates are expected to be
negligible.
Both aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation
are negligible for un-complexed EDTA.
Photolysis of EDTA complexed with Fe(III)
is likely to be the primary route of
degradation, but only where exposed to
bright light. Otherwise, degradation appears
to be minimal.3
In the upper layer of surface water directly
exposed to the sun, the half-life of
EDTA*Fe(III) was approximately 1 1
minutes.
EDTA is highly mobile in soil, sediment,
and water.
67-43-6
C14H23N3010
4.8
-4.91
Relatively resistant to biodegradation,
especially where the microbial
community is unacclimated.
DTPA is expected to be highly mobile
in soil, sediment, and water.
Both of these substances can increase the mobility of potentially toxic metals. They
readily form complexes with metal ions, bringing them into the soluble phase in
soils, sediments, and water. This property is being investigated and exploited for
extracting and phytoremediating toxic metals.3
Degradation of uncomplexed EDTA appears to be minimal; photolysis of metal-
complexed EDTA could be rapid in the presence of direct sunlight, and this may be
the primary route of degradation. EDTA is commonly detected in surface water; it is
not removed by standard wastewater or drinking water treatment processes, but may
be degraded by UV treatment of drinking water.3 Most characteristics of these
compounds are expected to be similar.
Source: Oviedo and Rodriguez (2003).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-2
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-3: Freezing Point Depressants: Sugars
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-life
Degradation summary
Degradation products
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Degradation products
Additional notes
Dulcitol
608-66-2
CgHuOg
31
Mannitol
69-65-8
C6H14O6
Sorbitol
50-70-4
C6H14O6
Freely soluble up to
83%
-2.2
0.30
7.3xlQ-13
4.9xlO'9
Not expected to volatilize or to adsorb to soils or particulates.
Biodegradation, the primary route of degradation, is expected to be very
rapid. Hydrolysis and photolysis are not expected.
Carbon dioxide, water, and microbial biomass.
All of these substances may be highly mobile in water and soil, but
biodegradation is likely to limit the distance of transport in surface water,
groundwater, and soil.
C02
Characteristics of these sugar alcohols are likely to be relatively
similar.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-3
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-4: Freezing Point Depressants: Acetates
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-life
Degradation summary
Degradation products
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Potassium acetate
127-08-2
C2H3KO2
-3.72
Sodium acetate
127-09-3 (anhydrous)
C2H3NaO2
1,190 at 0°C
7.08xlO'7
These substances are not expected to volatilize. They are quite soluble in
water. Depending on site-specific factors, the inorganic ions may adsorb or
complex with soil or water constituents, but may also remain dissolved in
surface water and groundwater. Acetate should be rapidly biodegraded under
aerobic conditions in surface water, groundwater, and soil.
The cations calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium are liberated, and
acetate degradation produces bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, and water3.
Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with
soils/sediments. May be very site-specific.
Formate can decrease the breakdown of acetate in anaerobic environments.
Source: D'ltri (1992).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-4
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-5: Freezing Point Depressants: Formates and Lactates
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm
Hg)
Potassium
formate
590-29-4
CH202.K
3,3 10 at 18°
C
Sodium
formate
141-53-7
CH202.Na
972 at 20°
C
Ethyl lactate
97-64-3
C5H1003
Miscible with water
-0.18
1
5.8xlO'7
3.75
Sodium lactate
72-17-3
C3H603.Na
1,000
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-life
Degradation summary
Degradation products
Transport rate
summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
These substances are not expected to volatilize. They are quite soluble in water, and may be
expected to ionize freely. Depending on site-specific factors, the inorganic ions may adsorb
or complex with soil or water constituents but may also remain dissolved in surface water
and groundwater.
Formate is slowly
hydrolyzed in water, and
can be anaerobically
degraded by
methanogens.
In water: hydrolysis: 72 days at pH 7;
7 days at pH 8.
Hydrolysis to ethanol and lactate in
surface waters may be an important
degradation pathway.
Release of potassium and sodium cations and microbial biomass.
Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soils/sediments. May be
very site-specific.
60% ethyl lactate has a strong cosolvency effect and can increase the solubility of dense
non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) compounds by orders of magnitude.
Redox Tech (2008) and US NLM (2008).
Schaueretal. (1982) and Redox Tech (2008).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-5
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-6: Freezing Point Depressants: Other
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility,
g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law
constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure
(mmHg)
Environmental
partitioning
summary
Half-lives
Degradation
summary
Degradation
products
Transport rate
summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Sodium
pyrrolidone
carboxylate
54571-67-4
C5H7NO3.Na
Glycerol
56-81-5
C3H803
Freely soluble
-1.76
1.73xl(r8
1.58X10'4
Volatilizes
more slowly
than water.
Should not
adsorb to soil
or particulates.
Atmospheric
degradation: 33
hto3.2d.
Rapid, both
aerobic and
anaerobic.
Isopropanol
67-63-0
C3H80
1000
0.05
1.4
S.lOxlO'6
45.4
Volatilization is
expected to be an
important route of
removal from soil
and water. Should
not adsorb to soil
or particulates.
Volatilization from
river: 57 h; from
lake: 29 d. Aerobic
degradation in
sludge:
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-7: Freezing Point Depressants: Ethylene Glycols
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law
constant (atm-cu
nrVmole)
Vapor pressure (mm
Hg)
Poly-ethylene
glycol, molecular
weight from 62
to 106
25322-68-3
(C2H40).(H20)n
Freely soluble
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
C2H602
Freely soluble
-1.36
1 (Koc)
e.ooxio"8
0.092
Diethylene glycol"
111-46-6
C^ioOs
Freely soluble
1.47
1 (Koc)
2xlO-9
1
Triethylene
glycol
112-27-6
C6H1404
Freely soluble
-1.98
1
3.2X10'11
1.32X10'3
Environmental
partitioning
summary
Volatilization is not expected to be an important pathway for these glycols. Very high mobility
is expected for all glycols in soil, sediment, and water. Experimentally determined adsorption
of ethylene glycol to four soils (two clay, two sandy clay) ranged from 0-0.5%. Tracer
xperiments have shown that ethylene glycol moves through soil with water.
Half-lives
T~)ppmHntioTi
-L'^-^ldUdl.UJll
summary
Degradation lag
time
Transport rate
summary
Mixture effects
Atmospheric half-life: 50 h at 25°
C.
Very rapid degradation rates in soil,
sediment, and water.
Soils: 90 to 100% degradation of
ethylene glycol was observed in
various field soils in 2 to 12 days
(temperatures not known); ethylene
glycol in aircraft deicing or anti-
icing fluid formulation was
completely degraded in runway-
side soils within 29 days at 8° C.
Water: Hydrolysis and photolysis
are not expected to be significant.
Ethylene glycol in river water
degraded completely in three days
at 20° C and in 5 to 14 days at 8° C.
Aerobic degradation of ethylene
glycol may be essentially complete
in less than one to four days under
optimal conditions in water or
treatment systems, but the impact of
the full theoretical biological
oxygen demand may not be
observed for several weeks.
Atmospheric half-
life: 13 h.
Water: Diethylene
glycol in aerobic
river water showed
little degradation
during winter.
Soils:
Triethylene
glycol in aerobic
soil was
completely
degraded within
7 to 11 days.
For unacclimated microbial communities, there is often a lag of several days before glycol
degradation begins.
Expected to have very high mobility in soil, sediment, and water.
Triazoles decrease the degradation rate of glycols. Low temperatures may also greatly decrease
the degradation rates of glycols.
July 2009
A-7
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-7: Freezing Point Depressants: Ethylene Glycols
Characteristics
Poly-ethylene
glycol, molecular
weight from 62
to 106
Ethylene glycol
Diethylene glycol"
Triethylene
glycol
Additional notes
Ethylene glycols are expected to share somewhat similar properties, except for polyethylene
glycols. Formulated polyethylene glycol products contain different mixtures of polymers, and
the properties of the products will vary based on the size and shape of the polymers they
ontain. All of these substances are expected to be rapidly degraded under aerobic and
anaerobic conditions.
a. Not currently used in the U.S.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-8
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-8: Freezing Point Depressants: Propylene Glycols
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Propylene glycol
57-55-6
C3H802
Freely soluble
-0.92
0.90
l.SxlO'8
0.13
1,3-Propylene glycol
504-63-2
Freely soluble
-1.04
l,74xlO'7
0.0441
1, l'-oxybis-2-propanol
(dipropylene glycol)
25265-71-8
CeHi/iOs
Freely soluble
-1.486
1 (Koc)
5.6xlO'9
0.032
Very high mobility in soils, sediments, and water. Not expected to volatilize
readily.
Propylene glycol was not observed to degrade at 4° C, and only degraded at
20 C in soil that was rich in organic matter3.
For unacclimated microbial communities, there is often a lag of several days
before glycol degradation begins.
Source: Jaesche et al. (2006).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-9
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-9: Freezing Point Depressants: Urea and Metabolites
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Urea
57-13-6
CH4N2O
545
-2.11
0.903
1.2X10'5
Ammonia
7664-41-7
H3N
"31%"
0.23
1.61xlO-5
7.51xl03
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-10
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-10: Thickeners: Acrylic Acid Polymers
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law
constant (atm-
nrVmole)
Vapor pressure (mm
Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Carbomer
Trade name
polymer of
acrylic acid
Carbopol
672
Trade
name
polymer
of acrylic
acid
Carbopol
934
9007-16-3
polymer
of acrylic
acid
Carbopol
1610
Trade name
polymer of
acrylic acid
Carbopol
1621
Trade
name
polymer
of acrylic
acid
Carbopol
1622
Trade name
polymer of
acrylic acid
Polymer of acrylic
acid
79-10-7
polymer of acrylic
acid
IxlO3
0.35
1.63
3.2xlO'7
3.97
Not expected to volatilize from water or moist soil. Slow volatilization from dry soil is
possible. Not expected to adsorb to soils or particulates; potential for transport in soil is high.
Degradation
summary
Non-polymerized (monomeric) acrylic acid readily biodegrades both aerobically and
anaerobically; it reached 68% of its theoretical BOD in 2 weeks using an activated sludge
inoculum, and in a 42-day anaerobic screening study using a sewage seed inoculum, 71% of
acrylic acid was degraded.
However, biodegradability decreases with increasing number of polymerized units and
increasing formula molecular weight, dropping off sharply between MWs 700 and 1,000, and
for polymers with more than seven units3. It appears that monomers and dimers of acrylic
acid are completely biodegradable, but there are indications polymers of three to seven units
are incompletely biodegraded3.
Degradation lag time
Transport rate
summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
May be contaminated by low-ppm levels of metals.
Source: Larson etal. (1997).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-11
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-11: Thickeners: Natural Gums
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Kappa-carrageenan
Mixture
10
lota-carrageenan
9062-07-1
Welan gum
Mixture
Xanthan gum
11138-66-2
Naturally-derived high-molecular-weight polysaccharide gums. Tend to be highly water
soluble, and are expected to be biodegradable, although biodegradation information was
not available.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-12
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-12: Thickeners: Other
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility
g/L
Log KOW
LogKOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation
summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Hydroxyethylcellulose
9004-62-0
C2-H6-O2.x-Unspecified
Freely soluble
Cellulose gums are generally slowly biodegraded. Reported values for the biological
oxygen demand of two samples of hydroxy ethyl cellulose are 7,000 & 18,000 ppm,
respectively, after 5 days of incubation.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-13
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-13: Surfactants: Alcohol Ethoxylates
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Decyl alcohol ethoxylate
26183-52-8
CH3(CH2)n(OCH2
CH2)yOHa
Lauryl alcohol ethoxylate
Category
CH3(CH2)n(OCH2
CH2)yOHa
Lauryl alcohol phosphoric acid
- ester ethoxylate
-
CH3(CH2)n(OCH2 CH2)yOHa
In general, log Kd is a better predictor of behavior than Kow for these substances3. Log Kd,
as with the other physicochemical parameters, varies by ethoxymer. The formula below, as
given by Belanger et al. (2006) permits the calculation of an estimated log Kd.
logKd = 0.331 * (alkyl chain length) - 0.009 * (ethoxylate chain length) - 1.126
Sorption may be important, and is likely to vary by ethoxymer.
Aerobic degradation may be rapid.
Source: Belanger et al. (2006).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-14
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-14: Surfactants: Alkylbenzene Sulfonates
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm
Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Sodium
alkylbenzene
sulfonate
68411-30-3
Siponate A-
2466, sodium
dodecylbenze
ne sulfonate
Trade name
Siponate DDB-
40, sodium
dodecylbenzene
sulfonate
Trade name
Siponate DS,
sodium
dodecylbenzene
sulfonate
Trade name
Sandocorin
8132, sodium
dodecylbenzene
sulfonate
Trade name
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-15
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-15: Surfactants: Alcohol Ethoxylates
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Alcohol ethoxylates
Category
Tergitol TMN-10,
branched secondary
alcohol ethoxylate
Trade name
Aliphatic alcohol ethoxylates
Category
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-16
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-16: Surfactants: Alkylphenol Ethoxylates
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Alkylphenol ethoxylates
Category
Octylphenol
ethoxylates
Category
Nonylphenol
ethoxylates
Category
CgHig-
C6H4O(CH2CH2O)nHa
All are highly soluble in water, but solubility varies by ethoxymer3.
