United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office o* Solid Wajre
and Erre"rjency Fesoons*
Washington DC 20460
SW-871 ^
SectPTit*' 198?
Management of
Hazardous Waste Leacnaie
-------
PREFACE
The land disposal of hazardous waste is subject to the
requirements of Suotitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976. This Act requires that the treatment,
storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes after November 19,
1980 be carried out in accordance with a permit. The one
exception to this rule is that facilities in existence as of
November 19, 1980 may continue operations 143atil;final
administrative disposition is made of the permit application
(providing that the facility complies with the Interim Status
Standards for disposers of hazardous waste in 40 CFR Part
265). Owners or operators of new facilities must apply for
and receive a permit before beginning operation of such a
facility.
The Interim Status Standards (40 CPR Part 265) and some
of the administrative portions of the Permit Standards (40
CFR Part 264) were published by the Environmental Protection
Agency in the Federal Register on May 19, 1980. The
Environmental Protection Agency published Interim final rules
in Part 264 for hazardous waste disposal facilities on July
26, 1982. These regulations consist primarily of two sets of
performance standards. One is a set of design and operating
standards separately tailored to each of the four types of
facilities covered by the regulations. The other (Subpart F)
is a single set of ground-water monitoring and response
requirements applicable to each of these facilities. The
permit official must review and evaluate permit applications
to determine whether the proposed objectives, design, ana
operation of a land disposal facility will comply with all
applicable provisions of the regulations (40 CFR 264).
The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing two
types of documents for permit officials responsible for
hazardous waste landfills, surface Impoundments, land treatment
facilities and piles: Draft RCRA Guidance Documents and
Technical Resource Documents. The draft RCRA guidance
doc.iunents present design and operating specifications which
the Agency believes comply with the requirements of Part 264,
for the Design and Operating Requirements and the Closure and
Post-Closure Requirements contained in these regulations.
The Technical Resource Documents support the RCRA Guidance
Documents in certain areas (i.e., liners, leachate management,
closure, covers, water balance) by describing current
technologies and methods for evaluating the performance of the
applicant's design. The information and guidance presented
in these manuals constitute a suggested approach for review
and evaluation based on good engineering practices. There
may be alternative and equivalent methods for conducting the
review and evaluation. However, if the results of these
ill
-------
methods differ from those of the Environmental Protection
Agency method, they may have to be validated by the applicant.
In reviewing and evaluating the permit application, the
permit official must make all decisions in a well defined and
well documented manner. Once an initial decision Is made to
issue or deny the permit, the Subtitle C regulations (40 CFR
124.6, 124.7, and 124.8) require preparation of either a
statement of basis or fact sheet that discusses the reasons behind
the decision. The statement of basis or fact sheet then becomes
part of the permit review process specified in 40 CFR 124.6 through
124.20.
These manuals are intended to assist the permit official
in arriving at a logical, well defined, and well documented
decision. Checklists and logic flow diagrams are provided
throughout the manuals to ensure that necessary factors are
considered in the decision process. Technical data are
presented to enable the permit official to identify proposed
designs that may require more detailed analysis because of a
deviation from suggested practices. The technical data are
not meant to provide rigid guidelines for arriving at a
decision. The references are cited throughout the manuals to
provide further guidance for the permit officials when necessary.
There was a previous version of this document dated
September 1980. The new version supplies the September 1980
version.
-------
ABSTRACT
This document has been prepared to provide guidance for per-
mit officials and disposal site operators on available management
options for controlling, treating, and disposing of hazardous
waste leachates. It discusses considerations necessary to de-
velop sound management plans for leachate generated at surface
impoundments and landfills. Because hazardous waste leachate
management is an area where there is little past experience, this
manual draws heavily upon experience in other related areas.
The manual provides a logical thought process for arriving
at a reasonable treatment process train for given leachates.
Furthermore, sufficient factual information is provided so that
users can readily identify a few potential treatment alterna-
tives. Having identified such alternatives, users then are given
sufficient guidance so that final choices can be made.
The manual begins with a brief discussion of factors that
influence leachate generation. This is followed by a presenta-
tion of data on leachate characteristics at actual waste dis-
posal sites. Principal options for dealing with hazardous waste
leachate are identified. Subsequently, technology profiles are
developed for processes having potential application to leachate
treatment. Treatability data and information on by-products,
and costs supplement process descriptions and an assessment of
process applicability.
A key section enumerates factors which influence treatment
process selections and provides a suggested approach for system-
atically addressing each. Selected hypothetical and actual
leachate situations are used as examples for applying the
approach to the selection of appropriate treatment processes.
Other sections address monitoring, safety, contingency
plans/emergency provisions, equipment redundancy/backup, permits,
and surface runoff. Each of these topics are important consid-
erations necessary for effective management of hazardous waste
leachate.
v
-------
CONTENTS
Preface ^
Abstract v
Figures ^
Tables i
Acknowledgment xlil
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. OVERVIEW OF LEACHATE GENERATION 2-1
2.1 General Discussion 2-1
2.2 Factors Affecting Leachate Generation and
Characteristics 2-2
2.2.1 Physical Influences 2-2
2.2.1.1 Liquid Characteristics 2-2
2.2.1.2 Solid Characteristics 2-2
2.2.1.3 Physical Transformations 2-3
2.2.2 Chemical Influences 2-3
2.2.2.1 Solubility 2-3
2.2.2.2 Chemical Transformations 2-4
2.2.3 Biological Influences 2-5
2.3 References 2-5
3. LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS 3-1
3.1 General Discussion 3-1
3.2 Leachate Characteristics at Actual Sites 3-3
3.3 Leachate Categorization 3-17
3.4 References 3-2 0
4. HAZARDOUS WASTE LEACHATE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 4-1
4.1 General Discussion .;... 4-1
4.2 Hazardous Waste Treatment 4-3
4.3 Disposal Site Managment 4-5
4.4 Leachate Management 4-9
4.4.1 Off-Site Treatment/Disposal Options .... 4-9
VI
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
4.4.2. On-Site Treatment/Disposal 4-11
4.5 Summary 4-13
5. LEACHATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 5-i
5.1 General Discussion 5-1
5.2 Treatability of Leachate Constituents 5-2
5.3 Unit Process Application Potential 5-4
5.3.1 Biological Treatment 5-5
5.3.2 Carbon Adsorption 5-6
5.3.3 Catalysis 5-6
5.3.4 Chemical Oxidation 5-6
5.3.5 Chemical Reduction 5-7
5.3.6 Chemical Precipitation 5-7
5.3.7 Crystallization 5-8
5.3.8 Density Separation 5-8
5.3.9 Dialysis/Electrodialysis 5-9
5.3.10 Distillation 5-9
5.3.11 Evaporation 5-9
5.3.12 Filtration 5-9
5.3.13 Flocculation 5-10
5.3.14 Ion Exchange 5-10
5.3.15 Resin Adsorption 5-11
5.3.16 Reverse Osmosis 5-12
5.3.17 Solvent Extraction 5-13
5.3.18 Stripping 5-13
5.3.19 Ultrafiltration 5-13
5.3.20 Wet Oxidation 5-14
5.4 Evaluation of Unit Processes 5-14
5.5 By-Product Considerations 5-18
5.6 Treatment Process Costs 5-28
5.7 References 5-31
6. LEACHATE TREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION 6-1
6.1 General Discussion 6-1
6.2 Performance Requirements 6-2
vii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
6.3 Treatment Facility Staging 6-5
6.4 Treatment Process Selection Methodology 6-6
6.4.1 Disposal Site With Existing Leachate ... 6-9
6.4.2 Disposal Site Without Existing Leachate. 6-10
6.5 Considerations Relating To Process Train
Formulation 6-12
6.5.1 Biological Treatment 6-12
6.5.2 Carbon Adsorption 6-16
6.5.3 Chemical Precipitation/Coagulation 6-17
6.5.4 Density Separation 6-18
6.5.5 Filtration 6-18
6.5.6 Chemical Oxidation 6-18
6.5.7 Chemical Reduction 6-19
6.5.8 Ion Exchange ; 6-19
6.5.9 Membrane Processes 6-20
6.5.10 Stripping Processes 6-20
6.5.11 Wet Oxidation 6-20
6.6 Process Train Alternatives 6-20
6.6.1 Leachate Containing Organic Contaminants 6-21
6.6.1.1 Love Canal Experience 6-21
6..6.1.2 Ott/Story Site Study ... 6-26
6.6.1.3 Other Possibilities 6-31
6.6.2 Leachate Containing Inorganic
Contaminants 6-33
6.6.3 Leachate Containing Organic and
Inorganic Pollutants 6-39
6.7 References 6-42
7. MONITORING 7-1
7.1 General Discussion 7-1
7.2 Monitoring Program Design 7-3
7.2.1 Parameters To Be Measured 7-3
7.2.2 Analytical Considerations 7-6
7.2.3 Sampling 7-6
viii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
7.3 Leachate Characterization 7-7
7.3.1 Wastes Received 7-8
7.3.2 In-situ tlonitoring 7-8
7.3.3 Collected Leachate 7-8
7.4 Treatment Effluent Monitoring 7-9
7.4.1 Sampling Locations 7-9
7.4.2 Parameters 7-9
7.4.3 Data Analysis 7-10
7.4.4 Process Optimization 7-10
7.4.5 Safety Considerations 7-10
7.5 References 7-11
8. OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS S-l
8.1 Safety 8-1
8.1.1 Degree of Risk 8-1
8.1.2 Restricted Entry 8-1
8.1.3 Safety Rules 8-2
8.1.4 Supervision 8-2
8.1.5 Inspections 8-3
8.1.6 First Aid and Medical Assistance 8-3
8.1.7 Protective Equipment 8-3
8.1.8 Ventilation 8-4
8.1.9 Housekeeping 8-5
8.2 Contingency Plans/Emergency Provisions 8-5
8.2.1 Emergency Situations 8-5
8.2.1.1 Natural Disasters 8-5
8.2.1.2 Accidents 8-6
8.2.2 Plan Development 8-6
8.2.2.1 Organizational Responsibilities 8-6
8.2.2.2 Plan Components 8-6
8.2.3 Fire Protection 8-9
8.2.3.1 In-Plant Measures 8-9
8.2.3.2 Training 8-10
8.2.3.3 Hazards Identification 8-10
8.3 Equipment Redundancies/Backup 8-11
ix
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
8.3.1 General Discussion 8-11
8.3.2 Equipment 8-12
8.3.2.1 Control Systems 8-12
8.3.2.2 Tanks and Containers 8-12
8.3.2.3 Pipes and Transfer Lines 8-12
8.3.2.4 Valves 8-12
8.3.2.5 Pumps 8-12
8.3.2.6 In-Plant Drainage 8-13
8.3.2.7 Electrical Filters 8-13
8.4 Permits 8-13
8.4.1 Consolidated Permit Regulations 8-13
8.4.2 Other Permits 8-14
8.5 Personnel Training 8-14
8.6 Surface Runoff 8-15
8.7 References 8-19
Appendices
A. Summary of Reported Water Contamination Problems ... A-l
B. Alphabetical Listing of RCRA Pollutants B-l
C. Unit Process Summaries - Sanitary Landfill
Leachate Treatment C-l
D. Unit Process Summaries - Industrial Wastewater
Treatment D-l
E. Treatability of Leachate Constituents E-l
x
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
3-1 Waste stream categorization matrix 3-19
4-1 Waste management options - effect on leachate
generation 4-2
6-1 Methodology to select leachate treatment process ... 6-8
6-2 Love Canal Permanent Treatment System schematic
flow diagram 6-22
6-3 Schematic of carbon sorption/biological process
train 6-32
. 6-4 Schematic of biological/carbon sorption process
train 6-34
6-5 Process train for leachate containing metals 6-36
6-6 Process train for leachate containing metals
including hexavalent chromium 6-37
6-7 Process train for leachate containing metals
including hexavalent chromium and cyanide 6-38
6-8 Process train for leachate containing metals and
ammonia and requiring TDS control 6-40
6-9 Schematic of biophysical process train 6-43
xi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
3-1 Summary List of Contaminants Reported 3-4
3-2 List of Conventional Pollutant Concentrations
Reported at Six Sites 3-16
3-3 Characterization of Harzardous Leachate and
Groundwater From 4 3 Landfill Sites 3-17
4-1 Stabilization/Fixation Techniques 4-6
5-1 Treatment Process Applicability Matrix 5-16
5-2 Leachate Treatment Process By-Produce Streams 5-19
5-3 Residue Management Alternatives 5-29
6-1 Performance Data on Temporary Treatment System
at Love Canal 6-24
6-2 Ott/Story Groundwater Characterization 6-27
8-1 Suggested Guide for an Operation and Maintenance
Manual for Waste Treatment Facilities 8-16
xii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Mr. Stephen James, Mr. Dirk
Brunner, and Ms. Wendy Davis-Hoover of the U.S.-EPA MER1 and
Mr. Les Otte of the U.S.-EPA Office of Solid Waste for their
able advice and assistance which facilitated assembly and re-
view of this document.
A critical review of the manuscript provided by Dr. Gary
F. Bennett of the University of Toledo was especially helpful.
Review comments by Mr. B.W. Mercer of Battelle-Northwest
also are gratefully acknowledged.
Special thanks go to Mrs. Ellen M. Stempkowski who was
responsible for typing and overseeing assembly of much of
this document.
Data contained in Appendices C and D were contributed
by Monsanto Research Corporation (MRC). An unpublished draft
document on leachate management prepared by MRC was consulted
prior to preparation of this document.
xiii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Leachate generated by water percolating through a hazard-
ous waste disposal site could contain significant concentrations
of toxic chemicals. Proper leachate management is essential to
avoidance of contamination of surrounding soil, groundwaters,
and surface waters. Consequently, this document has been pre-
pared to provide guidance on available management options for
controlling, treating and disposing of hazardous waste leach-
ates.
Leachate management options include all of the decision
factors throughout the entire hazardous waste management process
which have an impact on the nature or generation potential of
leachate. Thus, consideration of leachate management options
could begin with the manufacturing process and extend through
the hazardous waste management chain to leachate treatment/
disposal. This management chain can be divided into four major
areas: (1) waste generation, (2) hazardous waste treatment
prior to disposal, (3) disposal site management, and (4) leach-
ate treatment/disposal. Because companion permit manuals and
technical resource documents address many of these aspects in
detail, the central focus of this document is on leachate man-
agement subsequent to leachate generation. When other aspects
of leachate management are mentioned, the reader is referred to
an appropriate source for details.
Hazardous waste leachate management is an area where little
past experience exists. Therefore, in preparing this document,
it has been necessary to draw heavily upon experience in related
areas. Certain pitfalls are inherent in such an approach and
thus, an effort has been made to alert the reader to areas of
uncertainty throughout this document.
A major factor that must be taken into consideration in
structuring the leachate management process is the need for
post-closure operation. Closure of the hazardous waste disposal
site probably will not mean terminating leachate management op-
erations. Rather, leachate collection and disposal concerns
will continue subsequent to site closure. This could necessi-
tate long-term post-closure operation and financial commitments.
Site closure also could influence leachate composition and quan-
tity and, thus, treatment facility performance. Consequently,
1-1
-------
site closure ramifications merit considerable attention early
and throughout the process of managing leachate.
It is recognized that some users may not wish to read this
document in its entirety. Therefore, to the extent possible,
sections have been prepared to be self-standing. Nevertheless,
there is a necessary interrelationship among sections and a log-
ical progression as information from early sections is built
upon in later ones. An effort has been made to cross-reference
pertinent information.
There are seven subsequent sections of this document. Each
of these is listed below together with a brief description of
the contents of the section.
Section 2, Overview of Leachate Generation - This section
briefly describes factors that influence leachate genera-
tion with the emphasis placed upon factors affecting leach-
ate composition. It may be of interest to those wishing to
predict future leachate composition at new sites.
Section 3, Leachate Characteristics - This section examines
hazardous waste leachate characteristics. Available data
on leachates, and contaminated ground and surface waters
are presented and discussed. Data presented give insight
into leachate characteristics at actual hazardous waste
disposal sites, and thus provide a basis for selecting and
evaluating leachate treatment technologies.
Section 4, Hazardous Waste Leachate Management Options -
Four principal areas of hazardous waste leachate management
options (i.e. waste generation, hazardous waste treatment,
disposal site management, and leachate treatment/disposal)
are identified in this section. Primary emphasis was
placed upon the leachate treatment/disposal area wherein
leachate is processed to render it acceptable for discharge
or ultimate disposal.
Section 5, Leachate Treatment Technologies - This section
provides treatability data on compounds identified at ac-
tual waste disposal sites. An initial assessment of the
potential applicability of twenty unit treatment processes
to leachate treatment also is made. Consideration is given
to treatment process by-products, and to capital and opera-
ting costs for selected technologies. Information in this
section can be used to combine individual unit processes to
form a treatment system appropriate for the type of leach-
ate encountered.
Section 6, Leachate Treatment Process Selection - This sec-
tion provides an understanding of factors which influence
treatment process selection. These factors are enumerated
1-2
-------
and an approach is suggested for systematically addressing
each. Finally, selected hypothetical and actual leachate
situations are used as examples for applying the approach
to selection of appropriate treatment processes.
Section 7, Monitoring - This section points out those con-
siderations which are important in the design of monitoring
program to support hazardous waste leachate management ef-
forts .
Section 8, Other Important Considerations - Subjects ad-
dressed In this section are safety, contingency plans/
emergency provisions, equipment redundancy/backup, permits,
and surface runoff. Some of the topics are discussed in
general terms, while others apply directly to leachate
treatment facilities. The intent is to identify consider-
ations which are necessary for the safe and effective
treatment of hazardous waste leachate.
This manual is not designed to be a prescriptive "cook
book". Sufficient past experience simply is not available to
permit such an approach. Thus, the reader is challenged to use
the extensive information presented herein in a manner requiring
considerable technical judgment. This is necessary because of
the complexity of leachates likely to be encountered, and the
fact that compositions vary widely from site to site, and in
some cases, within given sites. On the other hand, the manual
does attempt to provide a logical thought process for arriving
at the most reasonable treatment process train for any leachate
likely to be generated. Furthermore, sufficient factual infor-
mation is provided so that the user can readily identify a few
potential treatment alternatives. Having identified such alter-
natives, the user then is given sufficient guidance so that
final choices can be made.
1-3
-------
SECTION 2
OVERVIEW OF LEACHATE GENERATION
2.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
As discussed in subsequent sections, leachate management is
highly dependent upon leachate characteristics. Leachate char-
acteristics, in turn, are dependent upon how the leachate is
generated. Because hazardous waste management under RCRA regu-
lations is in its early stages, there is a dearth of information
on leachate generation.
Ideally, leachate treatment alternatives should be evalu-
ated using actual leachate in treatability and pilot plant
studies. However, at the time of permitting new sites leachate
is unavailable. Methods to select appropriate treatment tech-
nologies in the absence of actual leachate for treatability
studies are described in Section 6.4. The methods described in
this section envision projecting leachate compositions using
data on the wastes expected to be disposed of, extrapolations
from analogous disposal experience, and from theoretical prin-
ciples. While a complete discussion of leachate generation from
a theoretical point of view is beyond the scope of this manual,
this section describes factors that influence leachate genera-
tion in general terms.
Emphasis in this section is placed upon factors affecting
leachate quality. A detailed description of methodologies for
estimating leachate volume is provided in a companion document
in this EPA hazardous waste series, "Hydrologic Simulation on
Solid Waste Disposal Sites", SW-868. Although intended to de-
scribe leachate for municipal landfills, a report by Phelps (1)
discussed theoretical aspects of the change of mass in fluid and
solid phases with respect to time. Phelps provided leaching
curves (concentration vs. time) to describe the effects of four
parameters on leachate concentrations: (1) ratio of column
depth to infiltration rate, (2) mass transfer rate constant, (3)
equilibrium constant, and (4) the initial amount of leachable
material per unit volume of column. Manual users are referred
to this reference for a detailed discussion of the theoretical
principles of leachate generation, albeit for a municipal
land fill.
Freeze and Cherry (2) discussed leachate generated from
2-1
-------
land disposal of solid wastes, sewage disposal on land, agri-
cultural activities, petroleum leakage and spills, and radio-
active waste disposal. This reference also could be helpful in
estimating leachate compositions.
The remainder of this section is an enumeration of factors
which could be important in assessing leachate generation. For
details, the reader is again referred to the works by Phelps (1)
and Freeze and Cherry (2).
2.2 FACTORS AFFECTING LEACHATE GENERATION AND CHARACTERISTICS
Leachate will be generated as a result of the movement of
liquids by gravity through a disposal site. Similarly, leachate
will be generated as liquid contained within a disposal impound-
ment moves through soil beneath the disposal area. Leachate
quality is dependent upon numerous factors. It is not the in-
tent to deal with such factors in detail here; rather the reader
is given a brief overview for purposes of identifying consider-
ations which should be explored at length elsewhere.
2.2.1 Physical Influences
2.2.1.1 Liquid Characteristics—
Liquid- moving through the site can be comprised of precip-
itation falling upon the site, groundwater migrating through the
site, and the liquid fraction of disposed materials. The quan-
tity of liquid will be a major determinant of the rate at which
ihe leachate will be generated as well as the leachate composi-
tion. Liquid movement can be complicated by variations in den-
sity, viscosity, and miscibility. It is possible that the
liquid could be multi-phased, e.g., water, oil, and solvents
with the various phases moving through the solid medium at dif-
ferent rates.
2.2.1.2 Solid Characteristics—
For landfills, solid waste materials could comprise a sig-
nificant fraction of the medium through which the liquid passes.
Thus, it should not be assumed that soil alone is the solid
medium. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the solid wastes or
soil are homogeneous. Because of the expected solid mixture,
porosity and particle sizes are expected to be variable. This
will have an influence on liquid velocity and the time in which
the liquid is in contact with the solid.
Initially, liquid percolating through a landfill will be
absorbed by the solid material. When the absorptive (moisture-
holding) capacity is reached, i.e., when the solid is saturated,
then leachate quality is likely to be influenced by surface
leaching. After saturation, the length of the solid column will
be the major determinant of the time required for the liquid
reach the leachate collection system.
2-2
-------
2.2.1.3 Physical Transformations—
The principal physical transformation expected in the
leaching process is plugging of pore spaces and the resultant
influence on chemical processes and leachate flow rates. If the
disposed wastes contain significant amounts of suspended solids,
then the in-place material will act as a filtering medium, and
percolation flow rates will decrease as the pore spaces become
clogged.
2.2.2 Chemical Influences
2.2.2.1 Solubility—
Solubility is one of the most important factors which in-
fluence leachate quality. Solubility is a function of the
chemical composition of the liquid phase, surface area contact
between the liquid phase and the solid medium, contact time, pH,
temperature, and chemical composition of solid material. Chem-
ical composition of the leachate determines dissolution and re-
action rates. For example, if the liquid phase approaches the
solubility product for certain compounds, then further leaching
will be limited and transfer rates from the solid to the liquid
will be low. Conversely, if the liquid phase is dilute, dis-
solution of the solid medium will be more rapid. If the solu-
bility product is exceeded, then chemical precipitation could
occur.
Size of solid particles has a direct influence upon leach-
ing. Smaller particles result in larger surface areas thus
permitting increased contact and corresponding increased leach-
ing by the liquid. Physical degradation due to aging and ero-
sion processes, which break solids into smaller pieces, in-
creases exposed surface area. In general, dissolution is
directly proportional to the surface contact area.
Porosity, defined as the volume of void spaces within a
solid matrix divided by the total unit volume, influences the
flow rate of liquid through the solid and thus, the contact time
between the liquid and solids. As contact time increases (where
there is lower porosity), dissolution increases up to the max-
imum soluble concentration of the constituents in the liquid.
Thus, longer contact times permit more complete chemical re-
actions between the liquid and solid, until eventually an equil-
ibrium concentration is reached.
pH is considered a significant variable affecting leachate
composition because of its effect on solubility and chemical
reactions occurring in the disposal site. In general, pH af-
fects solubility in two principal ways:
(1) alteration of simple solution equilibria, and
(2) direct participation in redox reactions.
2-3
-------
pH generally is a function of the type of waste disposed. Low-
molecular weight acids and carbon dioxide which result from an
aerobic digestion of organic material reduce the pH. Hazardous
wastes can contribute to pH change due to their own specific
characteristics or by the dissolution of waste materials into
leaching water. Changes in pH can influence the solubility of
the waste materials. For example, heavy metals, are solubilized
in acidic solution. Normally, the solubility product for metals
is lowest in mildly basic solution. Thus, acidic conditions
promote the leachability of metal ions, and markedly increase
the potential for appearance in the leachate collection system.
Soil radmixtures also can influence solubility. Acid or
alkaline soils can influence solubility either positively or
negatively. For example, acid soils tend to promote solubili-
zation of waste constituents, whereas higher pH in alkaline
soils likely will retard solubilization.
A disposal site has some capacity to tolerate acids or
bases before the pH of the system is markedly affected. If this
buffer capacity is high, the leachate composition is more stable
and predictable. Correspondingly, a low buffering capacity
makes the leachate composition more difficult to predict.
Temperature changes,within the disposal site can occur.due
to the temperature of materials added, redistribution of heat by
intruding extraneous water, and heat generated by waste decom-
position (biological and physical/chemical activity). Tempera-
ture is important because it influences reaction rates between
the liquid and solid medium. Moreover, it exerts an influence
biologically on microbial catalysis. Both solubility rates and
microbial activity increase as temperatures rise. Hence, during
warm months, leachate- may contain higher concentrations of con-
taminants.
2.2.2.2 Chemical Transformations—
Chemical, transformations occurring within the disposal site
could include adsorption, oxidation and reduction, and precipi-
tation. Most soils are known to have cation exchange capacity.
This capacity is variable dependent upon the type of soils. To
a lesser extent, some soils are known to sorb anions. While
this may be an important influence during initial stages of dis-
posal operations, it is expected that exchange capacity will be
exhausted at about the time the solid medium is saturated by the
liquid. Thereafter, exchange capacity will be at equilibrium
and will not be a consequential determinant of leachate com-
position.
Redox potential can influence chemical and biological re-
actions. In disposal sites dissolved oxygen concentrations will
decrease with depth. Thus, chemical constituents will be oxi-
dized in the upper zones where there is sufficient dissolved
2-4
-------
oxygen present, whereas reducing conditions may be expected in
the lower depths. Correspondingly, aerobic biological activity
will prevail in the upper zones giving way to anaerobic re-
actions as dissolved oxygen is depleted with depth.
Chemical reactions could occur in the disposal site depend-
ing upon the types of materials disposed. For example, neutral-
ization reactions could be evident, and metals could precipitate
in alkaline solution.
2.2.3 Biological Influences
Microorganisms solubilize and oxidize organic waste con-
stituents. Microbes not lethally affected by the waste product
may decompose both the toxic and nontoxic organic compounds into
organics that can be metabolized further.
The microbial population within the disposal site depends
upon waste composition, nutrients available, concentration of
toxic material, oxygen levels, temperature, pH, percent mois-
ture, and the initial population found in the waste liquid or
solids and any admixes such as soil. Aerobic microorganisms
will give way to anaerobic species as oxygen is depleted. An-
aerobic microorganisms which then predominate may generate sig-
nificant amounts of gases such as methane, hydrogen sulfide, and
ammonia that can cause both odor problems and potential explo-
sion hazards.
Biological activity may change substantially over time and
may become more significant as a disposal site ages. Biological
processes could act to reduce the levels of organic compounds
which appear in leachate. This could impact the nature and dur-
ation of necessary post-closure leachate management measures.
2.3 REFERENCES
1. Phelps, D. Solid Waste Leaching Model, Draft Report.
University of British Columbia, Department of Civil
Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, p. 1-25.
2. Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry. Groundwater. Prentice
Hall. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979, 604 pp.
2-5
-------
-------
SECTION 3
LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS
3.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
In the previous section, factors which affect leachate
generation were described. This section takes the next step and
attempts to relate hazardous waste leachate generation with the
expected pollutant characteristics of such leachate. For pur-
poses of this manual, leachate is regarded as the liquid which
drains from the aqueous portion of disposed materials to the
leachate collection system.
Presumably, safeguards will be engineered into the disposal
operation which minimize dilution of the leachate due to perco-
lation of precipitation, or runoff, or flow through of extra-
neous water sources such as groundwater. Moreover, the collec-
tion system will intercept the leachate before migration from
the site and dilution can occur. Thus, the leachate is en-
visioned as a concentrated solution of chemicals representative
of soluble or leachable materials contained in the disposal
site. Another possible type of leachate is that from existing
hazardous waste disposal sites which may have been constructed
prior to implementation of RCRA regulations, and presently
require upgrading and retrofitting. Leachate from such land-
fills might be more dilute because of infiltration of extraneous
water. Contaminated surface water which has contacted hazardous
waste is expected to be even more dilute.
The intent of this section is to examine leachate charac-
teristics from new and existing secured landfills and surface
impoundments which accept hazardous materials for disposal.
This is a difficult task because little data are available on
existing facilities. Consequently, it was decided to secure
whatever existing data were available on leachates, and contam-
inated ground and surface water problems associated with haz-
ardous waste disposal operations. The belief is that current
data will provide information on compounds disposed in the past
and to some extent on migration of these compounds. However,
the concentrations found probably will be lower than for newly
permitted facilities because future efforts will be made to
exclude the extraneous dilution water.
Notable deficiencies in the existing data base include:
3-1
-------
• Very little data on actual hazardous waste leachate
exist. Most available leachate composition data pertain
to sanitary landfills.
• Reported information is such that it often is difficult
to distinguish between leachate and contaminated
groundwater, wherein some dilution has occurred.
• Most available composition data on contamination
associated with hazardous waste disposal sites pertains
to surrounding ground and surface wastes.
• Composition is highly variable from site to site, at
different sampling locations within a given site, and at
a given location over a period of time. (Factors that
contribute to variability were addressed in Section 2.)
• Analytical testing is difficult and very costly in a
complex hazardous aqueous waste pollution matrix. These
factors serve to limit the data base. In addition,
analytical errors and interferences also may contribute
to some of the variability.
• Because of the analytical complexity and expense,
"complete" characterizations are nonexistent.
• Comparison of leachates is hindered because no definitive
listing of chemicals disposed could be developed on a
site-by-site basis.
• There is a general lack of information regarding the
physical characteristics of each site.
Thus, the existing data base is characterized primarily by its
incompleteness and variability.
Despite the above cited deficiencies, available information
does give insight into leachate characteristics at actual haz-
ardous waste disposal sites. Moreover, the available informa-
tion can be used to provide guidance on the selection and eval-
uation of leachate treatment technologies.
Rather than attempt to formulate "typical" leachate compo-
sitions, this section focuses on providing and summarizing
available characterization data on leachates, and contaminated
ground and surface waters associated with existing hazardous
waste disposal sites. The latter categories were included be-
cause they represent the preponderance of the data base and
because they provide information on the types of compounds which
have been associated with previous disposal operations.
In summary, while it is not possible to characterize
3-2
-------
leachat.es precisely, sufficient information does exist to permit
definition of a range of management alternatives for leachates
at secured landfill sites.
3.2 LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS AT ACTUAL SITES
Because concern for proper management of hazardous wastes
has intensified only recently, published leachate data most
frequently describe sanitary landfill leachate rather than haz-
ardous waste leachate. Data from sanitary landfills was not
used in this manual. Rather, this manual relies heavily on a
recent report (1) which contains published and unpublished data
on ongoing hazardous waste disposal site studies. Much of the
data contained in that report was obtained in conjunction with
recent efforts to determine the magnitude of the national haz-
ardous waste disposal problem. Most often the data reflected
contamination of surface and groundwater resources by migrating
leachate rather than representing the characteristics of concen-
trated leachate. It is believed that this type of data, while
not fully elucidating leachate composition for treatability
purposes, does provide insight into the types of compounds which
actually have been identified in association with hazardous
waste disposal operations.
Characterization data on leachates, and contaminated ground
and surface waters in the proximity of 30 sites containing haz-
ardous wastes was compiled. Because of the large amount of
data, this information is presented in Appendix A. There is a
wide variation from site to site in the detail and completeness
of the data contained in Appendix A since relatively few sites
have been well characterized. Nevertheless, this data compila-
tion represents the best information available at this time.
A summary of the data contained in Appendix A is presented
in Table 3-1 which lists specific pollutants identified at the
30 sites, the range of concentrations reported, and the fre-
quency with which the pollutants were found. Chemical contam-
inants are listed in alphabetical order with an indication of
the pollutant grouping and chemical classification of each
compound.
Users of this manual should note that data in Appendix A
and Table 3-1 include more contaminants than those dealt with by
RCRA concerns. Leachate treatment processes must deal with a
broader spectrum of compounds than those listed in RCRA as
acutely hazardous, hazardous, or toxic. That is, treatment
processes must be designed to deal with hazardous constituents
in the matrix in which they occur. Moreover, it is likely that
effluent from a leachate treatment process will have to meet
requirements in addition to RCRA regulations (e.g., NPDES, pre-
treatment).
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY h
Pollutant
Contaminant Group*
OJ
I
Acetone
m-acetonylanisol
T
Ag
H,
P
Al
Aldrin
A,
H,
P,
Alkalinity, as CaCO j
Aniline
s,
T
Aroclor 1016/1242
H,
P,
S
Aroclor 1016/1242/1254
H,
P,
S
Aroclor 1242/1254/1260
H,
P,
s
Aroclor 1254
H,
P,
s
As
H,
p
Ba
H
Be
H.
p
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
H,
P,
s.
Benzene hexachloride
Benzene methanol
Benzoic acid
S
Benzylamine or o-toluidine
Biphenyl napthalene
Bis (2ethylhexy1) phthalate
H.
P.
T
Bis (pentafluorophenyl)
phenylphosphine
B
BOD 5 c
Bromodichloromethane P
2-Butanol
OF CONTAMINANTS REPORTED
Contaminant
Classifi-
cation**
Concentration
Range
Reported* **
No. of Sites
Reported
2
<0.1-62,000
3
4
<3-1357
1
7
1-10
2
7
124
1
10
<2-
-------
Contaminant
2-Butoxyethanol
(1-Butylheptyl) benzene
(1-Butylhexyl) benzene
(1-Butyloctyl) benzene
o-sec-butylphenol
p-sec-butylphenol
p-2-oxo-n-butylphenol
C I, alkylcyclopentadiene
C5 substituted cyclopentadiene
Ca
Camphene
Camphor
Carbofuran
Cd
Chloraniline
0-chloraniline
Chiorobenzaldehyde
Chlorobenzene H
Chlorobenzyl alcohol
Chloroform H
1-chloro-3-nitrobenzene
4-chloro-3-nitrobenzamide
p-ch1oroni trobenzene
Chloronitrotoluene
2-chloro-n-pheny lbenzainide
2-chlorophenol H
p-chlorophenyl methyl
su1f ide
(continued)
Contaminant
Classi fi-
cation**
Concentration
Range
Reported***
No. of Sites
Reported
2 <2,168
4 <36
4 <36
4 <36
11 <3-83
11 <3-48
11 <3-1546
6 P
6 P
7 164-2500 mg/1
4 P
4 <10-7571
10 P
7 5-8200
4 <10-86
4 ND-12,000
4 P
4 4.6-4620
I P
6 0.02-4550
4 <0-340
4 440-8700
4 460-940
4 ND-460
4 <38
11 <3-48
4 <10-68
(coati nued )
-------
TABLE
Pollutant
Contaminant Group*
p-chlorophenylmethy1 aulfone
p-chlorophenyl methyl
sulfoxide
CI
S
CN
A,
H
Co
COD
C
Color
Cyclohexane
s,
T
Cr
P
Cu
P
DDT
H,
S,
T
Dibromoch1oromethane
p,
T
Dibutyl phthalate
H,
p,
T
2-6-dichlorobenzamide
Dichlorobenzene
H,
p,
S
4, 4'-Dichlorobenzophenone
3, 3'-dichloro [1, -1'-
Diphenyl]-4, 4"-diamine
1, 1-dichloroethane
H,
p,
T
1, 2-dichloroethane
H,
p.
S
trans-1, 2-dichloroethane
H,
P
Dichloroethylene
H,
P,
S
1, 1-dichloroethylene
H,
P.
S
1, 2-dichloroethylene
H,
P
Dich1oromethane
M,
P,
S
1, 2-Dichloropropane
H,
S
1) irh1oropropene
H,
P,
S
1 (continued)
Contaminant Concentration
Classifi- Range No. of Sites
cation** Reported*** Reported
4 <10-40 1
4 <10-53 1
8 3.65-9920 mg/l 6
8 0.5-14,000 2
7 10-220 1
8 24.6-41,400 mg/l 6
8 50-4,000 color units 1
2 <0.4-22.0 1
7 1-208,000 7
7 1-16,000 9
10 4.28-14.26 1
6 3.9 1
12 21.732 mg/l 1
4 890-30,000 1
4 <10-517 2
4 <38 1
3 <84-1600 1
6 <5-14,280 2
6 2.1-4500 5
6 25-8150 2
6 10,000 1
6 28-19,850 5
6 0.2 1
6 3.1-6570 4
6 <22 1
6 P 1
(cont inued)
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
Contaminant
Concentration
Pollutant
Classi fi-
Range
No. of Sites
Contaminant
Group*
cation**
Reported***
Reported
Dicyclopentadiene
2
80-1200
1
Dieldrin A,
H, P, S
10
<2-4 .5
1
1, 2-Diethylbenzene
4
7971
1
Diisopropyl me thylphosphonate
2
400-3600
1
Dimethyl aniline
4
<10-6940
1
Dimethyl ether
5
10-100 mg/l
1
1, 4-Dimethyl-2-(1-methyl-
4
11,913
1
ethyl) benzene
1, 2-Dimethyl naphthalene
13
<1,453
1
Dimethyl pentene
2
10-100 mg/l
1
2, 3-Dimethy1-2-pentene
2
<8.6
1
Dimethylphenol
S
11
<3
1
2, 4-Dinitrophenol H,
P, S, T
11
10-99
Diphenyldiazine
4
<36
1
Dipropyl phthalate
12
<3883
1
Endrin A,
P, s
10
<2-9
1
Ethanol
1
56,400
1
2-Ethoxyethanola
1
3,300
1
1-Ethoxypropane
2
87,000
1
m-ethylaniline
4
<10-7640
1
Ethyl benzene
P, s
4
3.0-10,115
4
(1-Ethyldecy1) benzene
4
<36
1
l-ethyl-2, 4-dimethyl benzene
4
<1453.0
1
2-ethyl-l, 4-dimethyl benzene
4
<1453.0
1
2-ethyl-l, 3-dimethyl benzene
4
<1453.0
1
l-ethyl-3, 5-dimethyl benzene
4
12,507.0
1
4-ethyl-l, 2-dimethyl benzene
4
<1453.0
1
1-ethy1-2-isopropyl benzene
4
<1453.0
1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
Contaminant
Concentration
Pollutant
Classi fi-
Range
No. of Sites
Contaminant
Group*
cation***
Reported**
Reported
2-ethylhexanol
1
ND-23,000
2
2-ethy1-4-methy1-1-pentanol
1
22,168.0
1
(1-Ethylnonyl) benzene
4
<36
1
(1-Ethylocty1) benzene
1-ethylpropylphenol
4
<36
11
<3.0
1
l-ethyl-2, 4, 5-trimethyl benzene
4
<1453.0
1
5-ethyl-l, 2, 4-trimethyl benzene
4
<1453.0
1
F
A,
H
7
140-1300
1
Fe
7
90-678,000
Halogenated Organics
8
2-15,900
1
Hardness, as CaCo3
8
700-4650 mg/l
Heavy Organics
8
0.01-0.59 mg/l
1
Heptachlor
A,
H,
P. s
10
573
1
3-heptanone
2
ND-1300
1
1-Heptyl-l, 2, 3, 4-tetra-
12
<36
1
hydro-4-methy1-naphthaiene
32-<100
Hexachlorobenzene
H,
P,
T
4
1
Hexachlorobutadiene
H,
P.
T
6
<20-109
Hexachlorocyclohexane:
H,
P,
T
alpha isomer
H,
P,
T
2
ND-600
1
beta isomer
H,
P.
T
2
ND-70
1
gamma isomer
H.
P,
T
2
ND-600
1
delta isomer
H,
P,
T
2
ND-120
1
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
H,
P,
S, T
6
<100
1
Hexane
2
10-100 mg/l
1
Hg
P
7
0.5-7.0
7
Hydrocarbons
8
<36-42,760
2
(continued)
-------
Contaminant
p-isobutylamisolaaor
p-acetonylanisol
Isopropanol
Isoprophylphenol
K
Kepone
Light Organics
Limonene
MBAS
Methanol
1-(2-Methoxy-l-methyleth-
oxy)-2 propanol
1-Methoxy-2-propanol
2-Methy1-2-butanol
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylcyclopentanol
(1-Methyldecyl) benzene
Methylene chloride
Methylethyl benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
l-Methyl-3-(1-methy1-
ethany1)-cyclohexane
l-Methyl-3-(1-methylethy1)
benzene
1-Methy1-4-(1-methylethyl)
benzene
Methyl naphthalene
(continued)
Contaminant Concentration
Classifi- Range No. of Sites
cation** Reported*** Reported
4 <3-86
1 <100
11 3-8
7 6.830-961 mg/l
10 2000
8 1.0-1000 mg/l
4 P
8 240
1 42,400
1 <2168
1 66,000
1 87,000
2 <0.4-11
1 1.7-2.168 mg/l
4 <36
2 <0.3 mg/1-184 mg/l
4 <1453.0
2 53 mg/l
2 2-10 mg/l
2 <1453.0
4 <1453.0
4 <1453.0
13 <10-290
(cont
nued)
-------
TABLE
Pollutant
Contaminant Group*
1-Methyl naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthalene
(1-Methylnony1) benzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanol
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Methylphenol
1-Methy1-4-phenoxybenzene
(2-Methyl-l-propenyl) benzene
(1-Methylundecy1) benzene
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Naphthalene H, P, S,
Nemagon
NH j-N
NH i,-N
Ni H
nicotinic acid A, H
o-nitroaniline
p-nitroaniline A, H
nitrobenzene H, P, S,
N02-N
NO 3-N
o-nitrophenol P. S
n-nitrosodiphenylamine A, H
Octachlorocyclopentene
Oil and grease C
(continued)
Contaminant
Classifi-
cation* *
Concentration
Range
Reported***
No. of Sites
Reported
13
<1453.0
1
13
<1453.0
1
4
<36
1
1
140 mg/1
1
1
110 mg/1
1
11
<8.0-210
1
4
<8.4 to 670
1
4
<1453.0
1
4
<36
1
7
25-453 mg/1
3
7
0.010-550 mg/1
4
7
100-240
3
7
4.6-1350 mg/1
5
13
<10 mg/l-18,698
2
10
<1-8
1
8
<0.010-1000 mg/l
3
8
650
1
7
20-48,000
4
4
P
1
4
170-180 mg/l
1
4
32-47 mg/l
1
4
ND-740
1
8
<10- 100
2
8
10- 100
3
11
8600-12,000
1
3
190
1
6
<100
1
8
90 mg/l
1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3
Pollutant
Contaminant Group*
u>
Paraffins
Pb H, P
Pentachlorophenol A, H, P, S
(1-Pentylheptyl) benzene
Perchloroethylene P, T
Petroleum oil
pH C
Phenanthrene or anthracene P
Phenol H, P, S, T
Phenols H, P, S, T
Phthalate esters
Phthalates P
Pinene
POi,
Polynuclear aromatics P
(1-Propylheptyl) benzene
(1-Propylnonyl) benzene
(1-Propylocty1) benzene
Sb H, P
Se H, P
SO.,
SOC
Specific Conductance ( mhos/cm)
SS C
Styrene S
SuIf ide
TDS
Temperature
(continued)
Contaminant
Classifi-
cation**
Concentration
Range
Reported* **
No. of Sites
Reported
2 P 1
7 1-19,000 6
11 2400 1
4 <36 1
6 ND-8200 5
13 P 1
8 ^3-7.9 (pH scale) 7
13 <10-670 1
11 <3-17,000 4
11 0.008-54.17 1
12 P 1
12 P 1
2 P 1
8 <10-2740 4
13 3400 1
4 36 1
4 36 1
4 36 1
7 2000 1
7 3-590 4
8 1.2-505 mg/1 4
8 4200 mg/1 1
8 80-2000 2
8 <3-1040 mg/1 4
4 P 1
8 <100 1
8 1455-15,700 mg/1 4
8 58-63° F 1
(continued)
-------
Contaminant
1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloro-
ethane
Tetrachloroethene
1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloro-
ethene
Tetrachloromethane
1, 2, 3, 5-Tetramethyl
benzene
1, 2, 4, 5-Tetramethyl
benzene
Thiobismethane
TKN
TOC
Toluene
Total Inorganic Carbon
Total P
Total Solids
Tribromomethane
1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Trichloroethane
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tr ichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichloromethane
2, 4, 5-Trichlorophenol
Trichlorotoluenes
(continued)
Contaminant
Class!fi-
cation**
Concentration
Range
Reported***
No. of Sites
Reported
6
6
6
4
2
8
8
4
8
8
8
6
4
11
4
<5-1590
1
<1-89,155
3
0.6-560
1
<1-25,000
3
36,479
1
<1,453
1
<1 .0-290
1
<1-984 mg/l
4
.9-8,700 mg/l
8
<5-100,000
7
71,000
1
<100-3200
2
159-1730 mg/l
1
0.2
1
<10-28
2
P-35,000
2
6 yg/l-590 mg/l
5
<5-870
2
<3-84,000
4
<3-260,000
4
<5-18
1
<1- 10,000
1
P
I
3,300 mg/l
1
(cont i nued)
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
Contaminant
Concentration
Pollutant
Classi fi-
Range
No. of Sites
Contaminant
Group*
cation**
Reported***
Reported
Trimethylbenzene
4
P
1
1, 2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
4
13.702 mg/l
1
1, 2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
4
11.239 mg/l
1
1, 3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
4
37.113 mg/1
1
Vinyl Chloride
H, P,
T
6
140-32,500
1
Xylene
s.
T
4
P-5400
2
m-xylene
s.
T
4
19.708 mg/l
1
o-xylene
s.
T
4
1453
p-xylene
s,
T
4
48.170 mg/1
1
ND - not detected
P - present, but not quantified
a - structure not validated by actual compound
* - Codes for Pollutant Groups
C - Conventional pollutants (per Clean Water Act and Treatability Manual, Vol.
Ill)
P - Priority pollutants
A - RCRA list - Acute hazardous
H - RCRA list - Hazardous
T - RCRA list - Toxic
S - Section 311 compound
- (a blank indicates that the compound does not fall into one of the above
groups)
(cont inued)
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
** Codes for Contaminant Classification
1 - Alcohol
2 - Aliphatic
3 - Amine
4 - Aromatic - nonhalogenated and halogenated aromatic compounds
5 - Ether
6 - Halocarbon-halogenated aliphatic compounds
7 - Metal
8 - Miscellaneous - including selected priority pollutants, pH, BOD, TOC, COD,
chloride, sulfate, phosphate, and other parameters
generally used to characterize wastewaters.
9 - PCB
10 - Pesticide
11 - Phenol - including chloro- and nitro- phenols
12 - Phthalate
13 - Polynuclear Aromatic
*** Concentrations in pg/l unless otherwise noted
-------
To the extent possible, Table 3-1 identifies pollutant
types as defined by: the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA), the Clean Water Act of 1977(CWA),
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), and
the Treatability Manual (2). Specifically, the pollutant groups
used are:
• conventional pollutants*
• priority pollutants
• Section 311 compounds
• RCRA list of acutely hazardous compounds [261.33 (e)]
• RCRA list of hazardous compounds (Appendix VIII)
• RCRA list of toxic compounds [261.33 (f)]
In order to more easily identify RCRA compounds, the manual
user is referred to Appendix B. The appendix contains an alpha-
betical listing of the three categories of RCRA pollutants con-
tained in Subpart D of the Hazardous Waste and Consolidated
Permit Regulations (3), i.e., acutely hazardous, hazardous, and
toxic.
Table 3-1 serves several useful purposes:
It provides a quick reference of the various compounds
identified at problem sites in alphabetical order.
It defines the pollutant group into which the compound
falIs .
It classifies the compounds according to twelve chemical
classes similar to those used for priority pollutants.
It specifies the ranges of concentratons encountered at
actual hazardous waste disposal sites.
It indicates frequency of occurrence at actual waste
sites previously investigated.
It places the data in a framework useful for development
~conventional pollutants as used in the Treatability Manual
include BOD5, COD, TOC, TSS, oil and grease, total phenol, total
phosphorus, TKN, and total organic chlorine. This differs from
the CWA (Section 301) list of BODs, TSS, fecal coliform, oil and
grease, and pH.
3-15
-------
of treatment alternatives.
Conventional pollutant concentration data for six of the
sites (5, 6, 10, 11, 22, and 23) listed in Appendix A are given
in Table 3-2. Data on most of the pollutants listed in Table
3-2 were available for only six sites. Isolated conventional
pollutant values from other sites were not included.
The conventional pollutant parameters listed in Table 3-2
are important because they usually have a significant influence
on the treatment process to be selected. The range, median and
arithmatic mean values contained in Table 3-2 provide insight
into the character.of these wastes with respect to how they may
be treated. Although the data are limited, three to five values
can be useful to form at least a preliminary concept.
TABLE 3-2. LIST OF CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATIONS REPORTED AT SIX SITES
Median Arithmetic Number of
Pollutant
Range
Value
Mean
Values(1)
BOD
42
—
10,900
2,000
4,380
3
COD
24.6
-
18,600
7,100
7,794
5
TOC
10.9
-
4,300
1, 160
1,350
4
Alkalinity
20.6
-
5,400
228(2)
1, 950
3
pH
6.3
-
7.9
6.9
6.
9
4
TDS
320(3)
-
15,700
1,830
6,460
5
SS
<3
-
1,000
163
342
4
NH 3-N
<0.01
-
1,000
130
377
3
TKN
0.65
-
984
5.5
248
4
NO 3 —N
<0.012
-
<0.1
0.025
<0.
05
3
PO„-P
<0.01
_
<0.1
0.04
<0.
05
3
(1)Average values from specific sites.
(2)Estimated from inorganic carbon and pH.
(3)Estimated from conductivity (640 mmhos x 0.5).
3-16
-------
A survey of ground and surface water quality in the
vicinity of 43 industrial waste disposal sites (landfills and
impoundments) is summarized in Table 3-3. This summary is a
further indication of the type of pollutants found at hazardous
waste disposal sites. Note that these data, although less de-
tailed than those shown in Appendix A, also have widely variable
concentration ranges.
TABLE 3-3
CHARACTERIZATION OF HAZARDOUS LEACHATE AND GROUNDWATER
FROM 43 LANDFILL SITES (1)
Concentration Typical Cone. No. of Sites
Pollutant Range (mg/1) (mg/1) Where Detected
As
0.03
-
5.8
0.2
5
Ba
0.01
-
3.8
0.25
24
Cr
0.01
-
4.20
0.02
10
Co
0.01
-
0.22
0.03
11
Cu
0.01
-
2.8
0.04
15
CN
0.005
-
14
0.008
14
Pb
0.3
-
19
-
3
Hg
0.0005
-
0.0008
0.0006
5
Mo
0.15
-
0.24
-
2
Ni
0.02
-
0.67
0.15
16
Se
0.01
-
0.59
0.04
21
Zn
0.1
-
240
3.0
9
Organics
1.0
-
1000
80
10
Organics
0.002
-
15.9
0.005
5
Organics
0.01
-
0. 59
0.1
8
Original Source of Data:
Geraghty and Miller, Inc. The Prevalence of Subsurface
Migration of Hazardous Chemical Substances at Selected
Industrial Waste Land Disposal Sites. EPA/530/SW-634,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.
Even though the data base presented above has deficiencies,
it does provide guidance in formulating treatment alternatives
provided that data are used with caution, recognizing that
leachate from secured landfills may have higher concentrations.
3.3 LEACHATE CATEGORIZATION
In order to extend the usefulness of the existing data
3-17
-------
base, and to gain additional insight into the probable nature of
hazardous waste leachates, a categorization 9ystem was devised
to group site composition data contained in Appendix A according
to the concentration of inorganic and organic constituents. In
this way, treatment alternatives potentially could be visualized
better. Hence, a matrix illustrated in Figure 3-1, was prepared
to show the concentrations of inorganic and organic constituents
in "high", "medium", and "low" ranges. In general, the working
definitions of these terms are as follows:
Hazardous Hazardous
Inorganic Organic
Constituent Constituent
High greater than 5 times
water quality
criteria*
Medium from 2 to 5 times
water quality
criteria*
Low less than water
quality criteria*
greater than 400 yg/l
from 5 to 400 yg/l
less than 5 Ug/1
In addition to the hazardous constituents, if another parameter
such as BOD or TOC was reported in significant amounts (BOD >20
mg/1 or TOC >10 mg/1), the waste stream was considered to fall
into the high organic category. Although this system is not
rigorous, it does permit a useful grouping of the actual waste
streams.
Inspection of the matrix reveals that most of the actual
waste streams fall into one of two categories: high organic-low
inorganic or low organic-high inorganic. Fewer sites fell into
categories where both inorganic and organic components were
significant. Taking into account the fact that most of the data
used to construct this matrix were derived from situations where
migration and dilution had occurred, it is reasonable to assume
that actual hazardous waste leachates will fall into the higher
concentration categories. Thus, this matrix suggests that most
leachate treatment situations will involve aqueous streams con-
taining primarily either inorganic or organic contaminants at
relatively high concentrations. Situations will arise, however,
where both organic and inorganic contaminants will be present in
*Water quality criteria derived from Quality Criteria for Water,
U.S. E.P.A., Washington, D.C., July, 1976.
3-18
-------
FIGURE 3-1
WASTE STREAM CATEGORIZATION MATRIX
INORGANICS CONCENTRATION
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
0
R
G
A
N
1
C
S
C
0
N
C
E
N
T
R
A
T
1
0
N
H
I
G
H
M
E
D
I
U
M
L
0
W
Sites 006
Oil
Site 010
Sites
Site
002
Sites
001
002
003
005
021
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
030
008
009
013
Sites
004
012
014
015
016
018
3-19
-------
leachates. The exact nature of the leachate, of course, will be
dependent upon the materials disposed to any given site.
3.4 REFERENCES
1. Shuckrow, A. J., A. P. Pajak, and J. W. Osheka.
Concentration Technologies for Hazardous Aqueous Waste
Treatment. EPA-600/2-81-019, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1981.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Treatability
Manual, Volume I. Treatability Data and Volume III
Technologies for Control/Removal of Pollutants. EPA-
600/8-80-042a and EPA-600/8-80-042c, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., July, 1980.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste
and Consolidated Permits Regulations. Federal Register.
Vol. 45, No. 98, May 19, 1980.
3-20
-------
SECTION 4
HAZARDOUS WASTE LEACHATE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
4.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
In the broadest sense, leachate management options include
all of the decision factors throughout the entire hazardous
waste management process which have an impact on the nature or
generation potential of leachate. Thus, consideration of
leachate management options could begin with the manufacturing
process and extend through the hazardous waste management chain
to leachate treatment/disposal operations. This concept ig
illustrated in Figure 4-1 which divides the hazardous waste
management process into four elements: (1) waste generation, (2)
hazardous waste treatment, (3) disposal site management, and (4)
leachate treatment/disposal.
As indicated in Figure 4-1, hazardous waste generation can
be minimized by:
• substituting raw materials,
• modifying manufacturing processes to reduce waste gener-
ation and/or to use recycled materials,
• segregating hazardous and non-hazardous wastes,
• reclaiming constituents in the hazardous waste for reuse
or sale, and
• exchanging wastes with entities capable of using them in
their production process.
Detailed consideration of the above measures is beyond the sccpe
of this manual because source reduction is highly facility spe-
cific. Moreover, leachate management is only one of a number of
complex considerations which enter into decisions about changes
in the manufacturing process.
Therefore, this section deals with three leachate manage-
ment options:
4-1
-------
MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
AFFECTING LEACHATE GENERATION
raw material substiution
non-hazardous
Waste
hazardous
waste
waste blending or segregation
recovery
treatment
encapsulation
stabilization
residue/by-product destruction
hazardous
waste
non-hazardous
'waste
site design to control
leachate generation
segregation of wastes or leachates
that complicate treatment
leachate collection
leachate
• off-site treatment/disposal
• on-site treatment
- effluent discharge
- residue disposal
WASTE
GENERATION
LEACHATE
TREATMENT/
DISPOSAL
DISPOSAL
SfTE
MANAGEMENT
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
TREATMENT
Figure 4-1. Waste management options - effect on leachate
generation.
4-2
-------
(1) Hazardous Waste Treatment - processing hazardous waste
prior to disposal to reduce or eliminate the hazardous
properties of the waste, or to reduce the potential
leachability of the waste;
(2) Disposal Site Management - managing the disposal site
to control the quantity of leachate generated, and/or
to effect the nature and treatability of the leachate;
(3) Leachate Treatment/Disposal - processing the leachate
to render it acceptable for discharge or ultimate dis-
posal .
Hence, leachate generation and its treatment/disposal is
influenced directly by precedent hazardous waste treatment and
disposal site options. In order to deal effectively with
leachate,. it is important that the reader have a thorough under-
standing of all the various options available. However, as a
practical matter, site operators may not have full control over
some of these options, and it is expected that leachate will be
generated at most sites.
Thus, the central focus of this section is upon leachate
management subsequent to leachate generation. Because companion
manuals in this series discuss facets of waste treatment and
disposal site management in detail, this manual provides only
brief descriptions of some options, referring the user to the
appropriate companion manuals for details. On the other hand,
information on leachate treatment/disposal options from this
section forms the basis of the remainder of this report.
4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT
Treatment prior to disposal of hazardous waste can accom-
plish one or more of the following:
(1) detoxification of the entire waste stream;
(2) concentration of hazardous constituents in a reduced
volume waste stream which can be further treated, de-
toxified, destroyed, or reused;
(3) fixation of the waste in a matrix which will inhibit
leaching; and
(4) encapsulation of the waste to prevent leaching.
The treatment approach chosen in any given instance depends upon
numerous factors including waste characteristics, degree of
treatment necessary, and availabililty and cost of materials.
In addition, treatment may be undertaken at the point of gener-
ation of the waste or at a central waste treatment facility.
4-3
-------
Whereas treatment at the point of generation would involve an
approach highly specific to wastes generated at a given site, a
central hazardous waste treatment facility generally will
include several treatment operations to permit processing a
variety of wastes.
Decisions to treat or not to treat a hazardous waste prior
to disposal and how best to accomplish such treatment involve a
number of complex factors and are highly situation specific.
Moreover, the factors involved encompass broader concerns than
leachate management.
Companion resource documents in this -EPA. series describe
various aspects of hazardous waste treatment in detail. Perti-
nent documents include:
Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment?
Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Incineration;
Engineering Handbook for Hazardous Waste
Incineration;
Guide to the Disposal of Chemically Stabilized and
Solidified Wastes, SW-872; and
Hazardous Waste Land Treatment, SW-874.
The interested reader is referred to the above resource docu-
ments for in depth discussions of various hazardous waste
treatment technologies. Briefly, the technologies which may be
employed to accomplish detoxification or concentration of a
hazardous constituent include:
This list is not exhaustive. It also should be noted that the
technologies listed are unit processes which often are used as
components of a larger process train (treatment system). More-
over, these treatment techniques produce secondary waste streams
Air stripping
Biological treatment
Carbon adsorption
Centrifugation
Dissolution
Distillation
Evaporaton
Filtration
Flocculation
Flotation
High gradient
magnetic separation
Incineration
Ion exchange
Liquid ion exchange
Liquid-liquid
solvent extraction
Oxidation/Reduction
Precipitation
Resin adsorption
Reverse osmosis
Sedimentation
Steam stripping
Ultrafiltration
Wet oxidation
4-4
-------
which themselves require further treatment or disposal. Such
waste residues, sludges, or brines may or may not be hazardous.
Of greatest concern to the user of this manual is the nature of
the secondary hazardous waste stream and its potential impact on
leachate generation.
Another pre-disposal treatment procedure can be used to
minimize the leachability of a waste. The goal of solidifica-
tion/fixation is to decrease the solubility and/or increase the
volume-to-surface area ratio of the hazardous waste, limiting
the mobility of a compound through the landfill or surface
impoundment. This is normally accomplished by chemically or
physically binding the waste to a fixing agent or by encapsu-
lating the waste. The technique does not actually ..detoxify the
waster rather, it reduces the rate of release of toxic constit-
uents .
Six types of chemical stabilization methods are listed
below:
• silicate and cement based
• lime based
• self-cementing
• thermoplastic based
• organic polymer based
• vitrification
The advantages, disadvantages, and the most applicable waste
type for each stabilization technique are shown in Table 4-1.
Most of the listed methods are applicable primarily to inorganic
wastes.
Encapsulation involves combining the waste with a small
amount of a binder material, forming the mixture into a suitable
shape, and then coating it with a jacket of material such as
polyethylene. The resulting product is very water resistant; it
is also virtually leach-free as long as the jacket is intact.
Encapsulation has not been demonstrated on a large scale.
4.3 DISPOSAL SITE MANAGEMENT
Several opportunities exist to control or limit leachate
formation at the hazardous waste landfill or impoundment. These
methods generally involve limiting water percolation into and
through the disposal site by means of liners, covers, and other
liquid diversion techniques. The reader is referred to the fol-
lowing technical resource documents for detailed discussions of
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-1. STABILIZATION/FIXATION TECHNIQUES
STABILIZATION APPLICABLE
TECHNOLOGY PROCESS WASTES ADVANTAGES Dt SADVANTACES
Cisent snd silicate
batid solidification/
flxitloa
Chemical f1vat Ion/
solidification
Dry or wet Employ9 Inexpensive materials
(generally Tolciant of diverse chemical
Inorganic) condltIons
Very effective with heavy netal
wastes
Represents highly developed
technology
Some organic* dccrlne.ical to *et-
tlng of conerete
Uncoated certcnt/sluJge clxtures
subject to degradation and 1 cach-
ing under conditions of lou ril
Increased weight and size of vaste
Increase transport and landfllllng
costs
I
-------
TABLE 4-1 (continued)
Vltrlfleatloa
Phytic*! fixation
Dry
Vitrified satcrlal has an
extremely low leach race
Provides a high degree of
containment
Eaploys Inexpensive materials
High temperatures Bay vaporize
some hazardous waste constitu-
ents before they are fixed
Requires large heat expenditure,
expensive equipment, and skilled
personnel
Costs prohibitive to all but high
level radioactive and extrtzely
toxic wastes
Encapsulation
Chalcil containment Dry or vet
Product is very water resistant
Virtually leach-fret as long as
the Inert Jacket la Intact
Life cycle cost Is competitive
or lower than other technologies
Leadiin? will convenee If Jacket
Is daaaged
Not demonstrated on a large scale.
•I
-J
-------
these various techniques:
Evaluating Cover Systems for Solid and Hazardous Waste,
SW-86 7;
Hydrologic Simulation on Solid Waste Disposal Sites,
SW-863;
Landfill and Surface Impoundment Performance Evaluation,
SW-869;
Lining of Waste Impoundment and Disposal Facilities,
SW-870; and
Closure of Hazardous Waste Surface Impoundments, SW-
873.
Another disposal site management option which may Impact
leachate composition is waste segregation prior to disposal.
That is, it may be desirable to dispose of certain types of
wastes in separate cells at the site or exclude others alto-
gether. Such an approach could be used to avoid combining
wastes which would ultimately complicate leachate treatment.
Decisions regarding waste segregation, however, include factors
in addition to leachate management considerations and are, to a
large degree, site specific. Therefore, such evaluations must
be made on a case-by-case basis.
Regardless of measures adopted to limit leachate gener-
ation, a leachate is likely to be formed, especially in areas
where precipitation exceeds evaporation and/or at sites used for
disposal of liquid-containing hazardous wastes. Thus, leachate
collection and storage systems are an integral part of disposal
site management.
The need for and methods of leachate collection depend on
local conditions at the site. Leachate volume fluctuations make
collection and storage key factors in treating hazardous waste
leachate. The volume of leachate can vary significantly with
time because of rainfall and snowmelt conditions that may affect
the landfilled area. Effective collection allows for an equal-
izing and storage capability which will reduce overloading and
avoid possible reduction in subsequent treatment process effi-
ciency. Collection and storage may also allow for a reduction
in the necessary equipment cost by providing for periodic or
batch treatment of the leachate. This potentially could permit
a mobile unit to treat the leachate from several sites on a ro-
tating basis, increasing treatment unit utilization and de-
creasing individual site cost.
The remainder of this manual focuses on managing leachate
subsequent to generation and collection.
4-8
-------
4.4 LEACHATE MANAGEMENT
Once leachate has been collected, numerous alternatives
exist for treatment and disposal. Treatment can be accomplished
either off-site or on-site. By using off-site treatment, dis-
posal from the landfill operator's perspective also is accom-
plished. In the case of on-site treatment, disposal options must
be examined in concert with treatment options because of the
different degrees of treatment which may be required. Typi-
cally, disposal can be accomplished by:
• discharge to receiving surface waters,
• discharge to publicly owned treatment works,
• shipment to a hazardous waste treatment facility,
• deep well injection, or
• land treatment.
In the remainder of this section, off-site treatment is
discussed briefly and important considerations are identified.
Then, an overview of on-site treatment is presented (available
treatment technologies are.discussed in Section 5) and disposal
considerations are discussed.
4.4.1 Off-Site Treatment/Disposal Options
Off-site treatment/disposal of leachate for purposes of
this manual refers to treatment/disposal at a facility not asso-
ciated with the landfill or surface impoundment operation. Pri-
mary off-site treatment/disposal alternatives include:
• publicly owned treatment works (POTVf),
• hazardous waste treatment/disposal facilities, and
• industrial waste treatment facilities.
Technologies used at an off-site facililty can be any of
those listed in Section 5 of this manual. Other possible tech-
nologies include land treatment and deep well injection. The
former technology serves as both a treatment and disposal pro-
cess while the latter is a disposal mechanism.
Primary concerns of the owner of the leachate generating
facility need not be with the technologies employed at an ap-
proved off-site facility but rather with proper manifesting,
on-site storage, transportation, and pretreatment of the
leachate and the associated economics. The reader is reminded
that if the leachate is determined to be a hazardous waste, it
4-9
-------
must be managed the same as any other hazardous waste. This
means that if it is transported to another site for any purpose
(treatment/disposal) the hazardous waste manifest requirements
(under RCRA) must be satisfied.
Additionally, if the leachate generating facility col-
lects hazardous leachate in surface.impoundments either for
storage prior to transport off the site or as part of the on-
site treatment process, the impoundment must comply with perti-
nent RCRA regulations. Additional information on impoundment
design and performance can be found in the following technical
resource documents:
• Lining of Waste Impoundment and Disposal Facilities,
SW-870,
• Landfill and Surface Impoundment Performance Evaluation,
SW-869, and
• Closure of Hazardous Waste Surface Impoundment, SW-873.
Numerous factors should be evaluated before selecting or
approving an off-site treatment/disposal option. Costs and
guarantees provided by the off-site facility will be major con-
siderations. However, other important factors (which may or may
not influence costs) also should be considered:
• availability and proximity of an approved off-site
facility;
• technologies employed at the off-site facility?
• need for pretreatment prior to shipment off site?
• duration of the required service?
• projected operating life of the off-site facility;
• regulatory agency limitations on the off-site facility
including air, water, and waste permits;
• capacities of the off-site facility;
• reliability of service which can be provided by the
off-site facility?
• quantity of hazardous leachate to be transported and
methods of transport;
• public attitudes or other constraints to shipment of the
hazardous leachate?
4-10
-------
• capability to establish on-site treatment including cap-
ital, land, and qualified personnel;
• disposal options if on-site treatment is feasible;
• expected variations in leachate quality during the life
of the disposal site including post-closure period? and
• ability of the off-site facility to accept varying qual-
ity leachates or availability of another facility to ac-
cept leachate should quality or quantity change due to
changes in disposal site practices or aging of the dis-
posal site.
For a number of reasons, it is expected that off-site treatment
will be feasible only in a limited number of cases. In most
instances, neither ?OTWs nor industrial waste treatment facil-
ities will be available at reasonable distances or will be tech-
nically capable of accepting hazardous leachate while still sat-
isfying their permit requirements. It also is unlikely that
such facilities will assume the potential liabilities associated
with accepting a hazardous leachate which is expected to vary in
composition and quantity. Therefore, stringent pretreatment re-
quirements probably would be imposed making on-site treatment a
necessity.
Leachate treatment at a central hazardous waste treatment
facility is likely to be technically feasible. Transportation
costs are expected to be a key factor in determining the via-
bility of this option, at least until more approved hazardous
waste treatment facilities become available.
4.4.2 Qn-Site Treatment/Disposal
On-site hazardous leachate treatment can be used to ac-
complish either pretreatment of the leachate with discharge to
another facility for additional treatment before disposal or
treatment complete enough to meet direct discharge limitations.
Pretreatment processes will be dictated by the capabilities of
the subsequent off-site facility. Objectives of pretreatment
could be to:
• equalize leachate quality and quantity fluctuations and
provide short term storage;
• adjust pH to within acceptable limits for discharge
to a POTW;
• reduce concentrations of toxic components to acceptable
levels for discharge to a PCTW;
4-11
-------
• remove hazardous constituents so that a portion of the
leachate can be judged non-hazardous; the hazardous or
non-hazardous fraction could be shipped to off-site
treatment; or
• reduce the volume of leachate transported off-site.
Complete treatment, on th*=> other hand, should produce an
effluent suitable for discharge to surface water or groundwater.
Thus, the major difference between complete on-site treatment
and pretreatment is likely to be the extent of the treatment.
That is, the treatment technologies are essentially the same,
but the extent of application will differ depending upon ef-
fluent objectives.
Potential leachate treatment technologies are discussed in
Section 5. Unfortunately, there has been very little actual
application of these technologies to hazardous waste leachate
treatment. However, experience with other applications can be
used to guide selection of leachate treatment schemes. Section
6 of this manual addresses the various decision factors involved
in selection of leachate treatment sequences.
Most leachate treatment processes will result in the pro-
duction of by-products such as sludges, air pollution control
residues, spent adsorption or ion exchange materials, or- fouled'
membranes which also'require disposal. Because these materials
will contain hazardous constituents, they also must be dealt
with as hazardous wastes. One apparent alternative is on-site
disposal. Another is off-site disposal; however, manifest re-
quirements and transportation costs are disadvantages. Treat-
ment of the residue by dewatering, fixation, or other methods
prior to disposal will be influenced by disposal site require-
ments and residue handling procedures. Residue disposal con-
siderations may be the determining factor in selection of a
leachate management technique.
In addition to treatment technology, other considerations
important to design of an effective on-site leachate management
program include:
• sampling and monitoring of raw leachate composition and
quality of effluent and by-product streams,
• manifesting of hazardous leachate and residues shipped
off the site,
• personnel safety and training,
• routine maintenance,
• contingency plans and emergency provisions, and
4-12
-------
• equipment redundancies and back-up.
These items are discussed in further detail in Sections 7 and 8
of this manual.
One possible approach to on-site leachate management
which is not discussed subsequently is leachate recycling. This
approach involves the controlled collection and recirculation of
leachate through a landfill for the purpose of promoting rapid
landfill stabilization. The precise mode of operation of
leachate recycling is poorly understood since it has only re-
cently been investigated in sanitary landfill simulations.
Therefore, the state of development of this technique is judged
to be insufficient for it to merit further consideration as a
primary approach to hazardous waste leachate management at this
time. However, leachate recycling may have some merit as an
interim measure under certain circumstances as discussed in
Section 6.
4.5 SUMMARY
This section described various hazardous waste leachate
management options. Methods to minimize waste generation were
judged to be beyond the scope of this manual. Treatment of haz-
ardous wastes prior to emplacement influence leachate gener-
ation, but are dealt with in detail in other technical resource
documents. Likewise, disposal site management options are des-
cribed in detail elsewhere. Hence, the principal focus was upon
leachate management, i.e., treatment and disposal, which can be
performed either off-site or at the waste disposal site. 3ased
upon the findings of this section, on-site treatment/disposal is
the most likely option. Therefore, as indicated above, this
manual will emphasize the on-site treatment/disposal alterna-
tive .
4-13
-------
SECTION 5
LEACHATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
5.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
The objective of this section is to provide information on
technologies which have potential application to hazardous waste
leachate treatment. The section is organized to first present
information on the treatability of specific compounds which may
be present in leachate. This and other information then is used
to judge the potential applicability of the following twenty
unit treatment processes:
These processes then are organized into categories based upon
application potential and operating experience. A matrix is
provided to aid identification of the most applicable processes
on the basis of leachate chemical composition.
Subsequently, attention is directed to by-products which
may be formed during leachate treatment. These include resid-
uals and gaseous emissions. Finally, capital and operating cost
information is given for selected technologies.
Because hazardous waste leachates vary widely in composi-
tion and often contain a diversity of constituents, it is likely
that process trains comprised of several unit treatment tech-
nologies will be needed to achieve high levels of treatment in
the most cost-effective manner. Thus, the information contained
in this section can be used to formulate process trains from
individual unit processes each intended to fulfill a given task.
Section 6 of this manual addresses selection of a treatment
process for a given situation and presents example process
Biological Treatment
Carbon Adsorption
Catalys is
Chemical Oxidation
Chemical Reduction
Chemical Precipitation
Crystallization
Density Separation
Dialysis/Electrodialysis
Distillation
Evaporation
Filtration
Flocculation
Ion Exchange
Resin Adsorption
Reverse Osmosis
Solvent Extraction
Stripping
Ultrafiltration
Wet Oxidation
5-1
-------
trains for selected situations.
Although research (1,2) currently is underway to better
define performance and design criteria for hazardous waste
leachate treatment technologies, actual full scale treatment
process applications are few. Activated carbon adsorption and
chemical coagulation/precipitation are the only technologies
known to have been used in larger scale applications.
Experience with sanitary landfill leachate treatment is
more extensive but is still somewhat limited. On the other
hand, many technologies have been used to treat industrial pro-
cess wastewaters containing hazardous constituents. This indus
trial experience has some applicability to leachate treatment
because of similarities in chemical constituents and discharge
goals. Thus, the • treatment technologies considered in this
manual include those which have been applied to wastes in all
three of the above categories - - hazardous waste leachate, san
itary landfill leachate, and industrial process wastewaters.
Information contained in this manual should enable the use
to identify treatment technologies which may be applicable in
given situations and to determine approximate levels of perfor-
mance. Conceptual design may be possible in some cases; how-
ever, because leachate composition will be variable and process
performance will be extremely wastewater specific, actual treat
ability studies are recommended to screen potential processes
and develop design criteria - - if a leachate is available.
5.2 TREATABILITY OF LEACHATE CONSTITUENTS
A recent Environmental Protection Agency report (1) summa-
rized data on the treatability of over 500 compounds, many of
which are listed in Subtitle C, Section 3001 of RCRA. Although
the focus of the report is on concentration technologies and it
thus does not fully address all potential leachate treatment
options, much useful information is contained therein. There-
fore the summary treatability data contained in this report is
reproduced in Appendix Table E-l. This information can be used
to guide one in the identification of potential hazardous waste
leachate treatment technologies. However, because this infor-
mation was derived from numerous studies, ranging from labora-
tory to full scale on wastewaters ranging from pure compounds t
industrial wastes and leachates, the reader is cautioned not to
directly apply these published data to a leachate treatment
situation.
Primary organization of Appendix Table E-l is by treatment
process. For each process, the treatability of individual che-n
ical compounds is given with the compounds arranged in alphabet
ical order within chemical classifications. The following
treatment processes are included:
5-2
-------
Process
Process Code No.
Used in Table E-l
B iolog ical
I
Coaqularion/'Precipitation
II
Reverse Osmosis
III
U1traf i1tra tion
IV
S tr ipping
V
Solvent Extraction
VII
Carbon Adsorption
IX
Resin Adsorption
X
Miscellaneous Sorbents
XII
The chemical classification system used is as follows:
Chemical Classification Classification Code No.
Used in Table E-l
Alcohols A
Aliphatics B
Amines C
Aromatics D
Ethers E
Halocarbons F
Metals G
PCBs I
Pesticides J
Phenols K
Phthalates L
Polynuclear Aromatics M
In order to facilitate use of Appendix Table E-l, an index
has been prepared and is presented immediately before Table E-l.
This index lists compounds contained in Table E-l in alphabet-
ical order and indicates for each compound its pollutant group
(RCRA, Section 311, or Priority Pollutant), chemical classifi-
cation (alcohol, aliphatic, etc.), and the compound code number
used in Appendix Table E-l. This latter number can be used to
locate the compound in the main table.
In order to present the large quantity of information in a
concise manner, it was necessary to code some of the information
in Table E-l. The coding system is explained in footnotes at
the end of the Appendix.
Many chemical compounds are known by several names. At-
tempts were made to use preferred or generic names according to
The Merck Index. However, in some cases it was necessary to use
the names which were used in the reference documents. Users of
Appendix E are advised to check for compounds under several oo-
tential alphabetic listings.
5-3
-------
Once the compounds of concern in a leachate have been iden-
tified, the user can refer to Appendix S to learn which treat-
ment techniques have been applied to each hazardous constitutent
found in the leachate. These techniques then can be evaljated
for treatment feasibility, and a treatment scheme can be pro-
posed based on a combination of the treatment options for the
various constituents. For example, suppose a leachate sample is
analyzed and found to contain significant concentrations of
acrylonitrile and 2-chlorophenol. Table E-l shows that acti-
vated sludge is a common treatment technique with removal effi-
ciencies of over 90% for both compounds. Thus, activated sludge
is a potentially viable treatment option. However, the waste
type listed in the table also must be considered because direct
correlation to leachate may not be possible. In this example,
the acrylonitrile treatability study was done on an industrial
wastewater and the 2-chlorophenol waste type was not known.
Activated sludge should be considered an option for leachate
control but not installed until additional testing has been com-
pleted. The information in the table should be used as a guide-
line and not as a rule.
Additional information on the treatability of 203 specific
compounds is contained in the Treatability Manual, Volume I,
Treatability Data (4). As stated in that manual, pollutants
addressed were taken from the list of 297 compounds considered
in Section 311 of the Water Pollution Control Act. Selection
was based on a consideration of pollutant toxicity and stability
in an aqueous environment. For each pollutant three items are
presented:
• description of the pure species,
• industrial occurrence, and
• treatability/removability.
It should be noted that the Treatability Manual is oriented to-
ward treatment of industrial wastewater rather than hazardous
waste leachate.
5.3 UNIT PROCESS APPLICATION POTENTIAL
As indicated in Section 5.1, twenty unit processes were
identified as possibly applicable to hazardous waste leachate
treatment. These unit processes were reviewed and assessed as
to their potential for the application of interest. Unit pro-
cess application potentials are discussed below. No attempt has
been made to provide information on the theory, design, or oper-
ation of the technologies. Descriptions of the technologies may
be found in standard texts and design manuals. References (1)
and (3) may be especially useful supplemental information
sources. Application data for several technologies to sanitary
5-4
-------
landfill leachate and industrial wastewater treatment are sum-
marized in Appendices C and D, respectively.
5.3.1 Biological Treatment
Biological processes are, in general, the most cost-effec-
tive techniques for treating aqueous waste streams containing
organic constituents. They have been applied successfully at
full scale to a wide variety of industrial wastes and sanitary
landfill, although there are no known full scale hazardous waste
treatment facilities. Environmental impacts associated with
biological processes are limited. Probably of greatest concern
in this regard is the potential release of volatile organic com-
pounds to the atmosphere as a result of aeration.
Hazardous waste leachates may contain organic compounds
which are not readily biodegradable. Therefore, it may be nec-
essary to acclimate a biological system to the waste to be
treated prior to routine operation of the process. Moreover,
leachates may contain compounds which are refractory and/or
toxic to biological systems. The presence of such compounds at
high concentrations may preclude use of biological treatment or
may necessitate use of another treatment process in conjunction
with biological treatment.
For biological processes to function, several operational
requirements must be satisfied. Most notable, near neutral pH
must be maintained and nutrient requirements (carbon, nitrogen,
and phosphorus as well as trace elements) must be satisfied.
Moreover, sudden changes in loading (both concentration and
flow) must be avoided.
Of the biological treatment options, the activated sludge
process, in one of its modifications, appears to have the great-
est potential for leachate treatment because it can be con-
trolled to the greatest extent and best lends itself to the de-
velopment of an acclimated culture. However, anaerobic filtra-
tion or anaerobic lagoons because of ease of operation, minimal
sludge production, and energy efficiencies merit consideration
in some situations. Thus, biological treatment is judged to be a
viable technolcjy which should be considered for treatment of
hazardous wastt: leachates containing organic constituents.
5-5
-------
5.3.2 Carbon Adsorption
Activated carbon adsorption is a well developed technology
which has a wide range of potential waste treatment applica-
tions. It is especially well suited for the removal of mixed
organic contaminants from aqueous wastes. Numerous examples of
full scale waste treatment applications exist. These include
treatment of a variety of industrial wastewaters, cleanup of
spilled hazardous materials, and treatment of leachates and
ground and surface waters contaminated by hazardous wastes.
No serious environmental impacts are associated with carbon
systems employing regeneration. If regeneration is not carried
out, impacts could result from the disposal of carbon contami-
nated with hazardous materials.
Energy requirements for systems employing thermal reacti-
vation are significant - approximately 14,000-18,600 kJ/kg of
carbon (6,000-8,000 Btu per pound).
Unit costs for carbon adsorption can vary widely depending
upon the waste to be treated, the adsorption system, and the
regeneration technique. However, it has been shown to be an
economical approach in numerous instances.
Carbon adsorption must be considered a viable candidate for
treatment of hazardous leachates containing organic contam-
inants. Granular activated carbon is the most well developed
approach and may be used to provide complete treatment, pre-
treatment, or effluent polishing. Combined biological-carbon
systems also appear promising for leachate treatment.
5.3.3 Catalysis
Several potential applications of catalysis to waste treat-
ment have been identified but commercial practicality has not
been demonstrated.
Catalysts generally are very selective and, while poten-
tially applicable to destruction or detoxification of a given
component of a complex waste stream, do not have broad spectrum
applicability.
5.3.4 Chemical Oxidation
Relatively poor removals of most organics are effected by
chemical oxidation; although, chemical transformations may occur
which could facilitate treatment by other processes. Inorganics
often can be transferred to a valence state which is less toxic
5-6
-------
or which facilitates precipitation. Most chemical oxidation
technologies (including ozone) are fairly well developed and
have been demonstrated successfully at full scale on several
industrial wastewaters and at laboratory scale on numerous
organic compounds representing several chemical classifications.
Applications, however, have been generally on dilute waste
streams.
Ozonation, especially, is judged to have potential for
aqueous hazardous waste treatment. It can serve as a pretreat-
ment process prior to biological treatment; it also can be used
alone or in concert with UV irradiation as the primary treat-
ment process. Combination of ozonation and granular activated
carbon has yielded mixed results; it appears that wastewater
composition greatly influences the performance of this process
train.
Oxidation using ozone or hydrogen peroxide does not
result in the formation of chlorinated organics which may be
a problem when using alkaline chlorination. Residual ozone
in the effluent decomposes but off-gases containing residual
ozone should be passed through activated carbon to decompose
the ozone.
5.3.5 Chemical Reduction
As with chemical oxidation, reduction is an effective
means of removing inorganic compounds or reducing their toxic-
ity. However, because compounds are concentrated in a pre-
cipitated sludge, this residue may require careful management.
Introduction of foreign ions into the waste is a real or
potential disadvantage with many of the reducing agents. A
major application for chemical reduction would be reduction
of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium using sulfur
dioxide, sulfite salts, or ferrous sulfate. Precipitation of
trivalent chromium as Cr(OH)3 with lime or sodium carbonate
usually follows reduction.
The process has little potential for organic waste streams.
5.3.6 Chemical Precipitation
Precipitation processes have been in full scale operation
for many years. The technique cam be applied to almost any
liquid waste stream containing a precipitable hazardous constit-
uent. Required equipment is commercially available. Associated
costs are relatively low and thus, precipitation can be applied
to relatively large volumes of liquid wastes. Energy consump-
tion also is relatively low.
5-7
-------
Precipitation processes result in the production of a wet
sludge which may be considered hazardous and must be further
processed prior to ultimate disposal. In some instances, the
potential for material recovery from this sludge exists. How-
ever, very often, non-target materials are precipitated together
with the material of interest thus complicating or eliminating
the feasibility of material recovery.
Usually, simple treatability studies must be carried out
prior to applying the process to a waste stream to determine the
chemical of choice, the degree of removal, and the required
chemical dose.
In most instances, precipitation is considered to be the
technique of choice for removal of metals (arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, fluoride, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel)
and certain anionic species (phosphates, sulfates, fluorides)
from aqueous hazardous wastes.
5.3.7 Crystallization
The inability of the crystallization process to respond to
changing wastewater characteristics and its operational complex-
ity are primary reasons why this process has not been reduced to
practice. There is no ongoing research and past efforts to
treat a variety of industrial wastewaters and sludges have had
limited success. This process is judged to have little poten-
tial for the application of interest.
5.3.8 Density Separation
Density separation, as discussed herein, includes sedimen-
tation and flotation because they are the most commonly used
techniques for solids/liquids separation in wastewater treat-
ment.
Sedimentation processes have been in use for many years,
are easy to operate, are low-cost, and consume little energy.
Required equipment is relatively simple and commercially avail-
able. The process can be applied to almost any liquid waste
stream containing settleable material. It is considered to have
high potential for leachate treatment. However, it is an ancil-
lary process which will be utilized primarily in conjunction
with some other technique such as chemical precipitation. Al-
ternatively, it may be used as a pretreatment technique prior to
another process such as carbon or resin adsorption.
Flotation is a proven solids/liquids separation technique
for certain industrial applications. It is characterized by
higher operating costs and more skilled maintenance requirements
than gravity sedimentation. Power requirements also are higher.
5-8
-------
This technique is judged to be potentially applicable but prob-
ably only in situations where the leachate contains high concen-
trations of oil and grease.
5.3.9 Dialysis/Electrodialysis
Neither dialysis nor electrodialysis have been judged to
have much applicability to hazardous waste leachate treatment.
Being most applicable for the removal of inorganic salts, they
are not well suited to mixed constituent waste streams. Both
rely heavily on recovery and reuse of at least one product
stream to offset costs. Other problems include membrane plug-
ging and deterioration and production of two output streams
neither of which can be discharged directly.
5.3.10 Distillation
Distillation is judged to have limited applicability to
treatment of complex hazardous waste leachate because of its
high cost and energy requirements. Should the leachate consist
primarily of organic solvents and halogenated organics distilla-
tion may be technically feasible although costly unless recovery
is practiced.
5.3.11 Evaporation
-
Evaporation is not expected to have broad application to the
treatment of hazardous waste leachate containing moderately
volatile organic constituents (BP 100°C-300*C). These organics
cannot be easily separated in a pretreatment stripper and will
appear in the condensate from the evaporator to some extent
depending on their volatility. Therefore, good clean separation
of these organics is not possible without post-treatment of the
condensate.
Other major disadvantages of evaporation are high capital
and operating costs, and high energy requirements. This process
is more adaptable to wastewaters with high concentrations of
organic pollutants than to dilute wastewaters.
5.3.12 Filtration
Both granular and flexible media filtration are well de-
veloped processes currently being used in a wide variety of
applications. A wide spectrum of filtration systems are commer-
cially available. The economics of filtration are reasonable
for many applications. Energy requirements are relatively low
and operational parameters are well defined. Therefore, filtra-
tion is judged to be a good candidate for leachate treatment.
However, it is not a primary treatment process but rather will
be used to support other processes either as a polishing st--:
5-9
-------
(granular media) subsequent to precipitation and sedimentation
or as a dewatering process (flexible media) for sludges gener-
ated in other processes.
5.3.13 Flocculation
Flocculation must be carried out in conjunction with a
solid/liquid separation process, usually sedimentation. Often,
flocculation is preceded by precipitation.
It is a relatively simple process to operate and has been
used for many years to improve particle sedimentation. Neces-
sary equipment is commercially available. Both costs and energy
consumption are relatively low. The process can be applied to
almost any aqueous waste stream containing precipitable and/or
suspended material.
Flocculation followed by sedimentation is judged to be a
viable candidate process for hazardous waste leachate treatment,
particularly where suspended solids and/or heavy metal removal
is an objective. It may be used in conjunction with sedimenta-
tion as a pretreatment step prior to a subsequent process such
as activated carbon adsorption.
In most instances, the applicability of the technique, the
flocculating chemicals to be used, and the chemical dose can be
determined based upon experience and simple laboratory treat-
ability tests.
5.3.14 Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is a proven process with a long history of
use. It will remove dissolved salts,, primarily inorganics, from
aqueous solutions. For many applications, particularly where
product recovery is possible, ion exchange is a relatively eco-
nomical process. Also, it is characterized by low energy re-
quirements .
Ion exchange is judged to have some potential for leachate
treatment in situations where it is necessary to remove dis-
solved inorganic species. However, other competing processes -
precipitation, flocculation, and sedimentation - are more
broadly applicable to mixed waste streams containing suspended
solids, and a spectrum of organic and inorganic species. These
competing processes also usually are more economical. Moreover,
the upper concentration limit for the exchangeable ions for ef-
ficient operation is generally 2,500 mg/1, expressed as calcium
carbonate (or 0.05 equivalents/1). This upper limit is due pri-
marily to the time requirements of the operation cycle. A hiqh
concentration of exchangeable ion results in rapid exhaustion
during the service cycle, with the result that regeneration re-
quirements, both for equipment and of the percentage of resin
5-10
-------
inventory undergoing regeneration at any time, become inordin-
ately high. There also is an upper concentration limit (around
10,000-20,000 mg/1), which is governed by the properties of the
ion exchangers themselves, in that the selectivity (preference
for one ion over another) begins to decrease as the total con-
centration of dissolved salts (ionic strength) increases.
Synthetic resins can be damaged by oxidizing agents and
heat. In addition, the stream to be treated should contain no
suspended matter or other materials that will foul the resin or
that cannot be removed by the backwash operation. Some organic
compounds, particularly aromatics, will be irreversibly adsorbed
by the resins, and this will result in a decreased capacity, as
for example in the case of electroplating bath additives.
Thus, the use of ion exchange probably would be limited to
situations where a polishing step was required to remove an in-
organic constituent which could not be reduced to satisfactory
levels by preceding treatment processes or in specialized situ-
ations for removal of an inorganic constituent. Therefore,
while ion exchange is believed to have some potential it is not
a process which should normally receive primary consideration.
5.3.15 Resin Adsorption
Laboratory studies of resin adsorption have shown that
phthalate esters, aldehydes and ketones, alcohols, chlorinated
aromatics, aromatics, esters, amines, chlorinated alkanes and
alkenes, and pesticides are adsorbable. Resins adsorbed certain
amines and aromatics better than activated carbon did.
Resin adsorption has greatest applicability:
• when color due to organic molecules must be removed;
• when solute recovery is practical or thermal regenera-
tion is not practical;
• where selective adsorption is desired;
• where low leakages are required; or
• where wastewaters contain high levels of dissolved in-
organics .
Polymeric adsorbents are nonpolar with an affinity for nonpolar
solutes in polar solvents or of intermediate polarity capable of
sorbing nonpolar solutes from polar solvents and polar solutes
from nonpolar solvents. Carbonaceous resins have a chemical
composition which is intermediate between polymeric adsorbents
and activated carbon and are available in a range of surface
polarities.
5-11
-------
Because of selectivity, rapid adsorption kinetics, and
chemical regenerability, resin adsorption has a wide range of
potential applications for organic waste streams. The primary
disadvantage is high initial cost; although, this may be offset
if recovery of the solute is practical. Costs for resins re-
cently have been quoted to be $11-33 per kg ($5-15 per pound,
1980 dollars). While not economically competitive with carbon
for high volume, high concentration, mixed constituent wastes,
benefits may be gained by sequential resin and carbon adsorp-
tion .
Energy requirements are heavily dependent upon whether
solute recovery from the solvent wash is practiced. Without
solute recovery, energy costs account for 5% of operating costs;
however, with solute recovery using distillation, energy costs
could account for 50% of operating costs but solvent costs are
markedly reduced.
As with activated carbon, the only major environmental im-
pacts relate to the regeneration process. If not reused, spent
regenerant requires disposal, frequently by incineration or land
disposal.
Resin sorption is judged to be a potentially viable candi-
date for treatment of hazardous waste leachates. The technol-
ogy, however, has not been as well defined as carbon adsorption.
5.3.16 Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis is a relatively new process which has been
reduced to practice for some industrial wastewater treatment
applications such as inorganic salt removal from rinse waters.
Energy requirements for commercially available systems are ap-
proximately 7.6 x 10 - 9.5 x 10 J/m of product water (8—10
kwh/1000 gal). Reverse osmosis is a relatively costly process
but it is capable of producing high purity water. The principal
application is to concentration of dilute solutions of inorganic
and some organic solutes. Problems associated with RO include
concentration polarization (decreased water production with time
per unit area of membrane), the need for pretreatment to remove
solids (colloidal and suspended), the need for dechlorination
when using polyamide membranes, and membrane fouling due to
precipitation of insoluble salts. pH control is important.
The state of development is such that it necessitates ex-
tensive bench and pilot scale testing prior to almost any po-
tential application to ascertain feasibility. Thus, reverse
osmosis is judged to have limited potential for leachate treat-
ment. Its use probably would be limited to polishing operations
subsequent to other more conventional processes or to concentra-
5-12
-------
ting pollutants (multicharged cations and anions and moderate
and high molecular weight organics) into a stream which would be
processed further.
5.3.17 Solvent Extraction
Solvent extraction is judged to have minimal potential for
leachate treatment. Broad spectrum sorbents such as activated
carbon are expected to be more effective in treating waste
streams containing a diversity of organic compounds. Carbon
adsorption also will be more economical unless a valuable prod-
uct can be recovered which is unlikely in most leachate treat-
ment situations.
5.3.18 Stripping
Air stripping is judged to have potential for leachate
treatment primarily when ammonia removal is desired and then
only when the concentrations of other volatile compounds are low
enough to avoid unacceptable environmental impacts by the air
emissions. The process would be difficult to optimize for
leachate containing a spectrum of volatile and non-volatile com-
pounds. Air stripping does have appeal as a pretreatment prior
to another process such as adsorption to extend the life of the
sorbent by removing sorbable organic constituents. However, air
pollution control requirements are likely to be severe thus
making the economics less attractive. Some air stripping of
volatile components will occur during the course of any treat-
ment process and may result in safety hazards or air quality
problems. These problems are expected to be most severe from
biological treatment processes using aeration devices.
Steam stripping has merit for wastes containing high concen-
trations of highly volatile compounds. It is a proven process
for some applications but will require laboratory and bench
scale investigations prior to application to leachates contain-
ing multiple organic compounds. Both energy requirements and
costs are relatively high. By-product recovery to offset costs
is unlikely. Steam stripping is judged to have greatest poten-
tial as a pretreatment step to reduce the load of volatile com-
pounds to a subsequent treatment process. Organics concentrated
in the overhead condensate stream also would require further
treatment, possibly by wet oxidation.
5.3.19 Ultrafiltration
Ultrafiltration is a commercially used process with several
industrial applications generally involving product recovery or
production of highly purified solvent. It is characterized bv
high capital and operating costs with membrane replacement being
a major factor. Energy costs could run as high as 30% of direct
operating costs.
5-13
-------
Ultrafiltration is judged to have limited potential for
treating a complex leachate. Its use probably would be limited
to relatively low volume leachate streams containing substantial
quantities of high molecular weight (7,500 to 500,000) solutes
such as oils. Concentrated organics would require further
treatment possibly by wet oxidation or off-site incineration.
Pilot testing is a prerequisite to use.
5.3.20 Wet Oxidation
Laboratory studies indicate that the process may have poten-
tial for treatment of high strength leachates or those contain-
ing toxic organics, especially those waste streams too dilute
for incineration but too refractory for chemical or biological
oxidation. The process has been applied at pilot and full scale
on numerous sludges and non-hazardous wastes. In laboratory
studies substantial destruction of several organic priority
pollutants was achieved.
Claimed advantages of the process are that the degree of
oxidation can sometimes be controlled by varying operating con-
ditions and that supplemental energy requirements can be mini-
mized in some situations. However, the process involves rela-
tively high capital and operating costs and requires skilled
operating labor.
At this time, the process should be considered as poten-
tially suitable for hazardous waste leachate treatment. The
area of greatest potential applicability appears to be treating
concentrated organic streams generated by processes such as
steam stripping, ultrafiltration, or reverse osmosis; still bot-
toms; biological treatment process waste sludges; and regenera-
tion of powdered, activated carbon used in bio-physical proc-
esses. Extensive site-specific treatability studies would be
required to determine efficiencies, to develop design criteria,
and to provide cost data to enable comparison with alternative
technologies.
5.4 EVALUATION OF UNIT PROCESSES
In Section 5.3 of this manual candidate hazardous waste
leachate treatment technologies were discussed and an assessment
was presented of the potential applicability to leachate treat-
ment. For the reasons discussed in Section 5.3, certain unit
processes are judged to have minimal applicability to hazardous
waste leachate treatment and thus, are not given further consid-
eration herein. The remaining unit processes generally fall
into one of two categories.
Processes placed in Category 1 are those judged to have the
broadest potential range of leachate treatment applications.
Moreover, processes in this category are those for which exten-
5-14
-------
sive full scale operating experience exists, albeit for other
applications.
Although Category 2 processes are judged to be potentially
viable hazardous waste leachate technologies, either the poten-
tial applications are limited to more specialized treatment
problems or less full scale experience exists. Category 1 and 2
processes are listed below together with the major area of ap-
plication for the process.
Category 1. More experience, broad application range
biological treatment - soluble biodegradable organics
and nutrients
chemical precipitation - soluble metals
carbon adsorption - soluble organics, especially toxics
and refractories
density separation - wastewater suspended solids, chem-
ical precipitates, oily materials
filtration - suspended solids and precipitates
Category 2. Less full scale experience, limited
application
chemical oxidation - cyanide and organics
chemical reduction - hexavalent chromium
ion exchange - inorganics, especially fluoride and total
dissolved solids
membranes (RO) - total dissolved solids
stripping (air) - ammonia nitrogen
wet oxidation - high strength or toxic organic aqueous
s treams
The approximate ability of Category 1 and 2 processes to
treat compounds in the chemical classifications identified in
Section 5.2 is summarized in Table 5-1. This table presents a
brief overview which can be used to assist in the formulation of
alternative process trains for leachates containing compounds
from these chemical classifications.
Appendix E, which contains more detailed information on the
treatability of specific compounds by many of these unit proc-
esses, also should be consulted during formulation of the proc-
5-15
-------
TABLE 5-1. TREATMENT PROCESS APPLICABILITY MATRIX
Chemical
Classification
Biological
Treatment
Carbon
Adsorption
Chemical
Precipitation
Chemical
Oxidation
Chemical
1 Reduction
Ion
Exchange
Reverse
Osmosi s
c
¦3.
a
U
-J
CO
Wet
Oxidation
Alkaline
Chlori na-
tion
| Ozonation J
1. Alcohols
E
V
N
G,E
N
V
1
2. Aliphatics
V
V
N
?
N
V
3. Amines
V
V
N
N
N
4. Aromatics
V
G,E
F
N
F,G
N
V
5. Ethers.
G
V
N
N
6. Halocarbons
P
G, £
N
F, G
N
7. Metals
P,F
N\?
E
N
G
E
E
N !
8. Miscellaneous:
Ammonia
G,E
N
N
N
N
G
G
Cyanide
F,G
N
N
E "
E
N
N
TDS
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
E
N
N
1 9. PCB
N
E
N
N
10. Pesticides
N,P
E
N
E
N
E
11. Phenols
G
E
N
E
N
V
12. Phthalates
G
E
G
N
N
13. Polynuclear
Aromatics
N, P
G,E
R
N
G
N
'
.
(continued)'
5-16
-------
Table 5-1 (continued)
Key for Symbols:
E - Excellent performance likely
G - Good performance likely
F - Fair performance likely
P - Poor performance likely
R - Reported to be removed
N - Not Applicable
V - Variable performance reported for different com-
pounds in the class
A blank indicates that no data are available to judge
performance; it does not necessarily indicate that the
process is not applicable
Note: Use of two symbols indicates differing reports of per-
formance for different compounds in the class.
Source: Shuckrow, A. J., A. P. Pajak, and J. W. Osheka.
Concentration Technologies For Hazardous Aqueous Waste
Treatment. EPA-600/2-81-019. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, February, 1981.
-------
ess train. Because much of the data used to prepare Table 5-1
and Appendix E are from laboratory scale studies using various
wastewaters ranging from solutions of pure compounds to indus-
trial wastewaters, extrapolation from these studies to full
scale leachate treatment operations is risky. Preferably the
basis for process design, at a minimum, should rely on labora-
tory scale treatability studies using the actual leachate or a
closely similar wastewater. Although all compounds in these
chemical classes are not labeled as toxic or hazardous; it is
expected that many of them will be present in hazardous waste
leachates. Thus, treatment processes must be designed to accom-
modate those compounds as well because they will impact overall
treatment process performance and often will be limited in per-
missible discharge amount by NPDES permits.'
As a prelude to formulating treatment trains capable of
addressing the complex chemical matrix of hazardous waste leach-
ate, details relating to process configurations, applications,
design concerns, and pre- and post-treatment requirements of
Category 1 and 2 unit processes are discussed in Section 6.5.
In Section 6.6, unit processes are arranged into example process
trains for several selected leachate situations.
5.5 BY-PRODUCT CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to a treated effluent, most leachate treatment
processes will generate sludges, brines, gaseous emissions, or
other by-product streams which often will contain hazardous con-
stituents and thus, must be managed as hazardous waste. Methods
for treatment and ultimate disposal are the same as those for
hazardo-us wastes except that options probably will be more lim-
ited because of the expected mixed composition of hazardous
waste leachate treatment by-product streams.
The objectives of this subsection are to identify by-prod-
ucts generated by the treatment processes described in Section
5.3, to identify alternative management methods, and to list
factors affecting selection of a management method.
Table 5-2 lists by-products expected from the treatment
processes described in Section 5.3. For purposes of this man-
ual, the by-product streams have been divided into two cate-
gories: residuals (e.g., brines, concentrates, sludges, and dis-
carded materials) and gaseous emissions.
Methods for dealing with these two classifications are sub-
stantially different. Residues may be managed using most of the
techniques available for hazardous wastes; thus, on or off-site
measures may be employed. For gaseous emissions there are three
basic control measures. One is to attempt to control or treat
the emission using air pollution control technologies, e.g.,
scrubbers, precipitators, chemical or thermal oxidation, or gas
5-18
-------
TABLE 5-2 LEACHATE TREATMENT PROCESS BY-PRODUCT STREAMS
TREATMENT
PROCESS
«—
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
Biological
treatment
Aerobic
1.
activated
sludge
2. lagoons
trickling
filter
Excess biological sludge must
be removed - amount of
sludge varies with the pro-
cess configuration.
Settled solids will accumulate
on lagoon bottom, clean-out
frequency depends on perfor-
mance requirements and lagoon
capacity.
Excess biological sludge must
be removed - plastic and high
rate filters generate more
sludge than low rate filters.
Stripping of volatile com-
pounds during aeration
process - use of pure oxy-
gen process may reduce air
emissions.
Stripping of volatile com-
pounds if mechanical or
diffused aeration is used.
The most volatile compounds
may be stripped at the point
of waste application; if
improperly operated, odor
problems may occur.
(cont. i nued)
-------
TABLE 5-2 (continued)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
B.
II.
A.
Anaerobic
1. filters
2. lagoons
Some anoxic residue may be
generated; less sludge than
aerobic process.
Settled sludge will accumulate
in lagoon; need for clean-out
depends on lagoon performance
and capacity.
Carbon adsorption
Granular
carbon
Spent carbon - may be regener-
ated and reused; performance
may decline with continued
reuse and blow-down of some
portion of the spent carbon
may be required.
Properly operating system will
generate gas composed of
methane, carbon dioxide and
water vapor; highly
volatile compounds also may
be present.
May create odor problem - some
opportunity for stripping of
volatile compounds.
Emission problems generally
associated with spent carbon
handling and regeneration
operations.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2 (continued)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
B. Powdered
carbon (PAC)
III. Catalysis
IV. Chemical
oxidation
When used with activated sludge Same as for the activated
process a residue containing sludge process,
excess biological sludge and
PAC results - may be regener-
ated thermally or by wet oxi-
dation with some wasting to
prevent build-up of inerts.
If not regenerated, sludge
disposal is necessary.
Depends on the process in which the catalyst is used.
Small amount of residue may be
formed during the oxidation
process. Residue likely to
be less hazardous than raw
waste.
Use of chlorine may result in
formation of chlorinated
organics in liquid product
stream. Ozone and hydrogen
peroxide add no harmful
species to the effluent.
During the rapid mix phase
stripping may occur or gas-
eous reaction products could
be released.
Gaseous chlorine and ozone are
toxic; however, these should
not escape from the system
in appreciable quantity.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2 (continued)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
V.
VI.
ui
I
to
N>
VII.
Chemical
precipitation
Chemical
reduction
Crystalliza-
tion
Relatively large amounts of
inorganic sludge will be
generated by lime, ferric
chloride, and alum coagu-
lants. Polymer addition
would increase sludge amounts
As with chemical oxidation,
small amounts of residue may
be formed. Some metal ions
or sulfate from the reducing
agents may carry over in the
liquid effluent.
Brines high in organics or
inorganics will be formed.
VIII. Density Either a sludge or a floating
separation scum is produced by these
processes. The quantity
produced depends on the sus-
pended solids content of the
raw wastewater and the use of
coagulant chemicals.
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
Stripping may occur during the
rapid mix or flocculation
phases.
Emissions may occur during
rapid mixing.
Emissions could include lost
refrigerant, non-condensable
compounds, and water vapor.
Gravity separation is not
likely to generate emis-
sions. Dissolved air flo-
tation may cause stripping
of volatile compounds.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2 (continued)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
IX.
Distillation
XI
XII.
Dialysis/
Electrodialysis
Evaporation
Filtration
(granular media
for aqueous
waste)
Still bottoms consisting of
tars and sludges will be
laden with nonvolatile
organics. Condensed over-
head stream also could
contain volatile organics.
No solid residue is formed;
however, the original pollu-
tants will be present in
different concentrations in
the two product streams.
Similar to distillation with
evaporator liquor laden with
less volatile organics and
condensed vapor rich in
volatile compounds.
In the case of granular media
filters, the major residue
is suspended solids trapped
by the filter and removed by
backwashing.
No emissions if the overhead
stream is condensed trapping
volatiles in a liquid phase.
Venting of gases produced at
electrodialysis electrodes
causes emissions.
Evaporation vapors could con-
tain volatile compounds;
these can be condensed and
trapped in liquid phase.
Emissions generally should not
be a problem. If anaerobic
conditions are allowed to
occur in granular media
filter, anoxic odors could
occur. During backwashing,
turbulence may induce some
stripping of volatiles.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2 (continued)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
XIII. Flocculation
XIV. Ion exchange
See discussion of chemical precipitation.
XV. Resin
adsorption
Residuals include the:
1. concentrated regenerant
s tream.
2. spent ion exchange mater-
ials.
Unless spent exchange materials
are regenerated both types of
residues could contain the
original hazardous pollutants.
One residue will be spent
resin which can no longer
be used effectively.
Another will be solutes
extracted from the sorbent.
These solutes may be separ-
ated from the regenerant
solvent or discarded with the
used regenerant solution.
Waters used to rinse regenerant
solution from resin also
require attention.
Emissions should not occur.
Emission problems generally
associated with spent resin
handling or regeneration
operations.
Steam regeneration and distil-
lation of solvents used for
solvent regeneration are
principal emission sources.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2 (continued)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
XVI
Reverse
osmosis
XVII.
Solvent
extraction
XVIII. Stripping
A. Air
The primary residual will be a
brine stream containing the
concentrated pollutants.
Other residues include solu-
tions which may be used to
wash or maintain the membranes
and degraded or fouled mem-
branes. These all could con-
tain the original pollutants.
No solid residuals are gener-
ated by the process. Spent
solvent, solvent containing
the solutes, or solutes alone
will have to be disposed of
at some time during process
operation.
No solid residue is generated
unless chemicals are added
to adjust operating condi-
tions. Use of lime can
result in substantial quanti-
ties of sludge.
Emissions should not occur.
Gaseous emissions from the
extraction process should be
minimal. However, processes
to remove solute from sol-
vent or recover solvent from
the treated water could pro-
duce emissions of either
volatile solutes or volatile
solvent since these proce-
dures usually employ strip-
ping or distillation.
Volatile compounds will be
contained in stripper
emission by design.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2 (continued)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
RESIDUALS
GENERATED
GASEOUS
EMISSIONS
B.
Steam
No solid residues are formed;
however, stripper bottoms
will contain concentrated
non-volatile organics and
cannot be discharged
directly.
No emissions occur if stripped
volatile compounds are
trapped in the condensed
overhead stream.
XIX.
XX.
Ultrafiltration Same as reported for reverse osmosis.
Wet oxidation
Residues are not generated by
the process, but solids
present in the raw wastewater
could remain after treatment.
These solids are likely to be
more inert than those origin-
ally present.
Vapors may be released when
the high pressure and tem-
perature operating condi-
tions are removed and the
waste is exposed to atmos-
pheric conditions.
-------
phase adsorbents. These measures may con
in xanv cas^s generate by-croduct waste s
\ . /
A second approach is to use a process
ate an air emission or which generates an
nitjde or severity. For example, gravity
likely to stri^ volatile compounds than d
the same applies for trickling filtration
tion activated sYudge. Process/Selection
upon leachate quality, treatment goals, a
individual unit processes in the process
The third alternative wh^ch may be po
ces is a "do nothing^ approach, which allc
that concentrations specific pollutant
sions are within accestabl4 limits (for it
pollutants such limitsXhave not been def:
quate dilution of the ein/ission may be a f
As previously stated\ residues can be
manner as other liquid' ancl solid hazardoi.
following disposal techniques may be usee
'• hazardous waiste
• hazardous .waste treat »nt facilit
• hazardous waste inciner<
• deep we^ll injection
• land application.
/
Whether the r/esidue has to be process
upon the residue characteristics, the
nomics of the situation. For example,
facility is/located at a hazardous wast^\l
possible to pump or otherwise convey a siN
the form i,t is generated and thus avoid
or chemical stabilization. However, thi
specific and it is not possible to recom
ment technique for every residue listed
possible/to group the residues in Table
broad categories, subsequently to identi
ment approaches for each category.
Residue Category Exam
1. Liquids (brines) Inorgani
centrate
tion pre
regenere
5-27
-------
phase adsorbents. These measures may control the emission, but
in many cases generate by-product waste streams.
A second approach is to use a process which does not gener-
ate an air emission or which generates an emission of less mag-
nitude or severity. For example, gravity sedimentation is less
likely to strip volatile compounds than dissolved air flotation;
the same applies for trickling filtration versus diffused aera-
tion activated sludge. Process selection, however, also depends
upon leachate quality, treatment goals, and capabilities of the
individual unit processes in the process train.
The third alternative which may be possible in some instan-
ces is a "do nothing" approach which allows emissions provided
that concentrations of specific pollutants in the gaseous emis-
sions are within acceptable limits (for many hazardous or toxic
pollutants such limits have not been defined). Ensuring ade-
quate dilution of the emission may be a factor in this approach.
As previously stated, residues can be managed in the same
manner as other liquid and solid hazardous wastes. That is, the
following disposal techniques may be used:
'• hazardous waste landfill,
• hazardous waste treatment facility,
• hazardous waste incinerator,
• deep well injection, or
• land application.
Whether the residue has to be processed before disposal depends
upon the residue characteristics, the disposal option, and eco-
nomics of the situation. For example, if the leachate treatment
facility is located at a hazardous waste landfill, it may be
possible to pump or otherwise convey a sludge to the landfill in
the form it is generated and thus avoid the costs of dewatering
or chemical stabilization. However, this decision is very site
specific and it is not possible to recommend a specific manage-
ment technique for every residue listed in Table 5-2. It is
possible to group the residues in Table 5-2 into the following
broad categories, subsequently to identify alternative manage-
ment approaches for each category.
Residue Category
1. Liquids (brines)
Examples
Inorganic aqueous streams: con-
centrates from membrane separa-
tion processes, ion exchange
regenerant streams
5-27
-------
Liquids
laden)
(organic
Condensates from stripping, dis-
tillation, and evaporation
operations; spent solvents from
extraction and regeneration pro-
cesses; concentrate from
ul tra f il tra t ion
3. Sludges (inorganic)
4. Sludges (organic)
5. Reusable materials
Precipitates from chemical
oxidation, reduction and
precipitation processes;
backwash from granular
media filtration processes;
spent ion exchange resins
Excess biological treatment
sludges, still bottoms from
distillation and evaporation
processes, spent adsorbents
such as granular and powdered
active carbon and resins
which cannot be regenerat-
ed, scum from dissolved air
flotation (may also be in-
organic in nature)
Ion exchange resins, acti-
vated carbon, adsorption
resins
6. Other Discarded or fouled mem-
branes, contaminated pack-
ings from column opera-
tions
Processing and disposal alternatives for each of these catego-
ries are shown in Table 5-3. Engineering judgment was used to
attempt to differentiate in this table between a primary or pre-
ferred approach (designated with a P) and other approaches which
should be considered (designated S). Blanks indicate that the
alternative probably does not apply to the residue category;
however, there may be exceptions.
Factors to be considered when selecting a residue management
alternative are the same as those considered when evaluating on
or off-site leachate treatment and disposal alternatives as dis-
cussed in Section 4.
5.6 TREATMENT PROCESS COSTS
Although many of the unit processes described in Section 5.3
have potential application to treatment of hazardous waste
leachate, most of them have never been used for this purpose.
5-28
-------
TABLE 5-3. RESIDUE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Disposal
Alternative
Alternatives
for Process-
ing Before
n-r cpnaal
Brines
Organic n
Liquids w
M
DUE C
o
e oo
a a)
oo oo
u -a
O 3
C —^
p-i in
A T E G
u UJ
1H 41
e oo
« -o
00 3
M
O t/1
0 R Y
01
u
O
CO
3
V
at
Other
Landfill
None
P
P
P
P
P
Devater
S
s
5
S
Stabilize
P
P
s
Incinerate
None
P
P
P
Dewater
s
S
Deep well
inj ection
None
P
s
Land
Treatment
None
P
S
P
Dewater
Hazardous Waste
Treatment Facil-
ity
None
P
p
S
s
Dewater
s
s
S
s
Reuse
Regenerate
p
P - Primary or preferred approach
S - Approach which should be considered
Blank indicates alternative probably not applicable to residue category
5-29
-------
Therefore, no historical cost data exist on the use of these
processes for hazardous waste leachate treatment. Consequently,
one iT.ust rely on information based upon municipal and industrial
water and wastewater treatment experience to develop cost esti-
mates. Sjch information, however, should not be applied direct-
ly in developing cost estimates for hazardous waste leachate
treatment. Nevertheless, it reflects the best available infor-
mation and with care can be used to make approximate cost com-
parisons ajnong leachate treatment alternatives. Municipal and
industrial treatment cost data should not be used to prepare ab-
solute site specific cost estimates for any particular process.
Once a process has been selected and operating conditions de-
fined, detailed cost estimates should be prepared using standard
engineering practices.
Before preparing cost estimates for purposes of making com-
parisons, the user should be aware of the following constraints
to applying available municipal and industrial treatment cost
data to leachate situations:
1. Cost data for many processes are presented as a
function of flow rate with flow rates typically 3
ranging from 0.1 or 1.0 to 100 MGD (378 to 378,000 m
/d). Leachate flow rates are expected to be legs
than 0.1 MGD in most cases. Consequently, extrapola-
tion must be made to the correct size range. The
reader is cautioned that a good understanding of the
assumptions, formulae, constants, and exponentials
used to prepare the original cost curves is necessary
prior to making such extrapolations.
2. Costs for many processes have been derived from
treatment of wastewater matrices less complicated
than hazardous waste leachate and containing conven-
tional rather than hazardous, toxic, or priority
pollutants. Consequently, the levels of treatment
provided may be adequate only for the conventional
pollutants. For example, ozonation for municipal
wastewater disinfection requires smaller ozone doses
and consequently smaller ozone generators and lower
capital costs than for oxidation of certain organic
compounds. Also, phenomena like competitive ad-
sorption may not have been recognized and taken into
account in sizing an adsorption process to handle a
given flow rate.
3. Costs may be presented as a function of loading
of a certain wastewater constituent, e.g., BOD or
COD. These may not be meaningful parameters to size
and cost a hazardous waste leachate treatment
process.
5-30
-------
With these cautions in mind, the reader is referred to the
following references for cost information which could be of as-
sistance in evaluating leachate treatment alternatives:
• Treatability Manual, Volume IV, Cost Estimating (5)
• Estimating Water Treatment Costs, Volume 3, Cost Curves
Applicable to 2500 gpd to 1 mgd Treatment Plants (6)
These documents contain capital, and operation and maintenance
cost data on municipal and industrial applications of many of
the unit processes described in Section 5.3 as well as ancil-
lary processes such as pumping, oretreatment, and sludge han-
dling. It is expected that for some processes, the capital cost
curves would be more usable than operation and maintenance (O&M)
cost data. This is because O&M cost components such as chemi-
cals, materials, power, and even labor are more likely to be
influenced by wastewater composition and treatment goals. A
good example is granular carbon adsorption where contactor size
and ancillary equipment is relatively independent of wastewater
characteristics but the amount of carbon used is directly depen-
dent on wastewater composition and treatment objectives. Ozon-
ation, however, provides an exception to this generalization
because even though the ozone dosage requirement is directly
dependent on wastewater composition and treatment'goals it also
influences capital costs for ozone generators. Such relation-
ships should be kept in mind when using the referenced cost data
to compare leachate treatment alternatives.
In general, it is believed that leachate treatment costs
will be higher than for comparable municipal and industrial
processes.
5.7 REFERENCES
1. Shuckrow, A. J., A. P. Pajak, and J. W. Osheka. Concen-
tration Technologies For Hazardous Aqueous Waste Treatment.
EPA Contract No. 68-03-2766. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1980. 343 pp.
2. Baillod, G. R., R. A. Lamparter, and D. G. Leddy. Wet
Oxidation of Toxic Organic Substances. Michigan Techno-
logical University, College of Engineering, Houghton,
Michigan.
3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Treatability
Manual, Volume III, Technologies for Control/Removal of
Pollutants. EPA-600/8-80-042 C, U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, D. C., 1980.
5-31
-------
4. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Treatability Man-
ual, Volume I, Treatability Data. EPA-600/8-80-042 a, U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.,
1980.
5, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Treatability Manual,
Volume IV, Cost Estimating. EPA-60 0/3-80-042d, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,, Washington, D.C., 1980.
6. Hansen, S. P., R. C. Gumerman, and R. L. Culp. Estimating
Water Treatment Costs, Volume 3, Cost Curves Applicable to
2500 gpd to 1 mgd Treatment Plants. EPA - 600/2-79-162c,
U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1979. 196 pp.
5-32
-------
SECTION 6
LEACHATE TREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION
6.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
Selection of a leachate treatment process is not a simple
task, especially in view of the fact that there is little past
experience in the area of hazardous waste leachate treatment and
if the facility is not yet in operation, the quality and quan-
tity of the leachate to be treated must be estimated. Numerous
factors must be weighed and tradeoffs made in the course of se-
lecting a leachate treatment process. Important factors which
must be considered include:
1. leachate characteristics;
2. discharge alternatives;
3. treatment objectives (performance requirements);
4. nature of disposal site operation and resulting
impact on leachate;
5. costs of various alternatives;
6. status of the disposal facility (new or existing);
and
7. post-closure care considerations.
The intent of this section is to provide the reader with an un-
derstanding of how each of the above factors influences treat-
ment process selection. Moreover, an approach which can be fol-
lowed to systematically address each factor is suggested. Fi-
nally, selected hypothetical and actual leachate situations are
used to provide examples of use of this approach to select
treatment processes.
Requirements for hazardous waste leachate treatment are ex-
pected to apply to both new and existing disposal sites. How-
ever, approaches to selection of leachate treatment systems for
these two situations probably will differ. Each situation is
addressed subsequently in this section.
6-1
-------
Although post-closure care considerations have not been
dealt with explicitly in this section, such considerations
should be taken into account in final treatment process selec-
tion. That is, the resources necessary to maintain treatment
system operations subsequent to site closure must be factored
into the treatment system selection process and into the long
term financial planning for the site. In addition to resource
considerations, post-closure concerns which may impact treatment
system selection relate to changes in flow and composition of
leachate as a result of site closure.
6.2 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
As noted in Section 4.4, there are several options for
treatment of leachate and disposal of treated effluent:
1. complete treatment with direct discharge to sur-
face waters;
2. complete treatment with discharge to groundwater;
or
3. pretreatment with discharge to a POTW or other fa-
cility for additional treatment.
Obviously, the required degree of treatment differs among
the options. For option 3, the nature and capabilities of sub-
sequent treatment will dictate the required degree of pretreat-
ment. Currently, pretreatment standards for discharge to POTWs
exist for some substances in many municipalities. Moreover,
regulations require development of new pretreatment standards
for most POTWs for substances such as metals, phenol, and cya-
nide. That is, limits exist but are being upgraded. Therefore,
leachate treatment system performance requirements will be de-
fined, at least in part, by local pretreatment requirements.
Pretreatment requirements for discharge to treatment systems
other than POTWs will be dictated by the nature of the down-
stream system and thus will be highly site specific. Therefore,
leachate treatment system performance requirements would have to
be developed on a case-by-case basis. In any event, pretreat-
ment would represent a simplified case of complete treatment.
That is, the technologies would be the same but the required de-
gree of treatment would be less.
Options 1 and 2 also may differ in the degree of treat-
ment required. However, at this time there are no guidelines
which establish discharge limitations or acceptable ground or
surface water concentrations for most of the pollutants identi-
fied in Sections 261.33(e), 261.33(f) and Appendix VIII of RCRA
or Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. Consequently, specific
limitations cannot be used to derive the required levels of per-
6-2
-------
formance. Moreover, it is likely that leachate treatment system
performance objectives will encompass concerns broader than RCRA
alone, e.g., NPDES.
Definition of treatment system performance objectives is
vital to selection of an appropriate treatment technology.
Therefore, several possible approaches to establishing perfor-
mance objectives are discussed below. These approaches are not
intended to have any regulatory significance, but could be used
in some combination to guide selection of treatment system goals
until more comprehensive guidelines are developed.
In the case of surface water discharges, stream water qual-
ity standards, including specific pollutant water quality cri-
teria, must be considered when defining the required level of
treatment. Water quality criteria have been developed by states
for numerous conventional and non-conventional pollutants.
State standards vary and the pertinent agency must be contacted
to obtain standards for the stream of concern. Some multiple of
published water quality criteria could be used to establish
treatment objectives. The multiple should be established on the
basis of receiving stream flow taking dilution into account.
Although water quality standards do not exist for many of
the compounds likely to be of concern in hazardous waste leach-
ate, recommended water quality criteria for 64 of the 65 prior-
ity pollutants recently have been published by the Environmental
Protection Agency(l). However, because criteria for these pol-
lutants still must be developed and adopted by the states, uni-
form treatment requirements even for these 64 pollutants do not
exist.
Published industrial effluent limitation guidelines also
can be useful in formulating hazardous waste leachate treatment
goals. Specific numerical effluent criteria have been estab-
lished for some constituents in certain industrial waste cate-
gories based upon state-of-the-art technology capabilities.
Criteria generally are available from this source on pH, BOD,
COD, SS, oil and grease, phenol, cyanide, and several heavy met-
als.
Primary drinking water standards also can be used as a ref-
erence point in setting leachate treatment objectives. Once
again, a multiplier could be applied to these water quality
based criteria to establish effluent objectives. This source
may prove useful for certain metals and several pesticides.
Discharges to groundwater can take the form of land appli-
cation, seepage pits, or disposal wells. At this time no uni-
form approach has been applied to define the required degree of
treatment before groundwater discharge. With adoption of a na-
tional groundwater protection strategy, criteria to protect
6-3
-------
groundwater quality may evolve. A strategy has been proposed by
EPA (2) but adoption and implementation by the states still is
required. In this draft strategy, the following three classifi-
cations of groundwater resources are identified:
• first class - serves a highly valuable hunan use or
ecological function warranting the most stringent pro-
tection controls,
• second class - must be protected to insure use as a
drinking water source, and
• third class - limited or defined contamination would
,be allowed for some types of contaminants.
Implementation of this strategy most probably will influence
leachate treatment requirements as well as hazardous waste dis-
posal facility siting. It is possible that the recently pro-
posed water quality criteria for 64 of the priority pollutants
also could be related to groundwater quality using the "protec-
tion of human health" criteria. However, it should be noted
that for many of these 64 pollutants three criteria are given
representing incremental cancer risks, but no "acceptable risk
level" is given.
In summary, the following sources may be used to guide de-
velopment -of leachate treatment goals:
1. existing surface water quality standards prepared
by the individual state agencies,
2. water quality criteria for 64 priority pollutants
recently proposed by EPA (1),
3. industrial wastewater effluent guideline documents
which define state-of-the-art performance levels
for various technologies and wastewater constit-
uents,
4. interim primary drinking water standards, and
5. proposed groundwater protection strategy issued by
EPA (2).
However, in attempting to use these various sources for this
purpose, care must be taken to understand the intent of the par-
ticular criteria/standard and the basis for its development.
Such understanding is crucial to the derivation of reasonable
treatment goals from sources originally developed for other pur-
poses .
6-4
-------
6.3 TREATMENT FACILITY STAGING
During the life of a disposal operation and even after clo-
sure, the flow and composition of leachate from the site are
likely to change. These changes can occur because of:
1. changes in hazardous wastes being disposed of at
the site;
2. on-going physical, chemical, and biological reac-
tions within the disposal site; and
3. ultimate sealing of the site at the time of clo-
sure which further reduces entry of extraneous
water .
Thus, the leachate treatment facility must be capable of
responding to these changes. This can be done either by prepar-
ing an initial design which includes processes capable of re-
sponding to all envisioned changes or by staging. Staging would
involve a design which facilitates adding or deleting new treat-
ment processes or changing capacity of existing processes as fu-
ture conditions warrant.
From both technical and economic perspectives, staging war-
rants detailed consideration during both disposal facility and
leachate treatment facility design. A major advantage of stag-
ing would be optimum utilization of the technologies judged to
be most applicable to the leachates produced at different phases
in the life of the disposal site. A major disadvantage, how-
ever, is the need to anticipate when a change will occur and to
respond as necessary. In some cases it may not be sufficient to
recognize that a change has occurred and then modify the leach-
ate treatment process after the fact.
An evaluation of the need to modify the leachate treatment
process could be triggered by either:
1. the results from routine monitoring of leachate
characteristics and leachate treatment process
performance, or
2. the decision to accept a different hazardous waste
it the disposal facility.
If a change is needed in unit processes, process size, or opera-
tional procedures, this can be determined based upon the ex-
pected magnitude and duration of change in the leachate.
In the case of a new disposal operation where a leachate
has not yet been generated and treatability studies cannot be
conducted using actual leachate samples, the initial leachate
6-5
-------
treatment facility will have to be designed from leachate quan-
tity and composition projections made on the basis of types of
wastes to be handled, and site construction and operational
procedures. However, because performance of the leachate treat-
ment system can, at best, only be estimated on the basis of
available data, the system should be designed and constructed in
such a way that processes can be added or deleted as necessary
to respond to leachate characteristics and to meet performance
requirements.
One aspect of staging which should be considered for new
facilities is interim storage and/or leachate recycle to the
disposal site. The feasibility of these approaches will be
highly site specific and in most cases can only be considered as
interim. However, if some combination of storage and recycle is
feasible early in the life of the disposal site operation, this
approach may provide sufficient time for the conduct of treata-
bility studies with the actual leachate. Consequently, treat-
ment process design could be accomplished on a firmer basis.
Use of this approach, however, must be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis.
The use of mobile or temporary treatment facilities early
in the life of a disposal site prior to construction of a per-
manent facility also could be considered.
6.4 TREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION METHODOLOGY
It is not possible to provide a prescriptive, step-by-step
guide for selection of a hazardous waste leachate treatment
technology. This is because site specific factors will have a
significant impact on the selection procedure. Moreover, haz-
ardous waste leachate treatment is an emerging area still in its
infancy. Therefore, this section addresses factors which should
be considered and suggests a generalized methodology which can
be applied to selection of a leachate treatment process. Cau-
tions and recommendations pertaining to various steps in the
methodology also are provided.
If possible, selection of a process to treat hazardous
waste leachate should be based upon treatability studies (labo-
ratory or pilot scale) using the actual leachate. This is rec-
ommended for several reasons:
1. Published hazardous waste leachate treatment per-
formance data are rare. In the absence of treata-
bility studies, inferences must be drawn from
other laboratory experimental studies, and indus-
trial and municipal water and wastewater treatment
experience.
6-6
-------
2. Lacking previous experience and/or treatability
data, there is no guarantee that high levels of
treatment can be achieved.
3. It is likely that a combination of several unit
processes will be needed to deal with the complex
leachate matrix. Arriving at the optimum system
is unlikely without treatability studies.
4. The complex leachate matrix may not behave like
other wastewaters thus affecting design and opera-
ting criteria (e.g., chemical dosage require-
ments), and invalidating extrapolations from other
exper iences.
5. Capital investment, and especially operation and
maintenance costs are likely to be greater per
unit volume treated than for municipal or indus-
trial wastewater. However, costs will be diffi-
cult to estimate without treatment experience.
Investment in a costly, unproven system that may
not meet the required treatment objectives is im-
prudent .
In spite of these considerations, at new disposal sites or ex-
isting sites where leachate has not appeared or its quality is
expected to change greatly, treatability studies may not be pos-
sible. Thus, a more theoretical approach (at least to concep-
tual design of a treatment system) with greater dependency on
published data must be taken.
A general methodology which can be used for selection of a
leachate treatment process is shown in Figure 6-1. This method-
ology revolves around the question of existence of a leachate.
The left side of the flow chart applies to cases where a leach-
ate exists and can reasonably be used in treatability studies.
The right side addresses the case where leachate treatability
studies cannot be conducted. This suggested methodology is dis-
cussed subsequently.
Aside from the availability of leachate for use in treata-
bility studies, several key questions must be answered as part
of the leachate treatment technology selection process. Among
these are:
1. Does the leachate need to be considered a hazard-
ous waste?
2. What are the treated effluent discharge options
and the corresponding performance or discharge
1 imitations?
6-7
-------
no
yes
does aN
leachate
k exist? y
design treatment facility
design treatment facility
9elect applicable technologies
based on published data
based on leachate quality,
select applicable technologies
from published data
evaluate processes,
develop costs,
select process
define expected leachate
quality from theoretical
projections or leachate
generation studies
conduct pilot scale studies,
make cost estimates,
optimize pftffesS
conduct treability studies,
evaluate results,
develop costs,
select process
Figure 6-1. Methodology to select leachate treatment process.
6-8
-------
3. What pollutants are present in the leachate and at
what concentrations?
4. Are toxic or refractory compounds present?
5. What is the leachate flow rate; how will it vary
with time (diurnal, seasonal, long term)?
6. Are there any other aqueous wastes generated at
the site and should they be combined with the
leachate for treatment?
7. Will the leachate quality or quantity change
(could be a function of disposal site operation)
and does the leachate treatment process need to be
able to respond to such changes and in what time-
frame?
8. How much land is available for the leachate treat-
ment facility and are there any special con-
straints to construction?
9. Should leachates from different areas of the dis-
posal site be combined or segregated for treat-
ment? (Note that this will affect site and leach-
ate collection system design.)
10. How will leachate treatment residues be managed?
. 11. What is required to support the leachate treatment
operation, e.g., analytical testing, operations
personnel?
12. Will spilled material get into the leachate treat-
ment system?
13. What skills and resources will be needed for post-
closure operation?
The leachate treatment system design process must address all
these issues.
6.4.1 Disposal Site with Existing Leachate
Where a leachate exists, a three-tiered selection method-
ology process is shown in Figure 6-1. Initially, published in-
formation (e.g., discussions given in Section 5.3 and 5.4, and
the treatability data given in Section 5.2 and Appendix E)
should be used to identify processes that have been reported to
be capable of treating the types of constituents present in the
leachate. The objective should be to focus subsequent efforts
on the most promising processes.
6-9
-------
At the second level, these processes should be studied at
laboratory scale individually and, if necessary, in combina-
tions. Experimental studies will further screen out unsuccess-
ful processes, identify viable combinations, enable development
of "first cut" design criteria, identify by-products of concern,
and facilitate cost projections. Depending upon the results of
this step and the reliability of laboratory scale data, a pilot
scale program may be warranted to develop detailed design infor-
mation. The possibility of designing the pilot scale system to
serve as the first stage of the full scale system should be giv-
en consideration.
The time required and costs associated with conduct of this
three-tiered program will depend upon the number of processes
examined, the ease with which the leachate can be treated, and
the intensity of the effort. Physical and chemical processes
generally can be studied in less time than biological processes
because of acclimation or stabilization requirements usually
associated with the latter process type. Other considerations
in designing and conducting treatability studies include:
• obtaining representative leachate samples;
• quantities of leachate required;
• methods for collecting, handling, and transporting
leachate to avoid or minimize changes which would in-
troduce experimental error or endanger personnel,
e.g., volatilization of leachate constituents;
• use of batch and continuous flow treatment processes;
• parameters used to monitor process performance because
of both the considerable costs which could be incurred
by analytical testing and the need for rapid data
turn-around to enable timely judgments; and
•.disposal of wastes (liquids, residues, gaseous emis-
sions) generated in the treatability studies.
6.4.2 Disposal Site Without Existing Leachate
If a leachate does not exist or if its composition is ex-
pected to change greatly, the first major step is to determine
what the leachate composition is expected to be. Because dis-
posal site design and permit acquisition requires knowledge of
what wastes will be handled at the site, incoming waste composi-
tion data probably will be available. However, it still will be
necessary to project which waste consituents may appear in the
leachate and at what concentrations. Moreover, because treat-
ment facility design probably will be based on a worst case
rather than average or optimum condition, a projection of the
6-10
-------
worst condition must be made based upon anticipated chemical re-
actions, physical constants for the waste constituents, a water
balance for the site, and water and pollutant migration rate in-
formation.
For a landfill disposal operation, a second approach for
determining leachate characteristics would be to simulate leach-
ate generation. Various simulation techniques are available de-
pending on the desired degree of correlation with the actual
site. However, a one-for-one correlation is unlikely and cost
increases as correlation improves. Leachate generation tests
could range from "extraction procedure" type tests to larger
scale lysimeter studies to measure percolation and constituents
removed in the drainage. Generation tests could be conducted
using individual raw wastes or they could be conducted under
conditions better representing site operation by mixing, segre-
gating, stabilizing, compacting, or sealing the wastes as they
would be at the site. The major benefit of the larger scale,
more time-consuming lysimeter test may not be the development of
leachate composition data but the generation of enough leachate
to enable conduct of small scale treatability studies. However,
before adopting such an approach, one should be assured that
good correlation with actual site conditions can be achieved.
Otherwise, treatability study data may be little more useful
than published data and should be used with a similar amount of
caution.
In that regard, published data can be used with caution to
gain insight into the types of compounds likely to migrate and
appear in leachate and to a lesser extent, concentration ranges.
The data contained in Appendix A and summarized in Table 3-1
could serve as a starting point. As more data on hazardous
waste leachate composition become available, the utility of mak-
ing projections based upon experience at other sites may be im-
proved .
In the future, mathematical modeling, may be a viable al-
ternative for projecting leachate characteristics. However,
selection of input values which correlate with site conditions
will be difficult.
Once leachate characteristics are projected, promising
technologies should be identified on the basis of published data
(similar to the first step or the left side of Figure 6-1). De-
tailed "desk-top" analyses then can be conducted to evaluate and
select the process. These analyses could be aided by companies
marketing pertinent technologies if unpublished in-house experi-
ences are provided to supplement available data.
In cases where treatment process design is based on the
"desk-top" approach, consideration should be given to contin-
gency plans for leachate treatment and disposal in the event
6-11
-------
that the original design does not perform as required. The
feasibility of adopting an interim measure such as leachate
storage and/or recycle until the design can be confirmed by ac-
tual treatability studies as discussed earlier in this section
also should be considered.
6.5 CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO PROCESS TRAIN FORMULATION
Details relating to process configurations, applications,
design concerns, and pre- and post-treatment requirements to
assure proper performance are discussed below for those proc-
esses identified in Section 5.4 as being most applicable for
leachate treatment. These considerations should be taken into
account when arranging unit processes into treatment trains.
6.5.1 Biological Treatment
Biological treatment is expected to offer the most cost-
effective approach to removal of organic matter, particularly
biodegradable substances which are not amenable to sorption
processes. The major problem associated with biological treat-
ment is the potential presence of toxic organics and heavy met-
als which may interfere with metabolic processes and render this
treatment approach ineffective. There are several categories of
biological treatment processes including variations within these
categories which overcome toxicity problems to some extent. In
addition, pretreatment or the'addition of powdered activated
carbon often can be applied successfully to overcome toxicity
problems. For example, toxic heavy metals may be reduced below
inhibiting concentrations by chemical precipitation using lime,
alum, or iron salts, prior to biological treatment. Carbon
sorption either by packed bed pretreatment or PAC addition to
the biological treatment unit can be quite effective in dealing
with organic toxic substances. Nutrient addition (e.g., phos-
phorus and/or nitrogen) probably will be required in many in-
stances to support biological growth. Neutralization also may
be required if the pH is substantially different from 7.
Biological treatments which can be used include aerobic
processes such as activated sludge, trickling filters and aer-
ated lagoons? and anaerobic processes such as lagoons and anaer-
obic filters. Each is discussed below.
Of the various activated sludge processes, completely
mixed, extended aeration, and contact stabilization are used
most often. The completely mixed configurations are more toler-
ant of toxic substances than plug flow schemes. The impact of
toxic substances in the wastewater is reduced because complete
mixing in the aeration unit reduces the concentration of the
toxic compound by dilution and distributes the load to a greater
quantity of biomass. Non-biodegradable substances may pose "lore
6-12
-------
of a problem than biodegradable toxics especially if sorbed by
the biological sludge where they may concentrate over a period
of time and interfere with cell metabolism.
Sludge produced in biological waste treatment may be a haz-
ardous waste itself due to the sorption and concentration of
toxic substances contained in the wastewater. The quantity of
biological sludge produced normally is governed by hydraulic de-
tention time and sludge age. The conventional approach focuses
on maximum sludge production consistent with the desired efflu-
ent quality.
On the other hand, extended aeration minimizes sludge pro-
duction through use of long hydraulic detention times. Extended
aeration typically is used in small operations since the small
sludge handling requirements minimize the amount of manpower
needed for operation (manpower costs are more significant than
aeration costs for small units).
An additional potential problem associated with aerated
systems is the stripping of volatile compounds. While this may
serve as a removal mechanism, air pollution and personnel safety-
problems also may arise. Methods to control these emissions are
limited. Aside from using a process where stripping is less
likely (e.g., trickling filters or an anaerobic process), gas
phase adsorption may be possible using carbon or resin, al-
though this has not been studied extensively. Adsorption would
require collection of off-gas and, thus, could be more easily
adapted to a pure oxygen process. Chemical oxidation of emis-
sions before release also may be feasible. Prior to pursuing
emission control, the potential problem magnitude should be
evaluated thoroughly.
It is doubtful that activated sludge treatment alone will
suffice to meet discharge objectives in all instances. Pre-
treatment is expected to be needed to remove toxic materials
which would interfere with optimum performance of the biological
system. Post-treatment normally serves to polish the effluent
by removing suspended solids and refractory substances. These
latter substances generally are expected to be in much lower
concentrations than biodegradable substances. Listed below are
potentially useful pretreatment steps:
1. Addition of lime, alum, or iron salts to precipi-
tate heavy metals.
2. Carbon sorption which may either be accomplished
through PAC addition with or without chemical coag-
ulation or by packed beds of granular carbon. Th.e
objective is reduction of chemicals toxic to bio-
logical treatment; therefore, large throughputs for
6-13
-------
packed beds or small PAC additions may be all that
is required to achieve this reduction if the toxic
materials are strongly sorbed by the carbon.
3. Ultrafiltration or reverse osmosis are potential
pretreatment candidates. These would be used to
remove large molecular species which typically in-
clude the toxic and refractory species while
smaller species which are generally biodegradable
(e.g., ethanol, acetone) carry through and are re-
moved in the biological unit.
4. Aeration, sedimentation and filtration may also be
useful in some instances. For example, ferrous
iron may be oxidized and precipitated to scavenge
other heavy metals. Sedimentation with or without
filtration could then remove the precipitated fer-
ric hydroxide and reduce toxic heavy metals to ac-
ceptable levels.
5. Chemical oxidation, with ozone for example, may
serve to detoxify certain materials; however, ozone
consumption may be high due to oxidation of mate-
rials which are more appropriately biodegraded at
much less cost. Alkaline chlorination may be used
to oxidize cyanides if present in relatively dilute
¦ concentration.
6. Wet air oxidation also may detoxify some organic
substances but is expected to be a costly pretreat-
ment step.
7. Ion exchange can remove toxic metal ions but is
probably more expensive than chemical precipita-
tion.
8. Electrochemical treatment may be useful in some in-
stances, e.g., it may be preferable to chlorination
for reduction of high cyanide concentrations.
9. A.P.I, separator and/or air flotation may be used
to remove oil and grease.
Candidate post-treatment steps include:
1. Carbon sorption has strong potential when teamed
with biological. Biological treatment can substan-
tially reduce the load to a carbon column and
thereby minimize the cost.
6-14
-------
2. Chemical coagulation - sedimentation - filtration
would be useful for removing residual heavy metals.
Some PAC addition may also be performed to clean up
low residuals of toxic organics.
Other steps, such as ion exchange and membrane processes may be
considered processes for inorganic ion or total dissolved solids
removal.
Trickling filters will not produce as high a quality efflu-
ent as activated sludge, but may be less troublesome from an op-
erational standpoint and are less likely to cause"stripping of
volatile compounds. Pre- and post-treatment comments for the
activated sludge treatment process also apply to trickling fil-
ters .
Aerobic lagoons may be an effective process for treating
the organic fraction of a leachate stream. Their large size
provides dilution and buffering of load fluctuations. Capital
costs and operation and maintenance requirements are less than
for activated sludge but land requirements are greater and oper-
ational controls are less flexible. If lagoons are aerated by
mechanical means, stripping of volatile compounds could be a
problem.
Sludge removal may necessitate shut down of lagoon opera-
tion, however, clean-out will be determined by leachate compo-
sition and lagoon design and could be very infrequent (at in-
tervals of several years). Effluents probably will need to be
polished to accomplish the high levels of performance expected
to be required. Consequently, pre- and post-treatment processes
discussed for activated sludge generally apply to aerobic la-
goons .
The two anaerobic processes described in Section 5.2 great-
ly differ in their configuration and operation. Both, however,
may have advantages over aerobic treatment because of less
stripping and sludge production. Methane produced could be used
as fuel. Anaerobic lagoons also are easier to operate and have
lower capital, and operation and maintenance costs. The diffi-
culty of anaerobic filter operation may be comparable to acti-
vated sludge. For upflow anaerobic filters, pre-treatment for
suspended solids removal may be needed to minimize filter plug-
ging. A lower quality effluent will be produced by anaerobic
processes necessitating post-treatment with the considerations
discussed for activated sludge applying.
Successful application of anaerobic treatment followed by
aerobic treatment for gross and specific organics removal has
been reported at bench scale. Successful anaerobic treatment of
municipal landfill leachate also has been reported at bench
scale.
6-15
-------
6.5.2 Carbon Adsorption
Activated carbon sorption in packed beds is considered to
be a prime candidate for leachate treatment. However, it is an-
ticipated that activated carbon will be used in conjunction with
other processes since it is quite expensive to treat moderate to
high TOC loads with carbon alone. Furthermore/ carbon is not
effective for removing many highly soluble low-molecular weight
organics. Although most of the low-molecular weight organics
are not highly toxic, they will contribute substantially to the
COD and BOD of the effluent.
Carbon sorption is best suited for removal of refractory
organics following biological treatment. These organics gener-
ally are adsorbed most strongly by the carbon and at the low
concentrations typically found, the carbon sorption cycle can be
lengthened. Consequently, the cost of carbon replacement or re-
generation is lowered.
There may be cases where carbon adsorption will be used be-
fore biological treatment to protect the biological process from
toxics. In these cases complete treatment by the carbon process
is not required and organics can be allowed to "leak" from the
carbon. Treatability studies, however, are necessary to define
leakage levels tolerable by the downstream biological process.
Powdered activated carbon added directly to the activated
sludge biological system also is considered to be a potential
leachate treatment process where refractory or toxic organics
may inhibit biological activity. To assure adequate removal of
carbon from the effluent, post-treatment using granular media
filtration may be necessary.
If granular carbon usage is low, it is unlikely that on-
site thermal regeneration of activated carbon will be performed.
Instead, commercial replacement services probably would be used.
For powdered activated carbon (PAC) the quantity used also would
dictate the decision between one time use of the PAC or regener-
ation.
Alternative pretreatment steps for the sorption process in-
clude the following:
1. Biological treatment (discussed, earlier);
2. Solids removed by filtration;
3. Chemical precipitation/coagulation for suspended
solids and heavy metals removal followed by sedi-
mentation alone or filtration alone, or a combina-
tion of sedimentation and filtration;
6-16
-------
4. Aeration followed by sedimentation/filtration for
oxidation and precipitation of dissolved iron which
removes heavy metals as well as suspended solids.
Aeration also may remove volatile organics to re-
lieve loading on activated carbon (however, emis-
sions constraints mast be considered);
5. Ozonation to render organics more sorbable by car-
bon; and
6. Oil removal.
Processes such as ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis do not
complement sorption and are not considered good pretreatment
candidates. Ion exchange possibly may serve to remove ionic
substances such as heavy metals, organic acids, amines, or cya-
nide; but it is likely that alternative processes will be less
expensive.
Post-treatment processes which may be useful include the
following:
1. Precipitation - scavenging for removal of residual
heavy metals.
2. Biological - for removing biodegradable residuals.
3. Filtration - to provide complete removal of PAC
from the treated effluent.
6.5.3 Chemical Precipitation/Coagulation
The term chemical precipitation as used here includes the
processes of chemical addition, precipitation and flocculation.
Post-treatment will include sedimentation or flotation in cases
of oily materials. Granular media filtration also may be in-
cluded for better removal of precipitates.
Typically, precipitation is used for removal of particulate
matter and inorganic ions, primarily heavy metals. It is ac-
complished by adding alum, lime, iron salts (ferric chloride,
ferrous sulfate), or hydrogen or sodium sulfide. Organic poly-
electrolytes also are used as flocculants or to aid floc-
culation.
A primary variable in determining chemical doses and re-
moval efficiencies is pH because of its effect on pollutant sol-
ubility in the wastewater matrix. Although removals equal to
solubility limits are theoretically possible, the formation of
organometallic complexes and the incomplete removal of precipi-
tated particles limits actual removal efficiencies.
6-17
-------
When organics are present, post-treatment for organics re-
moval will be required. This could take several forms including
biological, sorption, or stripping. Reports indicate, however,
that coagulation followed by efficient solids removal, e.g.,
mixed media filtration can provide moderate removals (30-60%) of
numerous organic compounds; even when these compounds are
present at the low milligram or microgram per liter levels.
Provisions also are required to manage sludges generated by the
coagulation process.
For some metals, e.g., hexavalent chromium, precipitation
must be preceded by a chemical reduction process. For iron,
manganese and some other metals pretreatment using chemical oxi-
dation may be required.
6.5.4 Density Separation
Sedimentation is likely to be needed for pre- or post-
treatment in concert with many of the applicable unit processes.
Flotation may be used with or without chemical coagulation for
leachates containing oily materials.
6.5.5 Filtration
Granular media filtration also is likely to be used for
pre- or post-treatment in concert with many of the applicable
unit processes.
6.5.6 Chemical Oxidation
Two potential applications of chemical oxidation processes
to leachate treatment are cyanide destruction and oxidation of
organics. Oxidation of metals is considered of secondary impor-
tance because most metals are more effectively removed by chemi-
cal precipitation or ion exchange. For cyanide destruction,
when cyanide concentration is low and complexation with metals
is possible, alkaline chlorination or ozonation may be most ap-
plicable. Ozonation produces no harmful residuals (the nature
of intermediate products must be assessed individually) and also
may oxidize organics present in the leachate. A major disadvan-
tage of alkaline chlorination is the potential for formation of
chlorinated organics.
The alkaline chlorination process may include two stage
chlorination or a second step of acid hydrolysis. Both require
close pH control. Pretreatment for metals removal by chemical
precipitation may be practiced. Post-treatment (biological or
carbon adsorption) for removal of organics may be required when
treating leachate.
6-18
-------
The ozonation process may include chemical coagulation for
metals removal and sed irnentat ion or filtration for suspended
solids or precipitate removal. Ozone is not selective and will
oxidize cyanide and organics present in the leachate. The de-
gree of oxidation will determine post-treatment requirement.
Biological treatment and possibly carbon adsorption may be nec-
essary ,
6.5.7 Chemical Reduction
The major leachate treatment application of chemical reduc-
tion appears to be reduction of hexavalent chromium to trivalent
chromium using sulfur dioxide, sulfite salts, or ferrous sulfate
as reducing agents. For removal of the soluble trivalent chro-
mium, chemical precipitation with lime or sodium carbonate is
used. This precipitation step also may remove other metals
present in the leachate.