Not expected to volatilize. Likely to partition to organic matter or minerals
in soil, but this tendency varies by ethoxymer, and migration through the
soil has been observed. In water, as in soil, may sorb to organic matter or
particulates3.
3-26 d under ideal aerobic conditions with acclimated community13
Degradation varies by ethoxymer, and tends to produce some recalcitrant
compounds3.
Surfactants can increase the solubility and transport of less soluble
substances.
Additional notes
These are all categories; therefore, the specific physical properties vary by
ethoxymer.
Alkylphenol ethoxylates are antifoaming agents0.
Degradation of these compounds can produce more persistent octyl- and
nonylphenols.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
a. Environment Canada (2002).
b. Staples etal. (2001).
c. Bennie etal. (1997).
July 2009
A-17
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-17: Surfactant Breakdown Products: Alkylphenols
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Octylphenol
Category
C14H220
4.12b
4.01 to 4.65b
Unlikely to volatilize from soils. Likely to
partition to sediments and soil minerals'3.
7-50 d in river water0.
Relatively rapid degradation in aerobic river
water0.
Highly recalcitrant to anaerobic degradation
in sediments0.
Can leach through soilsb.
Nonylphenol
25154-52-3
(category)
5.43xlO-3a
4.1-4.73
1.09X10'43
3.4xlO-5a
Although volatility is low, can volatilize
from water and result in high atmospheric
concentrations. Unlikely to volatilize from
soils. Likely to partition to sediments and
mineral particles in water and soil, but can
still leach through soils3.
2.4 hours to 0.74 d in water. Photolytic half-
life in upper layer of surface water is 10-15
hours; in deeper layers, it is much slower. In
a sediment mesocosm, a half-life of 66 days
was observed3.
A biphasic degradation profile has been
observed in soils, with relatively rapid initial
degradation of 30-50% of applied
nonylphenol degrading in the first several
weeks, and the remainder degrading with a
half -life of approximately 90 days3.
Can leach through soils3.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
a. Environment Canada (2002).
b. Isobeetal. (2001).
c. Christiansen et al. (2002).
July 2009
A-18
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-18: Surfactants: Diamines
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Oleic acid diamine
Category
Oleyl propylene diamine
Category
Palmitic acid diamine
Category
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-19
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-19: Surfactants: Polyethylene Oxide Monomer and Polymer
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Ethylene oxide
75-21-8
C2H4O
Miscible with water
-0.3
n/a
1.48X10-4
1314
Expected to volatilize rapidly from soil. It
does not adsorb well to soil, and would be
expected to leach readily.
In water, volatilization will occur in hours
to days.
Atmospheric half-life estimated at 21 1
days. The volatilization half -lives of
ethylene oxide in a model river and lake
are 5.9 hr and 3.8 days, respectively. The
half -life for hydrolysis is 9-14 days. In a
river die-away test, the rate of degradation
was not significantly different than for
hydrolysis.
Hydrolysis may also be an important
mechanism of removal from water.
Biodegradation appears to occur more
slowly than volatilization, but data are
extremely limited. Expected to degrade by
hydrolysis in groundwater. Products of
degradation by hydrolysis are
biodegradable (ethylene glycol and
ethylene chlorohydrin).
Ethylene oxide / propylene oxide block
copolymers
Category
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-20
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-20: Surfactants: Other Nonionic Detergents
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Emerest 2660 (OEG-12 oleate)
(=Polyoxyethylene monoleate)
9004-96-0
(C2H4O) mult-C18H34O2
Very soluble
Emsorb 6900 (peg-20 sorbitan oleate)
(=glycol (polysorbate 80))
9005-65-6
Highly soluble
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-21
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-21: Corrosion Inhibitors and Flame Retardants: Tolyltriazoles
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Tolyltriazole
29385-43-1
C7H7N3
Mobile in groundwater.
Cobratec TT-50S, tolyltriazole solution
Trade name
Unlikely to be readily degradable.
Even at very low concentrations, triazoles have been observed to sharply decrease the
biodegradability of other components in mixtures.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-22
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-22: Corrosion Inhibitors and Flame Retardants: Other Triazoles
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Triazoles
37306-44-8
C2H3N3
Benzyltriazole
-
Benzotriazole
95-14-7
CsHjNs
19.8
1.44
3.17X10'7
4.0xlO'2
Expected to be highly
mobile in soil. Also, it
may protonate in some
environmental
matrices, and the
cationic form should
bind to organic material
and clays.
Volatilization is not
expected.
Half-life for
atmospheric
degradation by reaction
with hydroxyl radicals
is estimated at 16 days.
May also be subject to
direct photolysis.
Persists in the
environment;
apparently not
biodegradable.
5-Methyl-lH-
Benzotriazole
136-85-6
C7H7N3
4-methyl-lH-
benzotriazole
29878-31-7
C7H7N3
5-tolyltriazole is much better
(aerobically) degradable than the 4-
tolyltriazole isomer (in river water
samples).13
Even at very low concentrations, triazoles have been observed to sharply decrease the
biodegradability of other components in mixtures.
Benzotriazole and methylbenzotriazole have been detected in groundwater near an airport,
at concentrations in excess of those known to be toxic to microbiota, fish, and
invertebrates.3
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
a. Cancilla et al. (1998)
b. Weiss and Reemtsma (2005).
July 2009
A-23
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-23: Corrosion Inhibitors: Alcohols
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental partitioning
summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Propargyl alcohol
107-19-7
C3H4O
Miscible with water
-0.38
1.1x10-6
15.6
Should be highly mobile in soil, and volatilize readily from both moist and dry
soils. In water, propargyl alcohol is not expected to adsorb to sediments or
suspended solids. Volatilization from the water's surface is expected.
The half -life of propargyl alcohol in an alkaline sandy silt loam (61.5% sand,
31.1% silt, 7.4% clay, pH 7.8, 3.25% organic carbon) was 12.6 days. The half-
life in an acidic sandy loam (68% sand, 23.4% silt, 8.6% clay, pH 4.8, 0.94%
organic carbon) was 13 days. Modeled volatilization half-lives for a river and
lake are 16 and 176 days, respectively. The modeled atmospheric half-life due to
degradation by hydroxyl radicals is 37 hours.
Aerobic degradation in soils is expected, based on the results above, and is also
likely in water.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-24
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-24: Corrosion Inhibitors: Nitrite, Nitrate, and Silicate Salts
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Sodium nitrate
7631-99-4
HNO3.Na
912
Nitrite does not
volatilize from soil or
water.
Aerobically degraded
to nitrate.
Sodium nitrite
7632-00-0
HNO2.Na
848
Nitrate does not
volatilize from soil
or water.
Sodium silicate
13870-28-5
Almost insoluble in cold
water; soluble in water with
heat and pressure
Potassium
silicate
10006-28-7
K2SiO3
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-25
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-25: Corrosion Inhibitors: Other Inorganics
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Potassium
phosphate
7778-53-2
H3O4P.3K
Borax
1303-96-4
B4Na2O7.10H2O
593
Approximately zero.
Not expected to volatilize from soils or water.
Persists in soil for a year or more, dependin
rainfall.
g on soil type and
High mobility in soil with high rainfall; otherwise, sorbs to minerals
in soils.
Biostatic and antiseptic; biodegradation not
degradation of other substances in mixtures
activity.
reported. May inhibit
due to antimicrobial
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-26
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-26: Corrosion Inhibitors: Other Organics
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Sodium benzoate
532-32-1
C7H5NaO2
556
3.67xlO'9
Phosphate esters
Category
((RO)3PO) Phosphoric
acids with alkyl or aryl
alcohols.
Thiourea
62-56-6
CH4N2S
-1.08
1.98xl(r9
Is not expected to adsorb to
suspended solids and sediment in
water. Not expected to volatilize
from any medium.
Thiourea can degrade in soil by both
chemical and microbial degradation,
although high levels of thiourea may
suppress microbial activity for
extended periods of time. In one soil
degradation study, thiourea persisted
in excess of 15 weeks.
Expected to be highly mobile in
soils.
May delay degradation of other
components of mixtures due to
antimicrobial activity.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-27
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-27: Corrosion Inhibitors: Ethanolamines
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Monoethanolamine
141-43-5
C2H7NO
IxlO3
-1.31
3.25xl(r8
0.404
Diethanolamine
111-42-2
C4HnN02
Freely soluble
-1.43
3.9x10-"
1.4X10'4
Triethanolamine
102-71-6
C6H15N03
Freely soluble
-1
T.lxlO'13
3.59xlO'6
Expected to ionize under most environmental conditions (pH 5 to 9), which would favor
adsorption to clays and organic matter. Not expected to volatilize from soils or water.
Biodegradation may be
an important pathway of
degradation.
5d
Days to weeks
Rapid biodegradation
expected, following lag
time. Aerobic degradation
observed.
Aerobic degradation observed.
15 d
Binding to clays and organic matter should restrict mobility of ionized ethanolamines in
soil. Unionized forms are predicted to be very mobile in soils. In water, they may be
transported with particulates.
Degrades to nitrogen
dioxide and ammonia.
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
is a degradation product
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-28
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-28: pH Buffers, Phosphate-Based
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Dipotassium phosphate
7758-11-4
H3O4P.2K
Freely soluble
Disodium phosphate (Sodium hydrogen phosphate)
7558-79-4
H3O4P.2Na
Freely soluble
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-29
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-29: pH Reducers
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Potassium hydroxide
1310-58-3
HKO
Freely soluble
Sodium hydroxide
1310-73-2
HNaO
Freely soluble
Too low to be measured
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-30
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-30: Antifoamers: Silicones
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
DC 1520, silicone
antifoam
Trade name
Foamban
Category
SAG 1000
Trade name
SAG 7133
Trade name
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-31
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-31: Antifoamers: Silicones and Other Substances
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Siltech E-2202
Trade name
Dimethyl
polysiloxane
9016-00-6
(C2H6OSi)x-
AF-9020,
polydimeth
ylsiloxane
63148-62-9
(C2H6OSi)n
1-dodecanol
112-53-8
Ci2H26O
0.004
5.13
1.5xlO+4(Koc)
2.22xlO'5
8.48X10'4
Expected to have slight mobility in soil and
volatilize from wet soils; not expected to
volatilize from dry soils. Likely to adsorb to
suspended solids and sediment and volatilize
from water surfaces. Should exist as a vapor
in the atmosphere.
Vapor-phase 1-dodecanol is degraded in the
atmosphere by reaction with
photochemically-produced hydroxyl radicals;
the half -life for this reaction in air is
estimated to be 21 hours.
Does not degrade anaerobically.
Atmospheric degradation via hydroxyl
radicals.
No environmental hydrolysis.
Immobile in soil.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-32
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-32: Dyes
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Eosin orange,
tetrabromofluorescein
17372-87-1
C2oH8Br4O5.2Na
4.8
FD&C blue #1, alphazurine
3844-45-9
May discolor receiving waters.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-33
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-33: Additional Dyes
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental partitioning
summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
FD&C yellow #5,
tartrazine
1934-21-0
C16H9N4Na3O9S2
Malonyl green, C.I.
Pigment Yellow 34
Trade name
Shilling green
Trade name
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-34
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-34: Hydrophobic Agents
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant (atm-
nrVmole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental partitioning
summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
N-Dodecanea
112-40-33
1.3xl(rla
1.1 days in the atmosphere;
degraded via gas-phase
reaction with hydroxyl
radicals a
Mineral oil
Mixture
Insoluble in water
n/a
White mineral oil (10
cSt)
Mixture
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
a. Chemfate database (2008).
July 2009
A-35
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-35: Solvents
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility,
g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law
constant (atm-
m3/mole)
Vapor pressure
(mmHg)
Environmental
partitioning
summary
Half-lives
D c 2 Kiclcitio n
Degradation lag
time
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
C8H10
0.0014 @ 15 degrees
C
3.15
7.88xlO'3
9.6
Toluene
108-88-
3
C7H8
M- and P-
Xylene
108-38-3
C8H10
Insoluble in
water
3.15
0.0069
8.84
Volatilization from moist and dry soil surfaces
is expected. In aquatic environments BTEX
compounds will adsorb to suspended solids and
sediments and will volatilize from surface
water. BTEX compounds will exist as vapors in
the atmosphere.
The atmospheric half-
Aquatic volatilization
half-life is estimated at
between 1.1 and 99
Biodegradation occurs
under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions.
Abiotic degradation is
primarily photolytic.
Ethylbenzene was
degraded in aerobic
conditions within 10-
16 days, and in
conditions of low
initial oxygen, it was
rapidly degraded in 21
days until the available
oxygen was depleted.