If cyanide is present chemical oxidation may be a required
post-treatment. If organics are present in the leachate, bio-
logical or carbon adsorption also may be required post-treatment
s teps.
Site conditions will influence the valence state of chro-
mium. in a leachate. Analytical determinations are necessary to
identify the form of chromium in the leachate.
6.5.8 Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is an effective but costly method for metallic
ion removal. Consequently, the process application probably
will be limited to selected situations. For purposes of leach-
ate treatment, a major application could be fluoride removal us-
ing activated alumina adsorption. As stated in Section 5.2, ad-
sorption rather than ion exchange is the removal mechanism; how-
ever, the process is operated similarly to ion exchange proc-
esses. Pre-treatment steps could include sedimentation or fil-
tration to remove suspended solids, or chemical precipitation to
remove metals, or both. Because the process is more suited for
inorganic ion removal, treatment for organics removal may be re-
quired. Treatment and disposal of regenerant and neutralization
streams used to regenerate the activated alumina also must be
cons idered.
Total dissolved solids removal is another potential appli-
cation for ion exchange when non-precipitable dissolved solids
are present and TDS levels are generally less than 5000 mg/1.
In this case, the process would be used for effluent polishing.
Brines or sludges resulting from regeneration require careful
management.
6-19
-------
6.5.9 Membrane Processes
In cases where total dissolved solids (TDS) removal is re-
quired and TDS concentration ranges from 5,000 to 50,000 mg/1
reverse osmosis could be used for effluent polishing. Concur-
rent removal of some refractory organics also may be accomp-
lished. When used to treat effluents with high TDS levels the
concentrate stream could become very voluminous and would re-
quire additional management considerations.
6.5.10 Stripping Processes
Stripping processes will have limited application in leach-
ate treatment. This is because of air emissions problems re-
lated to air stripping and additional treatment requirements for
overhead condensate and stripper bottoms in the case of steam
stripping. One possible application of air stripping would be
to remove ammonia nitrogen (when biological treatment is not ef-
fective) if emissions would not constitute an air pollution
problem.
If air stripping is used, chemical precipitation and sedi-
mentation may be used for pretreatment to accomplish metals re-
moval, to take advantage of alkaline pH conditions, and for re-
duced solids loading to the stripper. If additional alkalinity
is necessary, chemicals should be selected with sludge produc-
tion and disposal considerations in mind.
6.5.11 Wet Oxidation
Only limited application of wet oxidation is envisioned at
this time because of a lack of process experience. Where leach-
ates are composed primarily of high concentrations of toxic or
refractory organics but are too dilute for incineration to be
cost-effective, wet oxidation could be considered. Site specif-
ic treatability studies should be conducted before selecting the
process. Pretreatment requirements probably will be minimal;
post-treatment requirements will depend on the degree of oxida-
tion achieved.
Wet oxidation as a regeneration technique for powdered ac-
tivated carbon used in leachate treatment does appear to be a
promising potential application.
6.6 PROCESS TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
Since hazardous waste leachates are expected to vary widely
in composition and will often contain a variety of constituents,
in general, no single unit process will be capable of providing
the necessary treatment. Rather, the incorporation of individ-
ual unit processes into process trains will be necessary to
achieve high levels of treatment in a cost-effective manner.
6-20
-------
The most promising unit processes were identified in Section 6.5
Thus, the next step in selecting a leachate treatment system is
to formulate process trains which combine unit process technolo-
gies in a fashion which optimizes solution of a particular
leachaie treatment problem.
The formulation of process trains is addressed subsequently
in this section for three general types of hazardous waste
leachates depending upon the type of contaminants to be treated:
organic, inorganic, or combination of organic and inorganic.
These are believed to be typical of the types of leachate treat-
ment situations which will be encountered at most hazardous
waste disposal sites. Example treatment systems are described
for each of the leachate types. These systems were selected to
apply to a broad range of contaminants which may be present in
leachates and should be capable of achieving high levels of
treatment. However, other arrangements of unit processes are
possible and may be preferable in some cases as dictated by site
specific conditions. Process trains presented herein are be-
lieved to have broad applicability but must be evaluated in
light of a specific leachate treatment problem.
Descriptions of process trains and operating conditions are
presented in differing levels of detail depending on the appli-
cability and reliability of available data. In many cases, the
generic type of process (e.g., biological treatment) is illus-
trated in the process train rather than a specific process
(e.g., activated sludge, trickling filter, aerated lagoon) be-
cause site specific conditions will control the choice of the
specific unit process.
Because of the paucity of data on hazardous waste leachate
composition and general lack of experience with leachate treat-
ment, the examples given below were derived from a range of
sources: actual leachate with a full scale process train imple-
mented, contaminated groundwater similar in composition to
leachate and proposed alternative process trains, and postulated
leachates and alternative process trains. The user can compare
these situations to the particular case at hand and make judg-
ments about possible treatment approaches.
6.6.1 Leachate Containing Organic Contaminants
6.6.1.1 Love Canal Experience-
Experience in the treatment of actual high strength organ-
ics-containing leachate has been reported by McDougall, et al.
(3,4). They report on the temporary and permanent process
trains used to treat leachate from the Love Canal. The proc-
esses selected for the permanent facility are listed below and
the flow chart is illustrated in Figure 6-2:
6-21
-------
i— caustic
addition
laachate
STORAGE
TANK
disposal
CLARIFIER
\
sludge
sludge to
off-site
-------
• raw leachate holding tank
• neutralization with caustic followed by clarification
• in-line storage tank
• in-line bag filters
• carbon adsorption (2 beds in series)
The leachate treatment facility discharges to the city sewer
system which conveys the treated leachate to a physical-chemical
municipal sewage treatment plant.
Performance data collected during operation of a temporary
system which was similar to the permanent treatment system ex-
cept that granular media filters were used instead of bag fil-
ters are shown in Table 6-1.
Cost for permanent treatment has been reported to be
S9.80/m3 (3.7 4/gal) which includes amortized carbon system capi-
tal, replacement carbon, and equipment maintenance.
The following considerations or actions taken during devel-
opment of the Love Canal leachate treatment system are illustra-
tive of factors which should be taken into account when select-
ing a leachate treatment technology in any situation.
1. Love Canal was judged to be a public health hazard
and immediate emergency actions were required.
This limited the time which could be devoted to
evaluating alternative approaches.
2. A leachate existed which could be used for treata-
bility studies. These studies focused primarily on
priority (organic) pollutant removals.
3. A physical-chemical POTW was in close proximity.
This provided not only a discharge option but also
additional treatment and dilution thus serving as a
buffering device should the leachate treatment sys-
tem ultimately selected fail to meet performance
requirements.
4. Discharge to a POTW allowed for performance re-
quirements likely to be less stringent than for di-
rect discharge to surface waters.
5. Regular monitoring was practiced and the system was
constructed so that system modifications could be
made as needed at a future time.
6-23
-------
TABLE 6-1 PERFORMANCE DATA ON TEMPORARY TREATMENT
SYSTEM AT LOVE CANAL (3)
Pollutant
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
Phenol
1,2, 3-trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
2-chloronaphthalene
1, 2-dichlorobenzene
1,3&1,4-
dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutad iene
Anthracene and
phenan threne
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1.1.1-tr ichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1.1.2-trichloroethane
1/1*2,2-
tetrachloroethane
Chloroform
1.1-dichloroethylene
1.2-trans
dichloroethylene
1, 2-dichloropropane
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Methyl chloride
Chlorod ibromomethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toulene
Trichloroethylene
TOC
N.D. - not detected
Raw Leachate
(ug/1)
85
5,100
2, 400
870
110
510
1, 300
Carbon System
Effluent (
-------
Results of limited treatability and feasibility study
efforts prior to treatment system selection are summarized
below:
1. A mobile treatment unit equipped for ?H adjustment,
clarification, sand filtration, and carbon adsorp-
tion was operated at the site and produced effluent
which was found to be acceptable for discharge (3).
2. Because granular activated carbon was believed to
be the best available technology for priority pol-
lutant removal from the leachate, carbon isotherm,
dynamic column, and carbon reactivation studies
were undertaken (4). Isotherms indicated that the
treatment objective of 300 mg/1 TOC could be met
with reasonable carbon usage. Dynamic column stud-
ies indicated that the 300 mg/'i TOC limit could be
achieved; that only one organic compound, methanol,
was found in the effluent in the mg/1 range; that
no traces of several priority pollutants were found
in the effluent; and that pretreatment would be
required to provide separation of oily, liquid, and
sludge phases in the raw leachate. Carbon reacti-
vation studies indicated that high temperature re-
activation could restore most of the carbon adsorp-
tive capacity, and that the reactivation furnace
and afterburner could be operated to provide total
destruction of the organics.
3. Biological treatability studies were conducted in
small scale reactors (5). Leachate was diluted
with nutrient supplemented tap water or sewage in
these studies. Results indicated that biodegrada-
tion was possible at 1:5 dilution with either tap
water or sewage provided that nutrients were added
and pH was controlled. Since the oxygen demand was
high and there was a possibility that off-gases
might contain undesirable compounds, a closed
pure-oxygen system with scrubbing or carbon adsorp-
tion of off-gases was thought to be promising (5).
These initial studies also concluded that carocn
adsorption treatment of raw leachate was impracti-
cal because of the high carbon doses required and
that pretreatment with activated sludge with carbon
polishing might be reasonable. Learhate quality,
however, was found to change substantially from
that used in these early tests.
6-25
-------
The results of these treatability studies and the per-
formance data presented in Table 6-1 illustrate the treatability
of this leachate. A comparison of these results with treatabil-
ity information for carbon adsorption in Appendix S leads to the
following observations:
1. treatability information for 25 of the 31 compounds
listed in Table 6-1 is given in Appendix E, and
2. the treatability information for these compounds
very closely corresponds to the performance indi-
cated, in Table 6-1.
While the data in Appendix E do not always indicate the best
level attainable in an effluent, they do indicate which com-
pounds are treatable and provide an estimate of process perfor-
mance. This demonstrates the usefulness of Appendix E data in
aiding initial screenings of technologies especially for those
with greater application experiences.
The Love Canal experience illustrates a case where acti-
vated carbon treatment is an effective and relatively cost-ef-
fective method for removing organic contaminates from a haz-
ardous waste leachate. This approach may or may not have been
the optimum choice but the emergency nature of the situation did
not permit lengthy process optimization studies. Since the Love
Canal leachate treatment system is an operating facility, addi-
tional experience should better define the effectiveness and
costs associated with this approach.
6.6.1.2 Ott/Story Site Study—
On-going efforts to evaluate technologies for treating
groundwater contaminated by a variety of toxic and hazardous or-
ganic compounds have been reported in several references
(6,7,8,9). This experience is highlighted for several reasons
even though the subject wastewater is groundwater rather than
leachate:
1.
2.
Many of the compounds are the same as would be ex-
pected to occur in leachate.
Treatability studies have been conducted using
groundwater obtained from the most concentrated
part of the contamination plume. Therefore, con-
taminant concentrations may approach those of
leachate.
Groundwater quality data indicate compounds which
are likely to migrate.
6-26
-------
4. The compounds present include toxic and hazardous
pollutants as well as other organics. Thus, treat-
ability results reflect the effects of the non-tox-
ic, non-hazardous organics in the matrix.
5. Numerous technologies are being screened in the
laboratory using actual wastewater.
6. The site is subject to on-going remedial action
work so that further information is likely to be-
come available.
Table 6-2 presents a summary of raw groundwater composition
data as represented by composite samples from two wells in the
contaminant plume which are being used in the treatability
studies. Groundwater samples from other wells in the problem
area differ widely in composition from those presented here.
TABLE 6-2 OTT/STORY GROUNDWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Parame ter
Composition Range**
COD
TOC
NH -N
Organic N
Chloride
Conductivity
TDS
pH
10 - 12
5400 mg/1
600 - 1500 mg/1
64 mg/1
110 mg/1
3800 mg/1
18,060 mhos/cm
12,000 mg/1
Volatile Organics:.
Vinyl chloride*
Methylene chloride*
1,1-Dichloroethylene*
1.1-Diehloroethane*
1.2-Dichloroethane*
Benzene*
1,1,2-Trichloroe thane*
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane*
Toluene*
Ethyl benzene*
Chlorobenzene*
Trichlorofluoromethane*
Chloroform
Tr ichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
140 - 32,500
<5 - 6570
60 - 19,850
<5 - 14,280
0.350 - 111 mg/1
6 - 7800
<5 - 790
<5 - 1590
<5 -5850
<5 - 4 70
<5 - 140
<5 - 18
1400
40
110
(continued)
6-27
-------
TABLE 6-2 (continued)
Parameter
Composition Range*
Acid Extractable Organics:
o-Chlorophenol*
Phenol*
0-sec-Butylphenol***
p-Isobutylanisol*** or
p-Acetonylanisol***
p-sec-Buty1phenol***
p-2-oxo-n-Buty1phenol
m-Acetonylanisol** *
Isopropylphenol***
1-Ethy1propylphenol
Dimethylphenol*
Benzoic acid
Methylphenol
Me thy1ethylphenol
Methylprophylphenol
3,4-D-Methylphenol
Base Extractable Organics:
Dichlorobenzene*
Dimethylaniline
m-Ethylaniline
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene*
Naphthalene*
Methylnapthalene
Camphor
Chloroan iline
Benzylamine or o-Toluidine
Phenanthrene* or
Anthracene*
Methylaniline
<3-20
<3 - 33
<3 - 83
<3 ¦
<3 -
<3 -
<3 -
<3 -
<3
<3
<3 -
40
20
210
160
<10 -
<10 -
<10 -
<10 -
<10 -
<10 -
<10 -
<10 -
<10 -
<10 -
310
86
48
1357
1546
8
12,311
172
17,000
7640
28
66
290
7571
86
471
670
* - A priority pollutant
** - All concentrations in ug/1
*** - Structure not validated by
except
actual
as noted
compound
Because the contamination problem is solely organic in na-
ture, the following processes individually and in combination
have been selected for screening:
• biological treatment - activated sludge, trickling fil-
ter, anaerobic filter;
6-28
-------
• chemical precipitation;
• granular and powdered activated carbon adsorption;
resin adsorption;
• air and steam stripping; and
• ozonation.
Results of completed studies are summarized below:
1. Chemical coagulation of raw groundwater does not
achieve significant removal of organics as measured
by TOC reduction. It also does not appear to be
necessary in order to maintain flow through down-
flow packed bed granular activated carbon (GAC)
columns.
2. An aerobic biomass could not be acclimated to treat
raw groundwater. Biological treatment provided
about 60% TOC reduction; however, stripping due to
aeration appeared to account for about two-thirds
of what was accomplished in the biological treat-
ment process.
3. Addition of trace elements and nutrients did not
aid acclimation to raw groundwater.
4. Addition of powdered activated carbon to the aera-
tion chamber at concentrations of about 10,000 mg/1
neither aided acclimation to raw groundwater nor
improved TOC removal or mixed liquor appearance.
5. Batch adsorption studies for four different carbons
and three resins indicated that no sorbent was able
to reduce residual TOC to less than 230 mg/1.
6. Granular activated carbon (GAC) employed in contin-
uous flow small columns was not capable of sustain-
ing high levels of TOC removal. TOC removal de-
clined to <50% after processing <5 bed volumes
(BV). Within 100-160 BV TOC removal declined to
10% to 15% and remained at this level for up to 200
BV.
7. GAC adsorption was capable of sustaining high lev-
els of organic priority pollutant removals even
when TOC removal had declined to 35% and effluent
TOC levels were approximately 600 mg/1. In both
batch and continuous flow adsorption studies, some
volatile priority pollutants were detected in the
6-29
-------
effluent. None of the acid or base-neutral ex-
tractable organic priority pollutants detected in
the raw groundwater were found in GAC effluent
after processing up to 71 BV of groundwater.
8. Continuous flow, small column, resin adsorption
studies demonstrated TOC breakthrough characteris-
tics similar to those for GAC adsorption. However,
TOC breakthrough occurred more rapidly with resin
than with carbon.
9. GAC pretreatment of raw groundwater enabled devel-
opment of a culture of aerobic organisms capable of
further treating GAC effluent. In excess of 95%
TOC removal was achieved by this process during the
period which GAC removal of TOC exceeded 30%. Af-
ter this initial period, process train performance
declined as GAC performance declined.
10. Several organic priority pollutants were detected
in off-gas from activated sludge reactors; these
included methylene chloride, 1,2-dichloroethane,
benzene, tetrachloroethylene, and toluene. No or-
ganic priority pollutants were detected in an acti-
vated sludge biomass sample.
11. Anaerobic treatment (upflow anaerobic filter, UAF)
of GAC pretreated groundwater was possible. UAF
performance appeared to decline as GAC performance
declined. Overall the GAC/UAF process train per-
formed more poorly than the GAC/activated sludge
process train.
Based upon these results, one can maJce several observations:
1. The removal of priority pollutants by the granular
activated carbon and the air stripping unit proc-
esses generally corresponds with other published
information including that contained in Appendix E.
2. A considerable fraction of the TOC is made up of
non-priority organic compounds. This fraction of
the TOC is more difficult to remove than the prior-
ity pollutants.
3. The need for removal of the TOC attributed to the
non-priority pollutants needs to be closely
assessed. A limited number of static bioassay
tests with Daphnia Magna or carbon treated ground-
water suggest significant residual toxicity?
6-30
-------
whether this is attributable to the compounds pres-
ent or to low dissolved oxygen levels needs to be
determined.
Results of the treatability studies to date suggest that a
process train consisting of granular activated carbon followed by
aerobic biological treatment is the most feasible approach to
treatment of this groundwater.
This process train which, in general, is applicable to high
TOC wastewaters in situations where waste stream components may
be toxic to biological cultures is illustrated in Figure6-3.
The rationale is to utilize the activated carbon to protect the
biological system from toxicity problems. Therefore, the carbon
could be allowed to "leak" relatively high concentrations of TOC
(organics) rather than be operated to achieve maximum reduction
of organic compounds. Allowable leakage would be based upon
determination of the point at which the carbon treated effluent
becomes toxic to the subsequent biological process. Thus, the
selection of the allowable TOC or organics leakage (i.e., break-
through) from the carbon contactors is crucial to the perfor-
mance and cost effectiveness of this process train. Higher or-
ganic loads handled by the biological system result in greater
service life of the granular carbon and consequently, lower
costs related to the carbon treatment phase.
The flowsheet depicted in Figure 6-3 includes a chemical
coagulation step (including settling and filtration). Although
not necessary in the groundwater treatment situation discussed
above, these processes could be used in situations where soluble
inorganics removal or particulate removal to minimize head
losses and frequent backwashing in carbon contact columns may be
necessary.
Several disadvantages may be associated with the treatment
system given in Figure 6-3 as illustrated by the above ground-
water treatment case:
1. Substantial carbon utilization rates to maintain ef-
fluent TOC levels below 100 mg/1; and
2. Stripping of volatile compounds in activated sludge
off-gases.
Other factors which must be considered in evaluating this
approach include carbon regeneration feasibility and sludge dis-
posal alternatives.
6.6.1.3 Other Possibilities—
Several other potentially effective process trains for
treatment of leachates containing primarily organic contaminants
6-31
-------
pH adjustment
chemicals
COAGULATION
FILTRATION
SETTLING
influent
sludge
backwash
GRANULAR
ACTIVATED
CARBON
backwash I
off gases
SETTLING
effluent l~~ ^
I I
FILTRATION
(optional)
BIOLOGICAL
\ > sludge
spent GAC
waste sludge
Figure 6-3. Schematic of carbon sorption/biological process train.
-------
have been postulated elsewhere (9). One of these, believed to
have high potential, is depicted in Figure 6-4 which illustrates
a sequence of biological treatment followed by granular carbon
sorption. This process train is applicable to treatment of
wastewaters high in TQC, low in toxic (to a biomass) organics,
and containing refractory organics. Chemical coagulation ana pH
adjustment are provided for heavy metals removal and protection
of the subsequent biological system. This may not be necessary
if heavy metal concentrations are below toxicity thresholds and
if the moderate removal efficiencies typical of activated sludge
are sufficient. Biological treatment such as activated sludge,
or anaerobic filters is included to reduce BOD as well as biode-
gradable toxic organics. This reduces the organic load to sub-
sequent sorption processes. To prevent rapid head losses caused
by accumulation of solids in the sorption columns, clarification
and multi-media filtration are provided. The intent is to re-
duce suspended solids to 25-50 mg/1. Granular carbon adsorption
is included to remove refractory organic residuals and toxic
organics. Activated carbon rather than polymeric or carbon-
aceous resins has been suggested because more full scale experi-
ence exists and performance as well as design and operating cri-
teria have been reported. This process train is expected to be
highly effective and relatively economical when compared to
other alternatives. Its success, however, is dependent on bio-
logical system performance. Moreover, the presence of high con-
centrations of volatile organic constituents may create a poten-
tial air contamination problem. Three by-product wastes are
produced: chemical sludge, biological sludge, and spent carbon.
Spent carbon can be regenerated but the sludge must be disposed.
6,6.2 Leachate Containing Inorganic Contaminants
Disposal sites or segregated portions of sites handling
solely inorganic hazardous wastes, e.g., wastes from the metals
plating and finishing industry, are likely to generate leachates
of predominantly inorganic nature. The most probable approach
to treatment of this type of leachate would be chemical precip-
itation followed by sedimentation and possibly filtration, as
well. However, it may be necessary to modify/supplement this
approach if any of the following conditions pertain:
1. hexavalent chromium present - addition of chemical
reduction process,
2. cyanide present - addition of alkaline chlorination or
ozonation,
3. total dissolved solids control required - addition of
ion exchange if TDS level is less than about 5,000
mg/1 or reverse osmosis if TDS level is about 5,000 to
50,000 mg/1, or
6-33
-------
chemicals
pH adjustment
off gases
COAGULATION
SETTLING
Influent ^
sludge
BIOLOGICAL
backwash
SETTLING
GRANULAR
ACTIVATED
CARBON
FILTRATION
V sludge
spent GAC
V waste sludge
effluent
Figure 6-4. Schematic of biological/carbon sorption process train.
-------
4. ammonia present - addition of air stripping or ion
exchange.
Several examples of leachates containing only inorganic con-
taminants are discussed subsequently to illustrate process
trains, responsive to the above conditions. Cases discussed are
as follows:
1. heavy metals only (Figure 6-5);
2. heavy metals including hexavalent chromium (Figure 6-
6);
3. heavy metals including hexavalent chromium and cyanide
(Figure 6-7 ); and
4. heavy metals, ammonia, and TDS control (Figure 6-8).
Figure 6-5 illustrates a process train for treating leach-
ates containing several heavy metals. The treatment system in-
cludes chemical precipitation using lime or ferric chloride.
Depending upon the metals present, the pH should be adjusted to
8.0 - 9.5. Flocculation could be aided by polymer addition for
more efficient precipitate removal in the subsequent sedimenta-
tion step. Polishing with granular media filtration also could
be provided for better solids removal.
Figure 6-6 is a treatment process schematic for leachate
containing heavy metals including hexavalent chromium. The
first step in the process is chemical reduction at an acidic pH
(pH reduced to 3.0 or less with sulfuric acid) to reduce hexa-
valent chromium to the trivalent state. Sulfur dioxide is used
as the reducing agent; although sodium bisulfite or metabi-
sulfite can be used. Following reduction, the pH is raised to
pH 8.0 to 9.5 using lime or sodium hydroxide. This results in
the precipitation of trivalent chromium as well as other metals.
The remainder of the process train is as shown in Figure 6-5.
Figure 6-7 is a process schematic illustrating the treat-
ment of a hazardous waste leachate containing cyanide and heavy
metals including hexavalent chromium. Alkaline chlorination
(with NaOCL or Cl2 gas) at pH 9.0 to 10.5 for cyanide oxidation
is provided first. Complete cyanide oxidation requires close pH
control and an excess of chlorine. Reaction time and chlorine
requirements depend greatly on operating pH. Ozone oxidation is
a potential alternative to alkaline chlorination particularly
for leachates containing organic compounds which might be con-
verted to chlorinated forms.
Chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium to the trivalent
state is accomplished next. For this step pH must be decreased
to less than pH 3 using sulfuric acid. Sulfur dioxide is added
6-35
-------
chemical addition: lime, FeClj, NaOH
pH adjustment: 8.0-0.5
CTl
I
OJ
CTl
leachate
/ft
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
p polymer
I (optional)
I
I
I
ft
FLOCCULATION
backwash
GRANULAR MEDIA
FILTRATION
(optional)
SEDIMENTATION
^ ]—
\
-*1
f"
effluent
>
sludge
1
I
*
I
I
J
Figure 6-5. Process train for leachate containing metals.
-------
lime, NaOH
pH adjustment
polymer (optional)
GRANULAR MEDIA
FILTRATION
(optional)
SEDIMENTATION
leachate \|/ \[>
effluent
CHEMICAL CHEMICAL
REDUCTION PRECIPITATION
(pH-^.3) (PH 8.0-9.5)
FLOCCULATION
sludge
backwash
Figure 6-6. Process train for leachate containing metals including hexavalent chromium.
-------
r NaOH or Ca(OH).
TT* *-
T leachate
r CI.
CO, ,N-
*
p" H|S 0^_
r SO.
r-NaOH or lime
±_±
ret
nrf
polymer (optional)
T GRANULAR MEDIA
I FILTRATION
U/ / (optional)
Y /
~T\ SEDIMENTATION I 1
2
\
ALKALINE CHEMICAL CHEMICAL FLOCCULATION
CHLORINATION REDUCTION PRECIPITATION
(pH 9.0-10.5) (pH^2.3) (pH 8.0-9.5)
/
sludge
H I-
ltj
I
i
effluent
backwash
igure 6-7. Process train for leachate containing metals including
hexavalent chromium and cyanide.
-------
as the reducing agent. Care must be taken to assure complete
cyanide removal prior to this process because acid conditions
permit generation of toxic hydrogen cyanide gas. Following re-
duction, pH is raised to pH 8.0 to 9.5 for precipitation of
trivalent chromium and other metals. The remainder of the proc-
ess train is as shown in Figure 6-5.
Several alternatives for treating leachates containing met-
als and ammonia and also requiring TDS control are illustrated
in Figure 6-3. The first phase of the process train addresses
removal of heavy metals using chemical precipitation as depicted
in Figure 6-5.
TWo alternatives for subsequent amn\onia removal then are
presented. Alternative 1 involves selective ion exchange using
clinoptilolite, (a natural zeolite). For removing ammonia con-
centrated in the regenerant stream, air stripping can be used
and the lime slurry regenerant can be reused. Alternative 2
uses an air stripping tower operated under alkaline conditions;
pH adjustment can be accomplished using sodium hydroxide or
lime. Use of the latter, however, can generate large volumes of
sludge.
The last phase of the process train in Figure 6-8 provides
for TDS control using either ion exchange or reverse osmosis.
Ion exchange resins would include cationic and anionic species;
whether strong-acid or base, or weak-acid or base are used de-
pends on the ions to be exchanged.
Each of the treatment systems discussed above produces
chemical sludges which may have to be handled as hazardous
wastes. Disposal of these residues is discussed in Section 5.4.
The primary disposal alternative is to landfill, preferably
without dewatering or stabilization. However, site specifics
and subsequent resolubilization concerns will influence this
deci s ion.
The foregoing cases and example process trains do not en-
compass every conceivable leachate treatment situation involving
hazardous waste leachates containing only inorganic contami-
nants. However, the examples are applicable to a broad range o£
leachate concerns and are illustrative of the approach to formu-
lation of conceptual process flowsheets.
6.6.3 Leachate Containing Organic and Inorganic Pollutants
Hazardous waste leachate is expected frequently to be more
complex than the previous cases and may contain both inorganic
and organic contaminants. Treatment of this leachate will
involve some combination of the treatment processes discussed in
Sections 6.6.1 and 6.6.2. Because possible leachate compos:'::
variations are numerous, it is not feasible to illustrate the
6-35
-------
K-
TDS CONTROL PHASE
¦H
Ficjure 6-8. Process train for leachate containing metals and ammonia
and requiring TDS control.
-------
myriad of potential treatment process trains. Instead, an over-
view of important considerations is presented based upon infor-
mation provided throughout this manual.
In general, when both inorganic and organic contaminants
are present, the inorganics generally should be removed first to
minimize effects on subsequent processes. Examples of such
effects include metal toxicity to biological processes and cor-
rosion, scaling, and inerts accumulation during carbon regenera-
tion. Information on metals toxicity to biological processes is
included in Appendix E and in a report by Pajak, et al. (10).
The processes most suitable for inorganics removal are dis-
cussed in Section 6.6.2 and are illustrated in Figures 6-5, 6-6,
6-7, and 6-8. These processes include chemical precipitation,
chemical oxidation and reduction, neutralization, filtration,
and sedimentation. In addition to providing inorganics removal,
chemical precipitation and oxidation processes also could effect
some pretreatment of organic compounds. This is especially true
for chemical oxidation with ozone or hydrogen peroxide and is a
factor which must be considered when chemical dosage require-
ments are determined. Handling of residues generated by these
processes is discussed in Sections 5.4 and 6.6.2.
The two leading processes for treating organics are biolog-
ical treatment and activated carbon adsorption. Whether these
processes should be used separately or in combination depends
upon leachate characteristics. If the organics consist solely
of biodegradable compounds, then biological treatment alone
would suffice; although a subsequent solids removal polishing
step could be necessary in some situations.
A leachate containing degradable organics only is not
expected to occur frequently; consequently, the two processes
most frequently will be used in series. They may be arranged
with the biological process preceding granular activated carbon
(GAC) to remove degradable organics and reduce the organic load
to the GAC process which then is used for refractory organics
removal and polishing. To avoid GAC column plugging a sedimen-
tation or filtration step should be located between the biolog-
ical process and GAC. This treatment sequence could be applied
when organics content is high and refractory but not when toxic
organics are present.
A second arrangement would be to have GAC preceding biolog-
ical treatment. This sequence would be used when toxic organics
would interfere with the biological process. The GAC could be
operated to leak the maximum concentration of organics that the
biological system could tolerate and still meet performance
requirements. This results in a longer sorption cycle for the
carbon.
6-41
-------
Approaches to treatment of the organic component of leach-
ates have been discussed in Section 6.6.1 and process train
schematics given in Figures 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4. One additional
process train which merits consideration is shown schematically
in Figure 6-9. This biophysical treatment approach combines
simultaneous biological (activated sludge) and powdered acti-
vated carbon treatments in the biological process reactor. This
approach is simpler than the previously described sequential
carbon-biological treatments and has the potential of achieving
comparable effluent quality. Potential advantages include the
use of less costly carbon (powdered vs. granular) and minimiza-
tion of physical facilities required. Spent carbon-biological
sludge can be regenerated or dewatered and disposed directly.
However, if the latter approach is considered, it is necessary
to include cost for disposal of toxics-laden carbon when making
economic comparisons.
Most of the considerations necessary for development of a
process train for treatment of leachates containing both organic
and inorganic contaminants have been previously discussed in
Sections 6.6.2 and 6.6.3. The components discussed in these
previous sections must be assembled in a manner so as to opti-
mize the treatment process train for the leachate at hand.
Probably the most important aspect is proper sequencing of unit
processes to achieve an optimum result for a given situation.
Careful attention should be paid to proper interfacing of com-
ponents discussed in Sections 6.6.2 and 6.6.3 (e.g., pH control
may be necessary from one treatment component to the next),
with these cautions in mind, the reader is referred to these
earlier sections to derive a basis for formulating conceptual
process trains for mixed (organic and inorganic) component
leachates.
6.7. REFERENCES
1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality
Criteria Documents Availability. Federal Register,45
(231): 79318-79379. U. S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. November 28, 1980.
2. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Ground
Water Protection Strategy. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. November 18, 1980.
3. McDougall, W. J., S. D. Cifrulak, R. A. Fusco, and R. P.
O'Brien. Treatment of Chemical Leachate at the Love Canal
Landfill Site. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Mid-Atlantic
Industrial Waste Conference, Bucknell University, Lewis-
burg, Pennsylvania, 1980. pp 69-75.
6-42
-------
powdered activated
a\
I
Ui
pH adjustment
chemicals
Aoff gases
COAGULATION
SETTLING
Influent
BIOLOGICAL
sludge
| backwash
SETTLING
effluent
FILTRATION
(optional)
sludge
waste sludge
Figure 6-9.
Schematic of biophysical
process
train.
-------
4. McDougall, W. J., R. A. Fusco, and R. P. O'Brien. Con-
tainment and Treatment of the Love Canal Landfill Leachate.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 52(12):
2914-2924, 1980.
5. 3arth, 2. F. and J. M. Cohen. Evaluation of Treatability
of Industrial Landfill Leachate. Unpublished Report. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. Novem-
ber 30, 1978.
6. Pajak, A. P., A. J. Shuckrow, J. W. Osheka, and S. C.
James. Concentration of Hazardous Constituents of Contami-
nated Groundwater. Proceedings of the Twelfth Mid-Atlantic
Industrial Waste Conference, Bucknell University, Lewis-
burg, Pennsylvania. July, 1980. pp 82-87.
7. Shuckrow, A. J., A. P. Pajak, and J. W. Osheka. Concen-
tration Technologies for Hazardous Aqueous Waste Treatment.
SPA-600/2-81-019, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. February, 1981.
8. Pajak, A. P., A. J. Shuckrow, J. W. Osheka, and S. C.
James. Assessment of Technologies for Contaminated Ground-
water Treatment. Proceedings of the Industrial Waste
Symposia, 53rd. Annual WPCF Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada.
September, 1980.
9. Shuckrow, A. J., A. P. Pajak, J.W. Osheka, and S. C. James.
3ench Scale Assessment of Technologies for Contaminated
Groundwater Treatment. Proceedings of National Conference
on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,
Washington, D.C. October, 1980. pp 184-191.
10. Pajak, A. P., E. J. Martin, G. A. Brinsko, and F. J. Erny.
Effect of Hazardous Material Spills on Biological Treatment
Process. EPA-600/2-77-239, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 202 pp.
-------
SECTION 7
MONITORING
7.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
This section is intended to point out considerations which
are important in the design of a monitoring program to support
hazardous waste leachate management efforts. It is not intended
to be a rigorous exposition of how monitoring should be accom-
plished nor does it address aspects of monitoring which are not
directly related to leachate management. Numerous analytical
standards and texts which detail many of the specific aspects
are available to guide development procedures. Moreover, the
user should recognize that leachate monitoring, as discussed
herein, probably will be carried-out as one element in an over-
all disposal site monitoring program which will encompass addi-
tional considerations and objectives.
Leachate monitoring is needed to characterize aqueous
wastes which result from disposal of hazardous materials at per-
mitted sites, to develop data necessary for design and operation
of leachate treatment facilities, to evaluate the effectiveness
of leachate treatment systems, to assure compliance with dis-
charge permits, and to assure personnel safety in leachate
handling and treatment operations.
A leachate monitoring program in the broadest sense could
encompass the following objectives:
1) Define materials placed within the disposal site,
2) Determine the types of compounds in the leachate and
their concentration ranges,
3) Determine the variation of concentrations as a function
of time,
4} Determine the factors which influence movement and
concentrations,
5) Determine the rate and direction of migration,
6) Establish leachate treatment process alternatives,
7-1
-------
7) Establish leachate treatment process operating ranges,
8) Monitor leachate treatment process effectiveness,
9) Monitor leachate containment effectiveness,
10) Assure safety in leachate handling and processing
operations, and
11) Determine conformance to or accuracy of a leachate
forecasting procedure.
The above items are not of equal concern in the current context.
Moreover, some encompass aspects of disposal site management
which are broader than leachate management alone. The relative
importance and potential usefulness of these objectives from a
leachate management viewpoint are discussed subsequently in this
section.
Monitoring can be carried out at several locations in the
leachate management system:
1) Wastes received for disposal,
2) In-situ monitoring for off-gas generation and leachate
formation,
3) Collected leachate,
4) Leachate treatment system,
5) Treatment system effluent and residues, and
6) Areas of potential safety hazards.
Reasons for monitoring at the locations noted above, and the
types of information needed are described later in this section.
Monitoring data are expected to be used for a variety of
purposes. Data obtained on incoming wastes will permit hazard-
ous waste disposal site operators to decide whether or not to
accept the wastes. It also will provide an inventory of mate-
rials. Given such an inventory, the site operator can have a
basis for predicting the range of compounds likely to be en-
countered in resultant leachate. Concentrations of certain con-
taminants in the leachate might be able to be estimated based
upon the amount and type of materials disposed. This aspect is
important at new sites prior to the time of leachate generation.
Moreover, such information can provide a basis for initial
selection of parameters to be measured in subsequent leachate
characterization efforts.
7-2
-------
In-situ monitoring data can be used to determine how the
leachate is formed and how it moves through the disposal site.
Furthermore, it may be possible to use in-situ data to char-
acterize the types and concentrations of compounds in the
leachate collection system. Monitoring collected leachate is
one of the most important aspects of leachate monitoring. The
information gained provides a baseline for treatment system in-
fluent characterization; thus facilitating decisions regarding
treatability (or necessary treatability studies) and optimum
treatment/disposal operating ranges.
Other important monitoring data obtained will be that from
treatment process operations. Such data are necessary to assure
proper functioning of treatment system components, to establish
treatment system effectiveness, and to assure compliance with
discharge permit requirements.
Manual users are reminded that the discussion of monitoring
herein emphasizes leachate. While other aspects are important
in overall disposal site management, e.g. monitoring of the
surrounding environs, other technical resource documents are
expected to deal with these topics in greater detail.
7.2 MONITORING PROGRAM DESIGN
To a large extent, design of a leachate monitoring program
will be highly site specific. However, there are certain gen-
eral elements which will be common to all monitoring programs.
The following discussion addresses these general considerations.
Although it is recognized that monitoring of some gaseous and
solid materials may be involved in the program, the primary
focus herein is on liquid streams.
7.2.1 Parameters To Be Measured
Selection of parameters to be measured is the initial step
in development of a monitoring program. Analytical costs can be
significant. Therefore, a major objective should be to minimize
the number and types of analysis performed while still gener-
ating data sufficient to satisfy the objectives of the moni-
toring program.
Substances of potential concern in hazardous waste leachate
include:
1) soluble, oxygen demanding organics;
2) soluble substances that cause tastes and odors in water
supplies;
3) color and turbidity;
7-3
-------
4) nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon;
5) toxic organic and inorganic substances;
6) refractory materials;
7) oil, grease, and immiscible liquids;
8) acids and alkalis;
9) substances resulting in atmospheric odors;
10) suspended solids; and
11) dissolved solids.
Monitoring for purposes of leachate characterization should
be sufficient to provide data adequate to facilitate decisions
on the best approaches to leachate treatment/disposal. Re-
quirements for monitoring of effluents from treatment operations
prior to discharge must be rigorous enough to permit assessment
of the quality of the discharge so as to assure a minimum of
environmental degradation and compliance with governmental reg-
ulations .
The selection of parameters for other.monitoring objectives
need only be rigorous enough to assure that effluent quality can
be maintained within discharge permit specifications. It is in
this latter area that the opportunity exists to use relatively
inexpensive analyses, and indicator and surrogate parameters to
obtain quick and accurate information which can be used to con-
trol treatment processes and disposal site operations. For ex-
ample, TOC (total organic carbon) provides a rapid, relatively
inexpensive measure of gross organic content of an aqueous
stream. Such a measurement may be sufficient for many purposes
as opposed to more expensive organic compound identification
measures.
Parameters which should be considered for inclusion in haz-
ardous waste leachate monitoring program are as follows:
1.
temperature;
2.
electrical conductivity;
3.
turbidity;
4.
settleable solids;
5.
suspended solids;
6.
total dissolved solids;
7-4
-------
7.
volatile solids;
8.
oils, greases and immiscible liquids
9.
odor ;
10.
pHr
11.
Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP);
12.
acidity;
13.
alkalinity;
14.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD);
15.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD);
16.
Total Organic Carbon (TOC);
17.
specific organic compounds;
18.
heavy metals;
19.
other specific inorganic compounds;
20.
nitrogen and phosphorus compounds;
21 .
dissolved oxygen;
22.
volatile organic acids;
23.
flow; and
24.
toxicity.
Selection of a particular parameter set will be dependent upon
monitoring objectives as well as upon factors specific to a
given site and leachate management program. Different parameter
sets might be chosen to support leachate characterization ef-
forts than for purposes of treatment process operation or for
effluent discharge monitoring. As an example, TOC measurements
may be more reasonable than BOD measurements for hazardous waste
leachate characterization and process control purposes since the
TOC measurement is rapid and the leachate may be toxic to the
organisms necessary to conduct of the BOD test. On the other
hand, the BOD test would provide more information on the biode-
gradability of the leachate. Thus, parameters must be chosen
judiciously for the specific purpose and situation.
Additional information on monitoring parameters can be
found in tests and handbooks (1, 2).
7-5
-------
7.2.2 Analytical Considerations
Good analytical procedures are vital to an effective mon-
itoring program. Basic references for wastewater analytical
procedures are contained in the EPA Methods for Analysis of
Water and Wastes (3), Standard Methods (4), ASTM Standards (5),
the EPA Handbook for Analytical Quality Control (6) and other
EPA guidance documents (7, 8, 9). The reader is referred to
these basic reference works for details since a thorough dis-
cussion of analytical procedures is beyond the scope of this
document.
Often, there is a choice among several standard methods for
measurement of a particular parameter. Among the factors to be
considered in selection of an analytical method are:
• sensitivity, precision and accuracy required;
• interferences;
• number of samples to be analyzed;
• quantity of sample available;
• other determinations to be made on the sample;
• analytical turn-around time; and
• analytical costs.
Since leachate is a complex system of variable composition,
there is high potential for numerous interferences in many of
the chemical and biological determinations. This aspect should
be given particular attention when selecting an analytical
method.
7.2.3 Sampling
Proper sampling is critical to any monitoring program since
the validity of analytical results relies upon the validity of
the samples analyzed. In order to assure valid samples, atten-
tion must be paid to obtaining samples which are truly repre-
sentative of the waste stream. Moreover, proper sampling tech-
niques must be employed. Finally, the integrity of the sample
mast be maintained from the time of sampling to the time of
testing. This time interval should be kept to a minimum; even
then certain types of samples must be preserved through addition
of chemical agents or refrigeration.
Methods and equipment used for sampling will vary with the
waste stream and the sampling purpose. The reader is referred
to the following sources for sampling protocols: Samplers r.3
7-6
-------
Sampling Procedures for Hazardous Waste Streams (10) and Test
Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods (11). Other sources (4,5) also provide useful infor-
mation on sampling. Ideally, leachate samples should be ana-
lyzed immediately after collection for maximum reliability of
the analytical results. Leachates are such complex mixtures
that it is difficult to predict precisely the physical, biolog-
ical, and chemical changes that occur in the samples with time.
After sample collection, pH may change significantly in a matter
of minutes, sulfides and cyanides may be oxidized or evolve as
gases? and hexavalent chromium may slowly be reduced to the
trivalent state. Certain cations nay be partly lost as a result
of adsorption to the walls of sample containers. Microorganism
growth also may cause changes, and volatile compounds may be
lost rapidly.
In many cases, the undesirable changes described above may
be minimized by refrigeration of samples at 4° C, or by the
addition of preservatives. Refrigeration may deter the evolu-
tion of volatile components and acid gases such as hydrogen
sulfide and hydrogen cyanide, but some salts precipitated at the
lower temperature may not redissolve when warmed for analysis,
thus causing error in determining the actual concentrations of
dissolved sample constituents. Preservatives may retard bio-
chemical changes; other additives may convert some constituents
to stable hydroxides, salts, or compounds. Compounds may be
converted to other forms (such as the products of nitration,
sulfonation, and oxidation of organic components). Upon sub-
sequent analyses, the results may not reflect the original
identity of the components.
Thus, both advantages and disadvantages are associated with
the refrigeration and/or addition of preservatives or additives
to waste samples. Various methods of preservation for specific
tests on selected constituents are given elsewhere (4,10). When
more than one specific test is to be run on a sample, it may be
necessary to divide the sample and preserve each subsample by a
different method.
Adequate record keeping and use of proper sample containers
also are important aspects of a good sampling program. As a
general rule, a detailed sampling plan should be developed prior
to any sampling operations.
7.3 LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION
7.3.1 Wastes Received
RCRA regulations require an owner/operator to obtain a de-
tailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample
of a waste before placement into a disposal site. Moreover, the
facility operator is required to maintain a record of the quan-
7-7
-------
tity and location of each hazardous waste placed in the disposal
site.
From a leachate management point of view, this type of data
may be useful in predicting future leachate composition at new
sites. However, it may be several years before a leachate is
collected. Therefore records maintenance is important.
Formalized procedures should be used to file manifests and
analytical results. It may be useful to keep running inven-
tories according to specific compound types, and total quanti-
ties disposed for each. In this way, predictions of leachate
generation would be facilitated.
7.3.2 In-situ Monitoring
There are a number of questions which can be answered using
in-situ monitoring: 1) what mechanisms are involved in waste
modification as the leachate migrates through the disposal site
and previously disposed materials; 2) at what rate and in which
direction does the leachate move; 3) how do compounds and their
concentrations vary with depth and time; 4) are any off-gases
evolved; and 5) what factors influence movement and concentra-
tions?
In-situ monitoring could be incorporated within the leach-
ate collection system. Sampling points should be designed to
provide a representative picture of waste movement and degrada-
tion throughout the site. If the site is compartmentalized,
then the monitoring should be representative for each cell or
separate disposal area.
Emrich and Beck (12) have discussed methods used to eval-
uate closure and monitoring plans for a hazardous waste disposal
site. Some of these methods may be useful in conjunction with
in-situ monitoring. Suction lysimeters and pan lysimeters were
used to determine moisture movement. With some modification,
these methods might be adaptable to in-situ monitoring.
7.3.3 Collected Leachate
The leachate collection system will be a key monitoring
location. Because leachate composition is expected to vary with
time in terms of types and concentration of compounds, analyses
of collected leachate will serve to define the unit operations
used for treatment and their operating ranges. Hence, collected
leachate characterizations are expected to be useful in making
treatability assessments of process alternatives and in defining
specific unit operations and their operating ranges.
Collected leachate characterizations also provide a base-
line for evaluating treatment effectiveness. Coupled with
7-9
-------
effluent analyses, this would provide an assessment of removal
efficiencies for individual unit operations as well as the over-
all treatment chain.
7.4 TREATMENT EFFLUENT MONITORING
7.4.1 Sampling Locations
Sampling and analysis of collected leachate serves as the
measure of leachate treatment plant influent. Where there are
several monitoring points in the leachate collection system be-
cause of the size of the disposal site, or because of compart-
mentalization, the point closest to the treatment plant should
be used. In this way, aggregated flow and composition will be
most representative of the influent baseline.
Previous sections have noted that leachate probably is not
amenable to treatment by a single unit process. Instead, treat-
ment probably will include several unit operations. Individual
unit operations should be monitored separately to facilitate
optimized operation. For example, granular activated carbon
adsorption may be used prior to biological treatment in order to
remove toxic constituents which could impair biological treat-
ment effectiveness. Hence, it would be necessary to monitor
carbon-treated effluent to prevent biological upset. Therefore,
monitoring at each major point in the treatment chain is
strongly suggested. Moreover, the analytical techniques selec-
ted for such monitoring should have rapid turn-around times to
enable timely process control decisions.
7.4.2 Parameters
Experience shows that it is infeasible to analyze all pa-
rameters of concern at frequent intervals. Rigorous analysis of
complex organic and inorganic constituents simply is too costly
to sustain at frequent intervals. As a result, an attempt
should be made to identify surrogate measurements or indicator
parameters which can be used inexpensively to gage treatment
effectiveness. For organic constituents, such a surrogate pa-
rameter could be total organic carbon (TOC). Another less well
developed method could be thin layer chromatography (TLC). Sim-
ilarly, for inorganic constituents selected indicator metals
could be analyzed using common spectrophotometry techniques.
It is recommended that such surrogates or indicators be
identified using inventory information to predict likely com-
pounds which are expected to appear in the collected leachate.
Further refinements potentially could be made in conjunction
with treatability studies if they are anticipated.
It also may be possible to use biological toxicity tests re-
determine process effectiveness. Procedures are evolving which
7-9
-------
offer potential for evaluating residual toxicity subsequent to
individual treatment operations. Although such procedures do
not measure specific parameters or surrogates directly, judg-
ments can be made regarding treatment capabilities by inference.
Thus, indicators and surrogate parameters permit cost-ef-
fective process control. However, more costly analysis using
rigorous and sophisticated analytical methods will be required
periodically for process refinement, and for detailed assessment
of overall treatment effectiveness. The rigorous analytical
techniques could include gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS), atomic absorption (AA), x-ray fluorescence (XRF), or
other refined methods.
The frequency of the more sophisticated analytical methods
will be dependent upon the types and concentrations of compounds
in the leachate, their amenability to removal, mode of dis-
charge, flow rates, and concentration and flow variability.
Costs also will be an important determinant. Rigorous analyses
also should be used to monitor any significant changes either in
unit operations employed or for changes in operating procedures.
Once equilibrium operation is achieved, it may be appropriate to
schedule rigorous analysis at regular intervals.
7.4.3 Data Analysis
Detailed performance records should be maintained for unit
and overall treatment operations. A thoughtful protocol should
be developed in advance of treatment plant start-up. Where nec-
essary, sufficient data should be obtained to define key process
control parameters. In some cases, statistical correlations
could be used to insure that process interactions are appro-
priate. For example, it might be possible to identify TOC
levels which are required for downstream operations to function
optimally.
7.4.4 Process Optimization
Because leachate is characterized by expected variability
in flow, types of compounds, and concentrations, process optim-
ization is envisioned as an ongoing task. Detailed analysis
using sophisticated measurement techniques will be used for this
purpose. As mentioned earlier, process refinement is one of the
principal functions of detailed analyses. Attempts should be
made to verify the correlation of surrogate parameters with de-
tailed actual parameter measurements. In this way, process op-
timization need not wait until detailed analyses are made.
7.4.5 Safety Considerations
Site operators must be aware that the function of many
treatment unit operations is to concentrate hazardous leachate
7-10
-------
constituents. Therefore, detailed safety considerations are
essential. Moreover, in-plant monitoring should be provided to
discover the existence or evolution of hazardous materials. For
example, it is possible that volatile oraanics will be stripped
from biological treatment systems, or that gassing can occur
within granular carbon columns. Hence, in-plant monitoring sys-
tems should be installed, and employees thoroughly trained for
emergencies. These plans should be in.-place well before initi-
ation of treatment operations.
7.5 REFERENCES
1. Sawyer, C.N. and P.L. McCarty. Chemistry For Sanitary
Engineers. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, New York, 1967.
518 pp.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Handbook for
Monitoring Industrial Wastewater. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Technology Transfer, Nashville,
Tennessee, 1973,
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for Analysis
of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979.
4. American Public Health Association, American Water Works
Association and Water Pollution Control Federation.
Standard Methods For the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 15th Edition. Washington, DC. 1193 pp.
5. American Society For Testing and Materials. 1980 Annual
Book Of ASTM Standards, Part 31, Water. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, 1980. 1401 pp.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Handbook for
Analytical Quality Control In Water and Wastewater
Laboratories. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Technology Transfer, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1972.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste and
Consolidated Permit Regulations, Federal Register, Volume
45, No. 98, May 19, 1980.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines
Division. Sampling and Analysis Procedures For Screening
of Industrial Effluents For Priority Pollutants. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March
1977, revised April 1977.
9. Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures For the Analysis of
Pollutants: Proposed Regulations. Federal Register,
Volume 44, No. 233, pp. 69464-69575. December 3, 1979.
7-11
-------
10. deVera, E.R., B.P. Simmons, R.D. Stephens, and D.L• Storm.
Samplers and Sampling Procedures For Hazardous Waste
Streams. EPA-600/2-80-018, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1980.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods. SW-846. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
12. Emrich, G.H. and W.W. Beck, Jr. Top-Sealing to Minimize
Leachate Generation Case Study of the Windham, Connecticut
Landfill. Inj Proceedings of U.S. EPA National Conference
on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,
Washington, DC, October 1980. pp. 135-140.
7-12
-------
SECTION 8
OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 SAFETY
Hazardous waste leachate management operations will vary
widely in complexity. Moreover, the compounds and associated
hazards will differ from site to site. The following discussion
outlines safety considerations which apply to the general case.
The purpose is to provide guidance to the leachate manager in
development of a safety program for a particular site.
8.1.1 Degree of Risk
Safety considerations will vary dependent upon the degree
of risk involved for plant personnel. Handling of hazardous
materials is inherently dangerous; however, some areas and
functions may constitute a higher degree of risk than others.
For example, sampling in an area where volatile organics may be
evolved is more dangerous than working in a treatment plant
control room. Similarly, handling residues may be more danger-
ous than handling raw leachate, simply because the hazardous
materials are more concentrated in the residues.
Therefore, it is necessary to identify safety procedures
and protective measures commensurate with the risk involved.
Prior to facility start-up, a thoughtful assessment of risks
should be made for each work area and job function. Because it
would be confusing and burdensome for workers to adjust for each
and every work situation, safety procedures should be devised
for general levels of risk. A major chemical manufacturer uses
a classification system to categorize risk levels. This system
is described by Morton (1).
Procedures should be established for reviewing and reclas-
sifying degrees of risk based upon plant experience, and infor-
mation secured through the literature.
8.1.2 Restricted Entry
The entire disposal site area should be fenced and posted.
Entry should be granted only to authorized personnel. Security
patrols could be used at night to prevent intruders from gaining
access and to check all work stations at regular intervals.
8-1
-------
Arrangements should be made between plant security and local
police and fire departments to provide rapid backup in the event
of emergencies.
Within the restricted plant area, entry to dangerous areas
should be limited to those personnel directly related to spe-
cific operations. For example, office workers need not be
granted entry into processing areas.
Specified clean areas could be provided within the plant
and safeguards taken to insure that the clean areas remain un-
contaminated. Generally, clean areas will include office and
administrative areas, lunchrooms, lounges, and restrooms for
non-operating personnel. Access to the clean areas should be
through a changeroom. Moreover, operating employees should be
encouraged to shower before leaving plant premises.
8.1.3 Safety Rules
It is important that safety rules be communicated to all
employees, and adherence to these rules be strictly enforced.
Morton (1) has presented a comprehensive list of general plant
safety rules which is directly applicable to hazardous waste
management facilities.
All employees should be trained in safety with more de-
tailed instruction given to those in processing operations.
Safety meetings at regular intervals are reqommended. These
meetings should be designed for small groups and emphasize spe-
cific operating problems.
Certain plants which handle hazardous materials have min-
imum age limitations for employees. In some cases, individuals
younger than 18 years old are not permitted on the site.
Some plants do not allow employees to work alone in
processing areas. Backup personnel should be available at all
times for emergency evacuation of work stations.
Two key rules applied at hazardous waste management facil-
ities are: 1) all employees must remove protective clothing and
wash thoroughly before breaks and lunch, and 2) illness must be
communicated to supervision immediately, even after normal work-
ing hours.
8.1.4 Supervision
Effective supervision is crucial to worker safety. Super-
visors must be firm and consistent in their enforcement of safe-
ty procedures. No workers should be without supervision for
more than two hours. Management should hold plant supervisors
8-2
-------
accountable for plant safety and security. Furthermore, super-
visors should be well trained for all contingencies.
8.1.5 Inspections
Designated personnel should conduct safety inspections at
regular intervals. Formalized checklists should be used, and
fixed procedures should be in place to rectify deficiencies
within 24 hours. In the event a deficiency poses an imminent
danger, work functions in the area should be terminated and the
area cordoned off until the deficiency is corrected.
8.1.6 First Aid and Medical Assistance
Employees who work in processing areas should have a base-
line medical examination upon hiring, and should have periodic
examinations at regularly scheduled intervals. Workers at pes-
ticide handling facilities often have a cholinesterase baseline
level established in conjunction with their initial examination.
Selected plant personnel should be trained in first aid
procedures related to the types of risks to which the employees
are exposed. First aid treatment should be available at all
times.
Medical assistance also should be available both on an
emergency basis and for chronic problems. Medical personnel
should be contacted in advance of problems to be informed about
the types of materials to which employees may be exposed. More-
over, they should be given information on the behavior and
nature of materials. Emergency plans should be worked out in
detail prior to plant startup, if possible.
8.1.7 Protective Equipment
Processing and laboratory areas should be equipped with
emergency showers and eyewashers. These should be tied to an
alarm system so that co-workers can come to the aid of poten-
tially contaminated workers. Face-shields, safety shoes, safety
glasses, gloves, aprons, coveralls, hard hats, and shoe covers
should be provided to workers whose jobs require varying degrees
of protection.
Full suit protection should be provided for particularly
hazardous tasks, and for emergency evacuation operations. Res-
piratory protective devices usually are used in conjunction with
situations requiring full suit protection. There are three
basic types of respiratory protective devices: 1) air-purifying
respirators, 2) supplied-air respirators, and 3) self-containe¦*
breathing apparatus. The type used is dependent upon the degree
of hazard involved.
8-3
-------
Acid suits consisting of a rubber coat, rubber pants, acid
gloves, rubber boots up under the pants, and a rubber acid hood
should be available in the event of line breaks or leaks under
pressure. Similarly, such equipment may be used for repair
operations.
All protective clothing and equipment must remain on-site.
It should be decontaminated before reuse. Reusable clothing is
more durable and is preferred. Appropriate washing procedures
should be used to insure complete decontamination.
Protective equipment should be accessible in all work
areas where contamination may be encountered so as to permit
safe exit in an emergency.
8.1.8 Ventilation
Adequate ventilation of work spaces is required to prevent
harmful exposure to toxic materials. Morton (1) stated that ex-
posures are related to threshold limit values (TLV) based upon a
time-weighed concentration for a normal workday. The TLV is the
level at which workers can be exposed daily without harmful ef-
fect. Furthermore, a "ceiling" value is established which
should not be exceeded under any circumstances. Although expo-
sures above the TLV up to the ceiling value are undesirable,
they can be permitted as long as an overall time-weighed average
(usually for an eight-hour day) is not exceeded.
Ventilating system design should account for work areas
where there might be accumulation of volatile organics or haz-
ardous dust. Air exchange rates will be based upon industrial
hygiene ventilation parameters.
Monitoring to assure that there is satisfactory ventila-
tion can be performed using a number of sampling instruments.
Weiby and Dickinson (2) described the major factors in specify-
ing instruments for monitoring work areas as instrument speci-
ficity, operational range, accuracy, response time, and special
features. In a companion article, Herrick (3) discussed the
following topics: portable instruments, electrolytic cell detec-
tors, flame ionization detectors, catalytic cell detectors, and
signaling alarms. The reader is encouraged to consult these
references for detailed consideration of work area monitoring.
. Because toxic fumes may be evolved in some sample handling
and analytical procedures, hoods should be provided in labora-
tory areas. In certain cases, air cleaning equipment may be
necessary for air exhausted from the hood.
8-4
-------
8.1.9 Housekeeping
Good housekeeping is an adjunct to any safety program.
For the leachate treatment facility, it is especially important
to keep work areas clean and free from obstructions. Spills
should be cleaned up immediately, and resultant residues dis-
posed safely. Exposed areas and walkways should be kept ice-
free to reduce possibilities for falls.
8.2 CONTINGENCY PLANS/EMERGENCY PROVISIONS
Much of the following discussion is not limited to
leachate management alone but applies to hazardous waste manage-
ment operations in general. The intent of the discussion is to
provide the leachate manager with information sufficient to
enable development of contingency/emergency plans tailored to a
given site operation. Part VII of the Hazardous Waste and Con-
solidated Permit Regulations also contains useful guidance in-
formation on contingency/emergency plans.
8.2.1 Emergency Situations
8.2.1.1 Natural Disasters—
Development of contingency plans for natural disasters is
substantially different than for accidents. Accidents require
action to address an incident which already has occurred, where-
as planning for natural disasters usually is designed to prevent
problems. Developments in predictive meteorology and hydrology
permit advanced warning of hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods.
However, sometimes the warning period is limited. On the other
hand, earthquake planning involves other kind9 of considera-
tions .
The thrust of contingency planning for natural disasters
is to shut down plant operations, prevent escape of contamina-
tion to the environment, and safeguard plant equipment. Pre-
ventive measures can be designed into the plant. For example,
berms and dikes can be built to prevent inundation of water from
flooding. Moreover, these measures can be designed to mitigate
events based upon historical data, e.g., 100-year floods. Sim-
ilarly, structures can be designed to mitigate damage from
earthquakes. State of California building codes have been de-
vised to guide those who build in high risk areas.
Plan development should include natural disaster consider-
ations for areas known to be subject to possible problems. Site
operators should devise procedures for determining when such
risks exist by designating specific responsibilities for com-
munication with the National Weather Service, the U. S. Geolog-
ical Survey, or other agencies having early warning systems.
8-5
-------
Furthermore, clear decision responsibility for determining when
to shut down and take protective measures should be in place.
In the event that preventive measures are unable to handle
the event because of its magnitude, i.e., a tornado "direct hit"
or a flood beyond design criteria, emergency actions similar to
those formulated for accidents should be planned for.
8.2.1.2 Accidents—
Accidents include fires, explosions, leaks, and spills.
Although bomb threats can be handled by shutdown and subsequent
searches, actual sabotage will have to be dealt with in the same
manner as accidents.
Because of the dangers inherent in fires and explosions, a
separate subsection of this manual will be devoted to fire pro-
tection. Spills and leaks will be discussed within the context
of contingency planning.
8.2.2 Plan Development
8.2.2.1 Organizational Responsibilities--
The most important aspect of an .effective contingency plan
is clear definition of responsibilities for execution. Plant
management must be fully involved, and it is highly desirable to
have a company officer be responsible for insuring plan execu-
tion. The chain of command should be specified in advance,
along with delegation of authority and backups where needed. A
job description for each responsible party should be incorpor-
ated in the plan.
8.2.2.2 Plan Components--
In addition to in-house contingency plans, it is expected
that hazardous waste disposal sites will be required to file a
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) with
their state water pollution control agency. Components of a
typical plan include:
• responsible officials names, addresses, telephone num-
bers ;
• facility location and site map;
• potential spill dangers, pathways, remedial measures;
• past spill frequency;
• sources of assistance (e.g. emergency fire, cleanup con-
tractors ) ;
3-6
-------
• legally required reporting requirements (names, tele-
phone numbers);
• schedule for installing mitigating devices?
• materials inventory; and
• inspection procedures.
Further descriptions of contingency plan components follow.
8.2.2.2.1 Implementation Manual—Because rapid action and thor-
oughness is essential in emergencies, a detailed implementation
manual should toe prepared to cover all expected contingencies.
However, it must contain some degree of flexibility because the
unexpected will normally occur. Steps for response should be
written down and understood by all who are expected to partic-
ipate. Not only should all the components of the plan be
listed, but also the sequence of actions to be executed. The
information which follows generally is arranged in the order of
execution. Furthermore, once the manual is prepared, it should
be reviewed and updated at regular intervals.
8.2.2.2.2 Alarm Systems—The first step in plan execution is an
alarm system to indicate that an emergency has occurred. The
primary purpose of the alarm system is to enable rapid evacu-
ation of affected areas. A secondary but equally important pur-
pose is to initiate the emergency response plan.
8.2.2.2.3 Communications Network--When an alarm signals an
emergency condition, on-site personnel should begin response
actions, and all appropriate contacts for assistance made. The
responsible company official should' be notified first. It is
suggested that a telephone "tree" be activated so that all en-
tities and agencies be notified as quickly as possible. The
priority of notification will be dependent upon the nature of
the emergency. For example, if a fire or explosion is involved,
the local fire department and medical assistance teams should be
called first. A log of telephone calls made and actions taken
should be maintained. This log should be signed and witnessed.
The contact list should be part of the manual and should
include: plant management and supervision; fire, medical, and
police personnel; local, state, and federal governments; and
surrounding population if evacuation is envisioned. Manuals
should specify the person to be called and their telephone num-
bers. Alternate names and numbers should be provided in the
event the primary contact cannot be reached.
8.2.2.2.4 Execution Checklist--During the period when plant
management is on the way to the scene, fire and medical assis-
tance is enroute, and contacts are being made, on-scene person-
8-7
-------
nel should be executing the contingency plan using a prepared
checklist of actions. The checklist is part of the emergency
implementation manual discussed above.
0.2.2.2.5 Personal Injury—The first priority of the plan is to
attend to those injured in the incident. Next in priority is to
prevent further injuries from occurring. Injured persons should
be removed from contaminated areas and administered first aid
until medical assistance arrives.
8.2.2.2.6 Information Assistance--There are a number of excel-
lent information sources which can be used to assist in acci-
dents involving hazardous materials. The Chemical Transporta-
tion Emergency Center (CHEMTREC) can provide help in determining
the nature of hazards involved, and in providing expert assis-
tance on how to manage the situation. The CHEMTREC emergency
number is (800) 424-9300. It is operational 24 hours a day.
The National Poison Control Center (telephone (502) 589-8222) is
available to provide help where there is personnel exposure to
toxic materials.
EPA operates OHM-TADS (Oil and Hazardous Materials Tech-
nical Assistance Data System) which is a potential source of
useful information on the materials involved'. A similar system
of the U. S. Coast Guard is CHRIS (Chemical Hazard Response
Information System). It too can provide data on the materials
involved. Both of the systems can be accessed in emergencies
through the National Response Center, telephone (800) 424-3802.
The National Fire Protection Association handbook en-
titled, "Fire Protection Guide on Hazardous Materials" is a
valuable resource to have on-site to guide fire protection ac-
tivities. "Dangerous Properties-of Industrial Materials" by N.
1. Sax (5th ed., 1979, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.) also is a very
valuable resource. Long a standard in the field of industrial
hygiene, this excellent book is extremely useful in dealing with
hazardous materials because it is a single, quick, up-to-date,
concise hazard analysis informative guide to nearly 13,000 com-
mon industrial and laboratory chemicals.
Most of the above information resources were devised for
response to transportation accidents where the compounds in-
volved are not known in advance. Because the hazardous waste
disposal site will have knowledge of what materials are ac-
cepted, and presumably an inventory of these materials, it
should be possible to utilize information sources in advance of
an emergency, and include response and toxicity data in the
implementation manual for each chemical handled. Every effort
should be made to do so.
8.2.2.2.7 Plant Shutdown—Early warning of possible natural
disasters (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods), will dic-
8-8
-------
tate plant shutdown procedures. Time allowed for execution of
shutdown orders will be specified by emergency warning agencies.
For an accident situation, only certain portions of the
plant might be shut down if the emergency is contained within a
restricted area. The decision of whether to shut down, and how
much of the plant is affected is the responsibility of the plant
management in charge of plan execution.
9.2.2.2.8 Press and Media Contact List—An emergency at a haz-
ardous disposal site is certain to generate public apprehension.
The plan should provide for press conferences and debriefings.
After the emergency is. under control, a company official should
contact a list of news media personnel to provide a statement of
the nature of the emergency, the actions taken, and current
status. The purpose should be to give factual information so
that misinformation will not mislead concerned citizens in the
plant locale.
8.2.2.2.9 Incident Documentation—The incident should be docu-
mented fully for several purposes. Documentation will permit
post-facto review of whether the plan was executed as expected.
Also, it can be used to correct problems and thus avoid similar
future incidents. Finally, it can serve as a legal record of
what happened.
8.2.3 Fire Protection
8.2.3.1 In-Plant Measures—
8.2.3.1.1 Fire Extinguishers—Fire extinguishers should be
located at strategic points throughout the plant. Extinguishers
should be readily accessible,, and plant personnel should be
trained in their use. The type of extinguisher used is depen-
dent upon the likely kinds of fires that may be encountered.
For example, dry chemical and carbon dioxide extinguishers usu-
ally are preferred in laboratory areas where water may react
with burning chemicals.
8.2.3.1.2 Sprinkler Systems—Sprinkler systems should be in-
stalled in compliance with local and state building and fire
protection codes. Testing of the sprinkler systems in conjunc-
tion with plant safety inspections is good practice. Just as
water extinguishers are inappropriate for certain locations,
sprinklers may not be useful in certain plant work areas. Dis-
posal site operators should consult with loss and fire preven-
tion specialists regarding the best approach for their plant.
Often casualty insurance companies will provide expert assis-
tance to their clients as a service, and in order to assess
risks for premium determinations. Site operators should explore
using this resource.
8-9
-------
8.2.3.1.3 Use of Plant Security Personnel--Plant security per-
sonnel likely will be on the scene of a fire shortly after dis-
covery. They should be trained to deal with the fire on a
"first response" basis, and should be responsible for notifying
trained in-plant fire fighters and the local fire department.
8.2.3.2 Training—
8.2.3.2.1 Local Fire Department—Plant operating and management
personnel should meet with the local fire department to inform
them of the types of materials on site and to give them infor-
mation on the hazards which may be involved with such materials
in the event of fire (including an explosion). It would be a
good idea to have fire department officials visit the plant to
familiarize them with its layout, the location of high risks
areas, and to inspect fire protection capabilities on-site.
The local fire department could conduct training exercises
using some of the actual materials which potentially could be
involved. Furthermore, selected plant personnel could partic-
ipate in these exercises preparatory to the formation of an
emergency squad composed of fire department personnel and a few
selected plant employees.
8.2.3.2.2 Emergency Squad—Based upon potential fire hazards
which are evident at the disposal site, it is good practice to
form an emergency squad trained for the specific purpose of
dealing with known and anticipated hazardous materials. Often
the emergency squad is comprised of a select crew from the local
fire department and several well-trained plant employees. The
reason for including plant employees is so they can begin emer-
gency operations immediately, prepare for the arrival of the
local fire department, and guide the fire fighting effort be-
cause of their intimate knowledge of the plant.
In addition to normal fire fighting, the emergency squad
is responsible for rescue operations, evacuation of injured or
threatened personnel, and escalation decisions in the event of
broad involvement in the disposal site. This group should re-
ceive specialized training in advance (e.g., use of self con-
tained breathing apparatus, boom deployment).
8.2.3.3 Hazards Identification—
The National Fire Protection Assocation (4) has devised a
system for identifying the inherent hazards of certain chemicals
and the order of severity of these hazards under emergency con-
ditions such as spills, leaks, and fires. A section of the NFPA
manual, "Fire Protection Guide on Hazardous Materials", provides
hazardous chemicals data. There are four categories of data
provided: health, flammability, reactivity, and other unusual
conditions. For the first three categories, a numbering syst?-
3-10
-------
has been devised to inform fire fighting personnel about protec-
ting themselves and how to fight fires where the hazard exists.
In the fourth category, special considerations are indicated.
For example, fire fighters are alerted to possible hazards where
there may be unusual reactivity with water and oxidizing chem-
icals are noted. It would be beneficial to identify the mate-
rials potentially involved in advance so that fire protection
measures can be incorporated within the contingency plan and the
implementations manual. Moreover, emergency squad training can
proceed using identified materials.
S.3 EQUIPMENT REDUNDANCIES/3ACKUP
8.3.1 General Discussion
Because a leachate treatment plant will use unit opera-
tions similar to those employed at municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment plants, certain reliability considerations
also are similar. EPA has issued minimum standards of reliabil-
ity for mechanical, electric, and fluid systems and components
which may be applicable for leachate treatment plants (5). Man-
ual users are referred to these criteria for details.
There is a question, however, of whether the need for
redundancy is as great for hazardous waste leachate treatment
systems as for municipal and industrial systems. In the latter
cases, it is difficult to shut-off or divert flow during emer-
gencies, shutdowns, or repair. Frequently, considerable flows
are involved, and the option of storage is economically in-
feasible. On the other hand, leachate flows generally will be
low. As a result, storage possibly could be a cost-effective
substitute for certain redundant and backup systems. Therefore,
during leachate treatment plant design, costs of redundant and
backup systems should be balanced against costs for building
storage for raw leachate. Further considered in design should
be: estimated volume of incoming wastes, estimated flow of
leachate, projected time periods for outages or emergencies,
tankage costs, and redundant system costs.
In general, there are two locations at which storage might
be required: collected leachate, and treated leachate. Some
storage might be designed into the plant for purposes of equal-
izing flows in any case. Because concentrations of materials
will be different at each location,separate storage would be
required.
Nevertheless, attention should be given to important
equipment considerations related to redundant and backup condi-
tions. Discussion on these items is found in the subsequent
subsection.
8-11
-------
8.3.2 Equipment
8.3.2.1 Control Systems—
The plant control room should have redundant emergency
alarms. Frequent practice is to couple display warning lights
with an annunciator sound alarm. All electrical controls should
have manual overrides. Electric failure backup systems will be
discussed separately.
8.3.2.2 Tanks and Containers—
Tanks should be fitted with gravity overflow piping in the
event that pumps fail to shut off. Tank areas should be on con-
crete pads, if possible, with curbs and walls sufficient in
height to contain leaks, spills, or tank failures. Addition-
ally, spare tanks should be used to empty the curbed area if
other storage is unavailable.
All containers in processing areas should have plugs in
place when not being used.
8.3.2.3 Pipes and Transfer Lines--
For pipes that convey hazardous materials, failsafe trans-
fer lines should be used. Such failsafe systems measure in-
coming flow and discharge flow. Assuming no intervening taps,
the two flows are compared. A difference noted will trip an
alarm. Differences of greater than 0.5 percent commonly are
used to indicate a leak.
Pipes should be color-coded to avoid cross connections,
and to permit easy location.
8.3.2.4 Valves—
Pressure relief valves should be used wherever necessary.
All valves should be located as close as possible to the source
in the event they must be operated during an emergency. How-
ever, the valves should be accessible if an emergency occurs.
Emergency shut-off valves should be placed on all gravity trans-
fer lines.
8.3.2.5 Pumps—
It is good practice to locate pumps outside if possible.
This reduces the possibility of being rendered inoperable due to
fires or explosions. It is required in areas where there may be
a build-up of potentially explosive gases.
Back-up pumps nay be desirable where needed to move
leachate to storage during emergencies. Portable pumps are
3-12
-------
desirable to have on hand in emergencies.
3.3.2.6 In-Plant Drainage-
Leaks and spillage from equipment should be collected
within the plant and returned to the appropriate unit process.
Typically, leaks and spillage can be controlled by dikes, berms,
and curbs.
8.3.2.7 Electrical Failures-
Emergency lights on battery packs are recommended for all
plant areas. Operators should judge the potential damage re-
sulting from an extended electrical outage. It may be cost-
effective to install an emergency back-up generator dependent
upon, the number of critical functions involved.
8.3.2.8 Maintenance and Repair—
Wherever possible, preventive maintenance should be sched-
uled so that redundancy and back-up are unnecessary. This can
be done during scheduled shutdown. If major repairs can be de-
ferred, they also should be performed at that time, i.e., during
scheduled shutdowns.
8.4 PERMITS
8.4.1 Consolidated Permit Regulations
In conjunction with issuance of final rules for the fed-
eral hazardous waste management program (Federal Register, May
19, 1980), the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency established
rules for a consolidated permit program. The rules governed
programs authorized by the following legislation: Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Underground Injection Control
(UIC) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under the Clean
Water Act (CWA), State dredge and fill (404) provisions of the
CWA, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration under the Clean
Air Act (CAA). There are three primary purposes of these rules:
"1. To consolidate program requirements for the RCRA
and UIC programs with those already established for the
NPDES program.
"2. To establish requirements for state programs under
the RCRA, UIC, and Section 404 programs.
"3. To consolidate permit issuance procedures for EPA-
issued Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits
under the Clean Air Act with those for the RCRA, UIC,
and NPDES programs."
8-13
-------
The rules are complex and require substantial effort in
order to enable complete and thorough preparation of permits.
Manual users are urged to consult documents intended by EPA to
clarify and define permit application requirements.
Responsibilities for state program requirements also are
specified by the EPA rules and regulations. Although flexibil-
ity is allowed in how states implement these requirements, and
they are free to impose more stringent controls, EPA has spec-
ified minimum requirements consistent with RCRA provisions.
Permit officials and site operators should recognize that
certain aspects of the consolidated permits are ill-defined
relative to hazardous waste leachate treatment. NPDES require-
ments for direct discharge of treated leachate to receiving
waters need to be defined in greater detail. Furthermore, if
treated leachate is to be discharged into a POTW system, no
guidance has been provided relative to pretreatment require-
ments. There is a crucial need for defining such requirements
in greater detail. As a point of departure, permit officials
might deal with leachate treatment plant effluent in a manner
similar to that for the chemical manufacturing industry, both
organic and inorganic segments. Also, many cities are now in
the process of developing pretreatment requirements for dis-
charge of heavy metals, cyanide, phenols and other toxic com-
pounds into POTWs.
8.4.2 Other Permits
There are several other areas which .manual users should
consider in assuring that site operations conform with govern-
mental plans and regulations. Water quality aspects should be
factored into areawide waste treatment management plans (section
208), and facility planning efforts (Step I). This is espe-
cially important where direct discharge or discharge to POTWs is
envisioned. Other areas of concern are zoning requirements and
local building permits.
8.5 PERSONNEL TRAINING
Training is envisioned for personnel engaged in the fol-
lowing four functional areas of leachate treatment facilities:
operations and maintenance, safety, emergency response, and
security. Training related to safety and emergency response has
been discussed earlier in this section, and as a result, will
not be repeated here.
The basis for operations and maintenance training should
be a well-conceived O&M manual. During training, personnel
should be acquainted with key operating parameters, acceptable
9-14
-------
operating ranges, problem diagnosis, troubleshooting, repair
procedures, preventive maintenance, and shutdown procedures. An
example of a suggested guide for development of an O&M manual
for conventional waste treatment facilities is shown in Table
8-1. Obviously, a manual for a leachate treatment plant would
have to be modified to reflect the processes used, and incor-
porate provisions germane to the handling of hazardous mate-
rials. The table does, however, provide a good starting point
for structuring an O&M manual.
Security personnel should be trained not only to prevent
unauthorized entry into the plant, but also in first aid, emer-
gency communications and first response measures, essentials of
spill containment, and some fire fighting as appropriate.
Training should be conducted upon hiring, and should be
updated at regular intervals. Consideration should be given to
sending key personnel to formal off-site training courses and
seminars.
8.6 SURFACE RUNOFF
Disposal sites should be designed so that stormwater is
diverted away from and around the site. Thi9 can be accom-
plished through grading and the use of berms and dikes. Hence,
this subsection addresses only the fate of precipitation falling
directly within the disposal site. Four options exist for deal-
ing with stormwater runoff, dependent upon the degree of contam-
ination: 1) route uncontaminated flow to a holding or storage
pond from which discharges can be made to surface water courses;
2) route mildly contaminated runoff to the same holding or stor-
age area, and treat prior to discharge; 3) route contaminated
runoff to the leachate treatment plant; and 4) place heavily
contaminated runoff into the disposal area, or containerize and
ship off-site for appropriate disposal.
Work areas likely to be contaminated, e.g. loading docks,
waste transfer areas, storage tank areas, should be paved and
curbed to collect contaminated spillage. These curbed areas
should be able to be drained by gravity. Drainage valves should
remain closed until the areas are drained either to the holding
ponds (when spillage has not occurred), or to treatment and dis-
posal areas (when there is evidence of leaks or spillage).
8-15
-------
TABLE 8-1
SUGGESTED GUIDE FOR AN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
FOR WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES (5)
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Operation and Managerial Responsibility
B. Description of Plant Type and Flow Pattern
C. Percent Efficiency Expected and How Plant Should
Operate
D. Principal Design Criteria
II. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
(Function, relation to other plant units, schematic
diagrams)
A.
Pumping
B.
Screening and Comminution
C.
Grit Removal
D.
Sedimentation (Primary)
E.
Aeration and Reaeration
F.
Sedimentation (Secondary)
G.
Trickling Filters
H.
Sand Filters
I.
Sludge Digestion
J.
Sludge Conditioning
K.
Sludge Disposal
L.
Gas Control and Use
M.
Disinfection
N.
By-Pass Controls and Excess Flow Treatment Facilities
0.
Waste Stabilization Lagoons
P.
Other
III. DETAILED OPERATION AND CONTROLS
(Routine, alternate, emergency, description of various
controls, recommended settings, reference to schematic
diagrams, failsafe features)
A. Manual
B. Automatic
C. Physical
D. Chemical
(continued)
B-16
-------
TABLE 9-1 (continued)
S. Biological (including Bacteriological)
F. Industrial Wastes Monitoring
G. Safety Features
H. Problems, Causes, and Cures
IV. LABORATORY CONTROLS
(What and why tests are made, interpretation of results,
and how samples are obtained)
A. For Each Process Description Given Above
1. Sampling
2. Flow Controls
3. Analysis
B. Monitoring of Effluent and Receiving Waters
C. Water Quality Standards
V. RECORDS
(Importance of records, graphing test results, example
and sample forms)
A. Process Operations
B. Laboratory
C. Reports to be Submitted to State Agencies
D. Maintenance
E. Operating Costs
VI• MAINTENANCE
(Schedule--daily, weekly, monthly, etc., reference to
pages in manufacturers' manuals)
A. Manufacturers' Recommendations
B. Preventive Maintenance Summary Schedule
C. Special Tools and Equipment
D. Housekeeping Schedule
VII. SAFETY
A. Sewers
B. Electrical Equipment
C. Mechanical Equipment
(continued)
9-17
-------
TABLE 8-1 (continued)
D. Explosion and Fire Hazards
E. Health Hazards
F. Chlorine Handling
G. Aeration Tank Hazards
H. Recommended Safety Equipment
VIII. UTILITIES
(Source, reliability, cost)
A. Electrical
Q • Gas
C. Water
D. Heat
IX. PERSONNEL
(Detail of job requirements, task plan estimating man-
hours per month and year)
A. Manpower Requirements
B. Qualifications and Background
C. Certifications
D. Administration and Supervision
E. Laboratory
X. APPENDIX
A. Schematics
B. Valve Indices
C. Sample Forms
D. Chemicals Used in Plant
E. Chemicals Used in Laboratory
F. Water Quality Standards
G. Detailed Design Criteria
H. Equipment Suppliers
I. Suppliers' Manuals
(may be bound separately)
8-18
-------
9.7 REFERENCES
1. Morton, W. I. Safety Techniques for Workers Handling Haz-
ardous Materials. Chemical Engineering, 83(22):127-132,
1976.
2. Weiby, P., and K. R. Dickinson. Monitoring Work Areas for
Explosive and Toxic Hazards. Chemical Engineering, 83(22):
139-145, 1976
3. Herrick, L. K. Jr. Instrumentation for Monitoring Toxic
and Flammable Work Areas. Chemical Engineering, 83(22):
147-152, 1976.
4. National Fire Protection Association. Fire Protection
Guide on Hazardous Materials, Sixth Edition. Boston, MA,
1975.
5. Federal Water Quality Administration. Federal Guidelines -
Design Operation and Maintenance of Waste Water Treatment
Facilities. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
DC, September 1970.
8-19
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF REPORTED WATER CONTAMINATION
PROBLEMS (at Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites)
Appendix Table A-l contains data on identified hazardous
waste problems and to the extent possible data on waste composi-
tion. A reference list which indicates data sources and pertains
only to this table follows the main body of the table.
Problem sites are identified by a code number in Table A-l.
The code numbers and associated problem sites are listed below.
Site Number Site Description
001 Helevia Landfill adjacent to West Omerod water supply
(near Allentown, PA)
002 Haverford, PA
003 Centre County, PA (near State College, PA)
004 Stringfellow Landfill, Riverside, CA
005 Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City, CO
006 Geological Reclamation Operations and Waste Systems,
Inc. (GROWS) landfill, Falls Township, PA
007 Wade Site, Chester, PA
008 Bridgeport Quarry, Montgomery County, PA
009 Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL
010 Love Canal, Niagara Falls, NY
011 LaBounty Dump Site, Charles City, IA
012 Saco Landfill, Saco, ME
013 Whitehouse, FL
014 near Myerstown, PA
015 Undisclosed
016 Necco Park, Niagara Falls, NY
017 FMC, Middleport, NY
018 Frontier Chemical Waste Process Inc., Pendleton, NY
019 102nd Street, Niagara Falls, NY
020 Pfohl Brothers, Buffalo, NY
021 Reilly Tar & Chemical Co., St. Louis Park, MN
022 Windham Landfill, Windham, CT
023 LiPari Landfill, Gloucester County, NJ
024 Kin-Buc Landfill, Middlesex County, NJ
025 South Brunswick, NJ
026 Ott/Story site, Muskegon County, MI
027 Hooker Chemical Co., Montague, MI
A-l
-------
Site Number Site Description
028 Mayer Landfill, Springfield Township, PA
029 Chemcentral-Detroit, Detroit, MI
030 Bofors-Lakeway, Muskegon, MI
A-2
-------
TABLE A-l
SUMMARY OF REPORTED WATER CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS
CONTAMINANT
SITE
CLASSIFICATION
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
lla locarbons
001
Between 1968 and 1969 landfill accepted various liquid in-
1
dustrial wastes at rate of 3,000 gal/wk; about 25 to 30%
trichloroethylene (TCE)*. Materials percolated from ex-
cavated basin which now is under 50 to 60 ft of fill.
Other wastes included ethyl acetate and phenols.
TCE* in ground water within plume - 191 to 260 mg/1
TCE* in ground water, mi downgrad Lent of site - 15 to
20 mg/1
Phenols
002
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)* laden oil was deep well injected
2,3
and later appeared in ground water and streams. EPA car-
bon trailer used to treat limited amount of contaminated
ground water.
PCP* in ground water a few hundred feet down gradient of
injection point - 2.4 mg/1
Pesticides
003
Industrial waste containing Kepone and Mirex both spray ir-
4
rigated and "Chemfixed" and placed in impoundments. Fixing
held metals but permitted release of pesticides.
Kepone in stream - 2 mg/1
Mel a Is
004
Sitevincluded impoundments for liquid industrial wastes and
5
IV S t 1 Kit? .'>
storage of solid industrial wastes. Acids, plating wastes,
! M i . v .
t
and DDT were major materials disused of aitliough wide
(c:unt_ i nued)
-------
TABLE A-1
(continued)
CONTAHINANT
SITE
CLASSIFICATION
CODE
P ROI1LEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Metals
variety of materials went to site. Leachate known to exist.
Pesticides
Soil and down stream surface water affected; area of ground-
Misc. (continued)
water contamination plume unknown.
Surface water quality downstream of site (range) :
Cd* - 4.8 - 8.2 mg/1
Cr * - 52 - 205 mg/1
Cu* - 7-16 mg/1
Mn - 340 - 550 mg/1
Ni* - 28 - 48 incj/1
Zn* - 77-115 mg/1
pll - ^3
Aliphatics
005
Groundwater contamination resulting from the impoundment of
6
llalocarbons
demilitized warfare agents and wastes from chemical produc-
Pesticides
tion facility. Efforts underway tq treat contaminated
Polynuclear
groundwater.
Aromatics
Quality of contaminated groundwater (range):
Metals
aldrin* - <2 pg/1
dieldrin* - <2 - 4.5 |ig/l
dicyclopentadiene - 80 - 1,200 pg/1
diisopropylmethylphosphonate - 400 - 3,600 pg/1
p-chlorophenylmethyl-sulfide - <10 - 60 pg/1
p-chlorophenylinethyl-sulfoxide - <10 - 53 pg/1
p-ch)orophenylmethy1-su1fone -
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
SITE
CLASS IFICATION
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER
QUALITY
REFERENCE
A1iphatics
Co
- 0.1
Se* -
0.003
POi^-P
- <0.010
Halocarbons
Cr *
- 0.012
Na -
378
TOC -
10.9
Pesticides
Cu*
- 0.001
Zn* -
0.024
Total
inorganic
Polynuclear
Fe
- 0.090
Hg* -
0.0002
carbon - 71
Aromat ics
Pb*
- 0.001
TKN -
2. 22
SOi. -
505
Metals (continued)
Mg
- 49.4
no2-n
- <0.010
CI -
420
Mn
- 1 .04
NO3-N
- <0.012
PH -
7.6
Mo
- 0.114
NH3-N
- <0.010
COD -
24 .6
Ni*
- 0.032
Total
P - 1.39
SS -
10. 4
K
- 6.83
TDS -
1830
Metals
006
Landfill accepts municipal
and industrial residues
leach-
7
Misc.
ate with following average
quality is produced (mg/l):
BOD
- 10,900
TKN -
984
COD
- 18,600
S04 -
462
SS
- 1,040
CI -
4, 240
TDS
- 13,000
Na -
1, 350
pH
- 6.85
K
961
Alkalinity,
Cd* -
0.086
as
CaC03 - 5,400
Cr* -
0. 28
Hardness,
Fe -
312
as
CaC03 - 4,650
Ni* -
1.55
Ca
- 818
Pb* -
0.67
Mg
- 453
Zn* -
21
- 2.74
Hg* -
0.007
NH 3-
N - 1000
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASS IFI CATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Aromatics
Phenols
Phthalates
Polynuclear Aromatics
Ami nes
Misc.
007
Hazardous wastes stored in drums and tanks on site. Follow-
ing contaminants were found in soil and puddles of liquid at
si te :
1,4-dichlorobenzene *
1,2-dichlorobenzene*
1.2.4-trichlorobenzene*
tetrachlorobenzene isomer
dibutylphthaiate*
methylnaphthalene isomer
methyoxyphenol isomer
isophorone*
naphthalene *
diphenylamine*
dimethylnaphthalene isomer
1-chloro-3-nitrobenzene
fluoranthene*
phenanthrene*
3-ethyl toluene
1.3.5-trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene
0
Halocarbons
008
Following contaminants were detected in groundwater possibly
due to migration from upgradient impoundment disposal site:
1,1,1-trichloroethane* - 1.6 - 2.8 pg/1
trichloroethene - 6.9 - 16 gg/1
dichloropropene* - detected, not quantified
9
(continued)
-------
TABLE A*1 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASS IFICATION
Pesticides
Aromatics
llalocarbons
Metals
Misc .
Phenols
SITE
CODE
009
010
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Isomers of DDT present in surface waters downstream of pesti-
cide production facility. Efforts underway to treat surface
waters.
DDT* - ranged from 4.28 to 14.26 pg/1 with average of
11.36 pg/1 (over 3 months in 1979)
Following contaminants were detected
tive disposal site used by a chemical
tions in mg/1, except as noted):
leaching from an inac-
producer (concentra-
pH -
5.6 - 6.9
Na -
- 1000
TOC -
1800 - 4300
Ca -
- 2500
SOC -
4 200
CI -
- 9500
COD -
5900 - 11,500
Fe -
- 31 - 330
Oil &
Grease - 90
Hg* -
- <0.0005 -
SS -
200 - 4 30
Pb* -
- 0.3 - 0.4
TDS -
15,700
Sb* -
- 2 pg/1**
SO^ -
240
As* •
- 130 pg/1**
S" -
<0.1
Cd* -
- 11 pg/1**
Total
P as P<0.1-3.2
Cr* •
- 270 pg/1**
POi, as
; P - <0.1
Cu* -
- 540 pg/1**
TKN -
5.4
Ni* ¦
- 240 pg/1* *
nh4-n
- 0.65
Se* -
- 9 pg/1**
NO3-N
- <0.1
Ag * -
- 1 pg/1**
NO2 ~N
- <0. 1
Zn* -
- 480 pg/1**
Cn* -
- <0.01
hexach.lt
1.2,4-ti
aldrin*
heptachlor *
abutadiene*
jhlorobenzene*
- 109 ng/1**
- 23 pg/1* *
- 23 pg/1* *
- <10 pg/1* *
REFERENCE
10
12
22
27
20
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-1 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASS IFICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Aromatics
Halocarbons
Metals
Misc.
Phenols (continued)
phenol* - 30 pg/1**
phenols (total)* - 4.5**
2,4-dichlorophenols* - 10 pg/1**
methyl chloride* - 180 pg/1**
1,1-dichloroethylene - 28 pg/1
chloroform* - ND - 4550 pg/1
trichloroethylene* - ND - 760 pg/1
dibromochloromethane* - ND - 35 pg/1
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene - ND - 1000 pg/1
chlorobenzene* - 1200 pg/1**
methanol - 42.4**
ethanol - 56.4**
acetone - 50.3**
isopropyl alcohol - <0.1**
benzene* . - ND - 3300 pg/1
toluene* - ND - 31,000 pg/1
1,1,1-trichloroethane* - ND - 225 pg/1
carbon tetrachloride* - 92 pg/1**
hexachlorocyclohexane
alpha isomer - ND - 600 pg/1
beta isomer - ND - 700 pg/1
gamma isomer - ND - 600 pg/1
delta isomer - ND - 120 pg/1
** denotes concentration following flow equalization and
sand filtration processes and prior to granular carbon
adsorption
(continued)
-------
TABLE a -1 (continued)
CONTAMI NANT
CLASSIFICATION
S ITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
AND WATER
QUALITY
REFERENCE
Metals
on
Groundwater reported to be contaminated by
migration of pol-
1 3
Aromatics
lutants from municipal landfill
utilized by
pharmaceutical
14
Halocarbons
manufacturer for disposal of production residues. Following
Misc.
data represents groundwater quality at well
located between
Phenols
landfill and river which is downgradient.
Other wells in
Polynuclear Aromatics
area and downstream also report
contamination (concentrations
in pg/1, except as noted):
BOD - 2000 mg/1
As* -
590 mg/1
COD - 7100 mg/1
Ba -
0.60 mg/1
TOC - 2300 mg/1
Cu* -
0.02 mg/1
TSS - <3 mg/1
Hg* -
0.0048 mg/1
Total Phenols - 18 mg/1
Zn* -
0.17 mg/1
NH-N - 130 mg/1
Volatile Organics:
range
average
benzene *
150 - 230
190
chlorobenzene *
4.6 - 7.0
5.5
1,2-dichloroethene*
270 - 330
310
trans-1,2-dichloroethene*
25 - 31
28
dichloromethane *
29 - 130
82
ethyl benzene*
3.0 - 5.2
3.9
toluene *
24 - 34
28
1,1,1-trichloroethane*
4.2 - 5.6
5.0
1,1. 2-trichloroethane*
390 - 870
600
trichloromethane *
90 - 320
250
tr i eh1oroethane*
39 - 48
43
Letrachloroethylene*
-
23
Neutral Extractible Organics:
aniline
140 - 870
410
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
SITE
CLASSIFICATION
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND
WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Mental s
Neutral Extractible Organics (continued):
Aroina tics
range
average
llalocarbons
o-chloroaniline nd
Mi sc .
- 360
140
Phenols
p-chloronitrobenzene 460
- 940
720
Polynuclear Aromatics
chloronitrotoluene ND
- 460
120
(continued)
4-chloro-3-nitrobenzamide 440
- 8700
4200
2,6-dichlorobenzamine 890
- 30,000
0800
2-ethylhexanal ND
- 4500
2600
2-ethylhexanol 19,000
- 23,000
22,000
3-heptanone Nl)
- 1300
640
phenol* 12,000
- 17,000
14,000
o-nitroaniline 170,000
- 180,000
180,000
p-nitroani1ine 32,000
- 4 7,000
37,000
nitrobenzene* nu
- 740
250
o-nitrophenol* B,600
- 12,000
11,000
2-chlorophenol*
-
3
2,4-dinitrophenol*
-
99
n-nitrosodiphenylamine*
as diphenylamine
-
190
1,1-dichloroothylene *
—
P
Metals
012
Following contaminants detected in groundwater at
well near
15
Misc.
tannery sludge disposal area:
Cr* - 1 mg/1 average; 5 nig/1 maximum
'/.n* - 2.77 mg/1 average; 4.9 mg/1 maximum
pll - 6.3b average; 6.0 minimum
(contlnued)
-------
table a-i
(continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
PCU' s
013
Impoundments containing PCB contaminated oil and water were
dewatered to eliminate threat of stream and groundwater pol-
lution. Influent to powdered activated carbon treatment
facility contained:
Aroclor 1242*
Aroclor 1254* ranged from 0.56 to 7.7 Vig/1
Aroclor 1260*
16
Metal
014
Groundwater contamination resulted from land disposal of
arsenic compounds by pharmaceutical manufacturer. Prior to
installation of groundwater purging and treatment system,
arsenic* concentrations were 10,000 mg/1; after several years
of purging concentrations of .10-30 mg/1 remain.
17
Metal
015
Waste aresenic was disposed of in dump. Arsenic* concentra-
tions found in groundwater were 175 mg/1.
17
Metals
016
Following contaminants found in groundwater near inactive
chemical waste disposal site:
Ba - 2000 mg/1
Other inorganics and organics anticipated to be present.
1 8
Metals
Pesticides
017
Arsenic* and Carbofuran found in surface runoff and in
lagoon used by chemical manufacturer.
18
(continued)
-------
TABLE A -1 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Metals
Misc.
018
Following contaminants found in impoundment used by chemical
waste processor (conc. in mg/1):
Cd* - 1 Zn* - 1
Cu* - 9 pH - 3
Fe - 60 NH 3-N - 30
Ni* - 3
10
Metals
Aroinat ics
019
Mercury* and benzene hexachloride believed to be in ground-
water in vicinity of chemical manufacturing and waste dispos-
al operations.
18
Aromat ics
020
Chlorinated benzenes found in leachate and groundwater in
vicinity of waste disposal operation used by several chemical
producers.
10
Phenol
Polynuclear Aromatics
021
Following contaminants found in shallow groundwater in
vicinity of chemical production facility:
phenol* - 50 pg/1
polynuclear aromatics - 3400 pg/1
19
Metals
Misc.
022
Following range of contaminants were found in ground and sur-
face waters (ponds) in vicinity of municipal landfill which
also accepted industrial wastes (conc. in mg/1):
3 worst case 2 worst case
Pollutant wells surface waters
20
Alkalinity 20.6 - 300 81 - 156
p|| 6. 27 - 6. 5 6. 22 - 6.3
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
S ITE
CLASSIFICATION
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
AND WATER
QUALITY
REFERENCE
Metals
3 worst
case
2 worst case
Misc. (continued)
Pollutant
wells
surface waters
TS
840 -
1730
159
- 258
TOC
12 -
39
20.4
- 33.5
TKN
<1 -
8.7
6.05
CI
31.0 -
125
3.65
-7.48
Na - mixed/settled3
4.6 -
34.1/26.9
21.5
/ NR
Mn - mixed/settled3
0.41 -
4.16/3.70
1.03
/ NR
Fe - mixed/settled3
21. 1 -
196/162
3. 38
/ NR
Zn*- mixed/settled3
0.32 -
0.54/0.21
0.07
/ NR
Cu*-mixed/settied
0.082 -
0.365/0.076
0.006
/ NR
Pb*-mixed/settled3
0.196 -
0.393/0.271
0.003
/ NR
Cr*-mixed/settled3
0.123 -
0.55/0.28
<0.001
/ NR
Specific conductance
80 -
1200
NR
a - results reported
for mixed sample and supernatant
from settled sample
NR - not reported
Metals
023
Following contaminants
were detected in groundwater
down-
21
Phenols
gradient of landfill which accepted large quantities of
Misc.
pharmaceutical wastes.
Data represents quality range at 3
poorest quality wells over 2 yr
time span.
(conc. as mg/1):
pH
6.0 - 7.
9 CI
40
- 1500
specific conductance
180 - 2000 F
0.14
-1.3
temperature ( F)
58 - 63
TDS
1455
color
50 - 4000 NO3-N
0.01
- 0.04
sulfate
1.2 - 25
PO4-P
0.04
total hardness
700 - 1700 Fe
0.21
- 678
Ca
180 - 280 K
4.9
- 30
My
25 - 250 Mn
0.01
- 1.0
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
SITE
CLASS IFICATION
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER
QUALITY
REFERENCE
Metals
Na 13-130 CN*
0.005
Phenols
Se * 0.01 - 0.02 pb*
0.10
Misc. (continued)
COD 168 - 9920 Cu*
0.10
- 0.71
BOD5 42 - 4040 Hg*
0.0005
MBAS 0.24 Zn*
0. 36
- 26.8
Phenols* 0.008 - 54.17 Ag*
0.01
Aromatics
024
Following range of contaminants were detected in leachate
23
Malocarbons
from landfill accepting major proportions of
chemical produc-
PCB1 s
tion wastes (conc. in |ig/l, except as noted)
:
Polynuclear Aromatics
Aroclor 1254*
70
Phthalates
Aroclor 1016*/1242*
110 to
1900
Aroclor 1016*/1242*/1254*
66 to
1.8 g/1
benzene *
P to
1930
biphenyl napthalene
P
chlorobenzenes *
P to
4620
camphene
P
Cif alkyl cyclopentadiene
P
C5 substituted cyclopentadiene
P
dichlorobenzene *
P to
517
dichloroethane *
180
dichloroethylene
P
1imonene
P
methyl chloride*
3.1
methyl napthalene
P
parafins
P
petroleum oil
P
phthalates
P
phthalate esters
P
pi nene
P
(continued)
-------
TABLE A~1 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Aromatics
lla locarbons
PCB' s
Polynuclear Aroinatics
Phthalates
(continued)
llalocarbons
Mi sc.
Halocarbons
Aroinatics
Plie no Is
I'o 1 yiiuc 1 t;ar Aroinatics
SITE
CODE
025
026
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
styrene
P
tetrachloroethylene *
P to
590
toluene *
P to
o
o
CN
trichJ oroethane *
P to
490
trichloroethylene*
P to
7700
trimethy 1benzenes
P
MIBK
2000
xylene
1' to
1 300
Following contaminants were detected in groundwater in vicin-
ity of municipal landfill due to "industrial waste seepage
from landfill" (conc. in pg/1):
1,1, 1-trichloroethane*
532
tetrach1oroe thylene*
187
1,1-dichloroethane*
2. 3
1, 2-dichloroethylene*
0.2
chloroform*
1.1
1,2-dichloroethane*
2.1
dibromochloromethane*
3.9
bromoform*
0. 2
TOC
500
Ground and surface waters were polluted by migration of con-
taminants from waste disposal lagoons and direct discharge
practices attributed to chemical production facility. Fol-
lowing data describe groundwater quality range at four wells
.located within the groundwater contamination plums (conc. in
l'g/1) :
REFERENCE
24
25
(con L i niied)
-------
TABLE A~1 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER
QUALITY
REFERENCE
Halocarbons
Volatile Organics:
Aroma t ics
Phenols
vinyl chloride*
140
to
32,500
Polynuclear Aromatics
methylene chloride
<5
to
6570
(continued)
1,1-dichloroethylene*
220
to
19,850
1,1-dichlorethane*
<5
to
14,200
1, 2-diclilorethane*
350
to
0150
benzene *
6
to
7370
1,1,2-trichloroethane *
<5
to
790
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane*
<5
to
1590
toluene *
<5
to
5850
ethylbenzene *
<5
to
470
chlorobenzene *
<5
to
78
trichlorofluoromethane *
<5
to
18
Acid Extractable Orqanics:
o-chlorophenol*
<3
to
20
phenol *
<3
to
33
o-sec-butylpheno^
<3
to
83
p-isobutylanisol
<3
to
86
or p-acetonylanisolb
p-sec-buty1phenol^
<3
to
40
p-2-oxo-n-butylphenol
<3
to
1357
m-ace tony lanisol*3
<3
to
1546
isoprophylphenolb
<3
to
8
1-ethylpropylphenol
<3
d imethylphenol *
<3
benzoic acid
<3
to
12,311
Base Extractible Organics:
i
dichlorobenzene *
<10
to
172
1
dimethylaniline
<10
to
6940
(continued)
-------
TABLE pm-
1
(continued)
CONTAMINANT
SITE
CLASSIFICATION
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER
QUALITY
reference
llaiocarbons
Base Extractible Organics (continued):
Aromatics
m-ethylaniline
Phenols
<10 to
7640
Poiynuclear Aromatics
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene*
<10 to
2H
(continued)
napthalene*
< 10 to
66
me thylnapthalene
<10 to
290
camphor
<10 to
7571
chloroaniline
<10 to
06
benzylamine or o-toluidine
<10 to
471
phenanthrene* or anthracene*
< 10 to
670
b - structure not validated by actual compound
Halocarbons
027
Groundwater pollution caused by the production, dis
posal, and
26
Aromatics
storage of chemicals and waste residues in
vicinity
of chem-
Misc.
ical production facility (conc. in pg/1, except as
noted):
chloride
5.5 to
8000 ing/1
tetrachloromethane *
<1 to
25,000
trichloromethane*
<1 to
<10,000
trichloroethene
<3 to
10,000
tetrachloroethene
<1 to
>50,000
hexachlorobutadiene* (^46)
<20
hexachlorocyclopentadiene* (*-56)
<100
octachlorocyclopentene (c58)
<100
hexachlorobenzene* ( 66)
<100
(continued)
-------
TABLE A~1 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
SITE
CLASSIFICATION
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Alcohols
028
Following range of contamiants were found in groundwater at
11
Aliphatics
a landfill (conc. in mg/1):
Aromatics
Ethers
methylene chloride* 184
Halocarbons
1,1,1-trichloroethane* 35
trichloroethene 84
toluene* 43
tetrachloroethene 0.850
benzaldehyde 3,100
benzene methanol 4,600
trichlorotoluene 3,300
Also believed to contain MIBK, hexane, dimethyl ether
, and
dimethylpentene, approximately 10-100 mg/1 of each.
Alcohols
029
Groundwater quality in vicinity of facility which receives
29
A1iphatics
solvents and chemicals in bulk and repackages for distribu-
Aromatics
tion (conc. in mg/1):
Halocarbons
Phthalates
l-methyl-3-(1-methylethanyl) cyclohexene
< 1.453
Polynuclear aromatics
o-xylene
< 1.453
p-xylene
48.170
m-xylene
19.708
methylethylbenzene
< 1.453
1,4-dimethy1-2-(1-methylethyl) benzene
11.913
1,2-diethylbenzene
7. 971
1-ethy1-2,4-dimethylbenzene
< 1.453
2-ethy1-1,4-dimethylbenzene
< 1.453
2-ethyl-l,3-dimethylbenzene
< 1.453
1-ethy1-3,5-dimethylbenzene
12.507
1,2,3,5-tetramethylbenzene
36.479
1,2,4,5-tet ramethylbenzene
< 1.453
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Alcohols
(2-methyl-l-propenyl) benzene
< 1.453
Aliphatics
4-ethyl-l,2-dimethylbenzene
< 1.453
Aromatics
l-methyl-3-(1-methylethyl) benzene
< 1.453
Halocarbons
l-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl) benzene
< 1.453
Phthalates
naphthalene*
18.698
Polynuclear aromatics
l-ethyl-2,4,5-trimethylbenzene
< 1.453
(continued)
5-ethyl-l,2,4-trimethylbenzene
< 1.453
l-ethyl-2-isopropylbenzene
< 1.453
1-methylnaphthalene
< 1.453
2-methylnaphthalene
8.067
1,2-dimethylnaphthalene
< 1.453
ethylbenzene
10.115
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
11.239
1,3,5-trimethy1benzene
37.113
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene
13.702
2-butoxyethanol
< 2.168
1-(2-methoxy-l-methylethoxy)-2-propanol
< 2.168
2-ethyl-4-methyl-l-pentanol
< 2.168
2-methylcyclopentanol
< 2.168
4-methyl-2-pentanol
< 2.168
tetrachloroethene
89.155
dipropyl phthalate
< 3.883
dibutyl phthalate*
21.732
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate*
52.995
hydrocarbons (4-total)
42.760
Volati]es
methylene chloride*
21
acetone
62
2-butanol
550
dichloroethylene*
10
methyl ethyl ketone
53
(continued)
-------
TABLE A~1 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
SITE
CLASSIFICATION
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Alcohols
1-1-1-trichloroethane*
590
A1iphatics
1-ethoxypropane
87
Aromatics
2-methyl-2-butanol
58
Halocarbons
l-methoxy-2-propanol
66
Phthalates
2-ethoxy-ethanol
3.
3
Polynuclear aromatics
4-methyl-2-pentanone
110
(continued)
2-methylcyclopentanol
1.
7
4-methyl-2-pentanol
140
tetrachloroethylene*
8.
2
toluene*
100
Lower portion
Upper portion
of Aquifer
of Aquifer
TOC 24 - 8700
73 - 2200
COD 39 - 41,400
960 - 16
,300
Aliphatics
030
Groundwater contamination due to leaching from
unlined and
30
Aromatics
inadequately lined disposal lagoons and soil contamination
Halocarbons
by process wastewater conveyance system (conc.
in iig/1)
Phenols
Polynuclear aromatics
Nonvolatiles
aniline
<6.2 to
1900
2-chloroaniline
<9.9 to
1^000
l-methyl-4-phenoxybenzene
<8.4 to
670
3,3-dichloro-(1-1*-diphenyl) -
4,4"-diamine
<8.4 to
1600
l-chloro-3-nitrobenzene
<8.0 to
340
2 methylpheno]
<8.0 to
210
bis(pentafluorophenyl) phenyl-
phosphine
<38
4,4' -dichlorobenzophenone
<38
(1-butylhexyl)benzene
<36
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-1 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER
QUALITY
REFERENCE
A]iphatics
(1-propylheptyl) benzene
<36
Aromatics
(1-ethyloctyl) benzene
<36
Halocarbons
(1-methylnomyl) benzene
<36
Phenols
diphenyldiazene
<36
Polynuclear aromatics
(1-butylheptyl) benzene
<36
(continued)
(1-propyloctyl) benzene
<36
(1-ethylnonyl) benzene
<36
(1-methyldecyl) benzene
<36
(1-pentylheptyl) benzene
<36
(1-butyloctyl) benzene
<36
(1-propylnony1) benzene
<36
(1-ethyldecyl) ben'zene
<36
(1-methylundecyl) benzene
<36
1-hepty1-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-
4-methy1-naphthalene
<36
hydrocarbons
<36
2-chloro-n-phenylbenzamide
<38
Volatiles
methylene chloride*
<0.3 to
18
acetone
<0.1 to
470
thiobismethane
<1.0 to
290
1,1-dichloroethane *
<2.0 to
12,000
1,1-dichloroethyiene*
<110
chloroform*
<17
1,2-dichloroethane*
2.1 to
4500
carbon tetrachloride*
<70.
0
1,2-dichloropropane*
<22
trichloroethylene*
<1.3 to
55
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene
0.6 to
560
toluene*
<0.4 to
2200
xylene <2 isomers)
<0.4 to
5400
(continued)
-------
TABLE A"1 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
S ITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Aliphatics
Aromatics
Halocarbons
Phenols
Polynuclear aromatics
(continued)
cyclohexane <0.4 to 22
methylcyclopentane <0.4 to 11
2,3-dimethyl-2-pentene <8.6
chlorobenzene* <14
ethylbenzene* <0.6 to 3100
benzene* <1.1 to 5400
. .
* - A priority po-llutant
ND - Not Detected
P - Present
-------
TABLE A-2. REFERENCES LISTED IN TABLE A-l
1. Personal Communication. Mr. Leon Oberdick, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, Reading, PA.
June 21, 19 7 9.
2. Personal Communication. Mr. John Osgood, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA.
June 19, 1979.
3. Personal Communication. Mr. Thomas Massey. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA. May 17, 1979.
4. Personal Communication. Mr. Carlyle Westlund, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA.
June 19, 19 79.
5. Hatayama, H.K., Simmons, B.P., and R.D. Stephens. The
Stringfellow Industrial Waste Disposal Site: A Technical
Assessment of Environmental Impact. California Department
of Health Services, Berkeley, CA. March 1979.
6. Buhts, R.E., Malone, P.G., and D.W. Thompson. Evaluation of
Ultraviolet/Ozone Treatment of Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA)
Groundwater (Treatability Study). Technical Report Y-78-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MI. January 1978.
7. Steiner, R.L., Keenan, J.D., and A.A. Fungaroli. Demon-
strating Leachate Treatment: Report on a Full-Scale
Operating Plant. SW-7 58, US EPA, Office of Water and Waste
Management, Washington, DC. May 1979.
8. US EPA, National Enforcement Investigations Center. Partial
Listing of Compounds in ABM-Wade Disposal Site Samples.
Unpublished Memorandum to US EPA Region III Enforcement
Division, Philadelphia, PA. April 25, 1979.
9. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Results
of DER Samples of Bridgeport Quarry Taken on April 23, 1979.
Unpublished Data. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, Nomstown, PA. April 23 , 1979 .
10. Personal Communication. Mr. F.A. Jones, Jr. Redstone
Arsenal Carbon Treatment Plant. Unpublished Data. Depart-
ment of the Army, US Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. July 2, 1979.
A-2 3
-------
TABLE A-2
(continued)
11. Personal Communication. Ms. Marilyn A. Hewitt. Water Quality
Report, Special Analyses Concerning Mayer Landfill, Springfield
Township, PA. September 28, 1980.' Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, Norristown, PA. December 26, 1980.
12. Barth, E.F. and J.M. Cohen. Evaluation of Treatability of
Industrial Landfill Leachate. Unpublished Report.
US Environmental Protection- Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
November 30, 19 78.
13. Dahl, T.O. NPDES Compliance Monitoring and Water/Waste
Characterization Salsbury Laboratories/Charles City, Iowa.
EPA 3 30/2-7 8-019, US Environmental Protection Agency,
National Enforcement Investigations Center, Denver, CO.
November 197 8.
14. US Environmental Protection Agency. Report of Investigation
Salsbury Laboratories, Charles City, Iowa. US Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Region VII Surveillance and Analyses
Division, Kansas City, MO. February 1979.
15. Atwell, J.S. Identifying and Correcting Groundwater Con-
tamination at a Land Disposal Site. In: Proceedings of
the Fourth National Congress Waste Management Technology
and Resource and Energy Recovery, Atlanta, GA.
November 1975. pp. 278-301.
16. Stroud, F.B., Wilkerson, R.T., and A. Smith. Treatment and
Stabilization of PCB Contaminated Water and Waste Oil: A
Case Study. In: Proceedings of 1978 National Conference
on Control of Hazardous Material Spills, Miami Beach, FL.
April 1978. pp. 135-144.
17. Stover, E.L. and A.A. Metry. Hazardous Solid Waste Manage-
ment Report. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, Division of Solid Waste Management, Harrisburg,
PA. November 19 76.
18. Interagency Task Force on Hazardous Wastes. Draft Report
on Hazardous Waste Disposal in Erie and Niagara Counties,
New York. SW-P11 (3/79). Interagency Task Force on
Hazardous Wastes, Albany, NY. March 1979.
19. Personal Communication. Mr. Steven Lees, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. August 2, 1979.
20. Beck, W.W. Jr., Evaluation of Chemical Analyses Windham
Landfill, Windham, Connecticut. Letter to Mr. Donald E.
Sanning. US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,OH.
January 26, 1978.
21. Personal Communication. Mr. Steven Lees. Compilation of
Data Related to LiPari Landfill. US Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, OH. August 2, 1979.
A-2 4
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued)
22. Personal Ccmmunication. Mr. Steven Lees. Compilation of
Love Canal Leachate Data. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH. August 2, 1979.
23. Brezenski, F.T. Laboratory Results - Kin Buc Landfill.
Unpublished Data in Memorandum to R.D. Spear, Chief
Surveillance and Monitoring Branch. US Environmental
Protection Agency. January 24, 1978.
24. Isacoff, E.G. and J.A. Bittner. Resin Adsorbent Takes on
Chlororganics from Well Water. Water and Sewage Works,
126 (8) : 41-42 , 1979 .
25. Sturino, E. Analytical Results: Samples from Story
Chemicals, Data Set Others 336. Unpublished Data.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Central
Regional Laboratory, Chicago, IL. May 1978.
26. Personal Communication. Mr. Andrew w. Hogarth. Unpub-
lished Data: Report of Sampling, Hooker Chemical Corp.
Monitoring Wells, Montague, Michigan. December 197S.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.
August 7, 19 79.
27. O'Brien, R.P. City of Niagara Falls, New York, Love Canal
Project. Unpublished Report. Calgon Corp., Calgon
Environmental Systems Division/ Pittsburgh, PA.
28. Recra Research Inc. Priority Pollutant Analyses Prepared
for Newco Chemical Waste Systems, Inc. Unpublished Repcrt.
Recra Research Inc., Tonawanda, NY. April 16, 1979.
29. Personal Communeiation. Ms. Deborah Mulcahey. Unpublished
Data: Analytical Results of Data Set - EDO 489, Collected
at Bofors-Lakeway, Inc., Muskegon, Michigan by U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Region V, February 12, 19 80.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan.
December 18, 1980.
30. Personal Communication. Ms. Deborah Mulcahey. Compilation
of Data related to Chemcentral-Detroit. Michigan Department
of Natural Resources. December 18, 1980.
A-2 5
-------
APPENDIX B
ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF RCRA POLLUTANTS
The Hazardous Waste and Consolidated Permit Regulations
which appeared in the May 19, 1980 Federal Register contain
three lists of hazardous wastes: (1) acute hazardous {Sec.
261.33(e)}, (2) hazardous (Appendix VII), and (3) Toxic {Sec.
261.33(f)). These three lists are consolidated into one alpha-
betical listing in this appendix to facilitate location of a
compound. The RCRA category (1,2, or 3) above is indicated for
each compound. Multiple entries for a compound indicate that
the compound appears in more than one category.
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l. LIST OF RCRA POLLUTANTS
RCRA RCRA
Pollutant Pollutant
Compound Group Compound Group
Acetalaldehyde
H,
T
Amitrole
H,
T
(Acetato)phenylmercury
H
Ammonium metavanadate
A
Acetone
T
Ammonium picrate
A
Acetonitrile
H,
T
Aniline
T
3-(alpha-Acetonylbenzyl)-
H,
A
Antimony and Compounds,
4-hydroxycoumarin and
N.O.S.
H
salts
ANTIMUCIN WDR
A
Acetophenone
T
ANTURAT
A
2 Acetylaminofluorene
H,
T
AQUATHOL
A
Acetyl Chloride
H,
T
Aramite
H
1-Acetyl-2-thiourea
A,
H
ARETIT
A
Acrolein
A,
H
Arsenic and compounds,
H
Aerylamide
H,
T
N.O.S.
Acetylene tetrachloride
T
Arsenic acid
A,
H
Acetylenetrichloride
T
Arsenic pentoxide
A,
H
Acrylic acid
T
Arsenic trioxide
A,
H
Acrylonitrile
H,
T
Asbestos
T
AEROTHENE TT
rp
Athrombin
A
Aflatotoxins
H
Auramine
H,
T
Agarin
A
AVITROL
A
Agrosan GN 5
A
Azaserine
H,
T
Aldicarb
A
Azi ridene
A
Aldifen
A
AZOPOS
A
Aldrin
A,
H
Azophos
A
Algimycin
A
BANTU
A
Allyl alcohol
A,
H
Barium and compounds,
H
Aluminum phosphide
A,
H
N.O.S.
ALVIT
A
Barium cyanide
A,
H
4-Aminobiphenyl
H
BASENITE
A
6-Amino-1,la,2,8,8a,
H,
T
BCME
A
8b-hexahydro-8-(hydroxy-
Benz[c]acridine
H,
methyl)-8a-methoxy-5-
Benz[a]anthracene
H
(methylcarbamate azirino
Benzal chloride
T
(2',3':3,4) pyrrolo
Benzene
H,
T
(1,2-a)indole-4,1-
Benzenearsonic acid
K
doine(ester)
Benzenesulfonyl chloride
T
(Mitomycin C)
Benzenethiol
A,
H
Aminoethylene
A
Benzidine
H,
T
5-(Aminomethyl)-3-
H,
A
1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-
T»
isoxazolol
one, 1,1-dioxide
4-Aminopyridine
A,
H
BenzoCa]anthracene
H,
(continued}
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
RCRA RCRA
Pollutant Pollutant
Compound Group Compound Group
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
H
CERESAN
A
Benzo[j]fluoranthene
H
CERESAN UNIVERSAL
A
Benzo[a]pyrene
H,
Wl
CHEMOX GENERAL
A
Benzoepin (Endosulfan)
A
CHEMOX P.E.
A
Benzotrichloride
H,
m
CHEM-TOL
A
Benzyl chloride
H
Chloral
T
Bervllium and compounds
H
Chlorambucil
H.
T
N.O.S.
Chlordane
T
Beryllium dust
A
Chlordane (alpha and
K
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)
H,
T
gamma isomers)
ne thane
Chlorinated benzenes,
H
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
H
T
N.O.S.
N,N-Bis(2-chloroethyl)-
H
T
Chlorinated ethane,
H
2-naphthy1amine
N.O.S.
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)
H,
T
Chlorinated naphtha-
H
ether
lene, N.O.S.
Bis(chloromethyl) ether
A,
H
Chlorinated phenol,
H
Bis (2-et'nylhexyl)
H,
T
N.O.S.
phthalate
Chloroacetaldehyde
A,
H
BLADAN-M
A
Chloroalkyl ethers
H
Bromoacetone
A,
H
p-Chloroaniline
A,
H
Bromomethane
H,
T
Chlorobenzene
H,
T
4-Bromophenyl phenyl
H,
T
Chlorobenzilate
H,
T
ether
1- (p-Chlorobenzoyl)-5-
A,
K
Brucine
A,
H
me thoxy- 2-me thy1indo1e
2-Brutanone peroxide
A,
H
3-acetic acid
BU7EN
A
p-Chloro-m-cresol
H,
T
Butaphene
A
Chlorodibromomethane
T
n-Butyl alcohol
T
l-Chloro-2,3-epoxy-
H
Butyl benzyl phthalate
H
butane
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dini-
A,
H
l-Chloro-2,3-epoxypro-
T
tro-phenol (DNBP)
pane
Cadmium and compounds,
H
CHLOROETHENE NU
T
N.O.S.
Chloroethyl vinyl ether
T
Calcium chroinate
H,
T
2-Chloroethyl vinyl
K
Calcium cyanide
A,
H
ether
CALDON
A
Chloroethene
T
Carbolic acid
T
Chloroform
H,
Carbon disulfide
A,
H
Chloromethane
H,
T
Carbon tetrachloride
T
Chloromethyl methyl
K,
Carbonyl fluoride
T
ether
(continued)
B-3
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
RCRA RCRA
Pollutant Pollutant
Compound Group Compound Group
2-Ch'loronaphthalene
H,
T
DDE
H
2-Chlorophenol
H,
T
DDT
H,
T
1-(o-Chlorophenyl)
A,
H
DFP
A
thiourea
Diallate
H,
i
3-Chloropropionitrile
A,
H
Dibenz[a,h]acridine
H
alpha-Chlorotoluene
A,
H
Dibenz[a, j ]acridine
H
Chlorotoluene, N.O.S.
H
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
H,
T
4-Chloro-o-toluidine
T*
1
(Dibenzo[a,h]anthra-
hydrochloride
cene )
Chromium and compounds,
H
7H-Dibenzo[c,g]
H
N.O.S.
carbazole
Chrysene
H
T
Dibenzo[a,e jpyrene
H
C.I. 23060
T
Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene
H
Citrus red No.2
H
Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene
Dibromochloromethane
H,
L
Copper cyanide
A,
H
T
Creosote
H,
T
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloro-
H,
T
Cresols
T
propane
CRETOX
A
1,2-Dibromoethane
H,
T
Coumadin
A
Dibromome thane
K,
T
Coumafen
A
Di-n-butyl-phthalate
H,
T
Cresylic acid
T
Dichlorobenzene, N.O.S.
H
Crotonaldehyde
H
T
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
T
Curaene
T
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
T
Cyanides (soluble salts
A,
H
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
T
ana complexes), N.O.S.
3,31-Dichlorobenzidine
H,
1
Cyanogen
A,
H
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
T
Cyanogen bromide
A,
H
3,3'-Dichloro-4 ,4
T
Cyanogen chloride
A,
H
diaminobipheny1
Cyanomethane
T
Dichlorodifluoromethane
T
Cycasin
H
1,1-Dichloroethane
K
T
Cyclodan
A
1,2-Dichloroethane
H,
T
Cyclohexane
T
trans-1,2-Dichloroethane H
Cyclohexanone
T
Dichloroethylene, N.O.S.
H
2-Cyclohexyl-4 6-dini-
A,
H
1/1-Dichloroethylene
H,
T
trophenol
1,2-trans-dichloro-
T
Cyclophosphamide
H,
T
ethylene
D-CON
A
Dichloromethane
H,
T
Daunomycin
H,
T
Dichloromethylbenzene
T
DETHMOR
A
2 4-Dichlorophenol
H,
-r»
DETHNEL
A
2 6-Dichlorophenol
H,
T
DDD
H,
T
(continued)
B-4
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
2,4-Dichlorophenoxy-
acetic acid
Dichlorophenylarsine
Dichloropropane
1.2-Dichloropropane
Dichloropropanolf N.O.S.
Dichloropropene, N.O.S.
1.3-Dichloropropene
Dicyanogen
Dieldrin
DIELDREX
Diepoxybutane
Diethylarsine
Or O-Diethyl-S-[2-(ethyl-
thio) ethyl]ester of
phosphothioic acid
1, 2-Diethylhydrazine
0, O-Diethyl-S-methyl-
ester phosphorodithioic
acid
0,O-Diethylphosphoric
acid, O-p-nitrophenyl
ester
Diethyl phthalate
0, O-Diethyl-O-(2-pyra-
zinyl)phosphorothioate
0,0-Diethyl phosphoric
acid, O-p-nitrophenyl
ester
Diethyl stilbestrol
Dihydrosafrole
3, 4-Dihydroxy-alpha-
(methy1amino)-methyl
benzyl alcohol
Di-isopropylfluorophos-
phate (DFP)
DIMETATE (Dimethoate)
A,
H
A ,
H
H
H,
T
H
H
H,
T
A
A,
H
A
H,
T
A,
H
A,
H
H, T
H, T
H
H, T
A, H
H, T
H, T
A, H
A, H
A
1,4:5 8-Dimethanonaph- A
thalene , 1,2,3,4,
10 ,10-Hexachloro-l,4,
4a ,5 ,8 ,8a-hexahydro
endo , endo
Dimethaoate A, H
3 ,3-Dimethoxybenzidine H, T
Dimethylamine T
p-Dimethylaminoazoben- H, T
zene
7,12-Dimethylbenz[a] H, T
anthracene
3t3-Dimethylbenzidine H, T
alpha, alpha-Dimethyl- T
benzylhydroperoxide
Dimethylcarbamoyl H, T
chloride
1.1-Dimethylhydrazine
1.2-Dimethylhydrazine
3» 3-Dimethyl-l-(methyl-
thio)-2-butanone-0-
[(methylamino)carbony1]
oxime
Dimethylnitrosoamine
alpha, alpha-Dimethyl-
phene thy1amine
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Dimethyl sulfate
Dinitrobenzene , N.O.S.
Dinitrocyclohexy1-
phenol
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol A, H
and salts
2»4-Dinitrophenol A, H,
2,4-Dinitrotoluene H, T
2,6-Dinitrotoluene H
Di-n-octyluhthalate H,
DINOSEB ' A
H,
H,
A
H,
A,
H,
H,
H,
H
A
T
T
H
T
H
T
T
T
T
T
(continued)
B-5
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
RCRA RCRA
Pollutant Pollutant
Compound Group Compound Group
DINOSEBE
A
1 ,4 Dioxane
H, T
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
H, T
Dipropylamine
T
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
H, T
Disulfoton
A, H
2 ,4 Dithiobiuret
A, H
DNBP
A
DOLCO MOUSE CEREAL
A
DOW GENERAL
A
DOW GENERAL WEED KILLER
A
DOW SELECTIVE WEED
A
KILLER
DOW I CI DE G
A ¦
DYANICIDE
A
EASTERN STATES SUOCIDE
A
ELGETOL
A
EBDC
T
Endosulfan
A, H
Endrin
A
Endrir. and metabolites
H
Epichlorohydrin
H
Epinephrine
A
1 ,4-Epoxybutane
i
Ethyl acetate
T
Ethyl acrylate
T
Ethyl cyanide
A, K
Ethylenebisdithiocar-
H, T
bamate (EBDC)
Ethylenediamine
A, H
Ethyleneimine
A, H
Ethylene oxide
H , T
Ethylene thiourea
H, T
Ethyl ether
T
Ethylmethacrylate
T
Ethylmethanesulfonate
H, T
Ethylnitrile
T
FASCO FASCRAT POWDER
A
FEMMA
A
Ferric cyanide
A
Firemascer T23P
T
Fluoranthene
H,
T
Fluorine
A,
H
2-Fluoroacetamide
A,
H
Fluoroacetic acid,
A,
H
sodium salt
Fluorotrichloromethane
T
Formaldehyde
H,
T
FOLODOL-80
A
FOLODOL-M
A
Formic acid
T
FOSFERNOM
A
FRATOL
A
Fulminate of mercury
A
FUNGITOX OR
A
Furan
T
Furfural
T
FUSSOF
A
GALLOTOX
A
GEARPHOS
A
GERUTOX
A
Glycidylaldehyde
H ,
T
Halomethane , N.O.S.
H
Keptachlor
A
H
Heptachlor epoxide
H
(alpha , beta , and gamma
isomers)
Hexachlorobenzene
H ,
T
Hexachlorobutadiene
H ,
T
Hexachlorocyclohexane
H ,
T
(all isomers)
Hexachlorocyclopenta-
H ,
T
diene
Hexachloroethane
H ,
T
1,2 ,3 ,4 ,10 ,10-Hexa-
A ,
H
chloro-1,4 ,4a ,5 ^8 ,
8a-hexahydro-l,4:5,8-
endo , endo-dimethanona-
phthalene
Hexachlorophene T
(continued)
B-6
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
RCRA
RCRA
Pollutant
Pollutai
Compound
Group
Compound
Group
1,4,5,6,7,7-Hexa-
A
Lead phosphate
H, T
chloro-cycIic-5-nor-
Lead subacetate
H, T
bornene-2, 3-dimethanol
LEYTOSAN
A
sulfite
LIQUIPHENE
A
Hexachloropropene
A, H
Maleic anhydride
H, T
Hexaethyl tetraphosphate
A, H
Maleic hydrazide
T
HOSTAQUICK or HOSTAQUIK
A
Malononitrile
H , T
Hydrazine
H, T
MALIK
Hydrazomethane
A
MAREVAN
Hydrocyanic acid
A, H
MAR-FRIN
A
Hydrofluoric acid
T
MARTIN 1D MAR-FRIN
A
Hydrogen sulfide
H, T
MAVERAN
A
Hydroxybenzene
T
MEGATOX
A
Hydroxydimethyl arsine
T
MEK Peroxide
L
oxide
Melphalan
a, t
ILLOXOL
A
Mercury and Compounds,
H
4 ,4-(Imidocarbonyl)
T
N.O.S.
bis(N, N-dimethyl)
Mercury
m
X
aniline
Mercury fulminate
A
Ideno (1,2,3-c ,d)
K, T
MERSOLITE
A
pyrene
METACID 50
A
INDOCI
A
MATAFOS
A
Indomethacin
A
METAPHOR
A
INSECTOPHENE
A
METAPHOS
A
Iodomethane
H , T
METASOL 30
A
Iron Dextran
T
Methacronylonitrile
T
Isobutyl alcohol
T
Methanethiol
T
Isocyanic acid methyl
A, H
Methanol
T
ester
Methapyrilene
H, T
Isodrin
A
Methorny1
A, H
Isosafrole
K, T
2-Methylaziridine
A, H
Kepone
H, T
Methyl chlorocarbonate
T
KILOSEB
A
Methyl chloroform
T
KOP-THIODAN
A
3-Methylcholanthrene
H, T
KWIK-KIL
A
Methyl chloroformate
T
KWIKSAN
A
METHYL-E 605
A
KUMADER
A
4, 4-Methylene-bis-(2-
H, T
Lasiocarpine
H, T
chloroaniline)
Lead and Compounds ,
H
Methyl ethyl ketone
H, T
N.O.S.
[MEK]
Lead acetate
(continued)
B-7
-------
TABLE 3-1 (continued)
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Group
Compound
RCRA
Pollutant
Grout)
Methyl ethyl ketone
peroxide
Methyl hydrazine
Methyl iodide
Methyl isobutyl ketore
Methyl isocyanate
2-Methyllactonitrile
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl methanesulfonate
2-Kethyl-2-(methy1thio)
propionaldehyde-o-
(methylcarbonyl) oxime
N-Methyl-N-nitro-N-
nitrosoguanidine
METHYL NIRON
Methyl parathion
Methylthiouracil
METRON
Mitomvcin C
MOLE DEATH
MOUSE-NOTS
MOUSE-RID
MOUSE-TOX
MUSCIMOL
Mustard gas
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylamine
1-Naphthyl-2-thiourea
Nickel and compounds ,
N.O.S.
Nickel carbonyl
Nickel cyanide
Nicotine and salts
Nitric oxide
p-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
Nitrobenzol
Nitrogen dioxide
T
Nitrogen mustard and
H
hydrochloride salt
A, H
Nitrogen mustard N-oxide
H
T
and hydrochloride salt
T1
i
Nitrogen perioxide
A , H
A
Nitrogen tetroxide
A , H
A, H
Nitroglycerine
A , H
H, T
4-Nitrophenol
H , T
H
2-Nitropropar.e
T
A , H
4-Nitroquinoline-l-oxide
H
Nitrosamine , N.O.S.
H
N-Nitrosodi-N-butylamine
H, T
H, T
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
H, T
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
H, T
A
N-Nitrosodimethy1amine
A, H
A , H
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
A, H
H , T
N-Nitrosodi-N-propyla-
H , T
A
mine
T
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea
H , T
A
N-Nitrosomethylethyla-
H
A
mine
A
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
H, T
A
N-Nitroso-N-methyl-
H, T
A
urethane
H
N-Nitrosomethylvinyla-
A, H
H , T
mine
H, T
N-Nitrosomorpholine
H
H, T
N-Nitrosohornicotine
H
H, T
N-Nitrosopiperidine
H , T
A, H
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
H, T
H
N-Nitrososarcosine
H
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
H, T
A, H
NYLMERATE
A
A, H
OCTALOX
A
A, H
Octamethylpyrophos-
A , H
A, H
phoramide
A, H
OCTAN
A
H, T
Oleyl alcohol condensed
A, H
T
with 2 moles ethylene
A, H
oxide
OMPA
A
(contirv
ued)
B-8
-------
TABLE B-l
(continued)
RCRA RCRA
Pollutant Pollutant
Compound Group Compound Group
OMPACIDE
A
N-Phenylthiourea
A, H
OMPAX
A
PHILIPS 1861
A
Osmium tetroxide
A ,
H
PHIX
A
7-0xabicyclo[2.2.1]
A,
H
Phorate
A
heptane-2 / 3-dicarbox-
Phosgene
A, H
ylic acid
Phosphine
A, H
PANIVARFIN
A
Phosphorothioic acid,
A, H
PANORAM
A
0 ,0-dimethyl ester ,
PANTHERINE
A
O-ester with N,
PANWARFIN
A
N-dimethyl benezene
Paraldehyde
T
sulfonamide
Parathion
A ,
H
Phosphorothioic acid 0,
A
PCNB
T
O-dimethyl-O-(p-nitro-
PCP
A
phenyl) ester
PENNCAP-M
A
Phosphorous sulfide
T
PENOXYL CARBON N
A
Phthalic acid esters ,
H
Pentachlcrobenzene
H,
T
N.O.S.
Pentachloroethane
H,
T
Phthalic anhydride
H, T
Pentachloronitrobenzene
H,
T
2-Picoline
T
(PCNB)
PIED PIPER MOUSE SEED
A
Pentachlorophenol
A,
H
Polychlorinated bi-
H
Pentachlorophenate
A
phenyl , N.O.S.
1,3-Pentadiene
m
1
Potassium cyanide
A, H
PENTAKILL
A
Potassium silver cyanide
A, H
PENTASOL
A
PREMERGE
A
PENWAR
A
Pronamide
K, T
PERMICIDE
A
1 / 2-Propanediol
A, H
PERMAGUARD
A
l»3-Propane sultone
H, T
PERMATOX
A
Propargyl alcohol
A
PERMITE
A
Propionitrile
A, H
PERTOX
A
n-Propylamine
T
Perc
T
Propylthiouracil
H
Perchloroethylene
T
2-Propyn-l-ol
A, K
PESTOX
A
PROTHROMADIN
A
Phenacetin
H,
T
Pyridine
H, T
PHENMAD
A
QUICKSAM
A
Phenol
H,
T
Quinones
PHENOTAN
A
QUINTOX
A
Phenyl dichloroarsine
A,
H
RAT AND MICE BAIT
A
Phenyl mercaptan
A
RAT-A-WAY
A
Phenylmercury acetate
A,
H
RAT-B-GON
A
D
_ Q
(contin
uec)
B-9
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
RCRA RCRA
Pollutant Pollutant
Compound Group Compound Group
RAT-O-CIDE il 2
A
Sodium fluoracetate
A
RAT-GUARD
A
SODIUM WARFARIN
A
RAT-KILL
A
SOLFARIN
A
RAT-MIX
A
SOLFOBLACK BB
A
RATS-NO-MORE
A
SOLFOBLACK SB
A
RAT-OLA
A
Streptozotocin
H,
T
RATOREX
A
Strontium sulfide
A ,
H
RATTUNAL
A
Strychnine and salts
A,
H
RAT-TROL
A
SUBTEX
A
RO-DETK
A
SYSTAM
A
RO-DEX
A
2 ,4 ,5-T
T
ROSEX
A
TAG FUNGICIDE
A
ROUGH AND READY MOUSE
A
TEKWAISA
A
MIX
TEMIC
A
Reserpine
H,
T
TEMIK
A
Resorcinol
T
TERM-I-TROL
A
Saccharin
H,
T
1 ,2 ,k ,5-Tetrachloro-
H,
T
Safrole
H,
T
benzene
SANASE2D
A
2 ,3 ,7 ,8-Tetrachloro-
H
SANTOBRITE
A
dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
SANTOPHEN
A
Tetrachloroethane
H
SANTOPHEN 20
A
N.O.S.
SCHRADAN
A
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-Tetrachloro-
H
Selenious acid
H,
T
ethane
Selenium and conroounds ,
H
1 ,1 ,2 ,2-Tetrachloro
,H ,
T
N.O.S.
ethane
Selenium sulfide
H ,
T
Tetrachloroethene
H ,
T
Selenourea
A,
H
Tetrachloroethylene
H ,
T
Silver and compounds,
H
Te trach lor otne thane
H ,
T
N.O.S.
2 ,3 ,k ,6-Tetrachloro-
H,
T
Silver cyanide
A,
H
phenol
Silvex
T
Tetraethyldithiopyro-
A,
•-i
SMITE
A
phosphate
SPARIC
A
Tetraethyl lead
A ,
H
SPOR-KIL
A
Tetraethylpyrophosphate
A ,
H
SPRAY-TROL BRAND RODEN-
A
Tetrahydrofuran
T
TROL
Tetranitromethane
A
SPURGE
A
Tetraphosphoric acid,
A
Sodium azide
A
hexaethyl ester
Sodium Coumadin
A
TETROSULFUR BLACK PB
A
Sodium cvanide
A,
H
TETROSULPHUR PBR
A
(conti r.ue c)
B-iO
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
RCRA
RCRA
Pollutant
Po
Hut an
Compound
Group
Compound
Group
Thallium and compounds ,
H
2,4,5-Trichloro-
H,
T
N.O.S.
phenoxyacetic acid
Thallic oxide
A, H
2,4,5-Trichloro-
H
Thallium acetate
H, T
phenoxypropionic acid
Thallium carbonate
H, T
2,4,5-Trichloro-
T»
i
Thallium nitrate
H, T
phenoxypropionic acid
Thallium peroxide
A
alpha, alpha, alpha-
Thallium selenite
A, H
Trichloretoluene
Thallium sulfate
A, H
Trichloropropane, N.O.S.
H
THIFOR
A
TRI-CLENE
T
THIMUL
A
0,0,0-Triethyl phos-
H
Thiocetamide
H, T
phorothioate
THIODAN
A
Trinitrobenzene
H,
T
THIOFOR
A
Tris(1-azridinyl)
H
THIOMUL
A
phosphine sulfide
THIONEX
A
Tris(2,3-dibromo-
H,
T
THIOPHENIT
A
propyl) phosphate
Thiosemicarbazide
A, H
Trypan blue
H,
T
Thiosulfan tionel
A
TWIN LIGHT RAT AWAY
A
Thiourea
H , T
Uracil mustard
H,
T
Thiuram
A, H
Urethane
H,
T
THOMPSON'S WOOD FIX
A
USAF-RH-8
A
TIOVEL
A
USAF EK-4890
A
Toluene
H, T
Vanadic acid , ammonium
A ,
H
Toluenediamine
H, T
salt
o-Toluidine hydrochloride
H, T
Vanadium pentoxide
A
Toluene diisocyanate
T
Vanadium pentoxide
K
Tolylene diisocyanate
H
(dust)
Toxaphene
H, T
Vinyl chloride
H ,
T
2 ,4 ,5-TP
T
V0FAT0X
A
Tribromomethane
H T
WANADU
A
1 ,2 ,4-Trichlorobenzene
H
WARCOUMIN
A
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
H, T
WARFARIN SODIUM
A
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
H T
WARF1C1DE
A
Trichloroethene
H, T
W0F0T0X
A
Trichloroethylene
H. T
Xylene
T
Trichlorofluoromethane
T
YANOCK
A
Trichloromethanethiol
A, H
YAS0KN0CK
A
2,4 ,5-Trichlorophenol
H, T
ZIARNIK
A
2 ,4 ,6-Trichlorophenol
H, T
Zinc cyanide
A ,
H
Zinc phospide
Z00C0UMARIN
A ,
A
H
B-ll
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
1. The abbreviation N.O.S. signifies those members of the general
class "not otherwise specified" by name in this listing.
a. RCRA Pollutant Groups:
A. Acute hazardous
[Sec. 261.33 (e)]
H. Hazardous
[Appendix VIII]
T. Toxic
[Sec. 261.33 (f)]
B-12
-------
APPENDIX C
UNIT PROCESS SUMMARIES -
SANITARY LANDFILL LEACHATE TREATMENT
Appendix C contains summaries of the treatment of sanitary
landfill leachate by the following processes:
• chemical oxidation
• chemical precipitation
• ion exchange
• reverse osmosis
Several applications using different oxidizing agents, coagu-
lants, and exchange resins are presented. These results should
not be related directly to hazardous waste leachate treatment.
However, they do provide an indication of treatment effectiveness
and represent another reference point which can be used in treat-
ment process formulation. Tables C-l through C-24 were prepared
by Monsanto Research Corporation for use in this manual.
C-l
-------
TABLE C-l.
CHLORINE AND SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [i]
Cook and
Foree
Concentration,
Concentration,
mq/La
Percent
mq/L
a
Percent
Parameter
Influent Effluent
removal
Influent
Effluent
removal
Dosage Cl2^
0 65.5
0
566
Dosage NaClO
0 3,430
0
2,970
COD
330 220
33
320
260
19
Cook and
Foree
Concentration,
Concentration,
mq/L
Percent
mq/L
Percent
Parameter
Influent Effluent
removal
Influent
Effluent
removal
Dosage Clab
0 47.6
0
310
Dosage NaClO
0 2,500
0
1,630
COD
270 120
56
290
90
69
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
aChlorine dosages provided by liquid chlorine bleach.
Except dosage Cl2 in mL/L.
C-2
-------
TABLE C-2. CHLORINE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [2,3]
Chian and DeWalle
Ho, et al.
Concentration, mq/La Percent
Parameter Influent Effluent removal
Concentration, mg/La Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Dosage
0
2,000
0
400
COD
4,aoo
3,740
22
341
297
pH initial
7.0
2.2
pH final
7.0
7.0
TS
482
1,960
Chloride
98.6
768
Iron
3.7
0.2
Ho. et al.
Concen- Concen- Concen-
tration. tration, tration,
mq/L Percent mq/L Percent mq/L Percent
Parameter Effluent removal Effluent removal Effluent removal
Dosage
800
1,200
1,540
COD
286
16
257
25
316
pH initial
2.0
1.75
1.6
pH final
7.0
W
7.0
7.0
TS
3,060
O
"w
4,200
D
5,142
Chloride
1,220
1,900
O
2,280
Iron
ND
>99
ND
>99
ND
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
TABLE C-3. CHLORINE AND CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [2]
Chian and OeWalle
Concentration,
mq/L Percent
Parameter Influent Effluent removal
Dosage Cl2 0
Dosage Ca (C10)2 0 1,000
COD 139 139 0
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
-------
TABLE C-4. CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [3]
Concen-
Concen-
Concentration,
tration,
tration,
mq/La
Percent
mq/La
Percent
mq/La
Percent
Parameter
Influent
Effluent
removal
Effluent
removal
Effluent
removal
Dosage
0
1,000
2,000
4,000
COD
1,465
1,420
3.1
1,420
3.1
1,126
23
pH initial
7.8
8.0
7.95
8.15
pH final
7.0
7.0
w
7.0
7.0
TS
1,748
2,478
O
3,268
o
5,392
Iron
35
>99
>99
>99
Ho, et .
al.
Concen-
Concen-
Concen-
tration,
tration,
tration,
mq/L
Percent
raq/La
Percent
mq/La
Percent
Parameter
Effluent
removal
Effluent
removal
Effluent
removal
Dosage
8,000
12,000
15,000
COD
762
48
908
38
1,000
32
pH initial
9.0
9.9
10.2
pH final
7.0
w
7.0
K
7.0
V
TS
9,274
B
13,910
16,700
Iron
>99
MJ
>99
M3
>99
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
^Except for pH in pH units and hardness in mg/L CaC03.
b
Negative percent removal.
C-4
-------
table C-5. potassium permanganate treatment of raw LEACNATB [3)
Ho. tt al.
Paraaeter
Concentration,
mg/L*
Percent
reaoval
Concen-
tration,
aq/L
Percent
reaoval
Concen-
tration,
aq/L
Percent
reaoval
Concen-
tration,
aq/L
Percent
reaoval
Concen-
tration,
ag/L
Influent Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Dosage
0
10
25
50
100
500
COD
10,900
10.820
0.73
10,700
1.8
10,350
S.O
10.320
5.3
9,800
P"
S.7
5.7
5.8
S.8
5.8
S.8
TS
7,040
7,000
0.S7
7,000
0.57
6,900
2.0
6,800
3.4
6,700
Alkalinity
2.070
2,065
0.24
2.065
0.24
2,065
0.24
2.062
0.39
2.060
Chloride
557
557
0
557
0
S57
0
557
0
560
Iron
290
280
3.4
220
24
180
38
76
74
3
Percent
10
4.8
99
Pari
Concen- Concen-
tration, tratign.
mq/L Percent aq/L
Ho. et al.
Concen- Concen-
tration, tratign.
Percent mq/L Percent eq/l
Percent
tter Effluent reaoval Effluent reaoval Effluent removal Effluent r
Concen-
tration,
mq/L Percent
>val Effluent reaoval
Dosage
COO
P"
Alkalinity
Chlorine
Iron
1.000
9,700
S.8
II
2,500
9,600
S.8
12
5.000
9,350
5 8
14
7.S00
9,100
5.a
17
10,000
8,860
S.8
19
Note: Blanka indicate paraaeter not determined.
*Eacept for pH in pH units and total hardness and alkalinity in atj/L CaC0s.
^Negative percent reaoval.
-------
TABLE C-6. OZONE TREATMENT OF RAH LEACHATB [2, 3]
Parameter
Ho.
et al
Chian and DeWalle
Concentration,
mq/L
Percent
removal
Concen-
tration,
mq/L
Percent
removal
Concentration,
mq/L*
Percent
removal
Influent Effluent
Influent Effluent
Dosage
0
7,700
7,700
0 34
COD
7,190
6.790
5.6
4,500
37
139 108
22
TOC
pH initial
7.4
7.4
7.4
pH final
7.5
7.8
7.5
TDS
11,730
11,330
3.4
11,280
3.8
Chloride
3,640
3,640
0
3,640
0
Iron.
40
8
80
2
95
Contact time
0
1
4
0 4
Chian >nd DeWalle
Concentration,Concentration,
»q/L ' Percent mq/L * Percent
Parameter Influent Effluent removal Influent Effluent reaoval
Dosage 0 600 0 400
COD 1,250 788 31 627 326 48
TOC 250 130 48
pH initial
pH final
TDS
Chloride
Iron
Contact time 0 3 0 3
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
'Except for contact time in hours.
''ozonation of anaerobic filter effluent.
cOzonation of aerated lagoon effluent.
-------
TABLE C-7• LIME TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [1 , 2. 3, 4]
Ha, tl 9*
1.150
1.170
10.0
3 ,040
S S3
o.s
7.7
b
^b
>99
1271
HO,
TT3-
uant
l/lluant
CD
Iffluut
Sffluaat~
cancan- Coneintrjtlon,"
tritioo, Parcant tritisa, Nrtui irttion, Parcant trition. Parctnt »q/L Parctnt
aq/L raanval ma/l ragora 1 ma/l rauTtl aq/L rtaprtl Influent Effluent rtncval
Soufl
300
PH
TOC
TSS
TS
V3S
OS
»oo
OrtbophocpberDtu
LUuiialcy
Qilorxdt
Para—tar
£>oaa99
1,390
10,700
U.O
6,930
3,290
S72
0.3
0.91
b
JO
>99
1,600
10,000
11.s
7,540
3,540
393
0.5
6.S
1,840
10,420
U.O
7,470
3.5
>99
3,920
109
O.S >99
0
336
7.7 J
6.U8
2.J80
20.9
1.060
S63
9.3
5,340
2.240
1.7
14
13
92
Ilflimst
Ho. at «1~
, Ifxiutat-
coBeaa- Caocaotrjtiao. caacM-
u-auoo. hrctot ma/l P«reut trician, Parcant
¦q/t, raaoval Influanc Sffluar.t rawil ao/L raag>«l
-i/V
2.700
SIS
U.O
4,(76
2.150
7.7
21
17
>99
0
366
a.»