The
atmospheric
half -life of this
compound is
about 27 hours.
Aquatic
volatilization
half -life is
estimated at
between 3 and
99 hours.
Biodegradation occurs
under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions.
Abiotic degradation is
primarily photolytic.
Trichloroethylene
79-01-6
C2HC13
1.280
2.61
9.85xlO'3
69
Methyl ethyl ketone
78-93-3
C4H80
353 @ 10 Deg C
0.29
4.7xlO'5
91
High mobility in soils and volatilization from
both moist and dry soils are expected. In aquatic
environments, these compounds do not adsorb to
suspended solids and sediments. Volatilization is
an important process. In the atmosphere, these
compounds exist solely in the vapor phase.
The half -life for the
reaction with
hydroxyl radicals in
air is estimated to be
7 days.
There is a wide range
of degradation half-
lives under anaerobic
conditions. An
approximate average
half-life is 1 year.
Trichloroethylene is
not degraded
aerobically. It is
degraded
anaerobically under
methanogenic
conditions.
The half-life for the
reaction with hydroxyl
radicals in air is estimated
to be about 14 days.
Aerobic degradation is the
main degradation pathway.
Atmospheric degradation
pathways include
photodecomposition and
degradation by reaction
with hydroxyl radicals.
July 2009
A-36
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-35: Solvents
Characteristics
Transport rate
summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
M- and P-
Xylene
Moderate to low mobility in soil.
Trichloroethylene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-37
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-36: Solvents: Alcohols and Other Solvents
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Degradation summary
Acetone
67-64-1
C3H60
Miscible in water
-0.24
3.97xlO'5
231
Methylene chloride
75-09-2
CH2C12
13
1.25
3.25X10'3x
435
Very high mobility in soil, volatilization
expected from moist or dry soil surfaces and
from water. These compounds exist in the
atmosphere solely as vapors.
Volatilization is the primary mechanism for
removal from aquatic environments.
Acetone degrades under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions. Methylene chloride
biodegradation may occur in soils or
contaminated aquifers under reducing
conditions.
Acetone undergoes photodegradation in the
atmosphere, and not hydrolysis. Methylene
chloride is not directly photooxidized; it does
undergo hydrolysis in the atmosphere and
terrestrial environments.
1.3-Butanediol
107-88-0
C4H10O2
Miscible in water
-0.29
0.114
2.30xlO'7
0.06
Butyne-1,4-
diol
110-65-6
C4H602
3,740
-0.93
1.684X10'11
5.56xlO'4
In the atmosphere, degradation
will occur via hydroxyl radicals.
Biodegradation in soils and water
is likely. Volatilization from
moist soils and water is expected.
Biodegradation is likely to be an
important degradation pathway.
An atmospheric
half-life of about 1.2
days at an
atmospheric
concentration of
5xlO+5 hydroxyl
radicals per cm3 is
estimated.
An
atmospheric
half-life of
about 1 1
hours at an
atmospheric
concentratio
n of 5xlO+5
hydroxyl
radicals per
cm3 is
estimated.
Aerobic biodegradation occurs.
There is not enough data to
determine rates.
Anaerobic degradation
information is not available.
Abiotically degraded by
hydrolysis in the atmosphere (via
hydroxyl radicals). Aquatic
hydrolysis is not expected for
1,3-butanediol and information
was not found for butyne-1,4-
diol.
Glycol
ethers
110-80-
5, 111-
76-2,
107-98-2
Miscible
in water
July 2009
A-38
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-36: Solvents: Alcohols and Other Solvents
Characteristics
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Acetone
Highly mobile in soil.
Methylene chloride
Highly mobile in soil;
adsorbs strongly to
peat moss, less
strongly to clay,
slightly to dolomite
sandstone, and not at
all to sand.
1.3-Butanediol
Butyne-1,4- Glycol
diol ethers
Highly mobile in
soil.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-39
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-37: Plasticizers and Other Miscellaneous Substances
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
84-74-2
Ci6H22O4
0.013
4.9
4.5xlO'6
2.01X10'5
Expected to volatilize
from moist soil
surfaces but not dry
soil surfaces. Will
adsorb to suspended
solids and sediment in
water and is expected
to volatilize from water
surfaces. It has a low
bioconcentration
potential. Exists as
both a vapor and
paniculate in the
atmosphere.
The half-life for
hydroxyl radical
degradation in air is
estimated to be 42
hours. Particulates may
be removed by wet and
dry deposition.
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
117-81-7
C24H38O4
Less than 0.01% in
water
7.6
l.SxlO'7
7.23xlO'8
Not expected to
volatilize from soil
surfaces. Expected to
adsorb to suspended
solids and sediments
in water and
volatilize from water
surfaces. Will exist
as both a vapor and
paniculate in the
atmosphere.
An aerobic biodegra-
dation half -life of 60
to 70 hours is expec-
ted in groundwater.
The half-life for
hydroxyl radical
degradation in air is
estimated to be about
18 hours. Particulates
may be removed by
wet and dry
deposition.
Observed biological
half -lives for bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate
under aerobic condi-
tions are as follows:
pure culture
(Penicillium
lilacum), 30 days;
river water, 4.5
weeks; hydrosoil, 14
days; activated
sludge, 17 days; and
soil, 31 to 98 days.
Dioxane
123-91-1
C4H8O2
Miscible with water
-0.27
4.8X10'6
38.1
Expected to
volatilize from
moist and possibly
dry soil surfaces.
Not expected to
adsorb to suspended
solids and
sediments. It is
expected to
volatilize from
water surfaces.
Exists solely as a
vapor in the
atmosphere.
The half-life for
hydroxyl radical
degradation in air is
estimated to be 35
hours.
3,5,5-
Trimethylhexanoic
Acid
3302-10-1
CgHiSO2
July 2009
A-40
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-37: Plasticizers and Other Miscellaneous Substances
Characteristics
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Aerobic and anaerobic
biodegradation. Will
hydrolyze in the
environment. Degraded
in the atmosphere by
reaction with hydroxyl
radicals.
Low mobility in soil.
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Hydrolysis is not an
important
degradation pathway.
Rapid biodegradation
will occur under
aerobic conditions in
aquatic
environments.
Some biodegradation
may occur in soils.
Degraded in the
atmosphere by
hydroxyl radicals.
Immobile in soil.
Dioxane
Considered
recalcitrant/
resistant to
biodegradation.
Degraded by
hydroxyl radicals in
the atmosphere.
Very high mobility
in soil.
A contaminant of
technical grade
ethylene glycol, and
is an animal
carcinogen
3,5,5-
Trimethylhexanoic
Acid
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
Chemfate Database (2008).
Sills and Blakeslee (1992).
July 2009
A-41
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-38: Degradation Products
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm
Hg)
Environmental
partitioning summary
Half-lives
Methane
74-82-8
CH4
0.022
1.09
0.66
4.66xl05
Volatilization from moist soil
surfaces is an important process.
Not expected to adsorb to
suspended solids and sediments.
Volatilization from water surfaces
is a dominant fate process in
aqueous systems.
Volatilization half-lives for a
model river and model lake are
both 2 hours.
The biodegradation half-life of
methane was estimated to range
from 70 days to infinity.
The half-life for the hydroxyl
radical reaction in air is estimated
to be about 6 years.
Acet aldehyde
75-07-0
C2H4O
1,000
-0.17
6.67xlO'5
902
Volatilization from moist
soil surfaces is expected to
be an important fate
process; some volatilization
may occur from dry soil
surfaces.
Not expected to adsorb to
suspended solids and
sediments. Volatilization
from water is expected.
In the atmosphere, exists as
a gas under ambient
conditions.
Volatilization half-lives for
a model river and model
lake are 6.5 hrs and 5.3
days, respectively.
The half -life for
atmospheric reaction with
hydroxyl radicals is
estimated to be 24 hrs.
The half-life in the
atmosphere due to
photolysis is reported as 8.4
hours and 16 hours.
Nitrous
acids
7782-77-6
HNO2
Ethanol
64-17-5
C2H60
Miscible
-0.31
5xlO-6
59.3
Volatilization from moist soil
surfaces is an important fate
process; volatilization from
dry soil may occur.
Volatilization occurs from
water surfaces; ethanol does
not adsorb to suspended
solids and sediment. It is
unlikely to be persistent in
aquatic environments.
Exists solely as a vapor in the
atmosphere.
Volatilization half-lives for a
model river and model lake
are 3 and 39 days,
respectively.
The half -life for the hydroxyl
radical reaction in air is
estimated to be 5 days.
Nitrosamines
Category
R!N(-R2)-N=O
July 2009
A-42
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-38: Degradation Products
Characteristics
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate
summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Methane
Aerobic degradation is an
important mechanism in moist
soils.
High mobility in soil.
Acet aldehyde
Rapidlybiodegrades in the
environment under aerobic
and anaerobic conditions.
Degraded in the atmosphere
by hydroxyl radicals and
photolysis.
Very highly mobile in soil.
Nitrous
acids
Ethanol
Aerobic and anaerobic
biodegradation are important
fate processes.
Degraded in the atmosphere
by photochemically -produced
hydroxyl radicals.
Very high mobility in soil.
Nitrosamines
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-43
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-39: Emulsifiers and Other Miscellaneous Substances
Characteristics
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
Log KQW
Log KOC
Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental partitioning
summary
Half-lives
Propanoic acid
79-09-4
C3H602
1,000
0.33
4.45xlQ-7
3.53
Hexanoic acid
142-62-1
C6H1202
10.3
1.92
7.58xlQ-7
0.0435
Butanoic acid
107-92-6
C4H802
60.0
0.79
5.35xlQ-7
1.65
These compounds exist as anions in the soil, making them highly
mobile. They do not readily volatilize from most soils and may
volatilize from dry soils (especially hexanoic acid and Butanoic
acid).
In aquatic environments these compounds will exist as anions and
will not adsorb to suspended solids and sediments. Volatilization
from water surfaces is not an important fate process.
These compounds exist as vapors in the atmosphere.
The half-life for the
hydroxyl radical
reaction in air is
estimated to be 13
days.
Anaerobic
degradation in
groundwater occurs
with a half life of
approximately 21
days.
The half -life for the
hydroxyl radical
reaction in air is
estimated to be 3
days.
The half -life for the
hydroxyl radical
reaction in air is
estimated to be 7 days.
Polyamines
Category
Chloroform
67-66-3
CHC13
7.710
1.97
3.67xlQ-3
197
Volatilization from moist soil
surfaces is expected to be an
important fate process; volatilization
from dry soil surfaces may occur.
Not expected to adsorb to suspended
solids and sediment in water.
Volatilization from water surfaces
will occur.
Exists as a vapor in the atmosphere
and is degraded by hydroxyl
radicals.
Chloroform was found to have a
half-life of 0.3 days when applied 1
cm deep into soil and 1.4 days when
applied 10 cm deep.
Volatilization half-lives for a model
river and model lake are 1.3 hrs and
4.4 days, respectively.
The half -life for the hydroxyl radical
reaction in air is estimated to be 151
days.
July 2009
A-44
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-39: Emulsifiers and Other Miscellaneous Substances
Characteristics
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary
Mixture effects
Additional notes
Propanoic acid
Hexanoic acid
Butanoic acid
These compounds are readily biodegradable under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions. Anaerobic degradation occurs with
methanogenesis.
Atmospheric degradation occurs via reaction with photochemically-
produced hydroxyl radicals.
Very high mobility in
soil.
Polyamines
Chloroform
Chloroform is biodegradeable
anaerobically by methanotrophic
bacteria.