4.(76
1,730
15.0
470
366
10.0
4.180
1.600
3.2
7. S
>¥)
1,400
260
U.5
3.690
1.670
KB
29
15
3.S
>99
(continued;
-------
TABLE C-7 (continued)
Chian 4rd
K/HuAt 2/fluaat (fflutoc lf/luat Ufluint
emiih cmm* cenc«»- coiteui- caaeto-
craeiaa, Parcuc cration, Pareaot trauaa, ?areant eratien, Pareeac eraeioa, Paretnc
SSU, rwvij, jg£ r«w.l ag^L rgyvil j&L rtw.l rwl
Doiaga 1.000 I.100 2,000 4.000 S.300
COD
prt 1.4 9.9 . 9.0 . 9.a 10.s
?0C ?08 - 7W - ?*0 - 690 4.2 6*4 5.2
73 a
T3
9)1
M
SOD
Ort&opfeMptaroua
AUttllMty
aloriaa
In*
QUiii and
fffluat irtlyac 8/flu«at Hflust
ceoceo- caacta- codc«a- cddcu"
iritioo, ?«rcnt triUaa, Nrcnc tritioB, Ptrcut cricin, Nrcuc
P>rwt»r ag/L ramorml wtr/l* r—ui«l XI/L rwovil ao/L r«ao»al
tengi 6,000 7,000 7.S00 6,000
COD
pH LL.0 12. i 12.2 12.2
TOC 430 L5 430 13 420 13 *00 1?
TSI
TS
/SI
M
300
0rthopfto¦phorou«
LLkiimtT
Chloria#
I roe
No tat ll"" ij^ieate (urMiiir not d«tir«ia*4.
K0 * not Oat«ct«d.
4txe*pc for pH ut pM ualu «od tiJUltiUty ia ao/L CaCOj.
h
NfiUvi ptreant raavti.
cf 1— traacmac of an—rqfaic di^»at#r «£flu«fit.
*u- truoani «t aumfeU ilfiiur «lllutgi pcUttal by uriud U^m.
'Lim (HiBiDI at UHntle (llur (ffluaat.
C-8
-------
TABLE C-8. LIME, FERRIC CHLORIDE, AND FERROSULFIDE
TREATMENT OF RAW L£ACHATE [1]
Cook and Foree
Concentration,
mq/L
Percent
Parameter
Influent
Effluent
removal
Dosage lime
0
1,640
Dosage FeCl3
0
1,000
Dosage Fe2(So4)3
0
1,450
COD
17,000
15,100
11
pH initial
8.0
pH final
6.2
TSS
544
150
72
vss
75
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
aExcept pH in pH units.
TABLE C-9. LIME AND POLYMER TREATMENT
OF RAW LEACHATE [1]
Cook and Force
Concentration.
mq/L Percent
Parameter
Influent
Effluent
removal
Dosage lime
0
1,000
COD
17,000
15,100
pH initial
8.0
pH final
7.2
TSS
544
156
71
VSS
77
Orthophosphoras
0.28
Nate: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
Except pH in pH units.
C-9
-------
TABLE C-10. LIKE AND ALUM TREATMENT
OF RAH LEACHATE [2, 3]
Ho, et al.
Chian and DeWalle
Parameter
Concentration,
ma/La
Percent
removal
Concentr|tion,
m q/1 Percent
Influent
Effluent
Influent Effluent removal
Dosage lime
0
1,640
4,800 2,280 40
Dosage alum
0
600
COD
17,000
14,800
pH initial
8.0
pH final
6.5
TSS
544
111
80
vss
71
Orthophosphorus
0.072
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
^Except pH in pH units.
TABLE C-ll. LIME AND AERATION TREATMENT
OF RAW LEACHATE [2]
Chian and DeWalle
Concentration,
ma/La
Percent
Parameter
Influent Effluent
removal
Dosage
0
COD
1,240 1,140
S
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not
determined.
Except for dosage in mL saturated lijne/L.
-------
TABLE C-12. LIME AND OZONE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [5 ]
Blortanan and Mavinic
Effluent Effluent
Concentration, coneen- concen-
mq/L Percent tratign, Percent tratign, Percent
Parameter Influent Effluent removal mq/L removal aq/L removal
Dosage lime
0
1,200
2,350
2,900
Dosage ozone
0
98
247
108
COD
14,000
9,210
34
PH
5.3
TOC
5,200
2,740
TSS
3
TDS
6,992
Aluminum
0.40
Calcium
570
Chromium
1.14
0.017
96
Cobalt
2.10
Copper
0.39
Iron
47
0.66
99
Lead
trace
Manganese
10.1
0.036
Nickel
0.165
Phosphorous
0.010
Potassium
156
114
27
Silicon
36.3
Sodium
180
Zinc
12.5
0.003
>99
Note-. Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
*Except for pH la pH units
C-ll
-------
TABLE C-13. ALI/M TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE |3 , 6 ]
Ho. tl k\ »in fU*l. it »1.
ifiiuaiii irnuta trriiMut i(fiu«Di
fltutltr
Concentration,
•«/!:
Influihl IffliMnt
hrctni
riMvi)
COACtt-
tratloA.
¦d/L
Nrcibt
fWOTll
cottctn-
Utlloft,
¦q/L
Itrcmi
ftMVll
cooccn-
Uttton,
•o/L
Mrcaot
ruovik
COMW-
tratian,
¦fl/L
hrcint
riMvil
Cooc«nir«tIqa,
mi/L
ZifliMnt tffluent
Farcint
reaovil
Doitgt
0
10
M
loo
b
$00
1,000
0 2,700
coo
• ,*20
0,730
2 1
¦ ,«M
s.e
9.100
0.720
2.2
0,620
1.0
2,000 1,370
31
pH Initial
1.1
7.0
6.9
6 4
4.0
6.1-7.0
pH final
7.1
7.1
K
7-1
7.1
7.1
K
12,MO
12,300
0
12.000
O
12.000
2 4
12,400
Q
n.ioo
D
27
Ctiloi Ida
2.720
2,720
0
2.120
0
2,720
0
2,720
0
2,720
0
iron
is
00
S.I
«2
SI
U
to
S
94
3
96
VoU; I link a IMicili p*riMtir not diunlMd.
*Iacipt lor pH in ptl unita.
b
NcQiltva ptrcanl r«w»VAl.
-------
TABLE C-14. ALUM AND AERATION TREATMENT
OF RAW LEACHATE [2]
Chian and DeWaile
Parameter
Concentration,
it 3
mq/L
Influent Effluent
Percent
removal
Dosage
COD
0 180
1,234 1,110
11
Note: BlanJts indicate parameter not
determined.
TABLE C-15. SODIUM HYDROXIDE TREATMENT
OF RAW LEACHATE [1]
Cook and Foree
Concentration,
mq/L Percent
Parameter
Influent
Effluent
removal
Dosage
0
2,660
COD
17,000
15,400
9.4
pH initial
11.0
pH final
10.7
T5S
544
58
89
VSS
36
Orthophoaphorus
0.024
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
^Except pH in pH units.
C-13
-------
TABLE C-16. SODIUM SULFIDE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE (3|
Ho. et al.
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Concentration,
concen-
concen-
concen-
concen-
concen-
-q/L1
Percent
tration
Percent
tration
Percent
tration
Percent
tration
Percent
tration
Percent
Paraaeter
Influent 1
Effluent
reaoval
aq/L
reaoval
¦q/L
reaoval
¦q/L
removal
-q/L"
reaoval
¦q/L"
reaoval
Dosage
0
10
25
50
100
500
1.000
COO
10,620
10,220
3.a
10.020
5.6
10,650
10.200
4.0
10,170
4.2
10.600
0.19
pH final
6
6
6
6
6.1
6.3
6.4
5
TS
7,200
7,300
7,300
7,300
7.300
"k
7,500
"h
7,900
"5
Alkalinity
2,242
2.270
2,340
2,360
2,400
2,440
2,600
"l,
Chloride
S09
S09
0
515
507
0.39
505
0.79
509
0
510
Iron
315
315
0
315
0
315
0
315
0
270
14
70
70
Mote: Blanks indicate paraaeter not deteraincd.
a
Except pH in pH unit* and alkalinity in mq/L CaCOj
^Negative percent reaoval
? TABLE C-17. FERRIC CHLORIDE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [3]
h-1
Ho et al.
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Concentr
|tion.
concen-
concen-
concen-
concen-
¦q/L
Percent
tration.
Percent
tration.
Percent
tration.
Percent
tration.
Percent
Paraaeter
Influent
Effluent
reaoval
¦q/L
reaoval
¦q/L1'
reaoval
aq/L
reaoval
mq/L
reaoval
Dosage
0
100
500
1.000
1.000
1.000
COO
9.260
a,100
13
8,360
9.7
8.700
6.0
8,370
9.6
7.750
16
pH initial
7.0
6.a
6.25
5.85
5.88
5.85
pH final
6
6
6
6
5
7
5
TS
12.000
11.900
0.83
11,600
3.3
11,700
2 5b
11.200
6 7b
12.500
"k
Chlorine
2.000
2.880
0
2.880
0
3.040
D
3,640
D
3,040
D
Iron
84
66
21
38
55
32
62
59
30
2
98
Note: Blanks indicate paraaeter not deteraincd.
'Except pH in pH units.
-------
TABLE C-18. FERROSULFATE TREATMENT OF
RAW LEACHATE [2]
Chian and DeWalle
Parameter
Concentration,
mq/La
Influent Effluent
Percent
removal
Dosage
COD
0 2,500
4,300 4,100
13
Note: BlanJca indicate parameter not
determined.
TABLE C-19. IRON AND AERATION TREATMENT
OF RAW LEACHATE [2]
Chian and DeWalle
Concentration,
mo/La
Percent
Parameter
Influent
Effluent
removal
Dosage
0
1,000
COD
139
139
0
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not
determined.
C-15
-------
TABLE C-20. ANION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF RAW LEACHATE [4]
Chian and
DeWalle
Concen-
tration,
Parameter mq/L
Percent
removal
Concen-
tration,
mq/L
Percent
removal
Concen-
tration,
raq/La
Percent
removal
COD
pH initial
pH final
TOC
Resin type
COD
pH initial
pH final
TOC
Resin type
a.8
a.9
A-7
6.2
6.8
6
A-7
Chian and DeWalle
37
42
Concen-
tration, Percent
mq/L removal
Concen-
tration,
mq/L
Percent
removal
8.8
8.8
XRA-938
59
43
8.8
8.8
XE-279HP
41
26
6.2
7.4
A-7
48
43
Note: Blanks indicate parameter not determined.
aExcept pH, in pH units, and resin type.
C-16
-------
TABLE C-21. CATION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF RAH LEACHATE [7]
Concentration
*aLi_
Effluent
concen-
Poland and Ktnq
Effluent
concan-
Kffluent
concen-
Effluent
concen-
Percent tratiojj, Percent tritlojt, Percent tration, Percent tratioj. Percent
Paraaeter Influent Effluent removal >q/l removal mq/L reaoval aq/l removal mq/L removal
Dosage
0
1.300
2.000
5,000
10.000
25.000
COD
185
166
10
166
10
150
19
166
10
P"
8.1
7.6
7.3
6.9
2.9
2.5
TDS
1.040
944
838
l9b
734
29h
H
Acidity
0
105
120
O
210
D
400
D
470
D
Alkalinity
560
500
11
430
23
130
77
Calcium
29
20
31
7.4
74
4.9
83
4.4
85
1.0
97
H«gneiiua
18.8
9.2
51
4.5
76
0.2
79
0.1
99
Potassium
100
93
86
14
32
68
8.8
91
2.6
97
Sodium
260
262
D
240
7.7
130
50
40
85
15.0
94
Note: Blanks Indicate parameter not determined,
a
Except pH in pH units and alkalinity and acidity in mq/L CaCOa.
^Negative percent removal.
-------
TABLE C-22. HIXED RESIN ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF RAH LEACHATE (7)
Pohland and Kanq
Parameter
Concentration,
aq/L
Influent Effluent
Percent
reaoval
Effluent
concen-
tration,
¦q/L
Percent
reaoval
Effluent
concen-
tration,
¦q/L
Percent
reaoval
Effluent
concen-
tration,
¦q/L
Percent
reaoval
Effluent
concen-
tration,
aq/L
Percent
reaoval
Dosage
0
1,300
2,000
5.000
10.000
25.000
COO
120
68
43
50
58
pH
8.5
8.1
7.7
7.5
5.0
5.5
TPS
926
728
21
613
34
336
64
118
87
82
91
Alkalinity
520
450
13
260
50
100
81
<5
>99
<5
>99
Calciua
13.2
6.6
50
2.5
81
0
100
1.2
91
0
100
Hagnesiua
12.6
6.0
52
1.1
91
0.08
>99
0.05
>99
0.05
>99
Potassium
65
61
6.1
58
11
20
69
0
100
0
100
Sodiua
198
178
10
142
28
46
77
0.35
>99
0.35
>99
Chloride
130
105
19
95
27
62
52
5
96
<5
>96
Sulfate
4.0
nil
>99
Nitrate
0.4
nil
>99
nil
>99
nil
>99
nil
>99
nil
>99
Total phosphate
0.1
nil
>99
'except for pH in pH unit® and alkalinity in ag/L CaC09.
-------
TABLE C-23. MIXED RESIN ION EXCHANGE AND CARBON TREATHENT OF RAW LEACHATE (7]
Concen-
Concen-
Concen-
Concen-
Concentration,
trat ion.
tration,
tration,
tration,
«g/L
Percent
ag/L®
Percent
mq/L*
Percent
aq/L*
Percent
aq/I*
Percent
Parameter
Influent Effluent
reaoval
Bffluent
reaoval
Effluent
reaoval
Effluent
reaoval
Effluent
reaoval
Dosage
0
1,300
2,000
5,000
10.000
25,000
COD initial
180
12S
11S
57.3
49.2
COD final
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
pH initial
a i
a.2
7.8
7.5
4.9
4.9
pH final
a.6
a.4
8.1
7.1
6.7
TDS initial
1.100
912
864
S76
146
64
TDS final
898
1.5
862
0.23
soa
12
164
D
297
Calciua initial
la.o
15.0
8.7
l.a
0.6
0.6
Calciua final
11.4
24
5. 1
41
1.0
44
0.6
0
0.8
Hagnesiua initial
16.a
9.0
4 5
0.7
0.1
0
Hagnesiua final
a.4
6.7
3.1
31
0.4
43
0.3
D
0.34
Potasslua initial
104
96
L-
84
42
0.4
0
Potasslua
104
D
a 6
46
a.o
_b
6.7
Sodiua
170
165
155
10S
3.3
1.1
Sodiua
195
D
las
D
120
D
31
D
30
Sulfate initial
0
Sulfate
76
80
SO
72
BO
Note: Blanks Indicate pirtMtcr not determined.
'Except for pH in pH units.
''Negative percent reaoval.
-------
TABLE C-24. REVERSE OSMOSIS TREATMENT OF RAH LEACHATE (4)
Chian
and Delfall
e
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Concentration.
concen-
concen-
concen-
Concentrat ion.c
aq/L
Percent
tre! ion.
Percent
tration.
Percent
tration.
Percent
mq/L
Percent
Paraaeter
Influent Effluent
reaoval
mq/L
reaoval
•q/L*
reaoval
ag/l—
reaovel
Influent Effluent
reaoval
cop
536 27
95
PH
5.5
a.o
5 5
10
TOC
12.900 3.880
70
1,040
92
3,240
75
906
93
TDS
91
98
9a
99
Heabrane type
Cellulose
Cellulose
Cellulose
Cellulose
Cellulose
acetate
acetete
acetete
acetate
acetate
Pressure
600
600
1.500
1,500
Plus
5.5
6.1
8.9
10
Peraeate yield
50
50
so
SO
50
n
i
to
o
PiriMlar
Ifduiot
concen-
Percent trat ion.
Influent Effluent t«o»«) n/L
Concentration,
mq/L
Chi an end PeWalle
Effluent
concen-
Percent tratlgn
reaoval mq/L
Iffluent
concen-
Percent tratign.
remove1 eq/L
Conceotr|tion,
Percent mq/L Percent
reaoval Influent Effluent reaoval
COO
53,300
23,500
56
5,a70
89
900
18
PH
5.5
a.o
5.5
a.o
TOC
18,500
8,120
56
2.030
89
7,570
S9
7,330
60
TDS
35
99
87
99
Meabrane
type
Cellulose
Cellulose
Cellulose
PuPont
acetate
acetate
acetate
8-9
Preasure
600
600
1,500
1.500
Plus
yield
3.7
50
3.9
SO
6 2
SO
7.1
SO
77
98
Chlin end PeWalle
Concentrat ton
_S3lk
Effluent
concen-
Percent tretign.
Effluent
concen-
Percent tratign.
Effluent
concen-
Perceiit tratign, Percent
Paraaeter Influent Effluent removal mq/L reaoval mq/L reaoval ag/L reaoval
COD
P«
TOC
TDS
Heabrane type
Picskurc
~ lujt
peracate yield
12.900
S.S
1.940
MS-100
600
7
SO
SS
a.o
906
NS-100
600
7.3
SO
91
99
S.S
1.5S0
NS-100
1.S00
II
S p
sa
99
a.o
777
NS-100
1,500
12 5
SO
94
99
(continued)
-------
TABLE c-24 (continued)
Chl an ind Mi lit
Concentr|tlon.<' Concentr|tlon.* Concentr|tlon,*
aq/L Percent m/l Percent »q/L Percent
PtritUr Influent Iffluent reaovel Influent Effluent rtiovil Influent Iffluent r«»o»«l
COO
P«
• a
5.5
a a
TOC
4a. 2
6.5
87
131
4.7
96
119
7.1
94
TBS
6.200
270
96
6,200
267
96
6,260
294
95
Heabrane type
NS-100
NS-100
NS-100
Preaaure
600
600
600
rlua
12 5
12.0
Peraeate yield
50
48
Chi an end DeMelle
Iffluent
Concentration.* Concentration.C concen-
mq/L Percent »g/L Percent tratlgn, Percent
Parameter Influent Iffluent raaoval Influent Iffluent removal k/1 removal
O
COD
i pH a.a a.a
£ TOC 14} a.2 94 214 10.7 95 16.6 92
TOS 6.2S0 310 9S 6,200 190 94 SS0 91
Heabrane type NS-100 MS-100
Preeaure 600 600
rlua
Peraeate yield
Note: Blanka Indicate paraMter not determined.
*8acept for pH In pH units, aeabraoe type, preaaure In pilg, flua In gal/day/ft1, and permeate yield In percent.
''lleverec oaaoala of anaerobic filter effluent.
CReverae oaaoala of aerated lagoon affluent.
*Sleveree oaaoala of activated carbon effluent.
*Reveree oaaoala of Ion exchange effluent.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Cook, E.N., and E.G. Foree. Aerobic Biostabilization of
Sanitary Landfill Leachate. Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, 46(2]:380-382, 1974.
2. Chian, E.S.K., and F.3. DeWalle. Evaluation of Leachate
Treatment, Volume I, Characterization of Leachate.
EPA-600/2-77-186a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. 1977. 210 pp.
3. HO, S., Boyle, W.D., and R.K. Ham. Chemical Treatment of
Leachates From Sanitary Landfills. Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 46 (7) : 1776-1791 , 1974.
4. Chian, E.S.K., and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of Leachate
Treatment, Volume II, 3iological and Physical-chemical
Processes. EPA-600/2-77-186b, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1977. 245 pp.
5. Bjorkmar, V.B., and D.S. Mavinic. Physiochemical Treatment
of a High Strength Leachate. In: Proceedings of the 32nd
Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, West Lafayette,
Indiana, 1977.
6. Van Fleet, S.R., Judkins, J.F., and F.J. Molz. Discussion,
Aerobic Biostabilization of Sanitary Landfill Leachate.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation,
46(11):2611-2612, 1974.
7. Pohland, F.G., and S.J. Rang. Sanitary Landfill Stabiliza-
tion with Leachate Recycle and Residual Treatment. AIChE
Symposium Series, Water-1974, II. Municipal Wastewater
Treatment, 71(45):308-318, 1975.
C-22
-------
APPENDIX D
UNIT PROCESS SUMMARIES -
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Appendix D contains summaries of the treatment of industrial
wastewaters by the following processes:
• biological treatment - activated sludge, aerated
lagoon, trickling filter, facultative lagoon,
anaerobic lagoon
• activated carbon adsorption - granular and powdered
• chemical oxidation
• chemical precipitation
• ion exchange
• reverse osmosis
Several oxidizing agents and coagulants are reported. These re-
sults should not be related directly to hazardous waste leachate
treatment. However, they do provide an indication of treatment
effectiveness and represent another reference point which can be
used in treatment process formulation.
Tables D-l through D-19 were prepared by Monsanto Research
Corporation for this manual using Volume III of the Treatability
Manual (1).
D-l
-------
TABLE D-l. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR ACTIVATED SLJCGE [i]
Number
Sffl:
nent
Removal
of data
concentration
efficiencv
- %
Pollutant
Ooints
Maximum
Median
Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
SCO 5
92
4,640
49
>99
91
COD
84
7,420
425
96
67
TOC
14
1,700
280
95
69
TSS
74
4,050
283
96
25
Oil and grease
7
303
25
>98
92
Total phenol
31
500
0.028
>99
64
TKN
6
322
174
63
44
Total phosphorus
27
46.3
3.46
97
27
Toxic pollutants, Mg/L:
Antimony
IS
670
3.5
90
15
Arsenic
3
160
13
96
39
Cadmium
17
13
4
>99
0
Chromium
34
20,000
28
99
48
Copper
37 '
170
30
>99
56
Cyanide
24
38,000
28
>90
oa
Lead
26
160
61
99
50
Mercury
9
1.6
0.7
>97
>29
Nickel
32
400
40
92
7
Selenium
1
Silver
17
95
33
>96
20
Thallium
1
Zinc
36
150,000
180
92
27
3is(chloromethyl) ether
1
3is(2-chloroethyl) ether
1
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
1
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
38
1,300
13
Butyl benzyl phthalate
1
Di-n-butyl phthalate
9
58
3.6
>99
>84
Diethyl phthalate
17
69
<0.03
>99
>99
Dimethyl phthalate
9
200
<0.03
>99
>99
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1
Benzidine
1
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
1
N-nitrosodipheny1 amine
2
1.6
>99
N-nitroso-di-n-propylaaine
2
19
2-Chlorophenol
2
10
92
2,4-Oichlorophenol
2
<10
>50
a
2,4-Dimethylphenol
3
<10
9
>95
0
2-Nitrophenol
1
4-Nitrophenol
1
Pentachlorophenol
15
3,100
<0.4
>99
>ga
(cont
inued
D-
2
-------
TiflLS 3-1 (continued)
Pollutant
Number
of data
points
Effluent
concentration
Maximum Median
Removal
efficiency. %
Maximum Median
Toxic pollutants, pg/1 (continued):
Phenol
30
440
<0.07
>99
99
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
10
4,300
41
98
0
2-Chloro-m-cresol
4
<10
0.85
>98
>49
Benzene
9
37,000
<0.2
>99
>96
Chlorobenzene
6
26
<0.2
>99
>99
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
12
69
<0.05
>99
>99
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3
21
0.13
>99
95
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1
Ethylbenzene
24
3,000
<0.2
>99
>95
Hexachlorobenzene
4
0.8
0.28
>97
>49
Toluene
31
1,400
24
>99
18
1.2,4-Trichlorobenzene
11
920
<6.3
>99
>99
Acenaphthene
10
<10
<1.0
>99
>99
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
7
<10
1.4
>98
83
Fluoranthene
1
-
Fluorene
2
<0.02
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
1
Naphthalene
26
260
<2.3
>99
>99
Pyrene
5
9
0.2
78
0
2-Chloronaphthaiene
1
Bromofora
1
Carbon tetrachloride
2
<10
>99
Chloroform
16
58
32
>99
>2
Dichlorobromomethane
2
<10
>0
1,1-Dichloroethane
2
<10
>18
1,2-Dichloropropane
2
<10
>82
1,3-Dichloropropane
Methylene chloride
5
250
9
99
0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
2
>44
Tetrachloroethylene
11
40
17
>99
0'
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
6
3.3
<2.0
>99
>85
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1
Trichloroethylene
12
34
<0.5
>99
>98
Trichlarofluorooethane
5
2,100
2,100
96
0
Heptachlor
1
Isophorone
2
<10
>0
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
4Actual data indicate negative removal.
D-3
-------
TABLE d-2 INDUSTRIAL CCNTSOL 7ICTNCLCGY SUMMARY FOR A£RATES LAGOCNS [1]
Number
Effluent
Removal
of data
concentr
ation
efficiencv
4,
S
Pollutant
ooints
Maximum
Median
Maximum m
edian
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BCD,
16
869
90
>99
77.5
CCD
10
1,610
591
>99
63
TOC
4
573
126
99
46
TSS
13
3
155
99
24
Gil and grease
1
TXN
2
105
79
Totai phenol
2
0.013
>99
Toxic pollutants, jg/L:
Antimony
1
3eryIlium
1
Cadmium
1
Chromium
3
1,100
IS
99
91
Copper
110
26
94
36
Cyanide
2
150
91
Lead
2
30
93
Mercury
1
Nickel
3
40
32
50
0
Selenium
1
Thallium
2
<20
>30
Zinc
4
510
<30
>99
61
3is(2-chioroethoxy)methane
1
3is(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
1
a
3is(2-ethylhexyl) p'nthalate
28
<13
96
>78
Butyl benzyl phthalate
1
Di-n-outyl phthalate
1
Diethyl phthalate
1
Dimethyl phthalate
1
3enzidine
1
1,2-Dipnenylhydrazine
1
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Nitrophenol
1
Pentachlorophenol
1
h
Phenol
3
24
<10
>99
25
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
1
Benzene
<10
<20
>95
1,2-Oichlorobenzene
1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1
Ethylbenzene
2
94
Hexachlorobenzene
1
Nitrobenzene
(continued)
D-4
-------
TABLE D-2 (continued)
Number Effluent Removal
of data concentration efficiency, %
Pollutant points Maximum Median Maximum Median
Toluene
3
<10*
<10 >95
Acenaphthene
1
Acenaphthylene
1
B«nzo(a)pyrene
1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1
Fluoranthene
1
Fluorene
1
Anthracene/phenanthrene
1
K
Naphthalene
2
58
Pyrene
1
2-Chloronaphthalene
1
Chloroform
3
1,000
57
Methyl chloride
1
Methylene chloride
3
1,000
130 97
Tstrachloroethylene
1
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1
Isophorone
1
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
Not detected, assumed to be <10 pg/L.
Below detection limit, assumed to be <10 pg/L.
TABLE D-3. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR ANAEROBIC LAGOONS [l
Pollutant
Number Effluent
of data concentration
points Maximum Median
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOO s
COD
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Benzene
Other pollutants,
Acetaldehyde
Acetic acid
3utyric acid
Propionic acid
Mg/L:
S
4
3
3
2
2
2,750
5,910
40
2,600
330
500
468
2,300
35
2,300
90 S3
47 34.5
67.
:o
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
aActual data indicate negative removal.
D-5
-------
TABLE D-4. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR
TERTIARY POLISHING LAGOONS [l]
Number
Effluent
Removal
of data
concentration
efficiencv, %
Pollutant
ocints
Maximum Median
Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants, og/L.-
COD
2
263
52
TSS
2
2S
76
Total phenol
2 •
0.051
46
Toxic pollutants, pg/L.-
Chrooium
1
Copper
Lead
1
Selenium
i
Zinc
2
120
86
ais(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
2
11
72
Naphthalene
1
Tnchlorofluorome thane
1
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
TABLE 3-5. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY
FOR FACULTATIVE LAGOONS [1]
Pollutant
Number Effluent
of data concentration
points Maximum Median
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
300 s
3
274
152
92
37
COO
2
2,110
68
TSS
2
105
86
TKN
2
100
67
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
removal is also significant. No full-scale operations for leachate treatment
are currently in place.
D-6
-------
TABLZ d-6. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMHARY FOR TRICKLING FILTER [l]
Pollutant
Number
of data
paints
Effluent
concentration
Maximum Median
Removal
efficiency, %
Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants, ag/L:
BOD 9
11
137
27
98
92
COD
3
709
622
77
23
TSS
1
Total phenol
2
1.0
>97
Toxic pollutants, (jg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Bis(2-ethylher7l) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorcphenol
Naphthalene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
Other pollutants, pg/L:
Xylenes 1
Note: 3lanJu indicate data not applicable.
D-7
-------
TABLE d-7. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR
GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION [1]
Number
Effluent
Remova
of data
concentration
efficiency, %
Pollutant
ooints
Maximum
Median
Maxisoum
Median
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
bods
20
37,400
12
95
52
COO
40
109,000
199
99
55
TOC
45
66,700
S3
99
60
TSS
28
2,600
16
99
22
Oil and grease
10
14
7.8
92
19
Total phenol
19
4.26
0.017
99
69
TKN
1
Total phosphorus
5
14
2.0
57
0
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antiaony
8
590
42
33
10
Arsenic
7
42
5
>99
0
Beryllium
3
5.4
2.7
0
0
Cadmium
5
22
9.8
95
76
Chromium
11
260
36
95
>50
Copper
12
360
42
>85
S4
Cyanide
a
52
<18
>90
>63
Lead
7
79
35
>72
2
Mercury
2
0.4
0
Nickel
6
330
86
68
5
Selenium
4
50
13
>50
9
Silver
6
91
22
36
12
Zinc
18
6,000
51
>99
52
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
9
410
17
66
0
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3
17
<0.03
>99
>97
Di-n-butyl phthalate
7
5
0.4
>99
A
76a
Diethyl phthalate
3
3
1.4
oa
oa
Di-n-octyl phthalate
5
340
55
96
91
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
1
2,4-Dimethylphenol
1
P entachloropheno1
4
49
1.7
>97
?a
Phenol
5
1.5
0.9
>96
50
g-Chloro-rn-cresol
1
Benzene
3
210
9.8
>80
S4
Chlorabenzene
1
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2
<0.05
>99
Ethylbenzene
1
Toluene
630
1.3
>99
24
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
0.4
0.1
>97
;o
(ccncimied)
D-8
-------
TiBLZ d_7 (continued)
Number
Effluent
Res
oval
of data
concentration
effici
ency, h
Pollutant
Doints
Maximum
Median
Maximum
Median
Toxic pollutants, pg/L: (cont.
)
Ben2o(a)pyrene
2
<0.02
>97
Beozo< k)fluoranthene
1
Fluoranthene
2
<0.02
>90
Pyrene
2
<0.01
>97
Chloroethane
13
240,000
46,000
>99
89
Chloroform
S
18
<10
>99
74
1,1-Dichloroethane
9
45,000
<10
>99
>99
1,2-Dichloroethane
57
1,100,000
4,500
>99
42
1,2-Trana-dichloroethylene
39
30,000
240
>99
85
1,2-Dichloropropane
3
<10
<5.4
>99
65
Methylene chloride
46
56,000
180
99
78
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
25
64,000
4,000
>99
35
Tetrachloroethylene
1
1,1,1-Trichloraethane
2
<10
>99
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
3
<10
<10
>99
>99
Trichloroethylens
2
5
58
Trichlorofluoromethane
I
Vinyl chloride
3
9,600
8,600
52
oa
a-BHC
1
Mote: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
aActual data indicate negative removal.
D-9
-------
TABLE 3-8. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR POWDERED ACTIVATED
CARBON ADSORPTION (WITH ACTIVATED SLUDGE) [l ]
Number
Effluent
Removal
of data
concent
ration
effici
encv, %
Pollutant
soints
Maximum
Median
Maximum
Median
Conventional pollutants, ag/L:
30 D s
24
54
13
>99
96
COO
26
563
98
98
91
TOC
25
387
38
97
90
TSS
4
33
54
96
Q3
Oil and grease
4
57
13
96
54
Total phenol
4
0.053
0.013
>99
>99
TXN
]_
Toxic pollutants,
Antimony
2
150
5
Cadmium
Chromium
4
90
53
97
88
Chromium (+6)
3
20
<20
>64
>60
Copper
3
29
14
96
51
Cyanide
3
45
20
69
>67
Lead
2
38
>78
Mercury
Nickel
3
22
<10
>58
>0
Selenium
2
40
L3
Zinc
4
140
95
98
38
Bis(2-ch!oroethyl) ether
1
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
2-Chlorophenol
1
Phenol
2
190,000
>35
Benzene
EthyLbenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Acrolein
Isophorone
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
aActuai data indicate negative removal.
-------
TABLE d-9. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUHKMY FOR
CHEMICAL OXIDATION (CHLORINATION) [I]
Number
Iff
luent
Removal
of data
concentration
effieienev, %
Pollutant
ooints
Maximum
Median
Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants, ng/L:
COD
7
978
563
39 28
TSS
2
159
97
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Copper
1
Cyanide
17
120
20
>99 34
Lead
1
Other pollutants, mg/L:
nh3-n
1
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
D—11
-------
TABLE D-1C. DJDUSTaiAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR OZONATION [1]
Number
Effluent
Removal
of data
concentration
efficiencv, %
Pollutant
points
Maximum
Median
Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants, ng/L:
*
BOD,
4
5,190
330
10 0
COD
4
12,100
213
92 51
TOC
33
2,840
543
>75 10
rss
4
140
14
33 15
Oil and grease
1
Total phenol
3
0.13
0.021
>99 24
Total phosphorus
1
Toxic pollutants,
Antimony
1,200
Arsenic
2
43
4fl
Cadmium
1
Chromium
1
Copper
2
590
Cyanide
SO
12,000
<320
>99 99
Lead
1
Nickel
2
5,000
Silver
2
1,300
Zinc
3
460
240
0a 96
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
2
110
Butyl benzyl phthalate
1
Di-n-butyl phthalate
2
2.7
77
Toluene
1
Anthracene/phenanthrene
0.4
>97
Sen2o(a)pyrene
1
3«nzo(k)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
1,2-Trans-dichloroethylcne
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
61
.icable.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate data not app
a
D-12
-------
TABLE D-ll. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR
SEDIMEN7ATI
ON
WITH CHEMICAL
ADDITION
(LIME) [1]
Number
affluent
Removal
of data
concent
ration
efficiency, %
Pollutant
points
Maximum
Median
Maximum
Median
Conventional pollutants, ng/L:
COD
4
37
23.3
50
14
TO C
3
<20
<12
37
13
TSS
9
ISO
12.5
96
71
Oil and grease
2
1.5
66
Total phenol
2
0.3
33
Toxic pollutants, Mg/L:
Antimony
7
ISO
4
33
40
Arsenic
11
110
3
>99
63
Asbestos, fibers/L
Beryllium
2
0.9
16
Cadmium
9
30
3.0
92
>38
Chromium
10
1,800
40
>99
38
Chromium (dissolved)
1
Copper
16
700
54
99
79
Cyanide
1
Lead
13
200
40
99
73
Mercury
9
8
0.7
>96
>60
Nickel
13
5,200
16
>99
44
Nickel (dissolved)
1
Selenium
S
52
3
0
0
Silver
6
<10
2.S
>30
13
Thallium
3
8
1.1
>80
53
Zinc
15
8,200
120
>99
85
Other pollutants, Mg/L:
Fluoride
3
12,000
9,100
98
72
Chloride
1
Aluminum
2
500
98
Iron
2
>99
Calcium
1
Manganese
1
Other pollutants, pg/L
Fluoride
1
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
D-13
-------
TABLE D-12. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SETIMENTATION
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (LIME, POLYMER) [1]
dumber
luent
Removal
of data
concentration
efficiency,
. %
Pollutant
ooints
Maximum
Median
Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants, ag/L:
TSS
7
43
17
>99
69
Oil and grease
3
8.5
S.5
71
70
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Arsenic
2
<10
>0
Cadmium
3
60
<20
93
50
Chromium
3
360
7S
90
39
Chromium (dissolved)
1
Copper
10
170
40
>99
38
Cyanide
3
39
2.3
39
65
Lead
8
sao
130
95
53
Nickel
3
330
270
96
76
Nickel (dissolved)
1
Selenium
1
Silver
1
Zinc
9
1,400
260
>99
33
Bis(2-ethyLhexyl) phthalate
2
ISO
99
Butyl benzyl phthalate
1
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1
Diethyl phthalate
1
2,4-Dimethylphenol
1
Phenol
1
g-Chloro-m-cresol
1
Anthracene
1
Senzo(a)pyrene
1
Chrysene
1
Fluoranthene
1
Fluorene
1
Naphthalene
1
Pyrene
1
Chloroform
2
42
9
Methylene chloride
2
39
oa
1.1,1-Trichloroethane
1
Other pollutants, pg/L
Fluoride
1
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
aActual data indicate negative removal.
D-14
-------
TABLE D-13. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY
FCR SED
IMENTATI0N
WITH CHEMICAL ADOIT
ION (ALUM)
[1]
Numoer
Effluent
Removal
of data
concentration
efficiencv, %
Pollutant
points
Maximum
Median
Maxi-num
Median
Conventional pollutant*, rag/L:
300 5
5
2,900
33
32
16
COD
5
7,600
415
71
61
TOC
4
1,500
105
30
63
TSS
5
122
50
99
79
Oil and grease
Total phenol
4
225
0.055
31
19
Total phosphorus
2
43
15
Tosic pollutants, pg/L:
a
Antimony
2
120
0
Arsenic
2
62
<37
Beryllium
1
Cadmium
2
29
>83
Chromium
4 .
280
<40
>93
44
Copper
4
<110
13
>73
>73
Mercury
2
<150
760
Nickel
3
57
>56
Silver
2
170
10
Zinc
4
9,000
2,900
SSa
3G
Bis(2-ethyLheryl) phthalate
2
44
0
Di-n-butyl phthalate
2
<10
>94
Phenol
2
<10
>90
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2
13
>50
Ethylbenzene
2
4,600
0*
Nitrobenzene
1
Toluene
3
2, S00
14
93
55
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1
Anthracene/Phenantiirene
1
Chlo rodibromome thane
1
Chloroform
1
1.2-Dichloroethane
1
Methylene chloride
2
70
>38
Te trach1oroethylene
1
Trichloroethylene
1
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
3Actual data indicate negative removal.
D-15
-------
TABL£ D~14. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMAHY rCR SEDIMENTATION
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (ALUM, LIME) [1]
Pollutant
Number
of data
points
Effluent
concentration
Removal
efficiencv, %
Maximum Median Maximum Median
Conventional pollutants. rng/L:
BOD s
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants,
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroben2ene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloropropane
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Te trachloroethylene
4,4'-DDT
Heptachlor
60
20
38
30
1
2
22
72
96
98
96
Note: BlanJcs indicate data not applicable.
D-16
-------
TABLE D-15 . INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (ALUM, POLYMER) [1]
Number
of data
Effluent
concentration
ReraovaJ
efficiency,
Pollutant
points
Maximum
Median
Maximum
Media
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
S
3.300
2,300
65
25
COD
S
30,000
10,000
30
59
TOO
4
4,800
2,350
71
58
TSS
4
6,000
1,370
99
67
Oil and grease
4
aao
30.5
99
30
Total phenol
5
0.15
0.10
60
26
Total phosphorus
1
Tcxic pollutants, pg/L:
Cadmium
2
30
76
Chromium
4
130
59
95
90
Copper
4
27,000
290
30
58
Cyanide
1
Lead
4
aoo
200
>96
69
Mercury
3
14,000
1,500
38
74
Nickel
3
51,000
50
>97
9
Silver
1
Zinc
4
1,000
700
33
70
Di-ti-butyl phthalate
1
Phenol
1
3en2ene
310
>97
Ethylbenzene
3
460
390
>94
75
Toluene
4
2,900
540
73
40
Carbon tetrachloride
1
Chloroform
550
160
>94
40
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1
1,2-Dichloroethane
90
>60
1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
1
Methylene chloride
4
13,000
7,600
98
91
Tetrachloroethy1ene
3
700
100
>44
0
1.1,1-Trichloroethane
2
120
93
1.1,2-Trichloroethane
1
Trichloroe thylene
1
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
D-17
-------
TABLE D-16.
INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR
SEDIMENTATION
WITH OffiMICAL ADDITION
(Fe2 , LIME) [1]
Number
Effluent
Removal
of data
concent
ration
efficiencv, %
Pollutant points
Maximum
Median
Maximum
Median
Toxic pollutants.
pg/L:
Antimony
4
30
9
30
oa
Arsenic
4
3
<2
>86
67
Beryllium
2
Cadmium
4
3.2
1.1
>50
>24
Chromium
4
4
2.5
>95
45
Copper
6
43
25
92
83
Lead
3
<3
<3
>96
>25
Mercury
2
0.2
>60
Nickel
S
6
3
>95
20
Selenium
2
32
24
Silver
6
10
3.1
93
4.5
Thallium
2
7.0
>88
Zinc
6
36
<23
>97
92
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
aAcsual data indicate negative removal.
D-18
-------
TABLE D-17. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (POLYMER) [1]
Number
Effluent
Removal
of data
concentration
sfficiencv, %
Pollutant
points
Maximum Median
Maxisiun Median
Conventional pollutantJ, mg/L:
300 s
I
COD
1
TOC
1
TSS
1
Oil and grease
1
Total phenol
2
0.3
S3
Toxic pollutants, ng/L:
Antimony
1
Cadmium
1
Chromium
2
2S
97
Copper
2
400
>39
Lead
2
140
97
Mercury
2
140
99
Nickel
1
Zinc
2
6,000
97
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
2
10
>97
Di-n-butyl phthalate
2
<10
>99
Diethyl phthalate
L
Phenol
2
74
29
Benzene
1
Etbylbenzene
1
Toluene
2
1,900
39
Anthracene
1
Chloroform
1
1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
1
a
Methylene chloride
2
130
oa
a
Trichloroethylene
2
14
0
Note: BlanJu indicate data not applicable.
aActual data indicate negative removal.
D-19
-------
TABLE D-18. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FCR ION EXCHANGE
Pollutant
Number
of data
Doints
Effluent
concentration.
Maximum Median
Remcval
efficiencv, \
Maximum Median
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Cadauum
2
<10*
>99
Chromium
2
60
>99
Chromium (•*$)
1
Copper
2
90
98
Cyanide
2
200
99
NicJcel
2
99
Silver
2
<10
>99
Zinc
1
Other pollutants, m?/L:
Molybdenum
1
Radium (total)
1
Radium (dissolved)
1
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
Slot detected, assumed to be <10 \iq/L.
-------
TAB LI 3-19. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS [1]
Number
Effluent
Removal
of data
concentration
effici
ency. %
Pollutant
ooir.ts
Maximum
Median
Maximum
Median
Conventional pollutants, ng/L:
BOD s
11
429
2.7
92
87
COD
18
736
25.5
>99
91.5
TOC
18
50
8
96
90
TSS
2
<5
>90
Oil and grease
5
17
7
>72
>50
Total phenol
6
0.020
0.014
51
2.5
TKN
1
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
11
200
90
60
30
Arsenic
10
49
1
>99
>92
Beryllium
2
5
>8S
Cadmium
U
48
14
50
0
Chromium
13
. 1,500
520
>99
67
Chromium (+3)
1
Chromium (+6)
1
Capper
17
28,000
40
>99
82
Cyanide
10
22,000
22
97
>42
Lead
11
520
250
>99
>25
Mercury
3
0. S3
0.3
>60
4
Nickel
13
210
<10
>98
47
Selenium
4
13
4
85
77
Silver
13
78
9
76
17
Thallium
3
4
2
39
50
Zinc
30
8,600
57
>99
97
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
5
31
3
96
57
Di-n-butyl phthalate
3
1
1
83
75
Dimethyl phthalate
2
170
41
Phenol
4
10
0.7
30
25
Benzene
3
3.0
1
80
50
*
Toluene
6
29
20
12
oa
Acenaphthene
3
3
0.8
99
73
Anthracene
1
Pyrene
1
a
Chloroform
4
31
13
79
* «
u
Methyl chloride
1
Methylene chloride
4
5
5
64
10
Trichloroethylene
1
Note: Blanks indicate data not applicable.
^Actual data indicate negative removal.
D-21
-------
REFERENCE
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technologies For
Control/removal of Pollutants, Treatability Manual, Vol.III.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 19 80.
D- 22
-------
APPENDIX E
TREATABILITY OF LEACHATE CONSTITUENTS
A recent Environmental Protection Agency report (1) summa-
rized data on the treatability of over 500 compounds, many of
which are listed in Subtitle C, Section 3001 of RCRA. Although
the focus of the report was on concentration technology and it
thus does not fully address all potential leachate treatment op-
tions, much useful information is contained therein. Therefore,
the summary treatability data contained in this report is repro-
duced in Appendix Table E-l. This information can be used to
guide identification of potential hazardous waste leachate treat-
ment technologies. However, because this information was derived
from various types of studies, ranging from laboratory to full
scale on wastewaters ranging from pure compound to industrial
waste and leachate, the reader is cautioned not to directly apply
these published data to a leachate treatment situation.
Primary organization of Appendix Table E-l is by treatment
process. For each process, the treatability of individual chem-
ical compounds is given with the compounds arranged in alphabet-
ical order within chemical classifications. The following treat-
ment processes are included:
Process Process Code Nro.
Biological I
Coagulation/Precipitation II
Reverse Osmosis III
Ultrafiltration IV
Stripping V
Solvent Extraction VII
Carbon Adsorption IX
Resin Adsorption X
Miscellaneous Sorbents XII
The chemical classification system used is as follows:
Chemical Classification Classification Code No.
Alcohols A
Aliphatics B
Amines C
Aromatics D
Ethers E
E-l
-------
Chemical Classification
Halocarbons '
Metals
PC3s
Pesticides
Phenols
Phthaiates
Polynuclear Aromatics
Classification Code No.
K
L
M
F
G
I
In order to facilitate use of Appendix Table E-l, an index
has been prepared and is presented immediately before Table E-l.
This index lists compounds contained in Table E-l in alphabetical
order and indicates for each compound it's pollutant group (RCRA,
Section 311, or Priority Pollutant), chemical classification
(alcohol, aliphatic, etc.), and the compound code number used in
Appendix Table E-l. This latter number can be used to locate
the compound in the main table. Note, some compounds inadver-
tently may have been assigned to more than one chemical classi-
fication in Table E-l. The index identifies these cases.
Many chemical compounds are known by several names. At-
tempts were made to use preferred or generic names according to
The Merck Index. However, in some cases it was necessary to use
the names which were used in the reference documents. Users of
Table E-l are advised to check for compounds under several po-
tential alphabetic listings.
In order to present the large quantity of information in a
concise manner, it was necessary to code some of the information
in Table E-l. The coding system is explained in footnotes at
the end of the Appendix.
(1) Shuckrow, A.J., Pajak, A.P., and J.W. Osheka.
Concentration Technologies For Hazardous Aqueous Waste
Treatment. EPA-600/2-81-019. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1981. 343pp.
E-2
-------
INDEX OF CHEMICALS LISTED IN APPENDIX TABLE E-l
Pollutant
Chemical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.**
Code No.***
Acenaphthalene
M
XM-1
Acenaphthene
P
M
IIM-1
Acenaphthylene
P
M
IIM- 2
Acetaldehyde
H,T,S
B
IB-1,2,3
IXB-1
Acetanilide
C
IC-1
Acetic Acid
S
B
IIIB-1,2
IXB-2
Acetone
T
B
IB-4,5,6
IIIB-3,4
IXB-3
Acetone Cyanohydrin
S
B
IXB-4
Acetonitrile
HrT
B
IB-7 , 8
Acetophenone
T
D
IXD-1,2
XD-1
Acetylglycine
B
IB-9
Acrolein
P,A,H,S
B
VIIB-1
IXB-5,6
Acrylic Acid
T
B
IB-11,12,13
IXB-7
Acrylonitrile
P,H/T,S
B
IB-14 to 17
VB-1
VIIB-2
IXB-8
Adipic Acid
S
B
IB-18
Alanine
B
IB-19
Aldrin
A,H,P,S
J
IJ-1
IIIJ-1
IXJ-1 to 5
XJ-1
Allyl Alcohol
S, A, H
A
IXA-1
Allylamine
C
IXC-1
p-Aminoacetanilide
C
IC-2
m-Aminobenzoic Acid
C
IC-3
o-Aminobenzoic Acid
C
IC-4
p-Aminobenzoic Acid
C
IC-5
m-Aminotoluene
C
IC-6
o-Aminotoluene
C
IC-7
p-Aminotoluene
C
IC-8
(continued)
E-3
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Chemical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.**
Code No.***
Aminotriazole
J
IJ-2
Ammonium Oxalate
B
IB- 2 0
Amyl Acetate
S
B
IXB-9
n-Amyl Alcohol(1-pentanol)
A
IA-1, IXA-2
sec-Amylbenzene
D
ID-1
tert-Amylbenzene
D
ID-2
Aniline
S,T
C
IC-9,10,11
IIIC-1,2
IXC-2,3
XC-1
Anthracene
P
M
IM-1
VIIM-1
Antimony
H, P
G
IIG-1
Arochlor 1242
H,P,S
I
IXI-4 to 7
Arochlor 1254
H,P,S
I
IXI-8 to 16
X 1-1,2
Arochlor 1254 and 1260
H , P , S
I
X 1-3
XII 1-1
Arsenic
H, P
G
IIG-2,3
IXG-1
Arsenic (As+S)
XIIG-1
H,P
G
IIG-4
Atrazine
J
IIIJ-2
XJ-2
Barium
H
G
IG-1
IIG-5,6,7
IIIG-1
IXG-2
Benzaldehyde
D
ID-3,4,5
IXD-3,4,5
XD-2
Benzamide
C
IC-12
Benzanthracene
H
M
IM-2
IIM-3
Benzene
H,P,S,T
D
ID-6 to 10
VD-1,2
VIID-1 to 4
IXD-6 to 12
Benzene Sulfonate
D
ID-11
Benzene, Toluene, Xylene(BTX)
D
XD-5
Benzenethiol
A,H
D
ID-12
Benzidine
H, T
C
IXC-13
IC-13,14
(continued)
E-4
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant Chemical Conpound
Compound Group* Class.** Code No.***
Benzil
D
IXD-14
XD-3
11,12-Benzofluoranthene
H, P
M
IIM-4
Benzoic Acid
S
D
ID-13,14
IXD-15 ,16
XD-4
Benzonitrile
D
ID-15
Benzoperylene
M
IM-3
1,12-Benzoperylene
P
M
IIM- 5
Benzo(a)pyrene
H, T
M
IIM-6
3 ,4-Benzpyrene
D
ID-16
Benzvlamine
C
IC-15
Bery liiuir
H,P
G
IIG-8,9
Biphenyl
M
IXM-1
XM-2
bis(Chloroethy1) Ether
H, T
E
VIIE-1
IXE-2
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether
H , T , P
IIIE-1
IXE-1
bis(Chloroisopropy1) Ether
E
VIIE-2
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
H,P,T
L
IL-1
T TT _ "I
— JL -d ±
VIIL-1
IXL-1,2
Bismuth
G
IIG-10
Bisphenol A
K
XK-1,2
Borneol
A
IA-2
Brine Phenol
K
XK-3 , 4
Bromochloromethane
F
IXF-1
Bromodichloromethane
P
F
VF-1
VIIF-1
IXF-2
XF-3
Bromoform
P
F
IF-1
IXF-3,4
XF-1,2
Bromomethane
H, T
F
VF-2
VIIF-2
IXF-5
Butanamide
C
IC-16
Butanedinitrile
B
IB-21,2 2
1,4-Butanediol
A
IA-11
Butanenitrile
B
13-23,24
(continued)
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Chemical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.* *
Code N*o. * * *
Butanol
T
A
IA-3 tc 7
IXA-3,4,5
XA-1
sec-3utanol
A
I A-8
tert-Butanol
A
IA-9,10
IXA-6
Butyl Acetate
S
B
IXB-10
Butyl Acrvlate
B
IXB-li
Butylamine
s
C
IXC-4,5
XC-2
sec-Butylbenzene
D
ID-17
tert-3utylbenzene
D
ID-18
Butvlbenzl Phthalate
P,s
L
IL-2
VIIL-2
Butylene Oxide
B
IB-25
Butyl Ether
E
IXE-3
Butyl Phenol
K
IXK-1
Butyraldehyde
B
IXB-12
Butyric Acid
s
B
IB-27,28,29
IXB-13,14
XB-1
Cadmium
H,P
G
IG-2,3,4
IIG-11,12,13
IIIG-2
IXG-3,4
XIIG-2
Calcium Gluconate
B
IB-30
Caproic Acid
B
IXB-15,16
XB-2
Caprolactum
B
IB-31
Captan
S
J
IIIJ-3
Carbon Tetrachloride
S,T,P,H
F
IF-2
IIF-1
IXF-6,7,8
XF-4
Chloral
T
F
VF-3
Chloral Hydrate
F
VIIF-3
D-Chloramphenicol
M
IM-4
Chloranil
D
ID-19
Chlordane
P , H, T , S
J
IJ-3
IXJ-7,8
Chlorinated Pesticides
(Unspecified)
J
XJ-3
(continuei)
E-6
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Chemical
Compound
Conpound
Group*
Class.**
Code No.***
m-Chloroaniline
C
IC-17
o-Chloroaniline
A, H
C
IC-18
p-Chloroaniline
A, H
C
IC-19
Chlorobenzene
H,P,S,T
D
ID- 20
IIID-1
VD-3,4
VIID-5
IXD-18,19,20
Choroethane
H,P
F
VF-4
VIIP-4
IXF-9
Chloroethylene
p
VF-5
VIIF-5
IXF-10
Chloroform
H , P , S , T •
F
IF-3
VF-6
IXF-11,12
XF-5,6
Chloromethane
H,T
F
VF-7
VIIF-6
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
H
K
IK-1,2
VIIK-1
IXK-2
XK-5
2-Chloronaphthalene
H,T,P
M
IIM-7
l-Chloro-2-nitrobenzene
H
D
IXD-21
2-Chloro-4-nitrophenoL
H
K
IK-3
Chlorophenol
H
K
VK-2
m-Chlorophenol
H
K
IK-5
XK-6
o-Chlorophenol (2-chlorophenol)
H , P , T
K
IK-4,6,7
IIIK-1
VIIK-2
p-Chlorophenol
H
K
IK-8,9
Chromic Acid
H,S
G
IIIG-3
Chromium
H,P
G
IG-5
IIG-14,15
IIIG-4 , 5
IXG-5,6
XIIG-3
Chromium C*"3)
H,P
G
IG-6
IIG-16,1?
IXG-7
(contir.u-3 1
E-7
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Chemical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.**
Code No.***
Chromium (Cr+5)
H,P
G
IG-7
IIG-18,19
IXG-8
Chrysene
H,T,P
M
IIM-8
Citric Acid
B
IB- 3 2
Cobalt
G
IG-8
IIG-20
Copper
P
G
IG-9 to 12
IIG-21 to 25
IIIG-6,7
IVG-1
IXG-9,10,11
XIIG-4,5
Cresol
S , T
K
IXK-3
m-Cresol
S,T
K
IK-10
VIIK-3
o-Cresol
S , T
K
IK-11
VIIK-4,5,6
p-Cresol
S,T
K
IK-12
VIIK-3
Crotonaldehyde
H, T
B
IB-33,34,35
IXB-17
Cumeme
T
D
IXD-22
XD-6
M
IXM-2
XM-3
Cyclohexanol
A
IA-12
IXA-7
XA-2
Cyclohexanolone
B
IB-38
Cyclohexanone
B
IB-3 9
IXB-18
Cyclohexylamine
C
IXC-6
XC-3
Cyclopentanone
B
IB-40
Cystine
B
IB-36
L-Cystine
B
IB-37
2,4-D Butyl ester
J
IXJ-6
XJ-4
2,4-D & related herbicides
S
J
XJ-5
2,4-D-Isoctyl ester
J
IJ-4
DDD
P,H,T
J
IX J-9 , 10 , 11
DDE
P # H
J
IIIJ-4
IXJ-12,13,14
(contir.ued)
E-8
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Chemical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.**
Code No.***
DDT
P, H, S , T
J
IJ-5
IIJ-1
IIIJ-5
IXJ-15 to 19
XJ-6
DDVp
J
IJ-6
Decanoic Acid
B
IXB-19
XB-3
Decanol
A
IXA-8
XA-3
2,4-Diaminophenol
K
IK-13
Diazinon
S
J
IJ-7,8
IIIJ-6
1,2,4,5-Dibenzpyrene
D
ID- 21
Dibromochloromethane
P,T
F
VF-8
VIIF-7
IXF-13,14,15
XF-7
2,4-Dibromophenol
K
XK-7
Dibutylamine
C
IXC-7
XC-4
Di-N-Butylamine
C
IXC-8
Dibutylphthalate
H / P / T
L
IXL-3
XL-1
Di-N-Butylphthalate
P
L
IL-3
IIL-2
VIIL-3
m-Dichlorobenzene
H , P , S
D
ID-22,23
VD-5
VIID-6
IXD-25,26
XD-7
o-Dichlorobenzene
H , S , T
D
ID-24
VD-5
VIID-6
IXD-23,24
XD-8
p-Dichlorobenzene
H , S
D
ID-25
VD-6
VIID-6
IXD-2 8,29
XD-9
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
H , T , P
D
VD-7
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
H , T, P
D
VD-8
(continued¦
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Chemical
Conpound
Compound
Group*
Class.**
Code No.***
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
H , P , T
D
VD-9
IXD-27
3,3 '-Dichlorobenzidine
P,H,T
D
IXD-30
Dichlorodifluoromethane
P
F
VIIF-8
Dichloroethane
H, T
F
IXF-16,17
1,1-Dichloroethane
H, P, T
F
VF-9
VIIF-9
IXF-18,19
£
XF-8
1,2-Dichloroethane
H,P,S,T
F
IF-4
VF-10,11
VIIF-10
IXF-20,21
XF-9
Dichloroethylene
H, P, S
F
VIIF-11,12
1,1-Dichloroethylene
H,P,S,T
F
VF-12,14
VIIF-13
IXF-22
1,2-Dichloroethylene
H,P
F
IXF-2 3
XF-10
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
H/ T, P
F
VF-13
VIIF-14
IXT-24
Dichlorofluoromethane
F
IXF-25
Dichloroisopropyl Ether
E
IXE-4
Dichloromethane
H,P/S,T
F
VF-15,16
VIIF-15
IXF-2 7
Dichlorophenol
K
XK-8
2,3-Dichlorophenol
K
IXK-4
XK-9
2,4-Dichlorophenol
H,T,P
K
IK-14 to 18
VIIK-7,8
XK-10
2,5-Dichlorophenol
K
IK-19
2,6-Dichlorophenol 0
K
IK-20
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
A, H , S
D
ID- 2 6
2,6-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
D
ID-27
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyproprionic
Acid
D
ID-18
1,2-Dichloropropane
H,S,P
F
VF-17
VIIF-16
IXF-2 8
(continued)
E-10
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Cheraical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.**
Code No.***
1,2-Dichloropropylene
F
VF-18
VIIF-17
IXF-2 9
Dicyclopentadiene
B
IXB-20
Dieldrin
A , H , P , S
J
IJ-9
IIJ-2
IIIJ-7
IXJ-20 to 26
Diethanolamine
C
IC-20
IXC-9
Diethylene Glycol
B
IB-41
IXB-21
Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl
Ether
E
IXE-5
Diethylene Glycol Monoethyl
Ether
E
IXE-6
Diethylenetriamine
C
IXC-10
Diethyl Ether
E
IIIE-2
Diethylhexyl Phthalate
L
XL-2
Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
L
IL-5
Diethyl Phthalate
P,H,T
L
IL-4
VIIL-4
a,a-Diethylstilbenediol
M
IM-5
Dihexylamine
C
IXC-11, XC-5
Diisobutyl Ketone
B
IXB-22
Diisopropanolamine
C
IXC-12
Diisopropyl Methylphosphonate
B
IXB-23
Dimethylamine
T
C
IXC-13
XC-6
Dimethylaniline (Xylidene)
D
IXD-31
2 ,3-Dimethylaniline
C
IC-21
2 ,5-Dimethylaniline
C
IC-22
3,4-Dimethylaniline
C
IC-23
9 ,10-Dimethylanthracene
M
IM-6
7,9-Dimethylbenzacridine
D
ID-29
7,10-Dimethylbenzacridine
D
ID-30
9,10-Dimethyl-l,2-benzanthracene
M
IM-7
Dimethylcyclohexanol
A
IA-14
Dimethylnapthalene
M
IXM-3
XM-4
DimethyInitrosamine
H, T
C
IXC-14
Dimethylphenol
S
K
IXK-5
2 ,3-Dimethylphenol
K
IK-21
2,4-Dimethylphenol
H ,T, P
K
IK-2 2
VIIK-8
(continued
E-ll
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**
Compound
Code No.***
2.5-Dimethylphenol
2.6-Dimethylphenol
3.4-Dimethylphenol
3.5-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Sulfoxide
Dinitrobenzene
3.5-Dinitrobenzoic Acid
4.6-Dinitro-2-Methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenylhydrazine
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
1.1-Diphenylhydrazine
1.2-Diphenylhydrazine
Di-N-Propy1amine
Dipropylene Glycol
2.3-Dithiabutane
Dodecane
Dulcitol
Endrin
Endrin and Heptachlor
Erucic Acid
1,2-Ethanediol
Ethanol
K
K
K
K
P ,H , T
H, S
H , P , S , T
P , H , T , S
P / H, T
P,H, T
H / T , P
T
A, P, S
A,S
B
D
D
K
K
D
D
M
M
C
5
B
B
3
J
J
B
A
A
IK-23
IK-24
IK-25
IK-26
IK- 6
IL-6,7
IIL-3
VIIL-5
I XL-4
XL-3
IIIB-5
IIID-2
ID-31
VIIK-9
IK-27,29
VIIK-10
IXK-7
IIID-3
ID-3 2,3 3
VIID-7
IXD-32
VIID-8
IXD-33
IL-8
VIIL-6
IXM-4
IM-8
IXC-15
IXB-24
IB-4 2
IXB-2 5
XB-4
IB-43
IJ-10
IIJ-3
IXJ-2 7 to 31
XJ-7
IB-44
IA-15
IA-16,17,18
IIIA-1,2
VIIA-1
IXA-9
(continued)
E-12
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Chemical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.* *
Code No.***
Ethoxytriglycol
E
IXE-7
Ethyl Acetate
T
B
IB-45,46,47
IXB-26
Ethyl Acrylate
T
B
IB-48,49, 50
IXB-27
Ethylbenzene
P,S
D
ID-34 to 38
IID-1
VD-10,11,12
VIID-9,10
IXD-34 to 37
Ethylbutanol
A
IA-19,20,21
2-Ethylbutanol
A
IXA-10
Ethylene Chloride
F
VIIF-18
Ethylene Chlorohydrin
F
VIIF-19
Ethylenediamine
A,H, S
C
IC-24
IXC-16
Ethylene Dichloridec
S
F
VF-19,20,21
VIIF-20,21
IXF-3 0,31,32
U
XF-11
Ethylene Glycol
B
IB-51
IXB-2 8
Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether
E
IXE-8
Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether
E
IXE-9
Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether
Acetate
E
IXE-10
Ethylene Glycol Monhexyl Ether
E
IXE-11
Ethylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether
E
IXE-12
Ethyl Ether
T
E
IIIE-3
2-Ethylhexanol
A
IA-22
IXA-11
2-Ethy1-1-Hexanol
A
IXA-12
XA-4
2-Ethylhexylacrylate
B
IB-52,53,54
N-Ethylmorpholine
C
IXC-17
Ferbam
J
IJ-11
Fluoranthrene
M
IXM-5
XM-5
2-Fluorenamine
C
IC-25
Formaldehyde
H , T, S
B
IB-55,56
IIIB-6,7
IXB-29
Formanide
B
IB- 57
(continued)
E-13
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Chemical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.* *
Code No.***
For.*nic Acid
S,T
B
IB- 58
IXB-30
Furfuryl Alcohol
A
IA-23,24
Glutamic Acid
B
IB- 59
Glycerine
B
IB- 60
Glycerol
B
IIIB-8,9
Glycine
B
IB-61
Heptanoic Acid
B
IXB-31
XB-5
Heptachlor
A,H,P,S
J
IJ-12
riu-8
IXJ-32,33
Heptachlorepoxide
H,P
J
IIIJ-9
Heptane
B
IB-62 to 65
n-Heptanol
A
IXA-13
XA-5
Herbicides (Unspecified)
J
IXJ-34,35
Herbicide Orange
J
IJ-13
Hexachlorobenzene
H,P,T
D
ID-39,40
IIID-4
VD-13
VIID-11,12
IXD-38
Hexachlorobutadiene
H,P,T
F
VF-2 2
VIIF-22
IXF-33
XF-12
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
H, P, S , T
F
VF-23
Hexachloroethane
H, T, P
F
VIIF-23
IXF-34,35
XF-13
Hexadecane
B
IXF-32
XF-6
Hexanol
A
IA-25
1-Hexanol
A
IA-26,27
m-Hexanol
A
IXA-14
Hexylamine
C
IXC-18
XC-7
Hexylene Glycol
B
IXB-33
Hydracrylonitrile
B
IB-66
Hydroquinone
D
IIID-5,6
IXD-39
4-Hycroxybenzenecarbonitrile
D
ID-41
(continued)
E-14
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Chemical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.**
Code No.* * *
Iron
G
IG-15
IIG-26,27,28
IIIG-8
IVG-2
Iron (Fe+2)
IXG-12,13
G
IG-13
Iron (Fe+3)
G
IG-14
Isobutanol
T
A
IXA-15
Isobutyl Acetate
B
IXB-34
Isophorone
P
B
IB-67
VIIB-3
D
IXD-40,41
Isophthalic Acid
L
IL-9
Isoprene
S
B
IXB-35
Isopropanol
A
IA-2 8 to 3 2
IXA-16
Isopropyl Acetate
B
IXB-36
Isopropyl Ether
E
IE-1,2,3
IXE-13
Kepone
H / S / T
J
IXJ-36
Lactic Acid
B
IB-68
Laurie Acid
B
IB-69
IXB-37
XB-7
Lead
H,P
G
IG-16,17
IIG-29 to 33
IIIG-9,10
IXG-14,15,16
XIIG-6,7
Lindane
S
J
IJ-14
IIJ-4
IIIJ-10
IXJ-37,38
Malathion
S
J
IJ-15,16
IIIJ-11
L-Malic Acid
B
IB-70
DL-Malic Acid
B
IB-71
Malonic Acid
B
IB-72
Maneb
J
IJ-17
Manganese
G
IG-18,19
IIG-34,35,36
IVG-3
IXG-17,18,19
(continued)
E-15
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Chemical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.**
Code No.***
Mercury
H,P,T
G
1G-20,21
IIG-37,38,39
VIIG-1
IXG-20 to 24
XIIG-8
Methanol
T
A
IA-33 to 38
IIIA-3,4
IXA-17,18
Methyl Acetate
Q
IIIB-10,11
IXB-38
7-Methyl-l,1-benzanthracene
M
IM-9
2-Methylbenzenecarbonitrile
D
ID-42
3-Methylbenzenecarbonitrile
D
ID-43
4-Methylbenzenecarbonitrile
D
ID-44
Methyl Butyl Ketone
B
IXB-39
20-Methylcholanthrene
M
IM-10
4-Methylcyclohexanol
A
IA-39
Methyl Decanoate
B
IXB-40
XB-8
Methyl Dodecanoate
B
IXB-41
XB-9
4,4'-Methylene bis-
(2-Chloroaniline)
H,T
D
IXD-42
Methylene Chloride
P
F
IF-5
IXF-36
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
H, T
B
VIIB-4 , 5
IXB-42
Methylethylpyridine
D
ID-45
2-Methyl-5-Ethylpyridine
C
IXC-19
Methyl Hexadecanoate
B
IXB-43
XB-10
Methyl Isoamyl Ketone
T
B
IXB-4 4
N-Methyl Morpholine
C
IXC-20
Methyl Octadecanoate
B
IXB-45
XB-11
Methyl Parathion
A, H, S
J
IJ-18,19
IIIJ-12
Methyl Propyl Ketone
B
IXB-46
Molybdenum
G
IIG-40
Monoethanolamine
C
IXC-21
Monoisopropanolamine
C
IXC-22
Morpholine
c
IXC-23
XC-8
Myristic Acid
B
IXB-47
XB-12
(continue-
E-16
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Chemical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.**
Code No.***
Napthalene
H,P,S,T
M
IM-11 to 14
IIM-9
VM-1
IXM-6,7
B-Napthol
K
XK-11
B-Napthylamine
H, T
C
IXC-2 4
Nickel
H, P
G
IG-22 to 26
IIG-41 to 44
IIIG-11
IXG-25
Nitrilotriacetate
B
13-73
o-Nitroaniline
C
IC-26
p-Nitroaniline
A,H
C
IC-27
m-Nitrobenzaldehyde
D
ID-4 6
o-Nitrobenzaldehyde
D
ID-47
p-Nitrobenzaldehyde
D
ID-4 7
Nitrobenzene
H , P, S , T
D
ID-48 to 52
IID-2
VD-14
VIID-12
IXD-43 , 44 ,45
m-Nitrobenzoic Acid
D
ID- 53
o-Nitrobenzoic Acid
D
ID- 54
p-Nitrobenzoic Acid
D
ID- 55
Nitrofluorine
D
ID- 58
m-Nitrophenol
S
K
IK-29
o-Nitrophenol
P,S
K
IK-30,31
VIIK-11
p-Nitrophenol
P , H , T, S
K
IK-29,32
IIIK-2
VIIK-12
XK-12,13
m-Nitrotoluene
S
D
ID-56
o-Nitrotoluene
S
D
ID- 57
p-Nitrotoluene
S
D
ID- 57
Nonylphenol
K
IXK-8
Octadecane
B
IXB-4 8
XB-13
Octanoic Acid
B
IXB-49
XB-14
Octanol
A
IA-4 0,41
IXA-19
XA-6
(continue ¦;
E-17
-------
INDEX (continued)
Poliutant
Chemical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.* *
Code No.***
Octylamine
C
IXC-25
XC-9
Oleic Acid
B
13-74
Oxalic Acid
B
IB-75
Paraldehyde
T
D
ID- 59
IXD-46
Parathion
A,H, S
J
IJ-20,21
IIJ-5
IIIJ-13
IXJ-39,40
PCB(Unspecified)
I
IXI-1,2,3
Pentachlorethane
H, T
F
VIIF-2 4
Pentachlorophenol
A,H,P,S
K
IK-33,34
VIIK-13
IXK-9,10
XK-14
J
IJ-22
Pentamethylbenz ene
D
ID-60
Pentanamide
C
IC-29
Pentane
B
IB- 7 6
Pentanedinitrile
B
IB-77,78
Pentanitrile
B
IB-79
Pentanol
A
IXA-20
XA-7
Pentarylthritol
A
IA-42
Perchloroethylene
P, T
F
VF-2 4
VIIF-25
Phenanthrene
P
M
IXM-8
XM-6
Phenol
H, P, S / T
K
IK-35 to 43
IIIX-3,4,5
IVK-1
VK-1
VIIK-14 to 19
IXK-11 to 23
XK-15,16,17
p-(Phenylazo) aniline
C
IC-28
p-Phenylazophenol
K
IK-44
2,3-o-Phenylene Pyrene
M
IIM-10
Phenylenediamine
C
IC-3 0
m-Phenylenediamine
C '
IC-31
o-Phenylenediamine
C
IC-32
p-Phenylenediamine
C
IC-3 3
Phenyl Methyl Carbinol
A
I A- 4 3
(continued)
E-18
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Chemical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.**
Code No.* **
Phthalic Acid
H
L
IL-11
Phthalimide
L
IL-12
Piperidine
C
IXC-26
XC-10
Propanedinitrile
B
IB- 80
Propanenitrile
B
13-81
Propanol
A
IXA-21,22
XA-8
i-Propanol
A
IIIA-5,6
n-Propanol
A
I A-4 4
Propionaldehyde
B
IXB-50
Propionic Acid
S
B
IXB-51,52
XB-15
Propoxur
J
IJ-23
B-Propriolactone
B
IB- 82
Propyl Acetate
B
IXB-53
n-Propylbenzene
D
ID-61
Propylene Dichloride
F
IXF-37
Propylene Glycol
B
IXB-54
Propylene Oxide
S
B
IXB-55
Pyrene
P
M
IIM-11
IXM-9
XM-7
Pyridine
H,T
D
IXD-47,48
C
IXC-27
Pyrrole
c
IXC-28
XC-11
Pyruvic Acid
B
IXB-56
XB-16
Randox
J
IIIJ-14
Resorcinol
S,T
K
IXK-24
XK-18
Selenium
H,P
G
IIG-45, 46, 47
IXG-26
Silver
H, P
G
IIG-48 , 49, 50
Sodium Alkylbenzene Sulfonate
D
ID- 62
Sodium Alkyl Sulfate
B
IB-B3
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate
B
IB-8 4
Sodium-N-Oley1-N-Methyl Taurate
B
IB- 85
Sodium Pentachlorophenol
K
IK-4 5
Sodium a Sulfo Methyl Myristate
B
IB-86
Strontium
G
IG-27
(continued)
E-19
-------
INDEX (continued)
Compound
Pollutant Chemical
Group* Class.**
Compound
Code No.***
Styrene
Styrene Oxide
Tannic Acid
2,4,5-T Ester
1.2.3.4-TetrachIorobenzene
1.2.3.5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetraethylene Glycol
Tetrachl'orome thane
Tetradecane
Tetraethyl Pyrophosphate
Thallium
Thanite
Thioacetamide
Thioglycollic Acid
Thiouracil
Thiourea
Tin
Titanium
Toluene
m-Toluidine
Toxaphene
H, T
H
H,T
H , P , T
H , P, S , T
H, P
H, T
H, T
H,P,S,T
D
B
J
D
D
D
F
F
F
P,H,T,S
B
F
B
J
G
J
C
B
B
B
G
G
D
D
D
J
ID-63,64
VD-15
VIID-13
IXD-49,50,51
IXD-52
IB-8 7
IIJ-6
IXJ-41,42
ID-6 5
ID-66
ID-67,68
VIIF-26
IXF-38
XF-14
VF-25
VF-26
VIIF-27
IXF-39
VF-2 7
VIIF-28
IXF-40,41
XF-15
IXB-5 8
VF-28
VIIF-29
IXB-57
XB-17
IJ-24
IIG-51,52
IXG-27
IJ-25
IC-34
IB-88
IB-89
IB-90
IIG-53
IIG-54
ID-69 to 75
VD-16,17
VIID-14,15
IXD-53,54,55
ID- 7 6
IXD-56
IXJ-43, 44, 45
XJ-8
(continued)
E-20
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Chemical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.**
Code No.***
Tribromomethane
H,P,T
F
VF- 29
.VIIF-30
IXF-42,43
Tributylamine
C
IXC-29.
XC-12
Trichloroacetic Acid
F
IIIF-1
2,4,6-Trichloroaniline
C
IC-3 5,36
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
D
ID-7 7 '
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
H, P
D
ID- 7 8
VD-18,19
VIID-16
IXD-57,58,59
XD-10
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene
D
ID-79,80
Trichloroethane
H,P,T
F
VIIF-31
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
H,P,T
F
IF- 6
VF-30,31
VIIF-32
IXF-44,45
XF-16
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
H,P,T
F
IF- 7
VF-32,33
VIIF-33
IXF-4 6
Trichloroethylene
P,H,T/S
F
IF- 8, 9
IIF-2
VF-3 4,35
VIIF-3 4,35
IXF-47,4 8
Trichlorofluoromethane
H , P , T
F
VIIF-36
IXF-49
Trichloromethane
H , P , S
F
VF- 3 6
VIIF-37
2,3,5-Trichlorophenol
S
K
IK-46,47
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
H , S , T
K
IK-48
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
P,H,T,S
K
IK-49 to 52
VIIK-20
IXK-25
XK-19,20
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
H,T
J
IJ-26,27
2,4,6-Trichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
D
ID- 82
(continued >
E-21
-------
INDEX (continued)
Pollutant
Chemical
Compound
Compound
Group*
Class.**
Code No.***
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic
Acid
H
D
ID-81
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
H
F
IXF-50
XF-17
Triethanolamine
S
C
IXC-30
Triethylene Glycol
B
IB-91
IXB-59
Trifluralin
J
IIIJ-15
Trimethylphenol
K
IXK-2 6
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT)
D
IVD-1
IXD-60,61
XD-11,12
2,6,6-Trinitrotoluene
D
ID- 83
Urea
B
IB-92
Urethane
H, T
B
IB-93
Valeric Acid
B
IXB-60,61
XB-18
Vanadium
G
IIG-55
Vinyl Acetate
S
B
IXB-6 2
Vinyl Chloride
H,P,T
F
IF-10
Vinylidene Chloride
H , T, S
F
VIIF-3 8
Xylene
S, T
D
ID- 85
VIID-17,18
IXD-6 2,6 3
m-Xylene
S,T
D
ID-84
o-Xylene
S,T
D
ID- 8 4
p-Xylene
S, T
D
ID-84
Xylenol
S
K
VIIK-21
Zinc
P
G
IG- 28 to 34
IIG-56 to 61
IIIG-12,13
IVG-4
IXG-28,29
XIIG-9
Ziram
J
IJ-28
Zireb
J
IJ-29
* Pollutant Groups
A RCRA List - Acute hazardous {Sec. 261.33(e)}
H RCRA List - Hazardous {Appendix VII}
P Priority Pollutant (Consent Decree)
S Section 311 Compound
T RCRA List - Toxic {Sec. 261.33(f)}
(a blank indicates that the compound does not
fall into one of the above groups)
E-22
-------
INDEX (continued)
** Chemical Classifications
A Alcohol
3 Aliphatic
C Amine
D Aromatic
E Ether
F Halocarbon
G Metal
I PCB
J Pesticide
K Phenol
L Phthalate
M Polynuclear Aromatic
*** Compound Code Number - Refers to Compound Code Number used
in Appendix Table E-l
a Also see Ethylene Glycol
b Also see 1,2-Ethanediol
c Also see 1,2-Dichloroethane
d Also see Ethylene Dichloride
Caution: Because a compound may have many synonyms as given
in The Merck Index the reader should check for a compound under
several names. This also applies to the pollutant group codes
assigned to each compound because a complete crosscheck between
synonyms was not undertaken.
E-23
-------
TAHI.L' K-l CHEMICAL TRLflTAB 1 LI T Y
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols(A)
b
Description of Study
NO.
Chemical
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
In fluent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
1A-
1
n-Amyl Alcohol
(1-Pentanol)
R
Toxic threshold to sensitive
aquatic orqanisms (approx)
> 350 mg/1.
99
IA-
2
Borneal
U
P
90.3% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
0.9 mq COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
~ 81~
IA-
3
Butanol
F
I
70-90% reduction.
Aerated lagoon
treatment.
100~
IA-
4
Butanol
F
I
98% reduction w/00% BOD
reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
tivated sludge process.
101
TA-
5
Butanol
R
Toxic threshold to sensitive
aquatic organisms (approx)
<250 ppm.
99
1A-
6
Butanol
F
I
BOD load
of 42
lb/day/
1000 ft3
95-100% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
56
IA-
7
Butanol
U
P
98.8% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
84 inq COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
01
IA-
8
sec-Butanol
U
P
90.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
55 mq COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
~81
IA-
9
tert-Butanol
U
P
95.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
30 mq COD/q hr.
Activated sludge
process.
01
TA-
1 0
tert-Butanol
L
S
Substrate partially degraded.
Acclimated aerobic
cul ttire.
102
(cont iiiue
d)
-------
TABLE E -1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Kesults of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Cha r.
IA-
11
1,4-Butanediol
U
P
98.7% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
40 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IA-
12
Cyclohexanol
U
P
96% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
28 mg COD/g hr-
Activated sludge
process.
81
I rn
I ^
|H
Cyclopentanol
U
P
97% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
55 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IA-
14
Dimethylcyclo-
hexanol
U
P
92.3% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
21.6 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IA-
15
1,2-Ethanediol
L
S
484 ppm
74-76% reduction of BOD in
24 hrs. 7.5% of TOD exerted
in 24 hrs.
Pure aerobic culture.
103
JA-
16
Ethanol
F
I
70-90% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100
IA-
17
Ethanol
L
U
1000 ppm
>99% reduction of BOD in 24
hrs. 24% of TOD exerted in
24 hrs.
Pure aerobic culture-
103
IA-
18
Ethanol
F
I
95-100% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
101
IA-
19
Ethyl Butanol
F
I
30-50% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100
IA-
20
Ethyl Butanol
F
I
95-100% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
101
~56
IA-
21
Ethyl Butanol
F
I
4 2 lb/day/
1000 ft*
75-85% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
IA-
22
2-Ethylhexanol
F
I
4 2 lb/day/
1000 ft"'
75-85% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
56
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE e~1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char .
IA-
23
Furfuryl
Alcohol
U
P
97.3% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
41 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IA-
24
Furfuryl
Alcohol
U
P
96.1% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
40 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IA-
25
Hexanol
U
P
95-100% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
56
Too-
IA-
26
1-Hexanol
F
I
70-90% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
i r-
< ™
t—' |
1-Hexanol
F
I
100% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
101
IA-
28
Isopropanol
F
I
70-90% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100
101
IA-
29
Isopropanol
F
I
96% reduction w/80% BOD
reduct ion.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge.
IA-
30
LA-"
31
Isopropanol
L
S
100% reduction; acetone was
intermediate where upon 50%
reduced by bio-oxidation &
50% removed by air stripping
Acclimated aerobic-
culture .
102
Isopropanol
U
P
99% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
52 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
1A-
32
i
Isopropanol
U
P
BOD load
of
4 2 lb/day/
1000 ft*
95-100% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
56
(continue
d) |
-------
TABLE E~1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A
a
Description of Study
No.
Chemical
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
IA-
33
Methanol
F
I
BOD load
of
42 lb/day/
1000 ft*
75-05% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
56
IA-
34
Methanol
F
1
30-50% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100
IA-
35
Methanol
L
U
997 ppm
2.4-5.7% reduction of BOD
24 hrs. 36 to 41 mg O2 used
in 24 hrs. 2.4 -1.7% of TOD
exerted in 24 hrs.
Pure aerobic culture.
103
IA-
36
Methanol
L
U
500 ppm
110 mg O2 used in 24 hrs.
14.6% of TOD exerted in
24 hrs.
Pure aerobic culture.
103
IA-
37
Methanol
F
I
84% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge.
101
IA-
38
Methanol
F,C
I
170-2550
PPb
Effluent conc. of 150-5l0ppb
achieved.
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
65
IA-
39
4-MethyIcyclo-
hexanol
U
P
94% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
40 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
HI
IA-
40
Octanol
F
I
75% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge.
101
IA-
41
Octanol
F
I
30-50% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100
IA-
42
Pentarythritol
L
I
No toxic effect.
Aerobic culture.
101
rA-
I *
Phenyl MethyJ
('.II Ij 1 no 1
F
I
85-95% reduction
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge.
101
(coril. 1111a
d)
1
-------
TABLE E~i (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
No.
Chemical
Description of Study
Study
Type1
Waste
Type '
Influent
Char.
Kesults of Study
Comments
IA-
44
n-Propanol
98.8% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
71 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
T
N>
00
(cont Limed)
-------
TABLE e~1(continued)
Concentration Process-. Biological Treatment (!)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
b
Description of Study
No.
Chemical
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Commen ts
IB-
1
Acetaldehyde
F
I
70-90% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100
IB-
2
Acetaldehyde
F
I
BOD load
af 42 lb
day/1000
ft*
85-95% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
5b
1B-
3
Acetaldehyde
F,C
I
120-900
PPb
Effluent cone, of 90-1350ppb
achieved.
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
65
IB-
4
Acetone
F,C
I
100-600
ppb
Effluent cone. of 50-300 ppb
achieved.
See IB-3 for comments.
65
IB-
5
Acetone
F
I
70-90% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100
IB-
6
Acetone
B
S
Completely degraded or lost
by stripping.
No identifiable degra-
dation product.
102
IB-
7
Acetonitrile
B
U
490 ppm
Oxygen consumption was to-
tally inhibited for 24 hrs.
103
IB-
8
Acetonitrile
B
s
500 ppm
Toxic or inhibitory during
oxidation periods up to 72
hrs. 1.4% TOD was exerted
in 72 hrs.
106
IB-
9
Acetylglycine
O
D
500 ppm
Readily oxidized w/9.3% of
TOD exerted after 6 hr &
18.5% after 24 hr of
oxidation.
106
IB-
10
Acrolein
F.C
I
50-150
ppb
Effluent cone. of 20-200 ppb
achieved.
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
65
(conLinue
d)
i
-------
TABLE e"1(continuod)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (1)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
b
Description of Study
No.
Chemical
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
IB-
11
Acrylic Acid
F
I
BOD load
of
4 2 lb/d^V/
1000 ft
85-95% reduction.
Activated sludge
process-.
56
IB-
12
Acrylic Acid
F
I
50-70% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Too
IB-
13
Acrylic Acid
F
I
85-95% reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
101
IB-
14
Acrylonitrile
F
I
70-90% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100 ~
IB-
15
Acrylonitrile
F
I
95-100% reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
101
IB-
16
Acrylonitrile
F
I
BOD load
of
42 lb/day/
1000 ft*
95-100% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
"56~
TB-
17
Acrylonitrile
F
I
140 ppm
100% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
'Jo--
1B-
18
Adipic Acid
I
D
500 ppm
Readily oxidized w/7.1% of
TOD exerted after 24 hr of
oxidation.
Oxidation improved
greatly after 12 hrs.
107
IB-
19
Alanine
B
U
500 ppm
Up Lo 39% of TOD exerted in
24 hrs.
Oxygen consumption
showed no lag period.
Material was readily
degraded.
103
Ili-
^0
Ammonium
Oxd late
U
P
92.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
40 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
01
111
21
liu I ciiied l n i I r i lc
0
D
500 ppm
Toxic at oxidation periods
up Lo 72 hrs.
1 06
(conl limed)
i
-------
TABLE e-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
Chemical^
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
JB-
22
Butanedinitrile
0
D
500 ppm
Readily, but slowly, oxi-
dized, 3.8% of TOD exerted
after 24 hr of oxidation.
Oxygen uptake showed
plateau effect after
12 hrs.
107
IB-
23
Butanenitrile
0
D
500 ppm
Inhibited oxidation for up
to 24 hrs; after 72 hrs.up
to 10.5% of TOD was exerted.
lOo
IB-
24
Butanenitrile
O
D
Readily, but slowly oxi-
dized. Most rapid oxidation
occurred in first 6 hrs,
1.7% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
See IB-23
for comments.
107
IB-
25
Butyleneoxide
O
D
500 ppm
9.6% of TOD exerted after
144 hrs of oxidation.
Degraded very slowly.
108
~56
IB-
26
Butyric Acid
F
I
BOD load
of
42 lb/day/
1000 ft*
85-95% reduction.
IB-
27
Butyric Acid
O
D
500 ppm
Up to 43% of TOD exerted
after 72 hrs of oxidation.
100
locT""
IB-
28
Butyric Acid
F
I
50-70% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
IB-
29
Butyric Acid
O
D
Rapidly oxidized for first
6 hrs; after 24 hrs of oxi-
dation up to 27.9% of TOD
was exerted.
1C7
103
IB-
30
Calcium
Gluconate
L
U
250 ppm
13.6% of TOD exerted in
24 hrs.
rn-
) 1
Caprolactam
U
P
94.3% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
16 mq COD/g hr.
Activated sludge process
HI
(cont inued)
i
-------
TABI.E g-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (T)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IB-
32
Citric Acid
L
U
550 ppm
35 mg of 0^ used in 24 hrs.
Biodegradable, depressed
02 consumption.
103
~56~~
100
To!
103 "
Tov
IB-
33
Crotonaldehyde
F
I
BOD load
of
42 lb/day/
1000 ft*
95-100% reduction.
IB-
34
Crotonaldehyde
F
I
90-100% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
IB-
35
Crotonaldehyde
F
I
95-100% reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
IB-
36
Cystine
L
U
1000 ppm
Completely inhibited any
consumption of 02-
IB-
37
L-Cystine
O
D
500 ppm
Slowly oxidized w/4.7% of
TOD exerted after 24 hrs of
oxidation.
IB-
38
Cyclohexa-
nolone
U
P
92.4% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
51.5 ing COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
81
81 "~
81
IB-
39
Cyclohexanone
U
P
96% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
30 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
IB-
40
Cyclopentanone
U
P
95.4% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
57 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
IB-
41
Diethylene
Glycol
U
P
95% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
13.7 mg COD/g hr.
I £1-
4 2
2,3-Dithiabu-
Lane
F,C
I
10-120ppb
Not detectable in effluent.
See IB-3
for comments.
65
d)
i
(continue
-------
TABLE E~l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
TypeC
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IB-
43
Dulc itol
0
U
1700 ppm
Slightly inhibitory
109
IB-
44
Erucic Acid
0
D
500 ppm
11% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs of oxidation.
107
IB-
45
Ethyl Acetate
F
I
90-100% reduction.
Treated by aerobic
lagoon.
100
1B-
46
Ethyl Acetate
F
I
95-100% reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
101
IB-
47
Ethyl Acetate
F
I
BOD load
of
42 lb/day,
1000 ft3
95-100% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
56
~56
10(F~
IB-
48
Ethyl Aerylate
F
I
BOD load
of
42 lb/day,
1000 ft*
95-100% reduction.
f
Activated sludge
process
IB-
49
Ethyl Acrylate
F
I
90-100% reduction.
Treated by aerobic
laqoon
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
IB-
50
Ethyl Acrylate
F
I
95-100% reduction.
101
(31
56
too"
IB-
51
Ethylene
Glycol
U
P
96.8% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
41.7 mq COD/g lir.
Activated sludge
process.
IB-
52
IB-
5 3
2-Ethylhexyl-
acrylate
F
I
BOD load
of
4 2 lb/day
1000 ft*
95-100% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
2-ELhylhcxyl -
aery 1 ate
F
I
90-100% reduction
Treated by aerobic
lagoon.
(continue
rl)
t
-------
TABLE E"1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
b
Description o
f Study
Chemica1
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
IB-
54
2-Ethylhexyl-
acrylate
F
I
95-100% reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
101
IB-
55
Formaldehyde
L
U
720 ppm
Chemical inhibited O2
consumption.
10J
IB-
56
Formaldehyde
O
D
3000 ppm
<99% reduction after 24 hrs
of aeration.
pH held at 7.2.
104
IB-
57
Formamide
0
D
500 ppm
Slowly oxidized for first
12 hrs; 11.8% of TOD exerted
after 24 hrs of oxidation.
10/
IB-
58
Formic Acid
L
720 ppm
70% of TOD exer ted after
24 hrs of oxidation.
No lag period during
oxidation.
10/
IB-
59
Glutamic Acid
L
31% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs of oxidation.
103
IB-
60
Glycerine
I.
7 20 ppm
248 mg of O2 used in 24 hrs.
103
IB-
61
Glycine
L
7 20 ppm
58% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
103
ID-
62
Heptane
F
I
BOD load
of
42 lb/dciv/
L000 ft
95-100% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
56
IB-
63
Heptane
0
D
500 ppm
38.7% of TOD exerted after
72 hrs.
106
IB-
64
Heptane
F
I
90-100% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100
IB-
65
Heptane
F
I
95-100% reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
L 01
tn-
66
llydraery lo-
ni r n 1 e
F
I
0-10% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
LOO
(continur
•d)
1
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IB-
67
Isophorone
F, C
D
93% reduction.
21 day maximum reten-
tion time in a series
of lagoons.
81
7~
T(J7
H>7
IB-
68
Lactic Acid
L
720 ppm
78% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
ID-
69
113-
70
TB-
71
IB-
72
Laurie Acid
0
D
500 ppm
6.1% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
L-Malic Acid
0
D
500 ppm
44.8% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
DL-Malic Acid
0
D
500 ppm
20.0% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
A 10-16 hr lag period
was indicated.
107
Malonic Acid
0
L
D
500 ppm
Chemical inhibited O2
uptake.
107
TTl~
IB-
73
Nitrilotri-
aceta te
S
20 to
500 ppm
>90% reduction after
acclimation.
IB-
74
IB-"
75
Oleic Acid
0
O2 uptake inhibited.
109
ToT ~
Oxalic Acid
I,
250 ppm
0.^ uptake inhibited.
IB-
76
1B-
77
IB-
78
fB-
79
I H-
H0
Pentane
O
D
500 ppm
02 uptake inhibited.
106
Pentaned i ni-
tr i le
0
D
500 ppm
Toxic at oxidation periods
of up to 7 2 hrs.
106
Pentanedini-
tr i le
0
D
_
500 ppm
500 ppm
Slowly oxidized with 2.9%
of TOD exerted after 24 hrs
of oxidation.
106
io<7 ~
fotj
Pentanehi trile
Propanedini-
Lille
0
Toxic to 2 sludyes at oxi-
dation periods up to 24 hrs.
D
500 ppm
Toxic for oxidation periods
up to 72 hrs.
(continued)
t
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
b
Chemical
Description o
f Study
No.
Study
Type c
Waste
d
Type
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
IB-
81
Propaneni tr ile
0
D
500 ppm
Toxic for oxidation periods
up to 72 hrs.
106
IB-
82
B~Propiolactone
0
D
500 ppm
02 uptake inhibited.
10a
IB-
8 3
Sodium Alkyl
Sulfonate
0
22% of TOD exerted after
5 days.
112
JB-
84
Sodium Lauryl
Sulfate
0
65% of TOD exerted after
5 days".
112
IB-
85
Sodium N-
Oleyl-N-Methyl
Taurate
0
47-52% of TOD exerted in
5 days.
112
IB-
06
Sodium a Sulfo
Methyl
Myristate
0
33% of TOD exerted after
5 days.
1 1 2
IB-
87
Tannic Acid
0
O2 uptake inhibited.
ioy
IB-
88
Thioglycollic
Acid
I,
O2 uptake inhibited within
24 hrs.
10 3
IB-
89
Thiouraci1
0
D
500 ppm
Chemical was oxidized but
very slowly. 12.8% of TOD
exerted after 144 hrs of
oxidat ion.
10b
1B-
90
Thiourea
0
D
500 ppm
0 uptake was inhibited by
chemical for up to 144 hrs
of oxidation.
1.0 3
TB-
lJl
Tr iethylene
1 yco 1
u
P
97.7% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation was
27 nig COD/g hr.
Activated sludge procc:;s
81
11'
Hi i .i
L
1200 ppm
0 uptake inhibited.
103
1
1
1
(continued)
1
-------
TABLE E~1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (1)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
Chemical **
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type d
)f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
TB-
93
Urethane
0
D
02 uptake inhibited.
(continue
108
d)
-------
TABLE e"1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
a
No.
Chemical^
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char .
IC-
1
IC-
2
Acetanilide
U
P
94.5* reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
19 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
- irr
— oi~
" ~oT
p-Aminoacetan-
ilide
U
P
93% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
11.3 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
IC-
3
m-Aminobenzoic
Acid
U
P
97.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
27.1 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
IC-
4
TcT-
5
o-Aminobenzoic
Acid
U
P
97.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
7.0 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
p- Am i nobe n zo i c
Acid
U
P
96.2% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
12.5 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IC-
6
m-Aminotoluene
U
P
97.7% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
30 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IC-
7
o-Aminotoluene
IJ
P
97.7% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
15.1 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
1C-
8
p-Aminotoluene
U
P
97.7% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
20 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IC-
9
Aniline
U
P
94.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
19 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
81
IC-
10
An i1i ne
U
I
500 ppm
30°C
100% reduction in 15 hrs.
Biodegradation by mu-
tant pseudomonas.
92
(conti nue
d)
-------
TABLE e '1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
He E .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IC-
11
Aniline
0
0
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited for up
to 72 hrs.
108
108
IC-
12
Benzamide
0
0
500 ppm
02 uptake inhibited for
first 6 hrs. 63% of TOD
exerted after 144 hrs of
oxidation.
IC-
13
Benzidine
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited.
108
01
IC-
14
Benzidine
F,C
D
1.6 ppb
0% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
IC-
15
Benzylamine
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited.
10H
IC-
16
Butanamide
0
D
500 ppm
Slowly oxidized w/6.4% of
TOD exerted after 24 hrs
of oxidation.
107
81~
nir
—IT"
IC-
17
m-Chloroani-
line
U
P
97.2% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
6.2 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
IC-
10
o-Chloroani-
line
u
P
97.2% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
16.7 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
IC-
19
p-Chloroani-
line
u
P
96.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
5.7 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
IC-
20
Diethanolamine
u
P
97% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
19.5 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
~8T
IC-
?1
2,3-Dimethy1-
tini 1 i ne
u
P
96.5% reduction based on COD
rate of biodegradation
12.7 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
(continued)
1
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
a
No.
Chemical^
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
IC-
22
2,5-Dimethyl-
aniline
U
P
96.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
3.6 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IC-
23
3, 4-Dimethyl-
aniline
U
P
76% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
30 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
81
100
IC-
24
Ethylene-
diamine
U
P
97.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
9.8 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
IC-
25
2-Fluorenamine
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake showed inhibitory
effect but was slowly bio-
logically oxidized.
IC-
26
o-Nitroaniline
U
I
18.5 ppm
<99.9% reduction.
Powder activated carbon
& activated sludge
treatment.
58
IC-
27
p-Nitroaniline
u
I
6.7 ppm
<99.9% reduction.
See IC-26
for comments.
58
108
IC-
28
P~(Phenylazo)
aniline
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited after
72 hrs of oxidation.
IC-
29
Pentanamide
0
D
500 ppm
Slowly oxidized w/13.6% of
TOD exerted after 24 hrs of
oxidation.
107
Til"
8^1
81
IC-
30
Phenylene-
diamine
0
D
500 ppm
Toxic during 24 hrs of
aeration
IC-
31
m-Phenylene-
d iamine
u
P
60% reduction based on COD.
Activated sludge
process.
1C-
) 2
ic -
t )
o-Phenylene-
diamine
u
P
33% reduction based on COD.
Activated sludge
process.
1I'heny 1 one
<1 1 anil III.'
0
P
80% reduction based on COD.
Activated sludge
process.
H 1
(continued)
t
-------
TABLE K-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
0
z
Chemical^
Description of study
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
IC-
34
Thioacetamide•
L
U
100 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited.
103
IC-
35
2,4,6-Trichlo-
roaniline
U
I
500 ppm
100% reduction in 30 hrs.
See IC-10
for comments.
92
iir
u)
1
IC-
36
2,4,6-Trichlo-
roaniline
O
S
10 ppm
O2 uptake not inhibited.
(continue.
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
b
Description of Study
No.
Chemical
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ke f .
ID-
1
sec-Amy 1 -
benzene
0
D
500 ppm
Toxic for 24 hrs of aeration.
1 1 3
ID-
2
tert-Amyl-
benzene
0
D
500 ppm
Toxic for 24 hrs of aeration.
113
1D-
3
Benzaldehyde
0
O2 uptake inhibited.
109
ID-
4
Benzaldehyde
U
P
99% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodeyradation
119 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IU-
5
Benzaldehyde
0
D
500 ppm
61.3% of TOD exerted after
144 hrs of oxidation.
100
ID-
6
Benzene
F
I
90-100% reduction.
Treated by aerated
1agoon.
100
ID-
7
Benzene
F
I
95-100% reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
101
ID-
8
Benzene
0
D
125 ppm
1.44-1.45g of oxygen uti-
lized per gram of substrate
added after 72 hrs of
oxidation.
114
ID-
9
Benzene
0
D
50-500
ppm
O2 uptake of 34 ppm 02/hr
for 50 ppm chemical & 37 ppm
02/hr for 500 ppm chemical.
114
ID-
10
Benzene
F
I
95-100% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
56
ID-
11
Benzene
Sulfonate
0
D
500 ppm
Slowly oxidized for first 6
hrs; 62% of TOD exerted af-
ter 144 hrs.
108
in>-
12
Benzenothiol
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited for up
to 144 hrs of oxidation.
108
(con t i hup
(1)
1
-------
TABLE E -1( cont inued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
, b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
ID-
13
Benzoic Acid
U
P
99% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
80.5 mg COD/g- hr.
HI
ID-
14
Benzoic Acid
F
I
BOD load
of
4 2 lb/day
1000 ft*
95-100% reduction
t
Activated sludge
process.
56
1^06
Tog"
ID-
15
Benzonitrile
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited for up tc
72 hrs of oxidation.
ID-
16
3,4-Benzpyrene
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited for up
to 144 hrs of oxidation.
ID-
17
sec-Butyl-
benzene
0
D
500 ppm
Toxic for 24 hrs of aeration.
113
ID-
18
tert-Butyl-
benzene
0
D
500 ppm
Toxic for 24 hrs of aeration.
113
ID-
19
Chloranil
0
S
10 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited.
102
ID-
20
Chlorobenzene
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 14 hrs.
Biodegradation by mu-
tant pseudomonas
species.
66
ID-
21
1,2,4, 5-Dibenz-
pyrene
0
D
500 ppm
0j uptake inhibited for up
to 144 hrs of oxidation.
l(Xl
ID-
22
m-Dichloro-
benzene
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 28 hrs.
See ID-20
for comments.
66
ID-
23
m-Dichloro-
benzene
U
I
200 ppm
100% reduction in 30 hrs.
See ID-20
for comments.
92
66~
ID-
24
ID-
25
o-Dichloro-
benzene
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 20 hrs.
See ID-20
for comments.
p-Dichloro-
benzene
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 25 hrs.
See ID-20
for comments.
66
(continued)
1
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
Chemica1^
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
ID-
26
2,4-Dichloro-
phenoxyacetic
Acid
L
D
174 ppm
No reduction until after 5
days.
Subjected to continuous
aeration.
115
"lis"
ID-
27
2,6-Dichloro-
phenoxyacetic
Acid
L
D
178 ppm
No reduction until after 3
days.
See ID-26
for comments.
ID-
28
2,4-Dichloro-
phenoxypro-
pionic Acid
L
D
186 ppm
No reduction after 7 days.
See ID-26
for comments.
1 J5
ID-
29
7,9-Dimethyl-
benzacridine
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited after
144 hrs of oxidation.
1 08
ID-
30
7,10-Dimethyl-
benzacridine
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited after
after 144 hrs of oxidation.
1 0F3
ID-
31
3,5-Dinitro-
benzoic Acid
U
P
50% reduction based on COD.
Activated sludye
process.
01
~81~
ID-
32
2,4-Din i tro-
toluene
F,C
D
390 ppb
Not detectable in effluent.
Activated sludge
process.
ID-
33
2,4-Dinitro-
toluene
R
U
146-188
ppm
90% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
90
56
2]
ID-
34
Ethylbenzene
F
I
BOD load
of
42 lb/day
1000 ft*
95-100% reduction
t
Activated sludge
process.
ID-
35
Ethylbenzene
U
S
192 ppb
100% reduction.
ID-
36
II)-
37
Ethylbenzene
F
I
90-100% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100
10 i
Ethylbenzene
L
I
95-100% reduction
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge.
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
b
Description of Study
No.
Chemical
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
ID-
30
Ethylbenzene
0
D
105 ppm
After 72 hrs of oxidation
1.7g of O2 was used per g
chemical added.
114
ID-
39
Hexachloro-
benzene
L
P
200 ppm
0% reduction in 120 hrs.
See ID-20
for comments.
66
ID-
40
llexachloro-
benzene
U
I
200 ppm
0* reduction in 120 hrs.
See ID-20
for comments.
92
10-
41
4-Hydroxy-
benzenecarbo-
nitrile
0
D
500 ppm
Toxic after 72 hrs of
oxidation.
1Gb
10-
42
2-Methylben-
zenecarbo-
nitrile
0
D
500 ppm
Toxic after 72 hrs of
oxidation.
106
ID-
43
3-Methylben-
zenecarbo-
nitrile
0
D
500 ppm
Toxic after 72 hrs of
oxidation.
106
10-
44
4-Methylben-
zenecarbo-
nitrile
0
D
500 ppm
Toxic after 72 hrs of
oxidation.
106
i
Methylethyl-
pyridine
F
I
10-30% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100
ID-
46
m-Nitrobenz-
aldehyde
U
P
94% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
1 0 ing COD/g hr .
Activated sludge
process.
01
ID-
47
o-Ni Lrobenzal-
diehyde, p-Nl-
trobenzaldehydt
U
P
97% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
13.8 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
01
' D-
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
ID-
49
Nitrobenzene
U
S
175 ppb
100% reduction.
21
TD-
50
Ni trobenzene
U
I
530 ppb
< 96.0% reduction.
Powder activated car-
bon & activated sludge
treatment.
58
ID-
51
IID-
52
Nitrobenzene
F.C
D
58 ppb
>0.1 ppb effluent conc.
21 day maximum reten-
tion time in a series
of lagoons.
81
Nitrobenzene
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited for up
to 144 hrs of oxidation.
10»
—ST
ID-
53
m-Nitrobenzoic
Acid
U
P
93.4% reduction based on COD,
rate of biodegradation
7 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
ID-
5 A
o-Ni trobenzoic
Acid
U
P
93.4% reduction based on COD,
rate of biodegradation
20 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
ID-
55
p-Ni trobenzoic
Acid
U
P
92% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
19.7 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
ID-
56
m-Ni trotoluene
U
P
98.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
21 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
~ol~
T08~
10-
57
I!)-
50
1D^
59
o-Nitrotoluene
p-Nitrotoluene
U
P
98% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
32.5 mg COD/g h r.
Activated sludge
process.
Nitrofluorine
0
D
500 ppm
Slowly oxidized w/13.7% of
TOD exerted after 144 hrs.
Paraldehyde
F
I
30-50% reduction
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100
(cont inue
d)
1
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aroinatics (D)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
S tudy
Type c
Was te
Type ^
Influent
Char.
ID-
60
ID-
61
Pentamethy1-
benzene
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited during
first 24 hrs of aeration.
113
n-Propylben-
zene
0
D
37.5 ppm
After 72 hrs of oxidation
0.67g of O2 were utilized pei
g of substrate added.
114
TD-
62
Sodium Alkyl-
benzene Sul-
fonate
0
26% of TOD exerted after 5
days.
112
TooT
TD-
63
St.yrene
F
I
70-90% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
ro-
61
ID-
65
ID-
66
St.yrene
F
I
95-100% reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
101
66~
TeT
1,2,3, 4-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
L
P
200 ppm
74% reduction in 120 hrs.
See ID-20
for comments.
1,2,3,5-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
L
P
200 ppm
80% reduction in 120 hrs.
See ID-20
for comments.
1D-
67
ID-
68
"iET7
69
1,2,4,5-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
U
I
200 ppm
80% reduction in 120 hrs.
See ID-20
for comments.
66
1,2,4,5-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
0
0
500 ppm
No O2 consumed during first
3 hrs; very slight uptake
thereafter for first 24 hrs
of aeration.
113
Toluene
F
I
70-90% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100
ID-
0
Toluene
F
I
95-100% reduction.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
101
Toluene
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited or very
slightly oxidized for first
24 hrs of oxidation.
108
(cont inue
d)
1
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
ID-
72
Toluene
0
D
100 ppm
0.53-0.65g of O2 used per g
of substrate added after 72
hrs of oxidation.
114
II)-
7 3
Toluene
0
D
500 ppm
48.3% of TOD exerted after
72 hrs of oxidation.
106
TD-
71
1D-
75
Toluene
F,C
I
8-150 ppb
1.0-10.0 ppb effluent conc.
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
65
Toluene
F
I
BOD load
of 42 lb
da^/1000
95-100% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
56
ID-
76
in-Toluidine
U
I
500 ppm
100% reduction in 10 hrs.
See ID-20 for comments.
92
ID-
77
1,2,3-Trichlo-
robenzene
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 43 hrs.
See ID-20 for comments.
66
II)-
70
1,2,4-Trichlo-
robenzene
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 46 hrs.
See ID-20 for comments.
66
ID-
7 9
1,3, 5-Trichlo-
robenzene
U
I
200 ppin
100% reduction in 50 hrs.
See ID-20 for comments.
92
ID-
80
1,3,5-Trichlo-
robenzene
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 50 hrs.
See ID-20 for comments.
66
1D-
81
2,4,5-Trichlo-
rophenoxypro-
pionic Acid
L
O
107.5 ppm
99% reduction in 16.5 days.
115
ID-
82
ID-
03
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenoxy-
acetic Acid
L
D
53 ppm
50% reduction in 14 days.
Subjected to continuous
aeration.
115
2,6,6-Trini-
trotoluene
L
I
100 ppm
50-84% reduction in 3-14 hrs.
116
1
*
(continued)
1
-------
T/\BLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
Chemical^
Descr
S tudy
Type c
iption r
Was te
Type ^
)f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
ID-
01
m-xylene
o-xylene
p-xylene
0
D
500 ppin
O2 uptake inhibited after 2<1
hrs of oxidation.
113
65_
ID-
_05
Xylene
P,C
1
20-200ppl
1.0-15.0 ppb effluent conc.
See ID-74
for comments.
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continuGd)
No.
Chemical
Concentration Process: Bioloyical Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Ethers (E)
Description of Study
Study
Type 1
Waste
Type 1
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Kef ,
IE-
1
IE-
2_
IE-
3
Isopropyl
Ether
DOD load
of
4 2 lb/day/
1000 ft*
85-95% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
56
Isopropyl
Ether
Isopropyl
Ether
70-90% reduction.
85-95% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100
Completely mixed
activated sludge
process.
101
icontinued)
i
-------
TABLE E "I(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IF-
1
Bromoform
F.C
I
0.4-1.9
PPb
100% reduction.
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
65
IF-
2
Carbon
Tetrachloride
U
S
177 ppb
100% reduction.
21
1
hH
Chloroform
F,C
I
13 ppb
100% reduction.
See IF- 1
for -comments.
65
65~
IF-
4
1,2-Dichloro-
ethane
F,C
I
0.4-260
ppb
1.4 ppb effluent conc.
See IF- 1
for comments.
IF-
5
Methylene
Chloride
F,C
I
!0-430ppb
2.0-50 ppb effluent conc.
See IF- l
for comments.
65
IF-
6
1,1,1-Trichlo-
roethane
F,C
1
8.0-790
ppb
1.0-20.0 ppb effluent conc.
See IF- l
for comments.
65
§1T
IF-
7
1,1,2-Trichlo-
roethane
U
I
1305 ppb
< 99.7% reduction.
Powder activated carbon
& activated sludge
treatment.
IF-
8
Trichloro-
ethylene
F, C
I
78 ppb
100% reduction.
See IF- 1
for comments.
65
IF-
9
Trichloro-
ethylene
F,C
1
214 ppb
99% reduction
21
IF-
10
Vinyl Chloride
F,C
I
8 ppb
100% reduction
See IF- 1
for comments.
65
(continue
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification; Metals (G)
a
No,
Chemicalb
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ret.
Study
Type C
Waste
Type d
In£luent
Char.
IG-
1
Barium
O
U
1-100,000
ppm
O2 uptake inhibited at conc.
greater than 100 ppm.
109
IG-
2
Cadmium
R
U
6 ppb
1.0 ppb effluent conc.
Activated sludge
process.
90
IC-
3
Cadmium
F,C
I
27 ppb
16 ppb effluent conc.
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
65
T09~
122
IG-
4
___
5
Cadmium
O
U
1-100,000
ppm
Conc. of 1-10 ppm inhibited
O2 uptake.
Chromium
F
D
ranged
from
0.8-3. 6ppn
22-70% reduc-
tions achieved.
Survey of municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
[ I
HH '
Chromium
(Cr+3>
C,P
D
15 ppm
0.2 ppb effluent conc.
123
___
IG-
7
IG-
0
IG-
9_
J.G-
10
Chromium
(Cr 6)
O
U
1-100,000
ppm
O2 uptake inhibited at conc.
greater than 100 ppm.
Cobalt
L
S
0.08-0.5
ppm
Inhibited biological growth.
Study of Nitrosomas
bacteri a.
124
TTiT
Copper
R
u
10 ppm
75% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
Copper
F
D
ranged
from
Q 2-1.5pp«
7-77% reductions
achieved.
See IG-5
for comments.
122
IG-
11
Copper
L
S
5-30 ppb
Stimulated biological growth
See IG-0
for comments.
124
50-560ppb
Inhibited biological growth.
IG-
12
IG-
J 3
Copper
C,P
D
10 ppm
75% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
125
To 9
Iron
(Fe+2)
0
U
10-1000
ppm
O2 uptake inhibited at conc.
greater than 100 ppm.
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E-j (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Re f .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IG-
14
Iron
(Fe+3)
O
U
0.01-
100,000
ppm
O2 uptake inhibited at cone.
greater than 100 ppm.
109
~ll6~
IG-
15
Iron
C, F
D
7.17 ppm
total iror
83% reduction.
0.6 ppm
soluble
i ron
62% reduction.
1G-
16
Lead
O
10-100ppm
O2 uptake inhibited
109
IG-
17
Lead
L
S
5-50 ppb
No stimulation or inhibition
of biological growth.
See IG-0
for comments.
1 24
"\ 24~
109
"127"
V3T
~mf
I2T
TYa"
IC-
10
Manganese
L
S
12.5-50
ppm
Stimulated biological growth
See IG-0
for comments.
50-100ppm
Inhibited biological growth.
IG-
19
Manganese
L
S
10 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited.
IG-
20
TG-
21
Mercury
O
S
0-200 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited.
Mercury
L
S
5-10 ppm
51-50% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
IG-
22
Nickel
R
U
10 ppm
20% reduction.
IG-
23
Nickel
F
D
ranged
from
0.03-2.0
ppm
0-33% reduction
achieved.
See IG-5
for comments.
IG-
! 24
Nickel
C,P
D
1-10 ppm
28-42% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
'
(continue
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IG-
25
Nickel
C»F
D
270 ppb
30% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
129
IG-
26
Nickel
P
D
10 ppm
28% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
125
IG-
27
Strontium
L
S
5-50 ppb
No stimulation or inhibition
of biological growth.
See IG-0
for comments.
124
IG-
28
Zinc
R
U
10 ppm
89% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
118
TG-
29
Zinc
F
D
ranged
f rotn
Q 3-2.2ppu
20-91% reduction
achieved.
See IG- 5
for comments.
122
IG-
30
IG-
31
Zinc
C,P
D
2.5 ppm
13% reduction in primary
treatment -
128
10 ppin
14% reduction in primary
treatment.
Zinc
L
S
0.08-0.5
ppm
Biological growth inhibited.
See IG- 8
for comments.
124
~Yil
loo"
IG-
32
Zinc
C > F
D
0.91 ppm
60% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
IG-
33
Zinc
L
S
1 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited.
IG-
34
Zinc
R
U
3.57 ppm
57% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
90
(continue
d)
•
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: pesticides (J)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption o
Waste
Type d
£ Study
Influent
Cha r.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
IJ-
1
Aldrin
0
U
Not significantly degraded.
121
IJ-
2
Aminotriazole
0
U
Not significantly degraded.
121
IJ-
3
Chlordane
0
U
Slightly degraded.
121
1 rr\
"D 1
k-H 1
2,4-D-Isoctyl-
ester
0
U
Biodegradab]e.
121
IJ-
5
DDT
0
U
Not significantly degraded.
121
IJ-
6
DDVP
L
U
37.5°C,
8.0 pH
462 min half-life.
Biodegradation by
mutant pseudoinonas
species.
92
IJ-
7
Diazinon
f
L
U
20°C,
10.4 pH
144 hr half-life.
See IJ-6 for comments.
92
IJ-
8
Diazinon
0
U
Not significantly degraded.
121
IJ-
9
Dieldrin
0
U
Not significantly degraded.
121
1J-
10
Endrin
0
U
Not significantly degraded.
121
IJ-
11
Ferbam
0
U
Biodegradable.
121
IJ-
12
Heptachlor
0
U
500 ppm
Slightly degraded.
121
IJ-
13
Herbicide
Orange
F
I
1380 ppm
77* reduction.
Pure 02 & biological
seeding provided.
81
~121
HJ-
•
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
In fluent
Char.
IJ-
15
Malathion
0
U
Not significantly degraded.
121
IJ-
16
Malathion
L
u
25°C,
10.03 pH
28 min half-life.
See IJ-6
for comments.
92
IJ-
17
Maneb
0
u
Biodegradable
121
1J-
18
19
Methyl
Parathion
L
u
156C
7.5 min half-life.
See IJ-6
for comments.
92
Methyl
Parathion
O
u
Not significantly degraded.
121
IJ-
20
Parathion
L
u
15°C
32 min half-life.
See IJ-6
for comments.
92
IJ-
21
Parathion
O
\
u
Not significantly degraded.
121
IJ-
22
Pentachloro-
phenol
O
u
75-150ppm
Not significantly degraded.
121
IJ-
23
Propoxur
0
u
20°C,
10.0 pH
40 min half-life.
See IJ-6
for comments.
92
IJ-
21
Tetraethyl
Pyrophosphate
o
u
Not significantly degraded.
121
"l2i~
nr
IJ-
25
IJ-
26
Thani te
o
u
Biodegradable
2,4,5-Trichlo-
rophenoxyace-
tic Acid
0
u
150 ppm
Slightly degraded.
TJ-
27
2,4,5-Trichlo-
rophenoxyace-
tic Acid
o
99% reduction in 7.5 days.
Subjected to continuous
aeration.
115
!
|
(continue
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
Chemical^
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type ^
)f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
1J-
20
Ziram
0
U
Slightly degraded.
121
IJ-
29
Zireb
0
U
Slightly degraded.
121
(continue
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process; Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classifications Phenols (K)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
IK-
1
4-Chloro-3-
Methylphenol
0
S
10 ppm
O2 uptake mildly inhibited.
102
50 ppm
0? uptake strongly inhibited.
100 ppm
Toxic
1K-
2
4-Chloro-3-
Methylphenol
R
U
2 5 ppm
Biodegradable in 5 days.
90
I.K-
3
2-Chloro-4-
Nitrophenol
U
P
71.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
5.3 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IK-
4
2-Chlorophenol
R
U
150-200
ppm
90-95% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
90
IK-
5
m-Chlorophenol
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 28 hrs.
Biodegradation by mu-
tant pseudomonaa
species.
66
IK-
6
o-Chlorophenol
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 26 hrs.
See IK- 5
for comments.
66
IK-
7
o-Chlorophenol
U
P
95.6% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
25 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IK-
B
p-Chlorophenol
U
P
96% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
11 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IK-
9
p-Chlorophenol
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 33 hrs.
See IK-5
for comments.
66
1—4 1
- 7
o ' j
m-Cresol
U
P
96% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
55 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IK-
1 L
1
o-Cresol
« U
P
95% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
54 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
i
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
b
Description of Study
No.
Chemical
S tudy
Type c
Waste
Type d
Inf luent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
IK-
12
p-Cresol
U
P
95.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of, biodegradation
55 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
01
I K-
13
2, 4-Diainino-
phenol
U
P
03% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
12 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
01
IK-
11
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
U
P
98% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
10.5 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
IK-
15
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
R
U
60 ppm
Biodegradable in 5 days.
90
IK-
16
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
U
I
200 ppm
100% reduction in 35 hrs.
See IK-5
for comments.
90
IK-
17
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 33 hrs.
See IK-5
for comments.
90
IK-
10
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
L
I
64 ppm
98% reduction in 5 days
Subjected to continuous
aeration.
115
1
* **1
' < 1
2,5-Dichloro-
phenol
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 38 hrs.
See IK-5
for comments.
66
IK-
20
2,6-Dichloro-
phenol
L
I
64 ppm
99% reduction in 5 days.
See IK-10
for comments.
1 15
IK-
21
2,3-Dimethy1-
phenol
U
P
95.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
3 5 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
01
1K-
22
2,4-Dime thy1-
phenol
U
P
94.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
28.2mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
01
I K-
23
2,5-Dimethyl-
phenol
U
P
94.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
10.6 ing COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
(continue
d)
1
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type d
f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
1K-
24
2,6-Dimethyl-
phenol
U
P
94.3% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
9 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
^5
3,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
U
P
97.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
13.4 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
01
IK-
26
3,5-Dimethyl-
phenol
U
P
89.3% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
11.1 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludcje
process.
01
IK-
27
IK-
20
2,4-Din itro-
phenol
0
S
1 ppm
Maximum uptake was 27.7ppm
02/hr after 120 hrs of
aeration
117
5 ppm
Maximum O2 uptake was 21.3ppm
02/hr after 120 hrs of
aeration.
2,4-Din itro-
phenol
U
P
85% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
6 mg COD/g hr.
ActivaLed sludge
process.
81
"01 "
IK-
29
IK-
30
m-Nitrophenol
P"
U
P
95% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
17.5 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
o-Nitrophenol
U
P
97% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
14 ing COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
1 K-
31
o-Ni trophenol
U
I
1275 ppb
< 98.1% reduction.
Powder activated carbon
& activated sludge
treatment.
50
IK-
32
p-Nitrophenol
U
I
725 ppb
< 99.5* reduction.
See IK- 31
for comments.
50
d)
1
(continue
-------
TABLE E -l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biolocjical Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
IK-
33
Pentachloro-
phenol
L
P
200 ppm
26% reduction in 120 hrs.
See IK-5
for comments.
66
IK-
34
Pentachloro-
phenol
L
P
200 ppm
26% reduction in 120 hrs.
See IK-5
for comments.
92
IK-
35
Phenol
R
U
150-200
ppm
90-95% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
90
IK-
36
Phenol
U
I
19 ppm
< 99.9% reduction.
See IK- 31
for comments.
58
IK-
37
Phenol
F
I
200 ppm
95% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
118
IK-
38
Phenol
F
I
5 ppm
71% reduction.
Acclimated aerobic
culture.
119
18 ppm
62% reduction.
IK-
39
Phenol
0
D
500 ppm
11.6% of TOD exerted after
72 hrs of oxidation.
106
IK-
40
Phenol
0
0
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited for first
24 hrs of oxidation. 41.2%
TOD exerted in 144 hrs.
108
IK-
41
Phenol
B,C
I
120 ppm
@ 5 00 gpm
< 200 ppb effluent conc.
Activated sludge
process.
88
IK-
42
Phenol
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 8 hrs.
See IK- 5
for comments.
66
IK-
43
Phenol
U
I
500 ppin
100% reduction in 10 hrs.
See IK- 5
for comments.
92
IK-
44
p-Phenylazo-
phenol
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited.
108
' 5
•'6
Sodium Penta-
chlorophenol
L
D
15 ppm
0% reduction.
120
2,3,5-Trichlo-
rophenol
U
I
200 ppm
100% reduction in 55 hrs.
See IK- 5
for comments.
92
(continue
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
IK-
47
2,3,5-Trichlo-
rophenol
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 52 hrs.
See IK-5
for comments.
66
IK-
IB
2,4, 5~7j:ichlo-
rophenol
L
D
18.B ppm
99% reduction in 6.5 days.
See IK-18
for comments.
115
IK-
49
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
R
U
20 ppm
Biodegradable in 5 days.
90
IK-
50
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
L
P
200 ppm
100% reduction in 50 hrs.
See IK- 5
for comments.
66
IK-
51
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
0
S
1-10 ppm
O2 uptake showed no inhibi-
tory effect.
102
50-100ppm
0y uptake inhibited.
IK-
52
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
L
D
99% reduction in 5 days.
See IK- 18
for comments.
115
1
!
1
i
i
3
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Phthalates (I,)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IL-
1
Bis(2-ethylhex-
yl) Phthalate
R
U
5 ppm
70-70% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
90
IL-
2
Butylbenzyl
Phthalate
R
U
Biodegradable.
90
IL-
3
Di-N-Butyl
Phthalate
R
U
Biodegradable in an environ-
mental system at a level of
200 ppm.
90
IL-
4
Diethyl
Phthalate
R
U
Biodegradable.
90
IL-
5
Di (2-ethylhex-
yl) Phthalate
F
I
50-70% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
100
IL-
6
Dimethyl
Phthalate
R
U
Biodegradable, no inhibition
of bacteria at levels of
1000 ppm.
90
IL-
7
Dimethyl
Phthalate
U
S
215 ppb
100% reduction.
21
IL-
0
Di-N-Octy1
Phthalate
R
U
Biodegradable in an environ-
mental system at a level of
6 3 ppm.
90
IL-
9
Isophthalic
Acid
U
P
95% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
70.4 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
01
IL-
10
Phthalimide
U
P
96.2% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
20.8 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
01
IL-
11
Phthalic Acid
U
P
96.8% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
78.4 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
01
(continue
d)
i
-------
TABLE f.- 1 (continued)
Cohcentrat ion Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Re f .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influen t
Char.
IM-
1
Anthracene
0
D
500 ppm
Toxic or inhibitory for up
to 24 hrs.
100
IM-
2
Benzanthracene
0
D
500 ppm
Slowly oxidized; 2.1% of
TOD exerted in 144 hrs of
oxidation.
100
~90"
IM-
3
Benzoperylene
R
U
Biodegradable from a cone,
of 4 x 10"7 mg/1.
IM-
4
D-Chloramphe-
nicol
U
P
06.2% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
3.3 mg COD/g hr.
Activated sludge
process.
81
1M-
5
a,u '-Diethyl-
stilbenediol
0
D
O2 uptake inhibited.
108
IM-
6
9,10-Dimethyl-
anthracene
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake was not inhibited.
Up to 19.5% of TOD was
exerted after 144 hr of
oxidation.
100
IM-
7
9,10-Dimethyl-
1,2-benzan-
thracene
0
D
500 ppm
Slowly oxidized; 12.7% of
TOD exerted after 144 hr
of oxidation.
TM-
8
1,2-Diphenyl-
hydrazine
F,C
D
341 ppb
@ 45 MGD
20% reduction.
Activated sludge
-process.
01
IM-
9
7-Methyl-l,2-
benzan thracene
0
D
500 ppm
O2 uptake inhibited at
least 24 hrs.
] 00
IM-
10
20-Methyl-
cholanthrene"
0
D
500 ppm
Chemical showed both toxic
or inhibitory effect & the
ability to undergo slow
biological oxidation.
100
100
IM-
11
Naphthalene
F
I
70-90% reduction.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
(cont i nuc
'd)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aroinatics (M)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type c
Was te
Type ^
Influent
Char .
IM-
12
Naphthalene
F
I
85-95% reduction.
Completely mixed
aerated lagoon
101
Too"
~56~
d)
IM-
13
Naphthalene
O
D
500 ppm
02 uptake inhibited for
24 hrs.
IM-
14
Naphthalene
F
I
BOD load
of
4 2 1b/dav/
1000 ft*
85-95% reduction.
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
-------
TABLE E-l(conLinued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Aroma tics (D)
a
No.
I)
Chemical
Deiicr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type d
)f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
I
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
Chemical
II
F-
1
Carbon Tetra-
chloride
II
F-
2
Trichloro-
ethylene
Description of Study
Study
Type c
Waste
Type '
D+P
D+P
Influent
Char.
140 ppb
103 ppb
Results of Study
51% reduction w/al
urn.
40% reduction w/ali
Comments
Chemical coagulation
was followed by dual
media filtration.
See IIf-1
for comments.
i
cr»
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ret .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
II
G-
1
Antimony
P
S
600 ppb
62% reduction w/alum; 28%
reduction w/lime.
3 coagulants used: 220
ppm of alum @ pll-6.4.
40 ppm of ferric chlo-
ride @ pH=6.2; 415 ppm
of lime @ pll=11. 5 ;
Chemical coagulation
was followed by dual
media filtration.
39
63
500 ppb
65% reduction w/ferric
chloride.
II
G-
2
Arsenic
P
D+P
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7.0
Iron system- 90% reduction;
Low lime system- 80% reduc-
tion; High lime system- 76%
reduction.
3 coagulant systems
were used: Iron sys-
tem used 45 ppm as Fe
of Fe 2 (SOi, ) 3 @pll=6 . 0 .
Low lime system used
20 ppm as Fe of E'e2
(S0i,)3 260 ppm of CaO
@ pH=10.0. High lime
system used 600 ppm of
CaO @ pH=l1.5. Chemi-
cal coagulation was
followed by multimedia
filtration.
II
G-
3
Arsenic
F.C
D
2.5 ppb
56% reduction w/lime.
Lime dose of 350-400ppin
as calcium oxide @
pH=11.3.
64
3.3 ppb
24% reduction w/lime.
II
G-
4
Ar s^r* ic
(As 5)
R
U
25 ppm
97% reduction by lime soften-
ing .
90
21 ppm
94% reduction by precipita-
tion w/alum.
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
II
G-
5
Barium
F,C
D
01 ppb
49% reduction w/lime.
See IIG-3
for comments.
64
81 ppb
36% reduction w/lime.
II
G-
6
-II-
G-
7
Barium
P
D+P
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pU=7.0
Iron system- 94% reduction;
Low lime sytem-99% reduction
High lime system-78% reduc-
tion .
See IIG-2
for comments.
63
Barium
P
S
500 ppb
79% reduction w/alum.
See IIG- i
for comments.
39
II
G-
8
Beryllium
R
U
100 ppb
97.8% reduction by lime
softening.
90
II
G-
9
Beryllium
P
S
100 ppb
98.1% reduction w/alum;
94% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 99.4% reduction w/lime
See IIG- 1
for comments.
39
II
G-
10
Bismuth
P
S
600 ppb
95.5% reduction w/ alum.
95.3% reduction w/lime.
See IIG- 1
for comments.
39
39_
500 ppb
94% reduction w/ferric
chloride.
II
G-
11
Cadmium
P
S
700 ppb
45% reduction by ferric
chloride.
See IIG- 1
for comments.
II
G-
1 12
Cadmium
P
n+p
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7.0
Iron system- 93% reduction;
Low lime system-95% reductior
High lime system-98% reduc-
tion.
See IIG-2
for comments.
63
n _
Cadmium
F.C
D
29 ppb
92% reduction w/lime.
See IIG- 3
64
9 ppb
60% reduction w/lirne.
for comments.
1
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
d
Type
Influent
Char.
II
G-
14
Chromium
L,C
S
5.2 ppm
26.9% reduction w/lime.
Lime dose of 50 ppm
added.
16
II
G-
15
Chromium
F,C
D
154 ppb
37% reduction w/lime.
See IIG-3 for
commehts.
64
192 ppb
54% reduction w/lime.
II
G-
16
Chromium
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification : Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Re f .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Cha r.
T I
C-
23
Coppe r
P
D+P
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7.0
Iron system- 95.6% reduction
Low lime system-92.8% reduc-
tion; High lime 6ystem- 04*
reduction.
See IIG-2
for comments.
63
II
c-
24
Copper
F/C
D
266 ppb
73% reduction w/lime.
See IIG- 3
for comments.
64
285 ppb
93% reduction w/lime.
II
G-
25
Copper
R
U
15 ppm
96% reduction.
90
II
G-
26
Iron
L,C
S
10 ppm
99% reduction w/lime.
See IIG- 14
for comments.
16
II
G-
27
Iron
P
DfP
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pll=7 .0
Iron system- 26% reduction;
Low lime system-94%reduction
See IIG- 2
for comments.
63
II
C-
28
Iron
F,C
D
179 ppb
91% reduction w/lime.
See IIG- 3
for comments.
64
325 ppb
80% reduction w/lime.
II
G-
29
Lead
L,C
S
4 .9 ppm
100% reduction w/lime.
See IIG- 14
for comments.
16
11
G-
30
Lead
P
D+P
5 ppm @
4 gpm <3
pH=7.0
Iron system- 99% reduction;
Low lime system-99% reductioi
High lime system-90% reduc -
t ion .
See IIG- 2
for comments.
63
> 1
Lead
F,C
D
40 ppb
43% reduction w/lime.
See IIG- 3
for comments.
64
••«!)
t
19 ppb
81% reduction w/lime.
(cont illlK
-------
TABLEE -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
II
G-
32
Lead
R
U
330 ppb
94.4% reduction w/lime.
Lime dose of 400 ppm
added.
90
II
G-
.13
"Ti"
G-
34
Lead
P
S
600 ppb
95.5% reduction w/alum.
See IIG-1
for comments.
39
Manganese
P
S
700 ppb
30% reduction w/alum.
See IIG-l
for comments.
39
II
G-
3 5
Manganese
P
D+P
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7.0
Iron system- 10% reduction;
Low lime system-93% reduc-
tion! High lime system-98%
reduction.
See IIG-2
for comments.
63
II
G-
36
Manganese
F,C
D
35 ppb
87% reduction w/lime.
See IIG-3
for comments.
64
~63 _
~64
38 ppb
96% reduction w/lime.
11
G-
37
Mercury
P
DfP
0.5 ppm
@ 4 gpm
@ pH=7.0
High lime system-70% reduc-
tion .
See IIG-2
for comments.
II
G-
30
Mercury
F.C
D
9 ppb
71% reduction w/lime.
See IIG-3
for comments.
1.2 ppb
25% reduction w/lime.
II
G-
39
Mercury
P
S
500 ppb
70% reduction w/lime.
See IIG-1
for comments.
39
60 ppb
94% reduction w/alum.
50 ppb
90% reduction w/ferric
chlor ide.
II
G-
Molybdenum
P
S
600 ppb
68% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 0% reduction w/alum.
See IIG-]
for comments.
39
' 40
500 ppb
0% reduction w/lime.
(continue
id)
i
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Re f .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
II
G-
41
Nickel
P
S
900 ppb
25% reduction w/alum.
See IIG-1
for comments.
39
~L6
~63
II
G-
42
Nickel
L,C
S
4 .8 ppm
100% reduction w/lime.
See IIG-14
for comments.
II
G-
13
Nickel
P
D+P
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7.0
Iron system- 10% reduction;
Low lime system-94% reduc-
tion; High lime system-97%
reduction.
See IIG-2
for comments.
II
G-
44
Nickel
R
1/
52.4% reduction w/liine.
Lime dose of 400 ppm
added.
90
11
G-
15
Selenium
P
S
100 ppb
75% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride .
See IIG-1
for comments.
39
500 ppb
35% reduction w/lime; 40%-
reduction w/alum.
II
G-
46
Selen ium
F,C
D
<2.5 ppb
0% reduction w/lime.
See IIG-3
for comments.
64
To "
"39
6.5 ppb
0% reduction w/lime.
II
G-
17
Selenium
R
U
100 ppm
80% reduction w/ferric
sulfate.
Ferric sulfate dose
of 100 ppm.
II
G-
40
Si Ivor
P
S
500 ppb
98.2% reduction w/ferric
chloride; 97.1% reduction
w/1ime.
See IIG-1
for comments.
"I
. j ~
"9
600 ppb
96.9% reduction w/alum.
Silver
F.C
D
5.5 ppb
05% reduction w/lime.
See IIG-3
for comments.
64
13 ppb
38% reduction w/lime.
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E_Kc°ntinued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Cha r.
II
G-
50
Silver
R
U
500 ppm
96% reduction w/lime.
90
II
G-
51
Tha11ium
R
U
500 ppb
54% reduction w/liine.
90
II
G-
52
Thallium
P
S
600 ppb
30% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 31% reduction w/alum.
See IIG-1
for comments.
39
500 ppb
60% reduction w/lime.
II
G-
53
Tin
P
S
500 ppb
90% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 92% reduction w/lime.
See IIG-1
for comments.
39
600 ppb
95.3% reduction w/alum.
II
G-
54
Ti tanium
P
S
500 ppb
98% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 95.5% reduction w/lime
See IIG-1
for comments.
39
600 ppb
95.8% reduction w/alum.
II
G-
55
Vanadium
P
S
500 ppb
97.2% reduction w/ferric
chloride; 94% reduction w/
alum; 57% reduction w/liine.
See IIG-l
for comments.
39
II
G-
56
Zinc
P
S
2.5 ppm
1% reduction w/alum.
See IIG-1
for comments.
39
II
G-
57
Zinc
P
D+P
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7.0
Iron system- 63% reduction;
Low lime system-85% reduc-
tion; High lime system-76%
reduction.
See IIG-2
for comments.
63
II
G-
¦ 58
Zinc
L,C
S
6 . 4 ppm
100% reduction w/lime.
i
See IIG-14
for comments.
16
)
(continue
!<1)
i
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Re f .
Study
Type c
Was te
Type d
Influent
Char.
II
G-
59
Zinc
F,C
D
300 ppb
90% reduction w/lime.
See IIG-3
for comments.
1
1
T 1 o
\0 1 &
380 ppb
37% reduction w/lime.
11
G-
60
Zinc
R
U
40.6% reduction by
sedimentation.
i I
G-
61
Zinc
R
U
91.4% reduction w/lime.
Lime dose of 400 ppm
added.
90
(continue
d)
I
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type C
Waste
Type ^
In fluent
Char.
II
J-
1
DDT
L/C
R+P
10 ppb
98% reduction w/alum.
Chemical coagulation
was followed by sand
filtration.
6
6
II
J-
2
Dieldrin
L,C
R+P
10 ppb
55% reduction w/alum.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
II
J-
3
Endrin
L.C
R+P
10 ppb
35% reduction w/alum.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
6
II
J-
4
II
J-
5
Lindane
L,C
R+P
10 ppb
<10% reduction w/alum.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
6
6
6
Parathion
L/C
R+P
10 ppb
5% reduction w/alum.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
II
J-
6
2,4,5-T ester
L,C
R+P
10 ppb
65% reduction w/alum.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
i
(continue
d)
i
-------
TABLE E "1(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Phthalates (L)
a
No.
. b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Re f .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Inf luent
Char.
II
L-
1
Bis (2-ethyl-
hexyl)Phtha-
late
R
U
0.5-3.5
ppb @
pH=10.0
80-90% reduction w/A1.2(S04)3
90
II
L-
2
Di-n-Butyl
Phthalate
R
U
2.5-4.5
ppb @
pH=l0.0
60-70% reduction w/Al2(50^)3
90
21~
11
L-
3
Dimethyl
Phthalate
R
D+P
10 3 ppb
15% reduction w/alum.
Chemical coagulation
was followed by dual
media filtration.
(cont inue
d)
-------
TABLEE'1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
II
M-
1
Acenaphthene
R
U
0.1-0.9
ppm
Precipitation w/alum.
90
II
M-
2
TT~
M-
3
Acenaphthylene
R
U
0.1-0.9
ppm
Precipitation w/alum.
90
Benzanthracene
R
U
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
90
II
M-
4
11,12-Benzo-
fluoranthene
R
U
Separable by yravity or sand
filtration.
90
II
M-
5
1,12-Benzo-
perylene
R
U
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
90
~9() "
II
M-
6
Benzo(a)-
pyrene
R
U
Separable by gravity or sand
filtrat ion.
II
M-
7
2-Chloro-
Napthalene
R
u
0.1-0.9
ppm
Precipitation w/alum.
90
II
M-
8
Chrysene
R
u
Separable by yravity or sand
filtration.
90
II
M-
9
Naphthalene
R
u
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
90
'
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical C)assification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
a
No.
Chemicalb
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
II
M-
10
2,3-o-Phenylene
Pyrene
R
U
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
90
9cT
II
M-
11
Pyrehe
R
U
Separable by iiravity or sand
filtration.
(continue
d)
I
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Commen ts
Ref .
S tudy
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char .
Ill
A-
1
Ethanol
B
P
1000 ppm
@ 150 mis
21.4% reduction w/CA membrane
70.3% reduction w/C-PEX mem-
brane .
CA and C-PEl membranes
operated at 600 psig
and room temperature.
10
I T I
A-
2
Ethanol
L
P
1000 ppm
80-100% reduction w/NS-200
membrane; 60-80% reduction
w/NS-100-T membrane; 40-60%
reduction w/AP & NS-100 mem-
branes; 20-40% reduction w/
CA3 & B-9 membranes; <20%
reduction w/CA, CA-T, CAB,
PBI, SPPO £ B-10 membranes.
30
III
A-
3
Methanol
B
P
1000 ppm
@ 150 mis
7.3% reduction w/CA membrane;
20% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
See IIIA- 1
for comments.
18
III
A-
4
Methanol
L
P
1000 ppm
20-40% reduction w/B-9, NS-
200 £ NS-100T membranes;
<20% reduction w/B-10, AP,
SPPO, PBI, NS-100 membranes;
0% reduction w/CA, CA-T, CAB
& CA3 membranes.
30
III
A-
5
i-Propanol
B
P
1000 ppm
@ 150 mis
40.9% reduction w/CA membrane
80.1% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
See IIIA- 1
for comments.
18
III
A-
6
i
i-Propanol
L
P
1000 ppm
80-100% reduction w/NS-100,
NS-100T, NS-200, AP, B-9 £
B-10 membranes; 40-60% re-
duction w/CA-T, CA & CA3 mem-
branes; 20-40% reduction w/
SPPO, PBI Si CAB membranes.
30
(continue
•d)
i
-------
TABLE E~ 1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
Ill
B-
1
Acetic Acid
B
P
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
32% reduction w/CA membrane;
68.1% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane.
CA and C-PEI membranes
operated at 600 psig k
room temperature.
18
III
B-
2
Acetic Acid
L
P
1000 ppm
60-80% reduction w/AP, NS-20C
& NS-100T membranes; 40-60%
reduction w/NS-100 membrane;
20-40% reduction w/SPPO, B-9
& B-10 membranes; <20% re-
duction w/PBI, CA3, CAB,
CA-T & CA membranes.
i
30
III
B-
3
Ace tone
B
P
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
14.9% reduction w/CA membrane
81.8% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane.
See 11IB- 1
for comments.
18
~icT
III
n-
4
Acetone
L
P
1000 ppm
80-100% reduction w/NS-200 &
NS-100-T membrances; 60-80%
reduction w/AP S. NS-100 mem-
branes; 40-60% reduction w/
B-9 & B-10 membranes; 20-40%
reduction w/CA3 membrane;
<20% reduction w/SPPO, PBI,
CAB, CA-T & CA membranes.
III
n-
5
Dimethyl Sulf-
oxide
B
P
250 ppm
88.2% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 63.3% reduction
w/C-PEi membrane.
See IIIB-1
for comments.
18
I u
: 3-
6
Formaldehyde
B
P
1000 ppm
21.9% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 56.7% reduction w/
C-PEI membrane.
See IIIB-1
for comments.
18
t
Formaldehyde
1
L
P
1000 ppm
60-80% reduction w/NS-200
membrane; 40-60% reduction
w/AP, NS-100, CAB 6. NS-100-T
(continue
30
i
-------
TABLE
E -1(continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
S tudy
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Ill
H-
7
cont
membranes; 20-40% reduction
w/B-9, CA3 & CA-T membranes;
<20% reduction w/CA, PBI,
SPPO & B-10 membranes.
III
B-
0
Glycerol
B
P
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
09.9% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 97.8% reduction
w/C-PEI membrane.
See 11IB-1
for comments.
18
III
B-
9
Glycerol
L
P
1000 ppm
B0-100% reduction w/CA-T,
CAB, CA3, NS-100, NS-100T,
NS-200, AP, B-9 & B-10 mem-
branes; 60-80% reduction
w/CA membrane; 40-60% re-
duction w/PBI membrane; 20-
40% reduction w/SPPO membrane
30
III
B-
10
Methyl Acetate
B
P
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
4.6% reduction w/CA membrane
76.1% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane.
See IIIB-1
for comments.
18
III
fi-
ll
Methyl Acetate
L
P
1000 ppm
60-80% reduction w/NS-200,
NS-100-T & NS-100 membranes;
40-60% reduction w/B-9 mem-
brane; 20-40% reduction
w/B-10, AP £> CA-T membranes;
<20% reduction w/SPPO,PBI &
CA3 membranes; 0% reduction
w/CA & CAB membranes.
30
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type ^
>f Study
Influent
Char.
Uesults of Study
Comments
Kef .
Ill
c-
1
III"
c-
2
Aniline
B
P
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
-3.4% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 82.9% reduction
w/c-PEI membrane.
CA £> C-PEI membranes
operated at 600 psig &
room temperature.
18
30
Aniline
L
P
1000 ppm
80-100% reduction w/NS-100-T
membrane; 60-80% reduction
w/B-10, NS-200 & NS-100 mem-
branes; 40-60% reduction
w/B-9 membrane; 20-40% re-
duction w/AP, CA3 & CAB mem-
branes; <20% reduction
w/SPPO & PBI membranes; 0%
reduction w/CA & CA-T
membranes.
(continue
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
b
Cheinica 1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type
Influent
Char .
Ill
D-
1
Chlorobenzene
R
U
<360 ppm
97-100% reduction @ 50-100
kg/cm .
90
III
D-
2
Dini trobenzene
B
P
3 0 ppm
@ 150 ml
7.2% reduction w/CA membrane
Bl.4% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane.
CA & C-PEI membranes
operated @ 600 psiij &
room temperature.
18
T.TI
D-
3
2,4-Dini tro-
phenylhydra-
zine
B
P
30 ppm
0 150 ml
3.2% reduction w/CA membrane
91.1% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane.
See HID- 2
for comments.
10
III
n-
4
Hexachloro-
benzene
R
U
638 ppm
52% reduction.
90
III
D-
5
llydroquinone
B
P
1000 ppm
-2.5% reduction w/CA membrane
79.7% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
CA St C-PEI membranes
operated @ 600 psiy &
room temperature.
18
30~
III
D-
6
llydroquinone
L
P
1000 ppm
00-100% reduction w/AP t
NS-200 membranes; 60-00% re-
duction w/B-10, NS-100-T fit
NS-100 membranes; 40-60% re-
duction w/B-9 membrane; 20-
40% reduction w/SPPO S, CAB
membranes; <20% reduction
w/PBI & CA3 membranes; 0% re-
duction w/CA £. CA-T membranes
(continu(
2d)
i
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Ethers (E)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comnien ts
Ref .
Study
Type c
Was te
Type d
Influent
Char.
Ill
E-
1
bi s (2-Chloro-
i sopropyl)
Ether
B
P
250 ppm
0 150 ml
37.3% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 94% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane.
CA & C-PEI membrane
operated at 600 psig
& room temperature.
10
III
E-
2
Diethyl Ether
B
P
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
¦9.5% reduction w/CA membrane
90.3% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane.
See 11 IE- 1
for comments.
18
IT I
E-
3
Ethyl Ether
L
P
1000 ppm
00-100% reduction W/AP,
NS-200, NS-100-T (, NS-100
membranes; 60-00% reduction
w/B-10 membrane; 40-60% re-
duction w/B-9, SPPO & PBI
membranes; 20-40% reduction
CAB & CA3 membranes; <20%
reduction w/CA-T K. CA
membranes.
30
(continue
<1)
i
-------
TABLE E~1(continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type ^
>£ Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Ill
F-
1
Trichloroace-
tic Acid
B
P
250 ppm
@ 150 ml
49.3% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 25% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane.
CA & C-PEI membrane
operated at 600 psig &
room temperature.
10
(continue
d)
-------
TABLEe-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Uef .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
In f luen t
Char.
Ill
G-
1
Barium
n
P
0.75 ppm
>06.7% reduction w/CA membrane
CA membrane operated
at 400 psig & I6-22°C.
18
~l8~~
0.B 5 ppm
>80.2% reduction w/CA membrane
9.15 ppm
97.8% reduction w/CA membrane
7.05 ppm
>98.6% reduction w/CA membrane
III
G-
2
Cadmium
B
P
0.10 ppm
90% reduction w/CA membrane
See IIIG-i
for comments.
0.10 ppm
90% reduction w/CA membrane
0.96 ppm
99% reduction w/CA membrane
1.0 ppm
98.7% reduction w/CA membrane
III
G-
3_
III
G-
4
'TFT
G-
5
Tl r
G-
6
I II
G-
7
:::
Chromic Acid
L,C
I
200 ppm
@ 20
B
P
12.5 ppin
99.9% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pll=8.0 & 11.0.
See II1G- 4
for comments.
Copper
B
P
0.65 ppm
97% reduction w/CA membrane
See IIIG- 1
for comments.
0.7 ppm
94.8% reduction w/CA membrane
6.25 ppm
99.6% reduction w/CA membrane
6.5 ppm
99.2% reduction w/CA membrane
I ron
B
P
12.5 ppm
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=8.0 & 11.0.
See IIIG-4
for comments.
1
!
(conl l inu
-------
TABLEE'1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Ill
G-9
Lead ,,
B
P
12.5 ppin
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pU=8.0 & 11.0.
See IIIG-4
for comments.
18
III
G-
10
Lead
B
P
0.95 ppm
99.5% reduction w/CA membrane
See IIIG-1
for comments.
10
1.1 ppm
97.8% reduction w/CA membrane
4.75 ppm
99.9% reduction w/CA membrane
9.3 ppm
97.8% reduction w/CA membrane
III
C-
U
N i ckel
B
P
12.5 ppm
92.8% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pM=8.0.
See IIIG-4
for comments.
18
12.5 ppm
97.6% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=11.0.
III
G-
12
Zinc
B
P
12.5 ppm
96.6% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pll=8.0.
See IIIG-l
for comments.
10
~To~
12.5 ppm
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=11.0.
III
C-
1 3
Zi nc
B
P
9.4 ppm
96.9% reduction w/CA membrane
See 11IG- 1
for comments.
10.0 ppm
98.6% reduction w/CA membrane
31.4 ppm
98.0% reduction w/CA membrane
3 2.0 ppm
99.5% reduction w/CA membrane
i
I
j
t
i
(conti mil
'd)
t
-------
TABLEE -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Ill
J-
1
Aldrin
B
P
142 pg
100% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
CA E. C-PEI membranes
operated at 600 psig &
room temperature.
18
III
J-
2
Atrazine
B
P
1102 pg
84% reduction w/CA membrane
97.8% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
18
III
J-
3
Captan
B
P
689 pg
98.8% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
18
III
J-
4
DDE
B
P
69 pg
100% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane.
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
18
~rr
18 "
III
J-
5
DDT
B
P
42 pg
100% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
III
J-
6
Diazi non
B
P
474 pg
98.3% reduction w/CA membrane
88.1% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
See IIIJ-l
for comments.