Moderate mobility in soil. Poorly
retained by aquifer material.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-45
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-40: Ecological Toxicity Values for Airport Deicing Product Components
CASRN
102-71-6
107-19-7
107-21-1
110-65-6
111-42-2
111-46-6
112-27-6
112-53-8
115-77-5
127-08-2
127-09-3
1310-58-3
1310-73-2
136-85-6
141-43-5
141-53-7
Chemical Name
Triethanolamine
Propargyl alcohol
Ethylene glycol
Butyne-l,4-diol
Diethanolamine
Diethylene glycol
Triethylene glycol
1-dodecanol
Pentaerythritol
Potassium acetate
Sodium acetate
Potassium hydroxide
Sodium hydroxide
Tolyltriazole
Monoethanolamine
Sodium formate
Study Species
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Rainbow trout
Fathead minnow
Waterflea-
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Green algae
Duckweed
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Algae
Fathead minnow
Harpacticoid
Northern leopard frog -
Rana pipiens
Waterflea-Daphnia
magna
Fathead minnow
Rainbow trout
Waterflea
Fathead minnow
Waterflea
Guppy
Western mosquitofish
Bluegill
Waterflea
Microtox® (bacteria)
Microtox® (bacteria)
Rainbow trout
Bluegill
Waterflea
Zebrafish
Concentration Type
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
NOEC (growth, 7 day)
NOEC (reproduction, 7 day)
EC50 (96 hr)
LOEC (96 hr, frond growth)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50
LC50
EC50 (24 hr)
LC50
LC50 (7 day)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (48 hr)
LC50 (48 hr)
LC50 (120 hr)
LC50 (48 hr)
LC50 (24 hr)
LC50(96hr)
LC50
LC50
EC50 (5 min)
EC50 (15 min)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (24 hr)
EC50 (24 hr)
EC50 (48 hr)
EC0 (24 hr)
EC0(48hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
Concentration
(mg/L)
11,800
1.53
>18,500
15,380
3,469
7,900
10,000
53.6
4,710
75,200
77,400
0.97
1.01
0.9
0.88
38,900
>500
>1,500
>2,100
>3,000
2,750
13,330
2,400
165
125
31
74
6
6
150
5,000
4,800
4,400
3,300
3,200
100
July 2009
A-46
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-40: Ecological Toxicity Values for Airport Deicing Product Components
CASRN
1934-21-0
25265-71-8
25322-68-3
504-63-2
56-81-5
57-13-6
57-55-6
62-56-6
7558-79-4
7631-99-4
7664-41-7
7778-53-2
79-10-7
95-14-7
97-64-3
(25154-52-3)
Chemical Name
FD&C Yellow #5
(constituents)
Dipropylene glycol
Polyethylene glycol, m.w.
from 62 to 106
1,3-Propylene glycol
Glycerol
Urea
Propylene Glycol
Thiourea
Disodium phosphate (aka
sodium hydrogen
phosphate)
Sodium nitrate
Ammonia
Potassium phosphate
Acrylic acid
Benzotriazole
Ethyl lactate
Nonylphenol
Study Species
Fish (species not
specified)
Goldfish
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Rainbow trout
Guppy
Fish-Barilius barna
Mozambique tilapia-
Tilapia moassambica
Carp
Waterflea
Mosquito
Freshwater snail
Fathead minnow
Goldfish
Waterf[ea-Daphnia
magna
Waterflea-
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Waterflea-Daphnia
magna
Waterflea-Daphnia
magna
Rainbow trout
Fathead minnow
Goldfish
Rainbow trout
Waterflea
Various
Western mosquitofish
Green algae
Waterflea
Rainbow trout
Microtox ® (bacteria)
Zebrafish
Fish
Invertebrates
Concentration Type
LC50 (72 hr)
LC50 (24 hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (24 hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (48 hr)
EC50 (24 hr)
LC50 (4 hr)
LC50 (24 hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
NOEC (growth, 7 day)
LC50
LC50
NOEC (reproduction, 7 day)
LC50 (48 hr)
LC50 (48 hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (24-96 hr)
LC50 (24 hr)
LC50 (48 hr)
EPA National
Recommended Water
Quality Criteria
LC50 (96 hr)
EC50 (96 hr)
EC3 (7 day)
ECso (24 hr, immobilization)
NOEC (96 hr)
EC50 (5 min)
EC50 (15 min)
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50
LC50
Concentration
(mg/L)
> 1,000
>5,000
>20,000
>5,000
54
17,500
>9,100
22,500
>10,000
>10,000
60,000
14,241-30,060
55,770
<11,530
5,000
8,000
13,020
9
3,580
1,658
0.73-8.2
2-2.5
0.068-3.58
187-189
Temp., life-stage,
time-dependent.
750
0.17
18
765
6.3
41
42
320
0.17-1.4
0.17-1.4
July 2009
A-47
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-40: Ecological Toxicity Values for Airport Deicing Product Components
CASRN
(Multiple)
(Multiple)
(Multiple)
(Multiple)
(Unknown)
(Unknown)
(Unknown)
(Unknown)
Chemical Name
Nonylphenol ethoxylate
Octylphenol
Octylphenol ethoxylate
Alcohol ethoxylates
Sodium
Potassium
Xanthan Gum
Polyacrylic Acid
Study Species
Waterflea-Daphnia
magna
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Other fishes
Calanoid copepod
Polychaete worm
Fish
Invertebrates
Algae
Rainbow trout
Polychaete worm
Bluegill
Fathead minnow (egg,
juvenile)
Green algae
Waterf[ea-Daphnia
magna
Concentration Type
Life-Cycle Chronic Value
Early Life Stage Chronic
Value
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
EC10(C9-11EO6)
NOEC(C9-11EO6,
reproduction)
EC10 (C12E2, growth)
EC10 (C14-15EO7)
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.02262
0.01018
3.75
4.7-29.2
2.8
3.78
0.17-1.4
0.02-3
0.027-2.5
7.2
7.1
3.882
0.730
0.030
0.255
Ionic sodium can cause ion imbalance in aquatic organisms.
Ionic potassium can cause ion imbalance in aquatic organisms.
Rainbow trout
Bluegill
LC50 (96 hr)
LC50 (96 hr)
420
1,290
Sources: EPA (2000); Environment Canada (2008a); EPA (2005); Environment Canada (2001); /PCS (1997).
July 2009
A-48
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-41: Human Health Effects of Airport Deicing Product Components as Reported in IRIS, EPA NRWQC, EPA Drinking Water
MCLs, and RSEI
CASRN
100-41-4
107-19-7
107-21-1
108-88-3
111-42-2
117-81-7
123-91-1
62-56-6
75-07-0
75-21-8
7664-41-7
84-74-2
Pollutant Name
Ethylbenzene
Propargyl alcohol
Ethylene glycol
Toluene
Diethanolamine
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Dioxane
Thiourea
Acetaldehyde
Ethylene oxide
Ammonia
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
EPA NRWQC Values
Water &
Organism
(Hg/L)
530
1,300
1.2
2,000
Organism
only
(Hg/L)
2,100
15,000
2.2
4,500
EPA Drinking
Water MCL
(mg/L)
0.7
1
0.006
RfD
(mg/kg/
day)
0.1
0.002
2
0.08
0.0014
0.02
0.1
0.1
RfC
(mg/m3)
1
0.4
5
0.003
0.07
o
J
0.009
0.03
0.1
Oral Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)'1
0.011
1
0.222
Inhalation
Unit Risk
(Hg/m3)-1
0.0077
0.0022
0.088
Drinking Water Slope
Factor
(Hg/L)-1
4xlO'7
3.1xlO'7
Sources: EPA (2006b); EPA (2007); EPA (2008d); EPA (2008e).
July 2009
A-49
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Table A-42: Acetate
Fate and Transport
CASRN No CASRN
Formula C2H3O2
Acetates are not expected to volatilize. They are quite soluble in water.
Environmental Acetate should rapidly biodegrade under aerobic conditions in surface water,
partitioning summary groundwater, and soil.
Degradation products Acetate degradation produces bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, and water.
Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with
Transport rate summary soils/sediments. May be very site-specific.
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
MCL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Exposure Routes
Target Organs
Symptoms
Ecological Effects
COD (g per 100 Ibs) 11,850-15,500 (in various compounds)
In the aquatic environment, acetate may lower dissolved oxygen levels as it derades because of its COD content.
Acetate-containing pavement deicers, including potassium acetate and sodium acetate, may be toxic at sufficiently
high concentrations. Specific toxicity values range from a 48-hour LC50 of 2,400 mg/L for the waterflea to a 120-
hour LCso of 13,330 mg/L for the fathead minnow (Pimephalespromelas) (both for sodium acetate).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009 A-50
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-43: Alcohol Ethoxylates
Fate and Transport
CASRN
64-17-5
Formula
CH3(CH2)n(OCH2 CH2)VOH
LogKoc
In general, log Kd is a better predictor of behavior than Kow for these
substances3. Log Kd, as with the other physicochemical parameters, varies by
ethoxymer. The formula below, as given by Belanger et al. (2006) permits the
calculation of an estimated log Kd.
log Kd = 0.331 * (alkyl chain length) - 0.009 * (ethoxylate chain length) -
1.126
Environmental partitioning
summary
Degradation summary
Sorption may be important, and is likely to vary by
Aerobic degradation may be rapid.
ethoxymer.
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
MCL
NOAEL
LD50 (rat)
Exposure Routes
Target Organs
Inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact
Eyes, skin, respiratory system, central nervous system, liver, blood,
reproductive system
Symptoms
Irritation to eyes, skin, nose; headache, drowsiness, lassitude (weakness,
exhaustion), narcosis; cough; liver damage; anemia; reproductive effects,
teratogenic effects, gastrointestinal irritation
Ecological Effects
Alcohol ethoxylates have toxicity levels similar to those of nonylphenol ethoxylates and octylphenol ethoxylates.
Alcohol ethoxylate degradation by-products are less toxic and less persistent than those of nonylphenol ethoxylates
and octylphenol ethoxylates. Alcohol ethoxylate toxicity values range from an ECio (duration unspecified) of 0.030
mg/L for growth effects in green algae to an ECio (duration unspecified) of 3.882 mg/L in the bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-51
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Table A-44: Dyes
Fate and Transport
Eosin orange, tetrabromofluorescein 17372-87-1
FD&C blue #1, alphazurine 3844-45-9
FD&C yellow #5, tartrazine 1934-21-0
Malonyl green, C.I. Pigment Yellow
34 Trade name
Shilling green Trade name
See Table A-32 and Table A-33 in Appendix A
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
MCL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Exposure Routes Ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact
Target Organs Bladder, stomach, kidneys, brain, mouth, esophagus, liver, gallbladder, bile
duct, pancreas
Symptoms Coughing, abdominal pain, pain and redness of the eyes, various cancers
Ecological Effects
Ecological toxicity information for many dyes used in deicing products is unavailable. Available data on dye
toxicity indicates a wide variability in toxicity levels. The most toxic component of FD&C Yellow #5 is toxic at
concentrations of 200 mg/L to fish. Toxicity values for eosin orange range from 620 mg/L to 2,200 mg/L for fish.
C.I. Pigment Yellow 34 may have high toxicity due to chromate and lead components, but no studies have yet
quantified this toxicity level.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009 A-52
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-45: Ethylene Glycol
Fate and Transport
CASRN
107-21-1
Formula
C2H602
Water solubility, g/L
Freely soluble
LogKpw
-1.36
LogKpc
(Koc)
Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mole) 6.00x10'
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
0.092
Environmental partitioning
summary
Volatilization is not expected to be an important pathway for ethylene
glycol. Very high mobility is expected for ethylene glycol in soil, sediment,
and water. Experimentally determined adsorption of ethylene glycol to four
soils (two clay, two sandy clay) ranged from 0-0.5%. Tracer experiments
have shown that ethylene glycol moves through soil with water.
Half-lives
Atmospheric half-life: 50 h at 25° C.
Degradation summary
Very rapid degradation rates in soil, sediment, and water.
Soils: 90 to 100% degradation of ethylene glycol was observed in various
field soils in 2-12 days (temperatures not known); ethylene glycol in aircraft
deicing or anti-icing fluid formulation was completely degraded in runway-
side soils within 29 days at 8° C.
Water: Hydrolysis and photolysis are not expected to be significant.
Ethylene glycol in river water degraded completely in three days at 20° C
and in 5 to 14 days at 8° C. Aerobic degradation of ethylene glycol may be
essentially complete in less than one to four days under optimal conditions
in water or treatment systems, but the impact of the full theoretical
biological oxygen demand may not be observed for several weeks.
Degradation lag time
With unacclimated microbial communities there is often a lag of several
days before glycol degradation begins.
Transport rate summary
Expected to have very high mobility in soil, sediment, and water.
Mixture effects
Triazoles decrease the degradation rate of glycols. Low temperatures may
also greatly decrease the degradation rates of glycols.
Additional notes
Ethylene glycols are expected to share somewhat similar properties, except
for polyethylene glycols. Formulated polyethylene glycol products contain
different mixtures of polymers, and the properties of the products will vary
based on the size and shape of the polymers they contain. All of these
substances are expected to be rapidly degraded under aerobic and anaerobic
conditions.
July 2009
A-53
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Table A-45: Ethylene Glycol
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit Ceiling 50 ppm
MCL
NOAEL
RfD 2 mg/kg*day
Exposure Routes Inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact
Target Organs Eyes, skin, respiratory system, central nervous system
Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain,
lassitude (weakness, exhaustion); dizziness, stupor, convulsions, central
Symptoms nervous system depression; skin sensitization
Ecological Effects
Ethylene glycol has high COD content and can depress dissolved oxygen levels in aquatic environments. Ethylene
glycol is also acutely and chronically toxic to aquatic organisms at higher concentrations. Toxicity values range
from a 7-day NOEC for reproductive effects of 3,469 mg/L in the waterflea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) to a 96-hr LC50 of
greater than 18,500 mg/L in the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009 A-54
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-46: Formate
Fate and Transport
CASRN
No CASRN
Formula
CH,0,
Environmental
partitioning summary
Degradation summary
Transport rate summary
Formates are not expected to volatilize. They are quite soluble in water, and may
be expected to ionize freely. Depending on site-specific factors, the inorganic
ions may adsorb or complex with soil or water constituents or remain dissolved
in surface water or groundwater.
Formate is slowly hydrolyzed in water and can be anaerobically degraded by
methanogens.
Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soil and
sediments. May be very site-specific.
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
MCL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Exposure Routes
Target Organs
Symptoms
Ecological Effects
COD (g per 100 Ibs)
4,300 (in sodium formate)
Formates may impact the aquatic environment due to their COD content. Formate-containing compounds used as
pavement deicers, including sodium formate and potassium formate, can be toxic at sufficient concentrations.
Known toxicity values range from a 96-hr LCso of 100 mg/L for zebrafish (Danio rerio) to a 24-hr LCso of 5,000
mg/L for bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-55
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-47: Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates
Fate and Transport
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
LogKow
Nonylphenol
25154-52-3
5.43xlO'3
4.1-4.7
Nonylphenol Ethoxylates
9016-45-9
C9H19-C6H40(CH2CH20)nHa
All are highly soluble in water, but
solubility varies by ethoxymer.
Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)
1.09x10"
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
3.4x10"
Environmental partitioning
summary
Not expected to volatilize. Likely to
partition to organic matter or minerals
in soil, but this tendency varies by
ethoxymer, and migration through the
soil has been observed. In water, as in
soil, may sorb to organic matter or
particulates.
Although volatility is low, can
volatilize from water and result in
high atmospheric concentrations.
Unlikely to volatilize from soils.
Likely to partition to sediments and
mineral particles in water and soil but
can still leach through soils.
Half-lives
3-26 days under ideal aerobic
conditions with acclimated microbial
community
2.4 hours to 0.74 days in water.
Photolytic half-life in upper layer of
surface water is 10-15 hours; in
deeper layers, it is much slower. In a
sediment mesocosm, a half-life of 66
days was observed.3
Degradation summary
A biphasic degradation profile has
been observed in soils, with relatively
rapid initial degradation of 30-50% of
applied nonylphenol degrading in the
first several weeks, and the remainder
degrading with a half-life of
approximately 90 days3.
Degradation varies by ethoxymer, and
tends to produce some recalcitrant
compounds
Transport rate summary
Can leach through soils.
Mixture effects
Surfactants can increase the solubility
and transport of less soluble
substances.
Additional notes
Specific physical properties vary by
ethoxymer.
July 2009
A-56
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Table A-47: Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
MCL
NOAEL 10 mg/kg*day
LOAEL 50 mg/kg*day
Exposure Routes Inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact
Target Organs Upper respiratory system, kidneys, skin, eyes, digestive system
Symptoms Skin and eye irritation, tissue decay, swelling, mottled kidneys, lethargy,
coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, headache, nausea, diarrhea,
vomiting, sore throat, burning sensation, shortness of breath, labored
breathing, abdominal pain, shock, collapse
Ecological Effects
Nonylphenol ethoxylates are moderately toxic to aquatic life, but do not persist for long periods of time in water.
Available acute toxicity data indicate harmful effects to aquatic life in a range of 2.8 mg/L (LC50, duration unknown
for a calanoid copepod) to 29.2 mg/L for an unspecified species of fish.
Nonylphenol, a degradation product of nonylphenol ethoxylates, is more toxic to aquatic organisms than
nonylphenol ethoxylates. It persists in the aquatic environment and potentially bioaccumulates in aquatic organisms.
Toxicity values range from an "early life stage chronic value" for adverse impacts established by Environment
Canada of 0.01 mg/L to an LC50 value from a study of unspecified fish species of 1.4 mg/L.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009 A-57
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-48: Polyacrylic Acid
Fate and Transport
CASRN
Water solubility, g/L
LogKow
LogKoc
Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental partitioning
summary
Degradation
summary
Additional notes
79-10-7
IxlO3
0.35
1.63
3.2xlQ-7
3.97
Not expected to volatilize from water or moist soil. Slow volatilization from
dry soil is possible. Not expected to adsorb to soils or particulates; potential
for transport in soil is high.
Non-polymerized (monomeric) acrylic acid readily biodegrades both
aerobically and anaerobically; it reached 68% of its theoretical BOD in two
weeks using an activated sludge inoculum, and in a 42 day anaerobic
screening study using a sewage seed inoculum, 71% of acrylic acid was
degraded.
Biodegradability decreases with increasing number of polymerized units and
increasing formula molecular weight, dropping off sharply between MWs
700 and 1,000, and for polymers with more than seven units. It appears that
monomers and dimers of acrylic acid are completely biodegradable, but there
are indications polymers of three to seven units are incompletely
biodegraded.
May be contaminated by low-ppm levels of metals.
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
TWA 2 ppm (6 mg/m3) [skin]
MCL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Exposure Routes
Target Organs
140mg/kg/day
15 mg/m3
Inhalation, skin absorption, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact
Eyes, skin, respiratory system
Symptoms
Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; eye, skin burns; skin sensitization; in
animals: lung, liver, kidney injury
Ecological Effects
Acrylic acid toxicity values range from a 96-hour EC50 of 0.17 mg/L for green algae to a 24-hour EC50 for
immobilization effects in the waterflea of 765 mg/L. A 7-day ECS for chronic effects in green algae was measured
as 0.17 mg/L.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-58
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Table A-49: Potassium
Fate and Transport
CASRN No CASRN
Environmental Potassium is present in the airport pavement deicers potassium acetate and
partitioning summary potassium formate. These materials are not expected to volatilize. These
materials are quite soluble in water and can be expected to ionize freely.
Depending on site-specific factors, the inorganic ions may adsorb or complex
with soil or water constituents or remain dissolved in surface water or
groundwater.
Degradation products Potassium is liberated from potassium acetate and potassium formate through
ionization.
Transport rate summary Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soils and
sediments. May be very site-specific.
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit 4,700 mg/day
MCL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Exposure Routes Ingestion
Target Organs Circulatory system, kidneys, central nervous system
Listlessness, fatigue, gas pains, constipation, insomnia, low blood sugar,
Symptoms weak muscles and a slow, irregular pulse
Ecological Effects
Potassium can affect aquatic ecosystems by creating ion imbalances in surface waters and aquatic organisms.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009 A-59
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-50: Propylene Glycol
Fate and Transport
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
LogKow
LogKoc
Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
Environmental partitioning
summary
Degradation summary
Degradation lag time
57-55-6
C3H802
Freely soluble
-0.92
0.90
1.3xlO"8
0.13
Very high mobility in soils, sediments, and water.
readily.
Propylene glycol was not observed to degrade at 4
20°C in soil that was rich in organic matter.
For unacclimated microbial communities, there is
before glycol degradation begins.
Not expected to volatilize
°C and only degraded at
often a lag of several days
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
MCL
NOAEL
LD50 (rat)
Exposure Routes
Target Organs
Symptoms
30,000 mg/kg
Ingestion, injection
Skin, water balance, circulatory system, kidneys
Hyperosmolality, lactic acidosis (the build-up of lactic acid in the body),
intravascular hemolysis (the rupturing of blood vessels), central nervous
system depression, seizures, coma, hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and
renal failure (all as associated with burn creams).
Ecological Effects
Propylene glycol has a high COD content and can depress dissolved oxygen levels in aquatic environments.
Propylene glycol exhibits acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic life only at higher concentrations. Toxicity values
range from an LC50 (time unknown) of 5,000 mg/L in goldfish (Carassius gibelio) to a 96-hr LC50 of 55,770 mg/L
in fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-60
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Table A-51: Sodium
Fate and Transport
CASRN No CASRN
Environmental Sodium is present in the airport pavement deicers sodium acetate and sodium
partitioning summary formate. These materials are not expected to volatilize. These materials are
quite soluble in water and can be expected to ionize freely. Depending on site-
specific factors, the inorganic ions may adsorb or complex with soil or water
constituents or remain dissolved in surface water or groundwater.
Degradation products Sodium is liberated from sodium acetate and sodium formate through
ionization.
Transport rate summary Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soils and
sediments. May be very site-specific.
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit 2,300 mg/day
MCL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Exposure Routes Ingestion, possibly inhalation
Target Organs Circulatory system, mineral balances
Symptoms High blood pressure, loss of calcium
Ecological Effects
Sodium can affect aquatic ecosystems by creating ion imbalances in surface waters and aquatic organisms.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009 A-61
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Table A-52: Tolyltriazoles, Benzotriazoles, Methyl-substituted Benzotriazole
Fate and Transport
CASRN No CASRN
Formula C7H7N3 (tolyltriazole)
Environmental partitioning
summary Mobile in groundwater.
Degradation summary Unlikely to be readily degradable.
Mixture effects Even at very low concentrations, triazoles have been observed to sharply
decrease the biodegradability of other components in mixtures.
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
MCL
NOAEL
LD50 (rat) 600-675 mg/kg
Exposure Routes
Target Organs
Symptoms
Ecological Effects
Tolyltriazole, a methylated benzotriazole used in aircraft deicing fluid formulations, exhibits moderate acute
toxicity in aquatic organisms. Toxicity values range from a 5-minute Microtox® assay value of 6 mg/L for effects
on microbial organisms to an LC50 (duration unspecified) of 74 mg/L in the waterflea.
Other benzotriazoles have not been studied as thoroughly as tolyltriazole. Microtox® studies with 5- and 15-minute
durations have established values of 41 and 42 mg/L, respectively, for effects on microbial organisms.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009 A-62
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-53: Urea and Ammonia
Fate and Transport
CASRN
Formula
Water solubility, g/L
LogKow
LogKoc
Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)
57-13-6
CH4N2O
545
-2.11
0.903
Urea
1
7664-41-7
H3N
"31%"
0.23
1.61X10'5
Ammonia
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
TWA 25 ppm (18 mg/m3) ST 35 ppm
(27 mg/m3)
MCL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Exposure Routes
Target Organs
Inhalation,
Eyes, skin,
ingestion (solution), skin and/or eye contact
respiratory system
(solution/liquid)
Symptoms
Irritation to eyes, nose, throat; dyspnea (breathing difficulty), wheezing, chest
pain; pulmonary edema; pink frothy sputum; skin burns, vesiculation; liquid:
frostbite
Ecological Effects
Ammonia is a common by-product of urea degradation and is highly toxic to some aquatic organisms. EPA has
established National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for ammonia which vary with pH, temperature, and
aquatic organism life stage. LC50 values for ammonia range from a 24-hr value for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss) of 0.068 mg/L to a 48-hr LC50 for the waterflea of 189 mg/L.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
July 2009
A-63
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix B
Appendix B: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of the Proposed Regulatory Options
Table B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA's Proposed Regulatory
In Scope1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Airport Name
Abilene Regional
Abraham Lincoln Capital
Adams Field
Akron-Canton Regional
Albany International
Albuquerque International Sunport
Alexandria International
Asheville Regional
Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field
Atlantic City International
Augusta Regional at Bush Field
Austin Straubel International
Austin-Bergstrom International
Baltimore-Washington International
Bangor International
Baton Rouge Metropolitan/Ryan Field
Bert Mooney
Bethel
Billings Logan International
Birmingham International
Bishop International
Bismarck Muni
Blue Grass
Bob Hope
Boeing Field/King County International
Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Fid
Bradley International
Brownsville/South Padre Island International
Brunswick Golden Isles
Buffalo Niagara International
Burlington International
Airport City
Abilene
Springfield
Little Rock
Akron
Albany
Albuquerque
Alexandria
Asheville
Aspen
Atlantic City
Augusta
Green Bay
Austin
Baltimore
Bangor
Baton Rouge
Butte
Bethel
Billings
Birmingham
Flint
Bismarck
Lexington
Burbank
Seattle
Boise
Windsor Locks
Brownsville
Brunswick
Buffalo
Burlington
Options for Airport Deicing Operations
Airport
State
TX
IL
AR
OH
NY
NM
LA
NC
CO
NJ
GA
WI
TX
MD
ME
LA
MT
AK
MT
AL
MI
ND
KY
CA
WA
ID
CT
TX
GA
NY
VT
Service Level