III
J-
7
Dieldrin
B
P
321 pg
99.9% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
10
III
J-
Q
lleptachlor
B
P
145 pg
100% reduction w/CA & C-PEI
membranes.
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
18
III
J-
9
Heptachlor-
epoxide
B
P
307 pg
99.8% reduction w/CA L C-PEI
membranes.
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
18
i 111
•J-
10
Lindane
B
P
506 pg
99.5% reduction w/CA membrane
99.0% reductiofi w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
18
(conLinui
•d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process-. Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Ill
J-
Malathion
B
P
1050 jig
99.2% reduction w/CA membrane
99.7% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
See IIIJ-i
for comments.
10
IfT
III
J-
1/
itT
J-
13
Methyl
Parathion
D
P
913 pg
99.6% reduction w/CA & C-PEI
membranes.
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
Parathion
B
P
747 pg
99.9% reduction w/CA membrane
99.8% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
18
III
J-
] 4
"TiT
j-
15
Randox
B
P
327 pg
72% reduction w/CA membrane
98.6% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
10
—In~
Trifluralin
B
P
1579 |ig
99.7% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
(continue
<0
1
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Conimen ts
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
In fluent
Char.
Ill
K-
1
2-Chlorophenol
n
U
66.3% reduction.
90
90
90
III
K-
2
4-Nitrophenol
R
U
Removable by reverse osmosis.
III
K-
3
Phenol
R
U
17.£)% reduction.
III
K-
4
Plie no 1
B
P
1000 ppm
-5.7% reduction w/CA membrane
76.5% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
10
III
K-
5
Phenol
>i.
P
S
1-100mg/l
each of
phenol,
resorcin-
ol, o-
cresol,
catechol
In excess of 90% separation
at pH 8-10 w/optimum at pH 9
at flux rate of about 70 gpd/
ft^. Results indicate Lhat
hyperfiltration (reverse os-
mosis) produced higher re-
jection & flux rates than
ultrafiltration. Increasing
pressure improves rejection
slightly & flux rate greatly.
Increasing pH increased re-
jection w/little effect on
flux rate. Cone, had little
effect on either rejection
or flux rate.
Size: 60-130 gpd/ft^
flux. Duration: O-GOhrt
Pressure: 250-950 psicj.
Velocity: 15 fps. Mem-
branes: Hydrous Zr (IV)
oxide-PAA membrane on
carbon stainless steel
& selas support.
54
cl)
(continue
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Ultrafiltration (IV)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type d
>f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Conunen ts
Kef .
" !
TNT
(accounted for
90% of TOC)
L,C
I + P
20 ppm
TOC @
pH=l1.0
80% TOC reduction by PSAL
(Millipore) noncellulose
membrane.
Tl)S conc. was 1200 ppm.
Average pressure: 25-60
psi. Estimated cost
for full scale opera-
tion was $1.85/1000 gal
10
200 ppm
TOC @
pH=l1.0
93% TOC reduction by PSAL
(Millipore) noncellulose
membrane.
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE P-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Ultrafiltration (IV)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type d
>f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
IV
G-
1
Copper
C.P
I
0.44 ppm
0.08 ppm effluent conc.
59
IV
G-
2
Iron
C,P
I
6.8 ppm
1.0 ppm effluent conc.
59
IV
G-
3
Manganese
C.P
I
4.9 ppm
0.52 ppm effluent conc.
59
IV
G-
4
Zinc
C.P
I
1.8 ppm
0.38 ppm effluent conc.
59
(continue
U)
i
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: ultrafiltration (IV)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (fc)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type d
>f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
TV
K -
1
Phenols
P
s
1-100 ppm
each of
phenol,
resorcin-
ol, o-
cresol,
catechol
Maximum rejection was 75* at
pH 10; rejection increased
as pH increased. Ionic state
of solute rather than mem-
brane material controlled re-
jection rate. Increased
temp resulted in increased
flux rate but rejection rate
was only slightly affected.
Solute rejection was not
affected by length of oper-
ating time.
Sizes 30-160 gpd/ft^
flux. Duration: 0-200hr
Pressure: 200 psig.
Velocity: 15 fps
Temp: 25-55°C
Hydrous Zr(IV) oxide,
silicate membranes.
54
0)
XJ
0
o
d)
-------
TABLE E-]. (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Cliemical Classification: Aliphatics (U)'
a
No.
Chemicalb
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Was te
Type ^
>f Study
Influent
Char .
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
VB-
1
Aerylonitrile
R
U
Flash vaporization from
water by hiyh pressure
d ischarge.
90
(continue
d)
1
-------
TABLE E-i (continued)
Concentration Process: stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
VD-
1
VD-
2
Benzene
R
U
Air fi. steam strippable.
90
Ben zene
C,P
S
0.13 cjpin
f low
95-99% reduction by steajn
stripping.
Estimated cost of
§3.35/1000 gal based on
0.03 MGD
13
VD-
J
Chlorobenzene
R
U
Steam strippable.
90
vn-
4
Chlorobenzene
F.C
n
0.66 MJ/s
flow
60% reduction by air strip-
ping.
64
VD-
5
m-Dichloro-
ben zene
o-
R
u
Air & steam strippable.
90
VD-
6
p-Dichloro-
benzene
R
u
Steam strippable.
90
VD-
7
VD-
8
1,2-Dichloro-
benzene
F < C
D
0.66 MJ/s
flow
70% reduction by air strip-
ping.
64
1,3-Dich]oro-
benzene
F,C
D
0.66 MJ/s
flow
80% reduction by air strip-
ping.
64
VD-
9
1,4-Dichloro-
benzene
F i C
D
0.66 MJ/s
f ] ow
90% reduction by air strip-
ping.
64
64~~
VD-
10
Ethylbenzene
F, C
D
0.66 MJ/s
flow
00% reduction by air strip-
ping.
vn-
11
Hthylbenzene
R
U
Air £ steam strippable.
90
VD-
12
I^thy lbenzene
P.C
S
0.13 gpm
f ] ow
86-93% reduction by steam
stripping.
See VD- 2
for comments.
13
64~
vn-
.1 j
Ilexachloro-
benzene
R
U
Steam strippable.
i
l
(continue
d)
1
-------
TAULE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No .
Chemica1^
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type d
)f Study
In fluent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
VD-
11
Ni trobenzene
R
U
450-2160
ppm
Steam strippable.
64
VD-
15
VD-
16
Styrene
P,C
S
0.13 gpm
flow
98-99% reduction by steam
strippina.
See VD-2
for comments.
13
Toluene
P.C
S
0.13 gpm
flow
73-92% reduction
See VD-2
for comments.
13
~90~~
VI)-
17
Toluene
R
U
Air & steam strippable.
VD-
18
1,2,4-Trichlo-
robenzene
P.C
D
0.66 M^/t;
50% reduction by air strip-
ping.
64
VD-
19
1,2,4-Tr ichlo-
robenzene
R
U
Steam strippable.
90
(cont inue
d)
-------
TABLE E -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: llalocarbons (F)
a
Description of Study
No.
Chemical
S tudy
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char .
Results of Study
Comments
f<0 t .
VF-
1
Bromodichlo-
romethane
R
U
Air & steam strippable.
90
vr—
_ 2
Dromomethane
R
u
Air strippable.
Gas at STP
90
vf-
3
Chloral
P,C
I
693.2 ppro
e
250ml/min
feed rate
Overhead
flow (%
of feed)
2.3
2.8
5.1
2. 3 with
1.4:1 re
flux to
overhead
ratio
Overhead
Cone.
(ppm)
1213.0
1163.6
1185.5
2332.3
Bottom
Cone.
(ppm)
171.9
177. 1
172.6
464. 3
Water quality:
TOC - 9022 ppm
COD - 15100 ppm
pM - 0.1
acidity - 102312 ppm
Cl-116,127 ppm
Numerous other halogens
present.
95
2.5 with
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2301.6
434.4
VF-
4
VF-
5
Chloroethane
R
u
90% evaporation from II2O-79
min with air stripping.
90
Chloroethy-
iene
R
u
Air strippable
Gas at STP
90
VF-
6
Chloroform
P,C
I
140.3 ppm
@
250ml/min
Overhead
flow (%
of feed)
Over head
Cone.
(ppm)
Bottom
Cone.
(ppm)
See VF-3
for comments.
*95
feed
rate
2.3
2.8
5.1
1185.1
882.4
830. 3
0
0
0
(continue
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption o
Waste
Type ^
f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
VF-
6
co nt
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone,
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 with 412.3 0
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 1124.3 64. 7
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
90~
~~90~
~ 90"
~90
VI'-
7
Chloromethane
R
U
Air strippable.
Gas at STP
VF-
8
Dibromochloro-
methane
R
U
Air & steam strippable.
VF-
9
VF-
10
1,1-Dichloro-
ethane
R
U
90% evaporation from II20 -
109 min with air stripping.
1,2-Dichloro-
ethane
R
U
Air & steam strippable.
1
(continue
id)
1
-------
TABLE E -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
b
Description of Study
No.
Chemical
Study
Waste
Influent
Results of Study
Comments
Re f .
Type c
Type
Char.
VF-
1,2-Dichloro-
P.C
I
1583. 3ppin
Overhead Overhead Bottom
See VF-3 for comments.
95
11
ethane
@ 250 ml/
flow (% Cone. Cone.
min feed
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
rate
2.3 350.8 373.7
2.8 269.7 1255.4
5.1 465.0 14.8
2.3 with 1320.9 16.1
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 679.9 0
0.9:1 re- .
flux to
overhead
ratio
VF-
1,1-Dichloro-
R
U
Air & steam strippable.
90
12
e thylene
VF-
1,2-trans-Di-
R
U
90% evaporation from M^O -
~9(T ~~
13
chloroethylene
83 min with air stripping.
VF-
I,1-Dichloro-
P,C
I
61.5 ppm
Overhead Overhead Bottom
See VF-3 for comments.
95
14
e thylene
@ 250 ml/
flow (% Cone. Cone.
min feed
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
rate
2.3 124.4 32.8
5.1 111.2 0
2.5 with 179.9 0
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Ptocgss Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
VP-
15
Chemica1
Dichloromethane
Description of Study
Study
Type c
P,C
Waste
Type '
Influent
Char.
800.9 ppm
@ 250 ml/
min feed
rate
Results of Study
Overhead
Overhead
Bottom
flow (%
Cone.
Cone.
of feed)
(ppm)
(ppm)
2.3
3511.8
114.1
2.8
3277.0
89. 5
5.1
2736.5
175. 6
2.3 with
1183.0
296. 3
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 wi th
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
5159.9
131.7
Comrnen ts
See VF-3 for comments.
He f .
95
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E -l(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
n
Description of Study
\—
No.
Chemical
Study
Waste
Influent
Results of Study
Comments
Re f .
Type c
Type a
Char .
VF-
Dichlorometh-
R
U
90% evaporation from II2O-6O
90
__1_6
ane
min with air stripping.
VF-
1,2-Dichloro-
R
U
Air & steam strippable.
90
17
propane
VF-
1,2-Dichloro-
R
U
Air & steam strippable.
90
10
propylene
VF-
ethylene
P.C
I
1593 ppm
Overhead Overhead Bottom
See VF-3
95
19
Dichloride
flow (% Cone. Cone.
for comments.
250ml/mir
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
feed rate
2.3 4383.5 42.2
2.8 4105.5 64.5
5.1 4731.5 43.1
2.3 with 3654.5 38.6
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
flow
2.5 with 5541.3 436.4
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
(continue
>1)
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process-. Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
b
Cherru cal
Description of Study
Results of Study
Cominen ts
Re f .
Study
Type c
Was te
Type d
Influent
Char.
V F-
20
Ethylene
Dichloride
P,C
I
Average
Gone, of
4512 ppm
@ ave.
feed rate
of
325ml/mir
Average Average Average
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow Cone. Cone,
(ml/min) (ppm) (ppm)
20.B 21.6 20.3
Wastewater quality:
COD - 615 ppm
TC - 1703 ppm
pH - 11.2
Alkalinity - 4840 ppm
CI - 6564 ppm
95
~66~~
VF-
21
VF-
22
Ethylene
Dichloride
P.C
I
8700 ppm
@ 10 gpm
f low ra te
99% reduction with average
stripping tower temperature
of 221 F.
Hexachloro-
butadiene
R
U
Air & steam strippable.
90
VF-
23
Hexachloro-
cyclopenta-
diene
R
U
Polymerizes with heat.
90
VF-
24
Perchloro-
ethylene
P.C
I
14.9 ppm
250ml/mir
feed rate
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone,
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 Not reported 6.8
2.8 50.2 0
2.5 with 9.6 0
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
See VF- 3
for comments.
95
V-
1,1,2-Tetra-
Moroethane
P.C
I
512.8ppm
@
250ml/min
feed rate
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone,
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 189.8 0
2.8 393.8 0.84
See VF- 3
for comments.
(cont i nue
95
d)
i
-------
TMILE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
No.
Chemica1
Description o£ Study
Study
Type c
Waste
Type 1
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Conimen ts
He
VI'-
25
COIlt
Overhead
Cone.
(ppm)
22 .7
25.0
Overhead
flow (%
of feed)
5.1
2.3 with
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 392.5
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Bottom
Cone.
(ppm)
0
0.5
1.6
VF-
26
1,1,2,2-Tetra-
chloroethane
P,C
14.9 ppm
Overhead
Overhead
Bottom
e
flow (%
Cone.
Cone.
250ml/min
of
feed)
(ppm)
(ppm)
feed rate
2.3
14.9
32.7
2.8
121.7
49.5
5.1
444 .4
78.4
2.
3 with
8.7
0
See VF-3
for comments.
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
24. 2
0.1
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type °
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
VF-
27
Totrachloro-
e thylene
R
U
Air & steam strippable, 90%
evaporation from UpO - 72 min
90
VF-
28
VF-
29
V F -
30
VF-
3)
Tetrachloro-
ino thane
R
U
Air & steam strippable, 90%
evaporation from H2O - 97 min
90
T r i b r omomc thane
R
U
Air & steam strippable.
90
1,1,1-Trichlo-
roe thane
R
U
Air £¦ steam strippable.
90
95
],1,1-Trichlo-
roe thane
P,C
I
50.92 ppm
@ 250 ml/
min feed
rate
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone,
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
See VF-3 for comments.
2.5 with 173.4 41.6
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
VF-
32
1,1,2-Trichlo-
roethane
R
U
Air £¦ steam strippable, 90%
evaporation from H2O- 102 min
90
VF-
33
I
L , 1,2-Trichlo-
roe thane
i
P,C
I
14.14 ppm
@ 250 ml/
min feed
rate
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone,
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
See VF-3 for comments.
(continue
95
Jd)
1
2.3 24.6 0.19
2.8 34.0 0
5.1 76.5 0
2.3 wi th 42.4 0
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
-------
TABLEE-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
Cheinica 1
Description of Study
Study
Type c
Waste
Type 1
In fluent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref
VF-
33
cont
M
I
O
cn
VF-
_34_
V~F-
35
Trichloro-
ethylene
Overhead
flow (%
of feed)
2.5 with
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Overhead
Cone.
tPPm>
66.1
Bottom
Cone.
(ppm)
Air £ steam strippable, 90%
evaporation from H?0-63 min.
90
Trichloro-
ethylene
VK- I Trichloro-
I p.o . hiane
P,C
250ml/mir
feed rate
Overhead
flow (%
of feed)
2.3
2.8
5.1
2.3 with
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Overhead
Cone.
(ppm)
640.8
567.0
627.4
640.8
Bottom
Cone.
(ppm)
34 .2
0
22.7
37.2
See VF-3
for comments.
95
644.5
Air & steam strippable, 90%
evaporation from ll?0—62 min.
90
(conti iuiimI )
i
-------
No .
Chemica1
TABLE E-l(continned)
Concentration Process: stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: phenols (K)
Description of Study
Study r~
Type
Waste
Type '
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref
VK-
1
VK-
Phenol
Clilorophenol
U
TP
Steam strippable.
Steain strippable.
90
90
PI
I
O
-J
(continued)
»
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatic
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (vil)
Chemical Classification: Aicohols (A)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type ^
>f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
VII
A-
1
F.thanol
L, C
I
286 ppm
7% reduction.
Extraction of neutral-
ized oxychlorination
wastewater using 2-ethyt
hexanol (S/W=0.106);
RDC extractor used.
27
(continue
d)
I
-------
TABLE E~1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
b
Chemical
Description o
f Study
No.
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
VII
B-
1
Acrolein
R
U
Extractable w/xylene. Sol-
vent recovery by azeotropic
distillation.
90
VII
B-
2
Acrylonitrile
R
U
Extractable w/ethyl ether.
90
VII
R-
3
Isophorone
R
U
Extractable w/ethyl ether.
90
VII
B-
4
Metliyl Ethyl
Ketone
L.C
I
12200ppm
@ 3.21
gal/hr
69% reduction.
Sequential extraction o(
waste water from lube-
oil refining using butyl
acetate (S/W=0.10) fi,
isobutylene (S/W=0.101);
RDC extractor used.
27
VT I
B-
5
Methyl Ethyl
Ketone
L,C
I
12200ppm
@ 3.21
gal/hr
88% reduction.
Sequential extraction of
waste water from lube-
oil refining using butyl
acetate (S/W=0.10) fi.
isobutylene (S/W=0.101);
RDC extractor used.
27
1
1
1
j
1
i
(continui
-
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
j-,
Description of Study
Chemical
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
VII
D-
1
Benzene
R
I)
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
90
VII
D-
2
Benzene
L,C
I
290 ppm
? 3 gal/hi
97% reduction.
Extraction of waste-
water from styrene man-
ufacture using isobuty-
lne (S/W=0.107); RDC
extractor used.
27
VII
D-
3
Benzene
L f L
I
71 ppm @
4.6 gal/
hr
96% reduction.
Extraction of ethylene
quench wastewater using
isobutylene (S/W=0.101)
ROC extractor used.
27
VII
D-
4
Benzene
L, C
I
B1 ppm @
4.6 gal/
hr
97% reduction.
Extraction of ethylene
quench wastewater usiny
isobutane (S/W=0.097);
RDC extractor used.
27
VII
D-
5
Chlorobenzene
R
U
600 ppm
3 ppm effluent conc. using
chloroform solvent.
90
VII
D-
6
o-Dichloro-
benzene
m-
P"
R
U
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
90
VII
D-
2,4-Dinitro-
toluene
R
I)
Extractable w/suitable '
solvent.
90
.6-Dinitro-
. :luene
R
U
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
90
(conlinu<
id)
i
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
VII
D-
9
Ethyl benzene
L, C
I
97* reduction.
See VIID-2
for coinine n t s .
27
VII
D-
10
E thylbenzene
R
U
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
90
9 0
V I I
D-
11
llexachloro-
benzene
R
U
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
VII
D-
12
N i t r oben ze ne
R
U
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
90
V I I
D-
13
S t y re ne
L , C
I
>93% reduction.
See VIID-2
for comments.
27
9 0
VII
D-
14
To luene
R
U
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
VII
D-
15
Toluene
L. C
I
4 1-44 ppm
@ 4.6
gal/hr
94%-96% reduction.
See VIID-3 & 4
for comme nt s.
2 7
~90~
V I I
[)-
16
1 , 2 , 4-Tr i-
chlorobenzene
R
u
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
VII
n-
17
Xylene
L , C
I
>97% reduction.
See VIID-3
for comments.
21
V T T
n-
Xylene
L , C
I
>97% reduction.
See VIID-4
for comment s.
27
id) —
i
(c011 L i ItLl(.
-------
TABLE E~1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Ethers (E)
a
Description of Study
No.
Chemical
Study
Type °
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
VII
1
bis-Chloro-
ethyl Ether
R
U
Extractable w/ethyl ether
£ benzene.
yo
V 1 1
E-
2
bis-Chloro-
isopropyl
Ether
R
U
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
90
(conl i iuu;
-------
TABLE E -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Commen ts
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
VII
F-
1
Bromodichlo-
rometnane
R
U
Soluble in most organics.
90
~90
VII
F-
2_
VII
F-
3
nromomethane
R
U
Soluble in most organics.
Chloral Hydratr
L,C
I
15200 ppn
49% reduction.
Extraction of neutral-
ized oxychlorination
wastewater using 2-
ethylhexanol (S/W=0.106)
RDC extractor used.
27
VII
F-
4
Chloroethane
R
U
Extractable w/alcohols and
aromatics.
90
VII
F-
5
Chloroethylene
R
U
Soluble in most organics.
90
90
VII
F-
6
Chloromethane
R
U
Soluble in most organics.
VII
^7
Dibromochloro-
methane
R
U
Extractable w/organics,
ethers and alcohols.
90
90
VII
F-
8
VII
P-
9
Dichlorodi-
f 1 uoromethane
R
U
Extractable w/organics,
ethers and alcohols.
1,1-Dichloro-
othane
R
U
Extractable w/alcohols and
aromatics.
90
! 1
i
I
(continue
Ml)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
b'
Chemical
Description of Study'
Results of Study
Comments
Re £ .
Study
Typec
Waste
Type d
In£luent
Char.
VII
F-
10
1,2-Dichloro-
ethane
R
U
Extractable w/alcohols and
aroma tics.
90
VII
F-
11
Dichloro-
ethylene
L,B
I
49 ppm
Kerosene effluent conc. -
2 ppm; Cio_Ci2 effluent
conc. - 1 + ppm
Solvent extraction used
separatory funnel w/ker-
osene & C)o-C|2 hydro-
carbon solvents at 7:1
solvent to wastewater
ratio.
95
VII
F-
12
Oichloro-
ethylene
L/C
I
1500 ppm
>99% reduction.
See VIIF-3
for comments.
27
VII
F-
13
1,1-Dichloro-
ethylene
R
U
Extractable w/alcohols,
aromatics and ethers.
90
VII
F-
14
VII
F-
15
1,2-trans-Di-
chloroethylene
R
U
Soluble in most organics.
90
1)0
Oichloromethane
R
U
Soluble in most organics.
VII
F-
16
1.2-Dichloro-
propane
R
U
Soluble in most orgarvics.
90
90
id)
i
VII
1,2-Dichloro-
• -rcyyiene
R
U
Soluble in most organics.
J
i
!
(continue
-------
TABLE E^l(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
b
Cltemi cal
Description of Study
Results of Study
Commen ts
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
VII
F-
ia
vfT
F-
19
Ethyl Chloride
L, B
I
3 ppm
Kerosene effluent conc. -
1 ppm; Cio~Cj2 hydrocarbon
effuent - 1 + ppm.
Solvent extraction used
separatory funnel w/
kerosene & Cjo-Cj2
hydrocarbon solvents at
7:1 solvent to waste-
water ratio.
95
Ethylene
Chlorohydrin
L,C
I
164 0 ppm
21% reduction.
See VIIF-3 for continents.
27
VII
F-
20
Ethylene
Dichloride
L, B
I
3 20 ppm
No detectable conc. in kero-
sene effluent; Cj0-Cj2 hydro-
carbon effluent - 1 + ppm.
See VIIF-9 for comments.
95
VII
F-
21
Ethylene
Dichloride
P.C
I
23-1804
ppm @
2.76-3.76
1/min
A 5.5:1 water to solvent ratir
gave 94-96% reduction. Citi-
es paraffin solvent at 5:1
to 16.5:1 water to solvent
ratio showed 94-99% reduction
Wastewater contained
other halocarbons in-
cluding 30-350 ppm
1,1,2-trichloroethane
and 5-197 ppm 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane. A
532 1/min extractor
w/1000 ppm influent es-
timated to have a capi-
tal cost of $315,000 and
total annual cost of
$143,000 including cred-
it for recovered EDC.
95
VII
F-
22
llexachloro-
butadiene
R
U
Soluble in most orqanics.
90
90
<1)
VII
e-
23
llexachloro-
e thane
R
U
Extractable w/aromatics,
alcohols and ethers
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification-. Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
b
Chenuca1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
S tudy
Type c
Was te
Type d
Influent
Char.
VII
F-
24
Pentachloro-
e thane
L,B
I
10 [ rr:i
i
(
Kerosene effluent cone. -
2 ppin; No detectable cone, in
Cif)-0);< hydrocarbon effluent.
See VIIF-9
for comments.
95
VII
F-
25
Perchloro-
ethylene
L, B
T
14 ppm
!
Kercsf-ne effluent conc. -
1 pp>i) Ci (j-C| 2 hydrocarbon
efflivunt conc. - 1 ppm.
See VIIF-9
for comments.
95
VII
F-
26
Tetrachloro-
ethane
L,B
I
148 ppm
Kcrosone effluent conc. -
/ ppm; Cio--;2 hydrocarbon
c-fifluont. cc-nc. . - 6 ppm.
See VIIF-9
for comments.
95
VII
F-
27
VII
F-
28
VII
F-
29
1,1,2,2-Tetra-
chloroe thane
R
U
E:
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
VII
F-
3"
Trichloro-
ethylene
L, B
I
24 ppm
Kerosene effluent conc.-
6 ppm; Ciq-Ci2 hydrocarbon
effluent conc. - 5 ppm.
See VIIF- 9
for comments.
95
VII
F-
35
Tr ichloro-
ethylene
R
u
Soluble in most organics.
90
VII
F-
36
Trichloro-
fluorome thane
R
u
Extractable w/alcohol, ether
and organics.
90
VII
F-
37
Trichloro-
methane
R
u
Soluble in most organics.
90
VII
F-
3 8
Vinylidene
Chloride
L, B
I
13 ppm
Kerosene effluent conc. -
1 ppm; Cj0-Ci2 effluent
conc. - 1 ppm.
See VIIF- 9
for commenjts.
95
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type d
)f Study
Influent
Char .
Results of Study
Comments
Fief .
VII
G-
1
Mercury
R
U
2 ppm
99% reduction w/high molec-
ular weight amines &
quartenary salts.
90
(continun
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
b
Description of Study
Chemical
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Vll
K-
1
4-Chloro-
3-Methylphenol
U
Extractable w/benzene,
alcohol and nitrobenzene
90
VII
K-
2
2-Chlorophenol
R
U
Extractable w/Diisopropy1-
ether, benzene, butylacetate,
and nitrobenzene
90
VII
K-
3
m-Cresol
P"
L, C
I
291 ppin
91% reduction.
Extraction of evapora-
tor condensate from
spent caustic process-
ing using isobutylene
(S/W=1.8); spray ex-
tractor used.
27
VII
K-
4
o-Cresol
L,C
I
307 ppm
90% reduction.
See VIIK- 3
for comments.
27
VII
K-
5
o-Cresol
L, C
I
890 ppm @
3.21 gal/
hr
99.9% reduction.
Sequential extraction
of wastewater from
lube-oil refining us-
ing butyl acetate
(S/W=0.100)6 isobuty-
lene (S/W=0.101); RDC
extractor used.
27
VII
K-
6
o-Cresol
<•
i
i
i
L, C
I
890 ppm @
3.21 gal/
hr
99.9% reduction.
Sequential extraction
of wastewater from
lube-oil refining us-
ing butyl acetate
(S/W=0.30) & isobuty-
lene (S/W=0.101): RDC
extractor used.
27
1
i
!
i
(cont inue
sd)
•
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type C
Waste
Type ^
Inf luerit
Char.
VII
K-
7
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
R
U
Extractable w/benzene,
alcohol and nitrobenzene.
90
VII
K-
n
2,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
H
U
Extractable w/benzene and
alcohol.
90
VII
K-
9
4,6-Dinitro-2-
Me thylphenol
R
U
Extractable w/benzene and
acetone.
90
VII
K-
10
2,4-Di nitro-
phenol
R
U
Extractable w/benzene and
alcohol.
90
VII
K-
11
2-Nitrophenol
R
U
Extractable w/benzene and
alcohol.
90
VII
K-
12
4-Nitrophenol
R
U
Extractable w/ben'zene and
alcohol.
90
VII
K-
13
VII
K-
11
VII
ll
Pentachloro-
phenol
R
U
Extractable w/benzene and
alcohol and nitrobenzene.
90
~90~~
~21
Ptienol
R
U
Extractable w/diisopropyl-
ether, benzene, butylacetate
and nitrobenzene.
Phenol
1
1
L,C
I
67 ppm 0
4.6 qa1/
hr
6% reduction.
Extraction of ethylene
quench wastewater using
isobutylene (S/W=0.101)
RDC extractor used.
(continue
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classif ication: Phenols (K)
a
NO .
Chemical^
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type d
>f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
VII
K-
16
Phenol
L,C
I
69 ppm @
4.6 gal/
hr
4% reduction.
Extraction of ethylene
quench wastewater using
isobutane (S/W=0.097);
RDC extractor used.
27
VII
K-
17
Phenol
L/C
I
579 ppm
72% reduction.
See VIIK-3
for comments.
27
VII
K-
in
Phenol
L,C
I
8800 ppm
@ 3.21
gal/hr
97% reduction
See VIIK-5
for comments.
27
VII
K-
19
VII
K-
20
Phenol
L, C
I
8800 ppm
@ 3.21
gal/hr
98% reduction.
See VIIK-7
for comments.
27
2,<1,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
R
U
Extractable w/benzene,
alcohol and nitrobenzene.
90
VII
K-
21
Xylenols
L,C
I
227 ppm
96* reduction.
See VIIK-3
for comments.
27
(continue
d)
i
-------
TABLE E~1(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Phthalates (L)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type ^
>f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
VII
L-
1
Bis (2-ethyl-
hexyl)Phtha-
late
R
U
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
90
VII
L-
2
Butylbenzy1
Phthala te
R
U
Extractable w/ethyl ether
6 benzene.
90
VII
L-
3
Di-N-Butyl
Phthalate
R
U
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
90
VII
L-
4
VII
I,-
5
Di ethyl
Phthalate
R
U
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
o o
& |CN
Dimethyl
Phthalate
R
U
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
VII
L-
6
Di -N-Oct;yl
Phthalate
R
U
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
90
(cont j inie
(1)
i
-------
TABLE E -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
a
No.
Chemical^
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type d
>f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Re t .
VII
M_
l_
Anthracene
R
U
Extractable w/toluene.
90
(cont liiue
d)
-------
TABLE E-lCHEMICAL TREATABILITY
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
a
b
Description of Studv
No.
Chemical
Study
Type C
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
IX
A-
1
Allyl Alcohol
I
P
1000 ppm
21.9% reduction,- final conc.
of 709 ppm; capacity was
0.024 gm/gin of carbon. Ad-
sorbability found to increase
with molecular weight. For
compounds of <4 carbons or-
der of decreasing adsorption
was: undissociated organic
acids, aldehydes, esters,
ketones, alcohols (when >4
carbons, alcohols moved ahead
of esters), glycols. Aromat-
ics had greatest adsorption.
Results of two component iso-
therm tests could be predict-
ed from single compound test^
however, in four-component
tests, only about 60% of pre-
dicted adsorption occurred.
Continuous columns produced
60-80% of theoretical iso-
therm capacity.
Carbon dose was 5g/l
Westvaco Nuchar
15
IX
A-
2
n-Amy1
Alcohol
{1-Pentanol)
I
P
1000 ppm
71.8% reduction; 202 ppm
final conc., 0.155 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXA-l for additional
results.
35 ~
IX
A-
i
Butanol
'
B, L
P
100 ug/1
Complete removal. Desorption
of alcohols from carbon by
elutriating with various sol-
vents ranged from 4 to 110%.
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, methyl
20 '
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
),
Description of Study
No.
C.linriv'a 1
Study
Type c
Waste
d
Type
Influent
Chai .
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
chloride-acetone, and
acetone.
IX
A-
1
Du tanol
I
P
000 ppm
53.4% reduction; 466 ppm fina]
cone., 0.107 gm/gm carbon
capaci ty.
See IXA-i
resu1ts.
for
addi tiona1
35
IX
A-
5
Dutanol
I
P
1000 ppm
500 ppm
100 ppm
75% reduction
67% reduction
78% reduction
24 hr. contact time;
carlx>n does was 10 times
chemical conc.
7 2
IX
A-
6
t-Butanol
I
P
1000 ppm
29.5% reduction; 705 ppm fi-
nal conc., 0.059 gm/gm carbon
capaci ty.
See IXA-i
results.
for
add i t iona1
35
IX
A-
7
Cyclohexanol
B , L
P
LOO AKj/1
Complete removal.
See IXA-3
results.
for
addiIi oual
20
IX
A-
0
Decanol
B, L
P
LOO /ucj/1
Complete removal.
See IXA-3
results.
for
addi tiona1
20
I X
A-
9
Erhanol
I
P
L000 ppm
10% reduction; 901 ppm final
conc., 0.020 gin/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXA-l
results.
for
addi t iona1
35
IX
A-
10
2-Ethyl-
13 u tanol
I
P
L000 ppm
85.5% reduction; 145 ppm fi-
nal conc., 0.170 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXA-l
results.
for
addi tiona1
35
! 1 r-'
X <
1 ^
2-Ethyl-
lloxanol
I
P
700 ppm
98.5% reduction; 10 ppm final
conc., 0.138 gin/gm carbon
capac i ty.
See IXA-l
results.
for
add i t iona1
35
IX
A-
' 12
2 -Ethyl-1-
1 iifixanol
B, L
P
100 AJg/1
Complete removal.
See IXA-3
results.
for
addi tional
20
(continui
•d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Study
Type °
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Roe.
IX
A-
13
m-lleptanol
B, L
P
100 Ajg/1
Complete removal.
See IXA-3 for addi-
tional results-.
20
IX
A-
14
m-llcxanol
I
P
1000 ppm
95.5% reduction; 45 ppm
final conc., 0.155 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXA-1 for addi-
tional results.
35
IX
A-
15
Isobutanol
I
P
1000 ppm
41.9% reduction; 581 ppm
final conc., 0.084 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXA-1 for addi-
tional results.
35
IX
A-
16
Isopropanol
I
P
1000 ppm
12.6% reduction; 874 ppin
final conc., 0.025 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXA-1 for addi-
tional results.
35
IX
A-
17
Methanol
I
P
1000 ppm
3.6% reduction; 964 ppm
final conc., 0.007 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXA-1 for addi-
tional results.
35
IX
A-
18
Me thanol
I
P
1000 ppm
200 p[HK
15 ppm
17% reduction
33% reduction
33% reduction
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical conc.
72
IX
A-
19
Octano1
D, L
P
1 00 Aig/1
Complete removal.
See IXA-3 for addi-
tional results.
20
IX
A-
20
Pentanol
B, L
P
100 ai
-------
TABLE
E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
Chemical^
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IX
B-
1
Acetaldehyde
I
P
1000 ppm
11.9% reduction; 801 ppm
final conc., 0.022 gm/gm
carbon capacity. Adsorbabil-
ity found to increase with
molecular weight. For com-
pounds of <4 carbons order of
decreasing adsorption was:
undissociated organic acids,
aldehydes, esters, ketones,
alcohols (when >4 carbons,
alcohols moved ahead of es-
ters) , gylcols. Aromatics
had greatest adsorption. Re-
sults of two-component iso-
therm tests could be predict-
ed from single compound tests
however, in four-component
tests, only about 60% of pre-
dicted adsorption occurred.
Continuous columns produced
60-80% of theoretical iso-
therm capacity.
Carbon dose was 5 g/1
Westvaco Nuchar.
3!>
3~?T
IX
n-
2
Acetic Acid
I
P
1000 ppm
24% reduction; 760 ppm final
conc . , 0.048 gin/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXB-i for
additional results.
IX
h-
3
Acetone
I
P
1000 ppin
21.8% reduction; 782 ppin
final conc., 0.043 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
35
IX
13-
4
Ace tone
Cyanohydrin
I
P
1000 ppm
200 ppm
100 ppm
60% reduction
45% reduction
30% reduction
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10 time;,
chemical conc.
72
•
(continued)
i
-------
TABLEE-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
Description o
f Study
Chemical
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
IX
B-
5
Acrolein
I
P
1000 ppm
30.6% reduction; 694 ppm
final conc., 0.061 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
35
TX
B-
6
Acrolein
R
U
1000 ppm
30% reduction at 0.5% carbon
dose.
90
IX
B-
7
Acrylic Acid
I
P
1000 ppm
64.5% reduction; 355 ppm
final conc., 0.129 gm/ym
carbon capacity.
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
35
IX
B-
8
Acrylonitrile
I
P
1000 ppm
100 ppm
51% reduction
28% reduction
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical conc.
72
IX
H-
9
Ainyl Acetate
(pr imary)
I
P
985 ppm
88% reduction; 119 ppm
final conc., 0.175 gin/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB-l for
additional results.
35
IX
n-
10
Butyl Acetate
I
P
1000 ppm
84.6% reduction; 154 ppm
final conc., 0.169 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB-I for
additional results.
35
TX
n-
Ll
Butyl Acrylate
I
P
1000 ppm
95.9% reduction; 4 3 ppm
final conc., 0.193 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB-l for
additional results.
35
IX
u-
1 7
Qutyraldehyde
I
P
1000 ppm
52.0% reduction; 472 ppm
final conc., 0.106 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
35
IX
B-
13
llutyric Acid
I
P
1000 ppm
59.5% reduction; 405 ppm
final conc., 0.119 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
35
.r\
i n-jtyric Acid
!
B, L
P
100 ug/1
Complete reduction; No de-
sorption from carbon by
elutriating with solvent.
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether,
(continue
20
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (ix)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
b
Description of Study
No.
Chemical
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
IX
fi-
ll
cont
methylene chloride-
acetone, methyl chlo-
ride-acetone, and
acetone.
IX
B-
15
Caproic Acid
B,L
P
100 ug/1
90% reduction; 3% desorbed
from carbon by elutriating
with solvent.
See IXB-14 for
additional results
20
IX
u-
16
Caproic Acid
I
P
1000 ppm
97% reduction; 30 ppm
final conc., 0.194 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
35
IX
13-
17
Crotonaldehyde
I
P
1000 ppm
45.6% reduction; 54 4 ppm
final conc., 0.092 ym/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
35
IX
B-
in
Cyclohexanone
I
P
1000 ppm
66.8% reduction; 332 ppm
final conc., 0.134 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB-l for
additional results.
35
IX
n-
19
Decanoic Acid
B, L
P
100 ug/1
Complete reduction; 2%
desorbed from carbon by
elutriating with solvent.
See IXB-14 for
additional results.
20
IX
B-
20
Oicyclo-
pentadiene
(L)CPC)
p,c
I
82 to
1000 ppb
Diisopropyl methylphosphonate
(DIMP) and TOC used to
measure performance. DCPC
found to vaporize.
Contaminated ground-
water. See IXB-23
for remarks.
86
TX
b-
21
Die thy 1ene
G1ycol
I
P
1000 ppm
26.2% reduction; 730 ppm
final conc., 0.053 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1 for
additional results.
35
IX
R-
2 2
Dl isobuty1
Ketone
1
I
P
300 ppm
100% reduction; 0.060 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- l for
additional results.
35
1
(continue
d)
1
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
r)
h
Description of Studv
No.
Cl>ei icdl
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Hef .
IX
n-
2 3
Ui i 3c roply
Mel.h^ -
phosj lonat
(DTIll )
P,C
I
(Hog
Water)
210 to
4 30 ppb
DIMP; TOC
about 40
ppm;
pll 7.6 to
8.0
Average DIMP removal was
99.75% ( <1.9 ppb in
effluent)
Test 1- Influent flow
7 gpm; carbon feed rate
1649,Aig/l/ anionic poly
mer Herufloc 836.2 at
0.556 gm/1 cone. and
1000 cc/min flow added;
cationic polymer Cat-
floc at 4 /ug/1 cone.
and 26.5 cc/min flow
added; duration of test
4 weeks; 28,600 gal.
throughput.
86
I
(Bog
Water)
290 to
4 70 ppb
Average DIMP removal was
98.77% ( 6.4 ppb in effluent)
Test 2- Carbon feed
1000 ug/1 duration of
test 3 weeks; other con-
ditions similar to
Test 1.
DIMP removal averaged 99% at
350 Ajg/1 carbon dose and
96.33% at 250 ug/1 carbon
dose. Optimum anionic/cati-
onic mixture was found to be
anionic-0.13 gm/1 and
120 cc/min, cationic -
1.59 gm/1 & 25 cc/min.
Test 3- Influent flow
rate 5 gpm; anionic
cone. and flow-0.13 gm/J
& 120 cc/min; cationic
conc. and floyr-
1.59 gm/1 & 25 cc/min;
carlxan feed at 350 ug/1
& 250 Aig/1 for 1 week
each.
DIMP removal ranged from 92.5
to 97.5% at 175 Aig/1 carbon
dose and 98.7% at 220 ug/1
carbon dose.
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results.of Study
Comments
Ref .
S tudy
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
TX
B-
2.
cont
IX
B-
_ 2/1
IX
B-
2!>
I
(Bog
Water)
400 ppb
DIMP removal steadily de-
creased to about 40% at
carbon dose of 100/ug/l.
DIMP conc. reduced to 50 ppb,
reactivated carbon tested
17000 gal liefore break-
through, virgin carbon
treated 9600 gal; reactivated
carbon capacity-3.8 ug
DIMP/gm carbon (0.9 lb car-
bon/1000 gal); virgin carbon
capacity 2.3 Ajg DIMP/gin car-
bon (1.41b carbon/1000 gal.)
Filtrasorb 300 carbon
was used.
I
(Ground
Water)
2680 ppb
98% removal at carbon dose
of 252 ug/1
Hydrodarco C carbon;
duration of test-
13100 gal.
2400 ppb
94 to 97% removal at carbon
dose of 200 Ajg/1
Hydrodarco C carbon;
duration of test -
9000 gal.
2564 ppb
Could not achieve steady
state performance at carbon
dose of 252 ug/1 & flow rate
of 225 gal/hr.
Aqua Nuchar carbon;
duration of test -
15200 gal (2 weeks).
Di propylene
Glycol
T
P
1000 ppm
16.5% reduction; 035 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.033 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB-1
for additional results.
35
20
Dodecane
B,L
P
100 ug/1
Complete removal; 20% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriating with solvent.
See IXB-14
for additional results.
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E 1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Typec
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
IX
B-
26
IX
D-
27
Ethyl Acetate
I
P
1000 ppm
50.5% reduction; 495 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.100 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
35
— Ys
35
3 5
Ethyl Acrylate
I
P
1015 ppm
77.7% reduction; 226 ppm fi-
nal cone. , 0.157 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
IX
B-
2fi
IX
B -
29
TiT
D-
30
IX
0-
31
IX
n-
32
IX
Ethylene
Glycol
I
P
P
1000 ppm
6.8% reduction; 932 ppm fi-
nal cone. , 0.014 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
Formaldehyde
I
1000 ppm
9.2% reduction; 908 ppm fi-
nal conc., 0.010 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
Formic Acid
I
P
1000 ppm
23.5% reduction; 765 ppm fi-
nal conc., 0.047 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
35
20~
lleptanoic Acid
B, L
P
100 uy/1
10% reduction; 1% desorbed
from carbon by elutriating
with solvent.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
Ilexadecane
B , L
P
100 ug/1
Complete reduction; 12% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriating with solvent.
See IXB-
for additional resulLs.
20
35~
llexylene Glycol
i
i
I
P
1000 ppm
61.4% reduction; 386 ppm fi-
nal conc., 0.122 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- i
for additional results.
1 —
sobutyl
Acetate
I
P
1000 ppm
82% reduction; 180 ppm fi-
nal conc., 164 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
35
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-i (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IX
—Hi
IX
13-
36
T soprene
I
P
1000 ppm
500 ppm
86% reduction
86% reduction
See IXA-5
72
35~
Isopropyl
Acetate
I
P
1000 ppm
68.1% reduction; 319 ppm
final conc., 0.137 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results
IX
13-
37
Laurie Acid
B, L
P
100 Aig/1
Complete removal; No desorp-
tion from carbon by elutria-
tion with solvent.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
20
35'
35
IX
B-
30
Methyl Acetate
I
P
1030 ppm
26.2% reduction; 760 ppm
final conc., 0.054 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
IX
B-
39
Methyl Butyl
Ketone
I
P
98B ppm
80.7% reduction; 191 ppm
final conc., 0.159 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
IX
B-
10
IX
fi-
ll
IX
B-
42
jF
B-
43
B-
| 44
Methyl
Decanoate
B, L
P
100 zug/1
Complete removal; 71% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
20
MoLhyl
Dodecanoate
B, L
P
100 /ug/1
Complete removal; 50% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
See IXB-14
for additional results.
20
35"
~ 20
35
d)
1
Methyl Ethyl
Ketone
I
P
1000 ppm
46.8% reduction; 532 ppm
final conc., 0.094 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
Methyl
llexadecanoate
B, L
P
ioo A»g/i
Complete removal; 35% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
Methyl Isoamyl
Ketone
I
P
986 ppm
85.2% reduction; 146 ppm
final conc., 0.169 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
I
•
!
i
(continue
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
IX
B-
4L
Methyl
Octadecanoate
B, L
P
100 mg/1
Complete removal; 40% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
See IXB-14
for additional results.
JU
IX
fi-
le
Methyl Propyl
Ketone
I
P
1000 ppm
69.5% reduction; 305 ppm
final cone,, 0.139 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
35
_ 20
20
20
_ 35"
~~Jo~
35
35
d)
i
IX
D-
4 7
Myristic Acid
B. L
P
100 /ug/1
Complete removal; no de-
sorption from, carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
IX
B-
4H
Oc ta
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
IX
B-
5:
Propylene
Ox ide
I
P
1000 ppm
26.1% reduction; 739 ppm
final conc., 0.052 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
35
IX
n-
56
IX
B-
57
Pyruvic Acid
B,L
P
100 /ug/1
Complete removal;no desorp-
tion from carbon using
organic solvent.
See IXB-14
for additional results.
20
Tetradecane
B, L
P
100 Aig/1
Complete removal; 25% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
See IXB-14
for additional results.
20
IX
B-
58
Tetraethylene
Glycol
I
P
1000 ppm
58.1% reduction; 419 ppm
final conc., 0.116 gm/gin
carbon capacity.
See IXB-1
for additional results.
35
IX
B-
59
IX
U-
60
Tr iethylene
Glycol
I
P
1000 ppm
52.3% reduction; 477 ppm
final conc., 0.105 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB-1
for additional results.
35
Valeric Acid
B.L
P
100 /ug/1
Complete removal; 10% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
See IXB-14
for additional results.
20
l5~
IX
- B-
6]
Valeric Acid
I
P
1000 ppm
79.7% reduction; 203 ppm
final conc., 0.159 gm/gin
carbon capacity.
See IXB-]
for additional results.
IX
B-
_ 62
Vinyl Acetate
I
P
1000 ppm
64.3% reduction; 357 ppm
final conc., 0.129 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXB-1
for additional results.
35
d)
i
t
\
(continue
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
a
Description of Study
No.
Chemica 1
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char .
Results of Study
Cominen ts
Ke f .
IX
c-
1
A1lyamine
I
P
1000 ppm
31.4% reduction; 606 ppm fi-
nal cone. , 0.063 grn/gm carbon
capacity. Adsorbabi1ity
found to increase with molec-
ular weight. For compounds
of <4 carbons order of de-
creasing adsorption was: un-
dissociated organic acids,
aldehydes, esters, ketones,
alcohols (when >4 carbons,
alcohols moved ahead of es-
ters), glycols. Aroinatics
had greatest adsorption.
Results of two component is-
otherm tests could be pre-
dicted from single compound
tests,- however, in four com-
ponent tests only 60% of
predicted adsorption oc-
curred. Continuous columns
produced 60-80% of theoreti-
cal isotherm capacity.
Carbon dose was 5 y/1
Westvaco Nuchar.
35
TX
c-
2
Ani1i ne
H, L
P
100 pg/l
100% reduction; No desorptioi
from carbon by elutriation
wi th solvents.
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetoiie, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, methyl
chloride-acetone, and
acetone.
""20"
-
:i \ine
I
P
1000 ppm
74.9% removal; 251 ppm final
cone.; 0.15 cjin/ym carbon
capacity.
See IXC-1 for addition-
al results.
(con 1. i nuc
)')
d)
"
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
a
No.
IX
c-
4
IX
C-
5
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
Buty1amine
B,L
P
100 ug/1
100* removal; no desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
See IXC-2
for additional results.
20
Butylamine
I
P
1000 ppm
52% reduction; 400 ppm final
conc. , 0.103 gm/gin carbon
capaci ty.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
35
IX
C-
6
1 X
C-
7
Cyclohexyl-
cin\i ne
B, L
P
100 zUlj/1
100% removal; 38% desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
20
20 ~
_35~~
35~
Dibutylamine
B,I.
P
100
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
a
No.
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
lief .
S tudy
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IX
C-
14
IX
C-
15
Dimethyl-
ni trosamine
I
P
Not adsorbed.
31
Di-N-
Propylamine
I
P
1000 ppm
80.2% removal; 190 ppm final
conc., 0.174 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXC-1
for additional results.
35
~ 3~5~
2(7
"35~
~3T
_____
~T5~
20 ~
IX
c-
16
Ethylene-
diainine
I
P
1000 ppm
10.7% removal; 093 ppin final
conc., 0.021 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
JX
c-
17
N-Ethyl-
morpholine
I
P
1000 ppm
47.3% removal; 527 ppm final
conc., 0.095 gm/gm carbon
capaci ty.
See IXC-1
for additional results.
IX
c-
10
Hexylamine
B, L
P
100 Ajg/1
100% removal; 24% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
See IXC-2
for additional results.
IX
c-
19
2-Methyl-5-
Ethylpyridine
I
P
1000 ppm
89.3% removal; 107 ppm final
conc., 0.179 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
IX
c-
20
N-Methyl
Morpholine
I
P
1000 ppm
42.5% removal; 575 ppm final
conc., 0.085 gm/gin carbon
capacity.
See IXC-1
for additional results.
IX
c-
21
Monoethan-
olamine
I
P
1012 ppm
7.2% removal; 939 ppm final
conc., 0.015 gm/gm carbon
capaci ty.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
IX
Monoisopro-
panolamine
j
I
P
1000 ppm
20% removal; 800 ppin final
conc., 0.04 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
; Morpholine
B, L
P
100 Aig/1
100% removal; 67% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
See IXC-2
for additional results.
(continued)
I
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IX
C-
24
B-Napthy1 amine
I
P
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows:
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 77.4 0.361
Filtrasorb 166.0 0.234
Carbon dose (mg/1) required
to reduce 1 mg/1 to
0.1 mg/1: Darco - 27
Filtrasorb - 10
31
IX
C-
25
Octy lainine
B, L
P
100 Ajg/1
100% removal; no desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
See IXC-2
for additional results.
20
To"
35
IX
c-
26
Piperidine
B, L
P
100 AJg/1
100% removal; 7 3% desorhed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
See IXC-2
for additional results.
IX
c-
27
Pyridine
I
P
1000 ppm
53.3% removal; 467 ppm final
conc., 0.107 gm/gm carbon
capaci ty.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
IX
c-
28
Pyrrole
B, L
P
100 /Ug/1
100% removal; 16% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
See IXC-2
for additional results.
20
IX
C-
29
Tributylamine
B,L
P
100 Aig'l
1P0% removal; no desorption
from carbon by elutriation
witli solvent.
See IXC-2
for additional results.
20
IX
C-
30
Triethanol-
amine
I
P
1000 ppu
33% removal; 670 ppm final
conc., 0.067 gm/gm carbon
capaci ty.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
35
(continue
d)
1
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Studv
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
IX
D-
1
Acetophenone
B, L
P
100 /Ug/1
50% reduction; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
1
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, methey
chloride-acetone, and
acetone.
20
IX
D-
2
Acetophenone
I
P
1000 ppm
97.2% removal; 20 ppm final
cone., 0.194 gm/gm carbon
capacity. Adsorbability
found to increase with mo-
lecular weight. For com-
pounds of <4 carbons order
of decreasing adsorption
way.; undissociated organic
acids, aldehydes, esters,
ketones, alcohols (when >4
carbons, alcohols moved
ahead of esters), glycols.
Aroinatics had greatest ad-
sorption. Results of two
component isotherm tests
could be predicted from sin-
qle compound tests; however,
in four-component tests,
only about 60% of predicted
adsorption occurred. Con-
tinuous columns produced
60-80% of theoretical iso-
therm capacity.
Carbon dose was 5 g/1
Westvaco Nuchar.
35
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
No.
IX
D-
3
IX
D-
_ 4
IX~
D-
5
IX
D-
6
IX~
D-
7
IX
D-
8
Chemical
Benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Description of Study
Study
Type c
B,L
P,C
Waste
Type
Influent
Char.
100 Ajg/1
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
500 ppm
100 ppm
1 ppb
Results of Study
50% reduction; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
94% reduction; 60 ppm final
conc., 0.108 gm/gm carbon
capaci ty.
99% removal
99% removal
98% removal
90% removal (to 0.1 ppb ef-
fluent conc.) achieved in
8.5 inin. contact time.
Comments
See IXD-1
for additional results.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical conc.
Spilled material treat-
ed using EPA's mobile
treatment trailer.
Ref
20
35
72
IX
D-
9
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
1 ppm
0.7 mg/gm carbon capacity.
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows:
Carbon K l/n
Darco 26.8 1.305
Filtrasorb 18.5 1.158
Carbon dose (mg/1) required
to reduce 1 mg/1 to 0.1 mg/1
Darco - 678
Filtrasorb - 705
21
31
416 ppm
95% reduction; 21 ppin final
conc., 0.080 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXD- 2
for additional results.
35
(continued)"
i
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Description of Study
No.
Chemical
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
IX
D-
10
Benzene
R
I
1500 ppm
TOC
Effluent conc. of 30 ppm TOC
achieved (98% removal)
At contact time of 55
min.j 0.15 MGD flow;
pretreatxnent included
pH adjustment.
30
IX
0-
1 1
Benzene
I
P
500 ppm
250 ppin
50 ppm
95% removal
91% removal
60% removal
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical conc.
72
I X
D-
12
Benzene
R
U
416 ppm
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
90
IX
D-
13
Benzidine
I
P
Isotherm kinetics were as
as follows:
Carbon K l/n
Darco 85.4 0.253
Filtrasorb 173 0.280
Carbon dose 'mg/1) required
to reduce 1 mg/1 to 0.1 mg/1:
Darco - 19
Filtrasorb - 10
31
IX
D-
14
Benzi1
B, I,
P
100 ug/1
50% removal; 8% desorbed from
carbon by elutriation with
solvent.
See IXD-1
for additional results.
20
IX
D-
15
Benzoic Acid
B , L
P
100 ug/1
Complete removal; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
See IXD-1
for additional results.
20
y
Benzoic Acid
I
P
1000 ppm
91.1% removal; 09 ppm final
conc., 0.103 gm/gm carbon
capaci ty.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
35
i
(continue
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
b
Chemica 1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IX
D-
17
Chlorinated
Aromatics
R
I
6000 ppm
TOC
Effluent conc. of 3000 ppm
TOC achieved (50% reduction).
High effluent conc. because
activated carbon served as
pretreatment before biologi-
cal system.
At contact time of 1375
min; flow of 6000 gpd;
pretreatment included
chemical reduction.
30
TX
D-
10
Chlorobenzene
I
P
1 mg/1
93 mg/gm carbon capacity.
21
IX
D-
19
Chlorobenzene
F,C
D
50* reduction.
Treatment of effluent
from 0.66 m^/sec bio-
logical system.
64
TX
D-
20
Chlorobenzene
R
U
416 ppm
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose .
90
IX
D-
_2J_
TX
D-
22
IX
D-
23
l-Chloro-2-
Ni trobenzene
I
P
1 ppm
103 mg/gm adsorption
capaci ty.
21
Cumene
B, L
P
100 pg/1
Complete removal; 8% desorbec
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
See IXD-1
for additional results.
20
o-Dichloro-
benzene
B.L
P
100 pg/1
Complete removal; 5% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
See IXD-1
for additonal results.
20
IX
D-
21
o-Dichloro-
benzene
R
U
416 ppm
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose .
90
(continue
:d)
i
-------
TABLE E -1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IX
D-
2 5
m-Dichloro-
bcnzerie
B, L
P
100 jug/1
Complete removal; 15% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
See IXD- 1
for additional results.
20
IX
D-
26
in-Dichloro-
benzene
R
U
416 ppm
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
90
IX
D-
27
I,4-Dichloro-
benzene
F.C
D
60% removal
Treatment of effluent
from 0.66 m /sec bio-
logical system.
64
IX
D-
20
IX
D-
29
IX
L)-
30
p-Dichloro-
benzene
B.f.
P
100 Aig/1
100% removal; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
See IXD- 1
for additional results.
20
~90 ~
p-Dichloro-
benzene
R
U
416 ppm
95% removal al: 0.5% carbon
dose.
3, 3'-Dichloro-
benzidine
I
P
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows:
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 126 0.253
Filtrasorb 240 0.194
Carbon dose (mg/1) to reduce
1 mg/1 to 0.1 mg/1:
Darco - 12.8
Filtrasorb - 5.7
31
IX
"1 -
Dimethylani1int
(Xylidine)
P,C
H
380 ppb
94% removal (23 ppb in efflu-
ent) achieved in 85 min.
contact time.
250,000 gal. spilled
materials treated with
EPA mobile treatment
trailer.
6
¦
(continue
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
In fluen t
Char.
IX
D-
32
2,4-Dini tro-
toluene
R
U
416 ppm
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
Not thermally regener-
able.
90
~9CT
IX
D -
33
2,6-Dini tro-
toluene
R
u
416 ppm
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
Not thermally regcner-
able.
IX
D-
34
Etliy lbenzene
I
p
1 mg/l
53 mg/gin carbon capacity.
21
IX
D-
35^
IX
[)-
36
Ethylbenzene
I
L
115 ppm
84.3% reduction; 21 ppm
final conc. , 0.08 gm/gin
carbon capacity.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
35
Etliy lbenzene
F,C
D
50% removal
Treatment of effluent
from 0.66 m^/sec bio-
logical system.
64
IX
D-
37
Ethylbenzene
R
U
115 ppm
84.3% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
90
IX
D-
38
Hexachloro-
benzene
R
U
416 ppm
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
90
IX
D-
39
llydroquinone
I
P
1000 ppm
83.3% removal; 167 ppm
final conc., 0.167 gm/gin
carbon capacity.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
35
IX
D-
40
IX
0-
1 •":!
Isophrone
I
P
1000 ppm
96.6% removal; 34 ppm final
conc., 0.193 gm/gm carbon
capaci ty.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
35
I sophrone
R
U
1000 ppm
96.6% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
90
: i
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
Chemical^
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type °
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IX
D-
42
4,4' -Methylene
Bis-(2-Chloro-
aniline
I
P
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows:
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 120 0.96
Filtrasorb 240 0.902
Carbon dose foig/1) to reduce
1 mg/1 to 0.1 mg/1;
Darco - 27
Filtrasorb - 15
31
IX
D-
43
Nitrobenzene
I
P
1 ppm
68 mg/gm adsorption capacity
21
IX
D-
44
Nitrobenzene
I
P
1023 ppm
95.6% removal; 44 ppm final
conc., 0.196 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
35
90
IX
D-
45
Ni trobenzene
R
U
416 ppm
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
IX
U-
46
IX
D-
47
Paraldehyde
1
I
P
1000 ppm
7 3.9% removal; 261 ppm final
conc., 0.148 gm/ym carbon
capacity.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
35
Pyridine
I
P
1000 ppin
47.3% removal; 527 ppm final
conc., 0.095 ym/gin carbon
capacity.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
35
12~
21
d)
i
IX
D-
48
/
Pyridine
I
P
1000 ppm
500 pp/n
86% removal; 145 ppm final
conc., 86% removal; 71 pp//i
final conc.
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical conc.
Styrene
I
P
1 ppm
120 m g/gm adsorption
capacity.
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No .
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IX
D-
50
IX
D-
51
Styrene
I
P
100 ppm
88.8% removal; 44 ppm final
conc. , 0.196 gm/gin carbon
capaci ty.
See IXD-2 for additional
results.
35
Styrene
I
P
200 ppm
100 ppm
20 ppm
97% removal
93% removal
55% removal
24 hr contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical conc.
72
~ 35 ~
IX
D-
52
Styrene Oxide
I
P
1000 ppm
95.3% removal; 47 ppm final
con., 0.19 gm/gm carbon
capaci ty.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
IX
D-
53
Toluene
P,C
H
120 ppb
99.8% removal (0.3 ppb in
effluent achieved in 8.5 min
contact time.
250,000 gal spilled
materials treated with
EPA mobile treatment
trailer.
6
IX
D-
51
Toluene
I
P
317 ppm
79.2% removal; 66 ppm final
conc., 0.05 gin/gm carbon
capaci ty.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
35
~90_
~66~
IX
D-
55
Toluene
R
U
317 ppm
79% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose .
IX
D-
56
Toxaphene
I
I
155 ppb
pll 7.0
>99% removal; <1 ppb final
conc., 42 mg/gm carbon
capacity.
IX
D-
57
IX
D-
50
1,2,4-Tri-
chlorobenzene
B, L
P
100 jig/1
100% removal; no desorption
from carbon by elutri.ation
with solvent.
See IXD-1
for additional results.
20
1,2,4-Tri-
chlorobenzene
F,C
D
70% reduction.
Treatment of effluent
from 0.66 m^/sec bio-
logical system.
64
90
i5)
i
IX
D-
L" 0>
1,2,4-Tri-
chlorobenzene
R
U
416 ppm
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
-------
a
No.
IX
D-
60
IX
D-
61
IX
TABLE E~ 1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Chemical
2,4,6-Trinitro-
toluene (TNT)
2,4,6-Trini tro-
toluene (TNT)
and other muni-
tions plant
wastewaters:
Cycloni te(RDX) ,
Ni tramine
(Tetryl), and
cyclotetrameth-
ylene tetrani-
tramine (HMX).
Xylene
Description of Study
Study
Type c
P,C
P.C
Waste
Type '
Influent
Char.
100 ppm
Not
reported
140 ppb
Results of Study
Carbon adsorption capacity
was 0.125 gm/gin at 1 ppm
breakthrough after 600 bed
volume (B.V.)
Adsorption capacities
(Lb/Lb carbon):
Contami- Break-
nant
TNT
RDX
RDX &
TETRYL
TNT &
RDX
TNT &
HMX
through
0. 098
0. 300
0. 000
0.002
0.125
0.074
Sa tura-
tion
0.125
0. 550
0.048
0.024
0.101
0.090
0.134
0. 006
(Note: breakthrough cone.
not de fined.)
Typical cone, of contami-
nants in wastewaters:
TNT - 0-400 ppm
RDX - 50-100 ppm
pH - 3.5-7.0
Flow - 0.02-1.0 MGD
Temp - 60-160°F
>99.9% removal ( 0.1 ppb
in effluent) achieved in
0.5 min. contact time.
Comments
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Thermal regeneration
not possible because of
explosion potential.
TNT is preferentially
adsorbed over RDX; when
RDX > TNT cone. TNT
capacity reduced 501.
For 80 gpm facility
costs estimated to be
?8.90/1000 gal.
250,000 gal. spilled
materials treated with
EPA mobile treatment
trailer.
Ref
40
(cont inued)
i
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Chemical
Description of Study
Study
Type1
Waste
Type '
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Hef ,
7 2
Xylene
200 ppm
100 ppm
86% removal
60% removal
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical conc.
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(conLinued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification:
No.
Chemical
I x
E-
E-
I
I X
E-
3
Bis(2-chloro
i sopropy1)
Ether
tiSjSf'EtR
e r
Butyl Ether
Description of Study
Study
Type
Waste
Type
Influent
Char.
Not r e-
por Led
9 4 p p b
197 ppm
Ethers (F.)
Results of Study
100* removal at 0.5% car
bon dose.
5 0 % r emov a 1
100% removal; 0.039gm/gm
carbon capacity. Adsorb
ality found to increase
with molecular weight.
For compounds of <4 car-
bonSjOrder of decreasing
adsorption was: undisso-
ciated organic acids,
aldehydes, esters, ke-
tones, alcohols (when>4
carbons, alcohols moved
ahead of esters), gly-
cols. Aromatics had
greatest adsorption. Re-
sults of two-component
isotherm tests could be
predicted from single
compound tests; however,
in four-component tests,
only about 60% of pre-
dicted adsorption oc-
curred. Continuous col-
umns produced 60-80% of
theoretical isotherm
capaci ty ¦
Comments
Carbon dose was 5g/]
Westvaco Nuctiar.
Ref
9 0
9 0
3 5
(continued)
I
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Ethers (E)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IX
E-
4
IX
E-
5
Dichloroiso-
propyl Ether
I
P
1008 ppm
100% removal; 0.20 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
35
Diethylene
Glycol Mono-
butyl Ether
I
P
1000 ppm
82.7% removal; 173 ppm final
conc., 0.166 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
35
TX
E-
6
Diethylene
Glycol Mono-
ethyl Ether
I
P
1010 ppm
43.6% removal; 570 ppm final
conc., 0.087 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
35
Ts
IX
E-
7
IX
E-
8
IX
E-
9
Ethoxytri-
glycol
I
P
1000 ppm
69.7% removal; 303 ppm final
conc., 0.139 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
butyl Ether
I
P
1000 ppm
55.9% removal; 441 ppm final
conc., 0.112 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
35
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
ethyl Ether
I
P
1022 ppm
31% removal; 705 ppm final
conc., 0.063 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
35
IX
E-
10
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
ethyl Ether
Acetate
P
1000 ppm
65.8% removal; 324 ppm final
conc., 0.132 gm/gin carbon
capaci ty.
See IXE-
for additional results.
35
35
IX
fi-
ll
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
hexyl Ether
I
P
975 ppm
87.1% removal; 126 ppm final
conc., 0.170 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
IX
E-
12
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
methyl Ether
I
P
1024 ppin
13.5% removal; 886 ppm final
conc., 0.028 gm/gin carbon
capacity.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
35
IX
E-
13
Isopropyl
Ether
I
P
1023 ppm
80% removal; 203 ppm final
conc., 0.162 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
(/-fin 1 i mix
35
HI
i
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification:
(IX)
a
Description of Study
it a i u t a i uu ri s \ r /
No.
Chemical
Study
Type C
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
I X
F -
1
Bromochloro-
methane
I
P
S
S , M
Not re-
ported
Sorptive capacity x/m at
residual cone (Cf) of
100 ppb was 3.37 my/g in
pure compound studies,
2.56 in a mixture and
0.875 in secondary
effluent.
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbons added to
secondary effluent.
21
I X
F-
2
D r omod i-
ch]oro-
me t hane
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed
90
I X
F-
3
Bromoform
L
W
0.2 ppb
See IXF-44
for results.
4 6
IX
F-
<1
Bronioform
B . L
P
100 ppb
100% removal; 10% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent
Filtrasorb 300 used
Solvent included
pentane-acetone,
diethylether, methy-
lene chloride-ace-
tone, methyl chlo-
ride-acetone, and
ace tone .
2 0
I X
F-
5
Dromomethane
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
I X
F-
6
Carbon
To Lraclilo-
r i d e
P ,c
11
1.1 ppb
Not detected in effluent
after 8.5 inin contact
time.
250,000 yal spilled
materials treated
with EPA mobile
treatment trailer.
6
:j)on
i a h 1 o -
, )
I
P
Not r e -
por ted
Sorptive capacity (x/rn)
at residual conc.(C^) of
100 ppb was 4.66 my/q
~2 1 ~
d)
-------
TABLE E*1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: llalocarbons (F)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
I X
F-
0
I X
F -
9
I X
r -
10
1 X
F-
11
T X
F-
12
I X
F-
13
IX_
F-
11
1
i
i
1
i
Carbon
Tetrachlori4
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
Chloroethane
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
Chloroethy-
1 e n e
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
Ch 1 oro form
I
P
S
S , M
Not r e-
por ted
Sorptive capacity (x/m)
at residual conc.(Cf) of
100 ppb was 1.58 mg/g in
pure compound studies,
0.93 in a mixture, and
0.365 in secondary
effluent.
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbons added to
sedondary effluent.
21
Chloroform
L
W
At 2 ppm chloroform,
equilibrium capacity was
1 2 mg/g.
See IXF-44
for results.
46
Dibroinochlo-
ronie thane
I.
W
3.9 ppb
See I XF- 44
for results.
46
Dibromoch1 o -
ro in ethane
!
i
i
I
P
S
S , M
Not re-
po r ted
Sorptive capacity (x/m)
at residual conc.(Cf) of
100 ppb was 7.52 mg/g in
pure compound studies,
4.54 in a mixture, and
0.885 in secondary
effluent.
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbons added to
secondary effluent.
2 1
d)
I
i i
(continue
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: lla 1 oca r bo n s < F )
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
S tudy
Type c
Waste
Type d
In fluen t
Char.
I X
r -
15
I 7'
F -
lb
T X
F -
17
I X
F-
ll>
I X
!••
iy
Fx"
F -
20
I X
F -
2\
I X
F -
22
0i bromoch1o-
ro methane
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
Dichloro-
et ha ne
P. c
>1
1 2 ppb
Not detected in effluent
after 8.5 min contact
time.
250,000 gal spilled
materials treated
with EPA mobile
treatment trailer.
6
2 i~
4 6
90
I) i chloro-
etliane
I
P
S
S , M
Not r e-
por ted
Sorptive capacity (x/m)
at residual cone.(Cf) of
100 ppb was 1.0 7 mg/g in
pure compound studies,
0.44 in a mixture, and
0.52 in secondary
effluent.
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbons added to
secondary effluenL.
1 , 1-Dichloro
e thane
L
W
2,3 ppb
See I XF- 44
for results.
1,]-Dichloro
ethane
1 , / 1; i cli 1 or o
e 11 , o
R
U
Reported to he adsorbed.
L
W
2.1 ppb
See I XF- 44
for results.
4 6
9 0~
1 , 2 -Dichhiru
c l ha ii «.•
l<
U
1OOOppm
01.1% removal at 0.5%
carbon doiA-.
1 , 1 -Die hi or.*
e thyJeiiC
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
(continue
d)
1
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
b
Cheimca 1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Re f .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
TX
F-
2 3
IX
F-
24
1, n vchloro-
(jth/l ene
L
M
0.2 ppb
See IXF-44
for results.
46
1,2- trans-
Dichloro-
ethylene
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
IX
F-
25
Dichloro-
f luoroinethane
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
IX
F-
26
IX
F-
27
ix"
F-
20
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
R
U
4 ppm
TOC at
1 MGD
Effluent cone. of 0.05 ppin
TOC achievable at contact
time of 8 min.
Flow equalization used
as pretreatment.
38
Dichloro-
me thane
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
1,2-Dichloro-
propane
R
U
1000 ppm
92.9% removal at 0.5* carbon
dose.
90
IX
F-
29
IX
F-
30
1,2-Dichloro-
propylene
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
Ethylene
Dichloride
(EDC)
i
i
s
I
L
1000 ppm
81.1% reduction, 189 ppm
final conc., 0.163 g/g car-
bon capacity. Adsorbabil-
ity found to increase with
molecular weight. For com-
pounds of <4 carbons, order
of decreasing adsorption
was: undissociated organic
acids, aldehydes, esters,
ketones, alcohols (when
Carbon dose was 5 y/1
Westvaco Nucliar.
(cont iriuc
35
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: lla locar bons ( F)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type ^
>f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
I X
F-
30
co n l
I X ~
F-
3 J
1
>4 carbons, alcohols
moved ahead of esters),
glycols. Aromatics had
greatest adsorption. He-
suits of two-component
isotherm tests could be
predicted from single
compound tests; however,
in four-component tests,
only about 60% of pre-
dicted adsorption oc-
curred. Continuous col-
umns produced 60-80% of
theoretical isotherm
capacity.
9 5
d)
ELhylene
Dicliloride
(EDC)
I
I
Indus-
trial
waste-
waters
contain-
ing num-
erous
lialocar-
bon s
with
predomi-
nately
EDC at
up to
9000ppm
Carbon adsorption capaci
ty to achieve 10 ppm EDC
residual ranged from 0.4 7
to 1.25 gm EDC/gm carbon
Capacity to achieve 0.1
ppin EDC residual ranged
from 0.0145 to 0.13 gm
E DC /gin carbon. To obtain
0.5 ppm TOC residual,
capacity ranged from
0.052 to 0.7 gm TOC/gm
carbon. Capacity to
achieve 50 ppm TOC resid-
ual ranged from 7.0 to
150 gm TOC/gm carbon.
Calgon (Filtrasorb
400), Westvaco (WVC.)
WITCO, and Barneby-
Cheney (BCNB-93 7 7 )
carbons were used.
Capacity was depend-
ent on wastewater
being tested and the
car bo n.
-------
TABLE E-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: lialocarbons (F)
a
h
Description of Study
No.
Chomica]
Study
Waste
In f1uent
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Type c
Type
Char.
I X
Ethylene
L,C
I
Indus-
EDC did not breakthrough
100 g of loaded
95
F
Dichloride
( 3 co 1
trial
(to original concentra-
carbon was regener-
32
( EDO
urns iii
waste-
tion) at up to 57 BV;
ated with 1 at in of
s e r i es
waters
however, reduction
steam for 5 min; af-
2 0 mm
contain-
dropped below 90% after
ter 5 regenerations
I D by
ing nunt
between 10 and 28 BV as
carbon capacity was
4 5 Omm
e r o u s
flow increased from
0.186 gm EDC/gm car-
1 e ngt h
ha 1 o -
"^0.85 to 2.40 L/sq m.
bon or 93% of fresh
ca rbon s
Westvaco WVG performed
carbon.
with
slightly better than
predom-
Calgon Filtrasorb 400.
inately
Minimum level of efflu-
EDC. TO
ent TC attainable was
1200ppm
3 00 ppm.
EDC-
64 00 to
6800ppm
pH->1 1
total
chlori-
nated
hydro—
ca rbon s
-8000ppm
Tx~
llexachloro-
B , L
P
100 ppb
100% removal; 31% d e -
See I XF- 4
20
F -
butadiene
sorbed from carbon by
for additional
3 3
elutriation with solvent
comme n t s.
I X ~
llexach loro-
B , L
P
10 0 ppb
100% removal; 98% de-
See I XF-4
20
F-
e thane
sorbed from carbon by
for additional
31
elutriation with solvent
comme n t s.
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No-
b
Chemica1
Descr
Study
Type c
iption o
Waste
Type ^
f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
IX
F-
35
Hexachloro-
ethane
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
IX
F-
36
Methylene
Chloride
P,C
H
190 ppb
73% removal with 51 ppb de-
tected in effluent after
8.5 min contact time.
250,000 gal spilled
materials treated with
EPA mobile treatment
trailer.
6
IX
F-
37
Propylene
Dichloride
I
L
1000 ppm
92.9* reduction, 71 ppm fi-
nal conc., 0.183 g/g carbon
capacity.
See IXF-32
for additional results.
35
IX
F-
38
Tetrachloro-
ethane
B, L
P
100 ppb
100% removal; 70% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
See IXF-4
for additional comments:
20
IX
F-
39
IX
F-
40
IX
F-
41
1,1,2,2-Tetra-
chloroethane
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
L
W
179 ppb
See IXF-44
for results.