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Small Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Small Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Confirmed
Deicing
Operations2
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Annual Jet
Departures3
1,240
1,772
23,600
12,429
25,156
40,969
3,173
5,391
2,495
5,641
1,452
9,706
49,601
114,673
7,446
9,060
1,359
1,287
8,423
29,510
9,424
3,139
12,967
30,411
3,204
20,888
46,878
1,795
1,314
36,429
14,481
SOFP
Days4
8
26
5.5
41
36
3
4
9.5
53.5
12
1.5
31
4
12
48.5
1.5
26
14.5
1.5
31
36
16
0
4
16
31
4
1.5
48.5
38.5
July 2009
B-1
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix B
Table B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA's Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operations
In Scope1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Airport Name
Capital City
Central IL Regional Airport at Bloomington-
Normal
Central Wisconsin
Charleston AFB/International
Charlotte/Douglas International
Charlottesville-Albemarle
Cherry Capital
Chicago Midway International
Chicago O'Hare International
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International
City of Colorado Springs Municipal
Cleveland-Hopkins International
Columbia Metropolitan
Corpus Christi International
Dallas Love Field
Dallas/Fort Worth International
Dane County Regional-Truax Field
Denver International
Des Moines International
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County
Dothan Regional
Dubuque Regional
Duluth International
Eagle County Regional
Eglin AFB
El Paso International
Elmira/Corning Regional
Eppley Airfield
Erie International/Tom Ridge Field
Evansville Regional
Fairbanks International
Fayetteville Regional/Grannis Field
Fort Smith Regional
Fort Wayne International
Airport City
Lansing
Bloomington/Normal
Mosinee
Charleston
Charlotte
Charlottesville
Traverse City
Chicago
Chicago
Covington
Colorado Springs
Cleveland
Columbia
Corpus Christi
Dallas
Dallas-Fort Worth
Madison
Denver
Des Moines
Detroit
Dothan
Dubuque
Duluth
Eagle
Valparaiso
El Paso
Elmira/Corning
Omaha
Erie
Evansville
Fairbanks
Fayetteville
Fort Smith
Fort Wayne
Airport
State
MI
IL
WI
SC
NC
VA
MI
IL
IL
KY
CO
OH
SC
TX
TX
TX
WI
CO
IA
MI
AL
IA
MN
CO
FL
TX
NY
NE
PA
IN
AK
NC
AR
IN
Service Level
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Large Hub
Large Hub
Large Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Large Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Confirmed
Deicing
Operations2
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Annual Jet
Departures3
9,109
4,484
2,781
24,069
183,722
3,979
5,369
93,123
475,988
236,650
19,526
104,136
23,731
8,935
44,023
345,029
16,189
222,922
21,871
224,328
1,033
1,282
3,323
1,552
5,430
26,200
2,195
31,175
4,512
7,404
6,094
2,198
2,956
13,109
SOFP
Days4
36
26
36
1.5
5.5
12
68.5
26
26
17
16
36
4
4
8
8
31
26
31
31
1.5
31
51
21
1.5
8
36
26
43.5
12
8
9.5
31
July 2009
B-2
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix B
Table B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA'
In Scope1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Airport Name
Gainesville Regional
Gallatin Field
s Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operations
Airport City
Gainesville
Bozeman
General Edward Lawrence Logan International Boston
General Mitchell International
George Bush Intercontinental Arpt/Houston
Gerald R. Ford International
Glacier Park International
Golden Triangle Regional
Grand Forks International
Great Falls International
Greater Binghamton/Edwin A Link Field
Greater Peoria Regional
Greater Rochester International
Greater Rockford
Greenville Spartanburg International
Gulfport-Biloxi International
Harrisburg International
Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta International
Hector International
Helena Regional
Huntsville International-Carl T Jones Field
Idaho Falls Regional
Indianapolis International
Jackson Hole
Jackson International
Jacksonville International
James M Cox Dayton International
Joe Foss Field
John F Kennedy International
John Wayne Airport-Orange County
Juneau International
Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International
Kansas City International
Key Field
La Crosse Muni
Milwaukee
Houston
Grand Rapids
Kalispell
Columbus/W Point/Starkvill
Grand Forks
Great Falls
Binghamton
Peoria
Rochester
Rockford
Greer
Gulfport
Harrisburg
Atlanta
Fargo
Helena
Huntsville
Idaho Falls
Indianapolis
Jackson
Jackson
Jacksonville
Dayton
Sioux Falls
New York
Santa Ana
Juneau
Kalamazoo
Kansas City
Meridian
La Crosse
Airport
State
FL
MT
MA
WI
TX
MI
MT
MS
ND
MT
NY
IL
NY
IL
SC
MS
PA
GA
ND
MT
AL
ID
IN
WY
MS
FL
OH
SD
NY
CA
AK
MI
MO
MS
WI
Service Level
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Large Hub
Medium Hub
Large Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Small Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Large Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Confirmed
Deicing
Operations2
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Annual Jet
Departures3
2,594
5,210
162,635
66,798
244,359
20,854
3,820
1,380
2,184
4,845
3,351
6,451
29,129
6,336
25,353
6,805
14,927
454,832
5,380
2,839
18,146
1,907
76,351
1,687
14,799
36,849
34,024
9,427
162,809
49,807
5,035
7,222
73,758
1,137
2,666
SOFP
Days4
1.5
22
26
31
4
48.5
36
4
36
22
46
26
43.5
31
4
4
16
1.5
36
14.5
5.5
26
21
49.5
4
1.5
26
41
12
0
48.5
27
4
26
July 2009
B-3
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix B
Table B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA's Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operations
In Scope1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Airport Name
La Guardia
Lafayette Regional
Lake Charles Regional
Lambert-St Louis International
Laredo International
Lehigh Valley International
Lincoln Muni
Long Island Mac Arthur
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International
Louisville International-Standiford Field
Lovell Field
Lubbock International
Lynchburg Regional/Preston Glenn Field
Mahlon Sweet Field
Manchester
MBS International
Me Allen Miller International
Me Carran International
Me Ghee Tyson
Memphis International
Metropolitan Oakland International
Middle Georgia Regional
Midland International
Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold-
Chamberlain
Minot International
Missoula International
Mobile Regional
Monroe Regional
Montgomery Regional (Dannelly Field)
Myrtle Beach International
Nashville International
Natrona County International
Newark Liberty International
Newport News/Williamsburg International
Airport City
New York
Lafayette
Lake Charles
St Louis
Laredo
Allentown
Lincoln
Islip
New Orleans
Louisville
Chattanooga
Lubbock
Lynchburg
Eugene
Manchester
Saginaw
Me Allen
Las Vegas
Knoxville
Memphis
Oakland
Macon
Midland
Minneapolis
Minot
Missoula
Mobile
Monroe
Montgomery
Myrtle Beach
Nashville
Casper
Newark
Newport News
Airport
State
NY
LA
LA
MO
TX
PA
NE
NY
LA
KY
TN
TX
VA
OR
NH
MI
TX
NV
TN
TN
CA
GA
TX
MN
ND
MT
AL
LA
AL
SC
TN
WY
NJ
VA
Service Level
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Large Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Large Hub
Small Hub
Confirmed
Deicing
Operations2
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Annual Jet
Departures3
166,496
4,205
1,874
106,572
4,568
11,166
5,682
12,210
59,063
64,780
6,156
10,404
1,021
5,667
31,195
4,821
4,153
187,365
24,348
152,698
85,964
1,088
7,931
219,293
1,112
4,788
7,053
2,114
4,266
11,001
74,189
1,054
207,698
8,356
SOFP
Days4
12
4
4
17
4
21
36
16
4
12
1.5
14.5
16
4
36
36
4
0
5.5
8
0
1.5
8
41
31
21
1.5
4
0
4
5.5
27
16
9.5
July 2009
B-4
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix B
Table B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA's Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operations
In Scope1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Airport Name
Nome
Norfolk International
Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International
Northwest Arkansas Regional
Ontario International
Outagamie County Regional
Palm Beach International
Panama City-Bay Co International
Pensacola Regional
Philadelphia International
Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Piedmont Triad International
Pittsburgh International
Port Columbus International
Portland International
Portland International Jetport
Quad City International
Raleigh-Durham International
Ralph Wien Memorial
Rapid City Regional
Reno/Tahoe International
Richmond International
Rick Husband Amarillo International
Rickenbacker International
Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field
Rochester International
Rogue Valley International - Medford
Ronald Reagan Washington National
Sacramento International
Salt Lake City International
San Angelo Regional/Mathis Field
San Antonio International
San Diego International
San Francisco International
Savannah/Hilton Head International
Airport City
Nome
Norfolk
San Jose
Fayetteville/Springdale
Ontario
Appleton
West Palm Beach
Panama City
Pensacola
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Greensboro
Pittsburgh
Columbus
Portland
Portland
Moline
Raleigh/Durham
Kotzebue
Rapid City
Reno
Richmond
Amarillo
Columbus
Roanoke
Rochester
Medford
Washington
Sacramento
Salt Lake City
San Angelo
San Antonio
San Diego
San Francisco
Savannah
Airport
State
AK
VA
CA
AR
CA
WI
FL
FL
FL
PA
AZ
NC
PA
OH
OR
ME
IL
NC
AK
SD
NV
VA
TX
OH
VA
MN
OR
DC
CA
UT
TX
TX
CA
CA
GA
Service Level
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Large Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Medium Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Large Hub
Medium Hub
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Large Hub
Large Hub
Small Hub
Confirmed
Deicing
Operations2
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Annual Jet
Departures3
1,324
32,957
64,101
16,783
43,364
8,842
31,169
2,109
14,164
205,128
220,200
34,001
89,337
57,358
61,238
17,351
9,927
83,276
1,274
3,659
31,378
33,089
8,092
2,330
7,245
4,990
3,431
130,879
51,515
140,566
1,324
46,181
80,108
137,328
18,143
SOFP
Days4
5.5
0
14.5
0
36
0
1.5
1.5
12
0
14.5
31
26
4
41
26
9.5
21
9.5
12
17
26
16
46
5.5
12
0
14.5
8
4
0
0
1.5
July 2009
B-5
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix B
Table B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA's Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operations
In Scope1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Airport Name
Seattle-Tacoma International
Shreveport Regional
Sitka Rocky Gutierrez
South Bend Regional
Southeast Texas Regional
Southwest Florida International
Southwest Georgia Regional
Spokane International
Springfield-Branson Regional
Stewart International
Syracuse Hancock International
Tallahassee Regional
Tampa International
Ted Stevens Anchorage International
The Eastern Iowa
Theodore Francis Green State
Toledo Express
Tri-Cities
Tri-Cities Regional TN/VA
Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field
Tucson International
Tulsa International
Tweed-New Haven
University of Illinois-Willard
University Park
Valley International
Walker Field
Washington Dulles International
Westchester County
Wichita Mid-Continent
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International
Will Rogers World
William P Hobby
Wilmington International
Yampa Valley
Airport City
Seattle
Shreveport
Sitka
South Bend
Beaumont/Port Arthur
Fort Myers
Albany
Spokane
Springfield
Newburgh
Syracuse
Tallahassee
Tampa
Anchorage
Cedar Rapids
Providence
Toledo
Pasco
Bristol/Johnson/Kingsport
Huntington
Tucson
Tulsa
New Haven
Champaign/Urbana
State College
Harlingen
Grand Junction
Washington
White Plains
Wichita
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton
Oklahoma City
Houston
Wilmington
Hay den
Airport
State
WA
LA
AK
IN
TX
FL
GA
WA
MO
NY
NY
FL
FL
AK
IA
RI
OH
WA
TN
WV
AZ
OK
CT
IL
PA
TX
CO
DC
NY
KS
PA
OK
TX
NC
CO
Service Level
Large Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Small Hub
Large Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Medium Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Large Hub
Small Hub
Small Hub
Non-Hub
Small Hub
Medium Hub
Non-Hub
Non-Hub
Confirmed
Deicing
Operations2
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Annual Jet
Departures3
114,607
11,753
1,683
8,562
1,799
32,000
2,223
16,034
11,993
6,314
23,609
13,651
85,166
61,035
13,222
37,606
10,559
3,221
4,594
1,570
26,666
27,394
1,026
3,510
1,889
7,327
1,007
225,552
12,386
19,765
4,789
29,664
57,448
6,330
1,065
SOFP
Days4
1.5
8
48.5
1.5
0
1.5
31
21
26
43.5
1.5
0
31
21
36
14.5
8
12
0
14.5
21
26
26
4
12
17
16
22
26
14.5
4
4
53.5
July 2009
B-6
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix B
Table B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA's Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operations
In Scope1 Airport Name
X Yeager
P Cyril E King
P Daytona Beach International
P Francisco C. Ada/Saipan International
P Fresno Yosemite International
P Guam International
P Hilo International
P Key West International
P Lihue
P Long Beach /Daugherty Field/
P Meadows Field
P Melbourne International
P Monterey Peninsula
P Orlando Sanford International
P Palm Springs International
P Rafael Hernandez
P San Luis County Regional
P Santa Barbara Muni
P St Petersburg-Clearwater International
Airport City
Charleston
Charlotte Amalie
Daytona Beach
Saipan Island
Fresno
Agana
Hilo
Key West
Lihue
Long Beach
Bakersfield
Melbourne
Monterey
Orlando
Palm Springs
Aguadilla
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
St Petersburg-Clearwater
Confirmed
Airport Deicing
State Service Level Operations2
WV Non-Hub Y
VI Small Hub
FL Non-Hub
CQ Small Hub
CA Small Hub
GU Small Hub
HI Small Hub
FL Non-Hub
HI Small Hub
CA Small Hub
CA Non-Hub
FL Non-Hub
CA Non-Hub
FL Small Hub
CA Small Hub
PR Non-Hub
CA Non-Hub
CA Small Hub
FL Small Hub
Annual Jet
Departures3
8,003
3,454
3,887
2,911
9,105
8,769
7,436
2,373
13,442
13,828
2,211
2,898
1,499
4,614
7,398
2,150
1,533
7,798
5,227
SOFP
Days4
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X = Airport is in scope; P= Airport is potentially in scope.
Y =Airport stated in response to EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire (EPA 2006c) that it conducts deicing operations.