46
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
IX
F-
42
Tribromo-
nie thane
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
N
1
(continue
id)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: ||alocarbons (F)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
I X
F-
43
Tr ibromo-
me thane
I
P
S
S , M
Not re-
po r ted
Sorptive capacity(x/m)
at residual cone.
of 100 ppb was 28.7 mg/g
in pure compound studies,
10.8 in a mixture, and
1.53 in secondary
effluent.
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbons added to
secondary effluent.
2 1
I X
F-
44
1,1,1-Tri-
chloroe thane
L
W
5 51 ppb
Performance for treat-
ment of water containing
several halogens.
Virgin Regenerated
Column studies 14mm
dia glass tubes,
height 4" (15 cu cm
adsorbent) Flow-2
gpm/cu ft (16 BV/hr)
Regenerated at 37 lb
steam/cu ft @5 psig
46
9 0
BV to
3 3 ppb
5100 4 000
coin -
pound
leak-
age
Days 13.3 10.4
Gal
. 38,250 30.000
treat-
ed/cu
f t
so r -
bent
I X
F-
45
1,1,1-Tr i -
chloroethane
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
I X
F-
<6
1,1,2-Tri
chloroethane
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
(con t i nue
90
d)
-------
TABLEEl (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: na loca rbons ( F)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Re t.
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
In£luent
Char.
I X
F-
47
Tr ichloro-
ethylene
( TCE )
P. C
H
21 ppb
98.6% removal with
0.3 ppb detected in
effluent after 8.5 min
contact time.
250,000.gal spilled
materials treated
with EPA mobile
treatment trailer.
6
I X
F-
40
I X
f-
49
Trichloro-
ethylene
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
90
~90~
~~2(T
Trichloro-
£luoro-
me thane
R
U
Reported to be adsorbed.
IX
F-
50
1,2,3-Tr i-
chloropro-
pa ne
B , L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 35% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent
See I XF- 4
for add i t iona1
comments.
(continue
d)
-------
a
No.
I X
G-
2
J X
G-
I X
G
I X
G-
5
I X
G-
6
I X
Chemical
I X
G-
1
Arsenic
Darium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Ctiromi um
Chromium4 3
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F,C
F,C
F.C
P . C
F,C
F , C
L, I
Waste
Type
Influent
Char.
1 . 1 ppb
1 .8 ppb
3 2 ppb
3 1 ppb
2.5 ppb
1 .8 ppb
0.02 9ppm
8 4 . 0 p p b
4 1 .Oppb
100 ppm
Results of Study
No reduction.
Increase to 2.4 ppb.
No reduction
No reduction
12% reduction;
effluent conc.
6* reduction; 1
effluent conc.
2.2 ppb
. 7 ppb
With virgin Filtrasorb
200 average removal was
19%; w/exhausted FS 200
average remova1 was 3 7%
43% reduction;
effluent conc.
4 8.0 ppb
37% reduction; 26.0 ppb
effluent conc.
Carbon dose
(ppm)
0
500
1 , 000
% Removal
0
5
7 . 5
Comments
Carbon used as ad-
vanced treatment of
biologically & chem
ically treated wast, e
water. Plant capaci-
ty 0.66 cu m/sec.
Data presented for
two time periods.
See
for
I XG-1
commen ts.
See IXG-1
for comme n t s.
Study consisted of
8 tests of about 100
hr duration each.
See IXG-1
for comine n t s .
See IXG-1
for commen t s.
Test chemical used
was Cr C1j with 24
hr carbon contact
time.
Ref .
64
64
64
0 2
64
64
7 2
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E~i(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
ption o
Waste
Type ^
f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
I X
G-
7
cont
Carbon dose % Removal
(ppm)
5,000 17.5
10 ,000 47.5
I X
G-
8
T X
G-
9
I X
G-
10
I X
G-
11
Ch rom i um + ®
L.I
P
100 ppm
Carbon dose % Remova1
(ppm)
0 0
500 16
1,000 26
5,000 34
10,000 36
24 hr contact time,
test chemical was
^ 2 C r 2 0 7
7 2
Coppe r
F,C
M
88 ppb
69% reduction; 27 ppb
effluent conc.
See IXG-1
for comments.
64
~64~~
Coppe r
F,C
M
4 9 ppb
35% reduction; 32 ppb
e f f 1 uen t conc.
See IXG-1
for comine nts .
Copper
L, I
P
100 ppm
Carbon Dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 0
1,000 10
5,000 7 3
10,000 96 . 4
24 hr contact time,
test chemical was
C u S O ^
7 2
I X
G-
Iron
F, C
M
207 ppb
68% reduction; 66 ppb
effluent conc.
See IXG-1
for.commenIs.
64
Iron
i
F.C
M
4 0 ppb
2onc; increased to 45 ppb
in effluent.
See IXG-1
for comme nts.
64
!
(contlnueat
i
-------
TABLE E -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption o
Was te
Type ^
f Study
Influent
Char.
Results qf Study
Comments
Ref .
I X
G-
14
I X
G-
15
Lead
F,C
M
2 2 ppb
Cone, increased to 26 ppb
See IXG- 1
for eoinme i) t s .
64
Lead
F. C
M
4 . 7 ppb
Cone, increased to 5.3
ppb .
See I XG- 1
for comme n t s.
64
7 2
I X
G-
J 6
Lead
L, I
P
100 ppm
Carbon dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 13
1.000 17.7
5,000 84.0
10,000 93.0
24 hr contact time,
test chemical use (J
Pb(N03)2
I X
G-
17
Manganese
F, C
M
6 . 2 ppb
21% reduction; 4.9 ppb
effluent cone.
See IXG- 1
for comments.
64
IX
G-
18
Manganese
F, C
M
2 . 3 ppb
Cone, increased to 4.1
ppb .
See IXG- 1
for eoinme n t s .
64
~^}2~
I X
G-
19
Manganese
L. I
P
100 ppb
Carbon dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 1
1,000 3
5,000 25
10,000 50
24 hr contact time,
test chemical used
wa s Mn C12 •
! ix
| G-
20
Mercury
F.C
M
3 . 6 ppb
Cone, increased to 6.7
ppb.
See I XG- 1
for commen ts.
64
d)
i
(cont inue
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
I X
G-
21
Mercury
F,C
M
1.2 ppb
Cone, increased to 4.9
ppb.
See IXG- i
for comme n t s.
64
I X
G-
22
7x ~
G-
23
Mercury
L. I
P
100 ppm
Carbon Dose % Removal
24 hr contact time,
test chemical used
was Hg Cl2.
72
(ppm)
0 0
500 99
1,0 00 99
5,000 99
10,000 99
Mercury
U
U
10 ppb
80% reduction achieved
with carbon dose of 100
Mg/1. PAC +¦ chelating
agent.
Efficiency of reduc-
tion was dependent
on pH . Optimum p 11
was 7.0. Tannic Ac-
id and Citric Acid
were ineffective as
chelating agents.
87
I X
G-
24
n~
G-
2 5
Mercury
R
U
80% reduction by PAC &
Alum Coagulation.
G AC reduction of llg
enhanced by use of
chelating agent.
90
Nickel
L, I
P
100 ppm
Carbon dose % Removal
24 hr contact time,
test chemical used
wa s Ni CI 2 .
72
(ppm)
0 0
500 4
1,000 5
5,000 10.5
10,000 52
1 X
76
S elenium
R
U
5 00 ppm
GAC treatment after Lime
ppt. yielded 96% reduc-
tion.
90
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
No.
Chemical
I X
G-
2 7
Thallium
I X
G-
28
I x"
G-
29
Zinc
Zinc
Description of Study
Study
Type c
F,C
F.C
Was te
Type 1
M
M
Influent
Char.
6 7 0 ppb
4 12 ppb
Results of Study
G AC treatment after Lime
ppt. yielded 84% reduc-
tion.
8 1 % reduc t ion;
effluent conc.
12 4 p p b
61% reduction; 162 ppb
effluent conc.
Comments
See IXG-1
for commen ts
Ref
90
64
See IXG-i
for comment s
64
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-1 (cont inued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classi f ication : Poiychl orinated Di phenyls (I)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Results of study
Comments
Kef .
I X
I -
1
PCB ' s
( U n s p e c i f led)
C, P
11
19 p p b
Not detectable in efflu-
ent with 60 min contact
time.
Treatment by EPA
trailer.
6
I X
I -
2
PCB's
(Unspecified)
C , P
II
400 ppb
@ 0.6 MC,
treated
Not detectable in efflu-
ent with 30-40 min con-
tact t ime .
See IXI- l
for comme n t s.
6
I X
[ -
3
PCB 's
(Un spec i f i ed)
C, P
II
1.0 ppb
@ 12 MG
treated
Not detectable in efflu-
ent with 0.5 min contact
time.
See I X I - l
for comments.
6
I X
I -
4
Arochlor
124 2
L.B.I
P
4 5 ppb
<0.5 ppb final conc.
carbon capacity was
2 5 mg/g.
Pulverized FS-300
B
T X
1 -
5
Arochlor
124 2
I
P
4 5 ppb
4.3 ir.g/g capaciLy for a
1.1 ppb final conc.
2 2
I X
1 -
6
A rochlor
124 2
1
S
4 5 ppb
25 mg/g capacity for a
<0.5 ppb final conc.
38
I X
1 -
7
Arochlor
124 2
I
1
4 5 ppb
25 mg/g capacity for a
<0.5 ppb final conc.
66
1 X
I -
0
Arochlor
1254
I., B , I
P
4 9 ppb
7 2 mg/g of carbon capac-
ity for a final conc. of
<0.5 ppb
Pulverized FS-300
used .
0
I X
X -
9
Arochlor
1254
I
P
16 0 ppb
15.75 mg/g capacity for
98.5% reduction.
2 2
I X
; : o
Arochlor
1254
I
P
11.15ppb
a nd
37.5 ppb
0.37 mg/g capacity for
99% reducti on.
2 2
(continue
d)
t
-------
TABLEE-i (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (I)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
I X
I -
-J.L
1 X
I -
12
Arochlor
1254
C , I,
P
0.25 ppb
at 100ml
per h r
<0.05 ppb final cone.
for 240 BV.
Experiment lasted
5 days.
22
Arochlor
1254
F.C
P
5 0 ppb
<1.0 ppb final effluent
at 0.006 lb/lb capacity.
Cost estimate for
full scale columns
are $0.65/100 gal
at 0.25 Mgd.
22
I X
I -
13
I X
I -
10
I X
1 -
15
Arochlor
1254
I
P
4 9 ppb
1.0 mg/g capacity for
1 . 2 ppb effluent.
22
Arochlor
12 54
I
S
4 9 ppb
p H = 7 .0
7.2 mg/g capacity for
final conc. of 0.5 ppb.
30
Arochlor
1254
I
I
4 9 ppb
See IXI-13 results
66
I X
I -
16
Arochlor
1254
B , L
P
100 ppb
94.4% average reduction;
14% desorbed from carbon
by elutriation w/solvent
FS-300 used.
Solvents included
pentane-acetone, di-
ethyl ether, methy-
lene chloride-ace-
tone, chloroform-
acetone , acetone.
20
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E -1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (.1)
a
No.
Chemical^
Description of Study
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Rcf .
IX
J-
1
Aldrin
B.L
P
100 ppb
100* reduction; 2% desorbed
by elutriation with solvent.
Calgon FS-300 used.
20
IX
J-
2
Aldri n
I
S
40 ppb
30 mg/g of carbon capacity
for a final conc. of
<1.0 ppb.
—
ii
-j
b
38
IX
J-
3
Aldrin
L,B, I
P
48 ppb
30 mg/g of carbon capacity
for a final conc. of
<1.0 ppb.
Pulverized FS-300
8
IX
J-
4
Aldrin
C.P
II
0. 5 ppb
@ 0.1 MG
treated
98% reduction w/17 min
contact time.
Treated by EPA mobile
trailer.
6
IX
J-
5
Aldrin
C,P
H
60.5 ppb
@ 3000
gal
treated.
99.8% reduction w/240 min
contact time.
See IXJ-4
for comments.
6
IX
J-
6
2,4-D butyl
ester
L, B
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 10% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
Calgon FS-300 used.
20
IX
J-
7
Chlordane
C.P
H
13 ppb
0 1.0 MG
treated
97.3 reduction; w/17 min
contact time.
See IXJ-4
for comments.
6
1
1 ^ ^
[ CD / |
Chlordane
C,P
11
14 30 ppb
@ 3000
yal
treated
99.99% reduction; w/240 min
contact time.
See IXJ-4
for comments.
6
>
J DUD
i
I
S
56 ppb
pll = 7.0
130 mg/g carbon capacity for
a final conc. of 0.1 ppb.
38
I
ODD
I
P
56 ppb
See IXJ-9 results.
Pulverized FS-300 used.
8
i '"
(continued)
i
-------
TABLEE-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
T X
J -
__J,I
I X
J -
12
I X
J -
—II
L X
J -
14
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
DDD
I
I
5 6 ppb
pll = 7 . 0
See IXJ-9 results.
66
DDE
1
I
3 8 ppb
ph=7.0
9.4 mg/g carbon capacity
for a final conc. of
<1.0 ppb.
66
DDE
1
P
18 ppb
See IXJ-12 results.
Pulverized FS-300
used .
8
DDE
I
S
3 0 ppb
jH = 7 . 0
See IXJ-12 results.
30
30
DDT
I
S
4 1 ppb
p H = 7
11 mg/g of carbon capac-
ity for a final conc.
of 0.1 ppb
DDT
L , B , I
P
41 ppb
11 mg/g of carbon capac-
ity for a final conc. of
0.15 ppb.
Pulverized FS-300
0
6
DDT
C , L , R
P , R
1 0 ppb
Greater than 99* reduc-
tion achieved.
Cumulative removal
following prechlo-
rination and coagu-
lation-filtration
DDT
B , L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 51% de-
so.rbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
Ca lgon FS-300
2 0
DDT
I
I
4 1 ppb
rail = 7
See IXJ-lS results.
66
Dieldrin
I
S
19 ppb
15 mg/g carbon capacity
for a final conc. of
0.05 ppb.
(continue
38
d)
X
J -
J 5
1 X
J -
_16_
[ X
J-
17
I X
J -
_1H
I X
J -
_19
I X
J -
20
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
b
Description of Study
No.
Chemical
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
I X
J-
21
Dieldrin
L , B , I
P
19 ppb
15 mg/g carbon capacity
for a final conc. of
0.00 ppb.
Pulverized FS-300
U
I X
J-
22
Dieldrin
C , P
H
11 ppb
@ 0.1MG
treated
No detectable level in
effluent w/17 min con-
tact time.
Treated by EPA
mob ile trailer.
6
I X
J -
23
Dieldrin
C , P
H
6 0.5ppb
@ 3000
gal
treated.
No detectable level in
effluent w/240 min con-
tact time.
See I X J - 22
for commen t s.
6
I X
J-
24
Di eldrin
B , L , R
P, R
10 ppb
Carbon Conc. % Removal
5 ing/1 7 5
10 mg/1 8 5
20 mg/1 92
Cumulative removal
following prechlo-
rination & coagula-
tion-sedimentation .
6
I X
J-
25
Dieldrin
C , L , R
P. R
10 ppb
@ 0.5
gpm/ f t
Greater than 99% reduc-
tion achieved.
See IXJ- 24
for coinmen t s .
6
IX
J-
26
Dieldrin
1
I
1 9 ppb
pH= 7.0
See IXJ-10 results.
6 6
I X
J-
27
End r i n
I
I
6 2 ppb
pH = 7 . 0
100 mg/g carbon capacity
for a final conc. of
0.05 ppb.
6 6
I X
J-
20
End r i n
E , B , I
P
6 2 ppb
100 mg/g carbon capacity
for a final conc. of
0 . 07 ppb
Pulverized FS-300
B
' X
Endtin
B , L , R
P » R
10 ppb
Carbon Conc. % Removal
See IXJ-24
6
5 mg/ 1 80
10 ing/1 9 0
20 mg/ 1 94
for comments.
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption o
Waste
Type ^
f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
IX
J-
30
Endrin
C.L.R
P. R
10 ppb
@ 0.5
gpm/ft3
Greater than 99% reduction
achieved.
See IXJ-24
for comments.
6
IX
J-
31
Endrin
I
S
62 ppb
pH = 7.0
See IXJ-27 results.
38
IX
J-
32
Heptachlor
C.P
H
6.1 ppb
@ 0.1 MG
treated
99% reduction w/17 min
contact time.
Treated by EPA mobile
trailer.
6
IX
J-
33
~iY~
J-
34
Meptachlor
C,P
H
80 ppb
@ 3000
gal
treated
99.9% reduction w/240 min
contact time.
Treated by EPA mobile
trailer.
6
Herbicides
(unspecified)
R
U
10,000
ppm TOC
@ 0.02
MGD
99% TOC reduction achieved
w/412 min contact time.
Pretreatment included
pH adjustment.
38
IX
J-
35
Herbicides
(unspeci f ied)
R
U
1500 ppm
TOC @
0.02 MGD
90% TOC reduction achieved
w/412 min contact time.
Pretreatment included
settling and filtration
38
IX
J-
36
Kepone
C,P
II
4000 ppb
0 0.225MC
treated
No detectable levels in
effluent w/45 min contact
Lime.
Treated by EPA mobile
trailer.
6
IX
7 _
3 7
Lindane
B, L, R
P i R
10 ppb
Carbon Cone. % Removal
5 mg/1 30
10 mg/1 55
20 mg/1 80
See IXJ-24
for comments.
6
[
(cont inuc
d)
i
-------
TABLE K-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Cha r.
IX
J-
38
IX
J-
39
IX
J-
40
Lindane
C, L, R
P.R
10 ppb
@0.5
gpm/f t ^
Greater than 99% reduction
achieved.
See IXJ-24
for comments.
6
Parathion
B,L,R
P i R
10 ppb
Carbon Cone. % Removal
5 mg/1 >99
10 mg/1 >99
20 mg/1 >99
See IXJ-24
for comments.
6
Parathion
C,L,R
P,R
10 ppb
Greater than 99% reduction
achieved.
See IXJ-24
for comments.
6
~6
6
6
~8~
30
id)
i
IX
J-
41
2,4,5-T ester
B. L, R
P.R
10 ppb
Carbon Cone. % Removal
5 mg/l 00
10 mg/1 90
20 mg/1 95
See IXJ-24
for comments.
IX
J-
42
2,4,5-T ester
C,L,R
P,R
10 ppb
@ 0.5
gpm/f t ^
Greater than 99% reduction
achieved.
See IXJ-24
for comments.
IX
J-
43
Toxaphene
C.P
P
36 ppb @
0.25 MG
trea ted
97% reduction w/26 min
contact time.
Treated by LPA mobile
trailer.
IX
J-
44
Toxaphene
L, B, I
P
155 ppb
42 mg/g carbon capacity for
a final cone- of <1.0 ppb.
Pulverized FS-300.
IX
J-
45
Toxaphene
I
S
155 ppb
See IXJ-44 results.
1
;
(cont i iuk
-------
TABLEE -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemi ca 1 Classification; Phenols(K)
a
No.
Chemical^
Description of Studv
Results of Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
I X
K-
]
Butyl Phenol
C, P
II
300 ppb
95% reduction w/8.5 min
contact time.
250,000 gal spill
treated by EPA mo-
bile treatement
trai ler .
6
20
6
20
G
2 0
2)
J)
I X
K-
2
4-Chloro-
3-Me thy 1-
pheiiol
B , L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 10% d e -
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
Calgon FS-300 used.
Solvents included
pentane-acetone, di-
ethyl ether, methy-
lene chlor ide-ace-
tone, chloroform-
acetone and acetone.
I X
K-
3
1 X ~~
K -
4
C r e so 1
C. P
II
2 3 0 ppb
96.5% reduction w/8.5
min contact time.
250,000 gal spill
trea ted by EPA
mobile treatment
trailer.
2 ,3-Dichloro
phenol
B , L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 14% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
See I X K -2
for comments.
I X
K -
5
Dimethyl-
phenol
C , P
H
L 2 20 ppb
99.6% reduction w/0.5
min contact time.
See I X K -3
for comme n t s.
I X
K-
6
3,5-Dimethyl
phenol
B , L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 5% d e -
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
See I X K -2
for commen t s .
I X
K-
7
2,4-Dinitro-
phenol
I
P
For pll= 3.0:
Carbon capacity=405mg/g
K =168
1/n -0.38
r =0.99
(continue
-------
TABLE
E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (k)
a
No.
I X
K
7
con I
I X
K
8
Chemical
Nonylphenol
itachloro
ohenol
Description of Study
Study
Type c
Waste
Type
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
For pH = 7 .0:
Carbon capacity=160mg/g
K =18
1/n =0.95
r =0.94
For pll = 9 . 0 :
Carbon capacity=75 mg /g
K =41
1/n =0.25
r =0.87
For pII = 3 . 0 :
Carbon capacity=570mg/g
K =55
1/n =1.03
r =0.97
For pII = 7 . 0 :
Carbon capacity=595mg/g
K =254
1/n =0.37
r =0.98
For pH=9.0:
Carbon capacity=275mg/g
K =148
1/n =0.27
r =0.98
For pH = 3.0:
Carbon capacity=635mg/g
K =260
1/n =0.4
r =0.98
Comments
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Phenols(K)
a
No.
Chemica1
1 X
K-
9
:on L
I X
M
10
IX
K-
11
I X
K H
12
Pentachloro-
phe no 1
Phenol
Plie nol
Description of Study
Study
Type °
C, P
B , L
Waste.
Type c
Influent
Char.
1 0 ppm
100 ppb
Results of Study
For pll = 7 . 0 :
Carbon capaci ty = 385mg/y
K =145
1/n =0.42
r =0.90
For pH = 9.0:
Carbon capacity=260mg/g
K =100
1/n =0.41
r =0.98
Not detectable in efflu-
ent after 26 min contact
time.
100% reduction; 6% de—
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/so1ve n t.
For p H = 3.0:
Carbon capacity=85 mg/g
K =12
1/n =0.30
r =0.92
For pH = 7.0:
Carbon capacity=80 mg/g
K =13
1/n =0.77
r =0.91
For pH = 9.0:
Carbon capacity=70 mg/g
K =22
Comments
215,000 gal treated
by EPA mobile treat
merit trailer.
See I X K -2
for comme n ts.
He f
20
21
(continued)
i
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated CArbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Phenols(K)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste#
Type ^
Influent
Char.
I X
K-
12
c o n t
1/n =0.49
r =0.94
I X
K-
13
Phenol
I
P
1 . 0 ppm
Adsorption capacity
21 mg/g
2 1
I X
K -
14
Ix
K-
15
I X
K -
16
I X
K -i
17
T if
K-
18
I X
K -
19
I x"
'<
' ¦)
Phenol
C, P
H
14 0 ppb
100* reduction w/8.5 min
contact t i me.
See I XK- 3
for comme n t s .
6
Phenol
L, I
P
100 ppm
500 ppm
1000 ppm
99% r educ t i on
99% reduction
99% reduc t ion
24 hr contact time
time w/carbon dose
of lOx phenol conc.
7 2
Phenol
I
S
1000 ppm
80% reduction; 194 ppm
final conc., 161 mg/g
carbon capacity.
35
Phenol
R
U
200 ppm
@ 0.05
MGD
Effluent conc. of 0.01
ppm achievable at con-
tact time of 165 min.
Settling,equaliza-
tion & mixed media
filtration used as
pretreatment .
30
P tie no 1
R
u
6 0 0 ppm
3 0 . 2MGD
Effluent conc. of lOOppm
achievable at contact
time of 41 min.
Equalization used
as pretreatment.
38
To"
Ye ~~
Phenol
R
u
800 ppm
90 . 15MGD
Efflur.nt con. of 0.05ppm
achievable at contact
time of 24 min.
Biological & mixed
media filtration
used as pretreatmeit
Phenol
R
u
1200 ppm
§0.15MGD
Effluent conc. of 1.Oppm
achievable at contact
time of 55 min.
Sand filtration &
settling used as
pretreatment.
!'
i
(
(continue
d)
I
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
Study
Type c
Waste
Type »d
Influent
Char.
I X
K-
21
I X
K-
22
Phenol
R
U
8 0 ppm
a 0.3MGD
Effluent cone. of 1.Oppm
achievable at contact
t ime of 3 3 mi n.
Biological, set-
tling & multi media
filtration used as
pre trea tment.
38
Phenol
R
U
L000 ppm
80.6% reduction achieved
500 mg/1 carbon
dose used.
90
I X
K-
23
Pheno 1
B , L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 6% d e -
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
See I XK- 2
for comments.
20
I X
K-
24
T X
K-
25
Tx
K-
26
Reg orcinol
B , L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 0% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
See I XK- 2
for commen ts.
20
2,4,6-Tri-
chlorophenol
B , L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 0% d e -
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
See I XK- 2
for comments.
20
T r i m e t h y 1 -
phenol
C, P
11
130 ppb
92% reduction w/8.5 min
contact time.
See IXK- 3
for comme nt s.
6
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Phthalates
-------
TABLE E-~l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Studv
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
IX
M-
1
Biphenyl
B, L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
Calgon FS-300 used. Sol-
vents included pentane-
acetone, diethyl ether,
methylene chloride-ace-
tone, chloroform-acetoiu
and acetone.
20
IX
M-
2
"Fx"
M-
3
Cumene
B, L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 8% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
See IXM-1
for comments.
20
_20
Dimethyl-
Naphthalene
B, L
P
100 ppb
80% reduction; 11% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
See IXM-i
for comments.
IX
M-
4
1,1-Dipheny1-
hydrazine
I
P
pH=7.5
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows:
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 94.8 0.279
Filtrasorb 149.0 0.232
Carbon dose (my/1) required
to reduce 1.0 mg/1 to O.lmg/L
Darco - 18.0
Filtrasorb - 10.0
31
IX
M-
5
Fluoranthrene
B, L
P
100 ppb
80% reduction; 5% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
See IXM- i
for comments.
20
IX
M-
6
Naptlialene
I
P
Isotherm kinetics were as
fol lows
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 62.8 0.30
Filtrasorb 1.69 0.56
(conti nue
31
d)
-------
TABLE
E -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Poiynuciear Aroma tics (M)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comme n t s
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
IX
M-
6
L-ont
Carbon dose (mg/1) required
to reduce 1.0mg/l to O.lmg/L
Darco - 29.0
Filtrasorb - 19.0
IX
M-
7
Tx~
M-
0
Napthalene
F\C
M
Cone.
not re-
ported
70% reduction achieved in
carbon treatment phase.
Carbon used as advanced
treatment of biological-
ly S. chemically treated
wastewater. Plant ca-
pacity 0.66 M /sec.
64
Phenanthrene
B, L
P
100 ppb
80% reduction; 6% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
See IXM- i
for comments.
20
IX
M-
9
Py rene
B, L
P
100 ppb
00% reduction; 5% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
See IXM- 1
for comments.
20
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E~1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
a
No.
, b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
Study
Type °
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
XA-
1
Dutanol
B, L
P
100 ug/l
Complete removal. Greater
than 100% desorption of
Octanol by elutriation with
solvent was reported.
See XA-i
for additional results.
20
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
a
No.
^ . b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
XA-
7
Pentanol
B,L
P
100 /ig/1
Complete removal. 67% de-
sorption of pentanol by
elutriation with solvent
was achieved.
See XA-i
for additional results.
20
XA-
8
Propanol
B, L
P
100 yjg/1
Complete removal. Propanol
could not be desorbed by
elutriation with solvent.
See XA-1
for additional results.
20
d)
(continue
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
XB-
1
Butyric Acid
B,L
P
100 Ajg/1
100% reduction; no desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Resin was Amberlite
XAD-2. Resin found to
be more effective than
carbon for phthalate
esters, most aromatics,
and pesticides; carbon
more efficient for
alkanes; neither effec-
tive for acidic com-
pounds .
20
XB-
2
Caproic Acid
B, L
P
100 Ajg/1
50% reduction; 6% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
See XB-1
for additional results.
20
XU-
3
Decanoic Acid
B, L
P
100 /ug/l
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
See XB-1
for additional results.
20
" ~20
~ 20
20
XB-
4
Dodecane
B,L
P
ioo /ug/l
25% reduction; No desorptior
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
See XB- i
for additional results.
XB-
5
Heptanoic Acid
B.L
P
100 /Ug/l
50% reduction; 4% desorptior
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
See XB- i
for additional results.
XB-
6
llexadecane
B, I.
P
ioo Aig/i
25% reduction; No desorptioi
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
See XB- 1
for additional results.
XB-
7
XeT
8
Laurie Acid
B.L
P
100 /ug/l
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
See XB- 1
for additional results.
20
Mn thy1
Decanoate
B,L
P
ioo A»g/i
100% reduction; 50% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
See XB- i
for additional results.
(continue
20
:d)
i
-------
TABLEE-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Re f .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influen t
Char.
XB-
9
Methyl
Dodecanoate
B,L
P
100 Aig/1
100% reduction; 72% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
See XB-1
for additional results.
20
20
XB-
10
Methyl llexa-
decanoate
B.L
P
100
-------
TABLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
xc-
1
Aniline
B, L
P
100 Ajg/1
Complete removal; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Resin was Amberlite
XAD-2. Resin found to
be more effective than
carbon for phthalate
esters, most aromatics,
and pesticides; carbon
was more efficient for
alkanes; neither effec-
tive for acidic com-
pounds .
20
xc-
2
xc-
3
Butylamine
B, L
P
100 Ajg/1
Complete removal; 74% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
See XC-i
for additional results.
20
Cyclohexy1-
amine
B, L
P
100 Aig/1
Complete removal; 94% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
See XC- i
for additional results.
20
xc-
4
xc-
5
Dibutylamine
B, L
P
100 Aig/1
Complete removal; 62% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
See XC-i
for additional results.
20
Dihexylamine
B,I.
P
100 Ajg/1
Complete removal; 11% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
See XC-i
for additional results.
20
XC-
6
~xc-
1
Diinethylamine
B, L
P
100 /ug/1
100% removal; 50% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
See XC-l
for additional results.
20
20
llexylamine
i
B, L
P
100 Mg/l
100% removal; 110% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
See XC- i
for additional results.
(continue
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
a
No.
Chemical ^
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
xc-
0
Morpholine
B,L
P
100 Aig/1
100% removal; 20% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
See XC~i
for additional results.
20
xc-
9
Octylamine
B,L
P
100 Aig/1
100% removal; 15% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
See XC-i
for additional results.
20
"20""
20
3o"~
d)
xc-
10
Piperidine
B, L
P
100 Aig/1
100% removal; 42% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
See XC-i
for additional results.
xc-
11
Pyrrole
B, L
P
100 /jg/1
100% removal; 5% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
See XC-i
for additional results.
xc-
12
Tributylamine
B.L
P
100 yUg/1
100% removal; 108% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
See XC-i
for additional results.
(continue
-------
TADLEE-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
XD-
1
Acetophenone
B, I.
P
100 ^ig/1
100% reduction; 00% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Resin was Amberlite
XAD-2. Resin found to
be more effective than
carbon for phthalate
esters, most aromatics,
and pesticides; carbon
more efficient for al-
kanes; neither effective
for acid compounds.
20
~20
XD-
2
3
Benzaldehyde
B, L
P
100 ;ig/l
100% reduction; 79% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
See XD-1
for additional results.
Uenzil
B»L
P
100 ^ig/1
100% reduction; 63% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
See XD-l
for additional results.
20
20
XD-
4
Benzoic Acid
B,L
P
100 Jig/1
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
See XD-1
for additional results.
XD-
5
Benzene,
Toluene,
Xylene (BTX)
P
I
20 to
300 ppin
Effluent (leakage) is 0.2ppm
Costs estimated to be
?3.36/1000 gal. at
250 gpm and 300 ppm B'l'X.
Resin regenerant is
steam. Recovery of BTX
reduces costs to Sl.O'J/
1000 gal.
32
XD-
b
Curnene
B, L
P
100 ^ig/1
100% removal; 63% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
See XD-1
for additional results.
20
r
(
i
i
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
a
No.
Concentration Process; Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classifications Aromatics (D)
Chemical
Description of Study
Study
Type c
Waste
Type '
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
XD-
XD-
m-Dichloro-
benzene
B,L
100 jig/1
o-Dichloro-
benzene
100% removal; 52% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
See XD-i
for additional results.
20
B»L
100 ut
pj/1
XD-
100% removal; 61% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
See XD-l
for additional results.
p-Dichloro-
benzene
B,L
100 pq/l
XD-
10
1,2, 4-Trichloro-J B,L
benzene
ifAkt¦ auivcut ,
100% removal; 35% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent
See XD-l
for additional results.
20
20
100 jag/1
100% removal; 67% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
See XD-l
for additional results.
20
XD-
11
2,4,6-Trinitro-
toluene {TNTJ
P,C
81 to
116 ppm
XD-
12
2,4,6-Trinitro-
toluene (TNT)
and other muni-
tions plant
wastewaters;
yclonite(RDX),
nil :::amine
-vl) and
etrameth-
^ tetrani-
r :.ne (HMX).
Resin adsorption capacity was
0.116 to 0.154 gm/qm at 1 ppm
breakthrough. No loss in
capacity after 15 regenera-
tion cycles. 1 ppm break-
through occurred after 633
to 1193 B.V.
Amberlite XAD-4 used;
acetone regenerant. Less
costly than carbon due
to regenerability.
Not
reported
Adsorption
Amberlite
Contami-
nant
TNT
RDX
RDX &
TETRYL
TNT &
RDX
TNT 6
HMX
capacities
XAD-4 resin
Break-
through
0.020
0.236
0.003
0.001
0.116
0.020
0.002
(Lb/Lb
Satura
tion
0.050
0. 382
0.019
0.006
0.278
0.030
0.179
For B0 gpm facility
costs estimated to be
$5.08/1000 gal.
40
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classifications Aromatics (D)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type d
)f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
XD-
12
:ont .
'
r
i
(Note: breakthrough conc. not
defined.)
Typical conc. of contaminants
in wastewaters:
TNT - 0-400 ppm
RDX - 50-100 ppm
pH - 3.5-7.0
Flow - 0.02-1.0 MGD
Temp - 60-160°F
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E -l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: llalocarbons (F)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
XP-
1
B r omo form
W
0.2 ppb
See XF- 16
for results.
46
~2 0
XF-
2
B r omo form
B , L
P
100 ppb
100% removal; 28% de-
sorption from resin by
elutriation w/solvent.
Amberlite XAD-2 used
Solvents included
pentane-acetone, di-
ethyl ether, methy-
lene chloride-ace-
tone , methyl chlo-
ride-acetone, and
acetone.
XF-
3
XF~
4
XF-~
5
X F ~
6
B r omod i c h1o-
methane
L
W
At 2 ppm, equilibriu m
capacity was 48 mg/g.
See XF- 16
for results.
4 6
Car bon
Tetrachlo-
ride
P
I
100 to
7 0 0 0 p p in
chlori-
nated
hydro-
ca rbon s
Effluent of
-------
TABLE E-](continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
XF-
7
XF-
8
Dibromochlo-
r omc thane
L
W
3.9 ppb
See XF- 16
for results.
46
1 , 1-Dichlo-
roethane
L
W
2.3 ppb
See XF-16
for results.
46
6
XF-
9
1,2-Dichlo-
roethane
L
W
2.1 ppb
See XF-16
for results.
XK-
10
XF-
11
1,2-Dichlo-
roethylene
L
W
0.2 ppb
See XF-16
for results.
4 6
Ethylene
Die hloride
P
I
100 to
7000
ppm
chlori-
nated
hydro-
carbons
Effluent of
-------
a
No.
Chemical
XF-
16
co 111
xr-
17
1, 2, 3-T r i•
chloropro
pane
TABLEE -1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Ada tion (x)
Chemical Classification: „al0carbons (F)
Description of Study
Study
Typec
D , L
Waste
Type
Influent
Char.
10 0 ppb
Results of Study
B V to
3 3 ppb
com -
pound
leakage
Days
Virgin Regenera ted
9000
8500
23.4
Gal
treated/
cu ft 67500
sorben t
22.1
63750
Complete removal w/com-
plete desorption by
elutriation w/solvent.
Comments
Flow-2 gpm/cu ft
(16 BV/hr) Regener-
ated at 37 lb steam/
cu ft ? 5 psig
See XF-2
for comments
Ref .
20
(continued)
-------
TABLE E"l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Polychlorinated Biphenyls .(I)
a
No.
b
Cheinica 1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
XI-
1
Arochlor 1254
B, L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 76.6% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, chloro-
form-acetone & acetone.
20
XI-
2
Arochlor 1254
C,L
P
0-25 ppb
lOOml/hr
Final effluent conc. was
0-0.25 ppb for 192 B.V.
5 day study.
22
~57
XI-
3
Arochlor 1254
& 1260
C
M
1-25 ppb
60% reduction wAmberlite
XAD-4. 23% ± 2% reduction
w/ftmberlite XAD-2.
In continuous flow
system reduction de-
creased greatly w/time.
(continue
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
XJ-
XJ-
XJ-
XJ-
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
Chemical
Aldrin
Atrazine
Chlorinated
Pesticides
(Unspeci fied)
2,4-D Butyl
ester
XJ- 2,4-D and re-
lated herbi-
cide:.-
Description of Study
Study
Type c
B, L
B,L
B, L
Waste
Type '
Influent
Char .
100 ppb
100 ppb
3 3 to
118 ppm
100 ppb
20-1500
ppm @70-
S0 gpm
Results of Study
100% reduction; 39% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 30% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Column studies indicatd that
Amber1i te XAD-4 could pro-
cess about four times more
throughput before experienc-
ing some leakage as carbon
column. Leakages of <1 ppm
maintained at longer than
120 BV. Resiil could be ef-
fectively regenerated w/2 BV
of isopropanol whereas even
8 BV did not effectively
generate carbon.
100% reduction; 10% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Effluent conc. reduced to
<1.0 ppm.
Commen ts
Amber1ite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetoue, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, chloro-
form-acetone and acetone
See XJ- i
for comments,
Solvents ranking in
terms of decreasing ef-
fectiveness were acetone
isopropanol, and metha-
nol; however, acetone
is very flammable. Col-
umn study conditions:
50-150 BV passed,4 BV/hr
flow, 12.5-125 hr dura-
tion. Costs estimated
to be §0.03 for resin
sorption and §1.33/1000
gal for carbon.
See XJ- 1
for comments.
Amberlite XAD-4 reyin
used .
He t .
20
20
49
20
20
(con t i nued)
i
-------
TABLE R-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
b
Chemical
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type d
>f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
XJ-
6
DDT
B,L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 49% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
See XJ-i
for comments.
20
XJ-
7
Endrin and
lleptachlor
F
I
0.1-2.0
ppm
@ 100 gpm
Effluent conc. reduced to
<3.0 ppb.
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
32
XJ-
a
Toxaphene
U
I
70-2600
ppb
Effluent conc. reduced to
0.1-4.2 ppb.
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
32
(continue
d)
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
Chemical^
Description of Study
Results of Study
Common ts
Re t .
Study
Type c
Was te
Type ^
Inf1uenl
Char.
XK-
1
Disphenol-A
C, L
I
900 ppm
2 BV/hr
At pH 11.4, poor adsorption
achieved on either XAD-4 or
XAD-7. At pll 10.0, XAD-4
treated 33.5 U.V.'s to 50ppm
breakthrough. XAD-7 treated
16 B.V. to 50 ppm break-
through .
95% regeneration
achieved w/1 B.V. of
4% NaOll & 4 B.V.
deionized water.
23
XK-
2
Bisphenol-A
C, L
I
280 ppm
2 BV/ r
At pH 6.9, XAD-4 capacity
was 34 g/1 and XAD-7 capa-
city was 16 g/1.
See XK-1
for comments.
23
~3 3 ~~
~33~
~20~
66 ~
d)
XK-
3
Drine Phenol
U
1
20% brine
w/10-150
ppm
phenol
Effluent cone. reduced to
<0.5 ppm.
Wastewater of brine
purification process
5 B.V. of 4% NaOll re-
quired for regeneration.
X
1
Brine Phenol
U
I
10% brine
w/10-400
ppm
phenol
Effluent cone. reduced to
<2.0 ppm phenols using cross
linked polystyrene macrore-
ticular resin.
Wastewater from a
phenoxy acid pesticide
manu facturer.
XK-
5
4-Chloro-3-
methylphenol
B, L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 70% de-
sorbed from resin by
elutriation w/solvent.
Amber lite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included
pen tane-acetone,
diethyl ether, methy-
lene chloride-acetone,
chloroform-acetone and
acetone.
:. X -
K-Chlorophenol
<-','13% NaCl
U
I
3 50 ppm
0 0.5
gpm/f t'
At zero leakage sorption
capacity was 0.07 lb/lb.
15 min contact time
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
•
(continue
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
b
Chemical
Description of Study
3
No.
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
XK-
7
2,4-Dibromo-
phenol
B,I,
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 44% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
See XK-5
for comments.
20
XK-
8
Dichlorophenol
U
I
1500 ppm
w/15%
brine,
pH = 2-3
Resin capacity was 5.6 lb
phenols/ft3 @ 5 ppm break-
through.
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
2% caustic soda heated
to 80°-85°C used as
regenerant.
33
XK-
9
2,3-Dichloro-
phenol
B, L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 54% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
See XK-5
for comments.
20
XK-
10
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
U
I
4 30 ppm
@ 0.5
gpm/ft3
At zero leakage sorption
capacity was 0.116 lb/lb.
15 min contact time.
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
66
XK-
11
(!-Napthol
B,L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 76% desorbed
by elutriation w/solvent.
See XK-5
for comments.
20
XK-
12
p-Nitrophenol
C, L
I
700-1300
ppm
@ 50 C
Effluent conc. reduced to
5.0-6.0 ppm for 32 B.V.
Resin capacity was about
40 g/1. Efficient ethanol
regeneration.
Ainberlite XAD-7 used.
20 ml columns used
w/experimental runs of
up to 40 B.V.
23
XK-
13
p-Nitrophenol
U
I
1000-
1800 ppm
@ pH=2.0
Effluent conc. reduced to
1-5 ppm by cross-linked
polystyrene adsorbent resin.
Effluent from parathion
manufacturer. 4% aque-
ous caustic soda (213.V.
followed by water rinse
used as regnerant.
33
XK-
14
Pf.:itachloro-
' o':vrnol
B.L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 60% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
See XK-5
for comments.
20
I
i
J
(continue
-'J)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process; Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: phenols (K)
a
No.
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of' Study
Comments
Kef .
Study
Type c
Was te
Type d
Influent
Char.
XK-
15
Phenol
C.L
P
6700 ppm
Effluent conc. of <1.0 ppm
achieved.
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
Acetone & methanol used
as reqenerants.
2 J
~ IT-
XK-
16
Phenol
U
I
500-1500
ppm
Effluent conc. of 1.0-3.0ppm
achieved.
Ainberlite XAD-4 used.
Wastewater from Bisphe-
nol A manufacturer con-
taining 0.5-1.5% phenol,
0.5-1.0% NaCl, 100-1000
ppm acetone @ pH=0.2-
1.5. Acetone & metha-
nol used as regenerant.
XK-
17
Phenol
U
I
5000 ppm
Effluent conc. reduced to
<25 ppm.
Wastewater from phenolic
resin manufacturer.
Warm 44% formaldehyde
used as regenerant.
33
XK-
18
XK-
19
XK^
20
Regorcinol
B,L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction;35% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
See XK-5
for comments.
20
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
B,L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 60% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
See XK-5
for comments.
20
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
U
I
510 ppm'
@ 0.5
gpm/ft3
At zero leakage sorption
capacity was 0.272 lb/lb.
15 min contact time.
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
66
(cont inue
d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Phthalates (L)
a
No.
b
ChemicaI
Descr
Study
Type c
iption c
Waste
Type ^
>f Study
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
XI,-
1
Dibutyl
Phthalate
B, L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 108% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Amber lite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl-
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, chloro-
form-ace tore £. acetone.
20
20
20~
d)
XL-
2
Diethylhexyl
Phthalate
B, L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 76% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
See XL~i
for comments.
XI.-
3
Dimethyl
Phthalate
B, L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 62% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
See XL-1
for comments.
(continue
-------
TABLE E-i(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref.
Study
Type c
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
XM-
1
XM-
2
Acenapththa-
1 ene
B,L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 78% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, chloro-
form-acetone & acetone.
20
20~
B i phenyl
B,L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 73% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
See XM- 1
for comments.
XM-
3
Cumene
B,L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 63% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
See XM- 1
for comments.
20
XM-
4
Diinethyl-
naphthalene
U, I-.
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 90% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
See XM-1
for comments.
20
XM-
5
Fluoranthrene
B , L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 66% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
See XM-1
for comments.
20
XM-
6
Phenanthrene
B, L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 41% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
See XM-1
for comments.
20
To-
XM
7
Pyrene
B,L
P
100 ppb
100% reduction; 63% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
See XM-1
for comments.
J
¦
(cont i nuc
•d)
i
-------
TABLE E-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Miscellaneous Sorbents (XII)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
j-,
Description of Study
Chemical
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
< I I
G-
1
Arsenic
R
U
2 5 ppm
Effluent conc. of 1.Oppm
achieved.
Silicon alloy used.
90
< I I
G-
2
Cadmium
R
U
2 5 ppm
Effluent conc. of 1.Oppm
ach i eved.
Silicon alloy used.
90
<11
G-
1
Cti r om i urn
R
U
300 ppm
100% removal.
High clay soil used
90
<11
G-
4
Copper
R
U
300 ppm
100% remova1.
High clay soil used
90
<1 I
G-
5
Coppe r
R
U
2 5 ppm
Effluent conc. of 1.Oppm
achieved.
Silicon alloy used.
90
< I I
G-
6
Lead
R
U
Residual of <5.0 mg/1
achieved.
Ground redwood bark
used .
90
< I I
G-
7
Lead
R
U
2 5 ppm
Effluent conc. of 1.Oppm
achi eved.
Silicon alloy used.
90
< I I
G-
0
Mercury
R
U
2 5 ppm
Final conc. of 10 ppb
achieved.
Silicon alloy used.
90
< I I
G-
9
Z i n c
R
U
10 ppm
Final conc. reduced to
0.1 ppb.
S i 0 2 & Ca 0 slags
used.
90
i
i
(continue
a)
i
-------
TABLE E" l(continued)
Concentration Process: Miscellaneous Sorbents (XII)
Chemical Classification: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (I)
a
No.
b
Chemica1
Description of Study
Results of Study
Comments
Ref .
Study
Type c
Waste
Type ^
Influent
Char.
XII
I-
1
Arochlor 1254
& 1260
C
M
1-25 ppb
73% reduction in raw sewaqe
w/PVC chips. Polyurethane
foain adsorbed 35% i 3%.
In continuous flow
system reduction de-
creased greatly w/time.
57
Footnotes:
a. Three part code number assigned to each individual chemical compound. First
part is a Roman numeral which corresponds to the concentration process code
number. Second part is a capital letter corresponding to the chemical class-
ification code number. Third part is unique number for each individual
compound.
b. Chemicals are presented in alphabetical order generally according to The Merck
Index preferred or generic name. However, it is recommended to check for a
compound under several potential names.
c. Describes the scale of the referenced study:
'B -
Batch Flow
0 -
- Respirometer Study
c -
Continuous Glow
P -
- Pilot Scale
F -
Full Scale
R -
- Literature Review
I -
Isotherm Test
S -
- Slug Dose Chemical Addition
L -
Laboratory Scale
U -
- Unknown
N -
Flow Not Controlled
(continued)
-------
Footnotes (continued):
d. Describes the type of wastewater used in the referenced study;
D - Domestic wastewater
H - Hazardous material spill
I - Industrial wastewater
P - Pure Compound (one solute in a solvent)
R - River water
S - Synthetic wastewater
U - Unknown
W - Well water
m
i
ro
o
-------
REFERENCES TO TABLE E-l
1. Anderson, G.L., Bair, W.G., and J.A. Hudziak. Ultrafil-
tration for Coal Gasification Plants. Chemical Engineer-
ing Progress, 74(8):66-72, 1978.
2. Anderson, R.K., Nystron, J.M., McDonnell, R.P., and B.W.
Stevens. Explosives Removal from Munitions Wastewater.
In: Proceedings of the 30th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1975. pp. 816-825.
3. Bansal, B.,and W.N. Gill. Theoretical Experimental Study
of Radial Flow Hollow Fiber Reverse Osmosis. Water - 1974
70(144) : 136-149 , 1974.
4. Bansal, I.K. Ultrafiltration of Oily Wastes from Process
Industries. Water - 1975, 71 (151) :93-99 , 1975.
5. Beaudet, B.A. Study of Effectiveness of Activated Carbon
Technology for the Removal of Specific Materials from
Organic Chemical Processes. US EPA Contract No. 68-0 3-2610.
Environmental Science and Engineering Inc., Gainesville,
Florida, May 1979.
6. Becker, D.L.,and S.C. Wilson. The Use of Activated Carbon
for the Treatment of Pesticides and Pesticidal Wastes.
In: Carbon Adsorption Handbook, P.N. Cheremisinoff and
F. Ellerbusch, eds. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan
1978. pp. 167-213;
7.- Berkau, E.E., Frank, C.E., and I.A. Jefcoat. A Scientific
Approach to the Identification and Control of Toxic Chemi-
cals in Industrial Wastewater. US EPA, IERL, Cincinnati,
Ohio. Presented at AIChE 87th National Meeting, Boston,
Massachusetts, August, 1979.
8. Bernardin, F.E. Jr., and E.M. Froelich. Practical Removal
of Toxicity by Adsorption. In: Proceeding 30th Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1975. pp. 548-560.
9. Berndt, C.L.,and Polkowski, L.B., PAC Upgrades Wastewater
Treatment. Water & Wastes Engineering, 15 (5) ; 48, 1978 .
10. Bhattacharvya, D., Garrison, K.A., and R.3. Grieve'.
brane 'Jltraf i It ration of N itroto luenes from Indust' :.<¦ ¦
Wastes. In: Proceedings 31st Industrial Waste Ccr.
Furdce University, Lafayette, Indiana, 19 76 . pp.
E-205
-------
11. Bhattacharyya, D., Garrison, K.A., The, P.J.W., and R.B.
Grieves, Membrane Filtration: Waste Treatment Application
for Water Reuse. In: Proceedings of the 30th Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1975. pp. 120-131.
12. Bhattacharyya, D., Juirvawan, A.B., Grieves, R.B., and S.O.
Witherup. Ultrafiltration of Complex Wastewaters: Re-
cycling for Nonpotable Use. Journal Water Pollution Con-
trol Federation, 50 (5) : 846-861 , 1978 .
13. Bruderly, D.E., Crane, J.D., and J.D. Riggenbach. Feasi-
bility of Zero Aromatic Hydrocarbon Discharge from a Sty-
rene Monomer Facility. In: Proceedings 32nd Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1977. pp. 726-732.
14. Carberry, J.3., Twardowski, W.,and D.X. Eberhart. Clay
Adsorption Treatment of Non-Ionic Surfactants in Waste-
water. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
49 (3) : 452-459 , 1977.
15. Carnahan, R.?.,and L. Smith. Treatment of Wastewater Con-
taining Nitroglycerin and Nitrated Esters. In: Proceed-
ings 32nd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1977. pp. 876-887.
16. Chian, E.S.K. Renovation of Vehicle Washrack Wastewater
for Reuse. Water - 1975 , 71 (151) : 87-92 , 1975 .
17. . Chian, E.S.K., Bruce, W.N., and H.H.P. Fang. Removal of
Pesticides by Reverse Osmosis. Environmental Science and
Technology, 9(l):52-59, 1975.
18. Chian, E.S.K., H.H.P. Fang. Removal of Toxic Compounds
by Reverse Osmosis. Unpublished report available from
Abcor, Inc., Wilmington, Massachusetts.
19. Chian, E.S.K., Fang, H.H.P., DeWalle, F.B., and J.W. Smith.
Physical-Chemical Treatment of Hospital Wastewaters for
Potential Reuse. In: Proceedings of the 30th Industrial
Waste Coaference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1975. pp« 377-389.
20. Chriswell, C.D., Ericson, R.L., Junk, G.A., Lee, K.W..
Fritz, J.S., and H.J. Svec. Comparison of Macroreticu'
Resin ar.d Activated Carbon as Sorbents. Journal Aroer.v
Water Works Association, 6S (12) :569-674, 1977.
E-236
-------
21. Cohen, J.M. Briefing for Dr. Gage on Treatability/Remov-
ability of Toxics from Wastewater. US EPA, Cincinnati,
Ohio, June 1979.
22. Contos, G., Durfee, R.L., Hackman, E.E., and K. Price.
Assessment of Wastewater Management, Treatment Technology,
and Associated Costs for Abatement of PCB's Concentrations
in Industrial Effluents. EPA 560/6-76-006, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 1976. 227 pp.
23. Crook, E.H., McDonnell, R.P., and J.T. McNulty. Removal
and Recovery of Phenols from Industrial Waste Effluents
with Amberlite XAD Polymeric Adsorbents. I & EC Product
Research and Development. 14:113, 1975.
24. Davis, H.J., Model, F.S., and J.R. Leal. PBI Reverse Os-
mosis Membrane for Chromium Plating Rinse Water. EPA-
600/2-7 8-0 40, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 28 pp.
25. Dence, C.W., Wang, C.J., and P.R. Durkin. Toxicity Reduc-
tion Through Chemical and Biological Modification of Spent
Pulp Bleaching Liquors. EPA Project R 804779, Preliminary
Draft Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
26. Directo, L.S., Chen, C.L., and I.J. Kugelman. Pilot Plant
Study of Physical-Chemical Treatment. Journal Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, 49(10):2081-2106, 1977.
27. Earhart, J.P., Won, K.W., Wong, H.Y., Prausnitz, J.M., and
C.J. King. Recovery of Organic Pollutants via Solvent
Extraction. Chemical Engineering Progress, 73(5):67 — 73,
1977.
28. Eisenberg, W.C., Fochtman, E., and R.A. Dobbs. Treatment
of Carcinogenic and Other Hazardous Compounds in Water.
In: Preprints of Papers Presented at the 177th National
Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Honolulu,- Hawaii,
1976. pp. 794-795.
29. DeJohn, P.B., Factors to Consider When Treating Dye Wastes
with Granular Activated Carbon. In: Proceedings 31st In-
dustrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, 1976. pp. 375-384.
30. Fang, H.H.P.,and E.S.K. Chian, Reverse Osmosis Separation
of Polar Organic Compounds in Aqueous Solution. Enviregi-
mental Science anc Technology, 10 ( 4 ) : 36 4 - 36 9 . ID"7.".
E-207
-------
31. Fochtman, E.G.,and R.A. Dobbs- Adsorption of Carcinogenic
Compounds by Activated Carbon. US EPA, MERL, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
32. Fox, C.R. Toxic Organic Removal from Waste Waters with
Polymeric Adsorbent Resins. Presentation at 86th National
American Institute of Chemical Engineers Meeting, Houston,
Texas, 1979.
33. Fox, C.R. Plant Uses Prove Phenol Recovery with Resins.
Hydrocarbon Processing, pp. 269-273, November, 1978.
34. Gehr, R. /and J.G. Henry. Measuring and Predicting Flota-
tion Performance. Journal Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion, 50 (2) : 203-215 , 1978.
35. Giusti, D.M., Conway, R.A., and C.T. Lawson. Activated
Carbon Adsorption of Petrochemicals. Journal Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, 46 (5) : 947-965, 1974 .
36. Givens, D.P. /and L.D. Lash. What to Look for in Granular
Media Filters. Chemical Engineering Progress,
74(12):50-54, 1978.
37. Gurvitch, M.M. Description of an Advanced Treatment Plant
to Produce Recycle Water at a Chemical R&D Facility.
34th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1979.
38. Hager, D.G. Waste Water Treatment Via Activated Carbon.
Chemical Engineering Progress, 72(10):57-60, 1976.
39. Hannah, S.A., Jelus, M., and J.M. Cohen. Removal of Un-
common Trace Metals by Physical and Chemical Treatment
Processes. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
49 (11) : 2297-2309 , 1977 .
40. Heck, R.P. II. Munitions Plant Uses Adsorption in Waste-
water Treatment. Industrial Wastes, pp. 35-39, March/April
1978 .
41. Helsel, R.W. A New Process for Recovering Acetic Acid
from Dilute Aqueous Waste Streams. In: Proceedings of the
31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 1059-1067.
42. Hewes, C.G., Smith, W.H., and R.R. Davison. Comparative
Anaylsis of Solvent Extraction and Stripping in Wastr"-'--
Treatment. Water - 1974 , 70 (144) r 5 4 — 6 C, 19 74.
E-208
-------
43. Huang, J.C.,and J.T. Garrett Jr. Effects of Colloidal
Materials and Polyelectrolvtes on Carbon Adsorption in
Aqueous Solution. In: Proceedings of the 30th Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafavette, Indiana,
1975. pp. 1111-1121.
44. Huang, J.C.,and C.T. Steffans. Competitive Adsorption of
Organic Materials by Activated Carbon. In: Proceedings
31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1976, pp. 107-121.
45. Huang, C.P.,and M.H. Wu. Chromium Removal by Carbon Ad-
sorption. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
47 (l0) : 2437-2446, 1975.
46. Isacoff, E.G./and J.A. Bittner. Resin Adsorbent Takes on
Chlororganics fro.u Well Water. Water and Sewage Works,
126 (3) : 41-42 , 1979 .
47. Jones, M.L. Jr. Techniques for Qualitative Economic Com-
parison of Reverse Osmosis Membranes. Water - 19 75,
71 (151) :145-152, 1975.
48. Jordan, Edward C. Co. Inc. Literature Review, Removal of
Phenolic Compounds from Wastewater. EPA Project No.
68-03-2605, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979.
49. Kennedy, D.C. Treatment of Effluent from Manufacture of
Chlorinated Pesticides with a Synthetic, Polymeric Adsor-
bent, Amberlite XAD-4. Environmental Science and Tech-
nology, 7(2):138-141, 1973.
50. Kennedy, D.C., Kimler, M.A., and C.A. Hammer. Functional
Design of a Zero Discharge Wastewater Treatment System for
the National Center for Toxicological Research. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 823-830.
51. Kessick, M.A., Characklis, W.G., and W. Elvey. Treatment
of Wastewater from Torpedo Refueling Facilities. In: Pro-
ceedings 32nd Industrial Waste Conference', Purdue Univer-
sity, Lafayette, Indiana, 1977. pp. 442-449.
52. Kim, B.R., Snoeyir.k, V.L., and F.M. Saunders. Adsorption
of Organic Compounds by Synthetic Resins. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, 48 (1) : 120-133 , 1975 .
E-209
-------
53. Kim, B.R., Snoevink, V.L., and R.A. Schmitz. Removal of
Dichloramine and Ammonia by Granular Carbon. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, 50 (1) : 122-133 , 1978 .
54. Klemetson, S.L.,and M.D. Scharbow. Removal of Phenolic
Compounds in Coal Gasification Wastewaters Using a dynamic
Membrane Filtration Process. In: Proceedings 32nd Indus-
trial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, 1977. pp. 786-796.
55. Klinkowski, P.R. Ultrafiltration: An Emerging Unit-Cpera-
tion. Chemical Engineering, 85(11):165-173, 1978.
56. Kimke, G.W., Hall, J.F., and R.W. Oeben. Conversion to
Activated Sludge at Union Carbide's Institute Plant.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 40(8):1408-1422
1968 .
57. Lawrence, J.,and H.M. Tosine. Adsorption of Polychlori-
nated 3iphenyls from Aqueous Solutions and Sewage.
Environmental Science and Technology, 10 ( 4 ) : 381-383 , 1976.
58. Leipzig, N.A.rand M.R. Kockenbury. Powdered Activated
Carbon/Activated Sludge Treatment of Chemical Production
Wastewaters. In: Proceedings 34th Industrial Waste Con-
ference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1979.
59. Lopez, C.X.,and R. Johnston. Industrial Wastewater Re-
cycling with Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis. In:
Proceedings 32nd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Uni-
versity, Lafayette, Indiana, 1977. pp. 81-91.
60. Luther, P.A., Kennedy, D.C., E. Edgerley Jr. Treatability
and Functional Design of a Physical-Chemical Wastewater
Treatment System for a Printing and Photodeveloping Plant.
In: Proceedings 31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 816-884.
61. Luthy, R.G., Selleck, R.E., and T.R. Galloway. Removal of
Emulsified Oil with Organic Coagulants and Dissolved Air
Flotation. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
50 (2) : 3 313 4 6 , 1978 .
62. Markind, J., Neri, J.S., and R.R. Stana. Use of Reverse
Osmosis for Concentrating Waste-Soluble Oil Coolants.
Water - 1975 , 71 (151) :70-75 , 1S75.
63. Maruvama, T., Hannah, S.A., and J. K. Cohen. Metal Remov-
al by Physical and Chemical Treatment Processes. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, 4 7 (5) :962-975, 13 75.
E-210
-------
64. McCartv, ?.L., Reinhard, M., Dolce, C., Nguyen, H..,and
D.G. Argo. Water Factory 21: Reclaimed Water, Volatile
Organics, Virus, and Treatment Performance.
EPA-600/2-78-076, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. ICO pp.
65. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, US EPA. Sur-
vey of Two Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants for Toxic
Substances. Cincinnati, Ohio. March 1977.
66. Nathan, M.F. Choosing a Process for Chloride Removal.
Chemical Engineering^ 8 5(3) : 93 , 1978.
67. Naylor, L.M.,and R.R. Dague. Simulation of Lead Removal
by Chemical Treatment. Journal American Water Works
Association, 67 (10): 560-565, 1975 .
68. Neufeld, R.D.,and P. Yodnane. Enhanced Wastewater Purifi-
cation via the Addition of Granular Coals and Chars to
Activated Sludge. Journal Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion, 50 (3) : 559-568 , 1978 .
69 Ng, K.S-., Mueller, J.C., and C-C. Walden. Foam Separation
for Detoxification of Bleached Kraft Mill Effluents.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 48 ( 3) : 458-472 ,
19 7 6 .
70. Ott, C., Gingras, R., and R. Litman. Removal of Chromium
from Wastewater Using. Activated Carbon. In: Preprints of
Papers Presented at the 177th National Meeting of the
American Chemical Society, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1979.
pp. 708-709.
71. Pajak, A.P., Martin, E.J., Brinsko,G.A., and F.J. Erny.
Effect of Hazardous Material Spills on 3iological Treatment
Processes, EPA-600/2-77-239, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 202 pp.
72. Pilie, R.J., 3aier, R.E., Ziegler, R.C., Leonard, R.P.,
Michalovic, J.G., Pek, S.L., and D.H. Bock. Methods to
Treat, Control,and Monitor Spilled Hazardous Materials.
EPA-670/2-75-042. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975. 138 pp.
73. Ramirez, E.R. Comparative Physio-Chemical Study cf I*
trial Waste Water Treatment by Electrolytic Dispc* •.;£<•'• / .
and Dissolved Air Flotation Technologies. In: Pro.-1> .<*.
34th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University.
Lafayette, Indiana, 1979.
E-211
-------
74. Ramirez, E.R., Barber, L.X., and O.A. Clemens. Physio-
chemical Treatment of Tannery Wastewater by Electrocoagu-
lation. In: Proceedings 32nd Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1977. pp.183-188.
75. Reismers, R.S., Engiar.de, A.J., and H.3. Miles. A Quick
Method for Evaluating the Suitability of Activated Carbon
Adsorption for Wastewaters. In: Proceedings 31st Indus-
trial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, 1976. pp. 395-407.
76. Sandhu, S.S.,and P. Nelson. Concentration and Separation
of Arsenic from Polluted Aqueous Samples by Ion Exchange.
In: Preprints of Papers Presented at the 177th National
Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Honolulu, Hawaii
1979 .
77. Sihulte, G.R., Hoehn, R.C., and C.W. Randall. The Treat-
ability of a Munitions-Manufacturing Waste with Activated
Carbon. In: Proceedings 2Sth Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1973. pp. 150-162.
78. Sigv/orth, E.A.,and S.B. Smith. Adsorption of Inorganic
Compounds by Activated Carbon. Journal American Water
Works Association, 64 (6) : 386-391, 1972.
79. Slejko, F.L.,ana G.F. Meigs. Economic Analysis of Employ-
ing Ambersorb XE-340 Carbonaceous Adsorbent in Trace
Organics Removal from Drinking Water. In: Proceedings
176th National Meeting American Chemical Society,
Miami Beach, Florida, 1978.
80. Snyder, D.D., and R.A. Willihnganz. A New Electrochemical
Process for Treating Spent Emulsions. In: Proceedings
31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 782-791.
81. SCS Engineers. Selected 3iodegradation Techniques for
Treatment and/or Ultimate Disposal of Organic Material.
EPA-600/2-79-006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979. 377 pp.
82. Sorg, T.J., Cs'anadv, Mihaly, and G.S. Logsdon. Treat-
ment Technology to Meet the Interim Primary Drinking w^t-pr
Regulations for Inorganics. Part 3. Journal American
Water Works Association, 70:12, 68C, 1978.
83. Sorg, T.J., and G.S. Logsdon. Treatment Technology i :
Meet the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations i-.-.r
Inorganics. Fart 2. Journal American Water Works
E- 2 12
-------
Association, 70{7):379, 1978.
84. Steiner, J.L., Bennett, G.F., Mohler, E.F., and L.T. Clere.
Air Flotation Treatment of Refinery Waste Water. Chemical
Engineering Progress, 74 (12) : 39-45 , 1978 .
85. Suler, D. Composting Hazardous Industrial Wastes.
Compost Science/Land Utilization, 20!4):25-27, 1979.
86. Swedes, R.G. Jr. Report on Carbon Adsorption Treatment of
Contaminated Groundwater at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, De-
partment of Army, 19 77-7 81-5 90/139, 1977.
87. Thiem, L., Badorek, D., and J.T. O'Connor. Removal of
Mercury from Drinking Water Using Activated Carbon.
Journal American Water Works Association, 68 ( 8) :447-451,
1976 .
88. Volesky, B.> Czornyj, N., Constantine, T.A., Zajic, J.E.,
and K. Ya. Model Treatability Study of Refinery Phenolic
Wastewater. Water - 1974 , 70(144) :31-38, 1974 .
89. Wahl, J.R., Hayes, T.C., Kleper, M.H., and S.D. Pinto.
Ultrafiltration for Today's Oiiv Wastewaters: A Survey of
Current Ultrafiltration Systems. In: Proceedings 34th
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, 1979.
90. Dryden, F.E., Mayes, J.H., Planchet, R.J., andC.H. Wocdard
Priority Pollutant Treatability Review. EPA Contract
No. 68-03-2579, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.
91. Westrick, J.J., and J.M. Cohen. Comparative Effects of
Chemical Pretreatment on Carbon Adsorption. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, 48(2) :323 — 338, 1976.
92. Wilkinson, R.R., Kelso, G.L., and F.C. Hopkins. State-of-
the-Art Report, Pesticide Disposal Research.
EPA-600/2-78-183, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 247 pp.
93. Zahka, J., and L. Mir. Ultrafiltration of Latex Emulsions.
Chemical Engineering Progress, 72 (12) :53-55 , 1977.
94. Zogcrski, J.S., and S.D. Faust. Removing Phenols vj ?
Activated Carbon. Chemical Engineering Progress,
73(5} :65-66 , 1977 .
E-213
-------
95. Coco, J.H., ex. al. Development of Treatment and Control
Technology for Refractory Petrochemical Wastes.
EPA-600/2-79-080, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Ada, Oklahoma, 19 79. 236 pp.
96. Chan, P.C., Dresnack, R. , Liskowitz, J.W., Perna, A., and
R. Trattner. Sorbents for Fluoride, Metal Finishing, and
Petroleum Sludge Leachate Contaminant Control.
EPA-600/2-78-024, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 94 pp.
97. Chian, E.S.K. , and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of Leachate
Treatment, Volume II: Biological and Physical Chemical
Process. EPA-600/2-77-186b, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 265 pp.
98. Chian, E.S.K., and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of Leachate
Treatment, Volume 1: Characterization of Leachate.
EPA-600/2-77-186a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 226 pp.
99. Lund, H.F. Industrial Pollution Control Handbook,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, New York, 1971.
100. Bess, F.D., and R.A. Conway. Aerated Stabilization of
Synthetic Organic Chemical Wastes. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 38 (6) : 939-956 , 1966 .
101. Kumke, G.W., et_ al. Conversion to Activated Sludge at
Union Carbide's Institute Plant. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 40(8):1408-1422, 1968.
102. Manufacturing Chemists Association. The Effects of Chlo-
rination on Selected Organic Chemicals. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control Research
Series, EPA Report No. 12020 EXG-03/72, March 1972.
103. Placak, O.R., and C.C. Ruchhoft. Studies of Sewage Puri-
fication, XVII: The Utilization of Organic Substrates by
Activated Sludge. Sewage Works Journal, 19(3) : 440, 1947.
104. Dickerson, B.W., e_t al_. Further Operating Experiences in
Biological Purification of Formaldehyde Wastes. In: Pro-
ceedings 9th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Univer-
sity, Lafayette, Indiana, 1954. pp. 331-351.
105. Bogan, R.H. , and C.N. Sawyer. The Biochemical Oxide
of Synthetic Detergents. In: Proceedings 10th Indu*.... ¦ ...
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Z^ " -
1955. pp. 231-243.
E-214
-------
106. Lutin, P.A. Removal of Organic Nitrites from Wastewater
Systems. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
42 (9) : 16 3 2- 16 4 2 , 1970.
107. Malaney, G.W., and R.M. Gerhold. Structural Determinants
in the Oxidation of Aliphatic Compounds by Activated
Sludge. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
41(2):R18-R33, 1969.
108. Malaney, G.W. Resistance of Carcinogenic Organic Com-
pounds to Oxidation by Activated Sludge. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, 39(12) :2Q29 , 1967.
109. Dawson, P.S., and S.H. Jenkins. The Oxygen Requirements
of Activated Sludge Determined by Monometric Methods.
II: Chemical Factors Affecting Oxygen Uptake. Sewage and
Industrial Wastes, 22(4) :490 , 1950.
110. Sawyer, C.N., Frame, J.D., and J.P. Wold. Industrial
Wastes, Revised Concepts on Biological Treatment. Sewage
and Industrial Wastes, 27(8) : 929 , 1955 .
111. Swisher, R.D., et al. Biodegradation of Nitrilotriace-
tate in Activated Sludge. Environmental Science and
Technology, 1 (10) : 820-327 , 1967.
112. Hunter, J.V., and H. Heukelekian. Determination of Bio-
degradabilitv Using Warburg Respirometric Techniques.
In: Proceedings 19th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1964. pp. 616-627.
113. Marion, C.V., and G.W. Malaney. Ability of Activated
Sludge to Oxidize Aromatic Organic Compounds. In: Pro-
ceedings 18th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Univer-
sity, Lafayette, Indiana, 1963. pp. 297-308.
114. Hydroscience, Inc. The Impacts of Oily Materials on
Activated Sludge Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series,
EPA Report No. 12050 DSH 03/71, March 1971.
115. The City of Jacksonville, Arkansas. The Demonstration of
a Facility for the Biological Treatment of.a Complex
Chlorophenolic Waste. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series,
EPA Report No. 12130 EGK 06/71, June 1971.
116. Hay, M.W. , e_t al. Factors Affecting Color Develo;
-------
117. Teng-Chung, W. Factors Affecting Growth and Respiration
in the Activated Sludge Process. Ph.D. Dissertation, Case
Institute of Technology, Cleveland, Ohio, 1963.
118. Masselli, J.W., et al_. The Effect of Industrial Waste On
Sewage Treatment. Prepared for the New England Inter-
state Water Pollution Control Commission by Weslevan
University, Middletown, Connecticut, No. TR-13, JuneJ.965.
119. Ling, J.T. Pilot Study of Treating Chemical Wastes with
an Aerated Lagoon. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, 35(8) : 963-972 , 1963.
120. Heidman, J.A., et al. Metabolic Response of Activated
Sludge to Sodium Pentachlorophenol. In: Proceedings 22nd
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, 1967. pp. 661-674.
121. Okev, R.W., and R.W. Bogan. Synthetic Organic Pesticides,
An Evaluation of Their Persistence in Natural Waters.
In: Proceedings 11th Pacific Northwest Industrial Waste
Conference, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon,
1963. pp. 222-251.
122. Barth, E.F., et al_. Field Survey of Four Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Plants Receiving Metallic Wastes. Jour-
nal Water Pollution Control Federation, 37 ( 8): 1101-1117,
1965.
123. Bailey, D.A., and K.S. Robinson. The Influence of Triva-
lent Chromium or. the Biological Treatment of Domestic
Sewage. Water Pollution Control (G.B.), 69:100ff, 1970.
124. Loveless, J.E, and N.A, Painter. The Influence of Metal
Ion Concentration and pH Value on the Growth of a Nitro-
sorr.onas Strain Isolated from Activated Sludge. Journal
General Microbiology, 52(3):lff, 1968.
125. Barth, E.F., et al. Summary Report on the Effects of
Heavy Metals on the Biological Treatment Processes.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 37 (1) :86 , 1965
125. Leary, R.D. Phosphorus Removal with Pickle Liquor in an
Activated Sludge Plant. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series,
EPA Report No. 11010 FLQ 3/71, March 1971.
127. Lamb, J.C.,111, at al_. A Technique for Evaluating t.\ :
Biological Treatability of Industrial Washes. Jourr.f.
Water Pollution Control Federation, 36 (10) : 12 6 3-1284 ,13 Z-. .
E-216
-------
128. Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Chemistry and
Physics Center. Interaction of Heavy Metals and Biologi-
cal Sewage Treatment Processes. U.S. Public Health
Service, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1965.
129. Stones, T. The Fate of Nickel During the Treatment of
Sewage. J. & Proc. Inst. Sew. Purif. (Brit.), Part 2,
pp. 252ff, 1959.
130. McDermott, G.N. Zinc in Relation to Activated Sludge ana
Anaerobic Digestion Processes. In: Proceedings 17th
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette
Indiana, 1963. pp. 461-475.
131. Stones, T. The Fate of Zinc During the Treatment of
Sewage. J. & Proc. Inst. Sew. Purif. (Brit.), Part 2,
pp. 2 5 4 f f, 1959.
132. Ghosh, M.M., and P.D. Zugger. Toxic Effects of Mercury
on the Activated Sludge Process. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 45 ( 3) : 424-433 , 197 3.
133. Pitter, P. Determination of Biological Degradability of
Organic Substrates. Water Res., 10:231-235, 1976.
134. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Physical, Chemical, and Biologi-
cal Treatment Techniques for Industrial Wastes. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Contract/Grant No.
68-01-3554, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC/ 1976.
135. Rohm and Haas Company. Ambersorb Carbonaceous Adsorbents.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1977. 20 pp.
136. New Jersey Hazardous Waste Advisory Commission. Report
of the Hazardous Waste Advisory Commission to Governor
3rendan Byrne. Trenton, New Jersey, January, 1980.
137. Geraghty and Miller, Inc. The Prevalence of Subsurface
Migration of Hazardous Chemical Substances at Selected
Industrial Waste Land Disposal Sites. EPA/530/SW-634,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.
E-217
------- |