Annual jet departures" derived from data from Federal Aviation Administration for the 2004/2005 winter deicing season
4
Snow or Freezing Precipitation (SOFP) days data is based on National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration data from 1 971 - 1 990.
July 2009
B-7
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Appendix C: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
es
at
Airport Name
Article
Year
« g S
O 'C 3
Article
Waterbody Name
_ 5« "^ Gfl
e cs * cs
g s" a B J I"
^ hH HH hH ^ hH
a
-B "i.
53 flj
•-
Airborne Airpark
1998 Hannah, James. 1998. De-Icing Chemicals for Planes
Killing Creek, Professor Says. Cleveland Plain Dealer,
June 7.
Lytle Creek
F,O H Od
X
Airborne Airpark
2000 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2000.
Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Miami
River Basin, 1998. OEPA Technical Report Number
MAS/1999-12-3. Columbus, OH.
Lytle Creek, Little Miami D
River, Cowan Creek,
Indian Run
O
Baltimore Washington
International Airport
1993 Hartwell, S.I., D.M. Jordahl, E.B. May. 1993. Toxicity of Sawmill Creek, Muddy
Aircraft De-icer and Anti-icer Solutions to Aquatic Bridge Branch
Organisms. Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring
Division. CBRM-TX-93-1
O
Co
Baltimore Washington
International Airport
1997 McDowell, A. Scott. 1997. Hayes, Seay, Mattern and
Mattern. Letter communication to Stephen Debreceny.
Patapsco Aquifer
D,B,N
DW
Baltimore Washington
International Airport
1995 Fisher, D.J., M.H. Knott, S.D. Turley, B.S. Turley, L.T. Kitten Branch of Stony
Yonkos and G.P. Ziegler. 1995. The Acute Whole Run, Muddy Bridge
Effluent Toxicity of Storm Water from an International Branch of Sawmill Creek
Airport. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 14(6):
1103-1111.
B,N O
Co
Baltimore Washington
International Airport
1997 Pelton, Tom. 1997. EPA Probing Allegation of BWI
Runoff; Polluting Chemicals Seeping Into Creek,
Environmentalists Say; Airport Cooperating; Public's
Health Is Not In Danger, According to State. Baltimore
Sun, April 23.
Sawmill Creek
Fo,Od X
1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients
2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts
3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
July 2009
C-1
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
•V
O
0
Article g
Airport Name Year Article Waterbody Name pg
Nutrients1
Wildlife
1
a.
HH
Human Health
1
a.
HH
kesthetic
I
HH
permit
K^iolations
"w
6
Baltimore Washington
International Airport
1997 Pelton, Tom. 1997. De-Icing Fluid Used at BWI Fouls Sawmill Creek
Waters; MD.'s Pride in System Ignores Pollution Data
From Other Agencies; BWI is 'Economic Engine'; 11th-
Hour Clearance Gives Airport Time, $1.6 Million for
Drains. Baltimore Sun, August 9.
O Fo,O, X
Co
Baltimore Washington
International Airport
1997 McDowell, A.S. 1997. Sawmill Creek - Watershed
"Restoration" Project. Allwood Community Association
Site Inspection, March.
Sawmill Creek
DW,HFo,Od
Baltimore Washington
International Airport
1998 Pelton, Tom. 1998. BWI Violated Water Act, Group
Claims; Environmentalists File Notice of Intent to Sue;
De-Icing Chemicals at Issue; Airport Maintains it Has
Tried to Keep Pollution Contained. Baltimore Sun,
January 8.
Kitten Branch of Stony
Run, Muddy Bridge
Branch of Sawmill Creek
Fo,Od X
Baltimore Washington
International Airport
Bangor International
Airport
Bangor International
Airport
2001
2003
2006
Ayres, E. 2001. Airports and cities: Can they coexist?
Diego Earth Times, September.
New England Grassroots Environment Fund. 2003.
Annual Report. Montpelier, Vermont.
Sanunnamed aquifer
Birch Stream
State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Birch Stream
2006. 2006 Integrated Water Quality
Monitoring and Assessment Report. Report
DEPLW0817.
DW
H
B 0
Bradley International
Airport
2003 Farmington River Watershed Association. 2003. State of Rainbow Brook, Seymour
the Farmington River Watershed Report. August. Hollow
Brook
D
Bradley International
Airport
2004 State of Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection. 2004. List of Connecticut waterbodies not
meeting water quality standards.
Rainbow Brook, Seymour
Hollow Brook
D
O
Buffalo Niagara
International Airport
1994 Dawson, Dick. 1994. Contaminant Testing Sought at
Ellicott Creek Amherst Councilwoman Fears Runoff of
De-icer Fluids from Airport. Buffalo News, May 11.
Ellicott Creek
O
Fo,O,
Co
1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients
2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts
3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
July 2009
C-2
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented
Airport Name
Chicago O'Hare
International Airport
Chicago O'Hare
International Airport
Chicago O'Hare
International Airport
Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International
Airport
Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International
Airport
Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International
Airport
Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International
Airport
Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International
Airport
Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International
Airport
Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
.=
"3
dls « M« a* a
A. M ^ 5« _ 5« "rt * O
® § -3 t5 § « 1 -Q a -1
Article gi2o.|o.|B.|-f
Year Article Waterbody Name pq z ^ M W M *& M e£ >
1997 Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. 1997. Des Planes River, ground F,O H Fo,O,
O'Hare Found to be Major Water Polluter. ARCO Flight water, Bensenville Ditch, Co
Tracks, May. Willow Creek, Crystal
Creek
1997 Cowan, P.P. 1997. Water Pollution-Chicago International Des Planes River, F,O H Od,Co
Airport. Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc., Bensenville Ditch, Willow
May 28. Creek, Crystal Creek
1998 Worthington, R. 1998. Group Claims O'Hare Fails to unnamed receiving waters
Report on De-Icing Toxins. Chicago Tribune, January 9.
1992 Associated Press. 1992. Cincinnati Airport Cited by State.Elijah Creek O Od,Co X
Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 8.
2003 Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. 2003. Gunpowder Creek, O Od,Co X
Comments from the Alliance of Residents Concerning Elijah's Creek
O'Hare, Inc. to the Federal Aviation Administration
regarding the Draft FAA Five-Year Strategic Plan "Flight
Plan" 2004-2008 by Jack Saporito. August 5.
2004 Kelly, B.R. and D. Klepal. 2004. Silent Streams. The Gunpowder and Elijah O Od,Co X
Cincinnati Enquirer, March 7. Creeks
2004 Sierra Club. 2004. Water Sentinels: Rescuing the river Gunpowder Creek, O Od,Co
that wouldn't freeze. Annual Report. Elijah's Creek
2004 Klepal, Dan. 2004. Airport Pollution Provokes Ire: Gunpowder and Elijah D Od,Co
Residents fault state for going easy on de-icing runoff. Creeks
The Cincinnati Enquirer, September 10.
2004 KPDES Permit # KY0082864. Kentucky Department for Elijahs Creek, Gunpowder
Environmental Protection. Expiration: July 31, 2007. Creek
"w
6
G
1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients
2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts
3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
July 2009
C-3
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented
Airport Name
Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International
Airport
Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International
Airport
Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport
Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport
Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport
Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport
Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport
Dallas/Fort Worth
International Airport
Denver International
Airport
Denver International
Airport
Denver International
Airport
Denver International
Airport
Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
.=
"3
dls « M« a* a
A. M ^ 5« _ 5« "rt * O
® § -3 t5 § « 1 « a -1
Article gi2o.|o.|B.|-f
Year Article Waterbody Name pq z ;i J3 E J3 4jJ3 e£ >
2006 Sierra Club. 2006. An Interview with Tim Guilfoile. Gunpowder Creek O
August.
Impacts of Deicing Fluids on Elijahs and Gunpowder Elijahs Creek, Gunpowder D,B,N O X
Creeks, Boone County, Kentucky. Kentucky Department Creek
for Environmental Protection.
2001 NPDES Permit* OHO 122068. Ohio Environmental Rocky River, Abrams and O X
Protection Agency. Expiration: October 31, 2006. Silver Creek
1991 Miller, Alan. 1991. De-Icing's Fatal Effect Not Plain. Rocky River
Columbus Dispatch, January 6.
2001 Kuehner, John C. 2001. Airport ordered to reduce Rocky River, Abram F Od,Co X
discharge. The Plain Dealer, November 1. Creek, Silver Creek
2001 Egan, D'arcy. 2001. Rocky River fishing in danger as Rocky River, Lake Erie O Od
pollutants keep pouring in. The Plain Dealer, October 21.
2006 Richardson, David C. 2006. Deicing by Design: Abrams Creek, Rocky F Od X
Cleveland Gets a New Pad. Stormwater. 7(7). River
2006 Corsi, S.R., G.R. Harwell, S.W. Geis, and D. Bergman. Trigg Lake and Big Bear O
2006. Impacts of aircraft deicer and anti-icer runoff on Creek
receiving waters from Dallas/Fort Worth International
Airport Texas USA Environ Toxicol Chem
25(11):2890-2900
1997 Scanlon, Bill. 1997. DIA Pollutes Creek / De-icer Third Creek, Barr Lake O Od
Washing off Runways Kills Life in Stream That Flows
Toward Barr Lake Bird Sanctuary. Rocky Mountain
News, April 22.
1997 Eddy, Mark. 1997. Airport Deicer Pollutes Creek. Denver Third Creek, Barr Lake D O Od,Co
Post, April 22.
1997 Dafforn, Erik. 1997. 'Til Hill and Valley are Ringing. unnamed creek
Wabash Magazine. Summer.
2001 Ayres, E. 2001. Airports and cities: Can they coexist? SanBarr Lake O
Diego Earth Times, September.
"w
6
G
S
1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients
2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts
3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
July 2009
C-4
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Article
Year
Article
Waterbody Name
ols
« |
o 1
pa z
1 I 1 I
£ a a a
- •*
11
5«
•n .2
'a 2
fc .2
OH >
"i.
O
O
S
Denver International
Airport
2005 Meyerhoff, R., N. Rowan, J. Kieler, J. Barrilleaux, R. Second, Third and Box
Albrecht, and S. Morea. 2005. Development of Site- Elder Creeks
Specific Dissolved Oxygen Standards in Surface Waters
at Denver International Airport. TMDL 2005 Specialty
Conference. Water Environment Federation.
D
1998 Flannery, William. 1998. Status on Recovery of Aircraft Yeader Creek
Deicing Fluid Operations at the Airport. City Council
Communication 98-052. February 16.
Des Moines International
Airport
Od,Co X
Des Moines International
Airport
2004 Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Total Easter Lake
Maximum Daily Loads For Nutrients and Siltation: Easter
Lake, Polk County, Iowa.
N
Des Moines International
Airport
Detroit Metropolitan
Wayne County Airport
Detroit Metropolitan
Wayne County Airport
Detroit Metropolitan
Wayne County Airport
2005
1990
2001
2006
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Total
Maximum Daily Load For Priority Organics: Yeader
Creek, Polk County, Iowa.
Askari, Emilia. 1990. State Probes Airport in Pollution
Allegations. Detroit Free Press, August 30.
Environmental News Service. 2006. Wayne County
Airport Admits De-Icing Chemical Discharge. June 14.
Lochner, Paul. 2006. Wayne County Airport Authority
Pleads Guilty to Violation of Clean Water Act.
Department of Justice Press Release. June 8.
Yeader Creek B O
Detroit River
Detroit River D
Frank and Poet Drain F
Fo,O, X
Co
Od,Co X
Od,Co X
S
General Mitchell
International Airport
2001 Corsi, S.R., N.L. Booth, and D.W. Hall. 2001. Aircraft
and Runway Deicers at General Mitchell International
Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 1. Biochemical
Oxygen Demand and Dissolved Oxygen in Receiving
Streams. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20(7): 1474-1482
Wilson Park Creek,
Kinnickinnic River
B O
General Mitchell
International Airport
2001 Corsi, S.R., D.W. Hall, and S. W. Geis. 2001. Aircraft and Wilson Park Creek,
Runway Deicers at General Mitchell International Kinnickinnic River
Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Toxicity of
Aircraft and Runway Deicers. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
20(7): 1483-1490.
N O
1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients
2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts
3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
July 2009
C-5
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport
Name
Article
Year
Article
Waterbody Name
dls
P o
OJ
P'C
0 s
P5 Z
M
•"S cj
2 a
PI
A
"3
M
"an
S o
S a
(§ S
W Tf
•^ 5«
V y
"1 ft
O fi
^ C
^ hH
.ti
=
o
PH
0
"_S
[3
•%.
o
6
General Mitchell
International Airport
2003 Cancilla, D.A., J.C. Baird, S.W. Geis, and S.R. Corsi.
2003. Studies of the Environmental Fate and Effect of
Aircraft Deicing Fluids: Detection of 5-methyl-lH-
benzotraizole in the fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22(1): 134-140
Wilson Park Creek,
Kinnickinnic River
F,0
General Mitchell
International Airport
2006 Sandier, Larry. 2006. Environmental group challenges Wilson Creek
airport's wastewater permit: Mitchell discharges too much
deicing fluid into creek, it says. Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel, January 25.
Co
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport
2002 Hamrick, Dave. 2002. Officials unanimous: Our water is Flint River
safe. The Citizen, February 13.
H,DW Od
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport
2002 Hamrick, Dave. 2002. EPD: 'We blew it': State agency Flint River
took 4 days to respond to calls that deicing fluid had been
spilled into the Flint River; airport manager promises new
procedures will prevent future spills. The Citizen,
February 13.
DW
Indianapolis International
Airport
1997 Stahl, J.R., T.P. Simon, and E.G. Edberg. 1997. A
Preliminary Appraisal of the Biological Integrity of the
East Fork White Lick Creek in the West Fork White
River Watershed Using Fish Community Assessment.
IDEM/32/03/013/1997. December 12.
White Lick Creek
O
James M. Cox Dayton
International Airport
1991 Miller, Alan. 1991. De-Icing's Fatal Effect Not Plain.
Columbus Dispatch, January 6.
Mill Creek
James M. Cox Dayton
International Airport
1995 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Mill Creek
Biological and Water Quality Study of Mill Creek:
Dayton International Airport, Miami and Montgomery
Counties, Ohio. OEPA Technical Report MAS/1995-2-2.
Columbus, OH.
B,N F,O
James M. Cox Dayton
International Airport
1998 Associated Press. 1998. Panel Settles De-Icing Suit with Mill Creek
Homeowners. Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 28.
DW
1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients
2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts
3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
July 2009
C-6
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented
Airport Name
James M. Cox Dayton
International Airport
Kansas City International
Airport
Lambert-St. Louis
International Airport
Louisville International -
Standiford Field
Manchester Airport
Manchester Airport
Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport
Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport
Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
.=
"3
d* „ S., «, a
P-S s§S a| !S il ^
Article §|2§.|§.|§.S| |
Year Article Waterbody Name pqz;iJ3Mh3- 6
2001 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Mill Creek B,N O
Biological and Water Quality Study of the Stillwater
River Basin, 1999, Darke, Miami and Montgomery
Counties. OEPA Technical Report Number MAS/2001-
12-8. Columbus, OH
2007 Missouri Department of Conservation. 2007. Platte River Todd Creek F
Watershed: Water Quality and Use.
1995 Uhlenbrock, Tom. 1995. Up A Creek Runoff of De-icer Coldwater Creek Od
from Lamber Field Pits Airport Against U.S. St. Louis
Post Dispatch, February 5.
2002 KPDES Permit #KY0092185. Kentucky Department for Northern Ditch, Fern D,N F
Environmental Protection. Expiration: December 3 1, Creek
2007.
2003 CAA News Channel. 2003 . New Hampshire Brook to be Little Cohas Brook Fo,Od
Tested for Chemicals. The Union Leader and New
Hampshire Sunday News, January 27.
2006 Kibbe, Cindy. Planes, trains and automobiles: Merrimack River Od
What are southern N.H.'s transportation options? NHBR
Daily, April 14.
2004 Larson, Catherine. 2004. Lower Minnesota River Model Minnesota River B X
Project Proposal. Proposal to Develop an Advanced
Water-Quality Model of the Minnesota River, Jordan to
the mouth, and Conduct River Monitoring and Studies to
Support the Model. January 15.
2004 Mikkelson, Stephen. 2004. Water Quality Violations to Lower Minnesota River D X
Cost Metropolitan Airports Commission $69,076.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency News Release.
November 2.
1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients
2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts
3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
July 2009
C-7
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport
Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport
Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport
Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport
Newcastle International
Airport
Pease Air Force Base
Pittsburgh International
Airport
Pittsburgh International
Airport
Pittsburgh International
Airport
.=
"3
d* „ a., «, s
P-S s§S a| !S il
Article g|2o.|a|o.S|
Year Article Waterbody Name pq z ^ M W M *& M e£ >
2005 Environmental News Service. 2005. Minnesota Halts Jet Minnesota River, Snelling Od,Co X
Fuel Leaks, Spills at Twin Cities Airport. Environmental Lake, Mother Lake
News System. March 18.
1993 Meersman, Tom. 1993. New Rules for Airport De-icers Minnesota River D,B
Amount of Chemicals Flushed into River Will be
Reduced. Minneapolis Star Tribune, September 29.
1993 Meersman, Tom. 1993. FAA-Mandated Plane De-Icing Minnesota River
Puts Minnesota River at Risk. Minneapolis Star Tribune,
March 10.
2001 Mills, Karren. 2001. Minneapolis airport saw big jump in Minnesota River X
runoff from de-icer into Minnesota River. CAA News
Channel, May 19.
1995 Turnbull, D.A. and J.R. Bevan. 1995. The Impact of Ouseburn River B,N O
Airport De-Icing on a River: The case of the Ouseburn,
Newcastle UponTyne. Environ. Pollut. 88:321-332.
1999 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1999. groundwater N DW
Public Health Assessment: Pease Air Force Base,
Portsmouth, Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
Department of Health and Human Services. September
30.
1996 Hopey, Don. 1996. Airport Gets Criticism for Disposal of McClarens, Enlow and N F H Od X
De-icer. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 28. Montour Runs
1998 Hopey, Don. 1998. Airport Ordered Again to Keep De- McClarens, Enlow and F H Od X
leers Out of Streams. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 31. Montour Runs
1998 Koryak, M. L.J. Stafford, R.J. Reilly, R.H. Hoskin and Montour Run and B,N O
M.H. Haberman. 1998. The Impact of Airport Deicing tributaries
Runoff on Water Quality and Aquatic Life in a
Pennsylvania Stream. J. Freshwater Ecol. 13(3): 287-298.
0)
6
s
G
1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients
2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts
3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
July 2009
4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
C-8
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented
Airport Name
Port Columbus
International Airport
Port Columbus
International Airport
Port Columbus
International Airport
Portland International
Airport
Portland International
Airport
Portland International
Airport,
Portland International
Airport
Portland International
Airport
Raleigh-Durham
International Airport
Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
.=
"3
d* „ &„ a, a
p i 1 1 s t! J t! .* -B
Article g"| So. | a | a § -|
Year Article Waterbody Name pq z ;i J3 E J3 -<< J3 £ >
1998 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Mason Run, Turkey Run, D,N F,O
Biological and Water Quality Study of Mason Run, 1996, Big Walnut Creek
Franklin County, Columbus, Ohio. OEPA Technical
Report MAS/1996-12-6. Columbus, OH.
2003 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency: DivisionBig Walnut Creek, Alum D,B,N
of Surface Water. Biological and Water Quality Study of Creek and Blacklick
Big Walnut Creek Basin. 2003. OEPA Technical Report Creek watersheds
DSW/EAS 2003-11-10. Columbus, OH.
2004 NPDES Permit* OHO 1243 11. Ohio Environmental Big Walnut Creek, Mason N O
Protection Agency. Expiration: July 31, 2007. Run
1997 Wells, Scott. 1997. The Columbia Slough. Prepared for Columbia Slough D,B
the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services.
Technical Report EWR-2-97. (March)
1998 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Columbia Slough D O
Columbia Slough Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
For:
Chlorophyll a, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Phosphorus,
Bacteria, DDE/DDT, PCBs, Pb, Dieldrin and 2,3,7,8
TCDD
1998 Stewart, Bill. 1998. Airport Juggles Safety, Pollution Columbia Slough D
Concerns. The Oregonian, February 2
2005 Johnson, Steve. 2005. Port Plans study to Enhance Columbia River X
Airport Deicing Storm Water Collection System. Port of
Portland News Release, September 26.
2006 Associated Press. 2006. Portland airport's de-icing system Columbia River O X
harms fish. USA Today, October 17.
2000 RDU Airport Changes its Runway Deicing Chemical. Big Lake, Sycamore Lake N
2000. The Umstead Coalition
Newsletter, November 29.
"i.
o>
6
1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients
2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts
3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
July 2009
C-9
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Rickenbacker
International Airport
Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
Spokane International
Stapleton International
Airport
-^-i
d | ^ a^ .y^ |
Article g i | g, | a | a 1 j
Year Article Waterbody Name pq z ^ M W M *& M e£ >
1996 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency: Division Walnut Creek, Big Walnut O
of Surface Water. 1996. Biological and Water Quality Creek and tributaries
Study of Lower Big Walnut Creek and Walnut Creek
Tributaries. Prepared for State of Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency: Division of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Columbus, OH.
1993 Roberts, C.R. 1993. Airport Antifreeze May Be Toting Miller Creek O
Chill of Death to Miller Creek. Tacoma News Tribune,
January 26.
1995 Taylor, Rob. 1995. Lawsuit Filed Over Stream Pollution Des Moines Creek, Miller X
From Sea-Tac Airport. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August Creek, Puget Sound
15.
2003 Lange, Larry. 2003 . Sea-Tac blamed for fish deaths. Miller Creek, Puget Sound F X
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 14.
2002 NPDES Permit # SO3004373 . State of Washington unnamed aquifer
Department of Ecology. Expiration: September 20, 2007.
1996 Pillard, D. A. Assessment of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sand Creek O
and Fish Communities in a Stream Receiving Storm
Water Runoff from a Large Airport. J. Freshwater Ecol.
ll(l):51-59.
6
G
Stockholm Arlanda
Airport
1993 O'Conner, R. and Douglas, K. 1993 Cleaning up after the unnamed receiving waters
big chill: Thousands of rivers and streams are harmed by
the de-icing chemicals that keep aircraft flying through
the winter. Now airports are being forced to curb this
_ damaging pollution. New Scient
D
Syracuse Hancock
International Airport
1999 Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. 1999. Litigation
Update. Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc.
Newsletter.
Bear Trap Creek, Ley
Creek
X
Syracuse Hancock
International Airport
2000 Beartrap Creek Reclamation Project Description. Beartrap Creek
GL2000-045
O
1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients
2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts
3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
July 2009
C-10
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Syracuse Hancock
International Airport
Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport
Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport
Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport
Theodore Francis Green
State Airport
Toronto Pearson
International Airport
Unknown international
North American airport
Victoria International
Airport
Victoria International
Airport
Westchester County
Airport
Article
Year
2003
1990
1991
2007
2004
1989
1998
2003
2004
1997
.=
"3
d* „ &„ a, S
« | | | S | 1 | a |
Article Waterbody Name pq z ^ a W a *& a e£>
Onondaga Lake Partnership. 2003. Izaak Walton League'sBeartrap O
Efforts Lead to Restored Beartrap Creek. Reflections. Creek
1(3): 6.
Wohlforth, Charles. 1990. Toxic Runoff Adds to Lake Lake Hood O
Hood Pollution. Anchorage Daily News, May 4.
Pytte, Alyson. 1991. Chemicals Lace Airport Soil FindingLake Hood N Od
Pollution is Easy; Who Pays for Cleanup is the Problem.
Anchorage Daily News, September 8.
deMarban, Alex. 2007. Lake mower clears paths for Lake Hood O Co
floatplanes. Anchorage Daily News, August 13.
RIPDES Permit #RI0021598. Rhode Island Department unnamed tributaries of D O Fo,Od
of Environmental Management. Expiration January 1, Warwick Pond and
2010. Buckeye Brook, and
Tuscatucket Brook
Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Storm Water. TranscriptEtobicoke Creek, Mimico BO X
of the July 6, 1989 meeting. Creek, Lake Ontario
Cancilla, D.A., J. Martinez, and G.C. van Aggelen. 1998. unnamed well O
Detection of Aircraft Deicing/ Antiicing Fluid Additives
in a Perched Water Monitoring Well at an International
Airport. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32: 3834-3835.
Reay Watershed: 2003 Fish Kill. Reay Creek F
.
Dickson, Louise. 2004. Polluted creek killing fish: North Saanich Creek F
Reclamation work wasted as second major kill wipes out
run. Times Colonist. November 1.
Conetta, A., R. Bracchitta, and P. Sherrer. 1997. Storm Rye Lake, Blind Brook B
Water Management and Control of Aircraft Deicing
Runoff at Westchester County Airport. Environmental
Regulation and Permitting.
"i.
o>
6
G
S
G
1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients
2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts
3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
July 2009
C-11
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Article
Year
O .J2
0 S
p'5
es
<<% .a
2 §. S
•fl 5« Q
21 -3 I
^" TO M TO
•^^ .—^ H ••
Article
Waterbody Name
Westchester County
Airport
1999 Switzenbaum, M.S., S. Veltman, T. Schoenberg, C.M.
Durand, D. Mericas and B. Wagoner. 1999. Best
Management Practices for Airport Deicing Stormwater.
Publication No. 173.
Blind Brook
D
Fo
Westchester County
Airport
1999 Associated Press. 1999. De-icing Chemical Found in
Westchester Reservoir. New York Times, January 14.
Kensico Reservoir
DW
1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients
2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts
3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
July 2009
4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
C-12
------- |